Slashdot Mirror
Congress Plans DMCA Sequel: The SSSCA
Declan McCullagh writes: "If you thought the DMCA was a nightmare, wait 'til you find out what Congress is planning this fall. The sequel is called the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act," and it requires PCs and consumer electronic devices to support "certified security technologies" to be approved by the Commerce Department. Backers of the SSSCA include Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.), who heads the powerful Senate Commerce committee, and, reportedly, Disney. Wired News has a report, and I've placed the SSSCA draft text (new! more criminal penalties!) online here. D'ya think that maybe Congress doesn't like OSS very much?" This is only a draft, not even introduced as a bill yet, but it sends chills down my spine - this is the big one. If passed, it would require all personal computers to have digital rights management built in, under penalty of law.
7215 Fernview
San Antonio, TX 78250
September 8, 2001
The Honorable Representative Charlie A. Gonzalez
327 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Honorable Representative Charlie A. Gonzalez,
It has come to my attention that Rep. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) will introduce a bill titled the The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act which will make it impossible for me to use the Linux computer operating system on equipment covered by the Act. I regard my right to use Linux to be as inviolate as my right to write you this letter. Indeed, I am using Linux for that purpose right now. I'm a Democrat, but if you do not vote against this bill I will vote for your opponent when your term is up.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Bruns
Error:
It would be a civil offense to create or sell any kind of computer equipment that "does not include and utilize certified security technologies"
:-)
Could this really come to pass? Making it an offense to solder together a few chips, to play MP3s (for instance). Somehow I doubt anything this draconian would really happen. But then again, America excelled itself with DMCA so who knows what next
It might be worthwhile for people from other contries to try and get diplomatic pressure put onto the US to get rid of this while it is gestating. I don't think an abortion of this travesty would be out of line! Also, I wonder what that will do for free trade: computers could be made in Canada or Mexico and shipped into the US. Personally, I'm glad I don't live in the US. You have a facist government!
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Perhaps now all the IT people who jumped the sinking ship of Australia will come back!?!?!
What next, build the hand cuffs in to the keyboard?
Im glad I dont live in the US.
Think abut it for a second. Why wouldn't you want digital rights management built into your computer equipment? What? Oh - you want to play your DVD's one Linux. Get a decent operating system, one where you have to PAY for your right to use the stuff you buy.
What? You think, you should be allowed to do what you want, with the stuff that you own? Get real - this is the 21st century - you can't just do stuff, because you want to. What's next? You don't want to pay for using your computer? What are you? Some kind of communist?
(Yes - that was sarcasm)
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
what's happening? The US government is obviously being terribly corrupted by various organizations with lots of money. The fact that this bill is even being contemplated says a lot about what corporations will do. Libertarians seem to think that by reducing gov't influence in daily life that things will somehow work out for the better. Hmm. Stupid! Sorry, but the fact is that corporations would have even more control and we would live in a capitalist dictatorship! Right now, the balance is sliding ever so slowly towards more power for corporations. It is only slow because they are somewhat restricted in their methods by regulations of the gov't. And the gov't is the only organization which has the power to respond appropriately to pressure from the citizens. Boycotts only work with massive support, and I don't think American consumers have the balls to do that anymore. On the other hand, only relatively large numbers of citizens are required to raise enough stink to get legislation trashed. Good luck USA - you are gonna need it. I'm scared living in Canada just because of proximity.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
If there are any South Carolina Slashdotters, organizing a movement to get Hollings removed in the next election (Or a recall vote if the state allows it) would be a good thing. Not that I've ever met anyone on the Internet who has claimed to be from South Carolina. The state seems to be one of those Internet black holes like Mississippi...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This just seems like another opportunity for Slashdotter to bitch and moan, without actually doing anything to help. If this happens again the law would actually pass, and we'd all be screwed.
Is Hollings going to be reelected in November? For those living in South Carolina, write him, saying that you will not reelect him if the law passes. A delegation should also go to Congress and show them how digital rights management, especially SDMI, is a pain in the ass (even if you're using Windows and approved software).
I'm just sick and tired of everyone here being complacent and not doing anything useful to put a stop to stuff like this.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
I'm taking bets on how prohibitive the "Digital Rights Management" software will be to include in open source software, forget for a minute that we don't want it. I'm willing to bet that the source code will be under NDA, and/or require a per-instance fee to use... Any other ideas about potential evilness? Possible "Death of Open Source" showstoppers?
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
If I were American, I'd be thinking about emigration at this point.
Traditionally we Canadians love needling Americans like a younger sibling needles their big sibling, but in all honesty, anyone who wants to settle down north of the 49th will be welcomed with open arms.
After all, it's not the first time.
The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), scheduled to be introduced by Hollings, backs up this requirement with teeth: It would be a civil offense to create or sell any kind of computer equipment that "does not include and utilize certified security technologies" approved by the federal government.
It also creates new federal felonies, punishable by five years in prison and fines of up to $500,000. Anyone who distributes copyrighted material with "security measures" disabled or has a network-attached computer that disables copy protection is covered.
Hollings' draft bill, which Wired News obtained on Friday, represents the next round of the ongoing legal tussle between content holders and their opponents, including librarians, programmers and open-source advocates.
I guess that the time has come where the computer world will divide into above ground and an underground groupings.
If you can't sell a computer that's not security equipped, we who want to control our own technology will be like the people in a cyberpunk novel or in the Matrix, who have to cobble together their own technology apart from the mainstream.
Open Source and Free Spftware communities may come together on this too; I can't see a small group of developers providing the same glossy presentations to Congress describing their security that Windows and its associated companies would.
It's not a law yet, but it shows the way the law is going.
And if the law is going this way we have to consider the question reform or revolution; are we going to allow the vrey concept of computing to be taken over by a small corporate elite if it will allow computing and the Internet to extend to places where it hasn't reached before?
Or, do we have to act as free people do under repression - keeping our very names and acts truly secret, building computers and writing in basements instead of at bright stores?
Goat sex free since 2001
...that I am _very_ thankful I'm Canadian and the US is not the Policeman of the World (yet). But then again, looking at poor Dmitry Sklyarov, you might get a different picture...
I think we now all know that its time to start swimming TO cuba not from it
Right.
Prohibition was proposed and passed. It turned the US into the Mafia riddled soup of corruption it is today!
Took 12 years before that particular law was fixed.
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
DMCA is bad enough as it is. The people speak out, yet congress doesn't listen. They listen to the big dollars that the companies throw at them. The people are right, they unlike the companies are not corrupt as a whole. I say revolution, the OSS revolution must be extended to a revolt against all the corrupt laws that have been and are being passed. There is one thing that takes away from the natural course of technology and society and that is laws, especially Intellectual Property. When laws are corrupt then what else is there to say about society?
rzbx
Question everything.
...when Linux is outlawed, only outlaws will run Linux.
I'm a writer of SF and If this bill goes though I'll have to retroactively change some of my work because I hadn't predicted this kind of legeslation for another fifty years, and it is the core of one of (imo) my best stories. With out giving anything away, I had forseen the creation of 'the black net', and underground version of the internet, using technology outside of the goverernments control, to allow the law abiding to go about their every day communication in private. This is is only a short story but when the revisions are finnished I'll make sure all the /.ers get to know about it...
"As far as I know there have been very few complaints from intellectual property holders," [Rep. Howard] Coble, the chief sponsor of the DMCA, said in an interview Tuesday.
That's like saying there were very few complaints from whites in the south about Jim Crow laws...
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Under the SSSCA, industry groups have a year to agree on a security standard, or the Commerce Department will step in and decide on one. Sunshine laws would not apply to meetings held in conjunction with the law, and industry organizations would be immune from antitrust prosecution.
And it will take us about 1 week at best to figure out a way around it if necessary.
Seriously though, this is scary and it makes me feel very good that OS's like Linux, BEOS, and Atheos are in existance....something like this could never fly without it built into the hardware, and god knows the hardware manufactures aren't gonna like this, much less the consumers....even the common Joe Shmoes out there. I doubt Joe's gonna be happy to find out he can't make his own custom CD's with EZ coaster creator with his brand new top of the line machine a few years from now.
puck
Now isn't THIS a conduct remedy that Microsoft would approve of?
Slightly more seriously, this is downright stupid, and wouldn't work. Security should be in layers, tighter the closer you get to the backbone. In particular, ISPs should let no traffic out that doesn't say it's from their network - stopping spoofed packets goes a long way.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Konqueror has no leetness factor however quick and light it may be.
Mozilla on the other hand is the be-all end-all of web browsers. A monster with a charm.
Isn't this the exact problem with the DMCA, this idea that laws should be more like an umbrella that can cover a great many things than a law that in concise and easily distinguishable from one another?
I am all for laws that protect people and /or companies from any sort of theft but I do not support the DMCA because of how general it is.
Of courseI haven't read the rest of the draft as of yet, flame if need be in re: to things stated later, but those two little words raised my ire something fierce.
"From of old, there are not lacking things that have attained Oneness." - Lao Tzu
I definitely want to write to my congressman (whos the US Rep for Austin?) - what kinds of things should I say? The first letter on here was a little harsh, i don't think threatening the representative to not vote for him is going to bother him too much. obviously to convince a congressman you have to show some of the far-reaching effects of the bills under consideration to show them why they should or shouldn't be against a piece of law. should i even write to him now? or wait until the bill actually goes to commitee? suggestions? - "I Just Want To Be Friends."
-- Microsoft is the best becau[INVALID PAGE FAULT IN MODULE Signature.exe AT ADDRESS 0x4353]
Remember what the Sony executive once said about taking the "battle for IP rights" to each users home and computer.
While that's obvious to us that doesn't mean that the bill won't be ram-rodded through now that the most recent batch of MPAA/RIAA checks have cleared the Senators' banks. The only way to stop this is to raise such a howl that they dare not go forward. If we act now (when the bill is just a draft) we can make it clear to them that we can't even allow them to get past that stage.
I am going to be writing letters to Senators and will be sending letters and emails to press outlets (using the list of a few hundred addresses scraped from "Mr. Smith Writes ..."). This is regardless of what other /.-ers do.
The reason I'm posting this is that I'd like to get a little feedback (some ideas, which is what an open forum like this is great at) concerning the people to whom I should send letters to make the biggest impact. Of course the Senators directly involved, and my own Senators/Reps. Who else?
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
While the RIAA, MPAA, Disney etc are big and powerful, relitive to the computer industry they are mere bugs on the windshield.
While the DMCA was an annoyance to them, this would be a major pain for it. Surely they could and would buy enough votes to kill this bill?
Canadians are reminded that September 15 is the deadline for comments on the DCMA-equivalent law proposed for Canada. That is, if they are even aware of it: the request for comments went up September 7, allowing a generous :( one-week window for comments from
the public.
I recently read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.. Basicallt, he predicted that the workers would eventually become sick of the dictatoring rich and powerful, and would overthrow them by force.
Now, obviosuly this didnt happen. With the introduction of a descent democratic society in the world, their really wasnt any need for such a thing.
But, WHAT NOW? I dont know about you my friends, but THIS is NOT a democracy. If I was a United States Citizen, and this thing does get through, I would GET THE FUCK out of there.
Or, alternativly.. REVOLT.. If this thing does get through, dont stop with measly protest people.. GET OUT THERE AND FIGHT.. seriously, can you really live in a sociaty based on facism, one which the rich companies CONTROL the government? I KNOW I COULDNT!
THE GEEKS HAVE NOTHING TO LOOSE BUT THEIR CHAINS. THEY HAVE A WORLD TO WIN
GEEKS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!
stuff
See The Right to Read: A Dystopian Short Story
When I first read it, it seemed far fetched, though I could see what it was saying and it's relation to the DMCA. Now I'm not so sure.
This is the second step to that situation, folks!
Goddamn it, we need a Political Action Committee in support of digital rights. We have no voice on the hill right now, and until we get one we are SCREWED with these laws!
I know this is just bitching and moaning on my part, but someone needs to start forming one. We're soo good at forming development teams, but where are the people who can form a PAC?
We need to put our money where our mouths are. Anyone have any suggestions on how to start a PAC?
Libertarians seem to think that by reducing gov't influence in daily life that things will somehow work out for the better. Hmm. Stupid! Sorry, but the fact is that corporations would have even more control and we would live in a capitalist dictatorship!
Corporations are creatures of the State. If government didn't explicitly permit limited liability, it couldn't exist (who's going to agree that they don't have the right to sue the owners, just because the 'corporation' went bankrupt? ...but that's how it is now, because the State backs it up). Without government, businesses would actually have to serve customers to stay in business, instead of using government force (paid for by taxes stolen in part from those same customers) to extort money, as many do now.
Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
I think you miss some of the points of libertarianism. Let me just rebutt your argument for now.
One of the basic precepts of the libertarian philosphy is adherance to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is all there, in plain English, for anyone to read. The tenth amendment is the trump card here, it basically tells the federal government to go screw itself; it isn't allowed to do much of anything.
So if the federal government can't do anything, this is left as in issue for the states. Pushing one bill through Congress is one thing, pushing the same bill through 50 states is something else entirely. For instance - if South Carolina decides that all computers must have some sort of digital rights system built in, OSS people, computer manufacturers, etc. will not work in South Carolina. They will lose the revenue of those industries. Due to free trade within the states, they can relocate to another state, and still sell their product. South Carolia loses those industries, another state picks them up. Competition is the key here.
Let the states fight it out, and we all win. It is easier for individuals and small interests to act at a state level, and the effects of crazy laws such as this one would be minimized. Many state constitutions are very restrictive, also, and that is yet another benefit. When it becomes more difficult for the government to enact arbitrary laws such as this, there will be less arbitrary laws.
So what can someone outside of the US do about this? Playing Microsoft (sending fake letters ;) ) is probably not the right thing to do. ;)
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Perhaps this could lead to something good. It could severely impede American economy in a way that rips the government out of the complacent feeling of being all alone on the planet.
The more laws of this kind are passed (and since this one is backed by a strong lobby, I guess it will be passed), the more resistance will be created. Not only by "underground criminals", but also by hard- and software producers outside the U.S. who just don't want to follow stupid rules.
I only hope that other governments don't get infected by ALD (American Lawmaking Desease) and decide to follow lead and that the U.S. procceed on their path quickly enough to create a certain degree of isolation
And never forget - don't tie your alligator to the fire hydrant or let your horse eat it. It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
Wow. Fun. Hardware enabled copy pretection. But that hardware can only do so much without the software hooks to look at adata. Would that mean that if linux did include hooks for the protection hardware and standard that it its self would be illeagal? Maybe. What about Apache, for slashcode (or phpslash :) would all software have to include hooks to verify all media (software, cd's images, movies, sounds, etc..)?
things like apache could concevably be considereded enabling technologies that enable piracy and copyright infringment.. How far would it go? Where aould DMCA stop and this shit take over?
Grrr.. I don't want big brother in my computer or in my life. I pay my taxes and do my good deed a day, enough is fucking enough, I consider this harassment by the U.S Govermnent and should this law go into effect, I will be seeking Political Asylum in another country.
The idea of a law doesn't surprise me -- I had seen the winds blowing the same direction and figured that it would be on a technical and economic level.
First, note that PCs are included. What many don't know is that there is a "Trusted" PC initiative which already has silicon ready - see "http://www.trustedpc.org" for some information. Microsoft as part of this will create an operating system that works with these PC features in the next 2 years.
With a "trusted" pc, all the software is signed by a big entity ("trust us"), and any modifications will make it no longer trusted. Would this law make it a crime to have an untrusted PC on a network? I thought that Microsoft would make deals with "content providers" and popular online destinations (banks were my first choice) to say "you must connect with a secure (ie, trusted) pc." Would Linux *ever* be able to be "trusted" since it is designed to be user modifiable, and the developers are unlikely to spring for the costs of certification.
This proposed law gives several big players the power to scheme without much risk of accusations of collusion. These schemes will probably result in financial harm to the other players, especially a certain underdog who are also dependent on the Microsoft monopoly.
Think to the not-too-distant future, where "budget" PCs come with a processor that will check the signature on the bios, the bios will check the signature on the operating system, and the operating system will check the signature of all the components. How do you install your own OS on such a system? You don't -- since of course, alternate OSes are, in the mind of Microsoft, "pirated copies of Windows." Sure, some grey-box PCs will still let you do Linux on them, but they won't be in compliance with this law, and you won't be able to use them -- maybe an exemption will be made for "servers," after all, the home audio recording act makes similar exemptions for high-end hardware. Licensed server-owners can run "untrusted" operating systems. But the key Linux demographic -- the random programmer, probably college student, with too much time on his hands -- will be left out in the cold.
... in convincing everyone of this concept of "intellectual property" and it's supposed sovereign position over free speech. They seem to have even convinced our representatives in congress, which is most terrifying.
Why is everyone suddenly so blind to the FACT that without free speech in the first place, there would be no "intellectual property", that "intellectual property" does in fact take a BACK SEAT to free speech and the free flow of information? Why do people suddenly treat the business model based on selling "intellectual property" as if it were as important as national defense by protecting it with laws that erode personal freedom?
Copyright law, from which this concept of IP sprang was a set of laws GRANTED TO ARTISTS by the people of the United States to allow them to earn a living off their creation and encourage them to continue working. Now capitalists have formed business models based on buying and selling those copyrights and suddenly the copyright is more important than the first amendment?? Why is it suddenly more important that we protect the business model of distributors of copyrighted material than it is to protect the freedom that allows the creators of our country to build upon prior knowledge?
Go Lakers!
More and more programmers are getting fed up with the corporate control of the industry and the laws that protect corporations and not individuals. All the restrictions on what can be done on a computer is going to stop hackers who live and breath computers to be born. The only programmers who go into the industry are going to be people just looking for a paycheck.
I myself am getting sick of having projects of mine get threatened by lawsuits because "it looks similar" to a commercial project. The computer industry is just turning into every other industry in this world, just another source of profits for corporations and something for the government to manipulate to fuel the economy.
...I hope this thing passes. It will make people even more violent towards the government. McViegh was the first hero, who will be the next?
You sir, are a dumbass. The mistake: thinking Libertarians support the government's right to make such laws as this. You're confused with the liberals and the Socialists.
Libertarianism is not power for corporations. It's power to do whatever you want, within your personal bounds. A libertarian could smoke pot, fuck goats, or reverse engineer trade secrets all day long. This and similar laws are big government. Don't be a jackass.
Tell the conference organizers to meet in Russia from now on as they harbor a more "free" and innovative environment. irony of ironies...
-------------rhad, a poor US college student destined to either leave the fucked up US or go to jail for wanting to be anonymous, speaking out and protesting corporations hellbent on a "fuck the individual" policy, and dreaming of a government that actually cares about the people who made it possible, rather then a plethora of corporate whores who can add money to their demands, as opposed to just a signature.
PS: It distresses me personally as to who is to be found accountable. Apathy is so rampant. No one cares. We have the power, but just dont give a damn... Its terribly depressing.
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
It is time for all you "pentium III is way too much processor" guys to put your money where your mouth is.
The law contains a loophole for existing devices. So as I read it, your current computer is safe.
Go out and buy what you need for the next ten years now.
Nip this in the bud. Here's what to do:
Get in touch with other people from Slashdot in South Carolina. Come up with a good day when most of you will be availible.
Go to a local university's website, and look up student groups- look for libertarian, socialist, and computer clubs, email them ome info and say you'd be interested in helping organize a public protest. Ask them to contact people they know would be interested. Tell them the day you want to have the protest.
The protest should be at a government building- courthouse, city hall, it doesnt matter.
Set it to be at noon, so people will be out on the streets, for their lunch hour.
Make signs, prepare a statement for the press, etc.
Call local TV stations and newspapers, telling them you're going to have a protest, and they should come. Trust me, they'll jump at the chance.
Show up and make a big scene, but make sure the message isnt lost.
-J5K
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
You are correct in every way, fortunately, this law may or may not be passed. However, if the law is passed, it will prove that the United States government is truly stupid and communist about internet/technology. I wouldn't throw it past *extremely* well-paid motherboard manufacturing companies for a second to use your signature system, and it sure would make Microsoft's day to see Linux become practically 'illegal' in the USA, because it might not be the world, but its a large block of it, and nobody can argue me there. This post comes from a happily Canadian citizen who will, if this law is passed, never touch a computer on US soil.
What about all the old PC's that are already out there which do not have this technology in them? Are they grandfathered under this, or do they immediatley become illegal to use?
And what about computers from other countries who don't have these laws and these "protective" measures.
Will it be illegal to import them?
More importantly, will it be illegal to INTERFACE with them over a network like the internet?
If all interactive devices have to follow these guidelines, then what if I say, have a device that records music that can connect to the sound card of a PC with an analog connection? That would allow me to circumvent copy protection. So would it be illegal to make audio recorders and PC's which use standard analog connectors?
The key to killing this and the DMCA is to render it unenforcable. Think about it, why was Prohibition repealed ? because drinking was so wide spread, the federal government would have had to arrest the President and most of both the Senate and Congress. An underground internet needs to be built which can propagate the tools far and wide and of course the blackmarket for hardware. Make it so cheap, easy and wide spread that the Feds would have no hope what so ever of enforcing the law. My Great GrandFather was a Bootlegger and was proud of that fact until the day he died, and I will be proud to call myself a Bootlegger in the 21st century.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
It's all good until people start getting killed. Us geeks talk a good game, but when the time comes, and shit starts going down....we'll see what happens.
As a Canadian, all I can say is that if you believe Canada will remain a haven from stupid american laws, you're not thinking straight.
First off, these stupid American laws are -all- sponsored by BIG BUSINESS...the same big business that is here in Canada. They're already buying a Canadian version of the DMCA (vote? democracy? Don't make me laugh..this is Canada).
Second, our prime minister is nothing but a follower...whatever the US does, Canada must do as well. Look at all the bitching and moaning going on right now over GW Bush's praise of Mexico over Canada. Are our leaders saying "nuts to you, we have our own country and we exist IN SPITE of the US"? No, they are crying and whining because the big kid on the block has a new friend. SOME LEADERSHIP, EH? It's nice to know our so-called LEADERS only see this country in the shadow of the US, not as an independant country in it's own right.
Third...look at the precident. Sheila Copps, the idiot MP from Hamilton (notorious for not having a clue and wasting millions of taxpayer money on stupid little Canadian flags) was the one that sponsored the "hey we're all guilty, let's tax CDROM media" law (on behalf of big business, of course...constituants be damned). I believe her ministry is responsible for the CDMCA draft as well. She gave the canadian media giants exactly what they wanted with the CDROM fine (it's not a tax, we're being FINED..presumed guilty by default)...I shudder to think what will happen with the CDMCA.
So, in summary, Canada is NOT A HAVEN from this stupidity. All politicians are for sale, American or Canadian.
Strange, I don't see the USAF shooting down boats full of American refugees heading toward Cuba.
I don't think it wise to rely on the hardware manufacturers to stop this type of law. We have to remember, they are also big companies which have only one overiding goal: profit. All that it would take to win their undying support is for some way of offsetting the costs to them be created. Maybe the music/video industry would arrange some sort of profit sharing mechanism for computer vendors that sell cd or dvd players?
We also have to remember that most of the costs for developing the software and changing the production lines to incorporate them are upfront. The costs would certainly decrease over time. Look at the V-chip for an example.
Peace, or Not?
Perhaps I was not clear enough. I do not believe that libertarians support laws such as this, quite the contrary, I know they do not. But the reason this kind of law is conceived is because the govt does not have enough power to respond to the citizens rather than be manipulated by corporations. If you take away power from government, it doesn't automatically go back to the citizens like libertarians would like to believe. Rather, it would now fall strait into the laps of the corporations.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
With this shotgun definition, you could cover flip-flops, signal fires, morse code, thumbs-up, middle finger.
Sec. 104: Adoption of Security System Standards - The private sector has 12 months to agree on a standard, or the Secretary of Commerce will step in... The standard can be later modified.... If industry can agree, the secretary will turn their standard into a regulation
This is the scariest paragraph. I started off laughing at the "12 months to agree" part, but sobered up pretty darn fast. A standard that can be changed, made into a regulation - doesn't that sound like a law that can be changed basically on a corporate whim?
What did you expect?
It's already illegal to share copyrighted material and billions are still doing it every day, so how to fix this "serious threat to the national economy"? Simple, force people (actually, the manufactures) to use a system that has copyright protection built in it and make it illegal to bypass this. Hmm, wait a second...here's that little problem again. When you put a law that applies for a selected few (manufacturers) it will be followed, but a law that applies for the masses (us) will be extremly hard to enforce. So I guess nothing will change for us, just that manufacturers will have a hard time since they are in the dangerzone of committing a federal crime.
Anataka suki desu. Itsumo. Itsumademo.
Should this bill be introduced, passed, and signed, it might have serious effects on the ability to run Linux in the U.S. The bill explicitly refers to software--including, I presume Linux, but even if it applied only to hardware, drivers to use the new "secure" videocards, "soundcards", and other mandated hardware components would most likely not be open source, due to licensing/certification requirements.
Should it apply also to software, the failure of coders to implement "secure media pathways" in the kernel could mean that Linux could not be manufactured in and/or imported into the U.S. .
Theoretically, even if the kernel did contain such protection, any hacker could adjust certain lines of sourcecode to ensure that plaintext versions of copyrighted material could be accessed without much effort-- a loophole that could be plugged by a zealous Commerce Secretary banning "source code" versions.
Although certain grandfathering provisions exist in the bill, we all know that the kernel is not set in stone-- and new versions are released regularly to deal with new hardware, fix bugs, and improve performance. Ten years from now, kernel-2.4.x will likely not run on the latest and greatest hardware...
So, don't think of this as just another DMCA. Think of the bill as a "closed source subsidy act". Think of Jack Valenti and his ilk rooting your box...
I thought that in one of the MS trials, the judge had rejected the Govt's case on the basis of the Govt shouldn't be in the business of designing software.
Now it sounds like the Govt wants to create security standards, and all software must be certified to meet this standard.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
I live @ 20 miles from the 49th parallel. I'm thinking the preliminary post SSSCA price for an unwelded hard drive should be...um...two thousand bucks? Any takers?
Seriously, if I lived in the states, I'd be stocking up right now. Or considering a move...
You're using her as bait, Master!
Lets make the extreme presumption that this Bill is passed and events conspire to mean that the GNU/Linux OS is in breach of the law. Who do the government prosecute?
The obvious choice would be Linus, but as Richard Stallman never fails to tell us, the Linux OS is more than its kernel. Even if Linus were to be prosecuted it would hardly be the end of the kernel as the OSS model would allow anyone with the correct skills to pick up development.
Do you prosecute the distributors such as Red Hat or do you try and take on the developers? For gods sake would they try and jail all those using it?
Also why do I get the scary feeling that the US government/media could probably make this look like a crackdown on evil hackers?
Jon
The first time I used Java, I was thinking "Middleware. Someone is trying to lock down the core OS." (the core OS being where the rights management layer exists).
Now MS is going to VM's running C#.
