Slashdot Mirror

Thank you for your on-topic post! It is appalling that their hasn't been more discussion on the issue considering how important to us it is, individually & collectively.

Doc has a great quote from Larry Lessig in his article on the second front of this battle, the copyfight. The extremists in that front are not Lessig & Creative Commons (as many entities would have us believe) but the:

...copyright extremists of the Sonny Bono school, which favors extension of copyright to "forever less one day". In... [the other front of the] debate the radicals are the carriers. We need to fight them, just as Larry and crew need to fight the copyright extremists: by re-framing the subject.

This war to keep the net free (as in unrestricted access to content) is being fought on two fronts and both should be considered equally important, IMO. The writing on the wall regarding copyright issues has been there since the Copyright Term Extension act hit the legislative fan. The carrier front was announced to the masses right here just a couple weeks ago, and (in general) summarily dismissed--I think most of us thought the SBC guy was just plain nuts since we're all already paying for connections. I'm very glad to see this articl by Doc Searls laying out issues of both battlefronts. He closes that right now is the time for us to act on these issues, and he's absolutely correct.

Creative Commons is having a fund raiser and the response has been woefully lacking thus far. It's not even so much about money. They could lose their non-profit status if they can't show support from individuals!

Are we members of EFF? I don't necessarily agree with every position they take but at least they keep me informed on what subversive anti-free-internet proposals are working their way through congress, and how I can help stop them. May I suggest the following actions based on Docs article:

1. We have to stay informed (join EFF or at least sign up for their e-mail bulletins)
2. We have to support the organizations fighting for our freedoms.(Five bucks right now towards Creative Commons isn't going to kill anybodys budget. If you can afford to access the internet, you're probably NOT destitute. If you blog post a button for them.)
3. We have to be freedom fighters and do what we can (i.e. call our reps & senators) to assist in this cause.

If we sit back and assume that the freedoms we enjoy on the internet today are just going to go on forever, without taking any action to ensure this happens, then we have already lost, haven't we?

Thank you for your on-topic post! It is appalling that their hasn't been more discussion on the issue considering how important to us it is, individually & collectively.

Doc has a great quote from Larry Lessig in his article on the second front of this battle, the copyfight. The extremists in that front are not Lessig & Creative Commons (as many entities would have us believe) but the:

...copyright extremists of the Sonny Bono school, which favors extension of copyright to "forever less one day". In... [the other front of the] debate the radicals are the carriers. We need to fight them, just as Larry and crew need to fight the copyright extremists: by re-framing the subject.

This war to keep the net free (as in unrestricted access to content) is being fought on two fronts and both should be considered equally important, IMO. The writing on the wall regarding copyright issues has been there since the Copyright Term Extension act hit the legislative fan. The carrier front was announced to the masses right here just a couple weeks ago, and (in general) summarily dismissed--I think most of us thought the SBC guy was just plain nuts since we're all already paying for connections. I'm very glad to see this articl by Doc Searls laying out issues of both battlefronts. He closes that right now is the time for us to act on these issues, and he's absolutely correct.

Creative Commons is having a fund raiser and the response has been woefully lacking thus far. It's not even so much about money. They could lose their non-profit status if they can't show support from individuals!

Are we members of EFF? I don't necessarily agree with every position they take but at least they keep me informed on what subversive anti-free-internet proposals are working their way through congress, and how I can help stop them. May I suggest the following actions based on Docs article:

1. We have to stay informed (join EFF or at least sign up for their e-mail bulletins)
2. We have to support the organizations fighting for our freedoms.(Five bucks right now towards Creative Commons isn't going to kill anybodys budget. If you can afford to access the internet, you're probably NOT destitute. If you blog post a button for them.)
3. We have to be freedom fighters and do what we can (i.e. call our reps & senators) to assist in this cause.

If we sit back and assume that the freedoms we enjoy on the internet today are just going to go on forever, without taking any action to ensure this happens, then we have already lost, haven't we?

Thank you for your on-topic post! It is appalling that their hasn't been more discussion on the issue considering how important to us it is, individually & collectively.

