Slashdot Mirror
Industry Divided Over SSSCA
CBravo writes: "The EE Times has a story that talks about the SSSCA and how it divides the industry. Short part:'If approved, the law would be enforceable under federal regulations and could dramatically alter the way system OEMs design and develop PCs, TVs, set-tops or other digital appliances with embedded microprocessors, according to industry sources familiar with the Hollings proposal. The motion-picture industry, with the Disney and Fox studios in the lead, backs the legislation.'" If you thought the DMCA was bad, look out -- the SSSCA would inject far more control into a wide range of electronic devices.
OEMs of PCs will be forced to install Windows because Windows Media Player will be one of the few players with support from motion-picture industry due to its built-in "copy-protection" mechanisms. Linux will be BANNED from OEMs or face lawsuits for circumventing copyright. Or did I miss the real implications of this bill?
¦ ©® ±
This legislation would make:
a) Building your own computer from commodity parts illegal.
b) Building your own OS illegal.
c) Programming your computer/hardware illegal unless: you only use the officially accepted libraries and agree not to even attempt reverse engineering any of them.
Welcome to your nightmare. This is what the Sony executive said a couple of years ago when he said that they'll be taking the battle for their IP rights to every home and every computer.
I understand the issues of building copy controls into hardware. Unfortunately my friends and family do not. Is it possible to explain this to someone in a non alarmist manner (not the MS/the Govt will control all your data)? The only way I can think to explain it is by giving an overview of low level languages, current copy protection schemes, etc.
How do you explain this to your Mom?
There's no reason to freak out about all this. Take off the foil hat and think reasonable-like for a minute. The SSSCA is *not* a law. It is a proposal put forth by a single (miguided) lawmaker. Literally *thousands* of worthless/unconstitutional legislation are proposed by congress every year. The vast majority of the time, the checks-n-balances system of our government keeps these proposals from getting put into the books. The system does work, and this piece of crap will end up getting thrown out just like all the other junk legislation.
If you don't like the proposal, write your representative. Tell them how stupid and unconstitutional this is. Don't complain about how "The Man" is out to strip you of your rights. That won't accomplish anything.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
This battle might actually be interesting. Which industry has the best most influence on .us politicians?
It looks like Hollywood contributes more to the coffers of the political parties.
Let's just hope the Electronics Industry and Comsumers win this one.
/Styx
That's funny. Now, I could have sworn that the internet came to be the world-altering sucess it is today due to open standards and a lack of control. But hey, who knows, maybe I just need to go take my soma and follow the MPAA/RIAA party line? yeah.
- Cheers,
- RLJ
2. Support this legislation and await its passage.
3. Rake in the money selling "r@r3 pre-ban computers with CD-R drives" 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.
Explain it to your mom the same way you explained the chilling implications of the DMCA.
And unfortunately, you can expect to be just as effective in getting her excited about stopping the bill.
This is scary as hell - because these initiatives are difficult to explain to consumers, it may be impossible to stop them. Voter apathy has never had such potential to rot the country from the inside out. Soon, any business big enough to afford a good lobbyist can expect to have their business plan protected by law.
Bruce Schneier (of Counterpane) does a good job of sticking up for our rights on this one. He's really been doing a good job of getting the message out. Most articles on this kind of stuff have some good quotes from him. He's a consistent voice of reason. Kudos, Bruce.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Having the consumer electronics folks against this is good, since they have a well-funded lobby (though it may not be as influential as the MPAA). That's what will slow down this kind of bad legislation. The best way to keep the consumer electronics folks on the right side of this is consumer education: if we geeks can inform the masses about content controls and convince them that they should avoid devices that contain them it could stiffen the consumer electronics manufacturers resistance. DVD enthusiasts made Divx smell like dogsh*t to the masses and prevented it from being widely adopted. But the manufacturers will only resists content controls for as long as they think it will cost them money.
