Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat puts out Legislation Alert on the SSSCA
the_2nd_coming writes "Red Hat has announced a legislation alert for the SSSCA. They are collecting comments to hand to lawmakers. Get those comments in while you can, but make sure you give them some thought."
We, as a community, really need to get behind this effort. Say what you want about Redhat, but a company is probably going to have louder voice than a few disorganized individuals. Way to go Redhat!
"programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming"
so yer the one to blame for BSODs!
"We're going to shine the light of justice..."
"...draw the line in the sand against the evil ones..."
"Our work is against Evil"
Who's he talking to? The IQ 85 population?
From the Redhat article:
Essentially, all devices and software that fall into this vague definition of digital interactive technology will have to include encryption so it can't be copied. This could include VCR tapes, compact discs, and the devices that run them, as well as computers and open source software.
Surprises me. This is one of the most heavy-handed pieces of legislation I've seen. I can understand the digital aspect of it, but even encrypting videotapes, the last bastion of small-scale piracy? I'm really not for piracy, but I thought the videotape issue fell under "don't sweat the small stuff".
Gotta give credit for the thoroughness of the proposed legislation, though.
I like fire ants. They are very spicy!
I seem to recall that the DMCA was "justified" because it was written to be compliant with the WIPO / WTO treaties that the U.S. signed.
Does anyone know if these international treaties proposed anything like the restrictions called for in the SSSCA?
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
But there is absolutely no way the "industry committee" will approve as "secure" any operating system where you could just reconfigure the kernel to remove the DRM feature. They would never, ever do such a thing--because they're the "industry committee."
The amazing thing to me is that Senate will be openly considering legislation to put a committee of corporations in charge of deciding which hardware and OS configurations will be legal and illegal. Even if the committee somehow miraculously doesn't ban Open Source operating systems, the thought that they might be handed the power of life and death over operating systems is startling.
I think it's wildly unrealistic to assume SSSCA won't pass just because it's obviously crazy legislation. There are a lot of crazy laws on the books, and most geeks didn't take DMCA very seriously either until Dmitry got busted. Don't be complacent.
this law has corporate america written all over it. and in a country where the government whores itself to the highest bidder, what big money wants, big money gets.
sad but true
I have contemplated for a time.. trying to figure out what the implications of laws like this would have for non-US citizens. Currently lot's of software/code stems from US based people.
Can someone please enlighten me as to what this law and others like it would mean for me in the Netherlands?
I would be happy to join your (and mine btw) cause but since i am not represented in the US in any way i can't do alot of things i'm afraid.
Whoah whoah whoah... I'm fairly certain you cannot do kernel level programming in VB. Maybe you can use some API's to interact with some kernel dll's or something... but that is hardly low level. But if you've never used anything but basic, you probably don't have a real concept of what low level really is.
Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
Isn't there someway to argue that encryption in the '00s is as important to personal freedom as firearms in the 1800's? Firearms are protected in the Bill of Rights because in our forefather's time they were thought necessary to ensure against the tyranny of our own government. Doesn't encryption fulfill a similar role nowadays? Just a thought, and a controversial one I'm sure...I'm not exactly sure I'd want to be comparing encryption to firearms to some people I know, but I think that there is a similarity in them (to a point of course :)
if this bill succeeds. I'm a Canadian so my comments to the senetor would mean less then zero. But consider all the new development that happens in the US. Then consider what the bill would force as an additional development that must happen for the software/hardware to be released. This alone would cause the cost of development to increase, (and thus reduce the amount of development done). Not to mention the obvious First Ammendment abuse.
Just doing my part to keep the FP away from the homosexual ACs.
Wow! You're so brave and macho using an account specifically for trolling. Anyone can do it. I personally can't be arsed, hence AC.
Don't write a bit player in the software world (no offense to RedHat, but they're far from what I think of when I hear the term "multinational" bandied about), write your goddamned representatives and senators letters. Make sure your home address is on it, and make sure that you make the disdain for how the bill will treat you obvious without resorting to f bombs and the like.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Just as with the DMCA DCSS loopholes of turning the code into a prime number, and making songs out of the source code, there is a loophole in the SSSCA as well. If you previously owned non-secure electronic equipment then it's ok. Oh, look plextor has to re-design all of their plexwriters, I wonder what will happen to the old ones? ^_^
/.ers are the only people who understand what's going on, and pay attention to it. We have to bring this to the attention of the general public. Tell people that mp3s wont play correctly on a new computer with windowsxp. And that if this law is passed it will be illegal to download winamp. See what happens.
The big problem with the SSSCA is that newer faster computers will have to have built in security against copyright infringement, and it is illegal to break that security. It is also illegal to remove security stuffs from a copyrighted file, like one of those secure windows ones. What do we do about this? We write a java program that goes into your system and cracks all the security. Then we have it run off an obscure web server in another country. Visit website, java runs. You didn't do it. You thought the site was something else. It doesn't say anything about files that originally had no security. The SSSCA is all about making new stuff illegal, not already existing stuff. So you change the dates on all your files.
The real reason the government gets away with stuff like this is because we
Yeah so buy up a bunch of hardware and download software now, that way it wont be illegal.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Senate will be openly considering legislation to put a committee of corporations in charge of deciding which hardware and OS configurations will be legal and illegal
/.ers to handle computer laws would we be any better off? Seriously! Would we??
This, if it happens, will be a step FAR too far. While we can't trust the legislators to get this right because they simply dont understand it, we sure as hell can't trust companies with it.
Every Company Rule #1 Exploit each and every opportunity presented to you to make money.
Every Company Rule #2 see Rule 1
Of course, if it was left to
The last time the federal government got seriously involved in software development, it tried to write an air-traffic control system.
The project was written off as a dead loss after spending something like 5 years and $9B (Maybe someone can supply the exact figures; too many zeros makes me dizzy...)
Do they think that they can do any better designing OS APIs and security systems?
- SWM
Will the hottest T-shirt at thinkgeek.com in 2003 be "Legalize Linux" ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I can see it now. In the code:
#IFDEF INANE_COPY_PROTECTION
#include RIAA_Headers.h)
#ENDIF
And in the documentation:
b) Please do not define INANE_COPY_PROTECTION. It is very bad.
Open source software is run on a great deal of the smaller and even the larger buisnesses in this nation. It is generally more stable, and easier to apply. Larger companys favor the *nix frame, as they are often familar with it, so no further training is needed in many cases. For smaller company, the thousand dollar plus (per machine) liscencing fees for other software can be overwhelming.
Many buisnesses will die, if unable to use this free or low cost software.
And there are other implications to this LAW.
Implications that, when I gave copys of the law to my sociolgy class, bursts of laughter were heard to erupt.
And the basis of the laws....
Section 109, Definitions, defines an 'Interactive Computer Service' Under a law passed in 1934!
And section 104 is laughable as well. 'Antitrust Exemption?'
Although there is minor solace, even if this law was passed. It's unconsititutional.
The fourth Ammendment protects against Search And Seizure without reasonable cause. To enact the use of software which would monitor my activitys is illegal, according to rulings which deem that any method of surveillance (such as thermal imaging) that could find information that could not be otherwise obtained warrantless, is invalid.
You could not otherwise find this information without physichal acsess to my computer.
Therefore, it is in violation of the fourth ammendment.
01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
I am against anything that will reduce my ability to use Open Source software. I can't afford to buy Microsoft products -- and I won't pirate them. I hope my government can understand that there are lots of people like me -- I mean, I don't go to movies, I don't rent movies -- I don't want and can't afford that culture. All I want to be able to do is participate in a community of software users and developers who share their work -- I don't want to topple Microsoft or upset the movie and recording industries or anything like that.