All I can say is, it's all so transparent, it's ludicrous. Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Let them turn the PC into a boring consumer device just like the VCR.
Fuck it. I don't want one anymore. I will sell mine along with my TV. Keep your damn Charley Pride CDs, too.
I have a bicycle, a tennis racket, and golf clubs that are turning out to be infinitely more entertaining than this damn
"all your rights/money are belong to us" box anyway.
I would love to see what would happen to their precious profits if even half of us would just walk away.
Of course it is DMCA, not DCMA. I also have trouble with MSCE, I mean MCSE. (Don't mod this up; it's just that I can't bear not to correct my silly error.)
So while the U.S. is taking steps to ensure that the last few remnants of personal freedom in that country is being taken away, I can happily sit back satisfied with knowing that the beer is also better in europe anyway ;)
Would anyone know the status of getting the DMCA to europe ? There was some talk about it, but I haven't heard anything lately. That can mean two things... Which is it ?
BTW, That's Senator Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) and the bill will be introduced in the Senate. So, I would encourage you to send/address the letter to your U.S. Senators from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Phil Gramm. Come to think of it, considering Phil Gramm is retiring, also send it to John Cornyn, the present Texas Attorney General, and Dan Morales, the former Texas Attorney General, who are running for Gramm's U.S. Senate seat.
On a related note, I've read elected officials attach more significance to letters sent via snail mail. They feel a constituent took the time to sent out the letter and, therefore, feel strongly to the position. And, might as well also ask for the repeal of DMCA?
IBM said that they were going to spend $1 billion dollars to support linux and OSS, well I think that they should put some of that cash to protect against such stupid laws. I'm sure that even a govenment as uninformed as the US will listen when IBM puts its case.
:)
sorry about the spelling I'm australian and its very late.. nother VB please
Memory is cheap, hard drive space is cheap, processors are cheap. If this law looks like it's going to go into action and is as bad as /. is making it out to be, I'm going to buy up some hardware before it gets enacted. Remember, as long as there are any semi-free communication channels there is the opportunity to tunnel anything you want (encrypted) over it. Unless they start going door to door, they'll never be able to get the old hardware, and I'll refuse to buy the new hardware. If they do go door to door, well, I'm not staying in such a country. There are other countries that will leave me alone if only for the fact that they are so underdeveloped they won't even notice me.
The DMCA passed the Congress by a unaminous vote, because those stooges and toolies are voting for their campaign contributors and not the citizens of this nation. Now they are going to give us this?
Let's do something about it. Let's do it fast, and let's do it NOW.
Regards,
proclus
It seems very obvious now that the old dinosaurs of economy were afraid for their survival. They waited to see what would come of it.
When they saw only a disorganised rabble, they knew that the time was right to start making "sense" out of this communication medium.
So, the perfect excuse is to make the Internet safer. Make it impossible to use without governement approved (industry-backed) computers.
The corporations then get to control the whole of the hardware infrastructure, given about ten years after this law passes.
After that, there is complete control of the flow of information available. At the push of a button, MP3's and all form of digital copyrigth will be eliminated.
Don't forget that the original copyright laws stated a duration of 14 years. This has been extented, by the corporations, to 70 after death of creator.
And with a solid infrastructure to control and police individuals, it will be advantagous to extend it even more.
I live in Canada, but I don't think it will be too long before our government bends to the pressure.
Fight this monster, kill all it's children.
This attempts to restrict the flow of information, the only thing that could topple the powers that be.
Taking on space
Hopefully, this is too draconian for even the 'New Improved' U.S. government to pass. Of course, I hoped the same about DMCA.
IF it should pass, consider standing down. Go to work as usual, turn off every machine you're responsable for, and GO HOME. Stay home for a week (you probably need a vacation anyway). Then go back to work and resume operations. If SSSCA still exists in 30 days, shut it all off again and go to Mexico. I'm sure the government there would appreciate a large influx of capital and knowledge. Learning Spanish is a small price to pay for freedom.
You mean, like UCITA?
The "I want to copy my CDs so I can listen to them in the car" argument wouldnt really work because he could then say that you're pirating music by doing that, since your're making a copy of what you bought (regardless of the cause). What we really need is some kind of similie to what this law would do that normal people would understand. How about comparing it to guns that only allow you to use one brand of ammunition in them, and not allowing you to use a box of ammo for gun #1 in gun #2. We need somthing simple like that to gel the law into its simplest form, so that it's easily countered.
Also the point that it makes it illegal to import any computers that don't have this system built-in; this is arguable for the major costs it would cause to PC manufactureres in Asia, having to make one spec for US consumption and one foe everywhere else. And how would you stop me buying one from a guy in Canada off eBay?
Cue The Sun...
Shocking. This law is so very wrong. The right thing to do is the removal of all laws related to the idea of owning information. Copyright means nothing. Over the net I download whatever content I desire, freely. Patents have to go as well, all records, institutions and systems for copyright need to undergo major reform as we enter another era.
Information is no longer scarce, ok. In fact information rather than labour, is the transforming resource, so if you apply economic rationalist value to intellectual property...deregulate intellectual property.
There are many, many reasons to create intellectual property. The profit motive is a poor method because its produces popular, uninspired, unoriginal, insipid droll, eg Grammies, commerical radio, etc. The best reason to create intellectual property is for pleasure, a voluntary transaction between individuals, where no one is harmed. Open source, GNU and GPL are all truly great providers of liberty.
Laws like this will bring to society many massive underground illegal networks. I cant see how they can stopped. Gnutella, and the rest represent this. Politicians need to start making laws that protect the individual. Imagine how good it would be if we had a real superhighway, with any data freely flowing anywhere. We can turn this on, but not when US laws like this are implemented.
Terribble, very harmful, I feel very sorry for Sklyarov. Another victim of an unjust law. US citizens be very ashamed, you country continues to be ever so harmful.
It makes me ill, when I think of the old, rich, christian, motorist, white, heterosexual US politicians consider laws that protect profits. Your selfish quench for material wealth is unsustainable and therefore strongly flawed.
The individual will never have true freedom while the US government exists. Thankfully one day I will leave Earth and not only will the US government not be able to harm me, but no other individual will be allowed to either.
The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act looks to be an extremely bad law, however it is not as bad a laws that make consumption of certain substance illegal. You need to be more concerned about greenhouse gases and the energy crisis. Also we need to protect individuals living in poverty. The people in the US government are doing a poor job.
Open source truly does present a workable model for resource management that doesn't include government nor market instruments like corporations. We must quickly learn from this and implement it across all fields of modern industries. Im not a socialist because I dont want to take anyone's property, privately possessed. I am an anarchist seeking true freedom, I want less law, not more.
We must move on into the post material information age without the old capitalism idealogy. It's simply not just to create wealth at the expense of another and when I have a copy of someone elses intellectual property the author is no worse off.
You cant have money without the idea of it so I know that information is more important that a $ value. Artists, producers and others creating profit from intellectual property have to find another source of income.
All the best to the EFF and 2600
Just to clarify:
The criminal penalties only apply if the person who modified the devices did so for personal financial gain. Unless you are selling your OSS, developing FREE software isn't subject to criminal penalites.
get your network sorted quick,
business wanted Internet2 well it's probably about time WE made it.
Get your 802.11b kit quick while you still can and let's get it going.
Spread that 11mb around and with some aggregating we should be able to make a newtwork where ANYONE can connect, not just 'approved' equipment.
Once we wean ourselves away from their network we'll be back in BBS 37337 utopia again and it will be like 'the September that Never Happened'.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
They won't arrest everyone. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean everyone doing it will be arrested. They will simply arrest someone every now and then. Why do you think Corley was chosen? They will select targets they already are demonizing. Why hasn't Bush been arrested for his cocaine use? If you or I did that we'd probably be stormed by 100 FBI, DEA, BATF, local police, sherriff, etc agents, have our homes trashed, property stolen, and be shot dead at best... at worst be thrown into prison and get our asses raped, beaten, and stabbed by 70% of the prison populator for the rest of our lives.
UCITA in the states
Most electronics are manufactured in Asia,
:-)
where they probably will not adopt this legislation.. So, IF this law was passed,
they'd probably start manufacturing 'US models'
in compliance with the law, and ordinary computers
for the rest of the world. That's not going to
help the copyright holders much. Most people don't
live in the USA (Belive it or not-Congressmen!)
I see an interesting scenario ahead with hackers
smuggling contraband electronics over the US-Mexican border..
Well, well, well. I'm having flashbacks to draft protesters heading up north in the sixties. (And I wrote this sentence before checking the link in your .sig file - how ironic)
:)
The balance is shifting and you, our fine neighbors to the north, seem to be more protective of personal liberties than the much touted US of A. You even have a rational universal medical plan.
I'm afraid that it's becoming (to put it in standardized test form) freedom is to America as innovation is to Microsoft. It's a sad and frightening prospect.
My country (US) is no longer representative of the *peoples* interests. Is this what generations of Americans have fought and died for, so that corporate profit-making interests could be placed above the interests of the people? (Actually, considering the Viet Nam and Gulf wars, I guess that is true... *sigh*.)
If this continues, I will have to consider moving somewhere else and officially giving up my citizenship. I may one day have to say: "As a result of the non-representative nature of my former government (US), I'm proud to be a Canadian."
On a practical note, could someone fill me (us) in on the immigration requirements for Canada? I just want to be prepared. It's time to start looking around for a new home.
Maybe we should do an ask Slashdot for people to make an argument for the desirablity of their country in terms of freedom, living conditions, etc.
Hey Bob, could I stay at your place for a month or two while I get established and learn to say 'aboot'? I don't take up much room, I'm quiet, and I clean up after myself. I could even chip in for bandwidth.
America, love it or leave it? Bu-bye.
(Although this should say: 'Corporate States of America, love them or leave them.)
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
Well, we've tried organizing and writing to our congresspeople. We've tried supporting the efforts of groups like the EFF. We've tried, basically, all the ways that a good citizen should. Still, though, since Corporations Rule the World, we, as citizens, are being screwed.
I suppose the time for good old terrorism has come.
I wonder, now, how long it will take for the FBI to trace this post to me and then hunt me down and hang me out to dry?
The funniest thing (as in, I almost hope it passes so I can be the person to personally kick your sorry ass back into the dark ages) is the stiff fine for any "computer" that can be connected to the internet that doesn't provide for DRM.
Let's see, that's your office telephone/PBX, your office hub, your cable/DSL modem, your ISP's routers, the POP, etc. It includes almost every mainframe and large server for years - the law may require all new computer hardware to include DRM, but how often are million-dollar-plus systems replaced? For that matter, what about all of the legacy mainframes which aren't manufactured today?
Even if the Senator harrumps and says that I should stop being dense because I should know that "computer" refers to "PC-class computer" (even though countless other recent laws have repeatedly driven home the axiom that you should ignore the stated intent of the law and focus on the wording in the law itself), it will criminalize those projects to build beowulf clusters out of discarded PCs, amateur scientist projects which hook up instruments to the net with old PCs, etc.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
to the fourth Reich, the Corporate Republic, where
all your Orwellian nightmares will come to fruition....
Long Live the Corporation....
(but they are still going to have to shoot me
before I live on my KNEES X{, the same as they
did with the Jews).
I thought we'd seen the high-water mark for these kind of encroachments before the Skylarov case. This fresh enormity, and Abobe's little "push for prosecution, then wash their hands of it" have convinced me that fair-minded, above-board activity to oppose these idiots doesn't go far enough. Given the incredible degree to which the MPAA/RIAA and all the other corporate whores are willing to go to corrupt our basic rights, I say we're thoroughly justified in pirating their music/software.
This is a big step for me. I'm against piracy on principle, and prefer the convenience of just going out and buying the product rather than futzing around with Napster or it's sucessors. However, with every music CD I buy, or DVD I rent, some portion of the money I'm spending is being used to erode my liberties. To hell with that. I probably should boycott, but I don't feel particularly inclined to make my life uncomfortable and principles are clearly getting thrown out the window on the other side, so what the hell.
Maybe a less profitable music/movie industry would have less money to hire lawyers and congressmen.
Your attention, please: all second-class citizens please report for mandatory registration and branding. Thank you for your cooperation, citizen.
I'm getting myself a good rifle as soon as I can afford it. If you live in America, I suggest you do the same.
-Legion
Isn't source code/computer programs considered 'free speech' under the first ammendment? If so this entire act is unconstitutional by forcing someone to include certian things in their protected free speech. The government has absolutely NO RIGHT to tell anyone anywhere what to put in their computer operating system. This act is completely unamerican.
The sequel is called the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act," and it requires PCs and consumer electronic devices to support "certified security technologies" to be approved by the Commerce Department
For a minute there, I thought that meant they'd be banning Windows 98!
Security technologies indeed.
Kill, Tux, kill!
> Pushing one bill through Congress is one thing,
> It is easier for individuals and small interests> pushing the same bill through 50 states is
> something else entirely.
> to act at a state level, and the effects of
> crazy laws such as this one would be minimized.
With all the Libertarians that seem to have infiltrated Slashdot recently (along with the Microsoft supporters -- what, are they bussing them in these days?), I suspect I will get modded down, but ...
You're right about the conceptual differences between pushing a law at the Federal level vs. at the State level, but that's an argument for a strong Federal government (and some good campaign finance laws). It's usually the crazy (or one-issue fanatical) individuals who try to get something passed. It is easier to get a state law passed over some crazy thing than it is to get a Federal law passed. For example, laws requiring biblical creation, Jim Crowe laws, laws trying to legislate pi, etc. -- I think there's a web site on this. Of course, it doesn't preclude crazy laws happening on the Federal level; it's just not as frequent.
There's probably a complicated reason why this is, but it's probably because average person isn't really concerned about the government at all. They generally care more about the sports scores than they do about who's running the country. When they do care, it's in a "sports-type" mentality: who won the game, who won the Oscar for best actor, who's now president? That's probably why most people can name 10 sports figures, but would be hard pressed to name their state senators or representatives.
So I disagree that a weaker Federal government in favor of state governments is the answer. A stronger Federal government (along with some new campaign finance laws) is a safer bet that leaving things up to the dubious judgement of the states.
P.S., Atlas Shrugged sucked! :-)
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Copying is a fundamental operation of computers. Most of what a computer does is to make a copy from one place and move it to another place (e.g., between floppies, disks, tapes, memory, cache, registers, CD, and so on). How the hell are you going to enforce a copy control scheme on every piece of hardware and software (down to every instruction)?
The huge rate increases are in line w/ the rest of the country. I doubt that, or else the rest of the country was getting ripped off. Having over a 100% increase in rates, that's alot.
The two main issues here are: 1) what are the chances of this going through and 2) what does this mean to free OS's like Linux.
The bill introduced will indeed have broad support from such groups as RIAA and MPAA, and that will have some significant impact in Congress. But stop to think for a moment who just might be against it: the computer manufacturers themselves. If this becomes law, this is going to require a phenominal amount of retooling. Hooks would have to be built into every single piece of code that could possibly copy a file or transmit a webpage. And the part in the bill about the industry coming up with a standard? This is the same industry that today has at least four different DVD recording "standards". This is the same industry that has multiple web browsers with HTML unintelligible to all the other browsers.
I can see the inevitable arguments and attempts to pass the buck. The software manufactures will claim it is up to hardware to handle this. The hardware manufacturers will insist it is the responsibility of software. So perhaps this is a place to start. Get the hardware/software vendors on your side rather than talking to congressional folk directly. They would listen more readily to IBM or Sun Microsystems than John Q. Netizen.
Now, assuming the worst, that this law comes to pass, what does it mean to Linux? Well, if the security is implemented in hardware, would this not simply mean Linux will have to have hooks into it? Would it not be like writing just another driver? If it is up to software to implement it, that's a little harder, and would involve a lot of code revision. But it would be possible. So I don't think this law would be the death knell of Linux; it would be in the same boat with everyone else, having to rewrite its code to handle the new law.
Yes, we need to defeat this, and the earlier the better. But we need to approach it calmly and rationally.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
This just re-assures me of the complete lack of technical smarts the current lawmakers have in the US. If you put all the senators and all the representatives in one room, you might have someone who knows how to turn on a computer. It is because of this complete lack of technical expertise in government that stupid laws like the DMCA and SSSCA are even considered. If the politicians were familiar with technical issues and cared to research them at all, rather than listening to money, we migth all be better off. But I'm afraid that to almost all US politicians, computers are like big black boxes which they have no clue about and no interest in finding out about. That forces them to listen to big money because they don't know any differently.
Sometimes I wonder if it's really even worth it. We are having this many problems with computers and technology now. What will happen in 5 years when Microsoft owns everything technical because they have the cash to pay for the politicians? (or choose your big business here that will own the sector of the market) For another example, just look at the whole Napster fiasco. I feel we have actually taken a step backwards because Napster helped to open eyes to new and in most cases, better ways things can be done. But the RIAA pushed to have the old way restored. So instead of progressing and using technology to their advantage, the music industry (and I know I'm generalizing here) chose the old way therefore stifling technological advancements.
How long until corporations get to a point where they have everything they want and will therefore stifle invention to maintain their current "profitable" ways? It's already happening.
Theres no such thing as a free lunch kids. If you
lot and millions of other people out there hadn't
decided to do wholesale piracy (sorry , I mean
"ripping") of CDs and god knows what else these
idiot politicians would never even have tried to
get this law through. But no, you never thought of
that did you, it was all short termism on your part, all me me me. You didn't think of the consequences. Well I think the phrase I'm looking
for here is reap what you sowed.
I don't agree with putting copy protection built
into the OS or anywhere else to be honest but
NEITHER do I believe this naive utopian view (that
only adolescents and burnt out hippies could
believe in) that everything should be free to
anyone who wants it. If you want to know why go
read the Dummies Guide to Economics.
Assasination Politics
Extra words inserted to get around idiotic lameness filter,
I was lazy and didn't snag refrences, so perhaps others can add to this:
I'm sure the SSSCA sounds like it only defends against rampant pirating of movies and other copyrighted material--but the slope is a very, very slippery one. The recording and movie industries are very paranoid about how their products are being used (without regard to their increasing--*not* decreasing--profits). Do you have the right to listen to your music however you'd like? Fair use tenets say yes (and you can even make a backup copy), but already technology is on the shelves that doesn't allow you to play the CD on your computer or high-end stereo systems and modern car CD players.
The question you should be asking yourself is whether you are on the Hill for your constituents--the consumers, whose rights are being infringed, or the corporations on this issue. Fair Use doctrines are being ignored by laws such as the DMCA and this draft of the SSSCA, and thought this will first impact the digerati who copy all their music to their computer for easy access, it will rapidly effect the average American who can no longer watch a movie with calling in to get permission from the studio (This happened with DivX, which failed miserably on the open market), or play their CDs at all in their car stereos.
If this is riding in after the recent "Code Red" attack as a solution against future problems, perhaps the answer lies in better regulation of security testing by developers (such as Microsoft, whose servers were the only ones effected by Code Red), rather than the consumer's home system, which didn't even participate in this attack.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Communist???
This is as capitalistic as you get. It benefits the companies, not the population.
Since Disney and Hollywood so obviously and fervently want us all to drop dead, why is Slashdot still hyping 'Tron' and publishing Jon Katz's reviews of Holly wood movies?
Proteus7
I'd start (In fact, I WILL start) by sending the South Carolina branch of the Republican party a bit 'o money. The Republicans tend to be just as bad (The DMCA is Orrin Hatch's baby after all) but they're the only ones with a chance of winning against the Democrats. Your best bet is to change politicians the way you change diapers. If no one stays in power too long, no one can ever get to the point of doing a whole lot of damage. Just always vote against whoever's in office at any given point. And while it may make you sick to vote for a republican (or a democrat) they're your best bet for getting the current guys kicked out. Better that then wasting your vote on some guy from the nipplebiter party who will only get 3 votes in the election.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Your example of Jim Crowe is exactly what the guy was talking about. If somebody tried to push Jim Crowe thru fed., EVERY STATE would be explicitly segregated. Instead, only the southern states did, and eventually people didn't like it and had it changed. The point is to LET stupid laws be made to that they can be open to scrutiny by other states.
considered reserved for the people. At least in the states u have all kinds of rights you did not even know of...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
This is exactly what the SSSCA is about. Do something about it.
proclus
How should I go about explaining the danger of such a law to my friends and family, most of whom are law abiding, Windows-using, non-geeks? How would a law like this affect them?
--Greg
A damn fine idea. I already know a little spanish. This is how the labor movement started decades ago. We control the means of production... and now even infrastructure. We are much more powerful than we realize.
Of course, if this doesn't work, I'll have to look at whether I want to move to Mexico or Canada. Or is there some place better?
With Vincente Fox buddying up to Dubya, he may be willing to make all kinds of concessions to open the border and get amnesty for the illegals now in the US, including passing some of his own draconian laws at the request of American corporations (the request via thier toadies, the government).
It might be better to move to a country that is somewhat at odds philosophically with the US. Or at least has a streak of independence. Canada seems to have exhibited this.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
Zar pleska tem zep vialla?
Vatrok! Pak tumar, ve zezzembina, gezzemblat.
The criminal penalties are: "(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and (2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense." Only someone who violates the law "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" can be convicted.
-andrew
(i added the bold)
Sec. 102: Preservation of the Integrity of Security
An interactive computer service shall store and transmit
with integrity any security measure associated with certified security
techologies that is used in connection with copyrighted material or other protected content such service transmits or stores.
So in addition to burdening consumers, this will be a PAIN IN THE ASS for hardware manufacturers. This basically says that if your hardware fucks up , you're in deep lawsuit doodoo. Talk about a liability.
This gets even more interesting with power consumption algorithm analysis, since theres basically no way to counter it and I could see a court ruling that the device wasn't keeping the integrity of the security.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Suddenly "revenge of the nerds" is not a teen comedy anymore, but a social realistic drama.
They are forcing geeks and nerds, what used to be the most peaceful and passive citizens, to become outlaws. We are talking about people who are so loyal to authority that they'd report their own kin to the FBI for removing mattress tags.
It is nothing less than a declaration of war. The result is that a large population will change sides. From being fair use advocates, we will turn into rabid pirates, just for the principle.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
Of course, the flaws don't have to do with the trampling of "fair use", or perhaps even the saddling of public domain data with usage restrictions.
Under the DMCA, the models of access control could be based on a simple bitflip (Real Networks), ROT13 (some of the more incompetent Adobe Acrobat extension writers), or a 40 bit cipher that, because of design idiocy, was the equivalent of 25 bits of decently designed software (DVD/CSS).
Since these methods will go through the Commerce Department, it may be that the stupider algorithms will be filtered out, and any standardized system will rely on stronger methods.
Although this will mean that stupidity will longer be subsidized, tryranny still will be.
1. Say "Information wants to be free."
2. Rinse.
3. Repeat.
Well, this'll have interesting ramifications for the computer industry. As pointed out in previous slashdot articles, one of the biggest things selling computers right now is the ability for home users to mess around with MP3s and all that kind of thing.
Corporate IT shops won't care about this digital rights stuff. They don't stand to lose anything from it. But home users (hopefully) will not go for it.
This makes no sense. Even with the dot-com bust and everything, the PC industry turns over a lot of dollars. Implementing this law looks a lot like shooting yourself in the foot, America.
Then again, the whole thing could be a false alarm designed to boost sagging sales of current PCs.
NO TOUCH MONKEY!
I just now sent that to Bush and Cheney, Diane Feinstein (one of the strongest supporters of the DMCA I'm told), Barbara Boxer, and Stephen Horn. What's amazing to me is the threat to leave the U.S. is not an idle one. Mexico sounds much more fun than a U.S. regulated by that absurd law.
Go Lakers!
You don't make any sense. Libertarians would be opposed in principle to any bill that would restrict the rights of others. Reducing government influence is exactly the opposite of what this bill proposes. How is this something that is philosophically consistent with libertarianism?
Perhaps you are confusing corporatism, essentially a form of fascism, with capitalism and libertarianism.
Okay the summarized text is a little more than 1 page to reflect a bill that is quoted as being 19 pages long in the draft copy. By comparision DMCA was 94 pages, and attempted to account for the few legitimate concerns that were raised at the time. What degree of success it actually had in that respect is a matter of judgement.
The essential idea I'm getting from this is that this congressman wants to make it very difficult to do certain things with computers and other electronic devices in order to ensure that copyrights are protected. Somehow I don't think this one will quietly get through congress, and all things considered I bet the final draft at least attempts to address many concerns that clearly haven't been. Were it to pass today, the excessive brevity might well be its undoing. Wide sweeping impostions on individual rights without clear justification have never faired very well before the Supreme Court.
As an interesting side note, it occurs to me that this neatly sidesteps one of the issues of DMCA. If all computer equipment are required to implement standard protections then one can no longer argue that having protections present limits a technology to a particular platform. I doubt however that this is the point that Disney is so gung ho in support of.
Rather than get upset with the summary of the draft copy, I'm going to way to a real bill is submitted for consideration. Once it is available to read both by us and other Congressmen, then we can figure out what's wrong with it and how to salvage it to address legitimate copyright holder concerns, if any. After all how much do you think your representatives are going to listen to people ranting about a bil that doesn't yet exist, or blatantly against the copyright protections they obviously favor.
It's good to be aware and want to act, but wait till you know a little more about your enemy before you rush into battle.
If this happens, I have a sneaking suspicion slashdotters will just avoid buying any new computers. When we need more computing power, we'll just add another pre-SSSCA computer to our Beowolf clusters.
The WIRED article indicates that the SSSCA says that it is illegal to create, sell or distribute "any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies" that are approved by the U.S. Commerce Department. An interactive digital device is defined as any hardware or software capable of "storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving or copying information in digital form."
I guess that means I could be penalized for creating a "hello world" program without security technology. Well, goodbye world....
That wasn't a sig. That was part of their post.
That is because boats don't fly.
My last hope is that the congressmen sponsoring this piece of shit are even more deviously cynical than I give them credit for.
Maybe they *know* this revolting chunk of ass hasn't a chance in the world of holding up on appeal, and they're just smiling and giving-hand jobs to the corps long enough to rake in some campaign cash.
It's worth noting that this is my *optimistic* position.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigr/index2.html
How? Without the DMCA passed and enforced by the government, Adobe could not abduct and imprison Sklyarov. Nor could the MPAA prevent you from watching your own DVDs on your own computer, nor could the media cartels dictate how computer systems are designed. All these violations happened (or may happen) because government abused its power, and you want to give it more? I really don't understand this.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
for representatives
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index_by_state.cf m
for your senators's addresses.
Fritz Hollings
125 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
and Ted Stevens
522 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
Like throwing potatoes at attacking aircraft (that actually happened at Pearl Harbor) but (1) at least you have done something and (2) enough potatoes truly screws up a jet engine...
--dsm
Organize in the streets.. arrange demonstrations,
like those for Dmitry. In addition, hold a
mass rally on Ben Franklins'
B-day (in January sometime I think), a politician
who knew the dangers of such crazy patent (and
IP) rights and voiced against it publicly. Roll
back ridiculous copyright laws, and paid for
corporate fascist legislation.!