Hey kids - you know that stealing and breaking the law is a bad thing? I thought you did. So, here's how you can do the right thing and win a prize. If you tell M*ck*y what movies, music, or game your parents have copied, we'll send you a prize!
Hehehehe...
I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
Online petitions are actually worse than useless, because they give the illusion to people that they are actually doing something, when they might otherwise have written a letter.
If you care about this issue, write a real letter, on real paper, with a real stamp.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Cryptome.org has the full text of the bill here. Check it out.
"selling old VCR's..."
shouldn't that read "trafficking media copyright circumvention devices" ?
*grin*
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
Don't let free software get destroyed by this clause, which seems obviously bought and paid for by Microsoft!
Right. But in a wag-the-dog scenario, the entertainment industry (with huge lobbying budgets and relatively modest economic significance) is pushing through laws that will have huge effects on telecom, consumer electronics and high tech (with relatively modest lobbying budgets and massive economic significance).
The best we can hope for is an upswing in lobbying efforts by high-tech organizations. That *might* counter this bill, but just means more lobbying by groups defending their business.
What is really required is a massive, permanent lobbying effort by EFF and other civil rights organizations. Too bad it'll never be within their financial reach.
How do you explain this to your Mom?
Hi, mom.
Congress is considering a law that will make copying anything illegal. Taping shows from TV, copying songs to your Sony Minidisc, burning CDs, making backups of software, moving eBooks from your PC to your PDA, and a whole lot more won't be illegal but will be impossible because all computers and devices that will be made once the law is passed will explicitly ban it. Welcome to my nightmare.
- It represents a serious threat to the national security and the
well-being of the United States;
- Its provisions are outrageously un-Constitutional;
- It represents poor public policy, advancing a narrow corporate
interest against the interests of the public at large; and
- It is (deliberately) over-broad and unconscionably vague in its
provisions, particularly as regards its definition of "digital device".
These points, as well as changes I think are needed in current copyright law, are more fully discussed below A. Introduction.The Constitution requires that copyright term be limited. From this point of view, the current copyright law is no less than a Constitutional outrage. Triply so: From a theoretical point of view, if Congress is free retroactively to extend copyright term at will (as it has repeatedly done in this century), then copyright term fails to fit the definition of "limited". From an operational point of view, a copyright law that has been repeatedly extended so that no works have actually made it or will make it into the public domain during my entire adult lifetime, both past and future, is a copyright law that fails the operational definition of "limited". And finally, in human terms, a copyright term that extends more than a lifetime after the death of the author fails the definition of "limited" on the human scale. It has been argued that this extension of copyright encourages authorship. Such an argument is purely specious: it is impossible that an author already 50 years dead can be encouraged to produce further works by the extension of his copyrights for another twenty years.
B. Discussion1 034). A year ago,
the US National Security Agency concluded that it was impossible to
make Microsoft systems sufficiently secure for sensitive applications,
and constructed an especially secure configuration of the Linux
operating system for that purpose (see http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/).
The SSSCA would make Apache and Linux illegal.
