Slashdot Mirror
Tech Industry To Hollywood: Slow Down, Camper
negativethirsty wrote to us with a story here at Wired, most of the tech industry heads sent a letter to the motion picture studios, with a nod towards the US Senate. Basically, the tech industry does not want SSSCA to be pased, and want to work out a "technically feasible, cost effective solution" for protecting entertainment delivered in digital form.
The tech industry want the scca to be passed : it will instantaneously make most video-playing devices devices obsolete hence generating sales and profits.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
This is "ganging up on the consumers".
If these two factions ever come to an agreement, fair use as we know it is dead (even more than it is already!).
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Did two of the group's members (HP Carly Fiorina and NCR Lars Nyberg) not sign the letter? Do they have some ulterior motive in distancing themselves from a group that doesn't want the SSSCA passed (see, I read articles before I post)? Or is this just a coincidence and they were 'out of town' or something when the letter was drafted.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
But I'm afraid conversing via rational letters just doesn't appeal to the RIAA, or the MPAA for that matter. God knows I've sent Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen a hefty number of 600-word letters expressing my eagerness to work with Hollywood to find "technically feasible, cost effective solutions" for planting my foot in their asses, and they've never once bothered to reply. Ingrates. At least Mr. Fritz sent me a letter telling me he's not involved with any digital-rights medium hearings. I like to see honesty in elected representatives!
The letter does not directly state support for passing the law - in fact it says "We have found these voluntary multi-industry standards setting efforts to be optimally effective in reaching workable market solutions." - implying that they think legislation is either unecessary or "sub-optimal". The wired article also picks up on this - somebody change the story text!.
I very much doubt big hardware vendors would be in favor of the kind of copy protection SSSCA seems to demand - it would be very onerous to have government imposed standards here, it could create a huge black/grey market in imported "free" hardware.
This appear to be them "showing support for the fight", not supporting "the weapon".
.sig
It says: yes, "chief executives of IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Intel and five other corporations said they were eager to work with Hollywood to find "technically feasible, cost effective solutions" for protecting entertainment delivered in digital form".
It also says "America's largest and most powerful tech firms have agreed on one point: Keep Congress far away from digital content standards."
This is not "ganging up on the consumers", it's "ganging up" on congress to make them stay out of this. Sure, they're brown-nosing media companies ("look, we want to protect your copyrights just as much as you do") but the important message is that they want to decide for themselves how to do it. And if there isn't any legislation in place, some other people (Linux developers, say) can do things their way and ditch DRM altogether if they want.
So it's good.
I think.
Not terribly bad, anyway, the way you make it sound.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
The story basically states that the tech companies do NOT want the SSSCA passed. They want to work with Hollywood to find "technically feasible, cost effective solutions" for protecting entertainment delivered in digital form (from the article).
IOW, the lesser of the two evils: still the possibility of all kinds of stupid draconian controls, but at least chosen by the industry, and not legally mandated.
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
Simple.
If storage manufacturers are actively heading in a direction I don't want then they will not get a penny of my money. I currently actively avoid SDMI limited hardware and encourage others to do the same. e.g. The secure multi media cards and MP3 players that support them.
*I'm* the customer, not the RIAA.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
This will never work...
Because there will be numerous (Asian) Producers
offering copy-free-versions....players, disks, etc.....
It did not work for DVDs, it did not work for
game consoles, it will not work for CDs and other
devices.....
What we need (IMHO) is new laws that give people back fair use. Right now fair use is based solely on precedents.
Citizens of the US please start writing to your congressmen (M/F). We need to stand up for our rights immediately.
Pretty soon you won't be allowed to own cars, because they make it possible to kill people or escape from the scene of a crime.
The problem here is that not enough people believe/realise that they are adversly affected by this.
alt.binaries.erotica.hamster.ducktape
Hold on there before you throw the party. The wired article many the issue clear that the hardware manufacturers don't support government legislated control on content delivery. It however also made it clear that the hardware manufacturer would support the introduction of such control hardware as part of an industry based standard. To the user this is the same time.
We're still screwed...
600 word letter? I'd love to still the exact text of what they wrote. Anyone seen a copy?
D.
To hell with the consumer and to hell with What ,'we',the people who pay the bills want.What we want is a closed circle , one golden ring of friends where to play you have to pay us loads of money.No sorry we wont sell you the right to decode format ,x,mr small eastern company , we do not like you and you might offer features which would be of more benifit to the user than we offer and we would not want that, you might sell a superior product at a higher price and we definitly would not want that,what ? , competition you say? why the public has loads of choice they can buy off me or my 5 big friends who jointly own the format but not you or anyone else who we do not like.
