Slashdot Mirror

1. Go here and get your ZIP+4 code.
2. Go here and identify your Congressperson.
3. When you click on the "Contact My Representative" button, you will be taken to a form. Ignore it. Instead, click on the link for your Representative and go to their homepage. Hopefully, they will have contact information someplace where you can find it. Copy it into your favorite word-processor.
4. Go here and identify your Senators. Again, we hope that they make it easy to find their contact information.
5. If you are thinking ahead, save three "empty" letters, addressed to each of the above. This will save time the next time you need to write.
6. Use your word processor to write an essay explaining your position. Be verbose. Copy this into each of the three letters you prepared above.
7. If you found any fax numbers (and your computer can print-to-fax!) send copies of your letter that way. Otherwise, print it out and send it by regular mail.

There are no pics? What does she look like?

Try here

Here's an idea: instead of griping about it and feeling hopeless about our civil rights being stampeded, go here and write your congressperson:

http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cf m

Urge your representative to NOT pass the bill as long as that idotic, unmanageable rider is attached!

You mean to say that it wasn't the lack of legally downloadable movies and songs that was holding up broadband access and was instead some bizarre and esoteric reason like "It cost too much"? Now who would ever have imagined that?

The Senate passed it 99-0.

The House held a voice vote, near as I can tell. My search ("digital millennium copyright" in the Word/Phrase search field) returned:

1. H.R.2281 : To amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty.
Sponsor: Rep Coble, Howard- Latest Major Action: 10/28/1998 Became Public Law No: 105-304.
Committees: House Judiciary; House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means

I'm no expert on the House/Senate rules, but I believe you still get a record by voice vote. At least one is listed for the senate on S.2037 (105th Congress) .

In the House, however (HR.2281), it appears that it was put up for unanimous consent, and there is no record, but basically that means that you can assume that everyone voted for it.

The only way this bill will pass is if people aren't educated about the facts, and don't speak out against it.

And that is the whole problem with this country: the citizens are, for the most part, isolationists. Everyone would rather watch a baseball game than to get involved in government. In the end, the money makes the decisions, not the constituents.

The other day, I emailed my senators only to get back the *expected* form letter. They have too many people to represent. The problem is that the people realize this and simply remove themselves from the so-called democracy leaving the politicians to protect their own interests.

A great solution to this would be to implement some sort of government democracy but who are the politicians to eliminate their own jobs? Hell, they didn't like the social security system so they invented their own taxpayer funded system for themselves to live under. Had they taken a vote, every citizen of the country would have voted against this but it is in place today.

I would actually be satisfied if the states implemented their own secured slash based site. In this respect, the senators wouldn't have to read *every* correspondence - they could just let moderation takes its course and have a good grasp of what is on people's minds...

They at least understand that there's no way they can pretend this isn't happening. the senate judiciary committee's on public comments section

My notion of GNU Radio would be simple and inexpensive free FM BROADCASTING. Of course, the FCC has issues with that... if you pay attention to the micropower FM scene, it's actually quite similar to what GNU stands for. It's about empowering people.

The catch is, it's pretty easy to screw up an adjacent station if your signal is screwy and out of spec.

The low-power FM movement is worth your attention- if you're even reading this article you probably 'get' the importance of micro/local broadcasting. It should come as no surprise that corporate radio has been using Congress and the government to try to stamp out even the possibility of people using local FM broadcasting to provide alternatives- it mirrors what other content industries have been doing with more Slashdot attention. In December 2000 Congress passed an appropriations bill with a rider that was snuck in to halve the number of low power FM licenses the FCC could legally issue. Not only was corporate radio behind this- NPR also supported the illegalization of low power FM broadcasting. McCain (R-AZ) has introduced a bill to counter this and support low power FM again. Furthermore, on February 8, 2002, the Court Of Appeals struck down language in this anti-LPFM act which had prohibited the FCC from issuing a license to anyone who had ever previously been involved with pirate radio. The court held that this was unconstitutional. (funny how both in the judiciary and Congress, these guys are forced to deal with all types of injustice and power grabs, not just the sorts that are close to the hearts of Slashdotters ;) )

These people are the other side of the coin: transmitters from microwatt to 500 watts and kits for all kinds of nifty things like subcarrier decoders, shortwave, the aviation band etc. I don't know anything about them but their catalog but it would make any true geek absolutely drool, with all the build-it-yourself devices to do arcane and amusing things, and the flashy computerised rackmountable transmitters. Too cool.

