Slashdot Mirror
FCC to Require Anti-Piracy Features in Digital TVs
RobTerrell writes "The FCC is now requiring that next-generation digital TVs and VCRs use anti-piracy feature so that programming can be tagged as copy-protected. " Not only will this slow HDTV adoptance even more, but it will make a lot of existing sets incompatible with formats. Thanks Uncle FCC.
Is it me, or does this look like 'Uncle Fucker' to anyone else?
Didn't the audio home recording act permit people to tape (record, whatever) whatever they wanted from TV and other broadcast media?
Doesn't that still apply?
And do they think it will stop anyone? Macrovision didn't stop anyone from copying VHS tapes, they just buy a little "video stabilizer" box. CSS hasn't much stopped anyone...
If there is a video out, there is a way.
But fuck it. I don't need a goddamn digital TV. I don't really need an analog one. This will just further push real creativity away from a medium that desperately needs to be replaced, and the indie film producers (think George Lucas in Love) will be the beneficiaries.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
"My fear is that the American consumer . . . walks away with a set that is fully capable of hooking up to cable but incapable of receiving any [over-the-air] signal," Ness said.
Susan Ness, who said that, is an FCC commissioner.
But the FCC is possibly precenting people from getting what they want to watch by restrcting the use of it through this piracy-protection thing...
Hypocrisy.
Can't wait until mod-chip.com starts selling TV mod chips...
Ditto...I dont have cable (cause my provider doesnt have cable modems), and the TV is hooked up to the playstation...I want movies, I go rent...
Seems like we've just rolled over and accepted it though.
to strip out the "protected" flag from the signal (see the watermark story from earlier today)...
Sigh. Must be some way to get the DMCA repealed, no?
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Right now, there is little control the user (us) has over what is seen on TV. We are told when to laugh, cry, and watch commercials. Introducing the digital nature of broadcasting sets the stage for someone to take control away from the networks and put it into the users hands. Corporate America sees loss of control as loss of income. When you sit down and think about it, it's amazing what we're force fed collectively each day through the media. Those who are currently in the money don't want that to change. They are willing to let us watch that latest pepsi commercial in HDTV format though. How nice of them. :)
Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
Man, if all these big orgs don't chill out, I'm going to have a lot of T-shirts: HDTV-crack, censorware crack shirts, SDMI-crack, decss, etc.
In the immortal words of the Beastie Boys, "Something's got to give."
In two weeks of a to market device there will be a mod chip to bypass the copyright information.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
...both of them.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Yes, but now they are trying to have that decision overruled! Soon you will only be able to watch exactly what they want you to watch, and even have the gall to charge you for it! Ve Vill Kontrol the Vertical and ze Horizontal. Sometime in the near future:
Warning, coporate subject A-3451 is in violation of copyright law in sector 7 grid 9. Send an anti-pirate dispatch immediately
Its really sad when a Richard Stalman's Satire "The Right to Read" becomes closer to reality every day. He was wrong about one thing though. Its happening a lot quicker than even he predicted
Intellectual Property is Theft!
www.enthea.org
I don't know why, but this depresses me more than anything I've seen recently on the subject.
Interestingly, reminding myself that I don't watch TV doesn't seem to help. The FCC is overstepping its bounds, here, and I'm not sure there's anything we can do about it.
I sent one, with a well-thought-out argument that led to the connection of the Universal vs. Sony decision. Simply put, the FCC apparently thinks that, it too, is completely above the law.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
IMHO,It's our fault. Years of better and better marketing has caused americans to just accept corporate ownership of everything. We gave in to marketting years ago, allowing companies to get away with almost anything and still buying their products in droves.
Now they have turned their amazingly large resources we gave them into political control and stronger and stronger ownership of their resources. Expect marketting to get so good in the future that when you see a McDonald's commercial on a "free" tv, you've agreed to purchase a Big Mac by watching "their" program. Just as soon as a child is born in this country, he learns how cool mattel or hasbro or fisher price is and how much he wants it. Soon they will have the same control on all age groups. And we won't own the commercials, the tv, or the government anymore. (not that we do now)
-Ben
When will these people learn that the ONLY way to do 'Secure Content' is the way that Rocket eBook does?
You have a central db, it has keys, one for every consumer device. The consumer devices have the other half of their key pair in an eprom. The do not have any digital output. You encode the content for the player upon which it is to be played. It works. It is the only approach that could posibly work.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Dose it SAY it's compatable with CDR, CDWR discs? it may not have multi read compatability.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Ok class, now we're going to look at 20th century entertainment. Swipe your debit cards to activate your electronic books and put on your privacy goggles so only you can read the text. In the late twentieth century, there was a strange concept called "fair use." People were actually allowed to do whatever they wanted with information content they purchased. They could read, watch, or listen to it as much as they wanted, they could loan it out to friends, they could even copy it for personal use. Even television signals were fair game. All of this made the poor media giants angry because it was costing them additional sales. Finally, the government fought back against this injustice and put an end to unrestricted use of information for good. Now we live in a wonderful world where nobody can get away with not paying for every single piece of information they use every time they use it. That concludes today's lesson, you will now be charged the usual fee for any notes you have taken. Remember, if you tell anyone else about this lecture, you will be in violation of the Intellectual Property Act of 2005.
The Supreme Court has ruled on a few occasions that it is perfectly legal to timeshift copyrighted content. I kind of hope that the HDTV copy protection doesn't permit any kind of recording, because then the supreme court ruling would trump the copyright protection. Then they would have to ditch the whole concept.
The again, it's never a good idea to bet on your enemiy's stupidity, so we should probably nip this one it the bud. Hmmm, I guess that implies the US government our enemy... uh oh, looks like I'm about to be put on a list of persona non gratia.
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
Yahoo had This news story earlier about the whole thing.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
I mentioned this a few weeks ago, but, if you can't record what's broadcast, how can you prove that it ever was?
Where the US leads, the world follows. This will lead to widespread adoption if it catches on in the USA. If a government, anywhere, chooses to rewrite history so that an event 'never happened', it will be of great importance to them that news broadcasts can not be recorded.
To extend this a bit further, what if means were included to "revoke" privledges to record broadcasts after the fact, and disable existing copies? Then we'd be getting into an Orwellian nightmare.