1. National Security: First of all, this bill is a serious threat to the national security of the United States. The reason for this is as follows: Both the Internet and digital computers have become critical to the continued security and prosperity of the United States. This bill, by outlawing all digital equipment that does not " include and utilize certified security technologies" would have the de facto effect of outlawing all software and computers except those from a few large corporate sources--particularly, the effect of outlawing so-called "Open Source" software such as the Linux operating system and the Apache web-server, which are distributed in human readable and modifiable form. What would remain is exactly the systems and software which have shown themselves most vulnerable to attack: virtually all of the disruptive "virus" and "worm" attacks of the last five years have been made possible by defects in the inherent design of Microsoft operating system, server, and email and application software. The computer-security situation is so serious that earlier this week the very staid Gartner Group management consulting firm issued a warning recommending that their clients immediately remove Microsoft internet server software and replace it with products from other vendors such as Apache and IPlanet (see http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=10
2. Un-Constitutionality: The SSSCA, with its absolutist protection for "security technologies" is an affront to the Constitutional provision for copyright. The Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a LIMITED monopoly,
against whose conditions the SSSCA is an outrage. The SSSCA admits no limit on the term of protection it espouses. Nor does it make any provision for fair use. In its original 1823 decision establishing the doctrine of fair use, the Supreme Court stated that Congress may make no copyright law so strict as to deny freedom of speech nor freedom of the Press. The SSSCA violates this Constitutional requirement also.3. Poor public Policy: The Founding Fathers did not regard "intellectual property" as a natural right, but rather as a limited legislated monopoly which was of benefit to society as a whole _if managed properly_. They had had relatively recent experiences with both no-copyright situations and with permanent Crown monopolies on publishing (and, sadly, they tended to be better versed in history than many are today.) They knew that copyright was of greatest benefit to society at large if it offered a quid pro quo: in exchange for a temporary monopoly on copying, the authors must pass their works into the public domain--the property of all of us--at the expiration of the limited term. This bargain has already been brought to the breaking point by current copyright law,e specially the DMCA; the SSSCA breaks it completely. It is purely and specifically for the narrow benefit of a few large publishing houses who fear that digital technology will break both their stranglehold on the authors and music-writers and their captivation of the public at large. (Note that the SSSCA's provision for setting "standards" has the effect of freezing out both writers and the general public.)
4. Over-breadth and Vagueness: Finally, Sen. Hollings himself has admitted in interviews with Wired magazine that the provisions are deliberately vague, in order to get a bill passed with provisions that may be applied far more broadly than Congress intends or believes reasonable. Congress should not permit itself to be so deceived.
C. Needed Copyright Reforms.
There are reforms that do need to be made in copyright law; let me suggest that any copyright bill should be amended to include at least the following:
D. Conclusion
You have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Copyright law should be returned to its Constitutional limits.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
You could show people RMS's story The Right to Read. It doesn't specifically relate to hardware-controlling laws though.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I don't see how you can put this without it sounding a little alarmist. Disney wants you to purchase a new TV, DVD, VCR/TiVo and cable decoder... that they will then control.
Every time you place a DVD or VCR that you own or have rented in the devices that you bought, Disney will decide whether you are allowed to watch it, and how many times. Disney will decide whether you may tape shows to watch later, and how many times you can watch them, or when they will become unwatchable, or even if you can watch them at all.
They will assume that you are a thief, and they will stop you from watching anything that you cannot absolutely prove that you have paid for. If there is any doubt, your screen will go blank, and you will have no right of reply, or opportunity to prove your innocence.
And the best part is that they will make you pay for the new hardware that will enable this.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This law, if it passes, will make impossible any real innovation in software development or networking technology. This would harm not only OEMs and other computer companies, it would harm the complete industry.
I don't even think Microsoft will like it. Sure, it might be a temporary advantage for them, as their Media Player already includes usage control technology. But what about their long-term visions? I wonder how they'll implement things like seamless distribution or storage- and location-irrelevance while at the same time making sure that the data stays where the RIAA wants it.
What does IBM think about this bill? They invested a lot of money in Linux, what do they think about Linux becoming illegal?
Sun's vision -- "The network is the computer" -- will effectively be impossible to realize if you can't store data "on the network" but must control where exactly it is.
In fact, the SSSCA denies the idea of a networked computer in favor of computers which are reduced to media player devices. The idea of being attached to a network is no longer communication, it is to be able to receive and pay for content. The media industry's vision is to turn computers into televisions, and this law is another step in making that vision a reality. I can imagine the RIAA and MPAA love the idea, but I have no idea why anyone in the computer industry (or any other industry) can support it.
The article talks about OEMs, does anyone know what the other industries, and big computer corporations like the three mentioned above think about this bill?
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Secondly: the problem is that the general public won't care unless they see how this will hurt concretely; for this, the question needs to be strippend down to its essentials, which are nontechnical.
