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!
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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 -------------------
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.
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)
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!
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.
Civil disobedience requires massive commitment on the part a a large portion of the populace. Sorry. We don't qualify.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
According to a poll that a Poli Sci proffessor gave me in college, most South Carolinians cannot name their junior Senator. Strom Thurmond is much more well known, and because of this Fritz Hollings tends to be able to do just about anything he wants without fear of retaliation from the voters. Senator Thurmond is a much more public figure and therefore draws all of the attention away from Senator Hollings. Many organizations target Hollings to support their bills because of this fact, and because of the numerous positions that he holds in the Senate:
He is up for re-election in 2004, and if I'm still in this state then he will certainly not have my support.
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
"Lawmakers represent those interests which supply the greatest campain funding."
Sorry, but despite what they would have you think, they DO NOT represent YOU, or ME, or any other member of the "public"... unless of course they have very large wallets.
Yesterday's "interview" with Jamie Love, he stated the problem very suscinctly...
The draft legislation has is authored by Senator Hollings (D-SC). As this newsforge.com article points out...
Sucks, huh? Well whip out the checkbook and fork over a few hundred grand and maybe "our" side of things can be represented too...
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
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.
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..)
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."
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.