--
...this one will be easier to fight.
The reason: it prevents all copying, assuming that all copying is for criminal purposes. This is not true; there are plenty of legal reasons for copying, several of which (such as time-shifting, the most popular legitimate reason) have been explicitly defined as legal; "traditional rights" are not the only defense.
Therefore, this regulation assumes that a consumer copying a program is guilty of a criminal act until proven innocent, when in fact there is very reasonable doubt (how do you know the consumer isn't copying for legal reasons; chances are that's precisely the case!) That's indisputably unconstitutional, having been added to the Constitution before even the Bill of Rights was added.
Incidentally, this also means that the provision in DMCA about banning devices that can conceivably be used in piracy is also unconstitutional (forget fair use; it's about presumption of guilt!)
----------
Yes, millions of people break copyright law and distribute illegal music, but how many people are distributing 'illegal' copies of digital television shows? Has anyone even considered it? How are they going to go about giving them to the masses? Put them on video tape and send it to all their friends? Come on, if that was an effective solution, then Napster would have never come along, because people would be distributing their cassette tapes years ago! But they didn't, because it is too much trouble! No one is going to spend hours uploading and downloading a movie or a 30 minute talk show, or anything else. No one cares that much.
The only way that these digital shows are being 'pirated' is through several buddies getting together, swilling a few cheap beers, and watching the nudie channel, or the boxing match. The biggest profit they are making is from one of the friends who brought over the beer or chips.
I am so disgusted at this, I may do something that hurts. I may never watch TV again. Really, it will not be that big of a loss. I already do not watch it, and have not for over a year. I never could find anything worth watching, and I see that pattern continuing. Why should I sit in front of a television, watching an hour-long show, that is at least 20 minutes of commertials? There is no reason I need to pay the media services for the privilage of watching their advertising, making them more money. I can get my news from the newspaper, my entertainment will come from a wonderful thing called the library, and my social interaction will come from real people, not people pretending to be over glorified people on TV. Anything else, (as well as those) can be filled up by the Internet. Who needs television anymore?
/. is a commercial entity. goto slashdot.com
It's another incremental step in completely shutting off Open Source from all involvement in consumer-level media. CSS was another.
We need Open Media. Now.
DNA just wants to be free...
So, when did the FCC decide to smoke Satan's Own Crackpipe? Did they get totally bought?
Should-Happen-Irony: the DRM installed on HDTVs creates interference.
So yeah. Car manufacturers don't make cars that can't go over 75mph, even though it's widely illegal for cars to go over that speed limit. Can you imagine having to call in to the DPS/DOT office and get centralized permission before speeding to the emergency room? NO, of course not, that would be STUPID.
The reality will be that these techniques will be circumventable, the hackers (JArgon-file definition) will be sued under the DMCA, the documentation for the hack will be widely available, and nothing will actually change.
What happened to the Betamax time-shifting ruling??? Will the TV have IR sensors to make sure fewer than 15 people are watching, etc.??
Is this the end of superbowl parties?
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Seriously. Moderators, give this one an Insightful.
Just imagine if the political candidates (for example) Macrovisioned their ads, so nobody could record them and analyze them on the air! The free-speech implications are severe.
But my old analog VCR still works. So there.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
Ok, lets take a look at what happened with DVDs...
Product released which isn't what consumers want. Smart manufacturer ... avoids... some of the restrictions: product sells like wildfire...
If "hidden" features don't start getting built into the TVs, how long before someone creates an add-on (like a blackbox) which removes that signal...
Also, is the FCC restricting what this signal can be put into???
SSL Certificate
I DONT'T know why digital television and HDTV has been so slow at been adopted, I understand it's been widely available in japan for a long time, so my opinion on this issue is as good as the next guy's.
that said, isn't it possible that maybe the fact that anti-piracy technology was not included is why it's taken forever for digital television and HDTV to be more available? I mean, if the powers that be (media) don't like it because it's a "risky scheme", they would just not support it enough and then it would not make sense to buy one...
just a thought.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
and its one of the best decisions i've ever made.
at first it seems like the end of the world when you dont have TV, but soon you realize that there are all sorts of other, much more useful ways to spend the 6+ hours/day that the average american is watching every day.
all of a sudden, i had time for hobbies, reading, coding, hanging out with friends... Its amazing how much time that damn thing sucks up of yours.
One of funniest things that I've come across is the reaction that I get when I tell most people that I dont have cable, and hardly ever watch TV. Most people say something along the lines of "I cant survive without TV". Kindof sad, really...
After you dont watch TV for a while, you being to realize how exploitive the advertising is, and how manipulative the programming is. My favorite example is the damn Prilosec "Purple Pill" commercial. It gives you the impression that taking this pill will save your life... when all it does is stop heartburn :-)
so... I dont exactly see myself buying one of these HDTV's.
tagline
... hi bingo
I said it was the ONLY answer. People are constantly asking "hey, how can we make a computer do X?", and the answer is often "Well, you can't", and the reasons are often obscure and mathematical, but they aren't interested in that.
Far to many people are convinced that computers are 'magic', and thus can do anything, even solve NP complete probs in linear time. They can't.
Digital content cannot be secure in a system where it is decoded outside of it's player. So the network isn't ready for it. Big deal, no one said it was. But it will be. There is an upper limit to how much computational power/bandwidth is needed, and computer power is growing FAR faster than consumer population.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
This appears to be a special case of the Trusted Client issue. There is a wonderful article on Technocrat.net entitled, Is "Trusted Client" the Wave of the Future?
This might the long term solution for owners and defenders of intellectual property. One possible future: (1) all commercially, or at least corporately produced, data will be encrypted; and (2) a new law would require all future information display devices for different types of data (music, photographs, video, whatever) to have built-in hardware decryption.
There are those of you who will say, "so what, it has to be decrypted at some point in order to be displayed, and at that point I'll just attach a wire and run it to my VCR, CDR, TIVO, computer, etc., etc." You might be able to, but the vast, vast majority would never be able to, nor would they be inclined to void thier warranties (and perhaps risk future civil or criminal penalities) for opening their box. There is a fundemental economic and mass market difference between hardware and software means of circumventing encryption and copy control mechanisms. Software means of defeating encryption and circumventing copy control are, once discovered and implimented, themselves digitally reproduceable and easily and economically distributed over the internet. Obviously, hardware means are not.