Think about the original New England Colonists -- they didn't want to destroy England or infringe on England's ability to do business or impose any beliefs or behaviors on England. The result of their cooperation and independence is the greatest country on the face of the Earth -- and the most vital democracy in the history of human civilization. Just think -- maybe Open Source software can be a new chapter in the continuation of the unfolding story of democracy that is the United States of America.
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
I hope to sell the corpses. Where can I sell them?
Sec 103 (b) : PERSONAL TIME-SHIFTING COPIES CANNOT BE BLOCKED. -- No person may apply a security measure that uses a certified security technology to prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for time-shifting purposes of programming at the time it is lawfully performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, non-premium cable channel, or non-premium satellite channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in section 122(j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a cable system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such title.)
OK, IANAL, but why does this differentiate non-premium cable channel from premium? Pirating does not seem to be the essence of this article, since that is taken care of by the "lawfully performed" clause. This seems to open the door to make time-shifting premium channels illegal.
Thoughts?
The more you say/type the more stupid it
is. Get a life and hide your Windows PC under your desk, your wife is coming..sick kiddie porn watcher.....
1. I AM ALWAYS RIGHT!
2. FOR ALL EXEPTIONS SEE NUMBER ONE!
Thank you!
Whoah whoah whoah... I'm fairly certain you cannot do professional level trolling in VB. Maybe you can use cut and paste to trick some idiot slashbots or something... but that is hardly signal11 level. But if you've never used anything but "*BSD is dying", you probably don't have a real concept of what a real troll really is.
Quick! Mod this one up as funny!
Oh my god, have you guys lost all your sense of humour to mod this down as (-1)troll?
By taking this initiative, RedHat has brought some corporate muscle behind the fight of the SSSCA. Before now, it is all private citizens writing letters to their representatives, but now that there is a major corporate backer, the anti-SSSCA movement will go further, and more representatives will pay attention to it. As a corporation, RedHat can also provide some solid technical reference, details that a Congressman or Congresswoman would be able to better understand, and be more likely to pay attention to than what Joe Linux User says about copyright protection technology.
"I post only the truth"
LOL. You call that "truth"? Refusing to give in to Slashdot groupthink does not mean outright typing false and retarded utters off your keyboard.
As much as I hate to say it, you have already given in to the "troll" groupthink. This group is even more bland than the Slashdot group. I feel sorry for your personality, or the lack thereof.
Who is this KDE and why is he killing my gnomes? Personally, I find my "poke 'em to death" method to be quite adequate. Fuck this KDE guy!
Looks like Linux and Windows are threatened by the government. Soon enough we won't be able to use any of those OS's freely. Anyway that'll teach you to have double standards. Linux users are happy when MS get slapped by the government and Windows users are happy when Linux get slapped by the government. You digged your own graves. Instead of coming together and fighting the crazy laws, nah.
The bill is being motivated by motion picture and television studios that seek to end piracy of their movies and other forms of entertainment. Curiously, these studios also happen to be among Hollings' top campaign contributors, as noted by Newsforge reporter Dan Berkes.
(Emphasis mine)
"Curiously" is an understatement. Apparently in America you can buy anything.
On a related note, does anyone find it strange the commiting a crime against a corporation is worse that a crime against another individual?
Violate the DMCA - 25 Years w/o parole
Kill someone - 20 Years, parole after 6-8
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
of the phrase fair use anywhere in this legislation. One mention of *time-shifting* which apparently covers all conceivable aspects of fair use of digitized data. The idiocy of this bill beggars description.
This is the flavor we get from the small-government, get-the-Fed-out conservatives. A boycott of any devices/systems implementing any aspect of such a system is a moral imperative.
illegitimii non ingravare
Like a said the more you talk, the more intelligent
i become. Make my day and reply on this.
benevolent_spork = bonenvilont_dork
If SMTP will go away (as we know it) they just tell the American people "E-Mail will go away" and you better believe that this thing won't get approved. Done Deal.
I propose that if that this law passes and legal/legislative actions continue to be fruitless in challenging the DMCA and other Bad legislation we learn from past social movements -- from our own countries' revolution to very recent history. Let's not forget the power of civil disobedience. If Congress passes a law that is so clearly wrong, let's ignore it -- refuse to cooperate. They can't arrest all of us -- and if they did, who would be the stewards of the information economy? There are seeds of this in the creative distribution of DeCSS code.
If Open Source software is outlawed, only outlaws will have Open Source software.
---
Direct action gets the goods. -- Mother Jones
at least get your trolling right. gnome is based on regular C
And some of the problems are:
So why would someone support this?
Am I missing something here, or could this show us what our lawmakers really think of the people they represent (assuming that they actually record the votes this time...)? We've seen much of this before, but this time they aren't even trying to make it look good.
This is like Neuromancer. Underground SW and HW. Illegal OSes. I am more furious than I have ever been in my life. Our "representatives" are using our lives, our rights, our freedom as their political currency and with a very low exchange rate to boot. They deserve to be punished in meatspace but hell, let's kick their butts in the electronic world before we resort to meatspace insurgency.
I took note that some of Hollings biggest contributors are the media giants.
Curious though, that they choose a South Carolina senator to sponsor it for them.
Which makes me wonder, is it just that Hollings was an easy buy or cheaper due to the lower standard of living in SC?
Inquiring minds want to know.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
So, record companies and movie studios don't want you to pirate their product. That's fine with me. They have some options. 1) Stop making them: fairly self-explanatory...no movies, no piracy. 2) Make them affordable: Let's face it...I'd rather pay a few dollars to see a quality movie in a theater than watch a grainy VCD that took me five hours to download. $8 per ticket plus $5 popcorn and a $4 coke doesn't cut it, though. 3) Buy the US Congress: this is our weak point...535 guys who have no clue regarding technology or anything digital can easily be swayed by legal tender. I really can't blame the industry for taking advantage of a system that gives the federal government so much power. It's our own faults for electing these morons. It doesn't make them right, only understandable.
Contact your senators. It's easy, if you don't know what to say, just be polite and paraphrase some lines from the Red Hat press release. Tell him/her how the bill could directly have an effect on your life, and maybe an example of how it could effect the Senator's life too. All the webpages have web forms to send emails, so type something up first, run spell check and then paste it in the form. It couldn't be easier. On more thing, make sure you put your real name and address, if it's coming from a real person, it has a better chance of being heard.
KidA
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
"The price of freedom is $1bn every four years."
(attr. G. W. Bush)
From the RedHat article:
"This could include VCR tapes, compact discs, and the devices that run them.."
Terrorists destroy the World Trade Center, killing over 5,000. In response, Democrat and Senator Fritz Hollings introduces a bill mandating government-specified encryption standards to prevent the pirating of copyrighted material.
Exactly how will this prevent terrorism ? Are we in imminent danger of Ossama bin Rotten pirating last week's episode of 'Fraser', and if he did, how many lives would be at stake ?
The answer is that the proposed legislation has nothing to do with national security. The nation has suffered horrific tragedy. We are now war, fighting to bring those reponsible for the deaths of thousands to justice. Copyright violiation is not, at this time, the issue at the front of our minds.
Senator Hollings is taking advantage of tragedy to sneak through legislation depriving individuals and companies of an essential freedom. He exploits deaths of thousands to push the political agenda of his financial backers at an opportune moment. This is one of the ethically sickest acts in the history of American politics.