If you dont scare your representatives, they'll
just keep taking the checks from the RIAA, MPAA
..etc, banking them, and doing whatever the corps. and their associations pay them to do...
Organize now.. or "1984" will be here before we
know it..
It would make existing Windows and Unix PCs illegal.
Existing software won't work.
Apple would have problems with this.
Apple is in the whole back room inventor type motif. This sort of thing runs against that philosophy.
Microsoft would have problems with this.
Everyone would have to junk the systems they have and start over.
The hold Microsoft has over users is to switch to Unix or Mac users would have to dump everything. If they have to anyway most users will switch to something else.
Sun would like this. Solarus can be easly refitted to handle this. It means everyone buys Solarus all over again and every application the need.
Also Sun sells workstations and servers not PCs so Sun Sparc systems are exempt.
Sun also sells some Linux based servers but they are still servers and remain exempt.
Rebel Computing.. I don't know how they'd react.
The Netwinder is actually a workstation computer running Linux not a PC and thus exempt.
I don't actually exist.
Well, actually, no. Where did you get this idea? Some libertarians believe those documents express a relatively good framework for an acceptable government, but they hardly define the minimalist government espoused by people like David Nolan or Murray Rothbard.
And if those names don't ring a bell, then you shouldn't be making statements about "basic precepts of the libertarian philosphy ."
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
we let this go through. I really can't see how every manufacturer would like this.
I remember reading Stallman's science fiction short story where, in a distant future, debuggers would be forbidden by law, etc.
Exxagerated, lunatic you might think when you read it. Except that it's happening right now.
Linux is going to be illegal within the next 2 years. They're going to call your OS a circumvention device, and they're going to prosecute people who use it.
Large companies like Red Hat are going to be FORCED to comply if they want to stay in business. Linux will have these copyright protection components included, whether you, Red Hat, or anyone else likes it or not.
This is shameful and makes me sad to live in the United States.
Good for you for writing this. I noticed how
your protrayal of the idea that industry could "evolve" beyond its "creators" seems a bit like the concern whether senient computers would become smart enough to rule/enslave humans. I am sure there are more appropriate examples, but I can think of 2001 Space Odyssey and Tron.
We have GOT to protest this one, NOW, in every city. We have to start sending LETTERS (not e-mails) to our Congressmen.
) would truly become reality under this law.
This proposed law is so horrible, so BLATATLY in defiance of the Constitution, that our government is even discussing it is telling of how little regard for the rule of law and due process they have.
If this one passes, it would be no less than declaration of corporate IP sovereignty over citizens.
This law would criminalize the production, or even INVENTION of any device that has ROOT access (to the true system/hardware level) for the OWNER of the hardware. It would instantly make any OSS operating system illegal.
Richard Stallman's "Right to Read" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
And, given that the courts are INFESTED with dishonorable scum like "judge" Lewis Kaplan, we cannot look to the courts for relief. The corps are well aware that the courts have been their greatest enemy, which is why they spend LOTS and LOTS of money wining and dining and greasing the prominent lawyers who become judges.
The judiciary will soon become (if it hasn't alredy), as much a corporate fief as is the Congress and Presidency.
I dont' want to sound like a kook, but if this one DOES make it into law (and given how the DMCA passed, in unanimous fashion, I'd rate it at over 90%, and I might be overly optimistic in thinking even 10% might oppose it), then it may become necessary for widespread civil disobedience, and preparations for being able to deal with the expected governmental violence in response to such disobedience.
I'm speaking of what the Founders was speaking of in the document that begins "In the course of Human Events".
Let's hope it doesn't come to that. The only hope we have is to organize NOW, get the word out NOW. WE have to try. The "system" is broken, it will not reject this law on it's own. We HAVE to act.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
If it benefits a few companies and restricts what other companies or individuals can create then it is most certainly *NOT* capitalist. In a so called communist society it is illegal to compete against the state run industry. Isn't that what this is? "Do it our way or go to jail?" Doesn't sound to capitalistic to me. The real problem isn't capitalism but rather the traitors in Washington DC. A free society does not need people like them.
Reading your post was interesting to me, as it is true, we seemingly tend to be more for the public. Unfortunately, Canada is going downhill too. Positively, there is still a chance to turn it around, unlike the United States. (or so I see)
Political parties can attain power now, they just have to be smart and quick. Our population is already feeling unrest at our current government, who would consider the DCMA style legislation (and indeed is considering it). It is now that changes need to be made.
Immigration, the reverse brain-drain from the United States, would be welcomed with open arms. My girlfriend left the United States just this year because she felt that it was time to leave the bullshit.
Just don't think that we're immune to the BS currently affecting the United States. Look on us as potential... because we have it in spades. We just need to be pushed to action.
This is the 1st version of what I sent. Thought you all might be interested. I am pretty much pissed about my 1st amendment rights going away.
Dear Honorable Senator or Congressman ________,
I am writing to you to state my opposition to the newly proposed "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act". Too much power is being centralized in the hands of major corporations already. The control of digital information should not be controlled by the a powerful corporations. This proposal if turned into law would put more power into that hands of the already too powerful media companies. Already with the use of the 1998 DMCA, it has been shown that big corporations like Adobe are ready to abuse the power given to them. A visiting Russian programmer has already been thrown in jail for what he wrote and spoke. This is wrong for a country that has always called itself the "land of the free". Digital information laws should side with the people, not protect the powerful corporations bank account from the people. After all, the government is there to serve the people, not those who write the largest checks to lobbyists. The SSSCA would effectively outlaw millions of existing personal computers, making millions of American effectively criminals selling what they legally bought. Under this proposed legislation, it would be illegal for me to sell my PC because it does not have the "certified security technologies ". It would be illegal to run linux on a new computer because it is not a compliant operating system. It is not right to threaten millions of Americans with 5 years in prison and $250,000 for trying to sell what they legally bought because it's possible one might use the computer for copyright infringement. This is too much control over information in the hand of the few, and that power is already being abused. The first amendment states "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech... or of the press". Effectively, computers represent the modern printing press. Personal computers given the people ability to print information whenever they want. The printing presses are no longer controlled by those who own them. I am sorry if that makes those in control of the presses unhappy, but Americans have fought for their 1st amendment rights. It is time to stand up again for those rights and make sure the power of the press (personal computers) belong to the people, not the major media companies. I am writing to you first about this because you have always struck me as someone who has cared for the people and would defend them and their rights. Please oppose the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" when it comes your turn to vote.
Sincerely, Jason Brown
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
...I have seen this coming for a long time. The problem isn't really people ripping a mp3 to use in their portable player or car but the fact that people copying their CD's to millions of others. Thats just an impossible situation.
As much as the slashdot crown would like it to be otherwise there is not much value in material and other "hard" things nowaways, it way a houndred years ago but not today. Today most value is in different sorts of intellectual property. A car that you buy for $30.000 costs about $3.000 (1/10) to make. A top-of-the-line intelship (P4) costs $20 or so to make. All value is in engineering, development, marketing and stuff like that.
The tools for transfeering a song from a CD to a mp3 player can also be used for widespread piracy, this I beleive is the problem.
I really hope there will be some sort of protection that allowes transfeer from different devices that I own in some fair way, but I doubt it.
Do the militias have the right idea? lol...I don't think so, but we do need some form of organized resistance to this extreme capitalism we have going on now.
Apple has always stayed away from implimenting standards that take away computer users rights...but if this is made law...even they must give in.
Kind of reminds you of all the books written to show the US as a dark, dismal place to live, where you get jailed for humming or singing a song you don't own the rights to...oops, i probobly gave them another idea.
"That act was approved with considerable discussion and the members absolutely knew the balances they were advancing. The DMCA allowed the Internet to grow and by and large the act has worked," [BSA chief executive Robert] Holleyman said.
If I remember correctly, the growth of the Internet came to a screeching halt in the USA just around the time the DMCA was made law.
You evil, degenerate, hackers who misused your creativity and talent to exploit every possible
flaw in the future e-presence of the united states have brought this on yourselves..
The united states govt has a manifest destiny
in the electronic world and all those who have
interfered with it's achievement will no longer be allowed to do so with impunity...
Let this be a lesson to you one and all:
Computer ownership and use is a privilege and
since it has been abused we, the people, will reform and rebuild at whatever level necessary
until the last spoiled apple is tossed from this
wormy bushel.
Have a nice day.
If this God-Awful bill ever gets signed into law, the one loophole I saw was that you can only be found guilty if you are "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" ie if you break the encryption and give it to a friend, is that a commercial advantage or private financial gain? Not really, although with today's lawyers who can argue that "black is a delicate shade of white", it might be.
What if you were to post a movie online anonymously and for free? That seems to not be for commercial advantage (as you arent a commercial entity, nor are you selling anything), and you arent making money from its redistribution. You wouldnt be in violation of this act (but you would be in violation of NET).
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Sec. 101: Prohibition of Certain Devices
(a) In General -- It is unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies that adhere to the security system standards adopted under section 104.
---
Free software is not excluded
A government of the people,by the corporations, ,this must be the worst government and political system
for the corporations.
Recently ( since Bush came to office ) It is clear there is a major shift towards giving the
industry whatever they want.
You wanna drill for oil in a wildlife refuge ? Why yes of course...
Wanna pollute ? We'll sell you a permit,and options to pollute.
What Bush is a puppet of the industry ? Of course he is..
This new legislation will profit a few at the
expense of the People ? No Problem..here's my
bank account number !
This Government is a joke.
This proposal will go forward no doubt.
The people of the USA are nothing to this holy sacrosaint supposedly representing freedom and People joke of a Government
If there was a reason ever to impeach a
President it would be dicisions that profit the industry at the expense of the People.
There was no reason to impeach Clinton .
But we'd be nuts not to impeach Bush !
He's even influencing the courts in prosecution cases ( which in Canada would lead the Prime Minister in front of a judge
for trying to influence the judiciary.)
When i came to the USA i thought things we're not so bad,thinking about it now
i ever saw on earth !
Impeaching Bush and calling a new election
sounds good at this point .
Though citizens here have been known to
get in in revolutions that overthrew
governments before..
Good day
Perhaps legislators that frame and vote for laws which are later found to be unconstitutional should be thrown out of office permanently for failing to uphold the constitution. Enough of this pushing the envelope stuff: turn it into an electric fence, and then see who wants to push it.
AirSupply: go ahead, cut me off.
http://www.senate.gov/~hollings/webform.html
CSS (DVD)
DivX (the old disk)
SDMI
SafeAudio
CueCat
Cactus
WMA
CPRM (the HD copy protection)
DMCA
SSSCA
Anymore?
Don't complain about gun laws in the UK when you have more problems with mentally handicapped politicians and corporations...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The criminal penalties are: "(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and (2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense." Only someone who violates the law "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" can be convicted.
Okay... so it's big and nasty, but you won't do time for it if you're not a privateer. Piracy is still okay, just not privateering.. fair enough... but how unamerican is that? The United States of America would still be in the hands of Great Britain if it weren't for Privateering funding our revolution!
At any rate, I personally will be going down to make an appointment with my congressman on monday.
Well Sklyarov comes to mind - he did not sell,
a company did. He *wrote* it.
**We** are the tergets. And how is personal
financial gain defined?? A donation is what??
A dinner?? A lunch??
Is that enough to *make you a criminal*.
You have to look further here. It is so broadly
defined that *anyone can be slottered*...
It looks like George Orwell's Animal Farm is being used as the guide book by congress - some smart alex renamed it to 'How to scr€w you country men in 3 easy steps'. Heck, maybe the film (1984) should have been labelled 2048, because at this rate it looks all too likely.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I live in California, and I voted for the Boxer/Feinstein combo. I will not again. They both voted for DMCA and I will vote for ANYONE before them.
Imposed digital rights management places the burden and assumption on the consumer that they are all guilty and require probation of sorts...
This sort of regulation would cripple developments in technology and internet areas, something our economy really can't handle...
If content producers areconcerned, they should make their products so easy to get a hold of or affordable that people would loose interest in piracy rather than harrasing their customers...
Didn't this kind of power corruption lead to the downfall of Rome and its "democracy of sorts"...
SSSCA: Essaie ses scies et prend la meilleure.
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/members.htm
Here are the members of the committee. Write all of them.
I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
Did you make up that lie yourself or did a right wing foundation make it up for you?
Rates in California in 1996 were 40% above the national average. It was causing businesses to leave California and was what prompted the deregulation scheme in the first place. Once that happened, speculators (mainly Dubya's buddies in the Texas energy industry) bought up all the Californian power producers they could and ratcheted up the wholesale rates because they had California at their mercy. Large corporations make record profits while the citizens of California pay the tab -- a typical outcome of the deregulation craze.
Luckily for Republicans, they never have to question whether or not their policies work because they have the purity of ideological conviction. Just like how the Bush family's "loot the treasury and give it to the rich" program first resulted in breaking the budgets of Texas, Florida, and now the nation as a whole.
Funny how the two parties have totally flipped on the issue of fiscal responsibility, isn't it?
Time to leave the USA and find greener pastures. Have fun staying here. I'll see you on the other side.
See Skliarov! Indeed I thought people can learn.
Well - some people can learn (I added the bold!)
Commercial advantage, private gain -
these are so broadly defined that anything will go.
Now the question is can you learn
Within the past two years alone the public has watched idly by while presidents have had affairs, lied straight to the face of the people and still continued their term, been inaugurated without public voting, extended the length of international wars, etc. - let alone the decades and centuries before that. This is nothing in comparison - the US public has been denied of basic rights before, and they've done nothing (or at least, not enough, as sadly only the minority seem to care). It's pathetic.
California's power companies are forbidden to pass along to customers any increase in the cost of electricity. That's what precipitated their blackouts last year: price controls (price ceilings) always, always, ALWAYS result in shortages of the goods subjected to the controls.
Far from a case of deregulation run amuck, California's idiot experience is a textbook case of what can go wrong when the government starts meddling in the economy.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
From Wired report:
... creates new federal felonies, punishable by five years in prison and fines of up to $500,000. Anyone ... has a network-attached computer that disables copy protection is covered."
"It
Proteus7
I'm packing my bags....don't know where to yet,
but I'm out of this fuckin' country.....
We should create a list of people ready to do this, and the networks that depend on them. Then give this list to the EFF, along with projections of the economic effects this will cause. The EFF can try to make the U$A see sense, or at least see oncoming depression.
Thanks!
Something to think about here is that overly general laws tend to also arouse the ire of the federal courts. In terms of constitutional law, it is critical for a law to be narrowly tailored to its purpose, and to not have a broad-reaching scope that overreaches its stated purpose.
In this case, I gather that the stated purpose is to protect intellectual property claims. Unfortunately, the way the draft is written it has a number of unpleasant side effects.
1. The potential to have a chilling effect on Security research, as we have already seen in the case of the DMCA.
2. Effectively bars non-commercial developers from writing software that complies with the standards established by industry, since the licensing fees attached will no doubt be prohibitive to private individuals or not-for-profit groups. "Non-discriminatory licensing terms" does not include the inherent discrimination of high licensing fees.
3. Forces non-US interests to attempt to comply with the standards, as it bars the import of non-compliant devices. This provision gives an unfair advantage to US corporations, since non-US businesses will have no input into the standards that they will need to implement in order to sell their products in the US marketplace.
This is simply a layman's take on the overreaching nature of this draft. I would hope that electronic civil liberties groups will be all over this one. The fact that this one isn't being snuck into legislation by a congressional clerk should give the EFF and other groups a better chance to head it off before it comes to fruition.
Examples:
"I remember when movies cost a nickel"
"I remember our first color TV set"
"I remember the first cellular phone", etc.
Ours is going to be "I remember when computers had screws on the back and you could take them apart".
I suggest that we all start forming small secret underground groups that fight for freedom of information and technology! Be weary of undercover government agents that will try to infiltrate your group!
Leader, FAGIT
(Freedom Alpha Group for Internet & Technology)
This isn't a draft law, yet; it only puts up for discussion some ideas that could eventually be made into laws. I have to agree with the EFF that they are disturbing, and will be sending a letter stating my opposition. I'd say now is the best time to object, before they gather any inertia.
I'd like to believe that such a law (in the US) would cause a global crash in the new hardware market. If this legislation does pass, which it may well do, we should all collectively boycott new hardware and support used goods instead of the latest...
"Slump in technology market today as garage sales skyrocket"
All hope is not lost...
I swear, if I see another Slashdot comment with "It will be interesting to see"...
People out there need to get organized and mobilze. It's still early, so we need to attack this thing early and often.
Some talking points:
1) This is a fascist bill. It is "over my dead body" outrageous.
2) Government regulation of technology is bad for the economy.
3) Consumers hate "Digital Rights Managment" and this will stop buying PC's
4) The "Copyright Industry" is harming America, because they are clinging to business models that require a police state to work.
5) Copyright is teetering dangerously close to illigitimacy because the government isn't listening to the people.
6) Rebuff the Copyright Fascists.
What can we do to help tho? (I'm not very good with politics etc, I prefer computers fs.. but would writing to our MPs enlightening them of the situation help?
I don't know.. I want to be usefull.. but dont know what to do :)
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
Normally, I would be in favor of these effects - they all translate into economic growth, which means more money in my pocket. In this case, though, I have to draw the line. I imagine that my feelings now are similar to those of our Founding Fathers, who escaped from religious persecution and inordinate taxation to found a New World. The trouble here is that there is no New World left for those of us who would flee.
It now becomes our responsibility - to ourselves, to our families, to our predecessors - to form a revolution. It is the only option left to us, for there is no land left to conquer. We must stand and fight for our ideas, our ideology. It may be hard for us to come together - it is not in our nature - but only through solidarity can we influence the course of things that affect us as a whole. We are a community, and we still have a few rights left. I urge all to write their congressmen, the President, their employers, their friends and families to stop the coming injustice that got its key to our front door from the DMCA.
We should cause a work-stoppage - all programmers, chip makers, adminitrators, support personnel, and other techies. We can move worlds if we toe the line together and don't budge from our principles. It is clear that the only thing that matters to the people who would bring such law to bear is money. We must communicate to these people the only way they will listen - by stopping the flow of their money.
main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,
It obviously has no problem with *unauthorized appropriations* of the low-tech variety. An interesting example is its apparent lifting of the copright material (music) used in the movie Pulp Fiction that was produced and distributed by several of Disney's subsidiaries. There is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles) a copyright infringement action against Disney and its subsidiaries wherein an individual is alleging that his music was taken and used as overlay to the "pawn shop scene." Yiou knowm the scence with "The Gimp" replete with homosexual sodomy rape, torture and murder ?(Hafner v. Miramax Film Corp. et al. U.S.D.C. - C.D.Cal. Case No. CV 98-7361). (See also Downey Record Production Co. v. Hafner et al. U.S.D.C. Case No. 97-1012 wherein it was determined that Hafner owns a copyright in the music that was eventually incorporated in the movie Pulp Fiction)
Apparently, Disney couldn't get anyone to consent to use their music over that scene, so they just ripped off some music!
How's that Disney ? Eradicate everyone's personal freedom in order to protect your profit in stolen music and pornography ?
"participating corporations will be exempt from antitrust prosecution"
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Here is a copy of the letter I wrote - feel free to use it to submit via the web, and follow it up with a printed copy mailed to the Senator: Boxer, Barbara, 112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON DC 20510, (202) 224-3553.
I voted for you during the last California senatorial election. I feel I must write to you now to express my disappointment with regards to your position on technology related issues, specifically, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), and now, the soon-to-be-introduced Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). The United States was designed to offer balance between citizens, corporations, and government agencies. This balance has been upset by the passing of the DMCA. I encourage you to think about who these laws are being written for - corporations, or the citizens of California? SSSCA, if passed, will make it illegal to manufacture, sell, purchase and own computer hardware and software that does not comply with goverment standards for security. This will make the use of many computer operating systems, including Unix, Linux, BeOS, and MacOS. These types of laws run counter to the spirit of innovation that created the computer industry here in California. The growth of the internet and computer industry in general played a large role in the economic prosperity of California and the United States. Now, we are in trying economic times, and I urge you to continue to allow us to innovate and create without artificial restrictions being imposed by corporations through law. Please consider reforming the DMCA and vote "NO" on SSSCA if it comes to a vote in the Senate. Thank you.
There's no giant software company willing and able to offer them fat bribes...er, I mean "campaign contibutions"!
You're using her as bait, Master!
I'm not American, but I often hear the above sentence.
What does it mean?
Hmm... considering how difficult it would be to implement digital rights management on a general-purpose computing device such as a PC, one must wonder how they intend to implement it.
What if it's done in software? Or, what if that DRM hardware has to be driven by hooks in the operating system -- and if you use an operating system that doesn't have those hooks, the DRM hardware sits idle?
This would essentially turn the SSSCA into a law prohibiting the sale of computers with free operating systems, or with no operating systems at all --- a dream come true for Microsoft.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
I've written my representatives. I get back nice form letters supporting my "important rights to intellectual property." I've written dozens of letters to editors and even seen a couple published. Both major parties support intellectual land grabbing strongly however, so politics is largely a waste of time here it seems.
I don't buy movies or CDs anymore, like they're going to notice, I'm sure. It would take an organized boycott and it won't happen until after the law is passed and the consequences settle in. Too late.
Just what do you suggest for those without money to contribute to lobbying or parties, other than civil disobedience? I'm struggling to think of anything both effective and legal here.
Can we still organize opposition like we did to the Decency act, or will the porn lobby and ACLU be on the content industry's side now?
I got into a discussion with a government prof where I go to college and we both came to the same conclusion.
Either a whole new government needs to be put in place with a revoultion, or we need to elect an entire whole new set or reps and congressmen. Without one of those happening, the government is gonna dig a hole so deep, its going to be illegal to own "TECH" (Relavance to a Sliders Episode)
I'm not pushing for any one type of government, we just need people in there that dont give a flying rats ass about major corporations giving them millions of dollars behind everyone's back. Also, Im not looking for the black g-men to come knocking at my door because I want a new government.
If you look hard enough, you will see that all the government cares about is the stuff that they get from major corporations that want them to draft this kind of stuff. They don't care about what effect laws have on them. They'll just stay in session all year long so that the constitution protects them from prosicution if the shit hits the fan.
They say the U.S. is the best place to live in the world. Well I'm starting to think different.
The only way that people can excape this law will be to move to another country. And if it happens it wouldnt suprise me if Canada saw a lot more of Americans asking for residency.
So write up your congressman and say:
"Hell no, don't vote for this.
A vote for this is a vote for total control by the government.
I dont want total control like the major corporations want and I'm the one that matters because you represent me.
And it doesnt matter how much they pay you to say how much you like it becuase if you vote yes... I'll vote no next election."
Legislation as earth-shattering as this will never pass, whether it's agreed with or not. There simply won't be enough support for such a huge shift in technology regulations. What will happen is that pieces of the whole will be tagged onto bills with names like "Hacker-prevention act of 2001" or "Save the children act of 2001" and "Computerize underfunded schools act of 2001". That's how it works.
The second is that as usual, the general public cannot be made to care about this unless we strip the question down to its (nontechnical) essentials.
Let's do ourselves a favor. Forget all our beloved jargon (TCP/IP, p2p, FTP, usenet, freenet, etc.), concentrate on something like simply email -- which people know about, care for and roughly understand --, and publically ask Senators Hollings and Stevens elementary questions like this:
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
What are they going to do about the hundreds of millions of PCs, MP3 players, and other 'unsecure' gadgets? They can't just make them illegal - it's cost the megacorps that are purchasing this law billions to downgrade their IT systems into compliance...
If this law was ever to come into effect, those with stocks of old, normal, 'unfucked' hardware could make *billions* selling them at higly inflated price!
Time to start stocking up spare hard drives?....
ok, listen.
i'm a canadian, or i'd be writing to the members of the commerce committee myself. this bothers me a lot, too, it's a precedent. not a legal one, mind you, but many countries may feel that they can do the same if the USA gets away with it.
if you are an american citizen, you MUST do something about this! it's really easy to sit on your ass and bitch about it, but it's not that much harder to write a letter.
not an email. we all know that 98% of politicians ignore them. WRITE A LETTER. yes, get out star office or some other variant and write a letter, at the very least use a form letter that other people have posted.
Print it. Put it in an envelope and add postage, address it and mail it. IT'S NOT THAT HARD AND YOU WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
if you're not going to get off your ass and do it, what makes you think anyone else will?
TELL YOUR FRIENDS. this is a seriously facist bill that must be stopped.
--- it's pelvis to be cube
I have never bought a pre-built computer. My computer has been bought in pieces and assembled myself. I choose Linux as my OS. As far as I know, it doesn't have the Digital Rights Management as far as the government is concerned.
I have also built computers for people, same way basically.
What would happen if it is discovered on my computer or other computers that I have built, overcomes security measures that been set by the government? If it was someone I built a computer for, why would I be responsible? Wouldn't it be the fault of the owner of the computer? This bill would hold me responsible up to $500,000, something that a computer hobbyist could never pay.
If someone was downloading an "unsecure movie" on the internet from outside the US, does it remove my right to view and allow the government to block it not even knowing what it was? Isn't this intential censorship?
This goes beyond just computers--anything electronic. Anything that's not government secure, is automatically under their control.
Its mainly a problem that stems from the inadquate computational models created by Alonzo Church and Alan Turing. To this day, I wonder why the great minds of the past neglected to take "Intellectual Property" rights into consideration when building their computational models of computation. I guess they just aren't as smart as the RIAA, Disney, and a butt load of stupid congressman - all who are too detatched from the subjects of their laws.
How are NASA, Oak Ridge, NSA, super computer manufacturers and all the rest going to react when they discover the limitations put on their computers?
Boycott popular, corporate-owned culture. If the price of having the ocean of swill we call a culture is to have our hardware and software crippled, then it's time to turn our backs on it. Support free and open software, music, books and entertainment. Turn the TV and the radio off. Dare to start a culture where free individuals share their art with one another instead of having some mass media entity bastardize it into mush so it can be shoved down people's throats. If you have to buy something produced by these clowns, buy it used. Are bread and circuses worth our freedom? I suppose they can stop us from "pirating" their goods - but they can't make us watch or listen to them and they can't stop us from creating things on our own and sharing them with each other. If you can't support this boycott totally, do as much as you can and most importantly, support the lone, independant artists who are on the web, giving their work to anyone who is willing to try it out. Every time we do this, we are encouraging the development of art outside the mass media.
We do not have to consume.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
This is what we need to do. Start organizations in colleges and universities. Why? Because this is where the people who will change tommorow are. Most students at the average university know very little of these issues. They need to be informed. Students have an urge to rebel, we should give them a good reason to!
For the record I live in Canada too and I don't feel as comfortable as you do. Just because you're in Canada doesn't mean you're immune to stupid laws like this. Capitalists influence US politicians using $$, and the situation isn't any different in Canada. Just like the DMCA, efforts will be made to make the rest of the world, or atleast Western nations adopt similar laws. Time to start feeling more uncomfortable.
