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.
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.
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
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
...when Linux is outlawed, only outlaws will run Linux.
"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
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
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'?"
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.
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?
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.
... 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!
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.
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.
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!
Just what everyone wants, I'm sure: Demand remains high, supply is cut dramatically, prices soar, youths mug people or hold up liquor stores to raise the cash, all the jackals move in to the black-market cash-opportunity they see gathering, and pretty soon gangs are slaughtering each other on the streets over non-Compliant hard drives. Customs officials sieze 400 gigs of Class A disk space (est. street value: $500,000).
The Government then runs Public Service announcements: "PIRACY KILLS" "MP3: JUST SAY NO" "WINNERS DON'T USE NONCOMPLIANT HARDWARE DEVICES" "FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS COPY MOVIES". They also offer tax rebates and other cash benefits to television shows and movies who include significantly pro-Digital Rights Management plotlines in their work.
In the summer movie, "Gone at 60kb/s", Nick Cage has to pirate an unprecedented number of other summer movies in one night in order to save his brother's life; in the more thoughtful "TCP/IP Traffic", Michael Douglas finds himself sucked into the seedy world of P2P after his teenage daughter is involved in a DVD-related incident, the story expertly interwoven with that of Open Source programmers working across the border, trying to stay true to their goals despite their lack of Compliance, trying to maintain their idealism in the face of a lead programmer who secretly is working for a reverse-engineering cartel.
New search-and-seizure laws are drafted to fight the War On Piracy, in order to Clean Up Our Streets And Save Our Children From Evil. All laptop computers are spot-checked at airports and potential employees are asked to undergo a hard-drive scan to ensure they are not "using".
Caffiene mints, copyleft t-shirts, and any item bearing a penguin logo are banned from COMDEX and any other gathering of software developers under Cracking House laws. These things are sure signs of illegal activity.
Far-fetched? Facetious? A little of both. But the general principles have been shown to hold true in the past, repeatedly.
Whee!
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.
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.
Disney is supporting a law in the US that would give the government unprecedented powers to interfere with the way we use our personal computers.
If Disney gets its way, you will not be able to buy a computer in the US unless its software has been approved by the government, and it will be a crime to connect a computer to the internet if it is running unapproved software. The definition of 'approved software' will be determined by companies with a commercial interest in restricting the usefulness of home computers for education and entertainment.
It is likely that if the US adopts this law, it will begin to put pressure on other countries to do the same (as has happened with patents, copyright extension and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). The best way to prevent this intrusion by the US government into our lives is to let Disney know that it is losing customers because of its support for this law.
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)?
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
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?
Write Disnay and say you will boycott all their products. Also write them and say that if this law passes, you will dedicate your time to undermine Disney profits.
You will set up picket lines at the local movie theatre.
You will call your cable provider and unsubscribe to all Disney channels.
You will submit reader letters and articles to the print press.
You will call the IRS as a whistleblower, claiming that Disney is committing tax fraud.
You will harrass Disney executuves by starting fake rumors about sex scandals, tax fraud, securities fraud.
Keep it up, and they may admit that the constitution has some merits after all.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
"We have to make it clear that that under this regulation, a computer would be a worthless hunk of junk. It would be useless to industry, researchers, and to home users."
That's the whole point. They WANT computers to cease to exist, at least, as common things "common" inividuals can afford to have. In the world of this law, computers would be replaced with an appliance "information access" device, that would be much like a DVD player in how little "fair use" you have.
No doubt there will be exceptions allowing the corps, and academia to have computers (which will once again become big huge mainframe things) for their own uses.
In other words, with a stroke of a pen, the IP cartel plans to turn back the clock to 1960.
My GOD this is scary stuff! This is nothing less than the proposal of the creation of the world of Bradbury's "Fareinheight 451" and "Demolition Man" in one BROAD stroke... How long before we stand to sing the "Corporate Hymn" as happened before government-held gladitorial games to placate the ignorant, easily distracted masses (who allow the government to pass laws such as the DMCA and this) as in "Rollerball"?
If they are making a mistake, it is in going for so much so quickly. But, the ease in wich they got the DMCA must have emboldened them.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
If you are thinking WHAT THE FUCK after you read the article, then yes, I think you are reading it correctly.
So one of two things will happen. Let's use Red Hat as an example:
1. Red Hat will refuse to incorporate this copy protection code, will be sued, and will be branded in the media as existing solely for the purpose of copyright infringment; and end users will suffer the same fate - your ISP will be required by law to report the location of anyone downloading a Linux distribution or accessing their network using a computer running Linux.
2. The other possiblity is that Red Hat will be bullied into compliance, incorporating this code and these standards into their OS whether they like it or not.
It WILL happen. The first "Linux is a circumvention device" trial is coming - within 2 years, I bet, and the way they are going to play it will be "why don't the hackers just add our copyright protection code to their OS? Because they only use that OS for PIRACY. Otherwise they would just use Windows" (Copyright Code Compliant, of course.)
http://www.senate.gov/~hollings/webform.html
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.
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.
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.
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!
>1. Red Hat will refuse to incorporate this copy
>protection code, will be sued
It's worse than that. The officers of the company will be threatened with criminal prosecution, federal fines and jail time.