Here's Leahy's 14 March 2002 testimony from his site. Basically, he says that the agrees with Hollywood on everything except government intervention. He says that government shouldn't get involved because it's "not close enough to the marketplace" to regulate DRM. Fair 'nuff.

Talks at the end that the gov't is "ready to help move these private sector discussions to a timely conclusion." Since that Zinni guy's not doing anything, think they'll send him in?

Makes me proud of my Vermont heritage. Remember The other senator from Vermont caused a pretty big stir when he stuck to his principles as well.

Leahy is one of the few politicians who can give politics a good name. In high school, he came to speak to our black history class (mind you, a class of 15 people, not the whole school, not an assembly) and discussed racism and politics. From that time on, I have had immense respect for him, while his policies and actions such as this only deepen it.

-Ted

Makes me proud of my Vermont heritage. Remember The other senator from Vermont caused a pretty big stir when he stuck to his principles as well.

Leahy is one of the few politicians who can give politics a good name. In high school, he came to speak to our black history class (mind you, a class of 15 people, not the whole school, not an assembly) and discussed racism and politics. From that time on, I have had immense respect for him, while his policies and actions such as this only deepen it.

-Ted

Makes me proud of my Vermont heritage. Remember The other senator from Vermont caused a pretty big stir when he stuck to his principles as well.

Leahy is one of the few politicians who can give politics a good name. In high school, he came to speak to our black history class (mind you, a class of 15 people, not the whole school, not an assembly) and discussed racism and politics. From that time on, I have had immense respect for him, while his policies and actions such as this only deepen it.

-Ted

As a Vermonter, I have heard nothing but good things regarding personal repies to e-mails by my friends and family. The Senator is also known as a savvy web user and his site can be found here. I would like to see his responses to Slashdot's questions also.

Poor website maintenance or unwillingness to announce his intensions? I wonder.

if it does pass, expect a mass exodus of EEs, CEs and CS from this country, and whatever tech boom is occuring or about to occur, will slip.

Gentlemen,

I am a computer professionnal, being active in the field of software development and IT administration since 1979. Although I am not an American citizen, I would like to comment on the CBDPTA being studied by your committee.
This innovative bill, by crippling the ability of the U.S. computer industry to freely introduce innovative technology, will tremenduously favourize the (rest of the) world computer industry. Imposing limits on computer systems that would be illegal in many countries is a sure way to insure that the rest of the world computer industry will finally catch-up and leave in the dust the U.S. computer industry.
The other 95% of the world will be eternally grateful to the (comparatively) minuscule Hollywood movie industry for having the much bigger U.S. computer industry ground to a halt by having to spend a significant portion of their ressources just to comply with the CBDPTA.
Most other industries (those who use computers) will also benefit, as their U.S. counterparts will be hindered by less performing computers that are hobbled both in cost and performance by their expensive content monitoring "features", thus making them less efficient than their unencumbered foreign counterparts.
Another foreign industry that shall benefit will undoubtely the illegal drug industry, as it will be easier to ship illegal drugs to the United States as the U.S. Customs service will undoubtely be very busy searching for illegal computer contraband.
Please do consider the passage of this Act, as the world's computer industry needs a reprieve from the very active U.S. computer industry.

Thank-you.

Only 60,000 of us would have to pitch in $5 to make our very own pro-digital consumer senator a reality.

Matt

The documents linked from the page mentioned are not Congressional Hearing transcripts but submitted statements.

Sometimes these statements are read at the hearing, but sometimes they are just entered in the record and the congressperson or expert witness says little or expounds on the points in the statement.

After statements, there's a question & answer period. That's when the good stuff usually happens & it's only reflected in the transcripts.

The latest Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committee hearings on the CBDTPA (sih-bid-tihp-ah?) & related issues have not been posted to GPO Access yet.

Judiciary (Leahy): "Competition, Innovation, and Public Policy in the Digital Age: Is the Marketplace Working to Protect Digital Creative Works?" held 3/14/2002, Commerce (Hollings): "Protecting Content in a Digital Age--Promoting Broadband and the Digital Television Transition" held 2/28/2002.

Earlier hearings do have transcripts posted, though. Compare "Online Entertainment: Coming Soon to a Digital Device Near You" submitted statements vs. transcript

The q&a in the transcript looks like it's either written communication from before the hearing or a heavily edited version of what was said. I have the audio from Hollings hearing, so when the transcript comes out, I'll check its accuracy.

the link to the statements for that particular hearing from the Judiciary page is wrong, but mine is right. I've let them know

The documents linked from the page mentioned are not Congressional Hearing transcripts but submitted statements.