Doc has a great quote from Larry Lessig in his article on the second front of this battle, the copyfight. The extremists in that front are not Lessig & Creative Commons (as many entities would have us believe) but the:

...copyright extremists of the Sonny Bono school, which favors extension of copyright to "forever less one day". In... [the other front of the] debate the radicals are the carriers. We need to fight them, just as Larry and crew need to fight the copyright extremists: by re-framing the subject.

This war to keep the net free (as in unrestricted access to content) is being fought on two fronts and both should be considered equally important, IMO. The writing on the wall regarding copyright issues has been there since the Copyright Term Extension act hit the legislative fan. The carrier front was announced to the masses right here just a couple weeks ago, and (in general) summarily dismissed--I think most of us thought the SBC guy was just plain nuts since we're all already paying for connections. I'm very glad to see this articl by Doc Searls laying out issues of both battlefronts. He closes that right now is the time for us to act on these issues, and he's absolutely correct.

Creative Commons is having a fund raiser and the response has been woefully lacking thus far. It's not even so much about money. They could lose their non-profit status if they can't show support from individuals!

Are we members of EFF? I don't necessarily agree with every position they take but at least they keep me informed on what subversive anti-free-internet proposals are working their way through congress, and how I can help stop them. May I suggest the following actions based on Docs article:

1. We have to stay informed (join EFF or at least sign up for their e-mail bulletins)
2. We have to support the organizations fighting for our freedoms.(Five bucks right now towards Creative Commons isn't going to kill anybodys budget. If you can afford to access the internet, you're probably NOT destitute. If you blog post a button for them.)
3. We have to be freedom fighters and do what we can (i.e. call our reps & senators) to assist in this cause.

If we sit back and assume that the freedoms we enjoy on the internet today are just going to go on forever, without taking any action to ensure this happens, then we have already lost, haven't we?

I don't agree that binary drivers would be enough to satisfy the OpenCable robustness requirements. For example, Windows Vista includes a whole set of DRM features in the OS. Implementing similar features on Linux would be either a huge amount of work or impossible.

little yellow dots, that's what:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/

Howard Stern's radio station fined $15000 for swearing.

From the EFF:

It has long been held that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but what qualifies as "obscenity" has not always been clear. After Miller v. California, a 1973 Supreme Court case, there has been no national standard as to what is obscene. In that case, the Court stated that material is "obscene" (and therefore not protected by the First Amendment) if 1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the materials, taken as a whole, arouse immoral lustful desire (or, in the Court's language, appeals to the "prurient interest"), 2) the materials depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically prohibited by applicable state law, and 3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

So obscenity in America isn't protected by the First Amendment at all, this is from a ruling by none less than the Supreme Court. Maybe you should learn the laws of your own country before you start bragging about how good they are?

As an ex-record store owner, I stopped selling due to Amazon's competitive pricing and selection. I'm a fan of competition, yet the music scene I catered to is completely gone as stores like mine ran the street teams that grew the movements.

I had no idea Amazon messed up niche music scenes. Has online music from non-RIAA sources (such as the "A few alternatives" list" on this page) somewhat reversed that? I thought online music would somehow help new music movements gain more widespread popularity faster.

You wish.

• ProCD vs Zeidenberg.
• Blizzard vs. battleNet

The general trend in the courts seems to be roughly as follows:

• EULA agreed to by a click - enforceable.
• EULA on outside of box, seen before purchase - enforceable.
• EULA inside box on paper - probably not enforceable, burden of proof on vendor to demonstrate agreement.
• EULA inside box on paper and contains terms allowing vendor to change contract terms - not enforceable, no possibility of agreement.
• EULA on website, with claim to implicit agreement - probably not enforceable, but repeated accesses to web site may signify acceptance of terms.

Sony's End User License Agreement requires the following things of all consumers who purchase this "content protected" music:

1. If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home. That's because the EULA says that your rights to any copies terminate as soon as you no longer possess the original CD.

2. You can't keep your music on any computers at work. The EULA only gives you the right to put copies on a "personal home computer system owned by you."