So let's do ourselves a favor. Forget all the beloved technical jargon we like to wrap these discussions in. Concentrate on something simple like email, which people know about, care for and roughly understand, and which already exhibits all aspects of the problem. Now publically ask Senators Hollings and Stevens and other backers of the proposal elementary questions like this:
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
Trouble is, the big players spend a lot of time and money figuring out how to package the lie in FUD and mis-direction so that the only issues brought up for debate favor passage -- which IIRC is exactly how the DCMA was snuck through. I (for one) would love to get my hands on a definitive and complete copy of the legislative history of how often and how in depth "constitutionality" and "freedom" were at issue in the committees and floor debate when the DCMA was slipped through.
Best opportunity for us: get in touch en-masse with the representative branch of the US Gov'g with lucid, non-inflammatory communications that reference why the SSSCA and DCMA, etc. are in conflict with some of our most cherished rights (which do NOT include copyright theft, music or video piracy, by the way!), and get behind the EFF, etc. so that all of the issues are part of the debate.
And without declaring allegience to either party, campaign finance reform was defeated by a very narrow margin by politicians who are very closely allied with the big companies. So pushing the campaign finance reform onto your representative's legislative agenda is not a bad idea either.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
i can relate. i'm considering moving to australia (pending some research regarding their laws.)
i came to US looking for the 'land of the free' and 'land of opportunities'. well, i've had some success. i make a *nice* living. but lately, i've been reflecting on the laws that are being passed (DMCA comes to mind). the whole IP shabang.. now this. i know, it probably won't make it to becoming a law but knowing that my future as a lawful resident depends on the hands of some clueless lawmakers that take thousands and thousands of dollars (soft-money or otherwise) from coorporations that are intent on taking control of everything short of the oxygen i breathe i fail to see the free in 'the land of the free'. it's become 'the land of cartels' (explain RIAA and MPAA) and 'the land of bought politician' and 'the land of how much justice can you afford' and the land of just about everything but freedom.
granted you don't see my name on any of the change-logs on any opensource/GNU projects, i have been contributing in other ways -- writing key components for an american company that services companies worldwide. i consider myself as an active contributer to the american economy. lately, i'm seeing deminishing returns on my contributions. Apart from salary, a lawful, contributing resident comes to expect certain niceties from the government. and freedom, it seems, is exactly that -- a nicity. not the essentials; just a nicity.
i'd rather live with lower wages as long as i can continue to do what i love without interference. without the chokehold on both my throat and my beanbags.
it seems, if i do come up with something revolutionary i better have the dough to back it up. P2P with napster comes to mind. of course some mega corp is going to take interest since they would want not just a piece of the action by *all of it*. and would resort to the one great mechanism at work in america -- the law suits. so i've been very, very careful *not* to come up with anything remotely useful for the general public. in fact i have been very, very careful not to think of any ideas even. i sure don't have the money, or the politicians to protect it.
no one cares about IPs. it's not about coming up with new IPs or at least encouraging or creating the environment for new IPs. it's about *protecting* them. a key difference. gone are the days where the likes of wright brothers invented flying in their bike-shop. if you do the equivalent of that today in the digital world, you will essentially become a 'terrorist' (a hacker == a terrorist as some very bright leader put it)
my IPs are going to either my grave, or to australia or any other country where it's still about trying to foster development of 'em. not just about *protecting* and hoarding every halfwit-incomplete-though under the name of IP.
(i'm not certain about australia. that's just the first country that came to mind.)
- DMCA - 300 letters,
- Health care privacy - 40,000
- Home Schooling - 500,000+
Those physical letters count most. See the acm letter or the EFF for examples.Find your congressman and senators, write them letters, and mail them. Mail your own representatives. As a voter in their district you matter most to them. (Email is much less effective. They know about spam just like you do.) Whenever this issue moves into another stage (e.g., draft, committee, floor) write another.