Sometimes these statements are read at the hearing, but sometimes they are just entered in the record and the congressperson or expert witness says little or expounds on the points in the statement.

After statements, there's a question & answer period. That's when the good stuff usually happens & it's only reflected in the transcripts.

The latest Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committee hearings on the CBDTPA (sih-bid-tihp-ah?) & related issues have not been posted to GPO Access yet.

Judiciary (Leahy): "Competition, Innovation, and Public Policy in the Digital Age: Is the Marketplace Working to Protect Digital Creative Works?" held 3/14/2002, Commerce (Hollings): "Protecting Content in a Digital Age--Promoting Broadband and the Digital Television Transition" held 2/28/2002.

Earlier hearings do have transcripts posted, though. Compare "Online Entertainment: Coming Soon to a Digital Device Near You" submitted statements vs. transcript

The q&a in the transcript looks like it's either written communication from before the hearing or a heavily edited version of what was said. I have the audio from Hollings hearing, so when the transcript comes out, I'll check its accuracy.

the link to the statements for that particular hearing from the Judiciary page is wrong, but mine is right. I've let them know

The documents linked from the page mentioned are not Congressional Hearing transcripts but submitted statements.

Sometimes these statements are read at the hearing, but sometimes they are just entered in the record and the congressperson or expert witness says little or expounds on the points in the statement.

After statements, there's a question & answer period. That's when the good stuff usually happens & it's only reflected in the transcripts.

The latest Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committee hearings on the CBDTPA (sih-bid-tihp-ah?) & related issues have not been posted to GPO Access yet.

Judiciary (Leahy): "Competition, Innovation, and Public Policy in the Digital Age: Is the Marketplace Working to Protect Digital Creative Works?" held 3/14/2002, Commerce (Hollings): "Protecting Content in a Digital Age--Promoting Broadband and the Digital Television Transition" held 2/28/2002.

Earlier hearings do have transcripts posted, though. Compare "Online Entertainment: Coming Soon to a Digital Device Near You" submitted statements vs. transcript

The q&a in the transcript looks like it's either written communication from before the hearing or a heavily edited version of what was said. I have the audio from Hollings hearing, so when the transcript comes out, I'll check its accuracy.

the link to the statements for that particular hearing from the Judiciary page is wrong, but mine is right. I've let them know

The key things to include are YOUR name and address.

Send something to YOUR representatives. A blast-faxed generic letter to someone you cannot vote for is NOT taken seriously AT ALL.

If you can't remember who represents you, you can double-check using the geographical search tool on House of Representatives web site.

It will have MORE weight if you also customize it by articulating why YOU think XYZ, the impact it will have on YOU and your family/friends/neighbors, and if you are both polite and not patronizing.

BTW, for great examples of the negative impact of some Digital Rights Management technologies on ordinary non-techie people, check out Joe Kraus's very funny testimony about his parents' use of technology. This was presented before the Senate Judiciary committee a couple of weeks ago.

Liza

• Find your Senators' addresses here.
  
• The EFF's Action Alert for the CBDTPA is here.
  
• Tips from the EFF on contacting your elected officials can be found here.

March 25, 2002

Office of Senator Edward Kennedy
315 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202)224-2742

Dear Senator Kennedy,

As one of your constituents in the state of Massachusetts, I am writing to express my grave concern over the recently-introduced Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (S.2048, sposored by Sen. Ernest Hollings.) I believe this bill will harm both consumers and technology industries, especially within Massachusetts.

The intent of the bill seems to be to require manufacturers of electronic equipment and computer software to include "Digital Rights Management" technology in all products. By doing so, the bill would assuredly cause the prices of consumer electronics, including computers, to increase. At the same time, the DRM technology would reduce the usefulness of these devices for those who want to make copies of legally acquired content for their own personal use. Thus, under the CBDTPA, consumers would be paying more money for less powerful equipment.

Furthermore, requiring DRM in all electronics and computer software will make business more costly for high-tech firms. The effects of this cost increase will fall disproportionately on smaller firms, especially start-ups. It's these small companies that most often drive innovation in technology. By harming small companies and start-ups, the bill in question would retard innovation in high-tech industries, weakening America's strong position in the global technology race. This is a special concern for Massachusetts, which is home to a large concentration of high-tech companies.