3. If you move out of the country, you have to delete all your music. The EULA specifically forbids "export" outside the country where you reside.

4. You must install any and all updates, or else lose the music on your computer. The EULA immediately terminates if you fail to install any update. No more holding out on those hobble-ware downgrades masquerading as updates.

5. Sony-BMG can install and use backdoors in the copy protection software or media player to "enforce their rights" against you, at any time, without notice. And Sony-BMG disclaims any liability if this "self help" crashes your computer, exposes you to security risks, or any other harm.

6. The EULA says Sony-BMG will never be liable to you for more than $5.00. That's right, no matter what happens, you can't even get back what you paid for the CD.

7. If you file for bankruptcy, you have to delete all the music on your computer. Seriously.

8. You have no right to transfer the music on your computer, even along with the original CD.

9. Forget about using the music as a soundtrack for your latest family photo slideshow, or mash-ups, or sampling. The EULA forbids changing, altering, or make derivative works from the music on your computer.

Refer to the following for details:

• List of Affected CDs
• EULA analysis
• Rootkit analysis
• Continued rootkit analysis

Sony's End User License Agreement requires the following things of all consumers who purchase this "content protected" music:

1. If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home. That's because the EULA says that your rights to any copies terminate as soon as you no longer possess the original CD.

2. You can't keep your music on any computers at work. The EULA only gives you the right to put copies on a "personal home computer system owned by you."

3. If you move out of the country, you have to delete all your music. The EULA specifically forbids "export" outside the country where you reside.

4. You must install any and all updates, or else lose the music on your computer. The EULA immediately terminates if you fail to install any update. No more holding out on those hobble-ware downgrades masquerading as updates.

5. Sony-BMG can install and use backdoors in the copy protection software or media player to "enforce their rights" against you, at any time, without notice. And Sony-BMG disclaims any liability if this "self help" crashes your computer, exposes you to security risks, or any other harm.

6. The EULA says Sony-BMG will never be liable to you for more than $5.00. That's right, no matter what happens, you can't even get back what you paid for the CD.

7. If you file for bankruptcy, you have to delete all the music on your computer. Seriously.

8. You have no right to transfer the music on your computer, even along with the original CD.

9. Forget about using the music as a soundtrack for your latest family photo slideshow, or mash-ups, or sampling. The EULA forbids changing, altering, or make derivative works from the music on your computer.

Refer to the following for details:

• List of Affected CDs
• EULA analysis
• Rootkit analysis
• Continued rootkit analysis

The EFF has some information about the EULA that accompanies the XCP CDs:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004145.php
I find the list to be quite odious. For example, if you declare bankruptcy, you must delete all music from the CD off your computer (or else you're in violation of the EULA). Unless you owe Sony money or you're wanting to borrow money from Sony, why should Sony care about your financial problems?

This is something that has bothered me for quite some time: Obnoxious EULAs. Like many people, I have not usually bothered to read EULAs that accompany software installations. However, I think I should, and I should object when the terms are ridiculous as they are in this example.

However, what I wonder is if it is possible to do this and continue to use any software that has any EULA. Are they all this obnoxious? Are there any that set out fair and reasonable terms? I will find out as I pay more attention in the future.

Actually, it will just piggyback off the built-in rootkit in Vista.

What I'd like to see is a minature HD-DVD/BluRay/whatever medium that comes in a tiny case. Something that's maybe 1in X 1in or so, enough to hold audio (video?) but be protected from being scratched.

Now I know people bitch about how a case would be "too clunky" and "I can't use a spindel!" But I'd much rather have the media protected...I always thought it was stupid to have the sensitive part out in the air like that.

But given Sony's EULA, this will never happen.

GNU / GPL (Copyleft) The spyware that Sony installs on the computers of music fans does not even seem to be correct in terms of copyright law.

It turns out that the rootkit contains pieces of code that are identical to LAME, an open source mp3-encoder, and thereby breach the license.