That is the question
I was just thinking about something. Couldn't copyright encryption schemes be used by terrorists. Aren't the new laws going to try to limit the amount of encryption used in systems. If you think there is no connection between crypto laws and copyright just think about how the DVD mess happened. The DVD drives had a 40 bit encryption system. Remember 40-bits is the export encryption limit. This is so the CIA and NSA and others can brute force decrypt foreign systems in no time. At least that was the thinking. Never mind these countries might be smart enough to come up with there own really good encryption systems. Anyway getting back on track it seems to me that if this SSSCA get through by some miracle then there may be a mandatory encryption system but it may be a really lame one with a 40-bit key. That is unless the SSSCA wants to make the sale of computers from HP, IBM, Apple, Dell and everyone else to foreign countries to be illegal. It just strikes me how contradictory and confused the governments policies are when it comes to encryption. "Uh encryption is bad, yeah bad, except for the RIAA and MPAA then its good yeah we meant good for them bad for you"
So, 'interactive digital devices'....
ya browser doesn't stop you from right click and save an image (copy righted material) and most likely its not SSL'ed (no encryption), its gonna be illegal!
I like those smart people, love to study their brain.
humps
I figure soften 'em up with the heavy artilery right away.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
___.
// \\
/6 (%)\,
;; :';,:';`;,';,;';`,`_
;:,;;';';,;':,';';,-Y\
;,;,;';';,;':;';'; Z/
;,';';,;';,;';;'
(( ''
\\__,
(__/:";,;\--____----_
/
/ / |';/~~~~~\';;'
( K | | || |
\_\ | | || | valkyrie
\Z | | || |
L_| LL_|
LW/ LLW/
Haha, you didn't expect this, right ?
I post only the truth, and I refuse to give in to Slashdot groupthink soley for the reward of "mod points." Thus I don't feel the need for multiple accounts.
READ: I have nothing interesting to say, I always get modded down, so I post drivel all day.
The number of reports of non-profit organizations, local/city governments and state governments starting to use open-source alternatives was growing--I'd always hear/read about so-and-so agency switching. Now, if the SSSCA was enacted, I don't see an alternative for these organizations to use anything else but commercial software when it comes time for them to upgrade/change. The costly consequences of this are endless.
Linux at home
were you running on a burned out cpu or ram? That would explain the kernel panics where none have occured before.
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
PleasePleasePLEASE take 5 minutes to write down how this will affect you as a consumer and as a technology worker. Emphasize the rights you loose. Be explicit about why this won't stop content piracy. Drop a note to Senator Hollings. Just as importantly, drop a note to your own 2 senators. Tell your elected representatives who you are and what you do. Tell them you won't vote for them if they support this, and be sure to follow through if necessary.
They should know this stuff already and not need people to educated them. This and other crap they're pushing through is cut and dry, and they should know better. They aren't stupid, just spoiled rotten.
I did some basic searches to see if I could find the campaign contribution record of Fritz Hollings, the bozo that is behind this outrage. I couldn't find anything, but I doubt that matters... but we do need to know who is master is.
What does matter is that these groups made HUGE soft money contributions to BOTH sides in the last election. These corporate companies (like Microsoft and entrainment companies) are using the soft money system to rule the country. This is the root of these outrageous bills, and they will continue until the corporate rule of America is fixed.
We don't only need to educate about the moral outrages of this current bill, we have to fight the soft money structure. We need to get soft money banned. People complain this restricts speech, but this structure is actually HINDERING speech because the small guy is getting drowned out; getting rid of soft money actually PROTECTS free speech (and free speech should be based on the individual, not the corp.) We need Campaign finance reform, and we need it BADLY.
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
Since 9-11 peopleon antennas have been getting crap reception due to the loss of the WTC Antenna. None of the remedial measures has been successfull & guess who is taking advantage of the consumers, now thatwe are in a hole, you guessed it, Aol. Now that everybody has to use the cable set, they make sure that the unscrambled channels have been cut back to the minimum commited set of local channels as a shake down on forced users. before 9-11 we could break up the useage by using the scifi channel & the Fox News etc, They cut that all out in an effort to milk the public for extra boxes. I for one am never going to forget what they did & I congratulate the guy who put out the protocol, it has really been a long time in coming. They deserve to be driven off the net & out of the company of civilized people everywhere.
JIC someone cares what I think, I sent this to RedHat and 'Fritz':
As an IT professional and a US citizen, I find the proposed SSSCA appalling.
I consider it unwise to attempt such an Act, and this is for three main reasons.
The first is that I believe the any requirement as to the content of any communication is in violation of the First Amendment. Censorship is a hotly debated issue, and is usually left to private corporations to decide for themselves, and I feel that it is right that they should do so. Corporations (i.e. Disney, Fox, TW/AOL) have the right to edit the content they provide, and I have the right not to edit the content I provide.
While censorship is not the issue at stake in the SSSCA, there is a valid parallel here. Mandating that copyright law be technologically embedded in all electronic media to protect Intellectual Property is invasive. Open Source software, by its very definition, would not be possible under such a law. I would be prevented from making my personal thoughts freely distributable electronically without implementing this technology, meaning that if I intend for others to copy and distribute my data without my direct involvement, I will be in violation of the law. Even the forwarding of email would be affected. I feel that this invasion of privacy is unconstitutional.
The second reason I object to the SSSCA is that it is impractical. The cost of embedding every electronic device and piece of software with copyright-enforcing technology would be prohibitive to all but the most affluent companies. The SSSCA would also presumably make copy-protection technology mandatory on devices like dishwasher, ranges, microwaves, and automobiles. While not typically targets for piracy, these are electronic devices which could conceivably be reverse-engineered and copied as a means of reducing competitor?s R&D costs. This is currently not only illegal but difficult, and thus the added cost of technology to prevent it is absurd in and of itself.
My third primary objection to the proposed SSSCA is that it is too wide in scope and unnecessary in light of existing copyright law. It is already illegal to copy those pieces of Intellectual Property that a copyright holder does not want copied, and yet it is legal to copy Intellectual Property that is meant to be copied, such as software under the Gnu Public License. The current law already criminalizes theft of Intellectual Property. The intent of the proposed SSSCA seems to be simply to inhibit that theft. The effects of this bill would be to not only restrict Intellectual Property theft (that is, until someone circumvents the copy-protection technology, which is only a matter of time), but to make legitimate usage of electronic media much more difficult and costly.
This bill must not become law.
Jonathan Ciesla
You are not the customer.
...is to eliminate personal campaign contributions. Get rid of the ability for a corp. or industry watchdog to buy out a single or group of congress persons and this crap will go away. Propose a general trust to which all people can contribute to and is equally dispersed among all parties, candidates, etc. Then the government won't spend so much time trying to raise funds to keep their cushiony jobs. Eliminate the money and the greed will disappear.
I sent email to the address provided on RedHat's page, and it bounced. Senator Hollings's website has a contact form which goes to this email address: qmail@hollings-cms.senate.gov. If anyone has a more direct email address please post it.
Say what you will, but to echo the statement:
/.'s posters with the Kerbos fiasco.
"Thank you, RedHat".
Think back to a not so far era with MS wielding the DMCA over
Some of the trade rags were quoted as saying "Slashdot is the only (institution) one so far to have the cajones to say 'Go ahead, sue, we'll defend that suit'".
Well, RedHat is stepping up to the plate...hot damn. "We the people" need this because the lawmakers and representatives of the people are not listening to us, but to corporations.
If I am not mistaken, RedHat is a corporation, and can probably use the "We are the voice of reason" in an insane world (or something like that).
Really, I'm not joking... Think about all the "innovators, heretics, and *individual* the quintessential Great Minds" of our time.