I understand that the entertainment industry thinks it needs DRM on every electronic device in order to protect its profits. However, I don't belive Congress should take action to protect an industry that has shown no interest in adapting itself to a new technological reality. I certainly think it would be foolish to risk the health of a strong technology sector in order to prop up the fat cats in Hollywood.

I have yet to see a public statement from you or your office regarding this bill. For the reasons I've outline above, I strongly urge you to oppose it. I would appreciate hearing your position on this issue.

Sincerely,

Adam Smith

Go to Comments to the Senate Judiciary Committee and check out the comment by Stuart Ballard. +5 insightful doesn't do it justice.

Ctrl-F is your friend. Now go.

The hired help in DC have set up web site for comments, and the comments are, at the moment, unanimously opposed to the bill. Check it out.

Just got off the phone with my Senators, much like many others have. It only took 5 minutes at the *MOST* and went a bit like this:

1) Look up their website here
2) Go to their web page and get their local office phone number.,
3) Call number.
4) Simply tell the person, "Hi, I am (your name), from (your city), (your state) and I would like to register my opposition to SB 2048".

One of them had me spell my name, and the other asked me what SB 2048 was. In case you forget, it's the CBDTPA (Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act).

Senate contact info, sorted by state

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN):

S. 2048. A bill to regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by providing for private sector development of technological protection measures to be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations to protect digital content and promote broadband as well as the transition to digital television, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN):

S. 2048. A bill to regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by providing for private sector development of technological protection measures to be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations to protect digital content and promote broadband as well as the transition to digital television, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Go to this link for yesterday's legislative activities and click on "obtain a list of all bills introduced yesterday", and it's number 11 of 63. The bill's number is S.2048.

This is a mail form for good 'ol 12 sandwich eatin', G.I. Joe teeth stealin', sheep feelin', double dealin', knob kneelin', feet smellin', lie tellin', Enron felon, two-timin', Senator Hollings. Be sure to tell him Cowboy Neal sent ya.

I'd suggest that before you write your congresscritter that you find out where they are likely to stand on the issue.

In which case, it would be the perfect time to call your Senators and Representatives. I know that in my case, I've never looked around for my Congressman/woman's opinion on this issue. Dialing up the office to ask for their stance (or at least an aide's knowledge of that stance) would be an excellent way to communicate that this is an issue that drives people to call, comment, and question...all followed by a strongly-written letter.

(yes, I saw John McCain on The Daily Show last night)

They go out of session after April 5 & return May 27.

How far could this bill get by then? Congress seems awfully busy right now, so my guess is that it gets introduced & the amendments start flying, but even if it does pass in the Senate, it'll be a looong fight (giving us a chance to get more involved) in the House.

What'cha doin' this (early) summer?

Hollings' statement states

Specifically, our hearing demonstrated that there are three discrete problem areas that merit government intervention.

One other point: the parent post is right - this bill naming thing is really important. Remember the USA PATRIOT act? I attended a talk by Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) who spoke about how difficult it was to oppose a bill named that way (I believe he was the only senator who voted against it.) The current bill's title sounds like something everyone would want, making it that much more difficult to oppose.

• Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)

• Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)

"CBDTPA" only has one vowel and it's in the MIDDLE. It can't be pronounced and I'll wager that a good percentage can't even remember it correctly.

But in all seriousness, I *WILL* do my part in writing against this legislation. I remember when I wrote in protest of the DMCA. It had already been passed and yet to be enforced at the time. My representative said plainly to the effect of "...you shoulda said something BEFORE we passed it... it's too late now buddy!" Of course, the DMCA was passed the way of submarines which should be illegal as hell.

Anyway, we can't let this one get away. Your rights are WORTH spending 20 minutes and a postage stamp.

Write your senator and your representative and say what needs to be said. Maybe they are already "paid for" and then again, maybe they aren't... This is important stuff.

Infortunately, our legislators still do not heed email and faxes to the degree they should. This is probably because such technological marvels facilitate communication to a degree that promotes a deluge of mindless mailings that represent to effort or forethought on the part of the sender.

For this reason, our legislators tend to pay far more attention to writen letters sent by snail mail, not least because mailings are limited to some minor degree by the cost of stamps, and it is currently illegal to impersonate others via postal mail, whereas the same is not true via email.

Faxing your well thought out objections to this bill, might be a good compromise, but I recommend postal mail as the most effective means of communicating with your senators.

If you are unsure of how to contact the senators from your state, Look Here. Also, it would be useful to begin to address this issue in the house as well. The house of representatives has a far more convenient contact mechanism. You can Lookup your Representatives Here.