Another possible further legal response to the threat posed by the internet to intellectual property would involve:
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
It means that you have less control over the things that you own. Your television, your VCR, you will no longer precisely "own" them, it will almost be like they belong to someone else. A television is supposed to be a simple device, it displays TV broadcasts, a VCR is supposed to be equally simple, it records and plays back TV broadcasts. They will no longer be like that. They will have restrictions that prevent you from doing anything you want with them. The first thing is to prevent you from recording certain shows so you will have to fork out the money to buy their tapes or DVDs if you want to watch it more than once (or if you have a job or other responsibility that prevents you from seeing it the first time).
Do you have any doubt that the industry will expand this and make as many shows as they can copy-protected? Forget about taping the super bowl, you have to buy the tape. The industry will increasingly push copy-protection onto as many shows and broadcasts as they can get away with. And then, who knows what may be next? When they have the power you can bet your ass they will abuse it. There are so many possible scenarios for abuse of this kind of technology it's unbelievable. You've seen what the industry has done already with DVD, certain parts of the DVD you can't skip. What if they could do that to your VCR? It's only a half skip away from this technology.
Imagine this, recording of most broadcast television is illegal (because it's copy-protected). Wouldn't it be tempting for the industry to stop selling you movies and tapes? It would be much more lucrative if they went to a "service" model where you buy / watch TV shows or movies on demand but cannot record them (or skip the commercials). Parts of the software industry are already on their way to being service oriented instead of "item" oriented. Look at microsoft's dot Net crap.
In the future you may not be able to own movies, or software, or TV shows, or music, or maybe even books. All of these things must be rented on demand with a per-use fee from the big corporations. Now, imagine that world. Imagine the sheer power the corporations would have over all us little guys. Imagine how easy censorship would be. All it would take to effectively ban a book would be for no one to be willing to offer it for use, or for the publisher who owns the copyrights to decide not to offer it. And, using your rented software owned by faceless corporation # 317, it may not even be possible to determine the existence of a "subversive book". Imagine how easy it would be to track down the people who "abuse certain software programs" or "read the wrong books", etc. The technology to do that is only this far -> || away from what is being used today. I doubt things will be that severe (at least not right away), but it could and seeing as how it would be in the interests (and profit) of the industry I would be very wary in this area of technology.
The FCC has mandated all digital, more specifically, HDTV formatted broadcast television by the year 2006. The stations that aren't on that bandwagon by then get their licenses pulled.
HDTV is actually more spectrally efficient than analog, in spite of the increased resolution because of MPEG2 and they plan on auctioning off much of the old analog spectrum (which has appealing propagation characteristics (which is WHY they used it for TV)).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Your problem with home recorded CDs may not be due to evil censorship. I had a similar problem playing homemade CDs in my new truck. It turned out that the player only likes CDs recorded in Disk at Once (DAO) mode. When you record in Track at Once (TAO) the formatting is different. I would be surprised if you cannot overcome this problem because, in theory, you should be able to make an *exact* duplicate of a CD. I doubt the MP3 -> DA has anything to do with this. Good Luck.
too bad. Once they phase out analog TV, the TVs with the mandatory digital anti-piracy measures will be the only ones availible.
I guess people like your relatives will just have to give up on TV then. Not such a loss, really.
Too bad the FCC's given the airwaves to the corporations. Otherwise, us Open Source types might be able to do things like make our own (short-range) analog TV stations using old equipment, broadcasting Open Content that could be viewed on non-crippled devices.
DNA just wants to be free...
Here are the comments I sent to the FCC last week. I'm disappointed they did no good. (I've reformatted the submission for viewing on Slashdot.)
Schwab
________________
Comment on Proposed Rulemaking, PP Docket No. 00-67
1. I, Leo L. Schwab, am a resident of Redwood City, CA. I am a software engineer of over 15 years professional experience and, as such, have direct experience with "copy protection" measures as employed to combat unsanctioned copying of computer software. I am also an owner and buyer of consumer electronics and computer equipment.
2. The FCC has been asked to resolve compatibility issues surrounding digital broadcast and cable television and consumer electronics equipment. My comments will focus primarily on the issue of "copy protection."
3. I urge the Commission to oppose mandating copy protection measures in consumer electronics equipment, for the following reasons:
Inherent Fragility
4. In general terms, copy protection measures operate by attemptng to distinguish between "legitimate" copies (i.e. copies manufactured by the vendor) and unsanctioned copies (as typically made on a home computer). Because computers -- and indeed all digital equipment -- are designed to copy information perfectly, making this distinction is a difficult technical challenge.
5. Many methods have been employed to attempt to make this distinction, all of which have attendant advantages and drawbacks. However, no matter which specific method is employed, they all basically introduce artificial fragility and unreliability into the system. More clearly, by introducing copy protection measures into a product or system, that product or system is by definition rendered less reliable, since it now has a deliberately introduced capacity for failure. Some copies will work, whereas others will fail, having been identified as, "illegitimate."
6. There is not, nor can there be, a 100% reliable method of distinguishing between sanctioned and unsanctioned copies. As such, all existing copy protection methods can and do yield false results, causing legitimate store-bought copies of software to fail (and allowing unsanctioned copies to operate unhindered). The reasons for the false results may be manifold: damaged distribution media, incompatible hardware, incompatible operating system software, etc.
7. Working remotely (as do cable system operators when dealing with subscribers), it is impossible to determine if such failure is due to an "honest" flaw in the hardware or distribution media, or because the user is attempting to use an unsanctioned copy. Direct examination of the system and media is necessary to make such a determination.
8. Thus, employing copy protection measures in consumer electronics will render such equipment inherently less reliable, resulting in undue inconvenience and cost to the consumer and equipment manufacturer alike.
Lack of Compelling Need
9. Until the mid-1980's or so, consumers were tremendously inconvenienced by copy protection systems. This was due not only to their fragility, but also by their preventing users from copying their software from the vendor-supplied floppy disks to internal hard disks, which were gaining popularity at the time.