The ones that went against the grain, conventions, accepted beliefs, morals of thier peers (and monarchs/rulers)...as a corporation...this is what RedHat is doing.
Freakin' A.
Moose.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Stop bashing homos. Given the approximately 600000 user accounts on Slashdot, there are around 60000 homosexuals here.
Will this make the garage-development of software financially inviable? How complex will these security standards be? Am I going to have to pay somebody before I can distribute freeware checkers?
Basically, no matter WHAT you think your political stance is, you should start out by questioning every single bit of ethics and politics you have. Use logic and reason, and you will soon come up with the time proven idea that FREEDOM WORKS. If you are consistent (in other words, not emotional and hypocritical) in your views and look towards RESULTS, while viewing processes as merely a means to an attempted end, then you will flourish. Try thinking on your own instead of being led by the media or angry little men who tell you what to think. Try extending the very freedoms that you claim to cherish for your own towards others... even the ones you DO NOT LIKE or agree with. That is freedom and liberty.
Then don't every listen or yourself make excuses about or for any politician or policy that is short sighted and irrational, and that would only be malevolent (or in the best case scenario be simply non-benevolent). Make it a point to see things through and be interested in results over rhetoric and processes. Don't be so hypocritical against a particular candidate or party that you then fail to police your self and your supported party/candidate on the VERY SAME GROUNDS. Basically... start proactively thinking like a HUMAN, instead of reacting like a talking monkey.
They love to point at the US and laugh and say "At least we're not Americans" but the joke's on them because they have been for years. They're just not smart enough to figure it out.
The thing that really bugs me is that the bill specifically prescribes Macrovision as the protection.
Doesn't it seem wrong that the government would take a free standard like VHS and mandate that a licensed solution needs to be used with it?
My favorite part of the newsforge article was the bit about Senator Hollings replying to all questions with "I'm not qualified to address that issue." Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I'd try to make something the law of the land if I didn't understand it myself.
When I was in college, my campus had an activist group for pretty much everything. Sometimes we worked together on issues, and other times we worked alone. IMO, /.ers that are currently in college should try and make inroads with other groups that would tend to support our goals.
I realize that there are a lot of barriers to entry, as far as explaining the ramifications of this act to non technical people. However, once some sort of awareness is achieved, I really believe that college students (specifically activists) would at least give some help to this cause. How about a postcard/fax drive, petition, informational meeting etc?
College is an ideal place to act ideologically!
I modded this down as troll because it is totally unoriginal. It could have been pasted straight from the troll how-to. We've all seen these posts before. Modding this up would be like modding up a goatse.cx or an all your base post.
Hey folks, this is the country of liberty! Yes, we are free. Free to reverse engeneering anything we want, including cryptographic methods. Free to sell our cryptographic method all over the world. Free to develop our own digital devices. Free to do whatever we want with our own source code (including giving it away, or GPL it)
Do you know what country am I talking about?
Needless to say anything else.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
i live in the united states (or coporate state, if you want to be honest). which country are you talking about? certainly not this one.
....and who the fuck are you to criticize his criticizm?
/. ?
Do you consider yourself as some kind of authority on
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
The British used to quarter their soldiers in colonists homes, to make sure that the colonists did not do anything that the King of England did not approve of.
The Soviet Union used to post guards at all copying machines, to make sure that its citizens did not copy anything that the Communisty party did not approve of.
The U.S. government now proposes to install software in all computers, to make sure that its citizens do not make any copies that large corporations do not approve of.
As I understand this, all literature on the internet (and I use this term widely to include web pages, articles, magazines, and emails) is in a digital format. Therefore if you wish to own a hard copy of it (cd , floppy disk, dvd etc...) it will have to be encrypted.
I suspect that this encryption mechanism will itself be copyrighted. This will occur for two reasons. The first, that there will be a cost involved in its design, certification, and implementation. The second, partially mentioned in the first is that digital recording equipment producers will have to "buy" into at least one scheme. There will therefore be heavy politics, and encryption mechanisms backed by well funded companies will have the upper hand in "assisting" the implementation.
Once there is a predominance of encryption mechanisms which require copyrights ( required quite vaguely to be "available for licensing on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms") specific ones will become widely accepted and used making any use of available media locked into monetary gain.
What we see here is the loss of open exchange of information. The only devices that will be able to access these media, will be again copyright devices, where the copy of information from and to will be limited. This spells the demise of the modern computer, where we can write a document, pop a floppy in, copy it and pass it to a friend. This also forshadows the end of infomation sharing, as it would be too cumbersome to allow others to access files on your computer due to excessive copywritten access mechanisms.
This will bring the internet to a standstill if implemented as intentioned in this bill.
At the heart of this controversy is the contradiction in philosophies, of ease of exchange of information which the information revolution is dependent upon, and ease of copyright which has never existed.
When this writer compares these philosophies it is the former which offers the most obvious gains to humankind, having allowed democracy and representative governments to exist, as well as dispensing with feudalism and an uninformed abused public.
Microsoft forged evidence, got caught, didn't even make a good appology.
Microsoft spat on the judge.
The judge got mad enough to be a slight bit injudicious. But even so, his proposed penalties wouldn't have harmed Microsoft significantly. But that he dared at all was annoying, so Microsoft appealed. Still no penalty in sight, and Microsoft is certain enough of how it will come out to totally ignore the whole thing in its OS releases and license agreements.
I don't think Microsoft feels threatened.
This new legislation effectively gives Microsoft a legal monopoly. I.e., competition will be effectively prohibited. In fact if not in law. (Apple may get a waiver. Probably, not certainly, it will. But the Darwin layer might be sealed off.)
Any guesses as to what this will do to the license agreements and license fees?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Oh, but why? I'm sure Sen. Hollings would love a bunch of random flames and goatse.cx links.
sulli
RTFJ.
The legislators are just going along with whats considered 'normal'. If you look carefully at the UN Human Freedom Index, you will see that america is far from being a free democratic place. Infact its almost socialist. (also a search for 'Human Freedom Index' on everything2.com has a very interesting node on how America fails outright about 10 of the 40 things considered to constitute a free country and another 10 were thought sketchy.
:) lol
The SSSCA is kind of like animal farm 'all animals are =, but some are more = than others.' 'all speach is free... ' etc.. I wonder how they will use this support by a linux company as propoganda that linux is against america
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The USA can only outlaw open source software in the USA.
The rest of the world can have decent software while you in the USA shackle yourselves to your own bedposts, and see if we care.
The same goes for the rest of the stupid legislation proposed:
Not withstanding rampant bullying in WTO committees, the rest of the world remains free to make its own laws. (At least for the next year or two).
I sincerely hope this gets through and happens. No I am not joking. This isn't sarcasm. This should go through, in fact we shouldn't resist it at all.
Because as others have pointed out this is *too damn* far. This is what we need to get the general populace involved. You try telling finicky Americans that they no longer have any choices. Hell it doesn't matter if that is already true, but once you tell them that to their face things will change. Sometimes things have to go way too far before enough people will stand up to it. The general populace of any nation is much like a spring. You can push it in for a long time but only to a certain point... and after you get tired of pushing they are going to push back hard.
Let this pass.
Then I will have no problems convincing friends or family why Microsoft/RIAA and their ilk are bad news in the long run. And then? Then I will be standing there with open arms to all those who want choice and won't take it anymore.
--- I do not moderate.
Mininfo, second in importance only to Minilove.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm a resident of South Carolina, and it makes me cringe to see a senator from my state proposing this bill.