Sony complied with non of these demands, but delivered just an executable program. A computerexpert, whose name is known by the redaction, discovered that the cd "Get Right With The Man" by "Van Zant" contains strings from the library version.c of Lame. This can be conluded from the string: "http://www.mp3dev.org/", "0.90", "LAME3.95", "3.95", "3.95 ".

But the expert has more proof. For example, the executable program go.exe contains a so called array largetbl. This is a part used in the module tables.c of libmp3lame.

This discovery can have far-stretching consequences for the music giant, who claims only to protect copyrights. Previously, judges in Germany already forced various companies to release source code to the public and to deliver the goods necessary for compiling. It is also possible to demand financial compensation for damages.

Meanwhile, Other details are also becoming clear. The Electronic Frontier Foundation complains that the spyware makes the legal listening to the music on iPods impossble. The organisation is busy making a list of cds containing the hidden software and publishes this on her website.

Various calls to SonyBMG remained unanswered despite promises to call back.

GNU / GPL (Copyleft) The spyware that Sony installs on the computers of music fans does not even seem to be correct in terms of copyright law.

It turns out that the rootkit contains pieces of code that are identical to LAME, an open source mp3-encoder, and thereby breach the license.

Sony complied with non of these demands, but delivered just an executable program. A computerexpert, whose name is known by the redaction, discovered that the cd "Get Right With The Man" by "Van Zant" contains strings from the library version.c of Lame. This can be conluded from the string: "http://www.mp3dev.org/", "0.90", "LAME3.95", "3.95", "3.95 ".

But the expert has more proof. For example, the executable program go.exe contains a so called array largetbl. This is a part used in the module tables.c of libmp3lame.

This discovery can have far-stretching consequences for the music giant, who claims only to protect copyrights. Previously, judges in Germany already forced various companies to release source code to the public and to deliver the goods necessary for compiling. It is also possible to demand financial compensation for damages.

Meanwhile, Other details are also becoming clear. The Electronic Frontier Foundation complains that the spyware makes the legal listening to the music on iPods impossble. The organisation is busy making a list of cds containing the hidden software and publishes this on her website.

Various calls to SonyBMG remained unanswered despite promises to call back.

I agree with you that the supposed "evidence" presented within the Supreme Court Ruling is total bullshit. I particularly [sarcasm]love[/sarcasm] the way they complain about the Grokster name being a derivative of Napster.

Based on the other poster's clims I have been trying to dig up documentation and I found sort of half support for his claim. I have been entirely unable to dig up the actual Grokster materials to be able to evaluate them for ourselves, but I have located a document from the case that at least makes specific claims about specific Grokster materials that could (if accurate) present a real problem for Grokster.

MGM_v_Grokster Petitioners_brief.pdf

Note that the text page numbering and the PDF viewer page numbering are different, so I will list both.

Look to the second half of the second paragraph on text-page-7 / PDF-page-22 through the first paragraph on text-page-8 / PDF-page-23. Specifically it cites such things as promotional materials advertizing their network searches returning more Madonna songs than competitior networks. In other words specifically promoting superior infringment capability as a selling point.

If the cited examples are accurate (and as I said I cannot locate the actual referrenced materials) it seems like Groster may indeed have been careless. I still think the Groster case is a very troubling and dangerous outcome, opening the door for P2P and other technologies to be driven to bankrupcy and exterminated through baseless malicious litigation, but at least the examples listed there are not as ludacris as the BULLSHIT arguments against Groster that actually appeared in the Supreme Court ruling.

-

Actually, Bruce Sterling at EFF wrote a really good paper on the subject of Bacteria and resistance to antibiotics:

F&SF Science Column #15: "Bitter Resistance"

http://www.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Bruce_Sterlin g/FSF_columns/fsf.15

And don't forget to send donations to downhillbattle and EFF.

Sweet, I just sent my copy of Celine Dion, On ne Change Pas to Al Qaeda. I suspect they will utilize the rootkit to reek havoc on the USA. Of course, they could just play it over loudspeakers to the same effect.