I'd suggest writing the appropriate Congresscritters and suggesting that you'll support passage of that law only if it requires hardware to completely comply with copyright law, including USC Title 17 Sections 106 through 122 and Section 1201(c), and all relevant case law. The corps would drop this like a hot potato if the hardware was legally required to enforce those portions of copyright law, because most of their copy-protection schemes would be illegal.
If this happened, it'd basically kill any innovation in the US tech industry. It'd be left with a Microsoft-AOL-Time Warner-RIAA-MPAA cartel controlling all technology, the Internet, and all other media.
I'd expect many of the most skilled engineer/coders to want to leave the US at an early age, and move to a free country!... Or maybe people will completely lose interest in technology...
Maybe less developed countries will start to overtake the USA and Europe in the tech sector?...
Maybe we'll see 'geek terrorism' - unemployed and very angry programmers in suicide bomb attacks against the megacorps?
Or maybe we'll actually start to see the general public getting pissed off with copy/access controls - when CDs are unrippable, DVD audio brings region-coded music to the masses, and Windows XPP (Xtra Piracy Prevention) won't even let you make backups of you're own Word documents, which are only ever stored remotely on an MS central server...
807 South University Avenue
Mount Pleasant, MI 48858
September 8, 2001
The Honorable Senator Carl Levin
SR-269, Russell Senate Office Building
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Honorable Senator Carl Levin,
It has come to my attention that your colleague Senator Fritz Hollings (D-North Carolina), in conjunction with Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), intends to introduce a bill entitled the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act." This bill would, in theory, make it a crime to utilize the Linux operating system. Linux, originally written by a Finnish college student in 1991, is based upon the venerable UNIX operating system, and has become the operating system of choice for the professional technical community.
Perhaps even more importantly, this bill would further restrict my already hamstrung digital rights. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998, dealt a serious blow to digital rights by prohibiting, in some cases, "fair use," something clearly protected by law. If I can record a television program with my VCR, shouldn't I also be able to load it on to my computer. Also, since making a backup copy is protected by law (i.e. making a tape recording of a compact disc), shouldn't I be allowed to make a digital backup instead? Logically, I should be able to, but the DMCA has criminalized this by allowing record companies to disable on the CD my ability to make such a copy and by then making in a crime for me to bypass this.
I am concerned that the federal government has ceased to represent me and has instead begun to represent the corporations. We met, Sir, at a Democrat fundraiser last year in Mount Pleasant, Michigan. There, I expressed my admiration for your years of tireless service to the people of my state. I read with pleasure this very morning your decision to curtail spending for the overly expensive and strategically unbalancing National Missile Defense system. I voted for your colleague Debbie Stabenow last year, and I voted for Albert Gore. I have been a lifelong supporter of the Democratic Party. I am fearful, however, that the Democratic Party has ceased to represent me. Programmers are afraid to enter the United States. Indeed, we risk losing our place as the world leader in computer development because our ever-restrictive copyright and technological laws will frighten away all the best talent. I ask you, Sir, to please consider this when debating the SSSCA and other technology laws. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Charles G. Fulton
No statement is true, not even this one.
The legislation would work where all computers are installed with one or two types of OSs, but what of those who use less common machines? What of those whose box is an Alpha? A Sparc? What of those whose software is not one of the anointed few?
In essence what such a law forces is a digital monoculture. All computers have to be one of a couple architectures running standard OSs, as a practical matter. Result: any security flaw in the standard OS is universal and allows universal attacks. We're way too close to that now, but are being somewhat saved by the fact that internet servers are NOT all of the monoculture.
Perhaps Hollings and friends will not want to enable massive security breaches. Perhaps too he will not want to stifle innovation in computing, or vendors of everything non-Wintel might consider that this will make it tough for them to sell their iron and much tougher to adopt new designs as it freezes in some standard based on today's
technology. Also any security standard done today is likely to become laughable down the road. Does Mr. Hollings really want to ensure the USA becomes a technical backwater in a few years?
The masses never seem to notice, therefore, they never act when their rights are being eroded. I think it would be quite difficult for people not to notice the new certified hardware and software that would spring up in the event that this draft would actually make it through the system and be passed into law. Something like this could make the population wake up, and see what is happening! I reluctantly welcome it, because it always seems to get worse before it gets better.
In the paid-off minds of dolts like Fritz Hollings, this bill is no different. He has been told that this will make it impossible to do "bad" things with a computer while still making it possible to do "good" things with a computer. Since he doesn't understand computers, and doesn't much care, it sounds reasonable. Besides, the checks he's getting from Disney must be freaking enormous.
Unfortunately, Congress-critters have long been proposing and passing laws which control things they don't understand. What they will understand is that laws like this are going to kill the American computer (hardware and software) industry. The foreign workers who make up a large portion of the tech workforce (because most Americans are too stupid and lazy to bother with the necessary math) aren't going to come to this country. The relatively few natives who can handle the math and science are going to leave.
If there's a third-world country out there that would like to become a tech powerhouse within 5 years, all they need to do is build a stable power grid, pass strong privacy and sane copyright and patent laws, and allow automatic citizenship to the immediate families of programmers and engineers. Prosperity will follow quickly.
As of right now, I think I'd be on the first boat.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
I never could have imagined that one day, there would be such a thing as an illegal pocket calculator. I mean, according to these laws, if Texas Instruments continued to make its TI-8x series of calculators without modifying them to take into consideration the USA's bizaar intellectual property laws, they would be breaking the law by selling a non-compliant pocket calculator.
I can just see it now. Its early Friday afternoon after a long day at high-school. A group of students just wrap up their math club and exit the school, when they are confronted by the FBI - hearing screams of "Freeze Poindexter! Drop that contraband! Drop your calculators! Now, dammit or we will shoot!"
The parent is correct that most other countries would not accept such draconian restrictions because some U.S. govt.-industrial consortium wants to restrict the way networking and computing is done. Since the costs of computing are dominated by the economy of scale for commodity based components, the U.S. computing costs will increase as we are forced to adopt special manufacture components to comply with this legislation.
Additionally, in the 1980's the software industry tried copy protection schemes and they were not well received by the public (they made the software much harder to use). The U.S. software industry will be forced to reinstitute this unprofitable practice, and which will both increase our software costs, and potentially make it harder to peddle software written in the U.S. elsewhere.
Another remark, this law (and the DMCA too in lesser extent) reminds me of what happened when alcohol was banned in America : the maffia jumped on it and sold suddenly 'illegal' goods to the masses.
As an European, i'll probably violate half of the American IP laws within the next 5 years. I don't think i'll ever go back for a holiday. You guys frighten me. The way companies influence your government through election money is like alowing the worst part of kapitalism to determine the law : the interest of the shareholder supercedes the freedom of the individual.
Like in europe (well at least in Belgium, but in most other countries too), companies funding in elections is limited by law, thus restricting such dangerous evolution.
I don't think you can ever win by fighting the DMCA, the SSSCA and so on ad infinitum.
You have to fight company involvement in government by restricting the funding. That's the only way out, or you'll only loose more and more freedom.
Don't try to stop each bullet, that's impossible, stop the shooter, you'll feel much safer.
PS : Here, elections are paid by the taxpayer. The amount of money involved is many orders of magnitude lower than in America.
Tactical nuclear strikes. :-) Just as long as there are cheap (relatively) sources of nuclear weapons any cash-starved gov't can have 'em. :-)
Deliver yesterday, code today, think tomorrow.
Its the government thats communist! Not linux.
Linux promotes competition between security software standards.-capitalist
Government sets one standard. restricts all other types. imposes heavy fines.-communist
> No, we have fascist corporations and greedy, selfish,
> short-sighted, ignorant politicians.
Isn't politics a job?
So, why do you complain if politicians get corrupted?
They are working, and they work for whom pays them
the highest rate: corporations.
SSSCA: 50% worse than the SS, especially if you're in CA.
This time we need to get out and do something. Not just whine and bitch about our goverment bending us over and using a splintered 2x4 where the sun don't shine. Write your reps, call your reps, go in person and see your reps, just don't e-mail them, that has a negative effect, they don't even read them, and will most likely drive them to the wrong conclusion.
This is the latest in a line of laws which, perhaps unintentionally, transfer power from individuals to corporations. On its face, the proposal is startling enough in the depth of its apparent intention to reinvent copyright law. There are a number of troubling implications, if one extrapolates for a moment...
To begin with, consider the historic reality around new law. The legislation may seem bad, but it could very well become worse by the time it's enacted. Or after: often new law is amended by further legislation, usually through tightening loopholes. The other path is through the courts, and the recent history of corporations using the courts to silence or bully individuals augurs poorly for the smaller party. Theoretically, the law could be tightened or loosened, but with the enormous amounts of money at stake, and the influence that money has over our political system, the odds are very much in favor of the content companies.
The scheme itself isn't discussed in the law, and all sorts of mischief are possible there. What if the security scheme is designed with interactive authentication? Then it would require a connection to some corporate database, before any content would play. Given that most consumer devices are fixed-location, it would be trivial to track usage surreptitiously, much as is done now with Internet access. However, the security scheme could also include a requirement that consumers have a unique identifier. Then, tracking becomes inherent to the scheme, and can be done regardless of a consumer's or a device's location.
Going further, it is possible to imagine that tracking would happen even on such minor items as movie trailers or song previews. While content organizations would appreciate the ability to note that someone downloaded a trailer, then being able to send them an e-mail urging them to see the movie itself, do we want them to know this much?
If all devices incorporate copy protection, then the playing field is forever and dramatically tipped against consumers. If, for a content creator, copy protection is easy to take advantage of, then there is no reason not to use it. In the new content-controlled environment, virtually everything could fall under this scheme. Music, movies, software: any digital content. To a company with a hammer, everything looks like a nail: if everything is trackable, everything will be tracked. Even in the absence of direct financial gain, knowledge about customers is considered useful until proven otherwise. If payment is inherent to the scheme, then the likelihood is that anonymity will be either impossible or difficult. Given that content creators have no financial incentives to provide for anonymity, and numerous reasons to avoid it, the final scheme would probably not include the option, except perhaps in non-monetary transactions.
Now consider the possibility that content would not only be controlled, but would, under this scheme, be required to be controlled. As an example, a future version of Windows Media Player might not play any uncontrolled content. The more technical user might simply propose to download a non-controlled media viewing software, but what if the operating system, in conjunction with the hardware, incorporates the copy protection scheme? Such a non-controlled player would be illegal, simply because it did not incorporate copy protection. What of Linux and its open-source brethren? The proposed law would appear to require the inclusion of copy protection. Such a major legislative intrusion would (I believe) be a first in the world of open source.
Everyone needs to get moving on combating this. As another poster noted, don't just sit there and complain. Write your legislators, GENTLY but firmly expressing your dismay over this issue. Then contact your local media (the few not owned by a large media conglomerate, anyway), explain to them why this is bad, and tell them to get off their butts and report on this.
A sig is a waste of bits.
I wonder how much lobbying efforts it took standard builders (like IBM when they wanted to introduce the digital encryption technology in their hard drives) and org. like RIAA MPAA to get them to write such a bill.
;) ). Now the only thing they try to do is not innovating or comming up with something better, they are acting a-la-rambus and playing plain dirty. "If we can't stop it, we'll control/contain it" just like a virus.
:)
Not only it's completely crazy and stepping on freedom, but that hysteria is making the US gov. look more and more like communist country where the state tells what you can and cannot do... The only difference is that it's happening on a technological and cultural level. Has US "won" against communism to be worse than them?
My personnal feeling always been, if these people (RIAA/MPAA/etc) would have been COMPETENT and not sitting on their cashcow strategy, and would have been LISTENING and OPENED to new technologies to advance their mean of distribution, they would have seen MP3 comming, heck it took MP3 over 2 years to slowly take off... they would have had enough (WAY enough) time to strike a deal to kill it while it was still little, or better yet, do something better than mp3 and strike deals with hardware manufacturer and instore their digital right things in a non-intrusive way, aka, make it so it's exactly the same trouble than copying cds, not worse. (It took quite a while for 3rd party to come out with mp3 cdplayers, and all the gadgets)... They could have catched up and beat mp3 before it's popularity.
DIVX? well MPAA is even worse, they looked at what happened to mp3, for years, didn't see it comming neither, (how blind can you be??) and now blam! same thing with video, god, this is so pathetic, I cannot beleive that there's not even ONE compentent person in their administration that didn't see all this comming and prepare for it, their reaction right now is like if they were pinned onto a wall and reacted with a bazoka with all the lobbying.
Yeah it's all good on a screen but in real life? Well, for a start, internet is going faster and faster, broadband is cheaper, etc etc... that is nothing new, so how about changing mentality and mean of distribution over the net... donations paypal subscribtion.. what? paying a buck for an album is stealing the artist?? what if the artist didn't even have a CD for sale in my country or region? that's a dollar he wouldn't have got. Plus, how much does he receives for each cd sold anyways?
Right, well big corporations are always too slow to react so they are like incompetent CEOs, react AFTER the dommage is done, well you can make someone smoke crack for 2 years non-stop and tell him to stop the next day after he got used to it (I see jokes comming
That won't work, if it passes in the US and consumers are stupid enough to buy hardware like that, well, we'll all move to russia because freedom and choice there will still mean something. Plus, we won't get arrested for having files that looks like 10010101010 instead of j2m2lm3947udh
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
And the civil penalties include statuatory damages. I.E. you are required to pay money even if it can't be proved any profits or damages occurred, or even if you can prove there were no profits or damages.
Statuatory damages can be assessed no matter what.
$200-$2500 in damages per offense can get very expensive for individuals.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the wonderful world of gun control. You are now experiencing exactly the same thing that the NRA has been at war with since 1964. Having fun yet?
I hope it has not escaped anyone's attention that Fritz Hollings is a DEMOCRAT. The Democrat party has consistently pushed for internet taxes, the Clipper chip, encryption restrictions, the DMCA, and now this outrage. Republicans are not blameless, but the Dems are the ones ramrodding this crap.
Why do you suppose that is? Because the big media companies like AOL/Time/Warner and Disney have been keeping them in business, and this is payback time. Also, this is a pure a form of socialist control as you are ever going to see. This is not about Capitalists rulling the world, this is about Liberal Socialists getting a propaganda lock on your TV, computer and reading material.
Therefore let us not be confused as to the source of this. This is originated by Big Media and implemented by socialists. The only way to fight it is the same war the NRA fights the lies about private ownership of firearms. Boycott, demonstrate, VOTE, organise, basically raise all hell with your government representatives of both parties.
The NRA cost Algore the presidency in 2000. You can tell by the complete lack of any gun control talk in the media right now. Should the Dems start pushing this "Computer Registration Act", Slashdot people can join with the rest of the conservatives (read pro-freedom forces) and cost them the 2002 and 2004 elections as well. At the very least the Hon. Senator Hollings should lose his seat over this.
You do not reason with, cooperate with or otherwise work with these people. You fight them and defeat them at all levels from the grass roots to the Oval Office. If you don't, you are going to be standing in line at the Department of Computers every year getting your annual Official Computer Licence upgrade, and running Microsoft Windows, the Officially Sanctioned OS. Y'think Big Media is going to let Linux live? BWAHAHA!!! We will all be trading illegal CDs in Linux speakeasies because web servers will all be run by the NSA.
What, you think they won't do that? Go try to buy a gun in California, New York or Washington DC and tell me they won't! Guns are protected by the Constitution, computers are not.
The Matrix was a fun movie, but I sure as hell don't want to live in it.
What about pocket calculators?
They process information.
They're digital.
Before you laugh... a pocket calculator
(and I mean a cheap one, with +-*/ and little else)
_could_ be used to decrypt a dvd...
it might take a long while, but the trend
in these new laws seems to be
that something falls under it if there is any
conceiveable way to misuse it.
so you say that's a stupid example. they'd
never do that... fine then. Where would the govt
legally draw the line? At Ti85s? At Hp48s?
PDAs? When does something have the necessary computing power to qualify under this law?
If TI85s are deemed to "weak" to qualify,
will we then have to port linux to them,
and run stuff off beowulf clusters of ti85s,
just to get around that?
legally, the only way to get out of this muck
is to outlaw everything, and then selectively
prosecute whenever needed.
mmm... selective prosecution... illegal
(I think IANAL) but certainly very popular
when it comes to IP.
sigh. Oh Canada! here I come.
or maybe Russia, the land of the free.
I believe that new artificial heart has wireless connections, hence is networked.
Tell me, *how* do you distinguish between an artificial heart and a Dell PC? They're both
turing machines, right?
Just write the code and put it in the appropriate place(s). (Perhaps loaded as a module?) Make sure that the source code is distributed with generous comments within, explaining how it works, as any good code should. Make sure the binaries are compiled with this code. Red Hat, etc. would then be legally compliant - it wouldn't be their fault if a customer decided to unload the module, remove the code and recompile the kernel, or hack the code itself, would it?
Someone out there should just go register a patent for "certified security technologies". Imagine the manufacturers' reactions when they're being charged a $10000 or so fee for each device that implements it - I'd guess that most corporate support would vanish pretty quickly!
...across all wings. Copyright infringement ist illeagal (thats clear) and germans believe in law and order - but german politicians are (knock on wood) still intelligent enough to recognize that existing laws are sufficient to enforce rights of intellectual ownership. And Linux (OSS) is cool and hip if your educated about computers and every german politician would rather give his right arm than admit that he don't no sh*t 'bout them.
:-).
:-).
But don't ask me how many dead kids it takes 'till they establish a universal speed limit....'guess all countrys have their quirks.
Aside from that:
There are attemps to establish some kind of DMCA rippoff here in the EU, but those are swimming upstream. As soon as someone gets something like that into Brussels it will (like everything else) be buried in tons of paperwork and exceptions. I goes something like so:
First: Netherlands see humans rights endangered and file a complaint/obligation imediately == 2 weeks of press, no effect.
Second: Germans tinker the issue two and a half months, see human rights endangered, but wait, no, also corperate interests, but wait, no, also danger for equalified chances of education, but wait no, some media giant could go broke and we've got 10 zillion more unemployed, but wait, no...and so on.... == 2 years EU wide pause on the decision, 10 EU wide education/economy ministers meetings in 10 differen't nice little european towns, bill is blown up to 17 fileracks of paperwork and comes back to EU parlament when all seats were changed twice and the whole issue has to be discussed over again...
I love this continent
Ditch America - embrace EU. I renunciated my american citizenship more than 10 years ago to get german citizenship and am getting happier every minute about it, reading all this DMCA stuff. And face it folks: People around the world don't give shit anymore if we've flown to the moon - they just eat more american junkfood. And you're not a McDonalds shareholder, are you? And the beer definitly IS better here
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Now THAT'LL get the tech economy rolling again! Just make everybody AFRAID to buy a new computer.
As I actually read the document, I found the following line interesting:
"Only someone who violates the law "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" can be convicted. "
So even with the law in place, you have to abuse it for financial gain to be convicted. Oh, don't get me wrong, the idea of this scares the fuck out of me, but the actual wording is interesting to read.
"D'ya think that maybe Congress doesn't like OSS very much?"
No tax revenue. No lobbyists. Of course congress doesn't like OSS.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
It is actually exactly the opposite.
Organized crime is created by government regulation. It rose to power by prohibition, and has been sustained by bans on prostitution, gambling etc, and lately the war on drugs.
Remove these government regulations, and you remove almost all incentive for organized crime.
leads straight to hell... except that I seriously doubt if there are any truly good intentions behind this bill. it serves nearly to sole purpose of reinforcing Microsofts monopoly. since you must use an authorized/approved security scheme, how many of those do you think will be available to open-source systems? any number greater than zero would be surprising, to say the least.
Would writing to some part of the American government help?
Note this section:
Stock up on hard drives.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
Throughout the threads of this discussion people have been complaining about Congress being under the control of corporations. This is an EXCELLENT time to show how you feel about this. The Senate has passed a bill on Campaign Finance Reform (CFR), but the House leadership has blocked it. Supporters of the bill are close to forcing it out for a vote in the House by means of a Discharge Petition - they have 207 of the necessary 218 signatures. This has worked twice before in the House, but in those cases the Senate did not pass it. You can find out who your Representative is, whether or not he/she has signed the discharge petition, and how to contact him/her and the web site for Common Cause (www.commoncause.org), a non-partisan group that has been pushing for CFR for a long time. If they have signed the petition, thank them - they notice that because it happens so seldom. If they have not supporte CFR, or if they have said they do but haven't signed the petition, tell them how you feel about that. Find your congressman http://causenet.commoncause.org/afr/dbq/officials/
Common Cause information on CFR
http://commoncause.org/publications/march01/update .htm
House members who have supported CFR in the past, but not yet signed the Discharge Petition:
http://www.commoncause.org/publications/august01/0 81401ndp.htm
Libertarians seem to think that by reducing gov't influence in daily life that things will somehow work out for the better. Hmm. Stupid! Sorry, but the fact is that corporations would have even more control and we would live in a capitalist dictatorship!
Perhaps if such companies hired an army of private gunmen to enforce their decrees we would find the country ruled by corps. This law in fact allows Disney to subcontract an army of gunmen to put people in cages for years, and destroy their livelihood under threat of more severe penalties including physical brutality and murder, and they don't have to even pay a dime for it -- you the taxpayer do.
Now you tell me how Disney could do that if they didn't have the force of law behind them. Libertarian may mean corporations operate with less restrictions, but they also don't get favors either. (Personally I think it's naive to think it'll ever happen, because corruption will still run rampant)
Man, I'm starting to think the second amendment is the most important one after all. These people need worse penalties for their corruption than just getting voted out.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Here is an e-mail I just wrote to one of my Senators (who almost won the Republican primaries this last presidential election... note that I'm not a Republican...) :)
Dear Mr. McCain,
I am a resident of Arizona, and a computer user. I recently read about an act scheduled to be introduced to the Senate entitled the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act", sponsored by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina) and Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Under this act, it would be a civil offense to create or sell any kind of computer equipment that "does not include and utilize certified security technologies" approved by the federal government. I politely request, as a citizen of Arizona, that you vote against this Act for the reasons in this letter.
I see this as a violation of a basic freedom to create, use, or sell anything I want to (including, of course, computer equipment) without government interference.
It is of course necessary to deny the right to create and sell certain things, such as drugs; these things can be harmful and should not be sold.
That however, does not apply to computer equipment; there is no way I can harm anyone with my own computer equipment. But this Act denies me the right to create and sell computer equipment without federally approved security technologies.
The primary purpose for this regulation is the protection of content provided by large media corporations that have lobbied for this Act. Lobbyists from the music and record industry have, and will continue to lobby congress in the hopes of further regulation for consumers and corporations to protect their content.
In a computer system certified by the federal government, their content would be protected from misuse by consumers. It is an ideal situation for the music and record industry, then, that all computers in legal use would be certified.
This helps that particular industry, but hurts another. In the computer industry, if this Act is passed, it would be illegal to create and sell anything not certified by the federal government to specifically protect the content of these corporations.
I would like to create and sell computer equipment that does not "utilize certified security technologies", and I should have the legal right to. I do have that right under the current laws.
The products of the recording industry should not be protected by laws that regulate other industries, and deny my right to sell my own computer equipment without federal approval.
I implore you, Senator McCain, to vote against the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act when it comes before the Senate.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(my name here)
The people on slashdot are very open minded, and there are sometimes posts on emulation, compatability, and security-Alot having to do with linux.
Allowing posts on such, Any open message board could be considered as a network facility to allow breaches in security?
This bill needs to be stopped.
To Reps Hutchison and Gramm of TX:
It has come to my attention that Rep. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) will introduce a bill titled the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act". Its goal is to make it illegal to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies.
I want to voice against the bill. Should the bill be passed, it would be too clostly implement the security features causing me to have to cease my sole proprietorship. I hope this is a place where my representatives will step in to protect the small-time business owner such as myself.
(a) In General -- It is unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies that adhere to the security system standards adopted under section 104.
Here's why it will not pass: by *requiring* "certified security technologies", it violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, which specifically *forbids* Congress from limiting free speech rights. The Courts have *repeatedly* held that the government -- Federal or State -- *cannot* exercise control over the *content* of speech *before* it is published. This bill appears to do exactly that. Let's state what it really is: a bill to require all communication instruments to contain a back-door for the use of the No Svch Ag3ncy. Needless to say, this is an unconstitutional stretch of the Federal government's powers; any of our representatives or senators who actually vote for it should be dis-elected at the next election (assuming that there is one) as insufficiently protective of our Constitutional rights.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
That is the big money clause. It's smart politics. Now they can say "well it's a general law, there can be legal protection, see we're protecting your rights." But we all know what happens when the little guy goes to court against the RIAA or microsoft. It should read "Unless you're stinking rich and have big-shot lawyers -- It is unlawful..."
I'm really curious about this, and I hope someone responds..
I'm sure there are a lot of people writing to their representatives in opposition of the DMCA and other similar proposed laws, but how many people are there actually writing letters of support? I have a feeling the number would be quite low.
(Note- I don't support the DMCA)
-- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
So I, as a physicist, have to put up with some
silly certification limitation because I
choose a computer to compute instead of a
slide rule ?
Foot. Shoot.
Toon Moene.
The fact is, *politicians* are the problem, not democrats and not republicans.
-Legion
If this law passes, the web would have to be completely rebuilt, from the ground up. Remember, when you view a web page, you are DOWNLOADING to your computer images, sounds, and movies to be able to view them in your browser. Remember, there is a copyright statement at the bottom of THIS PAGE right now!
If you cannot have these items on your local PC, then isn't all browser software illegal?
As a software developer, do I have to have a "software cop" validate my source code?
It appears that our Mr. Hollings is easily swayed by corporate soft money donations:
from http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/101899. html:
"Sen. ``Fritz'' Hollings (D-S.C.) received more than $250,000 from the banking, insurance and securities industries during that same period. He was -- coincidentally? -- the only Democrat to vote for a bill that would eliminate the firewall between banks, insurance and securities companies and water down laws requiring banks to serve low-income communities."
from http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/finance/ncfin31 5.htm:
"South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Henry McMaster says lack of disclosure laws there has allowed three big long-distance telephone companies to give stealth contributions of $50,000 each to the state's Democrats a few weeks ago to help the re-election campaign of Sen. Ernest ''Fritz'' Hollings, at Hollings' behest."Hollings is one politician the long-distance companies can't ignore. He is the top Democrat on the Commerce Committee, which controls telecommunications policy. The phone companies' money has helped Democrats flood the airwaves with ''issue ads'' supporting Hollings."
Sounds like scum to me.