My biggest problem with DMCA has always been
that it moves civil matters into the criminal
realm. There might be case law somewhere that
amounts to an achilles heel for the DMCA on the
basis that copyright is a civil matter and should have civil remedies. But, America is
a police state now. Maybe we need more ugly laws
to be passed like this, so that more people will realize they live in a police state. Seems that today it's quite possible to live in blissful ignorance of this fact. US law is ultimately enforced by the most technologically advanced military force that the world has ever known.
>Because they only use that OS for PIRACY.
It's our own fault that if by then there aren't
a few heavy players who would rally against that argument. If big companies with a stake in Linux
or anything else sit on their hands during this,
the WE DESERVE to be "forced to run windows" or
even to have computers outlawed.
Except for the fact that life would be wretched for the forseeable future, I'd really enjoy seeing things get far, far worse so that people would be motivated to put an end to the oppression. But as long as they're well fed, doped up, busy, and think they have something to lose, they'll never take up arms against the lawful authority. There's already a science built around the strategy of determining how far a government can push a populace before they realize they can't take it anymore. USA is nowhere near that point, but the fall of currency would be a good start. Bring on the $360.00/bbl oil! Let's have more abject poverty! (The more poverty the people enjoy, the less taxes the government has to build their war machine to use against their own people. The weaker the war machine gets, the better chances the people have against it.)
The war for independence was also against the most technologically sophisticated armed force that the world had ever seen. And you can see the same phenomenon in the war between the states.
We are generally to well taken care of to consider aggression against the lawful authority. We also aren't yet willing to give up our lives, limbs, senses, and minds, because things haven't gotten bad enough yet, we think we have more to lose than that. I do think that many Americans have lost some faith in the democratic process in recent years. Even those who had steadfastly believed it was an infallible institution had a wakeup call last November when even Bush supporters got upset about Florida. If something big like social security fails, the myth that the USA is financially solvent may start to unravel for a lot of folks. If the consumer debt (which dwarfs the national debt) suddenly can't be paid (let's say, 40% unemployment) financial institutions would start to fail. These are the types of incidents that would be stepping stones to urban skirmish, if not outright civil war or revolution. It's hard to see copy control getting people's backs up enough to engender change.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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)
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.
Hell. Handbasket.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Advertising is NOT pointless. Without advertising no one would know about half the products that exist. I've SEEN my brother watch a commercial for Domino's and say "Hey, mom! Can we get a pizza?"
No, Advertising doesn't affect everyone, but it doesn't need to. It helps create product awareness though. Damned right it does. That is COMPLETELY different than a boycott.
Boycotts, unless done in mass, are COMPLETELY ineffective. I think you are entirely wrong that "[changing] a few people's minds [will] start hurting a company's profits."
...
"Hey Daddy, I wanna go see the new Disney movie!!"
"I'm sorry honey we are boycotting Disney"
"What's that?"
"That means Disney is bad, and to punish them we aren't going to see their movie."
"Oh, okay, well in that case nevermind. I completely understand your reasons and am willing to sacrafice something I enjoy to make them pay."
Just TRY convincing the average consumer and their kids that they should have to abstain from something they enjoy to punish Disney. Go ahead, try it. Cause, guess what, if they don't do it, NO ONE IN THE WORLD WILL NOTICE. And I guarantee that the average consumer doesn't give a fuck about your boycott. You think Disney is really worried about the geeks boycotting their films? Hah!
...
Even more hilarious is thus:
Everytime ANYONE does anything bad all you geeks cry out "boycott!". But none of you ever actually do it. Statistically, I'm guessing 0.5% of you actually boycott. Maybe less. And I'm betting only 1% of people are "geeks", maybe less. Well, that's about 50,000 people in an international market of billions boycotting. Even if I'm off by two powers of ten, it's still only a few million people (a few tenths of a percent of a billion). Run scared Disney, we've got you by the balls now.
Justin Dubs
I think the spirit of your letter is good, especially the last paragraph. But, IMHO, talking about Finnish students and that lye-nux thing is just going to confuse the fat old guy and whoever he has opening his mail. I think the major arguments boil down to this. (not in order)
1. This legislation would give a cartel of companies unprecedented control over our personal computers. No other consumer goods would be subject to such restrictions.
2. This law presumes that a computer owner is up to no good. It is anti-freedom and anti-American in every sense of the words. Many machines have illegal uses, but the legal uses outweigh them, so they remain available in an unmodified form. Computers should be no different.
3. If all computer hardware and software must conform to these new content control standards, it will severely curtain the availability of free software and low-cost hardware. Some freely-available computer software is used by some of our very largest corporations. Yahoo, for example, extensively uses computer software called "FreeBSD" that was developed collectively by a group of generous hobbyist programmers. [a gross oversimplification, but required I think. -IronChef] Such free software projects will become endangered unless the content control measures are freely available to implement.
4. Related to the above, there will surely be a cost to becoming compliant with these provisions. This cost will be a barrier for new companies who want to get involved in the computer hardware or software market. This will curtail our economic growth. No longer will a genius in a garage be able to write the next great piece of software -- instead, expensive legal issues will tie the innovator's hands. Again, this is anti-American.
5. Lastly and most importantly, the American people will rightly see this as Big Brother nosing into their homes and offices. Years from now, the passing of this law will be seen as a serious blow to our freedom, and those who supported it will be remembered as corporate lackeys rather than representatives of the people of the people. Talk to your constituents, not the companies, and you will understand.
Now I gotta go put all that into a proper letter myself.
This stuff makes me spittin' mad.
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.