If you want handbooks, check out Congressional Quarterly. The book Lobbying Congress, How the system works is quite relevant, although perhaps disturbing to some. It was written by lobbyists for lobbyists. You will also get other relevant hits with a "lobbying congress" query on Amazon.
will the laws include provisions for lesser jail sentences for minors who "attempt to circumvent copyright-enforcing hardware for media playback"?
<DARKHUMOR>Nope, you'll be convicted of terrorism under the ATA and sent to prison for life.</DARKHUMOR>
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Divx didn't fail because DVD enthusiasts made it look bad, it failed because ultimately consumers didn't want to watch movies in the way that the Divx backers had envisioned. The miscalculation was that consumers would be okay with the notion of something they buy but don't actually own. This concept was confusing, complex, privacy invading, and pointless.
The reason I make this point is that I think this is an inappropriate comparison to what we are looking at with this new potential law. Here we see the possibility of a choice being made for consumers by politicians and their lobbyist backers. Trying to explain this stuff to the average consumer is difficult because it is somewhat abstract. They will say that the media producers have the right to make money from what is rightfully theirs and it's okay for the government to support that with legislation. When they have no choice but to pay per view, they'll go with the only choice they have and likely not think twice about it. Perhaps I'm just too ravingly cynical but I don't think an appeal to the people is going to be terribly effective here.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The EFF has a large page on the SSSCA, complete with sample letters for your Congresscritters, and information on how to contact them. Check out the EFF Action Alert: Defeat the SSSCA.
We can stand around all day and yammer, but the more of us who write *and* call our Congressfolks, the more our voices are heard.
What happened was a govenrment elected by an increasingly disinterested populace. Officials placed by a minority of eligible voters who gave themselves the ability to be influenced by money (PACs, soft money, junkets, etc.).
More importantly, it was able to remain in place thanks to the load of sheep who continue to do nothing as long as they get their X-Boxes and Game Boys and Star Trek The Lamest Generation on the Dubba-Ya-Bee.
Not willing to fight for your rights? Then this is what you get. Even if you are willing to(in the US, anyway), not enough of your fellow non-voters are, so give up. You are consumers and will be treated as such. Hell, most of your countrymen are begging to be given the ability to trash a few more articles in the Bill of Rights in the vain hope that there'll never ever ever be another terrorist attack in the US ever again.
Don't like it? You're gonna have to give up more than your DreamCast, 187 channels and Double-half-decaf mocha-choco-frappaccinos now.
Experience says you won't.
woof.
Not only was I at "Ground Zero" NYC, I was near the Pentagon that Tuesday morning as well. Lost friends at both sites. Had to wait an extra week to get a guaranteed ticket back to Europe.
Note how this (like the DMCA before) is aimed at the average consumer, and definitly not against criminals. It's aim is to make criminals out of anyone who wants to View/Copy/Transmit any piece of content in ways not approved by the RIAA and MPAA. This includes cutting out advertisement, playing a piece of Music as often, whereever, whenever, and to as large an audience and in as good a quality as you want. Also anyone who wants to create, market or distribute content (that is anyone possibly competing with established industry to make money from content) finds himself at a disadvantage: he has to pay license fees for encoding, probably needs to set up a huge infrastructure or again pay for the use of an infrastructure to distribute his content in the 'right way' (since he can't just distribute an mp3, but needs to provide servers to serve the 'keys' necessary to unlock his content), and generally has to build his business modell around some very rigid legislation and the technology it allows.
Anyone who is ripping off and selling content in Volume won't be affected anyway. He is already engaged in criminal activity, using unauthorized soft/hardware is the least of his worries, and to believe this hardware/software wouldn't be available because of such legislation is just plain ridiculous. Probably directions how to remove the copyprotection will be available all over the net, like it was with disabling DVD-Region-Codes.
What is happening is, that the Record- and Movie Industries want their old business protected by laws. But the internet and the digital representation of content have already changed the world, and change always means hard times for established business, but it also means opportunities for new business. Adhering to the old ways means leaving out these opportunities, and if the USA as a country choose not to use these opportunities, they may find, that other countries are not willing to do so for the sake of Disney.