This proposed law REALLY goes over the line and needs to be severely trounced! BUT..ask yourself this...why does Congress keep passing laws like the DMCA? Answer: because they can get away with it! Because so few actually KNOW what's really going on in D.C.! It's fine and dandy to post here and bitch about how awful things are becoming here in the Corporate States of Greed and it's great that you may actually write your representative (who could frankly give a rats ass about you; he's there to serve the people who line his pockets). So, you say..what can I/we do? O R G A N I Z E!! One letter won't affect your congressman..he'll reply with a form letter if he gets 100 letters.. BUT..if he gets 10,000 or 100,000 or a million letters, well that's quite different! How can this happen? Easy..we have to go to the average Joe and let him know how these laws will affect HIM. Otherwise, the only ones who know (and care) are geeks like you and I. This involves the MAINSTREAM MEDIA. As much as I can't stand the dolt, look at how Rush Limbaugh does it. He 'spins' everything to be his way! Christ, yesterday he blamed the lawsuit against Microsoft for our (present) bad economy! Plus, he slammed Janet Reno and her staff for WINNING! But I digress.. My point is that he has hundreds of thousands of active people listening and hanging on to his every word. How? Simple! As the Corporate thug said in the movie Network: "you're on TV dummy!" If you really want to change this law and the DMCA and the RIAA and everything else you have to be on TV or the radio. Period. This is what we MUST do! Frankly, I work in radio and I can tell you that it's not nearly as hard as it seems. It just takes a few bucks and some sweat! So, the way I see it is that we have two choices here. We can sit at our computers type our bitches to the choir, or we can take our battle to the airwaves. I'm willing to do whatever is needed from me to do this... What about the rest of you?
I can no longer use computers or electronic technology of any kind.
I can get the fuck out of this madhouse called the US.
Yes, we will see what happens. That's why I have a rather full gun cabinet.
-- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
This is the answer.....
Am I the only one here to think that this is evidently not going to fly? While I have no doubt that big government would be happy to put these limitless restrictions in the way of freedom ("outlawing Linux would be a good thing", "eaveryone gets strip searched daily to stop pedophiles and drug smugglers", etc), in practice these things will simply not fly: they are too far out.
Silly ideas like this are often fielded but seldom fly. In this case for many reasons. IBM likes Linux too. There is a large insatlled base. Software that is open is easily written. And the US is not alone: there's a thriving IT industry in Asia and Europe. The US would lose its leading position, and even the politicos will not let that happen.
The one real danger is that while this will not fly, we will all with a sigh of relief accept lesser evils (like outlawing MP3 and MPEG-2, etc).
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
If the certification process is really independent and objective, Windows will never be certified as a secure system. Well, I know, this is a very big IF.
Does that mean it will be illegal to use my
Commodore 64 now?!
What corporation is going to replace or upgrade every single PC they have to comply with this law? How will it be paid for? Are educational institutions exempt?
.... wait until the other non-media companies get involved with this bill. After the other corporations figure what it will cost them, or pay their legal staff to lobby to become exempt, the costs will be too high.
.... this bill will be deader than Stalin.
Kiss this bill goodbye
I don't believe that all Senators and Representatives are owned by the media companies, and those non-owned Congressmen will be beaten to death by the "other" companies that pay their reelection costs.
Too many rich compaines will get hurt by this bill
Is it yet to the point where we need to take up arms against the government to preserve our liberties? Who will stand up for the cause of freedom and against the corrupt and overreaching powers of a distant government whose every action takes away another of our hard-earned liberties?
I have done some soul searching this very afternoon, and, when the time comes---as it surely will---I will be ready to give my life so that others might have the opportunity to experience the freedoms I go to war for. Will you?
Anyway, since I'm no threat to them (unless they make it illigal to avoid consuming their crap), can I be exempt? Or does this have to affect me anyway?
From the wired article:
One legislator who has questioned the DMCA is Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia).
In a speech in March, Boucher said, "there are some today who believe that the legislation went too far." He said: "It is a crime to circumvent the password or other gateway, even for the purpose of exercising fair use rights. There is no requirement that the circumvention be for the purpose of infringing the copyrights."
Please write and let him know you appreciate him making a stand.
All the Department of Commerce needs to do is refuse to certify any security technology that can run on Linux.
Then Linux would be illegal.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
In order to reduce the "throw directly in the wastebasket" factor, move the information about how, when and where you met him at the end up to the beginning/top of the letter. Then there is no way it would be mistaken for a chain letter and immediately chucked.
Thanks for getting of your ass and doing something proactive.
Really.
A suggestion. Also comment on how it is bad for Canadian culture and the media industry itself.
Much paper and record copyright music from the last century is still around today because personal copies were made while the copyrighted work was still around. If the technologies for personal fair use non-digital copies were disallowed great works of Canadian and European art would decay and disappear long before the copyright expired.
Digital works decay over time also. The medium on which they are held deteriorates. Backups of backups need to be allowed.
Devices that hold the copyrighted work become obsolete. We need to be able to convert copyrighted works so that they can be used on newer devices.
The file format of information on the digital media changes every year. Microsoft Word (for DOS) documents from less than ten years ago cannot be read by any word processor out there. Old documents are as useless as text from a long forgotten language. We need to be able to convert documents into other file formats. I believe Canada faced this issue not too long ago. The Aloette(sp?) Satellite collected an enormous amount of data during the 1960s(?) and placed it on digital tapes that are no longer readable by modern computers. Canada discovered that the data was actually useful to study the ozone layer, so it began searching for ways to recover that information. From the last I heard, there's no way they'll be able to recover all the information.
Copyrighted digital texts can only be read by the blind if the digital text can be converted to braille. Movies without closed captioning can only be watched by the hearing impaired if they can use speach recognition programs to extract the words from the movie. We need to be able to process the information in the movie.
Canada needs a strong culture.
Canada needs to keep the compassion to help the disadvantaged, disabled, and elderly.
Canada needs fair use.
If every computer system in the US had the same "security" measures in place how long would be before some extremely smart individuals (e.g. Fluhrer, Mantin, Shamir) figure out how to break such measures? Given time I believe just about any security measures can be overcome. (802.11b)With the entire country under a false sense of blanket "security" who knows what the career criminals or even the casual criminal could do. Wait. Forget I said anything. Yay Disney! Yay SSSCA! (sorry Linux)
The evil forces have too much money and can bribe anyone and buy votes. The only thing I can think of is to start an underground resistance organization (like many occupied countries had in WW2), trying to sabotage and kill the enemy and its collaborators.
This would outlaw all open source projects. The law is so broad sweeping that it would detroy whats left of all computer related industry. It would be the end of the following companies.
IBM
Microsoft
HP/Compaq
Oracle
Sun Microsystems
Dell
Apple Computer
America Online
Just to name a few.
The term "interactive digital device" means "any machine, device, product, software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form."
This goes way beyond "whole computers". If I read that right, this would include:
- Serial port cards/chipsets.
- USB Ports/chipsets
- Network cards.
- Network hubs and switches
- Modems
- IDE and SCSI subsystems and cards
- Video cards
- Sound cards
- Digital cell phones
- (etc.)
The implication is that ALL add-on cards and pieces of individual digital communications equipment will have to INDIVIDUALLY add government-approved "content control"...It's going to get REALLY expensive to sell "US Government compliant" equipment...Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
The most intriguing part is that the hero of the story was a lawyer who successfully got the security laws overturned in the Supreme Court based on the Third Amendment to the US Constitution. Not nearly as well known as some of the others, the Third Amendment reads as follows:
The lawyer argued that, since the mandated security software was operating to enforce the will of the government and protect its sovereignty, it constituted a "soldier" by any reasonable definition of the term, and thus could not be quartered in private homes (including inside the computers being used there) in peacetime.
Kind of makes you think, doesn't it? Is this just weird enough to work, perhaps?
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
From the ashes of freedom rises a new order. An order that repudiates the anarchy of the few, for the benifit of the many. An order that will ensure property freedoms are respected once again in this great land. An order that will stop the mockery of freedom that passes for liberty in this country today.
We will outlaw those that seek to abuse our great system of governement for thier exlcusive and private benifit. We will crush the degenerates that use technology to disguise their perversions. The time has come to make the law apply equally to all citizens. For who but criminals and gangsters wishies to hide their faces? Finally, we can isolate those that want to destroy America, whether with drugs, or technology, or racism, or hate or the stigmatizing of disadvantaged groups. And eradicate them.
I pledge to you today, that no crime will be too small to go unpunished. That no effort will be spared. That we will make any sacrifice to acheieve final victory over the enemies of justice and freedom.
This war will take years. But we will be able finally to combine our struggles to eradicate drugs, outlaw technology and free speech run amok. For the first time since the end of the cold war, our enemy is clearly revealed. They will be crushed unmercifully!
Astroturfer astroturfer go away! And don't you dare come back another day!
It's great to live in a free land.
A man once said that hate transform you in the worst part of the thing you hate... maybe that's why US is slowly becoming totalitarian like a sovietic land...
Your problem, anyway.
South Carolina is often rated as one of the states with most special interest groups.
It's also a member of dixiecrat block of states, which typically legislate in the interests of bussiness over the interests of people. Overall, it's very conservative. Since the fall of New England Republicans (ie. liberal-moderate Republicans), it has overwhelming become Republican (with some Democrats (mainly older) at the State level). Not surpisingly Senator Shelby (R-AL) purposed tough new legislation against goverment leaks. Typical dixiecrat voting patterns.
In conclusion, as party isn't as important in the south -- Democrats and Republicans are both very socially conservative. So special interests win. And that's not always a good thing.
So, if the general public decides that a group like that is wasting its time and is just a glutton for punishment, might they get labeld SADO-masochists?
#include
Don't get me wrong, this (proposed draft) bill is seriously wrong. I just believe in the power of humor in the face of adversity.
woxy.com - Bam! The Future of Rock and Roll
I want to be able to compute unabashadly on my computer. If you want interractive television content and the like, then build a new device for it, don't cripple mine. Just because people don't want to buy your shoddy products doesn't mean that you should ruin already good ones so you can sell your content that nobody wants anyway.
Dubya: Uncle Dick, the geeks are revolting!
Cheney: Yes, I know they are pretty foul.
Dubya: No, Dickie, I wasn't jokin', they...
Cheney: George, you are a stupid fuck.
Not yet, because subsection B states "does not apply to the offer for sale or provision of, or other trafficking in, any previously-owned interactive digital device". How long will that last?
How long until you have to buy a new VCR, tape recorder, and such because the old one is illegal? It's not farfetched: in some states (CA) it is illegal to operate a car w/o proper emmissions controls. If it was manufactured before they exisitied, it has to be retrofitted.
Also, once this is passed, there is a good chance that all the new software will not work on devices without said "scheme" installed.
Of course, this will be a major boon to our economy. Everyone buying new consumer devices, more law enforcment, etc etc etc.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
Ha. Governments corrupt businesses. A cursory examination of politics vs. economics makes this clear.
Uh-huh. Just ignore the near-universal tendency for corporations to turn to government when they want to wield power.
I'd reply to the rest of your message, but I don't think I could come up with responses simpler than the two above.
Robert Hutchinson
Robert Hutchinson
Smash it. Smash it good.
That's the whole point, it affects you anyway. You can avoid the DMCA's copy protect provisions (but not their takedown provisions (*)) by avoiding their content.
This law will affect anyone with a computer, or any other "interactive digital device".
Heck, even the thermostat in my home qualifies as such! It is a programmable digital device, most certainly with an embedded microprocessor, it has inputs and outputs and processes digital data (comparing 2 temperatures does count as processing data).
* This is where anyone can get your web page removed - even if it is all your own stuff - by making an allegation. The DMCA says ISPs must act on allegations - or else risk being liable under direct, contributatory and vicarious liability statutes - including monetary damages.
ISPs would rather pull your webpage than face being ORDERED by a court to pay thousands and even millions of dollars in damages which certainly outweight your $25/month (or even $25K/month for very big sites) hosting fees.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Whoa, back up. First, that is hardly a basic precept of the libertarian philosophy. That philosophy has only one precept: the initiation of force is wrong. For a libertarian to promote adherence to the Constitution and the BoR requires them to find such a government not to be initiating force. Many of us libs find that idea laughable.
Second, even limited government Libertarians (note the capitalization) hardly stick to what you've outlined above. Any minarchists reading this who would shed a tear if the feds starting ignoring the power to run a post office tomorrow, raise your hand ...
And yet it does anyway ...
If anyone would like the opinion of an anarchist libertarian: copyrights are government-provided monopolies in ideas. Any law written based on protecting them will be, by necessity, an outrageous violation of rights. I would support things like arguments for states' rights and fair use only insofar as they would help to reduce the level of violation. It would still be preposterous to claim that decentralized thugs have any claim to rights, or that "fair use" isn't a collection of bread crumbs thrown to the public so they won't have to stop thinking completely. Yet.
Oh, and to JamesOfTheDesert: Rothbard espoused minimalist government? I think a rereading of his work might be in order.
Robert Hutchinson
Robert Hutchinson
Smash it. Smash it good.
Yes! Agreed 100%!
I'm going to be writing my congressmen and senators, and I'm also going to attempt to give the good Sen. Hollings a clue. It may be a futile effort to try to educate him, but it's worth a shot.
If you write your reps, remember to do a few things.
Doing a few other things will also help.
And for anyone who is going to respond saying that nothing will help... If you take your own advice and do nothing, you'll prove yourself absolutely right. Take the time you were going to spend bemoaning this monstrosity here and use it to do something that will matter.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
We have one. Slashdot mentions it over and over again. It is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It may not be a true PAC, but it beats the hell out of having nothing. And perhaps if the EFF were to recieve more funding, it would be able to start a PAC branch - something we truly need.
For those of you looking for a way to oppose laws like this one and the DMCA, do something intelligent with your tax refund - mail it to the EFF. You can do so at http://www.eff.org.
want to know how? Simple. Microsoft will require hardware to have these security features as a prerequisite for Windows to be installed on a computer.
These lobbiests are lobbying abroard too. New Zealand is going to legalise compulsory registering of software (to go in conjuction with the new US law).
The irony of this would be if Linus was forced to emigrate to continue working on the kernal.
Of course, there won't be any computers left able to run Linux...
The definition of an "interactive digital device" is incredibly broad:
"any machine, device, product, software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form."
When I was a teenager I was an electronics hobbyist and I assembled a simple computer based on a 68000 CPU I bought at a computer flea market. Total parts cost something like US$50. That would be illegal if this law were passed. MindStorms would also need DRM hardware. Electrical Engineering students would need to incorporate DRM in all their projects if they were sufficiently complex. That raises another question - exactly how sophisticated does a device need to be for this law to require that it have DRM? According to the draft, all of the following would apply:
A potato clock?
A digital thermostat (has a CPU in it...)?
The digital time clock at the 7-11?
A digital watch with text memo capability (it could hold the DeCSS algorithm! Oh no!)?
A router?
A modem?
An Ethernet switch?
An Ethernet hub?
An Ethernet cable?
A can of soup carrying a UPC code?
A carrier pigeon with a TCP/IP packet strapped to its leg?
It's pretty clear that it would be illegal to build your own PC without incorporating a government-approved DRM component.
[troll] Hmm, what if the component only comes with a driver for Windows on x86 hardware? Installing Linux becomes a federal crime, since you're disabling the DRM hardware by deleting the driver! Wheeee![/troll]
As for penalties, let's all think about whether getting an EE degree involves private financial gain. That's the idea, right? So building a project computer sans DRM is punishable by 5 years in jail. Neat!
Send money to the EFF as soon as possible; let's make sure this law gets clobbered.
Sec. 103: Prohibited Acts
(a) Removal or Alteration of Security -- No person may --
(1) remove or alter any certified security technology in an interactive digital device; or
I wasn't aware those flavors of Windoze had security...
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
If it gets worse, form a group and talk to a country for a deal to all emigrate there. Country gets influx of talented tech workers = $, we get our freedom. Win - win. I dunno, how about Scandinavia or something? Finland? Iceland? If they actually close the borders and won't let you leave, then you fight. No choice.
I am not defending this proposed law (it sucks, is stupid and embarassing to the USA, and is unenforceable and probably unconstitutional for a number of reasons). Nonetheless, I don't think your First Amendment analysis is correct. If you read the applicable precedents, a law is a "prior restraint" on speech where it creates a mechanism for the government to intervene and stop the speech before it reaches the intended audience. The paradigm "prior restraint" is a government censorship board, that must review and decide the suitability of all books, movies, etc. *before* they can be shown to the public.
I see nothing in this bill that authorizes the enforcing agency to take that type of advance action. Instead, it appears to be an example of the more routine "subsequent punishment" enforcement scheme, where a violator gets punished after the act occurs. "Subsequent punishment" laws may still violate the First Amendment for other reasons, but not because they're "prior restraints" on speech.
(This may be a bit of a technicality, but I get touchy about such things, because so many of the legal truisms that are passionately espoused these days, particularly on the internet, have no basis in the actual jurisprudence. E.g., many people are in jail now because someone convinced them that the US Constitution makes tax paying optional, or some such hogwash. So forgive me a little overreaction.)
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
The way this is written, it can also be a effective vehicle to force key-escro -- I mean
while we are protecting the world from evil hackers who pirate 'the matrix', why not prevent
them from communicating to each other about how
they will circumvent protections by handing the keys to encryption, or even remote access,
over to the goverment?
I hope they are not asking me to run proprietary code on my gnu/linux device!
--This is against my religion!
I've been trying to tell people that the Democrat party does not, and never has had, the interests of the people at heart. Now I'm not saying the Republicans are any better. But it has come to be clear to me a couple decades ago that the Democrat party has many similarities to the National Socialist party that emerged in Germany during the early 1900's when the people were not paying attention and striving to get help from the government to recover from terrible economic conditions. This time we need to stay awake (or wake up as the case may be) and try as best we can to prevent what happened to Germany from happening to the United States of America.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
You may voice your opposition to the proposed SSSCA at:
m l
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SSSCA/petition.ht
(I've restricted this petition to American citizens only, since it's aimed at our "representatives" in Washington, and they don't think foriegners exist. But I know you're with us in spirit.)
If you thought the tech market sucks now, just wait till they put mandatory big brother software onto the devices! They are really trying to kill tech, isn't that obvious to everyone??
Under Clinton/Gore, and now under a Democratically
controlled Senate, this country has seen by far
the greatest erosion of privacy and personal
freedom rights ever. The draft of this bill is
perhaps the pinnacle. Were I to assemple a PC
out of parts and put Win 98 on it (linux aside)
I would be a criminal. Democrats = NO FREEDOM PARTY.
Wake up and smell the coffee people. They
want to control every facet of your life from
cradle to grave. As somebody else posted - you
people in SC better be voting this guy out instead
of sitting on your ass!
If you want a secure system, you have to jettison Windows.
You could get viri that would decode all your "secure" media and transmit it via email.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
the point is that jim crowe laws wouldn't pass on a federal level, because the majority of the country(read: North) was against it
same with slavery
SSSca - taken your rights away, making Linux illegal. This is bullshit.
-- "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
Let the computer makers, hard disk makers, handheld makers know in no uncertain terms that you will not purchase equipment with draconian copy protection measures built in, that you will delay upgrading, or turn to overseas manufacturers, or simply not purchase at all.
They have a budget and a voice in Washington that is just as big as that of the entertainment nazis, er, industry. I doubt they want thier profitability to be subjagated to the wishes of rosen, valenti, et al. We could leverage thier support if we work together.
And STOP giving money to the RIAA/MPAA by purchasing products from thier members. They just use it against us pushing for garbage like this.
- Government interference in the free market
- The USSR banned fax machines and other communications devices that weren't registered/on the government's list/used local components. Look where it got them.
- Who controls the rights? If I'm a writer, can I do a 17th century Italian period piece based on Pulp Fiction? How will the rights process know? What happens if it mistakes my rewrite of Othello for a copy of "O" and prevents me from working on it? Who can I sue?
- Who will pay for Adobe to upgrade their software? Microsoft? Compaq and Dell and Apple and IBM have plenty of reasons to oppose this.
- This is an unconstitutional "taking" from the folks who make software and computers.
- The government wants to take away your RIO player!
- The government is attempting regulation that will increase the cost of all your electronic gear, and make it less useful to you.
- This is corporate welfare for movie studios and record companies.
- All electronic equipment will need this security setup, no matter how ridiculous the idea is that it would be used for piracy. Your car's onboard computer may increase slightly in price.
- The movie studios and record companies are trying to take over the computer industry.
That does for a start. Some of them are out on the edge, but there are indications that any or all could be exactly correct.TSG
after i learn the language
they are going to kill the FSF and GNU project and any other OSS if the copy rights protection code has to be included any software that could posibly be used to copy copyrighted material no softwar will tuly be opensource because there are patents on most forms of copy protection and loyalites will have to b pyed onl large well established corporations will beable to mmake software. But the U.S. vs Stallman,Cox, RedHat, SuSe,Mandrake, EFF, IBM, HP, Torvaldes, an anyone who has contributes any code to oss projectsafter the law is passe should be a good one.
Corporations are creatures of the State.
At one time that was true. Now, after a century, it's the other way around.
I only hope that other governments don't get infected by ALD (American Lawmaking Desease)...
Actually, there is a genetic disorder that uses ALD for its acronym: Adrenoleukodystrophy. Nasty stuff...it affects the growth of the adrenal glands and basically the entire nervous system, beginning with learning disorders, long and short term memory loss, Attention Defecit Disorder, ending up with the person becoming a vegetable and possibly death.
wow...i actually used something i learned in biology.
wow...this post has nothing to do with th SSSCA
http://www.ulf.org/
You can't have pi apples, but you can have apple pi!
Black web pages. Remember those? They don't have the power, we do, and they are scared of it.
Remind me when the last time that happened?
I'll treat this software just like I treat Microsoft FrontPage... I'll install it, but i'll never use it...
http://www.linkdj.net/
[Note a slightly different version of this letter was
emailed to Senator Hollings on 2001-09-08]
I was dismayed to find out that Congress is considering the
SSSCA act. This act would make it a crime to create a
personal computer that does not have digital rights
management built in.
As I understand it, the purpose of SSSCA is to prevent the
illegal copying of copyrighted materials. With mandated
digital rights management technology in each computer, the
SSSCA will raise the cost of each computer all because a
subset of PC owners violate copyright laws. This is unfair
to the American consumer. Instead, we already have laws on
the books for enforcing copyright law, and these laws
should be enforced.
I am also concerned about the chilling effect this act will
have on innovation. Effective digital rights management
technology can only work if it is closely held. If the
"blueprints" for such technology are widely known, then it
will be easy to circumvent it, and be of no effect. By
limiting who can license the technology, SSSCA will raise
the bar on who is allowed to invent.
Today, the market for small computers and other digital
devices benefits from the "Open Source" phenomenon.
Entrepreneurs can incorporate technology from Linux,
FreeBSD, GNU, and myriad other free forms of computer
source code into their products without paying license fees
to convicted, and heretofore, unpunished monopolists like
Microsoft. I believe that the effect of SSSCA will be to
outlaw open source and thus force new ventures to pay
exorbitant license fees to an increasingly smaller number
of operating systems vendors (only a few days ago,
Hewlett-Packard and Compaq agreed to a merger, reducing the
number of independent vendors by one). My reasoning is as
follows. Even if the open source is modified to
incorporate digital rights management, it will be very
simple for individuals to remove such technology. Versions
of such software will quickly appear on the global internet
on web servers outside the USA's borders. Therefore, the
most practical way (and even then, I suspect that it would
be no more practical than say the attempts to prohibit
trafficking in alcohol in the early 20th century) to enable
an effective SSSCA would be to ban open source code.
Think of what this would mean: the free exchange of
computer source code, which Judge Patel in San Francisco
has ruled is free speech, would be banned, or strictly
controlled. People who write computer source code would
have to be registered, their actions closely monitored, and
software vendors would similarly have to be controlled or
licensed like liquor establishments. The effect will be
that the art of computer programming will be strictly
regulated much in the same manner that the nuclear power
industry is.
There are excellent safety, national, and international
security reasons for regulating nuclear technology. Do we
really want to infringe on the right of digital expression
just so that motion picture and recording music companies
can have their profits ensured? Where are the life and
death stakes here? The entertainment industries are not
required to use digital formats. No doubt they claim that
unless they can take advantage of digital formats, they
will wither. Yet why should the computer industry be
required to spend resources, and infringe constitutional
rights to ensure the entertainment industry's profits? Why
is an industry, invented about 100 years ago, more
important than computer and digital device industry which
has a much larger impact on the economy than entertainment,
and has higher growth rates? Why, especially during an
economic slow down, with demand for PCs slowing, does it
make sense to make PCs more expensive and less attractive
to consumers?
It may very well be the case that in the digital age, the
entertainment industries will have to adapt their business
models or die. If so, so what? Progress has eliminated
countless industries. For example if there were laws
protecting the live theater industry when motion pictures
were invented, such laws were in vain. So today, more
people go to motion picture houses than live action
theaters. Nonetheless, live theater remains a part of our
culture. Similarly, the advent of the automobile did not
mean that horses, and the industries around them did not
completely die off, otherwise millions of people wouldn't
tune in every spring to watch the Kentucky Derby. Just as
more people got to enjoy performances by the finest actors
in world due to motion picture technology, more people got
to enjoy the convenience of transportation thanks to
automobiles. The cost per performance/viewing decreased
with motion pictures and cost per mile of transportation
decreased thanks to the automobile. Where would the
unfettered digital age leave the entertainment industry? I
cannot predict that no more than my ancestors would have
predicted the marvels and plenty of the 20th and 21st
centuries. I do believe that people will want to listen to
music and watch some form of drama and comedy on some form
of screen or stage, and thus I leave it to the existing
players in the entertainment industry to figure out how to
make money from that demand. If they cannot, then someone
will. This is what competition, free markets, and
capitalism are all about.
Of course, it is possible consumers will rebel if the costs
of professional entertainment rise as a result of
artificial causes like SSSCA. Perhaps they will find other
forms of entertainment. It would not be first time that
entertainment tastes have shifted.
Technological advances will nearly always be economically
detrimental to some industries; this is one of the prices
of progress. But compare the standard of living today in
the United States, with that 100 years, and it is obvious
that society as a whole is better off.
Finally, I should point out that the combination of the
DMCA act with the SSSCA act will inevitably result in weak
digital rights management technology that won't offer real
protection. The DVD copy controls were trivially broken
with the DeCSS code. The SDMI copy controls for digital
music were defeated. The copy controls for electronic books
were defeated. In all cases, rather than result in better
copy controls (and in the case of SDMI, the attacks were an
academic research exercise, which despite DMCA purported
provisions to the contrary, did in fact result in attempts
to squelch public scientific discourse on the subject),
instead the copyright holders took legal action in an
attempt to put the genie back into the bottle. Thus, I
suggest that if you still want to pursue a digital rights
management law, you must also amend DMCA to allow
scientists and engineers to openly research the topic, and
where flaws are found in existing technologies, openly
publish them. Today, the situation is analogous to banning
Consumer Reports from publishing flaws in automobiles.
Imagine a periodical targeted at say musicians that warned
of flaws in the music industry's copy control or digital
right management standards. Shouldn't the ultimate stakes
holders be allowed to know? Instead, the DMCA act forces
the truth to be hidden, and shoddy technology to spread,
instead of allowing the free market, and free speech to
advance progress.