10. Consumer opinion on the issue was overwhelming and adamant. Bowing to market pressure, many vendors agreed to abandon copy protection measures. This was done with much trepidation because vendors feared that, without them, individuals would make unsanctioned copies in such overwhelming numbers that the potential market for the software would be diluted to the point where even recovering development costs would be impossible. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single instance throughout the history of the computing industry where such fears have materialized.
11. Thus, there are no historical precedents or incidents justifying a need for copy protection measures. Further, there is no credible reason to believe the situation will be different for digital content delivered via broadcast or cable systems.
Undue Burden to Consumers
12. In my experience, copy protection measures, as applied to computer software, are expensive to develop, both in terms of engineering time and resources. It is reasonable to believe that the same will be true for measures applied to digital broadcast content. These costs must be recovered somewhere. If the Commission mandates copy protection measures in consumer electronics, the consumers will solely bear not only the direct costs of their development and manufacture, but the indirect costs associated with decreased reliability.
13. If copy protection were a feature being requested by consumers, then it would be reasonable to expect consumers to pay for it. But they are not requesting it. Indeed, they are demanding the precise opposite.
14. The only organizations professing a need for copy protection are television and movie studios, and cable system operators. It therefore seems reasonable that those organizations solely bear the costs of development and deployment, and leave end-user equipment unencumbered.
Squelching Future Innovations
15. My review of proposed copy protection methods involve the use of viewers or viewing software that are "approved" by a central licensing authority under the control of film and television studios (this is currently the case with DVD playback devices, which have been licensed by the DVD Copy Control Authority). To obtain such approval, the viewing device typically may only have functionality deemed appropriate by the licensing authority, and nothing else. This functionality is typically limited to playback only, with pause, fast-forward, and rewind features (and even these are handicapped in certain circumstances). In the proposed protection schemes, any individual wishing to employ new or different functionality must first petition for and obtain approval from the licensing authority, or risk being sued.
16. One use to which an individual might put digital broadcast content is to incorporate it into their computer's "screen saver" facility. For example, images from a digital television signal could be received by a computer (possibly through a IEEE-1394 interface), mathematically transformed into a sphere, and bounced around the screen. Such use of broadcast television content is not (currently) unlawful. Indeed, it would strain credibility for content producers and broadcasters to argue such use was even unethical. As such, seeking approval from a licensing authority for such use would seem to throw an unnecessary roadblock in the path of developers conducting lawful research and development.
17. While my example is admittedly a trite one, I hope it serves to illustrate that there are non-obvious uses to which digital content may be put that are useful, interesting, beneficial to consumers, and non-infringing. Full exploration of such possibilities has yet to begin. Mandating copy protection would seriously cripple such explorations.
Not a Commission Function
18. At this point, I stray from my expertise into admittedly inexpert readings of the Commission's charter and contemporaneous intellectual property disputes. Nevertheless, I request the Commission bear with me.
19. I can find nothing in the Commission's charter that suggests it should be involved in interpreting intellectual property law. By mandating copy protection measures, the Commission will effectively serve as an interpreter of Fair Use doctrine. Fair Use is not applied in a blanket manner, but on a case-by-case basis by the Federal Courts. Moreover, the meaning of Fair Use is constantly changing as circumstances evolve and technology advances.
20. Should the Commission choose to mandate a form of blanket copy protection, it is easy to envision a future Federal Court decision declaring that consumers have Fair Use rights that extend beyond those provided by equipment containing the Commission-mandated protection measures. In practical terms, however, such a decision would be virtually moot, since the Commission's previous interpretation of Fair Use has been cast in stone (or, in this case, silicon). The Commission would then find itself in the unenviable position of having to implement the Court's order. Whatever form that took, it would be tremendously burdensome to the Commission, electronics manufacturers, and consumers.
21. Finally, my readings of intellectual property disputes show that -- if the Commission will permit the colloquialism -- the field of intellectual property law is extremely hairy bananas. It is inordinately complex, frequently self-contradictory, and its interpretation is crucially dependent on the specific circumstances of a given case. I respectfully suggest this is a field of endeavor the Commission would wish to avoid. It would take Solomonic wisdom to design a technical specification that would serve the interests of copyright holders without impacting the ever-changing Fair Use rights of consumers.
Conclusion
22. In summary, I urge the Commission to oppose mandatory copy protection measures for consumer electronics equipment because:
23. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to provide comment, and sincerely thank the Commission for its time and attention.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Back to the article, lest I'm marked as off-topic (Not that I give a fuck, mind you.) Yes, building a house with locks on the doors means it's gonna take a bit more time. It also means the FCC won't have to sue everybody's asses like what happened with Napster. How in hell can you condemn an industry for not making it incredibly easy to rip them off?
I agree to a large extent, but what about those times when there's something on that you want to watch, but you have to work? If the station says you can't tape it, then you're screwed. My wife wouldn't be too pleased if suddenly she couldn't tape As the World Turns, and I wouldn't be to amused if I suddenly couldn't tape Buffy on nights that I'm unavailable to watch it. And no, I don't have a lage collection of Buffy tapes that I've held onto. I do just tape to watch and then tape over (movies from HBO and PPV are a diffent story, I'll admit).
Addlepated - punk & metal
Which is why I don't let my daughter (age 3.5) watch TV! I don't watch TV, and I WORK for one of the networks!!!!
When my wife and I made this decision, we got some flack - NOT from any of my friends and co-workers (they thought it was a great idea), but from people like my parents.
They said things like:
"Do you want her to grow up different" (answer - Hell yes)
or
"She won't understand the other kids, and the kids won't like her"
(Maybe, but she seems to have a lot of friends who like her, because she always has good ideas for new games)
There is nothing like curling up on the couch with your child, and a good book.
Note: I don't speak for my employer - all opinions my own
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Let's not forget that his wife and running mate are big supporters of media censorship, net filtering, mandatory ratings, anti-video-game stuff (Leiberman, mainly), you name it...
With this stuff going on at the same time, I'm starting to think a Gore presidency would be extremely detrimental to our digital and intellecutal rights.
Conversely, I have no clue what to make of Nader (he's way too secretive), and don't even get me started on Buchanan...
Anyone happen to know what Bush's involvement in things has been? (or would like to suggest another party+candidate?)
DNA just wants to be free...