Trey Anastasio, Shine (Columbia)
Celine Dion, On ne Change Pas (Epic)
Neil Diamond, 12 Songs (Columbia)
Our Lady Peace, Healthy in Paranoid Times (Columbia)
Chris Botti, To Love Again (Columbia)
Van Zant, Get Right with the Man (Columbia)
Switchfoot, Nothing is Sound (Columbia)
The Coral, The Invisible Invasion (Columbia)
Acceptance, Phantoms (Columbia)
Susie Suh, Susie Suh (Epic)
Amerie, Touch (Columbia)
Life of Agony, Broken Valley (Epic)
Horace Silver Quintet, Silver's Blue (Epic Legacy)
Gerry Mulligan, Jeru (Columbia Legacy)
Dexter Gordon, Manhattan Symphonie (Columbia Legacy)
The Bad Plus, Suspicious Activity (Columbia)
The Dead 60s, The Dead 60s (Epic)
Dion, The Essential Dion (Columbia Legacy)
Natasha Bedingfield, Unwritten (Epic)
Ricky Martin, Life (Columbia)

from the eff

Perhaps this DRM is your punishment for listening to Ricky Martin and Celine Dion?

I see you mised these very nice bits of legislation that were recently discussed.. They want to force all computer devices that deal with analog to digital (or vice versa) conversions to implement CGMS-A and VEIL. It's not the first time, either. Every few years, they whine to their bought and paid-for lawmakers (such as Senator Fritz Hollings) and get them to put up a bill that would force the electronics industry to do what the MPAA/RIAA wants, and that spawns lobbying from these industries to get the law shot down.

"EFF is collecting stories from EFF members and supporters who have purchased Sony-BMG CDs that contained the "rootkit" copy protection software. We've previously posted at least a partial list of CDs infected"

Partial List of Copy Protected CDs

The EFF is also considering a lawsuit against Sony.

So, if you've had the hassle of dealing with this DRM crap and live in California or New York, help them out by checking out this page

It's time to DO something. Enough of the whining. Help the EFF out.

"EFF is collecting stories from EFF members and supporters who have purchased Sony-BMG CDs that contained the "rootkit" copy protection software. We've previously posted at least a partial list of CDs infected"

Partial List of Copy Protected CDs

The EFF is also considering a lawsuit against Sony.

So, if you've had the hassle of dealing with this DRM crap and live in California or New York, help them out by checking out this page

It's time to DO something. Enough of the whining. Help the EFF out.

List from the Electronic Frontier Foundation website: List

Is this the same Sony that's using a) DRM to promote their products for playback and b) to restrict fair use rights, while c) recommending a Linux-incompatible ripper (heck, a PC is even defined as running Windows there)?

What a strange twist of irony that they were to become a backer of... Linux

Before this gets /.ed, here's the text.
Quoth the EFF :
Now the Legalese Rootkit: Sony-BMG's EULA
November 09, 2005

If you thought XCP "rootkit" copy-protection on Sony-BMG CDs was bad, perhaps you'd better read the 3,000 word (!) end-user license agreement (aka "EULA") that comes with all these CDs.

First, a baseline. When you buy a regular CD, you own it. You do not "license" it. You own it outright. You're allowed to do anything with it you like, so long as you don't violate one of the exclusive rights reserved to the copyright owner. So you can play the CD at your next dinner party (copyright owners get no rights over private performances), you can loan it to a friend (thanks to the "first sale" doctrine), or make a copy for use on your iPod (thanks to "fair use"). Every use that falls outside the limited exclusive rights of the copyright owner belongs to you, the owner of the CD.

Now compare that baseline with the world according to the Sony-BMG EULA, which applies to any digital copies you make of the music on the CD:

1. If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home. That's because the EULA says that your rights to any copies terminate as soon as you no longer possess the original CD.

2. You can't keep your music on any computers at work. The EULA only gives you the right to put copies on a "personal home computer system owned by you."

3. If you move out of the country, you have to delete all your music. The EULA specifically forbids "export" outside the country where you reside.

4. You must install any and all updates, or else lose the music on your computer. The EULA immediately terminates if you fail to install any update. No more holding out on those hobble-ware downgrades masquerading as updates.