This is a lot like legislating that every car has to have a horse running in front of it after the event of the Otto motor, just to ensure, that all the industry around horses doesn't go out of business. I think even the USA can't afford to abandon the technological progress the new media will bring, and these laws will only help to establish the old industry for the next 10 years or so, at the cost of halting progress on that sector for about the same time.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
You know, this new regulation will stop Moore's Law cold. People will no longer want to buy new, restricted computers; instead, those old Pentium 4 2 GHZs will be in hot demand. There'll be no other way to display your content. Demand for new machines will drop, and the funds for research will no longer be there.
Ever since a Federal law was passed in 1994 banning certain features in new or imported guns, there has been a brisk market in "pre-ban" weapons; expect a similar situation in the computer market.
This should be really fun when computers get fast enough to run virtual machines that can decode MPEG. How's the hardware going to tell if you're viewing restricted content when the viewing operation isn't even in the same machine code?
I am currently building up an anti-SSSCA task force in the Washington D.C. area. So far things are just restricted to swapping emails, and planning to meet at the Open Source conference in DC on October 10. Anyone who wants to help and can offer something useful (Political connections, previous experience, legal advice, etc.) feel free to send me an email (supabeastatsupabeastdotorg.). Please no random "I want to help but can't offer anything other than writing letters." emails, as I am a bit short on time right now!
Just about a decade ago, this was called "communism."
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
What I see is a future in, say, 25 years, where I'm teaching my grandson how to disable the copy controls in our State-supplied EntBox so we can watch old DVD-format movies I had in the attic. I'm teaching him how to shield the GPS trackers in his car (serviceable ONLY at State centers) so he can go to Bible Study/IP Revolution meetings. I'm teaching him how to run an ancient PC we keep buried and wrapped in lead to prevent its detection.
Dammit, I should be teaching him how to fish.
Listen, I'm not a super-paranoid individual, but I honestly see the potential, years down the road, where we've lost our IP freedoms bit by bit until we don't remember what fair use was...
GTRacer
- I don't remember signing anything...
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
[In case anybody cares, here's my letter. I'll fact it to the offices of all US senators tonight. May help, may not, let's see.]
I am a computer scientist and the owner of an IT company.
It has come to my attention that the United States have recently passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which - to summarize it broadly - makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection devices such as the DeCSS algorithm, used for DVD video.
As a result, many previously lawful uses of digital media which used to be considered "fair use" have been seriously restricted for average consumers in the United States. Despite the protests of computer scientists, media professionals and consumer groups within and outside the United States, these horrifying consequences of the DMCA have come in effect today and first arrests have been made against software developers who do research on decryption. Already, non-American computer professionals have begun avoiding visiting US conferences because their perfectly legal work at home is considered illegal in the US and may lead to an arrest there.
Now, the United States are preparing an even stricter law. The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), proposed by Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, will require all future "digital devices" to include a content control mechanism certified by the US government. This mechanism will allow the creators of audiovisual digital content to control when, where and how often a consumer may use digital media. As a consequence of SSSCA, un-certified hardware and software will become unlawful.
The implications of the SSSCA would be incredible. As an example, in a few years, a buyer of a DVD will not "own" the movie he bought, only the right to watch it a limited time. He will not be allowed to watch it outside his country's region (circumventing DVD region encoding is already semi-illegal under the DMCA today). "Fair use" for private, educational or research purposes will not exist anymore. Consumers will not be allowed to make backups of the digital media they own. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Building computers from scratch will be illegal. Research on these aspects in Universites and Colleges will be illegal. Open Source Software such as Linux, a primary part in IT education and a major force in the industry, will be illegal.
As a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany, I should probably care less.