I've lived here 3 years, and South Carolina, while a beautiful place to live, is hardly a technological mecca. Yet our senator has put himself at the forefront of the pro-internet taxation group more than once. And now he's proposing this crazy bill.
I can guarantee you his constituents in South Carolina didn't write him and ask him for this bill.
So who is he really representing? Hmm, the media industry has given him a quarter million dollars!
Sells his ass to Mickey Mouse for $18,500.
As they said, American Democrazy, the BEST money can buy.
William Butler Yeats didn't write this: he's dead.
Try to keep the message simple. The Free Software Foundation still has the best philosophy pages and it's good to memorize the fundamental software freedoms, but don't expect most people to really care. This is a free speach issue and people do understand that. Tell them that it is fundamentally UnAmerican to limit what people do with their own property in their own homes, and that such arbitrary extention of copyright franchises will bite them in the ass later.
Someone pinch me.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Every Company Rule #2 see Rule 1
These rules are OK, but you forgot #3:
Leverage the coercive power of government to impede/obstruct competitors and enforce your own success.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
What do you think?
"Hello operator, Joe Joe's on the line."
It's cOjones :)
cajones are drawers.
cHALiTO
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Take your lead from the gun lobby.
Dear Congressman:
I am a one issue voter. I don't care about anything else. If you vote for or support this bill in any way, I will (1) vote against you, (2) give $xxx to your opponent, and (3) urge all my friends to vote against you.
Yours,
vinyl1
An interesting read might be at o rg</a>
I have several objections to the SSSCA bill:
1) The bill contains Orwellian Newspeak. It keeps talking about "security"
when nothing in the bill is even *related* to security. I believe this
wording exists as an attempt to deceive both
a) representatives/senators who will be voting on it
b) the people of the United States
In the wake of the recent terrorism, mislabelling things as being for
"security" to play on people's fears, is particular dishonest and
reprehensible.
Even if this bill is passed (which would be bad), the wording should be
corrected to refer to its actual intent: restricting people's access to
things they themselves own. Euphemize it if you must, but calling it
"security" is going way too far.
2) 104(b), where congress creates a new power and then hands control of
the details over to "representatives of interactive digital device
manufacturers and representatives of copyright owners" is totally
unacceptable. Those so-called representatives (who will likely
represent only a handful of companies and ignore the remaining 99.9%
of copyright holders) are not accountable to voters. YOU are. You
cannot hand over power without responsibility; that leads to tyranny.
3) More semi-Newspeak: Remove the word "interactive" from the the term
"interactive digital device", since the term's definition doesn't make
any reference to interactivity. Casual readers of the bill may get
the impression that it's less restrictive than it really is, unless they
scrutize the definitions section.
4) This bill causes acts that are currently lawful, to become unlawful.
Don't you have anything better to do than take people who are doing
nothing wrong, and turn them into criminals? If you are thinking about
voting for this, ask yourself three questions:
1) What percentage of my constituents want this to become law?
2) Am I protecting my consituents from tyranny, crime, etc?
3) Are there any reasons FOR voting for this?
Fair Use has been attacked too much already, and this just makes it
worse. Please work on repealing or otherwise correcting Title 17
Section 1201 to make the situation better, instead of making things worse.
5) This bill serves no purpose for anyone, including the people who are
purchasing it. Ostensibly, the bill's purpose is to protect copyright.
But copyright law already exists, and copyright holders already have means
to remedy violations. Thus, they are gaining no additional USEFUL rights
from this bill. Piling redundant laws upon one another is a Bad Thing.
6) This bill imposes heavy burdens upon developers, for no gain. That
is a destructive waste of resources. Please end government-mandated waste
and government suppression of industry and development.
7) Certification creates monopolies. This is also anti-industry.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
My actual letter was considerably longer with 3 supporting reasons of why this is such a bad idea, and they were written in a way in which common folk people would understand. I DID spell check my letter.
The letter I posted was simply a Pseudo letter. I imagine alot of people agree and they just dont know what to write. The letter I posted was just something to get them going in the right direction. I had assumed that everyone who was acutally going to write that letter WAS informed.
But like you said, and this should apply to everyone, Do spellcheck, DO list supporting reasons why it is wrong.
Goodbye and thanks for all the fish...
when he said "It is neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never question anything."
I'm so afraid of the majority of US citizens fitting into that description...
this thing might just pass...
In the last chapter of her book Digital Copyright, Jessica Litman states, "In the post-Napster world, I don't expect large numbers of disgruntled music fans deprived of Napster to arise in a massive displays of civil disobedience." (Probably not an exact quote). She goes on to say that as the DMCA and other copyright laws are very arcane and don't make a lot of sense when you really look at them ("I can copy a friend's music non-commercially on a tape [AHRA expressed exemption on all ananlog recording devices/media], but not on a CD [strict interpretation of law as written applied to non-music CDR drives, possibly overtuned by RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems]? Even if I don't intend to distribute it to 10,000 people on the Internet? What sense does that make?"). In the face of laws that people don't understand and don't make sense, people won't respect them, and not follow them.
I would argue, however, that in the post-Napster world, there already is a massive movement of civil disobedience going on. It's called Gnutella, KaZaA, Morpheus, and others. The problem is that it's not visible. It doesn't have people being beaten and spit upon and arrested as the African American sit-ins did. It doesn't have the long lines of blacks and whites walking in the snow next to empty busses as in the bus boycotts of the 1960s. It doesn't have the massive riotous discontent of the WTO protests that happen every time there's a meeting. It has thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of people sitting in the confort of their own homes in front of their computers. It will not get the media's attention. There have been small exceptions to this that I'm aware of. There was the report of Metallica fans smashing Metallica CDs in protest of their opposition to Napster. That's all I've heard about.
People have the idea that civil disobedience will change things. It won't. What it would do (maybe) is get people to see that this is an issue. But it won't do that if it's an invisible movement. Which it is now. Not invisible enough, perhaps ironically, to arouse the ire of the industry leaders that bought this bill, the DMCA, No Electronic Theft, or the Sunny Bono Copyright Extension.
No, they can't arrest all of us. But they could arrest a hundred. A hundred well-publicized, well-funded cases in the hole, and piracy might drop. What would also happen is that it would put potentially the entire populace of the U.S. who does anything that could possibly infringe on copyright (humming is probably fair use) in a state of fear. The ACLU and Slashdot would likely scream (rightly) about the rise of a police state, even more that they do now. The ACLU and others might be able to get a good court case about the propriety of using public dollars (to the FBI) to basically subsidize an industry, and arguably not to protect the public good (next thing, we'll here that copyright infringement is an act of domestic terrorism..)
You know I had a very strong sense of deja-vu here. Strangely enough, there was a comment on www.mandrakeforum.com with almost identical wording, except that poster had tried to install Mandrake 8.1. The I got curious and turned up a post to comp.os.linux.misc (here at Google) by purporting to be by one John Thompson with identical wording. So either you are trolling multiple places or you are plagerising someone else's trolling effort.
My first reaction was to think to myself, "Gee, do you think that they could extend this to mean that I am no longer able to download video off of my DV camera to my computer, or dub the recording to VHS?" I'd like to think they'd NEVER do something like that, but judging by the wording of this proposed legislation, I certainly wouldn't put it by them. Anyone else think they'd do that? They are already basically making it illegal for me to put music I've personally made in Acid on a CD that will play in any CD player (especially once all CD's will require a digital signature crap). Long live communism, I guess.
today is spelling optional day.
The SSSCA grandfathers existing equipment.
The federal law mandating lo-flow tiolets did the same thing. When it was first passed, no one noticed: their toilets kept flushing.