5. Sony-BMG can install and use backdoors in the copy protection software or media player to "enforce their rights" against you, at any time, without notice. And Sony-BMG disclaims any liability if this "self help" crashes your computer, exposes you to security risks, or any other harm.

6. The EULA says Sony-BMG will never be liable to you for more than $5.00. That's right, no matter what happens, you can't even get back what you paid for the CD.

7. If you file for bankruptcy, you have to delete all the music on your computer. Seriously.

8. You have no right to transfer the music on your computer, even along with the original CD.

9. Forget about using the music as a soundtrack for your latest family photo slideshow, or mash-ups, or sampling. The EULA forbids changing, altering, or make derivative works from the music on your computer.

So this is what Sony-BMG thinks we should be allowed to do with the music on the CDs that we purchase from them? No word yet about whether Sony-BMG will be offering a "patch" for this legalese rootkit. I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Fred von Lohmann at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Technorati

Endquote. It's interesting to see just how far Sony will go to alienate the tech-savvy user base. It's been a few years since I religiously started forbidding people to buy Sony products, because I wouldn't be assed to "fix my vaio, please" or to "take a look at my LCD screen, there are, like black dots and stuff on it", but my brother-in-law still got himself a Sony DAP.

The first thing I thought was, "Wow! The salesman actually managed to sell him something that isn't an iPod.", but come on. What's you /.er's take on this vast DRM-wing conspiracy?

None of this will change unless and until we either get corporations to recognize that the US is losing it's ground due to stifling IP/Patent laws... or we vote in people who care.

Republican or Democratic, make sure your representative at least knows (and preferrably cares) about the current state of the patent system.

Oh, and donate to the EFF. I have.

Are You Infected by Sony-BMG's Rootkit? has a list of known infected CDs.

Here's the list as of this post:
==========
Trey Anastasio, Shine (Columbia)
Celine Dion, On ne Change Pas (Epic)
Neil Diamond, 12 Songs (Columbia)
Our Lady Peace, Healthy in Paranoid Times (Columbia)
Chris Botti, To Love Again (Columbia)
Van Zant, Get Right with the Man (Columbia)
Switchfoot, Nothing is Sound (Columbia)
The Coral, The Invisible Invasion (Columbia)
Acceptance, Phantoms (Columbia)
Susie Suh, Susie Suh (Epic)
Amerie, Touch (Columbia)
Life of Agony, Broken Valley (Epic)
Horace Silver Quintet, Silver's Blue (Epic Legacy)
Gerry Mulligan, Jeru (Columbia Legacy)
Dexter Gordon, Manhattan Symphonie (Columbia Legacy)
The Bad Plus, Suspicious Activity (Columbia)
The Dead 60s, The Dead 60s (Epic)
Dion, The Essential Dion (Columbia Legacy)
Natasha Bedingfield, Unwritten (Epic)
Ricky Martin, Life (Columbia) (labeled as XCP, but, oddly, our disc had no protection)

Several other Sony-BMG CDs are protected with a different copy-protection technology, sourced from SunnComm, including:

My Morning Jacket, Z
Santana, All That I Am
Sarah McLachlan, Bloom Remix Album
==========

http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/guide/

I guess you haven't been following the Grokster case too closely. Your conclusions are way off the beam.

This page will get you caught up. Here's the court opinion. If you read that and you're still not sure of the difference between Grokster and Ford, post here and perhaps somebody can explain it to you more carefully than I can.

I don't believe there are any real (as in frequently used) legitimate reasons for P2P networks to exist other than to distribute material illegally.

And I don't understand why you think that Bittorrent is any different. Just like the other p2p systems Bittorrent is simply a system for copying digital files from one user to another, and just like the other systems Bittorrent is just to create both legal and illegal copies. Your points a) and b) can just as easily be applied to illegal copying with Bittorrent, and your points c) and d) are also valid with other p2p systems.