Looking idiotic is my god-given right, and it's the last amusing thing left for me to do before I leave Slashdot once and for all. Not that their click-through rate will drop, and not that you or anyone else will give a fuck. But then again, neither will I.
Of course, then there is the problem of a station that gets overprotective of it's work, and tags everything with their copy-protection bit. There needs to be some way to place complaints and have them followed through if stations behave in this fashion.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
This really had me worried, so I went to the FCC site to read what they actually ruled, and I am now convinced that the linked article above is REALLY screwed up, freely mixing comments and opinions about two rulings that have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other
Here is the summary of what the FCC actually said concerning copy protection:
Summary of the Declaratory Ruling:
In today's Order, the Commission addressed the narrow issue of whether technology licenses requiring copy protection measures to be located within commercially available equipment are consistent with the Commission's navigation devices rules. The Order noted that the Commission's initial navigation devices Order expressly contemplated the inclusion of copy protection measures in navigation host devices and that such measures would not violate the security separation requirement. Today's Order reiterated that some measure of anti-copying encryption technology is consistent with the intent of the rules because such measures protect a gap where digital data would otherwise be available "in the clear" and subject to unrestricted digital copying.
With this controversy resolved, the Commission directed industry participants to finalize negotiations necessary to bring to fruition the goals of Section 629 and requested that industry participants submit, within 30 days of the release of the Order, a report on the status of the DFAST license, including a final version of a completed DFAST license agreement.
Although today's ruling clarified that the inclusion of some amount of copy protection within a host device does not violate the navigation devices rules, the Commission did not determine whether specific copy protection terms or technology were consistent with the rules. The Commission also concluded that no evidence was presented that reasonable home copying would be impeded by the inclusion of copy protection within host devices.
Action by the Commission September 14, 2000, by Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling (CS Docket # 97-80, FCC 00-341).
FCC Press Release
So the FCC clearly IS concerned with ensuring that "reasonable" home copying is possible, although it isn't clear from this summary what EXACTLY that means. It is also not clear to me after reading this whether the quote from Jeff Joseph is complaining about the inclusion of copy protection itself, or whether it is complaining about the loss of backward compatibility. The latter is a problem, but allowing copy protection into some devices was already decided. I'm not sure exactly what the copy protection is allowed to copy, but this ruling was covering the narrow question of exactly where in the digital decoding process that copy protection has to go.
It seems that the original linked article was mixing comments concerning TWO FCC releases; this copy protection rule clarification, and another one regarding uniform labelling rules that make it clear what "Digital Cable Ready" means: FCC ADOPTS RULES FOR LABELING OF DTV RECEIVERS. THIS is what Commissioner Ness was complaining about, not about the copy protection ruling.
In summary, this article is highly confused about the events it is reporting.
Note that I'm not disagreeing with the potential for abuse with embedded copy protection, just that I'm not sure this article had a clue. I'm also pretty certain that the FCC is not "trying to get around AHRA" as some others have said. I'd just like to understand what is really going on here, and not jump to outrageous conclusions.
Uh, actually, you have to go out of your way to build a CD/DVD player that will reject gold discs.
We, in fact, did this at 3DO when we were designing the low-cost version of the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer. The CD-ROM guys (both hardware and software) were instructed by management to detect and reject CD-R (gold) copies of 3DO CD-ROMs. This took extra work and code to accomplish.
The new players did play gold audio CDs, but they could just as easily have added the code to reject them as well. But since that wasn't a specific management request, the techs didn't do it.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
and it hasn't always just been on the content side. HDTV standards were slow in being approved, since the FCC dragged it's feet and was a poor arbitrator as the set manufacturers (Hollywood MAY have been involved, I can't remember) couldn't agree on what they wanted. Therefore they ended up with 18 possibilities with different resolutions, interlaced / non-interlaced, and possibly frame rate.
The point is that the FCC was not willing to put it's foot down and force a smaller number of standards...keep in mind the more standards used, the more the hardware tends to cost. The FCC allowed the corporations to do what they wanted, and as profit mongering crybabies, they couldn't agree on anything.
The digital TV spectrum giveaway was another fiasco, as the bandwidth was given away for free by uncle sam. It could have been sold for billions. You can thank the industry's lobbyists for that.
Which brings us to today's news. I don't think the government has any reason to give a damn, I think this is clearly a corporate move to "preserve" profits, even though it will hurt corporations in the long run, just like any other copy control strategy.
I read up quite a bit on current TV/stereo info/issues, and I have to say for me this is the final straw. I was looking at getting some sort of digital TV in the next year or so, now, it might be years, if I ever get one. Hollywood and content makers have been dragging their heels on this because of this issue, broadcasters have been slow to upgrade their facilities to HDTV probably for the same reasons. It's truly sad.
We all know where this is going. Anti-piracy controls might be legitimate for, say, movies on HBO. However, I think we all know we won't be allowed to record anything, except for a "small fee", I'm sure.
The fundamental problem from a corporate / consumer standpoint is this: corporations view new technology as a way to extract more money from the public, once they finally understand it, whereas the public sees it as a way to drive down costs, and will only pay more if the new technology is vastly superior.
Digital technology is not worth the price of pay per play. I think we've reached the point of true robbery....pay per play, of every damn thing. This is exactly what hollywood wants, and the exact opposite of what consumers want.
Sure, go ahead, take me for an imbecile. It's certainly easier than arguing coherently. That's not what I said, and you know it.
It's considered a serious enough possiblity that one of the things the actor's guild is considering striking over is the fact that the actors in old reruns that are beamed out via pay-per-download TV won't see a dime of that theoretical money.
The big question is, what new laws will be enacted to prevent a private citizen like me from broadcasting my own show in this way?
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
But then came the Bureaucratic Imperative: "Regulate or die!" and the word "regulate" came to mean "control." That's where we are today.
Replacing the current meaning of "regulate" with the far superior 18th century meaning will take some doing, but those of us that use the Internet know the benefits of doing so.
The FCC is an unconstitutional organization, since nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal government given the power to control the "press" (meaning: the way in which information is distributed). Since the First Amendment specifically forbids federal control of the press, the FCC is thus unconstitutional.