But after that, every time someone built a house, our added a bathroom, or just needed to replace a toilet, they discovered that the kind of tiolet that had worked for the last 100 years was no longer available: all they could buy was the lo-flo kind.
And one by one, all across America, the tiolets stopped flushing, and the people used plungers to unclog them.
The difference is that under the SSSCA, use of a plunger will be a felony.
If there are real implications for Open Source software if this stuff becomes law, then has anyone heard if IBM or Sun is voicing an opinion about this? After all, they are gambling part of their business on Open Source software (Linux, StarOffice, GNOME).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I thought the SSSCA was a response to the supposed (mostly unsubstantiated) threat of encryption being used by terrorists. Now we find, through the fine reporting of RedHat (?!) that this guy is bought and paid for by the entertainment industry? He uses the tragedy of the bombing and a legitimate need to redress warrants in the digital age to push through fair-use-obliterating content control? What a Machiavellian fuckhead!
--hongpong.com
You could thank him for trying to move all of the good tech companies out of the USA and into other countries, including Canada.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Maybe not....
Dear Senator Fritz Hollings
I request that you please, please sign the SSSCA in it's current form so Canada can become the new tech capital of the world.
I will only be happy when Santa Clara is a landfill and Yahoo.com comes up in French. The level of cushy tech jobs the US has simply isn't fair and there is no logical reason that South Carolinans would do anything to support the interweb underground porn thingy.
I'm sure many South Carolinans feel the same as I do about those NY consultant dweebs with their fancy laptop thingies. Why is the Interweb and three thousand dollar cup holders such a big deal anyway. We want fifty thousand dollar secratary jobs and Italian sports cars for our wonderful non-hoser computer specialists.
Thank you you for giving us our chance, and give our thanks to Hollywood to.
iplayfast
A thankful Canadan.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Canadians should also leave nationality out of this. It was Canada who invited Microsoft into Vancouver to practice their monopoly with impunity.
I agree with your conclusion, but not for your reasons©
I do not see it guaranteed that a committee would ban open-source operating systems ¥OSOS because of their competitive threat© Some companies may try to take advantage of this opportunity© But consider heavyweights like IBM, who are solidly behind Linux©
The reason I am certain that such a committee couldn't approve an OSOS, except by their own act of civil disobedience, is simply that it cannot be 'secured' in accordance with the law© Anyone with a moderate level of programming ability can edit an open-source OS©
I'm just saying that we should attribute appropriately© Let's not go off criticizing Microsoft, for instance, for forming a bad committee in the future© Let's know that the law itself, not a conspiracy of OS makers, is the source of the problem© Fight the law, not a committee that might be organized under the law©
...most of us are not represented in any way either.
I am a one issue voter. I don't care about anything else. If you vote for or support this bill in any way, I will (1) vote against you, (2) give $xxx to your opponent, and (3) urge all my friends to vote against you."
Thank you that was the approach I was looking for.
Spread the word.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Who's with me? I'm going to go bye-bye if this is passed into law. I hear parts of Europe & Brazil are very nice. If enough of us up & move to another county, maybe then they will pay some attention when the 'Net goes down permenently or the latest MS Virus mangles thier computer beyond recoverability. (Ok, I realize that isn't REALLY going to happen). We really need a lobbying group or a union or some kind of organization. You've heard the saying, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". What about smart people in large groups? We could be REAL dangerous....
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
All I gotta say to that is aaaaahhhhhhh yeah Buddy ...
I'd really appreciate a web site full of reasonable comments and snippets that I could pick from to compose a reasoned letter to my legislators.
It would help immensely to have short, concise statements of why this is bad in simple terms that even Joe Sixpack can understand in the 40 seconds that it takes him to read a Letter to the Editor in the local newspaper. Such simple expressions that they cannot be dislodged casually by the vested interests that stand to profit at everyone else's expense, should such misguided legislation sneak through because a full review by unbiased experts has not been done.
I'm thinking here of messages along the lines of alerting citizens that if their digital rights to read are delineated by this legislation, that their future use of technology will in no way resemble that to which they've become accustomed for newspapers, magazines, books, LP records, CDs, etc.
That is, I can buy a newspaper anonymously and no one will know who I am or what I read. If I choose to sell my or even give away my newspaper to someone else, then that is my perogative and mine alone. Neither is it necessary for the transaction between me and that other person to be the business of anyone else. If I choose to scan in a book I just bought and read it on my laptop computer, then that is my current right. As long as I don't reproduce copyrighted work and sell it, then it should be within my rights. None such rights can be taken for granted in future society in which "Digital Copyright Management" is dictated so that no individual may be exposed to media without intrusive measures to insure that the Rights Owner (not necessarily the Creator) of the Original Digital Media is paid for this and every instance of Use.
Likewise, ramming down DMCA and related technology restrictions like this SSSCA is morally equivalent to mandating that crowbars, a technology that could be used for breaking into houses, be outlawed and only specially licensed crowbar researchers on a government maintained list may have access to crowbars. Leave the technology open. Force manufacturers to come up with a different system, a voluntary system, one where consumers have a choice and one which does not abridge the rights to fair use that consumers currently enjoy.
Finally, under no circumstances should burdensome government regulations on technology be used as an excuse to prop up a revenue model for a specific commercial lobby.
Neither should legitimate concerns for national security be applied with an unthinking broad brush to remove the liberties of expression enjoyed by the citizens of this free nation.
I'm not as good at formulating compelling arugments as some of you are. Herein I have probably used more lighter fluid than should be put into a letter to my legislator. I want it to have the most impact that it can.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Would EFF be willing to set up the fund?
I've got $10 ready to contribute.
We've got to fight bad politics with bad politics.
Dolt! That was some flunky in his office!
here is a list of the people on the senate commerce committee. Contact all of them, not just your senator.
c om _detail.pl?GetFile=congress~uscom
http://www.capitolimpact.com/cgi-local/cio_cong
I...must....resist.... will... fading....
When Open Source Software is outlawed, only Outlaws Will Use Open Source Software.
Damn! So close...
On another note, I'm finally 100% MS-free in my personal computing. Yes, I want a cookie. But not from doubleclick.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
The following was my submission:
The SSSCA is a bill produced and supported out of valid fear; Fear of the volitility of GDP, and more recently, fear of illicit communications.
The former fear has been historically supported by American policy; to legally segregate markets so as to make local economies profitable. This is most evident in the former banking industry. Such ledgislation can be viewed as a "socially constructing" tax, which sits alongside tarrifs, tobacco taxes and income verse sales taxes. In all cases the ledgislatures balance the need against the cost.
That is to have a balance that is both "of the will of the people" and more importantly moral. Taxing a fixed sum from all citizens is arguably immoral (as could be seen in the dark ages). Backing a known corrupt monopoly is obviously immoral (which is recognized by semi-recent American ledgislatures through the inactment of anti-trust law).
The tricky part is to identify the will of the people in such a way that avoids mob-rule. Obviously anything that affects a majority of people negatively is subject to mob-rule. Exclusively taxing the rich, for example pushes too far into the realm of immorality and thus over-rules the opinion of the masses.
The SSSCA indirectly argues that intellectual property is soverign and should be protected by the government to whatever extent is possible (just as human life is to be protected). Obviously it is difficult to distribute IP and garuntee control, since once out of the protective sphere of it's owner, it can be manipulated, duplicated and redistributed (potentially for profit).
The DMCA legally protects digital copyright, but does nothing to prevent indirect circumvention (say via converting digital to analog and back again (unprotected)). The SSSCA closes this loop-hole by proposing to "regulate" the digital world such that no hardware or software can exist that "pollutes" the IP soverignty.