Will they embed secret codes for personal tracking and identification in these printers too?

i find it odd that /. keeps going on about our rights when every time i come here these days there is an ad for Rackspace on the front page. i really can't take any of /.'s "your rights online" shite serious while they advertise RS, get a fucking clue.

http://www.eff.org/

We're trying to figure out if it's even possible without unbelievable costs here at Davidson College, and the (some of) faculty is resisting like there's no tomorrow. We're trying to get the word out to students, but there's no voice for civil liberties yet. We already do next to nothing when we get C&Ds.
I know for a fact we're not CALEA-compliant today. And I'm trying to spread the word to create resistance.
(Oh, and The Davidsonian's front page headlines this week: "Student pulls knife at Warner," "Students robbed in satellite parking lot," and "Town makes plans for transit rail to Charlotte.")

please consider joining me. (They even give you a T-shirt or hat!)

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&p age=UserAction&id=181 Use the link above to write to your representative in the House and read a draft of the bill

Next-Gen "Analog Hole" Legislation Proposed
By Mark Hachman
November 2, 2005

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has unearthed a proposed bill that would regulate any analog recording device, allowing content providers to encode rights restrictions inside the content itself.

The Analog Content Security Preservation Act of 2005 is scheduled to be debated in a U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on Thursday. Think about how big your tongue feels in your mouth.

Although the bill lacks an official author, an executive at the Motion Picture Association of America said that the bill has been jointly developed by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the chairman of the committee, as well as by several consumer-electronics and computer companies. The bill has yet to be read or voted upon within the House or Senate.

As presented, however, the bill would close the so-called "analog hole" on virtually all devices. Although digital streams can be encrypted and encoded with various restrictions and permissions, once converted back into an analog format, the stream can be copied or manipulated freely -- the analog "hole," first referred to by Hollywood and the Motion Picture Association of America around 2002. The provisions of the act would take place a year after its enactment.

Such an analog hole allows a consumer,for example, to tape a televised baseball game on his VCR, even if Major League Baseball expressly forbids him doing so. Under the new legislation, such rights would be enforced through technology.

According to the MPAA, the legislation is necessary to help shift the industry toward digital content, with the content restrictions such a format allows.

"Sometimes I think that people feel that the MPAA is a bunch of Luddites," Brad Hunt, chief technical officer of the MPAA, said in an interview Wednesday afternoon. "In this case, we are trying to incent the consumer to embrace the digital conversion, the digital connection...and that's why we need to drive this technology forward."

The bill would essentially require all analog devices, such as televisions, to either re-encode a signal into a digital form, complete with rights restrictions, or to encode the rights restrictions into the analog stream itself. Manufacturers would also be forbidden to develop a product that would remove those restrictions. Exectives at Veil Interactive, the developer of the VRAM technology at the heart of the legislation, described the technology as one that would not be noticeable by consumers.

Privacy advocates, however, protested the proposed act.

"[I]f you're someone who actually wants to infringe copyright by downloading video from the Internet, this will have zero effect on you," said Cory Doctorow, EFF's European representative, writing in his blog, BoingBoing.net, on the subject. "This is not a proposal to protect copyright -- this is a proposal to bootstrap Hollywood's limited monopoly over who can copy its movies into an unlimited monopoly over the design of devices capable of copying its videos."

However, devices sold before the date the proposed legislation would be enacted, such as today's televisions, would be grandfathered in, according to the terms of the legislation. In addition, devices that were designed "solely of displaying programs," and ones that could not be "readily modified" for redistributing content would also be exempt.

The bill would also grant a wide degree of latitude to content providers to regulate the use of their content, using the "CGMS-A" (Content Generation Management System--Analog) and Veil Veil Rights Assertion Mark (VRAM) restrictions.

While CGMS-A has been available to U.S. broadcasters since the mid-1990s, most U.S. broadcast content has been transmitted without restrictions attached to it. However, HBO and its subsidiary channels have used CGMS-A to restrict users from making

I'm not sure if it is actually a bill yet. The EFF article on this topic has a link to the draft bill. The law is an attempt to force the electronics/computer industry to embed the MPAA's chosen copy protection schemes (VEIL and CGMS-A) into their products. Needless to say, I imagine a large number of companies will have a problem with this (from Intel to Microsoft to Conexant to ATI and many others).