I'm in favor of the free internet laws. Hey, let's just gob them up with so many bills having to do with deregulating the internet that they have to buy more and more fibre optical connections just to get a phone call out!!!
Or, we can black screen.
It's astounding how quickly the land of the free turned into a big government fuedal system, not terribly different from the oppressionistic style of communism. I bet if other countries got hold of this they would scoff at us and tell us how non-free we are. Frankly, I'd agree with them. I don't have anything really big to say that all the slashdotters haven't said in the forum yet. I just have one small thing to add to all of this: If this passes, a LOT of people are going to leave the country. Me included. I only live about 200 miles from the Canadian border anyways... -KD
Let's just threaten to black screen. We did it before. We should do it over the dmca.
You know, it will hurt companies, because no one really really truly needs a computer. We can go back to parchment if we want to. They stand to lose more than they ever hope to gain.
I trust everyone knows what to do?
From Mr. McCullagh's summary, I see that there is a "grandfather" clause for unaltered "digital interactive devices" sold before the law comes into effect. On the hardware side, that might not be such a bad thing. Grandfathered hardware will become more and more precious (and here's one for the zealots: if M$ products continue to bloat, such hardware will tend to run open and/or free software).
But, software explicitly falls under the definition of a "digital interactive device," so providing an operating system or other software, even at no cost, might constitute trafficking in illegal devices. So, one might be prohibited from offering a new distro of Linux (for example) without an approved DRM package, if this ever becomes law.
Again, IANAL, but it seems to me that since "software is speech" this is where the law would be most vulnerable to attack, if it were passed and if someone were arrested for breaking it.
Nevertheless, it is still better to prevent this silly idea from becoming law in the first place. I'll be breaking out the pen and paper to write my Senators. I urge every U.S. citizen to do the same.
On geological time scales, it's always almost Friday.
Not that im thrilled by this.. but one of the side effects will be that the dvd-rw makes will no longer be able to sell recorders that wont allow home users to protect their content like the big media companies do.
What makes you think it won't?
If it reaches the vote, here's what we do. Everyone in IT, every web page designer, every CS, every single living person, foreign or not, needs to black screen their web site.
It worked one time before. It'll work again.
Notice it says the corperations have 12 months to agree. Sounds very fishy.
>The balance is shifting and you, our fine >neighbors to the north, seem to be more
>protective of personal liberties than the much
>touted US of A. You even have a rational
>universal medical plan.
I fail to see how a universal medical plan that 1) requires the theft of 40+ billion dollars a year from working Canadians and 2) forbids people with money from seeking effective treatment outside that wonderful system with its long delays and decades-old equipment, somehow protects personal liberties. And yes, I am a Canadian.
Also, Canada is already drafting DMCA-like legislation and will certainly fall in line with any other IP-protection legislation the US demands , unfortunately.
No, Mexico is dangerous too (NAFTA). What about South America, Western Europe or even... Russia?
Which other country has a law DEMANDING the ability to make backups?
well, I would think that you would NOT buy all the music you listen to, that would be very damn expensive. I mean, you do want that root canal money?
While I am not a constituent of yours, I deem it necessary to write to you regarding the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act. According to Slashdot and Wired, you are this bill's sponsor.
As a writer and a programmer, I understand and respect the rights of creators to hold copyright on and profit from their intellectual property. However, as an individual who values his freedom, I find the SSSCA frightening. I think that you are taking good intentions and valid concerns too far.
According to the Wired article, the SSSCA requires users of computers connected to the Internet to install "copy protection". Not only is this provision almost unenforcable and a violation of individuals' property rights, it is immoral. I do not think that the federal government has the moral right to tell an individual what software he or she must install on their own computers.
If you cannot find the time to allay my concerns regarding the SSSCA, at least take time to consider the consequences of this bill's passage, and its possible effects on the rights of individuals to use their property as they see fit.
Sincerely,
Matthew Lovelace Graybosch
******
"What makes you think I care about your opinions?"
Nothing new here.
How would they stop such private armies from existing?
The same way the "aggressively libertarian" early U.S. Federal Government did. Send in U.S. Marshalls and Army Reserve troops to shoot them.
A Libertarian government would not be a weak one, just a limited one. Part of the benefit of a Libertarian government would be LESS power in the hands of corporations. Libertarians belive in LESS concentrated power, not more power. This includes opposition to more power in "the private sector" or "the market." A Libertarian government would defend the lives, rights and property of the people, because Libertarians believe that the only legitimate role of government is to defend the rights, lives and property of the citizens who chartered it.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
No, I'm sure of it.
If this legislation gets extended into, and it will knowing the government, digital devices, pagers, cellphones, Amateur Radio transceivers, CB radios, Family Radio Service radios and others would come under this act. Morse Code is a digital code - characters represented by binary signals of different lengths and constructs. I would find it to be terribly amusing and Orwellian to see a legal, homebrew Amateur Radio transceiver that is designed to strictly send and receive Morse Code (a DIGITAL signal)have to have this governmentally ordered system to prevent someone from sending out the back door password to Windows by Morse Code. I agree that this is a huge stretch but given the children in Washington....Give them a rope, they will make a noose around your neck.
The problem here with these people is ignorance. 'Internet' in their terms means WWW or AOL, which is plenty enough for their purposes, and they see no need to go beyond that. "Why do you think every INTERNET ADDRESS starts with 'WWW'?" says George Bush, which pretty well sums it up. The problem with this is that until our generation matures to the point of taking some serious power, legislation will more than likely be for the worse, out of ignorance, rather than malice.
I guess what I'm getting at is that since the only parts of the internet that are a threat to them are largely ignored by mainstream society, eliminating them shouldn't pose too much of a political problem. The current mp3s sharing situation has them scared. Really scared.
It took them 15 months and tens of millions of dollars to shut down Napster, and now their back at 'Go', with several PR debacles under their belt. They now understand that no matter what they do, they can't hope to keep up with the free software development, and therefore, can't keep pirated material off the 'net that way. The problem for us is that software requires a highly expensive hardware infrastructure to run it. They know this too. Now, they'll try their hand at controlling it, through legislation. This won't work either for a variety of reasons, the simplest of which is "while there is demand, there will always be a supply". They will only cause more trouble for all involved.
The amount of trouble will be inversely proportional to how long it will be before this legislation is attempted to be implemented. Why? About a year or so from now, linux will be viable on the desktop. It will grow in popularity in enterprise environments, and as it does, more and more commercial software will be made for it. The effect will snowball, and in about 18 months to two years we'll start to see the first off the shelf linux PCs in best buy and circuit city. Linux is one thing that I think is immune to that kind of regulation, because it is too decentralized in terms of who controls it. Getting linux on the desktop is they key to this whole mess. I think.
Anyway, that's my five bucks.
Maskirovka
The actual costs of stamping out the copies is not a big part of the consumer price. There is the royalty paid to the creators (which is rather small for music, but can get to be rather large for major motion pictures). There are also costs for promotion. Pirates don't do promotion, but instead ride the back of existing promotion. While there are indeed inflated costs in the price of entertainment content that could be removed (the stock holders would suffer, so don't expect it to happen), there are costs that do get covered that pirates would not be paying for.
It's a complex problem. But more laws are not the answer. And cutting prices to the levels that pirates can sell for isn't possible to do while providing for a return on investment (contrary to the experience of some dot-com managers, businesses are supposed to produce a profit and a return to investors).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
So, can we go after the fact that digital audio recorders tanked when introduced? "The government wants to do to the computer industry what it did to digital audio -- make it more complex, harder to use, more expensive. People won't bother with the new systems, causing a backlog in the computer industry that will lengthen the current recession." See if you can include comments about IBM's Microchannel bus in there -- technology inserted specifically to bring the products back under their control.
One other thing: When you call up Disney Public Relations, what's the best way to ask about this? Perhaps something like "Is it true that The Walt Disney Company is supporting government-mandated security software to track use of potentially copyrighted materials?" That might not leave enough traps for them to fall into, though...
TSG
"I live in California, and I voted for the Boxer/Feinstein combo. I will not again. They both voted for DMCA and I will vote for ANYONE before them."
I live in North Carolina and will vote against anyone who voted for the DMCA as well, which means ANYONE who was in Congress in 1998, they ALL voted for it.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Dizny is big enough they don't have to care about a boycott. A few years back the Baptists (I think it was them) boycotted Dizny, but it didn't make a bit of difference. Dizny didn't change a thing.
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
Remember to send your letters to your members of the US Senate. They should get first crack at stopping this. Here is what I sent to the senators in Texas. In the actual e-mail I included my address and phone numbers for work and home as well as my e-mail address. That way they know that I am in Texas and a voter.
To the Honorable Phil Gramm and the Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchinson;
It has just come to my attention that there is a bill going to be introduced titled "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act". It is being written by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.). A draft copy can be found at: http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/sssca-draft.pdf and a partially transcribed copy can be found at: http://216.110.42.179/docs/hollings.090701.html. The text is 19 pages long. A good thread on how this legislation is being perceived in the programming community can be found at: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/08/02382
I have several problems with this piece of legislation:
1. This proposed legislation will restrict research into security both computer and otherwise. To start with, the proposed law begins with: "In General -- It is unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies that adhere to the security system standards adopted under section 104." Why would you care if a device did not have the "certified" technology. This does not allow for better technology. With security alarms, the first methods to turn them on were outside key switches. What if that was the certified method. Then the inside timeout control panels would not have been allowed, or would have been slowed down due to "legal issues" since they were not certified. Let's not stifle the computer and other security related industries.
2. Although it is well meaning, any new security measure that would be introduced would be illegal under this law until certified. This poses a problem in that the most effective means of testing security is to put it out under public scrutiny and examination which would not be allowed until it is certified. Look at the effectiveness of the RSA and DSA encryption methods. They are publically available in books and still are extremely hard to break or require extensive computer time and equipment that far exceeds the value of the code being broken. Those algorithms were tested publically with their source publically available. Compare this with the DVD encryption that is only protected by the DMCA and can be broken with 6 to 8 lines of code in real time on a slow PC.
3. Software and systems will not have the option to choose whether they are certified or not.. A lot of good software and hardware people will choose not to be certified and we will lose their needed input because of a law that should never have been written.
4. It is highly probable that some of the best software may not be certified since it is in the public domain. This would cause a real problem. In the case of software like Linux or BeOS which are public software and maintained by programmers who volunteer their time might actually become illegal to use. Personally I cannot afford to use anything but the "Free" software. I use Linux for new machines at my home. I have Windows 98 on 2 computers, and Windows 2000 on a laptop, and even Sun Microsystems Solaris on one machine (it also is free). I use Sun's Star Office for a word processor (also chosen by the DOD). I can't afford to upgrade the computers to the new version of MS operating system. It is good that I now have an alternative. I can switch them to Linux if the Windows 98 gets too slow. Please realize that I have 5 sons. That is one of the reasons I have a network at my house.
It this bill gets introduced please fight to get it overturned.
I have supported both you over the years. We haven't always agreed on issues, but I highly respect both of you and appreciated both of your wisdom.
If the bill looks like it will be pushed through no matter what, see if they can add something like is being considered in Europe where public software licensed so that people can review the source code (GPL or copyleft as we call it) and even have input into the program are automatically certified. Only programs that want to remain closed source have to pass the public scrutiny tests. Those tests should include public review of algorithms and code. Otherwise how can you check them out?
Thank you listening.
"I want to know God's thoughts...The rest are details." Albert Einstein
I love to see you Americans do this kind of thing!
Do you think the rest of the world is going to follow your silly draconian laws? It would be wonderful if the USA got stuck being forced to use government prescribed technology whilst the rest of the world advanced. Such irony! You've gone down hill so much in recent years, it's great! I'm so glad I live in Europe!
If the US was capable of remembering the harsh lessons of prohibition, we wouldn't have had a 20 year long "war on some drug users", now would we?
Will Dyson
"We can't stop here
Perhaps we can use Bush. The Bush Administration and Hollywood are not best friends. Perhaps we can get Bush to screw Hollywood in the public interest. It would definitely be in the public interest.
On a different note, what will they use for their Render Farms after they make Linux and FreeBSD illegal? Back to slowlaris or winblows, I suppose.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
2. Support this legislation and await its passage.
3. Rake in the money on eBay based on the grandfathering in section 101.
4. (optional) Spend the money you made to vacation somewhere and reminisce about the day when information wanted to be free.
It has been said that people get the type of government they deserve. What kind of government do people who don't vote deserve? From this legislation it looks like that you've got it, haven't you!
Start the Anti-Incumbent League! Simply vote out all the incumbents. Ignore party affiliation, there are no good guys. Got to political campaign speeches. Organize such that no Anti-Incumbent League Member ever applauds anything. Repeat for several elections until they ALL lose every last bit of seniority. The next step is to demand campaign expenses reform. All donations must come from individuals.
Then vote in a government that is forced to listen to the people. Stupid legislation comes from legislators who have come to believe that they can pass anything. This belief comes from experience! When one stupid law is passed and enforced, an even worse one must follow. Remember the guy that tried to legislate that PI equals 3!
I think his prophecy is now all but proven. We're headed there. I would ask you to mark my words, but in 50 years it will turn out that I never existed and this was never written. But then, you will have never existed either. So we'll be even. And if you listen reeeeeeeeeelly close, you can hear the corporations whispering,
"...but some are more equal than others."
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
what's interesting to me is the clause, under the criminal penalties section, that
'Only someone who violates the law "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" can be convicted. '
So would this law actually make it illegal to distribute Debian, since it's not done for any commercial advantage at all?
This might also explain part of the reason behind this bill. Anyone wanna bet that some of this money goes to SC and CA??
"Title II -- Internet Security Initiatives
[Summary: Creates 25-member federal "Computer Security Partnership Council." Funds NIST computer security program at $50 million starting in FY2001, increasing by $10 million a year through FY2006. Funds computer security training program starting at $15 million in FY2001. Creates federal "computer security awards." Requires NIST to encourage P3P and similar privacy standards]"
All this whining about people getting in trouble for writing software to crack CSS and e-books makes me sick. Clearly, the reason this stuff is written is to make copies of copyrighted material.
I have no sympathy. Particularily because the copyrighted material in question is largely crap and not worth stealing anyway. But also because this stuff *should* be protected from blatent infringement. No if's, and's or but's.
But the SSSCA goes WAAAAY the fuck too far. The day the government tells me I got to have certain HW or SW on my machine is the day I stand up and yell FUCK YOU! They can throw me in jail as an example if they want to. But I am NOT going to have this shit on my computer and I am NOT going to hide it.
This is such a blatent violation of my rights and freedoms. It makes me sick.
If you read the entire submission the document states that it is only illegal to transmit,circumvent, etc... digital information that is first protected by this standard..
Therefore if linux users do not adopt the standard and do not transmit,etc.. materials already protected then there is no infraction. This is directly aimed for digital commerce of music and the like, for intellectual property holders who want to use it..
Please clarify what this has to do with Linux/*nix who's intellectual property belongs to the public under the GNU Licensing etc...We don't have to use this if we dont want to...we just cant mess with the stuff of people who do adopt it.I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
There is no way this law can pass in its current form.
It is far too broad, and will make entire classes of industries illegal. It is unenforceable, extremely costly, and just wouldn't be effective. All this doom and gloom is a bit premature.
However, it IS an indication of the way things are headed, both in the law and the computer industry. Expect to see many less publicized, more specific laws of the same type.
The best thing about this is that it is SO extreme and ridiculous, that it may bring attention to this problem.
What about MY freemdom to innovate???
SOFT MONEY LEGALIZES BRIBERY! As long as this is allowed, in ALL cases, elected officials will serve those with the most money.
=Rich
What counts as "force"?
A club bouncer keeping people out? How does libertarianism justify club bouncers physically removing pushy people?
Is smacking a child force? Is verbally abusing a child force? Is verbally abusing someone to the extent they commit suicide, force?
Is stalking force?
Is drugging someone into a coma and then unlawfully imprisoning them without food or water (hence killing) force? Why? There is in point of fact no physical force involved, but it's still murder.
Is drug-raping someone force? Why, when consensual sex can involve more "force" than drug-rape?
Is graffitti force? Is littering force? Is tearing down a poster force? Is putting up advertising on someone else's property force? Is trespass force? Is shooting at someone to get them off your property force?
Is pollution force? If I force you to breathe noxious fumes and you immediately die from them that's surely murder. But corporations get away with it by being separated in space and time, and being richer.
Is noise pollution force? You can kill someone with sound if it's loud enough. At what point does sound become force? Injury? Deafness? Bleeding ears? Death?
Is goatse.cx force? Is shoving a printout of goatse.cx in someone's face force? What about if it was a child you were showing it to? How horrifying does a picture have to be before it's outrageous to show it to a child?
What about scaring a child to death, or giving an old woman a fatal heart attack by pretending to be a ghost? Is that force?
Is fraud force?
Is education force?
Is libertarianism force? Is saying "Those protestors need to stop whining and get their heads out of their asses" force ? Is saying "You are a know nothing fuckwit" force? Yes. Yes yes yes it is.
Force is much, much more complicated than libertarians will admit. If they admitted it they'd have to renounce libertarianism.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Another thought... the document says that cable and radio stations and personal-use situations are allowed and cannot be disallowed by the "technologies". If i record a song with my FM tuner card am I circumventing any technology to do so. I think not, i am simply recording a stream of data transmitted over the public airwaves, there is no security device in place in this operation. So therefore how would the government identify a copy made legally or at least without infringment of the SSSCA and a copy that does infringe? Pro-bono attornies looking to make a name for themselves would have a fieldday with this piece of crap.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Lots of acronyms and so little time... How will Linux become illegal (to whom it applies) and if it does will they prosecute the New York Stock Exchange? Come on...grow up...
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Behold the seattle adhoc network.
http://www.seattlewireless.net/
You don't have to look back that far. Crack was invented to deal with the issue of moving large amounts of illegal good around.
I can honestly say that simpy because this was put up by a "Representitve" of my goverment I am embarrased, ashamed, and disgraced.
I can also say the time will no longer be to stockpile arms as I hope you US slashdotters are doing (It legeal, fun, can be profitable, and may be the only hope for this nation when the time comes this is no longer a democracy, dont even get me started on how close to the end we are), but rather "computer equipment"
Sec. 101: Prohibition of Certain Devices
(b) Exception -- Subsection (a) does not apply to the offer for sale or provision of, or other trafficking in, any previously-owned interactive digital device, if such device was legally manufactured or imported, and sold, prior to the effective date of regulations adopted under section 104 and not subsequently modified in violation of subsection (a) or 103(a).
Looks like I can have anything I want as long as its not done after the effective date of this legislation, gives a whole new meaning to keep your recipts, hmmmm wonder what that does to software updates ?
Ive got plans for underground gun vaults but those are made from 6-8 inch pipe, what the heck am I gonna stick a puter in thats 3 foot square and waterproof !
"If we dont hang together surley we will all hang together" Ben Franklin
The tenth amendment is the trump card here, it basically tells the federal government to go screw itself; it isn't allowed to do much of anything.
So, when I'm confronted by a bunch of machine-gun toting morons, I just tell them to fuck off and go away?
The Man comes after us and imprisons us because his corporate cronies whine that they are losing theoretical profits. It is stuff like this that has made me not only support the abolition of copyright law altogether, but massive taxation of all industries involved
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." Couldn't have said it better myself...=)
Fuck em , let them pass it , this "digital certified "crap will just be cracked anyway. i bet half of you use illegal software already.
Sunce when did we follow the DMCA? This will be no different
This one would be horrifically hard to enforce. This is just a wild guess, but say that there are 5 million computer users out there that will refuse to install this BS on their systems (actually, there will probably be a lot more). Are the Feds really going to go out and raid 5 million people, just for the sake of enforcing Yet Another Purchased Law? Granted, the way we're going, it could happen one of these days, but the Feds need to wake up and realize how absurd the laws are that they're being bribed^H^H^H^H^H^Hlobbied to pass.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
I am amazed that I saw no comments on the NSA's "we're so behind the times" talk and this "security guidelines proposal".
The NSA thinks they have a method (hard/soft) they can conceal, which aids in their data collection. They push a few politicians into offering it up as copyright enforcement methods to force it into widespread use. They portray their force as inadequate to help hide the scheme. Finally intelligence gathering is on a path to global levels equaling WWII levels, but not just against the enemy.
Sneaky guys.....
...industry organizations would be immune from antitrust prosecution.
WTF? So that's the crux of what they really want to get out of this.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Explain how this is promoting science or useful arts, please. I do not see the justification for this anywhere in the constitution. In fact:
Amendment IX-
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X-
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
These seem to indicate that trying to harm the progress of science is if any government's right, it is that of the states, not the federal government, and of promoting non-useful arts is the right of either people, or states.
Oops, I forget, the fscking copies given to potential reps by corps are abridged, and extended.
Just me being pissed off. I think I will go talk personally with my state rep (I know her), and write a snail mail letter to the us reps for the state.
it wouldn't really require massive support from
the average american consumer, only massive
support from the tech workers of america, which
should be alot easier to get that joe blows
support. the ass in me would like to see
what happens after a week of even half of the
technically skilled workers just didn't show up.
The EFF is a tax-exempt nonprofit corporation, and contributions to the EFF are tax-deductible. Consequently, they can't engage in any political lobbying activity at all.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." -- Ben Franklin
'nuff said.
Dear Sir,
It was recently brought to my attention that a bill called The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act will be proposed this fall and I would like to formally voice my opposition to it for the following reasons.
1. I don't see how the bill will be effectively enforced without it being something that applies Internationally. In particular, an operating system that I am quite fond of called Linux would be significantly harmed as would those who earn their living developing it and applications for it in the United States. Effectively this bill would criminalize the act of downloading a copy of the operating system if it does not comply with this bill. Should Linux exist solely in the United States then it would be less of an issue. However, Linux thrives on the Internet in a spirit of innovation where improvements are produced by the best minds around the world. Currently, many excellent distributions (versions) of Linux are produced outside the United States in Europe, South America and Asia but are enjoyed and improved on by programmers and hobbyists in the United States. Should this bill pass, and I chose to download and install a distribution that does not comply to the SSSCA, then I would be a criminal despite the fact that I had no intention of infringing on anyone's copyright.
2. This bill begins to infringe on one of our most dear constitutional rights, the right to free speech. Should I create a piece of software, email, or other file, I have the right to distribute it to anyone that I wish without approval or endorsement by the federal government. This bill appears to infringe on that right.
3. I also fear that the primary effect of this bill will be to increase the cost of any hardware device or software that complies with the SSSCA, by forcing the developers to spend valuable time and materials to comply with it.
4. Since it does not prevent someone from using existing technology, and the only way to determine if someone transmits unsecured digital information would be to invade a persons privacy, this bill would be nearly impotent. The last thing in the world that we need right now is more laws that are unenforceable.
I sincerely hope you take a chance to read through the bill when it is presented for debate.
Some good comments and potentially useful courses of action have been posted here; that's good, it demonstrates the utility and power of open communication to clarify and help to solve difficult issues. Alas, that's a nice sentiment completely lost on the US Congress. I don't think anyone yet realizes the scope of this draft legislation. Let me point out some of the ramifications which have occurred to me.
1. It effectively outlaws open source operating systems and some applications. Look at it this way: the DMCA says that the *potential* for copyright evasion is against the law. This new idea does the same only in broader scope. It won't matter whether anyone actually writes code that allows Linux users to evade digital security: the mere potential that something along those lines could be written will be sufficient. Ditto for any application that interacts with media streams covered by this new, Draconian copyright 'protection'.
2. The DMCA to some extent and this new proposal to a larger extent means business: boys and girls, let's get one thing straight. Breaking these laws will NOT mean 30 days in the county jail and a fine of a month's wages. These crimes are defined as felonies, which means serious time in the big house and a fine big enough to ensure that the perpetrator never owns a new car or their own home ever again, short of winning a lottery. Also, as a convicted felon there are other, additional penalties which apply after the time has been served. Examples will be made, big time. Trembling in your boots yet?
3. This new law will be of concern to... (calculating) precisely 0.15% of the population, tops. My neighbors are not going to write their congressman; hell, most of them don't even write their mothers. They aren't going to picket, donate, or anything else. They don't care: they will still be able to rent the latest Hollywood blockbuster any time they want to. There just isn't going to be any 'popular groundswell' of support in opposition to this law. Heck, half the time I can't get my boss to agree to make a decision, let alone do it now. How are your powers of persuasion? If you ever wondered how Hitler could have come into power in a democratic pre-WWII Germany, just watch the news. It happened like this. Want an example? One proposal here on Slashdot suggested that we all boycot Disney products. A fine idea, if I weren't already boycotting them for past misdeeds. Nevertheless, let Mr. Eisner put out ONE 'cool' film, say about a plucky chap named Linus who single-handedly and completely innocently takes on a mighty corporation, gets the girl and saves the day for Freedom, Justice, and the American Way, and I will be quite happy to bet next week's paycheck that AT LEAST 90% of the people reading this will sneak at least one plush penguin doll into their collection within a week.
4. Write your congressmen all you like: your letter represents an investment of $0.33 and they just don't give a rat's ass comparing that to $20,000 campaign contributions. To get the attention of Congress you need millions. Do you have millions? I don't. Those that do are the same ones who dictated this BS to the congressmen in the first place. How many of you have written your congressmen related to the DMCA, or about Dmitry. I wrote to all three of mine and got two replies: one said 'thanks for the letter', one said 'sorry -- I don't get involved in specific criminal cases,' and the other one never bothered to even send an automated reply. Like most congressmen, they don't seriously consider themselves threatened to lose office at the next election, so they don't care whether I vote for them or not.
5. Picket, donate to the opposition, boycott Disney -- all good ideas, I suggest that we all do that. Despite the fact that techies are notoriously apolitical and that on a good day you can get maybe a dozen activists onto a picket or demonstration. Ladies and gentlemen, it isn't going to happen in this lifetime, most of us aren't that kind of people. (On the whole, we're 'way too nice.) On the other hand, it doesn't really have to: history records precious few revolutions which were actively or even passively supported by a majority of the population. Did I say 'revolution'? Sorry - I didn't mean it in the 'let's blow things up' sort of way. I meant it as a dramatic change in course, in the manner of people taking back their government. Peace is good. So is love. So is justice. The fact that I have precious few ideas how to do that without blowing things up is (or should be) irrelevant.
6. It would be nice to say, 'who's going to write the code to implement all this -- we should just refuse!' but that's a non-starter, let's not even go there.
7. I'd like to thing that my natural paranoia combined with having drank a liter and a half of Diet Pepsi is just making me all bummed out right now, but it will not surprise me in the least if this thing becomes law this year or next. The immediate effect will be to turn me into a criminal: I will NOT use a closed-source operating system such as Windows, especially if I am told that I must do so. I'm just too cranky for that and I've never been good at following orders (just ask my wife!) I expect that an encrypted underground will spring up and those who want the code will get it, most of everyone else will continue to contribute to Bill's retirement fund. Se la vie.