In the above, I have argued the pro point of view. Below I will expose the weaknesses and moral imperatives, and offer compromises.
First, the role of the government is virtually sacrad; To enforce a regional monopoly on "force". Any abuse of such a monopoly is obviously immoral. Allowing an individual to wrestle control of that monopoly for their own purposes is immoral. Upholding loopholes that allow individuals to "legally" attain control of that monopoly is immoral. An example of such legal perversion is law that can indefinately inprison citizens for non-immoral behavior. Here force is blindly applied to detain individuals that violate written law, thus anyone that calls apon a poorly written law which victimizes a moral citizen is abusing a loop-hole in the system. Such a system MUST not persist, but instead be mended. What's more it is the duty of ledgislatures to preempt such loopholes before they finalize laws.
While the primary goal of a government involves applying force to constrict a citizens use of force (or similarly to withstand foreign aggression), a physical ramification of this is social engineering via regulation. Due to a sence of "fairness" and or public safety, enforcers (police / military) have been instructed to apply the written regulations of conduct in addition to their force-monopoly. But the bounds to the American limit of efficability of such regulation is the US Constitution. However even this "minimalist" view of moral judgement is fallible (as can be seen with the introduction of failed prohibition or even slavery laws).
Thus in order to preempt moral imperatives that take supreme-court ruling and eventual lengthy legislation to amend the constitution, it is most arguably best to apply moral scurtiny to the laws before they ever achieve legal status. A ledislature MUST, therefore respect the sacred nature of his office, lest [s]he be shunned in history.
Regulating banking maintains local economies at the expense of consumers. The cost is moderate and monetary and thus moral. Regulating taxes likewise is monetarily based but runs the risk of starvation of subsets of citizens; the worst case involves death and thus achieves high scrutiny and modern governments tend to fair well in this camp. Public safety regulation prevents producers from trading safety for profit (making an industry more fair by requiring all producers utilize the more expensive safety measures). In the short term, the negatives are higher cost-of-goods to a consumer as well as the abuse of force in telling citizens how to conduct themselves. In the longer run, economies of scale diminish the extra cost of goods, while the "forced conduct" prevents indiscriminant loss of life. Hense the government is "saving us from ourselves", and more importantly reducing an automobile's role as a weapon. Next to public safety are physical property laws; those which "regulate our conduct" such that we do not deprive one another of our physical property. Since food and shelter are life-sustaining forms of property, generalizing governmental enforcement of property ownership is valuable; e.g. a government is justified in protecting the ownership of a CD just as much as protecting the milk that a baby carries.
At the bottom tear of "moral" laws are the corporate laws. These are "rules of conduct" laws which have nothing to do with maintaing a government, nor saving lives, but instead deal with the secondary effects of economies. An economy is efficient and can flurish when various rules are applied. This is where tax-games can be played to encourage conduct or physical regulation (such as hours of stock-trading, or margin-limits) are applied to avoid economic disasters. In here too is the concept of patent law and copyright, which introduces the concept of intellectual property. The social cost of a patent is to restrict our actions such that we don't act in a manner that mimics one expressly copyrighted or patented. While the intended effects are purely economical (and thus not morally justifiable), the unintended effects are to allow individuals to call apon the force of government to control citizens. Whether the citizen was indeed attempting to profit on the IP-holder is not relavent to the cost. A mother that sings happy birthday to her child is in violation of IP and thus is legally vulnerable to incarseration (if the IP-holder was sufficiently immoral). This is a dire perversion and loophole that allows a single individual to wrestle control of the government's monopoly.
One possible remidy would be to apply the condition of profitability to all copyrights and patentents. The IP-holder attains legal rights to all revenue based on that IP. This does not stiffle do-gooders who utilize the IP for charity or public-good will. Arguably, even the GPL would be in violation of such IP, since it allows for the distribution charging (which can be a disguised form of profiteering). Such a form of modifiation of existing legislation arguably needs to avoid loop-holes (mostly involving proofiteering, since the original intention was robust GDP).
The DMCA assumes copyright is a fundamental right of IP (as are life and liberty. This is, in my opinion, a perversion of the "right of happiness"). It assumes that copyright is so important that not only can you _prevent_ redistribution profiteering, but you can dictate how and when the IP can be accessed, which is a gross extension of the concept of governmentally enforced social control. It is more than simply restricting when you make your IP available to subsets of the public (which is perfectly acceptible, as a performer could choose when and where they perform), but to say that you can only hear it a certain way, to talk about it a certain way (perverted slander laws that defend corporations, even when they are blame-worthy), or to witness the IP via a monopolized medium. The DVD, the up-and-comming HDTV anti-time-delayed-viewing, the encrypted pdf format and others are examples of such IP who's viewing capability is monopolized. That companies are capable of
restricting viewership is not, in and of itself, immoral. A theater, for example, can monopolize on refreshments due to it's locality; they can deny admission if need be. But to even suggest that when you watch a home-movie, you can only eat a certain name-brand refreshment is totalitarian plain-and simple. But this is exactly what the DMCA does. It produces an artificial locality, and an artificial scarcity (via fear of governmental retaliation, wielded by the very companies that profit from your patronage). This is a direct conflict of interest; a man may provide a quasi-desirable service while wielding a governmental whip which says that you have to partake from it. So long as there are alternatives, there is the prospect of "choosing not to partake" in the bait that locks you into the negative aspects of a service, but there is a natural effect which brings like businesses into the same immoral tactics due to lack of profitability.
It is perfectly valid for manufacturers of DVD to force commercials and regional encoding, and restrict viewers to set-top boxes or highly trusted windows machines. But when ALL major IP owners in the media field shift to DVD, a consumer will have the choice of boycotting ALL cinematic/ auditory IP short of live concerts. VHS and casset will be phased out and your living room will be an extension of the controlled theater. Even this isn't a "really" a problem because we still have choice. But what the DMCA allows is the removal of other forms of media. It is illegal to convert a DVD to VHS or even to record the sound-track to cassette, since this would circumvent the encryption. Granted the intent of DMCA is to prevent the perfect replication of data which can then potentially be advantaged by profiteers (or more recently, in the production of a public "library of music" which has the potential for reducing the demand for highly priced official distribution points). But the DMCA is a loaded weapon which can be fired at existing acceptible practices (such as making a cassette for use in the car). The hidden answer is that corporations never wanted us to have the ability to freely utilized purchased licenses of IP; they simply lacked the ability to enforce it.
The real long-term question is as internet bandwith expands and the quality of compression software approaches that of the original masters, how can a media-based industry survive (and thereby uphold GDP which benifits all citizens indirectly). My answer is that a corporation can and should "squeeze every dollar" it can from an industry, so long as the dirty work is not enforced by the government; such an activity is called extortion, and such an organization is called the mafia. Times change and it is up to business-heads to determine new manners of supply and demand to survive. It is not moral to enforce laws that restrict citizens rights so that aging task-masters can retain their old positions. This century has seen the horrors of worker-layoffs.. It's time that the "task-masters" experience their share of layoffs. If NSync can't retain their multi-million-dollar industry, then let them suffer with more concerts and new forms of high-bandwidth (multi-channel) audio-CDs priced lower to catch the interest of more of the waning support-crowd.
The main point is that back-door operations, and incogneto sharing of IP will always exist, and times / public interest will most definately change. This is merely a last-ditch effort to safe stock-face in the short-run and punish the most visible; the naieve citizens, or the high-profile educators that teach on the topic of encryption, or the security experts who crack systems to improve apon their security. Those that are actually helping society will be hurt the most. The industry will still slump and illicit profiteering will still proliferate (since one additional law isn't going to make them any more legally vulnerable).