Remember, do your research, and make coherent arguments. Don't waste the time of our elected oficials. They are not stupid, but simply need to be better informed of the problems with this legislation.

--CTH

Remember that email link we had in another story that allowed you to submit comments to the government committee regarding this issue? Well, I submitted my voice, only to get this today

We are no longer accepting comments via e-mail, as we have created a new,
web-based submission form. I encourage you to please re-submit your comments at
http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/input_form.cfm ?comments=1.

So although it's too bad that this apparently means that all those emails were ignored, here is yet another chance to make your voice heard. Please take advantage of it. In my case, I just pasted my email to the comments form.

Also there's a web-based submission form where you can input comments as well.

This case might make industry think twice about the DMCA if the copyright work in question were owned by, say, Bertelsmann or another AOL-Time-Warner competitor. But as the suit was brought by some puny individual (no offense, Mr. Ellison, but you're not a mega-media conglomerate) and the Right Side won, this won't change the opinions of Anyone That Matters.

From my weblog

Jack, in your sneering Washington Post piece about copy protection, you refer to professors for whom '"innovation" is legalizing the breaking of protection codes'. Michael, in your testimony to congress you badgered an Intel exec until he told you that file copying can't be prevented, then told him he must prevent it anyway.

As you are evidently impervious to logical discussion, let me tell you a story.

This is the story of a rebel, a war hero, a persecuted homosexual, and a deep thinker. His life reads like the plot of a far-fetched movie, but if anyone fits your bogeyman image of professors who break code, it is Alan Turing.

In 1936 Turing published a paper on theoretical mathematics, in which he described the Universal Turing machine. It was a simple mechanism that could read symbols from a tape, and write back different symbols or change the tape's direction. He showed that with this general purpose machine, you could simulate any special purpose computing machine. He had invented the idea of the programmable computer.

Between 1938 and 1945, Turing worked in great secrecy on computing machines that broke codes. These were the first real computers ever made, and the codes they broke were those used by the German Wehrmacht. Without his work, it is very likely that Britain would have lost the War in Europe before Pearl Harbour.

After the war, in 1950 Turing published other famous papers that laid the foundation for modern computing, and hence all the digital gadgetry that you would like to outlaw for us (though presumably you'd keep the computers you use to edit and create effects for your movies). Turing died in 1954 by biting into an apple he had previously poisoned.

What does this story have to do with you?

Turing's Universal Machine means that you cannot have a software or hardware protection scheme that is secure. Whatever scheme you come up with can be simulated by another computer. The computer industry are not opposing your bill because they want to encourage copying, or because they are bloody-minded, they are not opposing you because of your self serving rhetoric about rewarding artists (remember Peggy Lee, Michael?), they are opposing you because what you want is provably impossible. You can only succeed by making all Turing machines illegal.

If Alan Turing had made an animated film involving a poisoned apple in 1936, it would still have copyright protection. He chose a different path, and gave the world the idea of the digital computer. I know whom I repect more.

I _would_ also recommend writing senators, but that might be a bit more ambitious since they usually represent much larger numbers of people and thus would be harder to coerce.

If you haven't already done so, please contact your Senators.

Here is a link to a (very) summerized verion of the DMCA. This shows how the Senator is making no mention of the SSSCA on his own web site where he proudly lists the issues he has worked on. Lots of other gigantic conflicts of interest can be found here as well. I'd list more, but I have to go to work so I can make money to buy things that violate the DMCA..

I think the Senators are afraid a vote against one of these bills means they can't hang with hollywood stars. Stars are more fun to hang out with than constituents.

You can hit up the Commerce Committee for PDFs of the actual statements. Anyone got any Ogg Vorbis of the Hearing?

If anyone is from these states could you please get in touch with the people mentioned and tell them to tell Disney to suck on something? No Jersey, so no go for me :(

Is this the same Disney that wants to destroy your right to enjoy your computer hardware and software technology just so they can methods to prevent you from accessing the content you have already bought and paid for? Is this the same Disney that so many people are now telling friends and family to boycott? Is this the same Disney that has bought and paid for Senator Hollings, D-SC?

I have seen a couple links about people saying they should write their congress-person(sic?) but seeing as this is a bill in the Senate wouldn't it be better to write your Senator? Heck you can email them these days (probably a better chance of getting through with all the anthrax scares).

Here are a few:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/technology/01DIG I.html?todaysheadlines

http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/press/107-159.html

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174828.html

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-847229.html

http://www.theregus.com/content/54/24195.html

Hope you weren't being sarcastic.