When Libertarians are elected, the FCC will be replaced by a free market bandwidth auction, and property rights will once again apply to the electromagnetic spectrum.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
I gave up on TV about three years ago. Let's face it - it sucks - the news is sensationalized and devoid of real facts. If you think the news gets it wrong about computer issues - think about what they get wrong in other issues! I know they are completely incapable of getting the facts right about aviation for a start.
Even the good programs on TV are so advertisment-filled that it's become annoying to watch them. The only channel that's not annoying to watch is PBS. (They have Red Dwarf on Saturday nights here!)
The real problem is that the vast majority of people aren't people at all - they are sheeple who just lap up and follow whatever the marketing suits and talking heads on the news say. Don't be a sheeple; kick the TV habit and do something more intelligent - learn a new language, ride your bike, get outdoors or whatever!
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
He realized how pathetic that was, and cancelled his cable.
tagline
... hi bingo
Vote for Ralph Nader. I can hear you screaming already, "But he can't possibly win!" You're absolutely right. He will not win. But that DOES NOT mean that your vote is wasted. Consider:
Vote for Nader. You'll sleep better. And after a few more election cycles, you'll live better.
/\/\/\/
Oh, I forgot--we're not allowed to have weapons. Well, overthrowing the Corporate Hegemony with a fruitbat probably won't work too well. Guess I'll continue getting shafted. Might as well lay back and enjoy it...
People just don't get it... this is not about piracy. This is corporate slight of hand, plain and simple.
The piracy that hurts is done by organized counterfeiting, it exists now, it will still exist tomorrow regardless of any technology.
Provide the average person with content at a reasonable price and there is very little motivation for copying. It is just not worth the trouble. AW... Yes I can copy VHS tapes from my friends, but why, if I can rent a tape for less cost and effort. Home copying only becomes a problem when the price of content is artificially raised, such as CDs. If a CD was 5 dollars, or I could download a very cheap lower quality MP3, what modivation would there be for me to copy it other than for my own personal use.
So what is the motivation of these laws?
It is simply greed, big-money wants to be able to charge whatever price they want. They want to remove fair use and charge you when ever and however they want.
Terms of Service subject to change at any time with out notice.
I have a proposal. It's not a perfect solution, but it seems better than what I've seen so far. Right now there seems to be the option of no copy controls whatsoever, or these iron fisted copy controls. What I would propose is to apply an analog world concept to the digital realm, that of copy degradation.
Rather than saying, you can't make a copy, what about having it so that you can make copies, but that those copies, in transfer are degraded. So, if you copy your DVD to your computer, it degrades it so that it's only VCR quality. That way the fear of perfect digital copies goes away and it still provides for fair use of the information.
So, if you make a copy of your Magic Digital Media Disc, your friend can play the copy on his machine at VCR quality. If he makes a copy for somebody else it gets a little worse, maybe it's only mono sound now or a bit grainy. People will still make copies, but it will create an incentive to go out and buy the originals (which is what the media companies are so pissed about).
I think the FCC and the government need to start actively defending fair use, rather than selling us down the river to these corporate gluttons. There is a middle ground if somebody will try to stake it out.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Actually, I was thinking "12 year old Norwegian boy executed at the request of the FCC for publishing information describing how to disable copy protection with a paperclip, a rubber band, and an Apple ]["
Hey, pissed off at the FCC or NAB and don't have any way to release your anger except posting on slashdot?
Come to the huge protest/counterculture party outside and hopefully inside the annual National Association of Broadcasters meeting in San Francisco next week!
For details, see Media Democracy Now! and the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center.
Tons of pirate radio. Tons of pirating of corporate copyrighted muzak. Drown out corporate radio in San Francisco on the Day of a Million Microradio Broadcasts.
Brought you by the same discontent which was at Seattle, Washington, Philly, LA, the list goes on and on. The police have already been in touch to "work out details" and they were told to fuck off.
Be there, be creative, fuck shit up!
bjord.org
news from the revolution
"Thanks Uncle FCC. "
It wasn't the FCC who forced this decision to be made...
hehe, can i help you found the new homeland?
The article doesn't mention whether the FCC wants to make it illegal to receive DTV transmissions without government-approved hardware. If so, then the sellout is complete.
Anyone know which candidate is less likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold this kind of crap? Land of the free, my ass. We're headed back to a feudal system of information lords and consumer peasants.
Reminds me of a really funny conversation I had w/ a digital cable telemarketer once ...
... if you ever change your mind ..." blah blah blah ...
He starts in on his schpiel about how digital cable is just the best thing ever and I say "well, my tv is really really old and crappy so i won't really get much out of the enhanced signal or the digital music stations"
"out of curiosity, why don't you get a new tv?"
"actually, i've been thinking about getting rid of the tv all together, i was really a much better person when i didn't have a tv."
At this point the guy starts laughing, "A better person? What do you mean?"
"You know, I did all those things that I usually mean to do but never get around to doing, I read more, did more artwork and crafts, went out more, socialized more, did volunteer work, I was the best possible version of me."
More nervous laughter, I can practically hear him shaking his head in disbelief. "Well this was, umm, a really 'interesting' conversation
The sad postscript is that I ended up caving in when they moved the sundance channel to a "digital only" station. I feel so 'dirty'.
- bridgette
Having said that, vote for Nader if you really do believe in his socialist policies. (That's not intended as an insult, just a factual statement). Both he and Browne are at least principled, unlike the major candidates.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The FCC should not have the authority to require this. If this rule is truly desired (yeah, right), then it should be passed as a law by legislators who are accountable to voters.
Why should the FCC just be able to make up whatever it wants without having to answer to anyone?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I suspect that the system will have to allow "fair use" recording, while preventing copies
of copies. Of course this killed DAT decks. You could make a DAT copy of a CD, but not a copy of that DAT tape (a copy of a copy didn't
work).
I mentioned this a few weeks ago, but, if you can't record what's broadcast, how can you prove that it ever was?
If a government, anywhere, chooses to rewrite history so that an event 'never happened', it will be of great importance to them that news broadcasts can not be recorded.
Yeah, because lord knows we only get out news and history from the TV set.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
- No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that
is marketed by that person or another acting in concert
with that person with that person's knowledge for use in
circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title.
because it wasn't manufactured or marketed with the intent to be used for copyright infringement.The same is true of compilers (used to write tools that infringe), scissors (if someone uses cloth as an access control device), or brains (can potentially crack anything).