In fact, as a computer professional, I should even be glad that the US stifles innovation for its IT professionals, because it will help my country's industry to gain an advantage over US corporations. The combination of DMCA and SSSCA will seriously hurt the American IT industry and the American computer science education. The implications of these two laws are unconstitutional and will put lasting restrictions on the liberties of US citizens, who are the consumers of digital audiovisual media.
The German government has already made clear that it will not allow such restrictions to be imposed unto its citizens. Considering this, I'm glad not to live or work as a computer professional in the United States these days.
However, as a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it saddens me to see the United States of America going this path into such a bleak future, taking essential liberties away from its citizens and putting full control into the hands of media corporations.
I urge you to oppose the SSSCA and I ask you to remove the DMCA, in the interest of US citizens and in the interest of the international community of computer professionals.
Sincerely,
Hanno Müller
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
I recomend that slashdot have a counter going showing the amount of the bribes accepted by various senators from the media industry. And yes, they are bribes pure and simple.
Second point is that the IT industry can't comply with the bill if it wanted to. There are many working groups that have been developing DRM standards - MPEG, IETF-DRM, XACML and others. Lack of interest has not been the problem, the difficulty of converging the technology is very high.
In particular the incompetence of the USPTO which has granted thousands of spurious patent claims in the area prevents a workable agreement being reached. There are too many overlapping rights to build a workable system without a serious risk of being sued. This despite the fact that there is prior art for paractically all the technologies.
Legislative fiat will not speed up the technology efforts, in fact they will retard the process. The manufacturers know that if they call the studios bluff and refuse to agree that they can play out the end game in the law courts for decades.
The best way to derail the effort is by reminding congress of the lies they were fed to pass the DMCA. Even Orin Hatch has realized he was had. In particular the clause introduced by the recording industry that tried to grab the returned rights of recording artists was so eggergious that Congress repealled it without demanding fresh bribes.
Also the comparison should be continually to the demands made when recording technology first became mass market. The publishers fought to prevent cassette tape and the VCR from being sold - and lost conclusively.
At the end of the day the recording industry has nowhere near the influence of the computer industry. Quite a few computer companies have revenues greater than those of all the recording companies and film studios combined.
Congress is not about to severely damage its most successful industry by far in order to protect an industry that is far from struggling.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Freedom is the ability to say whatever you want...
You can say whatever you want anywhere in the world provided you don't say it out loud. Same is true here. We love to say we believe in free speech but after you've taken away speech that is politically incorrect, speech that might be interpreted as "terroristic", speech that violates the DMCA, and speech with obscenities there isn't much left worth talking about.
go whereever you want...
Who doesn't get to go where they want? You mean people who can't afford tickets? Well, the same is true here... if you can't pay your way, you can't go that way. Or do you mean free travel in the sense of not having to show "your papers." Have you flown on a plane anytime since TWA-800?
do whatever you want...
Can't smoke a doobie, can't grow a plant, can't treat myself for a disease I think I have with a medicine I think cures it... what the fuck are you talking about, do whatever I want, I can't do even the most basic of all things every organism since the beginning of time has been able to do, ingest the substance of my choice!
Talk to whoever you want...
Show me a country where this is restricted in a way that isn't over here.
marry whoever you want...
In most states I can't marry a guy if I'm a guy and a babe if I'm a babe.
Believe whatever you want...
If I keep it to myself, sure. Show me another country that's different.
Worship (or not worship) however you want...
Tell that to the native Americans or the Rastafarians, both denied sacraments they consider vital to their faith thanks to the war on drugs.
Have kids if you want...
I might be able to have them but there's no guarantee they won't be taken away simply because the state doesn't like my lifestyle. Happens all the time.
Not have kids if you want...
Yes, in America we have the right to not do things. Well, to not do everything but pay taxes.
Heck, if you're an IT guy, you're certainly not even trapped by more practical concerns like poverty.
No, it looks like if you're an IT guy you're going to be trapped by something far worse, your knowledge of technology that it appears the government is going to label verboten.
Sell it somewhere else.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?