Lastly, the SSSCA can be shown to be built apon a series poor-ledgislation, which most definately holds to the spirit of it's predecessors, but in a most perverse way misses the whole point. The regulation that places requirements on specifications within hardware limits the diversity of that hardware, first-and foremost. The ancenstral point of the SSSCA is to foster growth, and innovation, but at step one, it grinds innovation to a screetching halt. How can an "embedded device" in your car be required to provide protected encrypted streaming audio? Surely the computers within the cars of the future will have the ability to do some tasks currently performed on laptops or PCs. But at what point will they be held liable? The answer is whenever it is most convinient for the corporate task-masters. Manufacturers will live in fear of backlash so long as they exist on that fine-line. Many will simply forego advancement, and innovation will be halted.
The government has made several failed attempts to regulate based on flawed information. Regional governments have required gas addatives that were later learned to be harmful to the environment. The best way to avoid such forced lemming rank-and-filing of citizens (doomed to fall over a cliff) is to identify the problem and require "A" solution, but then allow innovation to fullfill that requirement. To suggest that "government knows" best, and that "this is for our own good" is as blind as Hitler. (If the analogy is offensive, then ask yourself why?)
The analogy of a required built-in security equipment to a catalitic converter works when you consider that both help prevent environmental pollution. In this case, the digital pollution of economicly viable media. Both cars and computers are perfectly competative goods (within their genre) which fulfill very similar purposes and are essentially black-boxes to their users. But note that a car can be electric, and thus forego the need for a catalitic converter out of "common sence". But there is no "common sence" when it comes to computer science research, since it is a fronteer who's tip has barely been identified. This would be like requiring that "all vehicals" contain electrically shielded engine cranks 50 years after the electric starter had already been invented. There exists hardware and software alike that is incompatible with such low-level drivers that provide controlled access to media-devices. This level of information is completely incomprehensible to most ledgislatures (since it's inside the box), but it as the heart of digital science. To provide such a vague law allows individuals to wield the power of the government to stiffle their competition in this cut-throat science. The ability to provide an increasingly out-dated media in a governmentally controlled fashion comes at the cost of intellectuals who will no longer have the ability to freely experiment in the digital world. As competition for innovation comes to a half, so will the desire for innovation, and all that will be left are the greedy hands of software and hardware monopolies which will regularly fly in the face of ledgislatures as an embarrasement of capitalism. Capitalism only works [as a moral entity] in a governmentally minimalistic society.
IP laws such as copyright, trademarks and patents have values which outweigh most of the costs, so long as the loop-holes described above are eventually mended. The DMCA is completely redudant with laws that physically address profiteering, and only opens a vagueness which allows corporate abuse of governmental force. The SSSCA, if enacted will backfire on both GDP and legislatures and will eventually be repealed. It is best to preempt a human tragedy before letting court appeal delays take it's toll.
-Michael
-Michael
Don't laugh.
If a senator or any elected official was to get enough of these, s/he would quickly pay attention.
If you don't make a stand, eventually there will be no place for you to run to. The only real solution is to get the idiocy stopped.
The HW companies need to step up and yell that this is going to strangle them. Hey you in the Valley, SPEAK UP!
Nonsense. This self-serving bill expresses its author's technological naivety by transferring liability for copyright infringements from copyright violators to hardware manufacturers and software developers. Additionally, it grants the Secretary of Commerce broad, unwarranted powers over technology industries where market forces should dictate the development of such "certified security technologies." Finally, the vague definition of an "interactive digital device" in Section 109, Part 3, cannot be taken seriously by anyone but a trial lawyer. Such a definition could be interpreted so that the entire cellular phone and telco industries must encrypt all calls and that all internet traffic passing through a web browser must be encrypted (despite the Department of Justice's intense desire to the contrary). Nay, the potential cost to a wide range of technology industries is not equitable to the smaller, less significant beneficiaries of this bill, the author's top campaign contributors: the MPAA and other television studios.
SSSCA = Sucka.
The last time they tried this it gave a lot of people a big business opportunity. Is it not possible that non-signatories to the Berne convention and other nations with a relaxed attitude to I."P". will manufacture the hard/software the consumer requires. Non-encrypted drives from Thailand or bootleg Linux OS from Don Torvalds could be smuggled in. MAFIAX, anyone? Since I am in the UK I welcome this news. I am probably not alone in thinking of my own way of profiting from this typically bush-era isolationist, blinkered payola bullshit. A quid's a quid. (Dubya Dubya Three should know.)
Intellectual Property owners have fallen into the fallacy that they may control every aspect of their work.
The doctrine of "first sale" stands in their way, and they feel this deprives them of profit. In fact, it does to an extent, but that extent is the deal they have made with the people of America.
Let us take an example from real life. Many text books are now only offered on CD-ROM. The publishers, not wanting to pass up any profit, have constructed these CD-ROMS so that a license key is required to access the book. Well and fine, except that these keys only last for a year. If you wish to access these books after that time, you are required to purchase the book again. These CD-ROM books are priced at about the same as the no longer available paper books.
If I wanted to use a clip of the World Trade Center attack in a report on terrorism, I cannot simply zip over to CNN.COM and down load it. The site doesn't allow me to save a copy of this to my system and reuse it how I wish. Even though this would be fair use, I cannot do so because of the technology used.
Fair use is in large part intent. Technology cannot read minds. It follows that there is no way to control intellectual property with technology while preserving fair use. Fair use it part of the bargain intellectual property owners have made with the public in exchange for copyright laws.
Society is in large part it's history. With history locked up, we have no past. A country ignorant of it's past has no future.
While Osama bin-Laden would like to destroy America, it is my considered opinion that the SSSCA would do far more destroy what makes America what it is than he ever could.
Destroy a man, you have taken him from his society. Destroy thought, you have killed his society.
Far from locking up Intellectual Property more than it already is, we should be ensuring that fair use rights are preserved.
Fair use is FAIR.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I guess my testicles wouldn't be illegal, because I previously owned them. But what about my son's testicles and my daughters ovaries?
If DNA can be expressed in digital form, the technology used in my testicles would be illegal.
(3) INTERACTIVE DIGITIAL DEVICES - the term "interactive digital devices" 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.
As if we hadn't known in advance that splicing the
SS with the SCA would render scary results... : (
Of course, if it was left to /.ers to handle computer laws would we be any better off?
/.ers know that when it comes to computer legislation, less is more and technical solutions are infinitely better than legal ones.
The vast majority of
Dyolf Knip
yses right microsoft 200 wins evertyime coz' its' stable not made by student's. People lagh ha ha when you mention links ha ha piss myself micrositf will win stop links links is bad crap you links loosers are sad hard with no stick yes readit. oyu sad links looser microsoft 200windows beats links used by nosticks hah ahah we lauch at you 200window beats althing best
Software is pattentable in the US because it changes the state of the machine. When you upgrade you have changed the device so it follows that an upgrade has the possibility of changing a device into a new digital interactive device (I haven't found where device is defined as purely a physical object in the law).
So probably whether it does or not depends on the mood of the prosecuter and or judge at any given point in time or more probably why they are giving you attention.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It is clear that the "content" industry is the implacable enemy of civil liberties.
The only moral course of action is to boycott content that isn't open. Don't go to movies, buy
videos, or listen to music--unless it is produced
by those who support liberty and not those who
tread on it.
There comes a time when you can't drink tea
and be patriotic at the same time.