Has lock technology stagnated because of laws against lockpicking? Possibly, but not completely. However, at some point we have to say that it's not right for a person to initiate agression against another person.
--
I did. Thank you for the information.
(someone mod him up please?)
DNA just wants to be free...
Fer chrissakes, Hagelin has a PhD in nuclear physics! An IQ of 165! And he's not as much of a socialist as Nader...
http://www.hagelin.org/
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
I believe that Ralph Nader truly has good intentions, and is generally a guy of decent character...
That being said, I firmly believe that the policies he proposes would greatly *increase* political corruption in the U.S. Nader proposes to vastly increase the size of the federal government and its control over businesses... thereby increasing the incentive for business people to lobby/bribe politicians for favors, access to markets, and thwarting of competitors ( this is how it works in China and Russia which, as I am sure you are aware, have very large governments)
If you want to reduce corruption, get rid of the power that politicians have to dole out special treatment to different corporations and industries.
Favoritism, lobbying and political manipulation doesn't just happen at the Federal level.... it goes all the way down to your local 'Economic Development Commission' - the one that grants 10-year tax breaks and free infrastructure buildout to certain companies that it wants to attract, but not to others.
I'd like to wind up my rant by saying that I agree with the other posters... If you want your freedom, are tired of seeing your tax dollars wasted, want to end the completely absurd War on Drugs, and not leastly want to reduce corruption, Vote Libertarian, from the presidential ticket all the way down to the state and local level.
--
--
Unless I'm mistaken, that was a calculated move on 2600's part; they wanted to fight in higher courts than the one in which they were originally sued.
Of course, in the end it would take the SUpreme Court to shut down that travesty once and for all. But even the battles we lose will end up in our favor when that time comes, because we can use them to show the RIAA/MPAA/DVD-CCA/etc. for what they truly are.
----------
Life is too short to watch TV
I excercise more, I read more, I code more, I do more things not related to computers, I date more women, I spend more time with my family and friends. Best part of all, I'm not contaminating my brain with the pointless garbage that fills up what we call TV, how many shows are on TV simply because of short skirts and breasts? Pro-wresting is one of the most popular shows on TV, it's fake violence. I woke up one day and I couldn't stomach the crap that I dedicated time to, the idea that I would setup the VCR to tape something because it was too important to miss makes me sick when you really look at it all. And then there are the commercials, it seems like they can't even put together a complex thought and communicate it to you anymore without a fricking commercial getting in the way.
What I want is an HDTV without the tuners, they are optional plug-ins anyway... I just want it to be a monitor for a digital VCR type device, be it HDVD or whatever and I don't care if I have to pay to view. I just want it to watch movies on occasion.. BTW, I go to more movies now, and yeah it costs more money but there is something about getting up, leaving the house and watching a movie with other people, it's probably a good thing for a lot of geeks to do more often.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
If this wasn't such a close race I'd consider it. But there's still a scary chance that Bush may win (it's still neck-and-neck)... Gore is only edging Bush, and the perception that Gore will win may cause people to vote for Nader or worse, stay at home.
I don't want to throw a vote at Nader and have Bush be president. That would be insane.
READ *MY* LIPS: NO NEW BUSHES.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Soldering irons aren't illegal under the DMCA as long as they're advertised as they currently are. 17 USC 12 (2)(C):
Last year, breaking simple encryption to watch a japanese import DVD on your Linux box wasn't a felony. In the '80s, the idea of an encrypted CD was laughable and a copyrighted show you saw in your childhood would be public domain before you died of old age.
Things change, and they're not changing for the better here.
That's going too far.
THey should be able to regulate limited public resources only.
RF spectrum.. yes. We need regulation here. THis regulation should be based on use & benefit to society, not the 'highest bidder'. Keep people from hogging spectrum just to maintain monopoly, but don't keep people from using underused spectrum either.
Television, Telecom: This only works out as a 'public' resource for a couple reasons. 1) the amount of land and right-of-ways across the country used for this (people 'own' property, but as a whole, the people of a country 'own' their country). The ohter is that, without the public, it is useless. Telecom has no power without customers.... similar to some trade unions. If the people get together, the people can demand things.
However.. the FCC regulating what kind of TV's oyu can sell is getting out of hand. Now they are trying to regulate a MARKET, and that is wrong. Stick to resources.
The "life + 70" figure (doesn't that sound like a prison sentence for free speech?) comes from the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, also known as the Copyright Theft Act.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
before TV stations have to give up their analog TV frequencies, there will be affordable (~$200?) set-top boxes to let you convert HDTV signals to be played on your current analog NTSC TV. So you could just use one of these boxes to strip out any digital copy protection, but at the same time it would degrade the video quality to VHS.
Before these boxes are released to the public, Macrovision brand copy protection will be required by law, and making, using, or selling a device to defeat Macrovision brand copy protection will be made a crime under changes to copyright law <cough>DMCA 2.0</cough>.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
But just because the decoder and displayer are layed out in source code doesn't mean that it's trivial to decode to a file, especially to a non-programmer. The DMCA focuses on manufacturing and distribution of programs that circumvent copyright protections. It does not say anything about making the job easier.
Indeed, it might be possible to write two programs, neither of which directly infringe on copyrights by themselves, but when combined allow infringement. Which would be at fault? The DMCA, 17 U.S.C. sec. 1201 (a)(2), lays out rules on determining that.
For a real-world example, what if a program were made that accesses the decoded video from a software DVD decoder by watching the decoder's memory? The program that leeches from the decoder would be found at fault. Though neither of the programs alone could allow copy infringement, the leecher 1) has no other useful purposes, 2) was created and marketed soley for infringing, and 3) has no other commercially significant purpose, but the decoder passes on all three counts. Note that the software decoder was the one that actually decoded the stream, not the leecher, but the leecher was still at fault.
Similarly, I don't think an OSS viewer would be at fault (it has legitimate uses and wasn't designed to be used for infriingement). But an OSS copier which uses some code (leeches?) from the OSS viewer would be found at fault under the DMCA.