I'm not sure if it is actually a bill yet. The EFF article on this topic has a link to the draft bill. The law is an attempt to force the electronics/computer industry to embed the MPAA's chosen copy protection schemes (VEIL and CGMS-A) into their products. Needless to say, I imagine a large number of companies will have a problem with this (from Intel to Microsoft to Conexant to ATI and many others).

Excellent point. I appreciate your honesty about this, because there's a lot of noise out there that tries to obscure the core issue.

For the rest of you, if you're in favor of regulations on free speech, then just come out and say so. Explain your reasoning, talk about extenuating circumstances, just like timeOday has done. Stop pretending that this isn't a limitation on free speech.

The Supreme Court has struck down numerous campaign finance laws over first amendment issues (Buckley vs US, anyone?). Former house majority leader (Democrat) Dick Gephardt responded by suggesting that the First Amendment be changed to allow campaign finance limits. The current SCOTUS has ruled that campaign finance IS a limitation on free speech, but that extenuating circumstances (making things appear less corrupt) justifies it.

For my part, I'm opposed to any attempt by do-gooder meddlers to limit free speech just because they think that paid advertising == mind control. Inevitably, this is an attempt to control and limit debate and free discussion. The FEC has ruled that blogs will be regulated and controlled by the campaign finance laws, and the defeat of this bill (to stop the menace of banner ads and popups) reaffirms that this is the Law of the Land.

If you're a Democrat, do the decent thing and be embarrassed. Your party isn't right all the time, any more than Libertarians or Republicans are. Admit that your side got this one wrong, contribute to the EFF, and go to local party meetings and tell them that as a loyal democrat you're astonished that you'd see normally smart good people doing this.

I'm a Republican, but I try to have the intellectual honesty to admit when my party has it wrong-- which we often are. You're doing your party a service by keeping them honest.

Our laws say if you wish to copy someone's work, you must get their permission.

It seems obvious that he sees "fair use" as something to be dismissed (as he does in the next paragraph).

I'm unclear as to why he doesn't have problem with book reviews (which often display portions of a book) or student's book reports. The courts have decided that copyright material can be presented without permission for a number of uses. While this seems completely reasonable to me, I suspect the courts get to decide this one.

EFF has an interesting analysis on this as well.

Which senators and congressmen submitted this bill for consideration?

Feel free to flick through this new Halloween document: it's a legislative draft proposed by the MPAA for a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, on the topic "Content Protection in the Digital Age: The Broadcast Flag, High-Definition Radio, and the Analog Hole," on November 3rd.

Which senators and congressmen submitted this bill for consideration?

Feel free to flick through this new Halloween document: it's a legislative draft proposed by the MPAA for a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, on the topic "Content Protection in the Digital Age: The Broadcast Flag, High-Definition Radio, and the Analog Hole," on November 3rd.

I think the bnetd case pretty much gives software publishers carte-blanche in restricting what you can do. They held that (1) the EULA was enforceable (2) it removes the consumers rights granted by copyright and DMCA laws (3) The UCC covers the transaction because the software is goods sold (4) the software is licensed, not sold, because the EULA says so.

In short - EULAs are enforceable, even when they are wordy, vague, and contradictory. And, they are contracts since they say "if you don't agree, return this for a refund" - even though there is no realistic way to actually get your money back for opened software.

If you don't want these things to happen, joing the EFF now.
These guys achieve things that really matter.

Link to the PDF on this page

Link to the PDF on this page

Feel free to flick through this new Halloween document: it's a legislative draft proposed by the MPAA for a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, on the topic "Content Protection in the Digital Age: The Broadcast Flag, High-Definition Radio, and the Analog Hole," on November 3rd.

It also links to: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/analog_hole_discussion _draft.pdf

Judge Orenstein is the judge that rebuffed the fed's attempt to track a user by his cell phone without a warrant.

Judge Orenstein for one does NOT welcome our new cell-phone-survellance overlords. It helps that he's in a position to stop them.