The real question in my mind is, what's next? I suspect that communications is going to be a hot target before too long: GPS transmitter/receivers in every cell phone, every vehical, etc. so that you can't possibly get lost (even if you should want to.) Money has to be on the list: cash really is untraceable and once computers and communications are regulated and 'secure' there's no real reason to keep it around. A few tech-savvie crooks will get very very rich by ripping transactions one way or another but in terms of a national economy it'll be cheaper than the existing cash economy, so they'll go for it. You and I will pay, repeatedly if possible, for every bit on information we consume and patent and copyrights going the way they are, it won't be long before everything is patented or copyrighted by someone: we'll end up having the fee for "Good morning, dear," taken out of our bank accounts automatically. Well, I guess it beats writing a check.
This is why the US sucks, and I am glad I don't live there!
I think people are missing the point behind this new issue. For the DMCA, at least there was a tune that went with it pretty well: YMCA by the Village people. What are we going to do for this one?! I'm scared.
your a democrate!!
They take more rights away then any other party.
This new gem is the latest in a slow degredation of this country for the sake of the corporations.
Anyone that's paying attention probably doesn't want to be here or is doing his level best to resist/change things for the better.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
All extemists should be shot.
Seems like we're being forced into being extremists by other extremists- I don't think the position posited by your sig is a tenable one at this point, especially in light of your comments.
Perhaps it's time to make a new sig, hm?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Nah, all they have to do is make an analogy between IP and oil, and he'll be eating out of their hands.
TiVo la revolución!
:)
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
I note in the text of the bill that it proposes to appropriate (read: spend tax dollars) around HALF A BILLION DOLLARS. Which after the manner of gov't budgets, will expand to somewhere upward of $10 billion by the end of the proposed timeframe.
ISTM the most effective fight would be to send a news teaser to the major media (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) and to those with any history of front-paging tech issues (CNN, San Jose Mercury News, etc.) which points out that "your gov't plans to spend [OMIGHOD LOOKAT ALL THE WASTED TAX DOLLARS] to prevent you from using your computer in any way not approved by [INSERT MAJOR BRANDS HERE].
It doesn't need to be letter-perfect accurate, it just needs to sound horrible enough to create a major public uproar.
Such a public uproar, largely courtesy of front page coverage by the SJMN, was likely what [temporarily] stopped the hard disk copyright-access-control scheme (the proper name of which presently escapes me).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Digital Millenium (you know the rest)
There was a time not so long ago when I would have totally agreed with you. but now... hmm...
I think if you were told about the DMCA before it became a reality you (as would I) would've said it'll never fly. look what happened.
that this and all other bills of its type will die off before they even have a chance to live. As any good bastard operator does I fear wedges, and this looks surprisingly like the thin edge of a wedge to me.
Although many will say that the DMCA is the real thin edge and that we are on our way down the wedge, I disagree. I really don't see what is so wrong with the DMCA. If you are goign to bypass encryption ask for permission first. And instead of bitching about not having a DVD player for why doesn't someone just write the MPAA and see what they need to do to make a DVD player for and not be inviolation of the DMCA. Hell if nothing can be done, just play it through a set top DVD player into a TV tuner in your computer or some such shit. In stead of bitching about everything some of you should actually get up and do something about it.
However this SSSCA inspires me to do a little writing to a holder of a political position to give him/her a peice of my mind (and maybe a peice of some friends minds on this subject as well, because we all know that a collective voice is better received than a single voice). If this doesn't inspire you to write than you need to check your moral meter (or you are not in the US in which case i kind of envy you as i am just getting pissed at the US right now.)
"That is because boats don't fly."
that's not the only thing mentioned in this thread that doesn't fly...
i'm not a libertarian, i'm a centrist, but let me take a whack at his one anyway,
the original poster of this thread stated his perception of the problem as follows:
"The US government is obviously being terribly corrupted by various organizations with lots of money."
therefore, implying that this corrupt goverment is using its powers to negatively influence people's live with legislation such as the SSSCA..
Then went on a semi-coherent rant against libertarians, implying that they are the cause of the SSSCA problem because of their philosophical opposition to giving the government excessive power to control ***PEOPLE'S*** lives through corrupt legislation such as the DMCA and SSSCA...
and then stated:
"...the gov't is the only organization which has the power to respond appropriately to pressure from the citizens"
so, as my symbolic logic instructors would have said, let's reduce this argument to essentials:
The SSSCA is the result of a government corrupted by corporate influence via lobbying and political contributions.
This corrupt government's influence and power is being reduced by libertarian ideals.
The solution to the corrupt goverment's having too much unchecked power, resulting in its ability to pass corporate special interest legislation which is deleterious to the average citizen is (drum roll, please)....
..to give the corrupt government much broader powers to control the everday lives of citizens...
"I'm scared living in Canada just because of proximity."
...I agree, i'm scared of you living in canada, just because of proximity, too.
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
Which is why it will continue until politicians who violate the Constitution are treated like anybody else who violates a major law -- i.e. the go to prison.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I believe Ron Paul of Texas and a few others didn't vote for it.
Glock
My goodness, am I happy not to live in the US. Does it strike anybody else as odd, that they have more real freedom in China than in America?
America: Land of justice of freedom.
I can't help saying this, "AHAH! SUCKS TO BE YOU!" Doesn't being a minority REALLY suck?
-1, Troll
> And while it may make you sick to vote for a republican (or a
> democrat) they're your best bet for getting the current guys
> kicked out. Better that then wasting your vote on some guy from
> the nipplebiter party who will only get 3 votes in the election.
> -- Greyfox
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. "Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
- Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish
"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene Debs
CowboyNeal for president!
"Hit any user to continue."
The wrong people are running our country. Time to organize.
For all of you folks who are thinking about funnelling money to the South Carolina Republican Party as revenge for Hollings' perfidy - stop. Notice the name of the other sponsor on the bill.
Ted Stevens is a big-gun Republican, not an outcast on the moderate fringe. If he's working with Hollings on this, it's not just some kooky imperial-state Democrat's idea. Merely elbowing Hollings out of his seat won't make this bill go away. Take a longer view.
As far as lobbying goes, here are a few more useful people to lobby than merely your local Senator. Write McCain. Even if you aren't an Arizonian - he's ranking Republican on Commerce. Is your Senator on Commerce? Find out and harangue them about it, too. Write Ron Wyden [D-Ore.] and George Allen [R-Va.], who are respectively the ranking Democrat and Republican on the Commerce subcomittee that handles these matters. And don't forget Rep. Billy Tauzin [R-La.] and Rep. John Dingell [D-Mich.], who are the chair and ranking member of the Commerce committee on the other side of the Capitol, in the House, and who have demonstrated considerable clues on matters technical in the past.
If this bill makes a floor vote, the battle is already pretty much over. Fix it so it dies a quiet, neglected death in committee.
...is an industry-written law, saying "all our competitors - and the tools of a free people - are banned because we say so." This is the worst kind of drek. It unconditionally bans commerce and the exchange of information.
It's no surprise to me that this law's snivelling sponsors are from the pathetic backwaters of South Carolina and Alaska. If everyone had this kind of attitude, we'd still be sitting in caves for shelter and seasonally dying of starvation.
The "robber baron nullification act," which seizes the assets of all entertainment and content distribution "business" and nationalizes all "intellectual property."
Why? Those businesses have repeatedly and increasingly shown an attitude which is inconsistent with the existence of a free society. We, the people, are tired of their excesses. They need to be smacked down, so hard that they'll never get up again.
Reading stuff like this - makes me seriously consider what it'd be to live in Europe. (Except I've heard it's very hard to get citizenship there.)
I've already written the IPPD and my local representatives to oppose it. You should too.
The IPPD proposal (with e-mail address to send comments to) is here. The deadline for comments is the 15th, so hurry up.
If you would take this sitting down, you might as well move south.
"Where shall the word be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence." -T.S. Eliot
Lets face it, this form of government it fucked. totaly, irreperably fucked. the corps got it in their back pocket, and we can't get it back. once upon a time, having a king worked, the society hadn't evolved far enough to need anything better. that philosophy got corrupted, as did democracy. slowly legislation slipped in, that allowed for less and less personal freedoms, and more and more financial control over our legal system. the simple fact is, we need to rebuild it. sometimes your instalation is so fucked that you need to fdisk it people! so let these bills pass, the more screwed our government becomes, the sooner we toss it out and get a new one.
enigmaticmachine at yahoo for comments...
Is that the media and entertainment industries, noticing that the computer and semiconductor industries are temporarily strapped for cash and influence, are taking the opportunity to seize control of the future of technology in our society.
That's right, in twenty years those fine folks who brought us Cop TV, Howard Stern, and "When Animals Attack" will be building your pacemaker. Comforting feeling, isn't it?
The shortsightedness of this kind of government is breathtaking. If the US goes much further down this path, it will deserve the inevitable disasters that result - and I won't be sticking around to wait for them.
Imagine, the land where commerce is forbidden, free discussion and distribution of facts banned, and widespread ignorance demanded, by government policy and fiat.
For good reason. They don't want lazy, selfish, warmongering Americans.
Hi, I also live in .be and was wondering what the current state is on DMCA kinde laws here
Do you have any idee ? or know where to find the information ?
thanks in advance
42
If we were all poorer, there'd be less wealth for the subverters of our free society to spread around. We are being destroyed by our own prosperity, as Rome was.
The society which first learns how to solve this hard problem will be long-lived and happy indeed, but I'm afraid now that it won't be us.
This law will pass because the money pimps can buy whatever they want. Our congress critters and other officals at all levels will do what they are told to do. They have no honor or common sense.
;)
Sure a few of us will write letters and talk to our friends and family. But more often than not we will be seen as weird odd balls and conspircy theorists. As they all go and purchase dvds, cds, disney products, go to moivies, concerts, etc. etc. etc. all things I try to avoid.
We will live in our little black market worlds doing what we want how we want. But the rest of the people are toast.
But even we will pay a price, some of us will go to jail for thought crimes, have our lives and households destroyed so corporations can get piles of money. Such is life!
I have never be one to leave things alone (covers on etc.) or even keep my mouth shut so it should be an interesting time. Besides, this just means they may not use good methods/security and we will just have an easier time of it. hehe And what I cant figure out, I will just do without.
Let's thank our friend Declan; this time we found out *before* it passed, not after. This is definitely the spirit; let it now be repeated and outdone. More!
Naturally, voting your congressman out will probably hard... but ideally, that is the only way these things are going to go away... by getting rid of all the corrupt politicians in the government and replacing them with members of THIRD PARTIES that actually still have their ideals.
... Maybe Europe isn't such a bad place to move to, after all.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
On the one hand the porn industry needs free speech more than any other industry (CDA 1 & 2 struck down), and on the other hand, P2P file sharing networks have taken a significant bite out business, and it will only get worse. The "monkey spankers" could care less, but the content "pimps" still need to pay the "ho's" or we'll be stuck burping our worms to amateur porn, and re-runs from the 70s - late 90s.
So, without being hypocritical, they're between a rock and a hard place.
Funny you should mention beer, as there's a good chance the beer tax will be cut in half. The cut amounts to peanuts ($1.7B/yr), but the reaction from beer guzzlers will be disproportionately greater. "SSSCA-what? buurrrrrp." :-)
So, if you're a smart frog being slowly boiled, what do you do?
Spread Jim Bell's assassination politics far and wide? (I kid you dear echelon)
Power to the Peaceful
You hit right on the mark. This proposed law is yet another reason why I want out of this country.
The journey is better then the end.
Are we too paranoid, or are we not paranoid enough?
-- H. Wilker
It is still allowed to have a "previously owned" box act as a firewall/proxy/router for the Internet connection, running GNU/Linux, *BSD or whatever. With IP masquerading and HTTP proxying, equipment behind that box is not visible from the Internet. So how should they see it? And if yes, how can they distinguish (by analyzing the Internet traffic) between "previously owned" and "SSSCA crippled"?
As new computers would have to comply with the SSSCA, why should I buy a new one when the current machine is doing well? Many people are still using 486 or Pentium I which are enough for their daily tasks. What does the computer industry say about the SSSCA? The stockholders of HP/Compaq, IBM, Dell etc. surely won't like it...
I log in today and start browsing through, and what do I find? A lot of people up in arms and ready to fire the entire congress (not that that would be all that bad of an idea mind you) over something that hasn't even been introduced yet, if it is even real.
Let's think about this logically now, shall we? What is the most important thing to most politicians? Making lots of money and having lots of power. To accomplish that, they need to keep their jobs in Washington. Now, a politician doesn't keep his job by pissing off the majority of his electorate and after the backlash that is happenning over the famed arrest under the DMCA, I highly doubt that any congressman that wants to keep his job is going to vote for this. On top of that, I don't know too many politicians that would actually be ballsy enough to even intorduce the bill. Yes, quite a few industries would pay big money to push this through but that money would most likely be the last bit of money that the congressmen and women would see and therefore would not be good politically no matter how you look at it.
Let us not forget, something like this would be reported until you got sick of hearing about it in the mainstream media the minute any word it broke, which has not occurred. For some reason I highly doubt that Wired News is going to find out about something like this without any of the big guys.
I would suggest for now, we all take a deep breath, sit back, and relax.
"I believe Ron Paul of Texas and a few others didn't vote for it."
The only ones who didn't vote for it would have been Congressmen who either weren't in office in 1998, or else were absent from the vote. It was done by "acclimation" (or voice vote), ie: All those in favor say Yea, etc. No record of individual votes were made (which is why they did it that way), so oficially it's unanimous.
The DMCA was passed by a conspiracy of BOTH political parties, and President Clinton, all of whom supported it and passed it.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
In a nutshell, there's not a whole lot you can do with your precious hardware if the Act ever gets passed.
It seems somebody forgot about what computers are for: processing information. Since most of that is more about recombining existing data than about creating new, the result is that a sizable chunk of what computers are used for, now, suddenly becomes impossible. Then you'll have to think twice about whether buying a computer is really worth it. That, then, is the end of ubiquitous computing and the information age.
decoy
Maybe employing Runes for the first two "S" and propagating that 'spelling' will make people stop and think about the beast. Although its on par with "Micro$oft", legislation with that conotation might be a little harder to push through.
But then it's probably tacked at the end of a long list of laws to be decided over all at once, as the last item in some friday afternoon session.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Folks,
What its is going to really come down to is it will be illigal to build your own computer.
Has anyone noticed (in the U.S.) how hard it is to get a good selection of hardware to build your own systems? There is much more than anti-OSS going on here. Look deeper... it is really scary!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
In short: kill it now.
-Elendale
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
These are all the specious arguments we've heard for years in the gun control debate. "If it doesn't affect me..., or "You have nothing to worry about unless you're a criminal..." have been the cry of the other side forever. Perhaps you anti-gunners on the list (& I know there are some) will think twice the next time the gubment tries to regulate something that only affects the "other guy". To paraphrase, we either work against all oppressive legislation together, or we shall hang separately".
It's simple. The certified software will simply contact the "big gubment computer (BGC) (tm)" each time it is ready to perform a copy & ask for permission. If you're not copying anything illegal, you shouldn't have any complaints, right!!! ;~(
can you imagine a world without "any interactive digital device" lacking "certified security technologies"
does your watch, pocket calculator, mobile phone, PDA, phone answering machine, car computer, your kids' gameboy, talking doll, electronic organ, (and do not forget all the new fancy stuff they try to sell you - your brand new digitally controlled vacuum cleaner, refrigerator with internet access, bluetooth headset) etc., etc., etc.
only to make disney even richer, YOU would have to pay all that "certified security technologies" in the devices.
----Original Message Follows----
From: copyright-droitdauteur@ic.gc.ca
To: xxxx
Subject: RE: COPYRIGHT REFORM PROCESS
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:26:39 -0400
Thank you for your comments. We are currently preparing all comments received for web posting. Submissions will be posted according to the date received and with the author's name.
Malaka Hendela
Policy Analyst
Intellectual Property Policy Directorate,
Industry Canada
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
- "1 d0n+ r3m3mb3r"
As fast as the government works, this should be no inconvenience at all!!! (snicker)
Slashdot, the site where everything's made up and the points don't matter
Hi, I also live in .be and was wondering what the current state is on DMCA kinde laws here
Do you have any idee ? or know where to find the information ?
We're having a DCMA sooner or later as per European Directive 2001/29/EC. Never a directive was so much lobbied in Brussels and so little talked over outside the EU parliament. You got to love the free press in Europe, which prefered to talk about either the English royals or some food scare of the month... If we are lucky we can help to limit somewhat the damages of its transcription to the national legislations, check the EuroRights site.
Form Email Letter to John McCain Here.
Oh come on, what's with the lameness filter, this was such a cutting message a short while ago. (Pre lameness filtering)
Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
I realize this is an old story, but I thought I'd pass along, since no one else had mentioned it, that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) offers a weekly breakfast with her constituents, available by reservation to *any* resident of the state of CA who is in Washington, DC. (Details at http://feinstein.senate.gov/breakfast.html)
I would urge any and all California residents to take her up on this offer and bring this to her attention, if you happen to be in the DC area. Might be a long shot, but how often do you get to bend the ear of a Senator in person?
That is what was said abut the DCMA
As interesting and necessary as technical self-defense is, I believe the main battle must be fought in the realm of politics, ideas and cultural values. Some of us have never been part of large scale political action and protests. Some of us are old enough to have grown up in the Vietnam era and we learned a bit about these things. We who are of the aging baby boomer generation need to learn to protest and to demonstrate all over again. We need to learn how to do it smarter than we did back then. But we need just as much dedication and passion and just as much of a counter culture identity as in the sixties and seventies. And all of us, regardless of our ages, need to make our voices heard, heard now and heard LOUD. We need to become revolutionaries and to teach the world what the revolution is about, what they stand to gain or lose, and how to fight for it. We need first to recognize it and dedicate to it ourselves. Or are we going to simply whine?
It is easier to stop the State from going totalitarian in disasterous ways than it is to survive and manage to sneak by it once it has done so. You may think you are smart enough to escape or to to work around it. But how much pain, lost years and lost lives might you avoid if you used that wonderful brain to organize, oppose and protest now or at least support those who do?
So what will it take? Memetic engineering yes. But also more active stuff that gives notice right now that we will not stand for the nonsense comming in SSSCA. We must go viral and flood the congress critters with mail and phone calls and infect everyone we can with the importance of doing likewise. We need marches and demonstrations in Washington and throughout the country as soon as we can organize them. We needed them already for DMCA and its early victims but it is better late than never. We need lawyers and legal entanglements for bringing the IP police state policies down. We need legal protests and test cases, editorials, letter to editors. We need teach-ins. Can we reach a broad enough coalition to force the politicians to take notice? I don't know. But we must try in all ways that make sense to try.
We must start asap. Preferably the protests should begin even before this gross legislative miscarriage is even officially a bill before Congress.
Will emerge based on streaming pay-per-use media to 3gpp mobile devices. Associate that with adoption of ipv6 protocol. See, that PC without IPMP built in is the only weak point - anyone could run a server. I'm afraid, that bill would pass and be soon adopted worldwide. 3gpp adopters seem not sure about their profits, and not sure what would be their killer-app. They would press governments to guard them. Just an idea...
An essay on IP, etc.
/ 21/990621opmetcalfe.xml
I feel the need with all the horrible rights violations going recently to highlight Thomas Jefferson's views on copyright. In the writing to ensue, there will be much opinion and conjecture surrounded by a more valued and respected sets of opinions by none other than Thomas Jefferson. Without a doubt, Thomas Jefferson has already covered most of what gets rehashed, particularly when it comes to fair use and the DMCA.
I feel it is important to this case, especially from the American prospective, to point out that one of the most ingenious, prolific and outspoken forefathers of the USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws live, believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included and explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair copyrights and legislation thereof.
Thomas Jefferson was concerned about you and me. The people that read periodicals. He was concerned with everyone as a singular entity. You yourself may not know what's best for you if you belong to something bigger. Our [United States] laws are supposed to protect the little people.
While I'm not suggesting an armed standoff against federal agents necessary in this case, something must be done. We are railroading an expatriate to whom our laws do not bind. Furthermore, our own forefathers, particularly Jefferson, BELIEVE me he is YOUR friend (not the big monopolies like Energy/Petroleum Companies, Microsoft, etc.)
I'm going to excerpt his beliefs below. Realize that even 200 years ago, the pitfalls of burdensome copyright and the legislation that ensues would erode our freedoms.
...
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in his correspondence with James Madison (1751-1836) was initially hostile to the provision for copyright and patent law in the United States Constitution. On Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to Madison from France concerning the recently-drafted Constitution:
"I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land..."
Note, here IMHO, Thomas Jefferson wants to, along with our other inalienable rights, establish a freedom from Monopoly. These rights, not excluding freedom from monopoly, were to him as core as the rest of our bill of rights. He repeated this view in his letter to Madison dated July 31, 1788:
"I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new constitution by nine states. It is a good canvas, on which some strokes only want re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from North to South, which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modification of these suited to the habits of all the states. But if such cannot be found then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."
Madison, in a letter dated October 17, 1788, responded,
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. But is it clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely less danger of this abuse in our governments than in most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. Where the power is in the few it is natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger can not be very great that the few will be thus favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.
I hold the recent copyright extension as an example of what Madison thought there was little danger of. There it was said, even by Madison, the proponent of the said directives, that there would likely be no "a sacrifice of the many to the "partialities and corruptions" of a powerful few."
I firmly believe the DMCA is both a corruption and a partiality. Anyone with Macrovision stock will try and convince you otherwise.
Jefferson probably saw that there is some purpose in having intellectual property be protected in some fashion or more likely, IMHO, probably decided that he would rather be a part of creating the ground rules for this countries operations and decided to cut bait at this point. He subsequently said to Madison in a letter on August 28, 1789:
"I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."
The blank was to be filled in at some future date, obviously. The law is written with the sense that this right would be the right of the people to protect themselves against intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g., the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In addition to which, there is always the stance that the people of the fledgling USA would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights against unduly long copyrights.
Jefferson's preference for the term of copyright was submitted to Madison a few days afterward, in a letter of September 6, 1789. The proposed term was that of 19 years, based on actuarial calculations:
"The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another seems never to have been started on this [i.e., the European side -- Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American] side of the water... that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. -- I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it... A generation coming in and going out entire... would have a right on the first year of their self-dominion to contract a debt for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for 14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant term, beginning at the date of their contract, and ending when a majority of those of full age at that date shall be dead. The length of that term may be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take, for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon... [according to which] half of those of 21 years [of age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term beyond which neither the representatives of a nation, nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive application... Turn this subject in your mind, my dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country gives you an opportunity for producing it to public consideration... Establish the principle... in the new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19 instead of 14 years."
A Jeffersonian computation using life tables from 1992 gives a Jeffersonian copyright term of 30-35 years. (Vital Statistics of the United States 1992, Volume II--Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, Hyattsville, 1996, Section 6, Table 6-1.) Note, however, that at least one edition of Jefferson's works has a much abridged version of this letter, in which the 19-year computation and the proposal for the term of copyright do not occur.
One of Jefferson's most famous statements on patent law was in his often-quoted letter of August 13, 1813 to Isaac McPherson, in which he wrote that, since there is no natural right to property in land, how much less is there a natural right to a property in ideas. I think Jefferson's words apply equally well to copyrights as to patents; to "expression" as well as to "ideas": "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
A random set of impressions of these laws with which I agree:
"The scary thing about the DMCA is that it affects everyone, but only a subset of the country realizes it exists, of which a subset understands what it means, of which a subset understands why its so wrong. " quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
"Is there a "voice" amongst this subset that has any power to inflict any change here? Kind of spooky. It makes you wonder where things are headed." quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
As someone pointed out in a discussion, be sure to realize that copyright is referred to at this point as monopoly in Jefferson's letters.
Its fairly clear that Jefferson uses Monopoly in reference to copyright, which is what it is, you can monopolize on your intellectual property for a set period of time. He was willing to give IP of the day 19 years, but he was very much verbal about fair use, and that public fair use was of the utmost importance.
Even cursory inspection of Jefferson's views shows his distrust of allowing monopolies run rampant.
Even Madison has said:
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government."
They both realized that in order for Monopolies of any sort to be protected by the government, that undue amounts of arbitration would be necessary.
Jefferson also affords a Monopoly to the Individual, not a corporate entity:
"Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."
Surely he isn't suggesting that one person could create a monopoly on, lets say, corn. He was referring to copyright. He certainly isn't suggesting that corn could only be sold by one person for 19 years.
Another thing, imagine if the copyrights were in fact awarded to the people who invented them, not the companies who subsidized them. It would be interesting to see a world where companies like DuPont and Merck (and every other chemical and drug exploitation companies, because that's what they are, the money is in the treatments, not the cure) are made to treat their patent holding scientists with the utmost respect and regard, even more so than the greedy shareholders, because if they left for another company, so leaves their patents!
The most important of all the Jefferson arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so wonderful and so great, why does it need protection? I don't believe I had quoted this particular argument above, I will work to find it, but the statement is true. If something is obvious, then it really isn't IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules moron who founded 3COM to hold the patent on 'ethernet'?
Link: http://iwsun4.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/99/06
Don't you think its nice that other companies compete with 3COM for the ethernet space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't the standard referred to as "ethernet" get better and better because these companies compete for your business in the same segment?
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181. Link: http://www.lib.virginia.edu/copyright/
The message in this passage is clear: an idea is not matter but energy; it cannot be owned, and it isn't diminished by being shared. In any discussion of copyright, it is useful to begin by reminding ourselves that ideas can't be copyrighted and can't be owned--only expression can. Furthermore, even when expression is copyrighted, academics ought to bear in mind their right to Fair Use, a crucial exception to copyright that exists in order to enable teaching, research, and news reporting.
A few more quotes to muse upon:
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their choice, if the laws are so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they... undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow "
-- James Madison
And finally:
"The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them. I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. "
Thomas Jefferson To Edward Carrington
Paris, Jan. 16, 1787
I do not represent the wolf. Life liberty and property, property in that case being tangible assets, e.g., guns, real estate, houses, possessions. He never said life, liberty and monopoly. In fact, life liberty and property was rephrased as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In my ethos I strive to achieve a more star-trek like existence, where you can serve yourself (with notoriety, money, etc) and mankind at the same time. There is no need to "milk" technologies - look what happened to TUCKER in Detroit. Fucked out of businesses by the monopolists. I want to protect against that. Milking is what petrol and car companies do, prevent fuel cells, ceramic engines, higher fuel efficiencies in motors, etc. We won't see next generation technology in cars for some time because the current has to be milked.
I am upset with you. I never said ban. Copyright. I said freedom from burdensome copyright, not freedom from all copyright.. You don't know how to read and understand this is moderate position.
Elcomsoft had stopped charging for the Ebook software before he entered the company. He had done so at Adobe's request. He is an employee of Elcomsoft and cannot be charged for what that business entity had done. We have similar laws here where companies are formed to financially and legally shield people from faults.