--
But breaking in and copying software (with no loss of information to the owner) doesn't seem to be nearly as evil as breaking into an unlocked house and stealing the jewels.
--
Hype never cares whether the thing is bad or good- everything is equally overhyped until it becomes meaningless, and if you're not lucky the stuff itself becomes subservient to the hype- content gets written according to what somebody thinks will sell, rather than what somebody thinks is good. In the music industry this has taken the form of brutally extreme compression until the music is practically one big square-wave- have you _heard_ just how rotten the sound quality of Britney Spears music really is? But it's louder than the competition on Top 40 radio- until someone else comes along and turns up the gain even more, dares to produce even more flat and oversaturated sonics in the name of being louder than the next band. That's desperately seeking attention too- the _bad_ way.
The new business model will likely be about specialisation- and it will certainly be about what's good rather than what's mass market. But the underlying fact is that it will be about attention- getting attention over the din of noisy mass market competition by zeroing in on what particular people CARE about, and delivering that, bigtime. Word of mouth will become madly solicited, but skepticism will rise at the same time when it becomes clear that multinational conglomerates are in fact trying really hard to get your friends to sell you on stuff- and stuff that has integrity will end up with major cult followings on an Internet scale. Look at what happened with Napster- that is a simple product that does what you expect it to- bam, it's a worldwide controversy and threatens entire industries. Napster grew through word-of-mouth and attention... people, in vast numbers, went 'well THIS is worth my time, let's see what we can find!' And they did. If you tried to hype up a comparable service that didn't deliver on the promise as well, nothing would happen...
Don't you see what a great setup this is? I will risk being mocked once again (ha! Piss off, mockers, 'cause I refuse to quit pursuing my dreams just because some dweebs think I'm self-glorifying a lot) to mention that I am getting snazzy CD-Rs printed up- archival 100-year CD-Rs, but the important thing is seven words that are on every single one- "All commercial rights RESERVED- noncommercial copying OKAY". I think this is important enough to write it right on the CDs I'm making- but I'm not so dumb that I don't realise what a killer marketing angle that is. It could provoke a shock of recognition- someone looking at the thing in a store could do a doubletake and instantly decide, 'This must be cool and underground! I should support this!' just because of the pro-copying notice. It predisposes a certain type of person to approve of the CD even if they have no idea what the music is- and might predispose them to like the music more, too- and might lead to word-of-mouth (which is priceless) and you can do this too. If you produce anything you can try to align your interests with the people who are your customers. You don't have to act like Big Media- in fact, it may be suicide. The more Big Media goes absolutely nuts and tightens the screws on consumers, the more pressure is created for a backlash effect- rewarding the people who rebel and refuse to take people's rights, or what people think of as their rights.
If there was no RIAA, no MPAA, no kids being arrested in the middle of the night or having their computers seized by police for music-sharing, then my notion to write 'copying OK' on my CDs would be dumb and meaningless. It is only meaningful in a political context when that very action is getting people arrested and their property seized. But then, it's a seriously powerful message.
This of course sets up another extortion racket for the MPAA: "Pay a licensing fee or your product is illegal" Oh, and expect free software operating systems to be among the first things the MPAA 'advertises'.
Folks - it is not about money - evil is never about money - money is to clean for evil to be interested in it; evil has always been about the creation of human misery - money is only a means to that end.
The only way to stop the DMCA is to show to the public that the people behind it are evil. But I can't even convince the geeks who are being hammered by that law of that truth. If the victims can't believe that evil is involved, there is no chance whatsoever of showing the population as a whole what is going on.
Well, breaking a lock and entering, even if it's a horrible flimsy and easy to surpass lock, is illegal.
The analogy doesn't work. It is not illegal for me to break the lock on MY front door and enter. The law there says I bought the house, it's MY lock, and I can break it if I want to.
To make the house analogy work, we'll have to make it a mobile home. It has a special lock that will only allow the door to open in the southeast region of the U.S. and then, only after playing commercial jingles for 5 minutes. If I break the lock or go in through the window I cleverly left open (either because I moved to Kansas or I just can't stand the thought of hearing that stupid commercial again), I will be charged with breaking and entering and face over a year in jail as if I had broken into someone else's house.
In other words, effectively, you don't own the player or the DVDs, you just paid full price for a lifetime rental, except that the landlord paid the judge off so that he never has to fix anything, even if the house becomes unlivable. You'll just have to rent a new one.
The government has a monopoly on the use of force. They have military and local police. That's it. No other organization can do so. Force is the coersion of last resort. The more organizational power you give to this force, the more of a dictatorship
Government should be like a hierarchical micro-kernel. The government should have a general principle that it upholds through the use of force. And it should fight to maintain it's monopoly of force (namely, getting ride of foreign agressors, violent crime, or mafia type). The laws at this level should be very simple and general. The problem is that sub-levels of government can make millions of special-interest laws, then back them up with force.
Libertarianism suggests that by making all special interests laws based on other forms of coersion, a citizen has the right to choose his course of action. If I choose to defy the RIAA, then the RIAA can choose to exclude me from their patrionage. They may also be able to colude with others to do the same. BUT, I could still live my life. Currently the RIAA can call apon civil legal justices which in turn can call apon the police and or the military to arrest you, confine you, and possibly even put you to death.. All because the RIAA's special interest conflicts with yours.
Here's the problem.. Let's say you elect a Lib. president. He takes power away from the fed. gov. and passes that power onto the states.. Then you have traditional republican + democratic officials controlling you at the local level. A state-constitution may not have as many civil liberties as the fed does. Also, special interests could more successfully target regional states (with less money, no likely). A state may not even have soft-money protection laws. The point of Libertarianism, is that you push all Force-based government out of special interests (including environmentalists and civil libertarians, for better or worse). You introduce Darwinian natural selection.. Supposedly states will have to compete for citizens, so it'll be in their interests to make good policy. But this is no defense against abuse.
No correct system, just better or worse for the time being.
-Michael
-Michael
Don't worry... I'm still having a lot of fun seeing Slashbots cry in outrage at everything I post.
Actually, yes. If one can afford a weapon it is my belief that one should be able to purchase it, if one can convince someone to sell it. So if I can form a consortium to buy a single ack-ack, then we deserve to have it. Won't do us a whole lot of good, but...