Of government. Your attention to picayune details is annoying. You misinterpret his words, in my opinion. Are you referring to all the monopolistic and tax payer wasting exclusive government contracts?
As far as monopoly and sacrifice. Yes, monopolies are a sacrifice. I don't shun copyright or patent, I just want them used more carefully and for fair use to be protected. You can still make a product, if it so damn good then you don't even need to patent it. People need to focus on being a better company and product and not thinking about sitting on and licensing your IP for all eternity, e.g., RAMBUS. Again, you misread, malign and come up with shoddy arguments.
I'm going to stop responding to you because you have been a troll, this is clearly someone who sits and reads and has his heart set on disagreeing with me for no apparent reason other than the sake of argument. There is always one of you in a discussion thread, so I guess you can say "YHBTYHLHAND." If you weren't trolling me, then you are very un-American in your thinking - I can't think of anyone, conservative or not, that thinks any of Jefferson's reasoning wasn't intelligent and well thought out.
This is a waste of taxpayer money, its designed to veil the actions of foul men like George Bush who steal social security money from us. How about, "Mr. Bush, you're a criminal." is a perfect expression for the Quid Pro Quo thievery that he performs in office, allowing all his business cronies to steal from the American public.
THINK about what you do and who you work for. The headline that lead me here makes believe Mr. George Bush, whose family has Nazi ties and Nazi money infusions in WWII through Prescott Bush, is a real hypocrite for asking for "gossip" to end. Why, he has everything to gain by people not talking about the trash the makes him into what he is, a blindsiding, un-American, Nazi-sympathizing, pro-business anti American bastard.
He is a Skull an Bones elitist, and he thinks the "weak" need to die to make room for the Darwinistic strong.
I suppose Stephen Hawkins in his wheelchair is weak.
I suppose Nancy Reagan begged Bush not to cut stem cell research because Ronnie has Alzheimer's - why, Bush is an elitist prick.
Pro-choice, pro-American, and pro foul-language, Anti-Microsoft, Anti-Monopoly, Anti-Pork Barrel, Libertarian-ish smaller government with good monetary policy.
The Senate is a cabal of scum liars, the congress is worse. My family lineage is rooted here since the 1600's and the modern manifestation of government is an embarrassing attempt to cover up of lies, deceit and misappropriation. These liars don't want gossip - like Chandra Levy, affairs, lies, bribes, etc.
The USA is now "Amerika", Communism forming through corporate elitism.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
... because the European Union Parliament has decided all security-related code MUST BE OPEN-SOURCED, because everything else is insecure. This correlated with these news means something like the USA becoming the next third world, since it would be the only country in the world with these ridiculous restrictions.
On the other hand, does anybody really think the US congress is really that stupid, giving furriners a head-start when the own industry is struggling to keep alive? Hmmm, are they?
Remember those days that it meant deportation when you had a non approved radio?
Meaning that if you had a device with which you can receive other things than nazi propaganda you were committing a big offense...
How many people (including people of the USA) died in that war fighting for freedom?
Now the United Corporations of America are planning the same things with Bush as CEO.
No respect for those that died for freedom.
Nothing learnt from the past.
What a waiste.
What we really need is a hacker's march on Washington.
For OS's to become obsolete. There business model is for the public to use dumb terminals, and base computer use off web-based servers. ("All your data will be safe on a microsoft server." - yeah right) Would this be a step toward that?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. If computers are considered 'arms' by the government(At least for the purposes of export). Couldn't the second ammendment be used to defeat this sort of legislation? ok it's a stretch...a big stretch...a REALLY big stretch, but stranger things have happend.
I think a lot of us knew it was on its way down the pipe, but the Canadian DMCA is now public:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01100e.html
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org) has launched their campaign in response. *Please* don't come to the conclusion that donating more money to the Liberals will help stop this insanity.
Power corrupts. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.
Hrmm, Corporate Masters? Anyone read the series; Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars? If you have, does any of this sound a little too familiar?
For those that haven't read the series, it talks of not just national and international corporations, but transnational corporations, corporations so large and powerful that they actually own whole countries. The govt's of those countries then become little more than puppets for the whims of the corporation leaders.
PS : Here, elections are paid by the taxpayer. The amount of money involved is many orders of magnitude lower than in America.
Welfare for politicians! Always a great idea!
It's really not that complicated.
If the government has less power, there is less for the corporations to corrupt.
The power the government has over people, small businesses, farmers, etc., is what attracts people who seek to get legislation favorable to them passed.
Repeal the power, and the incentive fades.
Not harder than in the US.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
>WE DESERVE to be "forced to run windows" or
>even to have computers outlawed
Don't kid yourself. Copyright is not a natural right. Monopoly, is not a natural right. Opression is not a natural right. Kings are not "ordained by God" and corporations are not "ordained by Darwin".
No one deserves to be opressed. In fact copyright is a social contract, and IMHO one that is nearing the end of it's usefulness. It was once great for "advancing the state of the art". Now all it does is "funnel money into corporate pockets". At an incredible rate I might add!
If you think artists/creators deserve nothing but to be exploited, then copyright is for you!
The game industry (where piracy is *most* rampant) currently makes 30 bn a year. I believe this rivals the entrenched movie industry, and dwarfs the music industry.
Write to Mr. Browne. www.harrybrowne.org
I'm a card carrying member... Perhaps one of the 3 in my state?
I'm sure no sane one would be for these new laws...
Try to think outside the corporate box Virginia.
If "armies of lawyers" couldn't dictate every little action of the populace, I think you'd see quite a few megacorps disappear. (get rid of copyright for example, and we could forget about MS antitrust measures)
If controlling the government didn't pay off in a big way, you wouldn't see corporations spending millions (billions?) on lobby efforts.
I think you'll find Libertarians derive from an inherent belief that the government can "do no right" and corporations and business by contrast "will reliably do what's in their OWN best interest", but so will citizens(like pirating music). There's a premise that somehow these "interests" will balance each other out naturally...
This belief system is similar to that exhibited by the founders, or at least is one possible explanation for the US constitution as written.
Or far worse, the dubious judgement of individuals.
OK, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that for once everyone gets motivated & organized enough to strangle this abomination in it's cradle as it so richly deserves. So what? What has been accomplished? I'm not saying don't try, but does anyone delude themselves into thinking a victory here will be the end of this kind of bullshit? Will the MPAA, RIAA, Disney, et al, learn their lesson & play nice & leave us all the hell alone? Not friggin' likely. There will be a next time, and a next time, and a time after that, until they get what they want. They have the money, the lawyers, and the politicians all bought & paid for. I am not one to run from a fight, but I am also not one to beat my head against a wall for a lost cause in a nation whose government no longer represents my interests or values. I have vacationed in Canada for the last 3 summers, loved it, and I'm about .05 RCH away from heading North for good.
Peace
x's4eyes
"Lock up the wimmin & hide the fried chicken! This southern geek's headin' North!"
When are new laws going to display the logos of the companies that bought them, size proportional to investment?
*sigh*
I REALLY hope this isn't passed. Looking past all the "it takes away my rights and gives them to big business!" issues, there is one simple idea to look at: whatever protection system they deploy would be broken in no time. Media protection schemes are cracked faster then a pane glass window shot with a tank. DVDs were cracked by one kid in his spare time and can now be cracked with a handfull of code, those wierd safe audio things were defeated in a few hours, there are even simple plans online to get around Macrovision protection comming off your video output! Thus, I feel that even if (god forbid) this thing were to get implimented it would be broken in a matter of days.
And not to mention the cost! According to the def in the Act, even things like hubs, switches, and my headphones would have to have this protection. Oh goody.
"A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one."
I have been saying that this century is going to be identical to last century, the human race is unable to think of anything new so we will be repeating everything in 100 year cycle for the rest of eternity. Ok so this time prohabition is on technology instead of alcohol. But this nect century will go something like, a prohibition followed by a depression, then a huge war, if we make through the war a time of independance and freedom followed by a time of great prosperity culminating in the end of the century in which it all starts over again. "WELCOME TO GROUNDHOGS DAY"
or taken lightly for that matter. The best way to quell stupidity of Congress is to yell, scream, rant and rave loud and long. I am fortunate enough to have a Congressman who listens to his constituents, I've sent letters to him before and actually spoken to him before regarding issues. I have emailed Rep. Hollings and plan to do the same to my Congressman and Senators. I'm not the best at speaking my mind, but I hope to at least have gotten part of my point across with this.
Here's my email:
I am writing to you in regards to your newly proposed revamp of the DMCA, known as the SSSCA. I have to say this is one of the most insane, freedom-squashing laws I have seen come out of anyone in Congress in the last several years. I understand the need for stiffer copyright laws, but to go this far is outrageous. The way this current resolution reads, it would be illegal for me to decide to write and test my own operating system, or to build my own hardware devices for my computer. It would be a total monopoly held by a handful of the annointed. It seems to me it is more of an attempt to kill any OpenSource operating system, and to stop anyone from writing their own software for anything. Copyrights on the Internet are a big issue in this day and age, and I fully understand that. But this extreme way of dealing with it leans more towards a totalitarian type of government. The last thing we need in our lives is more government intrusion. Why stop with just computers? Why doesn't the government tell me what TV sets to buy, what VCRs I should get, what DVD players I have to have? All so I won't by some accident videotape a TV show and give it to a friend...we can't have that now can we? This sort of law is a step in the wrong direction. I may not be in your home state, but rest assured I have emailed my own Congressman and Senators regarding this issue as well. This sort of over the top extremism needs to be stopped now before it gets out of hand. Thank you for your time.
Do any non-Libertarians understand who enforces these laws? Jesus. You're saying the DMCA would still have happened without the government getting involved? Stupid!
Anyone who thinks regulating guns and regulating software are in any way equivalent is an idiot.
Inserted because of the compression filter: Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
sulli
RTFJ.
Lets back the train ALLL the way up for a minute. Violating this new bill would be a FELONY??? So if I say, download a metallica song off audiogalaxy (heh, fat chance, I'm not giving a dime to those moneygrubbing bastards) and I am caught, not only is there jailtime and 500k (!!!) fines, but I'm also prevented from voting for life. They figure to hit two birds with one stone on this one, not only will they make it a crime to violate this legislation, but any free-minded indavidual who does so will be unable to voice their opinion on the next, even MORE restrictive legislation.
We are on a very slippery slope, I want everyone here to plug their congressmans mailboxes (both e-mail and snail mail) with adament letters proclaiming your intention to vote him/her out of office if they vote in favor of this particular bill, or any others it. Put up a wall of paper and electronic signals. Kick up a shitstorm so massive that it will BURY them if they do not heed the word of their constituants. This is the only way to make them listen, politicians are concerned with two things, money and getting reelected. If you can threaten either of those, they will cave so quickly it's almost pathetic. You all have the power, kick off your own letters to congress, then tell EVERYONE you know to do the same. If we're gonna stop this thing we need to start six weeks ago.
On a more personal note, if this passes, I'm either going underground or moving to canada, and I suggest you come with me.
Gee... What the fuck are you talking about ??? Not everything in this world is about LINUX !!! This is our fucking freedom we're talking about - this stupid law would fuck with ALL computer/electronics users..
We need to stage a programmer sickout in protest. Let's pick a day, and all call in sick to work that day. I'd suggest Sept 28th of this month.
Then, if the bill isn't dropped, we'll call in sick two days the next month. Four the next, and so on and so on, all heavily publicized.
Since we have no union there is no one to arrest and there are no assets to seize, so the usual anti-union countermeasures won't work.
If a million programmers all call in sick on a single day, you can bet it will get industry's attention! Since they are the ones who control the government, they are the ones who can stop this bill.
Anonymous Coward
I am, unfortunately, living in South Carolina. I wouldn't mind participating in such a movement, but I don't think that many South Carolina folk would get fired up over a computer issue. Anyway, Hollings is an idiot. Let's just hope he's a harmless one.
This moron happens to be my senator (althought I didn't vote for him)
Here's my letter to him. Feel free to use it, but make sure to modify it for your needs. Make sure to send a copy to all your senators and representatives. And send it snail mail.
[begin]
September 10, 2001
Senator Hollings
125 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Senator Fritz Hollings:
I have recently learned of your intent to sponsor a bill known as the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act. After reading the text of the proposed bill, I am putting it mildly when I say I am alarmed.
Over the past decade, laws passed by the body you now serve in have slowly eroded consumer fair use rights. It is now illegal for us to make clean digital copies of music on our home audio systems for personal and backup use. It is impossible for us to make backup copies of DVDs because the weak copy protection scheme is defended by draconian penalties of up to 5 years in prison and $500,000 by the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).
Now, the SSSCA aims to make it illegal to distribute in any way digital interactive devices and computers which are not equipped with industry and government specified "security" devices. You and I both know that these "security" devices will only give media companies complete control over what consumers can do with movies, music, books and software that we have rightfully purchased. Gone will be the days when something you have purchased can be used within current copyright law. The corporate world will get to dictate their own copyright law, and circumventing that law will bring even private citizens prison of up to 10 years and fines of up to $1,000,000. Penalties greater than what most convicted rapists serve. They will even be able to change the deal they made when we purchased media from them. Say, they release a new version of an old movie on DVD and render all older versions of the DVD inoperable. Do you want to allow money-hungry corporations such complete control over the economy? Imagine if Microsoft suddenly decided to use these "security" devices to disable all older versions of Windows in favor of the newest version. What would happen to government computers? Do you have the means to buy millions of copies of the newest Windows at $500 a copy? Does the US government wish to give Microsoft that power? Aren't there more important programs to spend billions of dollars on than give an already cash-flush company billions more?
I am also worried about what this will do to the small players in the market. These security devices will cost money, money that large corporations have to burn. What will happen to the small computer makers, small software companies, or small electronics makers when they cannot afford to install these devices? If they cannot afford the few dollars per device and keep a competitive market price, how will they afford the $1,000,000 fine per infraction? What will happen to innovation in the marketplace when the SSSCA and larger competitors money force small competitors out of the marketplace?
The US constitution states that Congress shall establish patent laws (and, by correlation, copyright law) to encourage scientific development (and creative development) while providing the inventor (and copyright holder) profit for their work. While patent law is another matter, I see that the SSSCA will take one more step towards a country where consumers are told what they can do with what they bought, when they can do it, how they can do it, and who they shall pay to do it.
The control for this will no longer be in the hands of the US government or its law enforcement arm. It will be in the control of private corporations with monopoly power and control over the law enforcement arm of the US government. Innovation will be gone. Creative development will disappear. Gone will be the days when a scientist can freely build on the work of those before him to create even greater things for society.
I urge you to reconsider your decision to support this bill. It is just one more step down the slippery slope towards a country whose government exists only to support and maintain the profit of private corporations. Just last week, the Bush administration decided against breaking up Microsoft. Do you wish to enact a law that will empower companies like Microsoft to continue to abuse their monopoly power at the expense of private consumers and the nation's economy? I hope that you will remember that you represent South Carolina, a state that has a history of fighting for states rights and the rights of its citizens in two major wars and countless political debates.
Sincerely,
[end]
I have lieved in communist country (former Czechoslovakia, now Czech Republic) till 1989. Comunism = no freedom. Go to Cambodia to see the ends. We were looking on the US as on a country of freedom. Now I see what is comming from the West... The control trough SSSCA is similar as in Rumunia under Causesko goverment - the people were obliged to register thei mechanical typewriters at police stations. If US goverment pass a bill, the Czech slaver pass more sily one. Plese, do something!
I've read countless posts on this story about having a protest against this... The problem is that the average person probably doesn't understand the implications of this bill, and probably doesn't really care. There are a lot of people out there who will just go along with the rest of the herd and take whatever is shoved down their throats. This only seems like a huge deal to the Slashdot community because for most of us, this affects our hobby/job/etc, and seems just outright unimaginable...
RE: draft Security Systems Standards and Certification Act
Dear Senator Hollings,
My name is Will Berry and I am a resident of Atlanta, Georgia. I learned
today that you and Senator Stevens from Alaska have drafted a bill entitled
"The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act", dated August 6th of
this year. While I am not a South Carolina resident, this bill, if passed,
would affect me as much as it would affect your constituents, and so I feel
I must inform you of my feelings towards this draft bill. I believe that
many of your constituents will echo my concerns.
I am appalled by this draft bill for multiple reasons, and I give my
arguments against this bill in the following paragraphs. I give my arguments
in the order in which they weigh upon my heart.
1) This bill effectively delegates the task of establishing law to persons not
elected by the People, and approves the recommendations of these unelected
persons before knowing even approximately what those recommendations are.
The key phrases in section 101 (a), "interactive digital device" and
"security technologies," are so broad and vague that it is hard to think
of a device or technology that would not qualify. For example, wrist
watches, thermometers, smart cards, scales for weighing, television remote
controls, precision workman's tools, pocket calculators, and chemical pH
meters could all be construed as "interactive digital devices". Similarly,
an application allowing ubiquitous, unfettered surveillance of all such
devices (or of all transmissions by those devices) by copyright owners
would qualify as a "security technology". Language this general is, to
be blunt, asking for trouble, since if such definitions were to be applied
to this bill, the result would be quite unacceptable.
This practice of delegating the authorship of laws and signing them into
effect a priori violates the trust of the People and endangers the system
of representative democracy. The residents of South Carolina did not elect
Michael Eisner, Ted Turner, or Michael Dell to approve copyright law, they
elected you to do it! The People did not elect the Secretary of Commerce,
they elected the President, and it is he who must sign a bill into law!
I realize that as one of only 50 Senators, you are a very busy man and
must delegate responsibility to others as a practical consequence of
daily living, and I realize that the other Senators, the many Congressmen,
and the President are no different. That is not the problem. The problem
is that this bill effectively "signs a blank check" for the publishing,
entertainment, and high-tech manufacturing industries to make any law they
want, so long as it marginally relevant to "security technologies" for
"interactive digital devices". Furthermore, once written, their
recommendations never require the signature of an elected official before
becoming binding law.
I am aware of similar legal structures in laws already passed, such as in
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. However,
in the HIPAA, the scope of the policy to be determined was limited to the
technical details of data transmissions between related Healthcare
industry businesses, the American National Standards Institute was
specifically appointed to draft the standards, and the consequences of
non-conformance were limited to civil liability. This draft bill is quite
different; its scope is both broad and vague, the very industries that
would most benefit economically from abusive policies are allowed to draft
the standards, and there are severe criminal consequences for
non-conformance. This bill stops just short of establishing a digital
corporate police state!
The balance between the need to delegate and the preservation of the role
of elected officials in government could be easily achieved by inviting
the industry to draft standards, obtaining the Secretary's approval, and
then submitting the bill, including the standard, for a vote in the Senate
in that order. Even if you choose to disagree with my other arguments, I
hope you will wait for an approved industry standard before submitting the
bill for a vote.
2) This bill, if passed, and depending on the nature of the eventual approved
regulations, could very well stifle development of "interactive digital
devices" by small businesses, individual inventors, hobbyists, and
students of the fields of electrical and computer engineering.
Suppose for the moment that this bill passed unaltered, and that the
Secretary of Commerce signed a recommendation by the private sector
requiring all manufactured equipment deemed capable of containing, playing,
or transmitting a copyrighted work be fitted with some component supplied
by the industry. This scenario seems believable. Further suppose that
this component is quite expensive, or that the industry is not required
to sell the component to anyone who wants one.
Such a copyright framework would allow the industry to prevent an
individual from making a device as benign as a set of stereo speakers,
whether as an academic exercise, or as a hobby, or in the process of
starting his own company.
Consider also the case of open source software. In case you are not
familiar with the term, open source software is computer software whose
source code is freely available and may be copied and modified by anyone.
This capability is often ensured through a copyright and clever license
agreement stating that any licensee may copy and modify the program or
its source code.
Some open source software is termed "Free Software" by those who work with
it. The distinction is that as a condition of accepting a license of Free
Software, the licensee additionally agrees never to re-distribute the
software or any derivative thereof unless the source code to the
re-distributed work is also available for free under the same license.
Should the entertainment, publishing, and digital device manufacturing
industries require as a result of this bill all computer programs within
a certain domain to include an approved software module, and this
hypothetical module were not compatible with one or more open source
licenses, the effect could be the illegalization of much open source
software. Since many Internet sites and personal computers in the United
States use open source software, and many of those use it exclusively,
the effects of this law could be far-reaching and disastrous with respect
to computer software.
Clearly, any law that facilitates such scenarios is detrimental to
personal freedoms as well as the free market. This bill would facilitate
such systems, presuming the Secretary would sign such recommendations,
and thus must not be allowed into law.
3) This bill subtracts from the rights afforded citizens under the "Fair Use"
and "First Sale" doctrines of copyright law long upheld by the United
States Supreme Court. It does this by allowing the entertainment,
publishing, and electronic device manufacturing industries to control how
citizens use the copyrighted works they pay for.
The recording and motion picture industries have already attempted to
introduce copy protection measures into CDs, DVDs, and DVD players that
prevent citizens from making legitimate, useful backup copies of
copyrighted works. Such activity by citizens has been ruled as Fair Use
by the Supreme Court. This draft bill would be an open invitation for
federally enforceable measures to be enacted that further erode the
citizen's respected right to Fair Use.
The Supreme Court has also upheld the ability of a person to re-sell a
copyrighted work to another person, so long as the first person does not
retain an illegal copy of the work himself. The recording and motion
picture industries have likewise attacked this right with various copy
protection schemes. This draft bill would likewise be an invitation to
attack this established right further.
4) United States law already establishes legal definitions and penalties for
illegal copying of copyrighted works. It is extraordinarily misguided for
the government to seek to regulate how citizens and residents of the
United States use the products they purchase to this level of specificity.
As I am sure you are aware, the government's duty to the entertainment and
publishing industries is clearly specified in Article 1, Section 8 of the
Constitution, and is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts,
by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right
to their respective writings and discoveries," and furthermore "to make
all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution
the foregoing powers."
Current copyright law affords an artificial monopoly on original works for
the life of the author plus seventy years. (In my opinion, this is the
life of the author plus sixty years too long.) The execution of this
power is the legal establishment of the US Copyright and Trademark Office,
and the establishment of penalties for illegal copying of copyrighted
works.
The government's role in copyright matters ends there. It is not the
government's place to establish copy protection schemes in law. It is
neither necessary nor proper to criminalize owning devices which are
ignorant of whether data is copyrighted or not. The way to enforce
copyright law has always been to obtain a warrant to arrest or search the
belongings of a suspected infringer. It is neither necessary nor proper
to allow the copyright owners to metaphorically write their own warrants.
5) In summary, I believe this bill, if passed, would have the potential to
become the twenty-first century equivalent of King George's Stamp Act. It
is entirely conceivable that the approved "security technologies" might
include a digital "stamp" on every licensed copyrighted work that is
provided by the industries for a fee.
Furthermore, there could be no economic incentive for the industry to make
the fee reasonable because the alternatives to paying the fee would be
abstinence and potential federal prosecution. I firmly believe that if
such a scenario came to pass, it would be no more tolerable to the People
than King George's "Intolerable Acts" were so long ago.
This concludes my arguments. Senator, I do not presume to understand why
you and Senator Stevens have drafted this bill. However, I believe my
arguments against it are persuasive, and I believe that if this bill were to
pass it would be a detriment to the culture of this great Nation. I urge
you to take all available measures to kill this bill at the earliest
possible stage.
I will be sending similar letters to Senator Stevens, my own Senator Cleland,
and the other Senators in the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
I will also be sending similar letters to my those Congressmen I believe may
find it to be of interest.
Lastly, I do have family in South Carolina, and I will inform them of what I
think of your future actions in regard to this bill. If I see a change of
tune from you, I will do everything I can to encourage my South Carolinian
relatives to vote for you next term. However, if I see that you continue
to push for passage of this bill, or others like it, I will do everything
I can to influence their votes in your opponents' favor.
Most Sincerely,
Will Berry
Atlanta, Georgia
END OF LETTER. My e-mail address is gods!gift!to!newbies@hotmail!com with the bangs replaced.
The movie industry tried this with DivX. It died a miserable death in the marketplace. Why? The playback device had to have a phone jack to dial BigBrother to get an unlock code which was stored inside the player. What? Your player broke? Guess what, you get to buy those movies all over again.
(a) In General -- It is unlawful to be the victim of an electronic mail worm that encrypts your communications.
(b) Exception -- Subsection (a) does not apply to people with enough money for a legal staff or with blood relatives who are attorneys. Otherwise, ignorance of worm infestation is no excuse.
Room 101: Penalty
(a) In General -- Any male who violates Section 101 shall be subjected to no less than a 20 percent chance of being raped by an HIV and/or Hepatitis C infected gang, with males under the age of 25 being subject to no less than a 40 percent chance of such punishment.
Seastead this.
I give it 10 days or so until any proposed backdoor is cracked...
;-) theres nothing illegal in random data (YET)
I live in the UK, where we have no DMCA (yet) (w00t!!!) and i am prepared to spend quite a lot of time reverse enginering and backdoors, just for fun.
Also if stupid encryption laws come into force send LOADS of random data around randomly to waste fed cpu time
We could as i see it end up in a very bizarre situation similar to the one which means every brwoser reports itself as "Mozilla" now except with a certified os replaing Mozilla
When im rich (fat chance, and im not too sure i want to be, but thats a different matter) Im gonna move to an island and setup my own constitution there i think... Then i might finaly be able to watch my dvd's under linux
Furthermore, Money Talks (especially for this guy.) We're all well paid I/T experts. Tell him you, and each member of your development team, are each sending $500 campaign contributions to his opponent. That'll get this attention. And if you're really serious about the way you feel, DO IT. This country wasn't built by people sitting on their ass.
Beware: I believe all are created equal, and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> Sysadmins, take the servers down, format the drives, and quitt ml
Might as well be a real BOFH and run the last couple of weeks worth of backup tapes through the bulk eraser also - before they get shipped offsite. If they just replace the SysAdmin, restore from tape, you've inconvenienced them - not hurt or stopped them.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/30/21287.h
"We don't have the data?" The Boss asks, avoiding the real issues like a pro. "We pay three thousand quid a year for an offsite tape service! They come every day! Sometimes TWICE a day! I've seen them!!!"
Now wouldn't be the time to tell The Boss that the tape bloke's delivering tapes alright, but the tapes in question come from his local video shop in Bromley.
If passed, how will this bill affect free software? Does the government plan on prosecuting people who write programs and have the audacity to give them away for free? (since this would be "Interactive technology") or am I confused?
Floating City, International waters.
Advantages: Cheap power (Thermal, wave / current, etc), somewhat mobile, access to nearly unlimited (oceanic) resources. With the quality of "geeks" we could attract, we could obtain financing, etc. for rapid development of various ocean-based technologies, commercial extraction of valuable materials from seawater, etc.
Disadvantages: _VERY_ high startup costs, danger of EXTREME weather sinking us, need for our own high-bandwidth sattelite for communications / internet, etc.
"Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. In our