,why well we can not have the public making illegal backups of our songs so we have to be carefull who we let use our encoders and our technology.
To hell with you mr small artist,to make it big these days you must sighn up with label x or label y
A closed system is a better system for all and provides a nice illusion of competition.Is it just me or is any one else getting realy realy tired of companies treating there custemers like criminals and trying to lock them into a system they do not want to have in place.What ever happened to the custemer is king.
What the music industry and the hardware industry want is a windows type senario where users are locked in to buying there products, there is off course severly limited competition and people do offcorse have the right Not to use there hardware but then they must sacrifice the right to listen to or view the music which these copyright horders own and that just happens to be a great big chunk
of whats being released and old songs who's copyright they have bought up.This whole senario
is a disgrace and goes against the whole idea of
competiton and does not in any way serv the consumer.
_________________________________________________
At the most stupid, this would mean that it would become illegal to produce a device capable of presenting a normal monitor-out signal to show a movie, on the grounds that this signal could conceivably be used to produce high quality digital copies.
In the US it's apparently already against the law to write a normal computer program to decode a recording that you own legally, but outlawing CPUs and video cards seems even more ambitious and even more foolish. There is no practical means of stopping a hobbyist consumer doing what he likes with his own property and sharing his knowledge with others, nor would it be in the public interest to do so.
Why restrict it to just protecting "entertainment" content? If digital rights management is to be introduced then should every file creator and copyright owner, not just entertainment corporations, not have the right to set the "digital rights"? While, personally, I do not like the idea of mandatory "rights management", if it is to be forced on us should we not campaign for a system which everyone can use to their advantage?
For example, self erasing emails were discussed on Slashdot a short while ago. A properly implemented digital rights management system could enable this by the originator setting a mandatory expiry date and setting the "no archive, no cut 'n' paste, no print" permissions on the email. Or a document sent (electronically) to a company could have "rights" set so that it could be viewed within the recipient company, but not forwarded outside that company.
And belive me, pirates will *love* this. Making it too easy to copy has made people swap freely, and those making and selling pirated copies will be unhappy since it doesn't give them money.
They can easily get into a very stupid position. They have to step back and think, not scream and shout.
I won't buy their stuff, but most people will. People don't care about these things, they care about the price for alcohol, who won the super ball and if the girl will put out...
It made me want to stop buying music althogether.
I was never an avid music consumer before Napster/mp3s. I would buy one album a year if even that. Then when Napster came along, and I was able to listen to different music and figure out what *I* liked, I have bought dozens of albums. I don't know where the Recording Industry, Movie Industry, and Tech Industry think they're going these days. Why is it that they feel like they have to establish this higher moral stance (when actually it's based on profits, not morality) to preserve a copyright system that clearly doesn't work anymore, and needs to be redesigned?
This is what I see happening if this bill gets passed:
-A wide and growing division of artists from the mainstream, where the Net finally becomes a mainstream place to purchase music or a secondary "rogue" recording industry develops that is more sympathetic to consumers rights and wants.
Now, I know I don't have all the answers. But all I can say is that Recording Industry, MPAA, and Tech Companies had better wake up and decide whether they like making money off their "precious" consumers.
Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually make my website for other people to look at.
"They can't treat our pledges like that. Only WE can treat our pledges like that."h
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
Make no mistake: they are not. Technological protections infringe fair use rights, they prevent the material from falling into the public domain when copyright terms run out, and they greatly increase the cost of entry into publishing. Rather than debating whether technological restrictions should be backed up by criminal law, we should be debating whether works published with technological restrictions should enjoy copyright protections at all.
I think companies should be free to use technological protections for their creations, but they should then not also enjoy legal and copyright protections because they have precluded the uses that were traditionally envisioned for published materials. It's the same with patents: either you publish and get patent protection, or you keep it a secret and don't get patent protection.
I don't understand the ideas that I'm hearing.
I have seen standards (especially open/free ones) flourish and grow beyond any expectations.
These standards offer clear benifits and improvements to commonly used items.
I have also seen the makers of isolated products fall to bankruptcy due to incompatability and cost.
This is a pattern that has been in place as long as I can remember. If I can use a product easily and it benifits my life without breaking my wallet it will succeed and flourish.
If I cannot play a movie I purchased on my new DVD player because it has no copyprotection features on the DVD then I will be pissed off.
If I cannot play the movie because I have an old DVD player I will be pissed off.
It's the standard of DVD (such as it is) that is making it possible to survive. The extra footage and quality make it worth a bit more as far as investment, but to keep it going you need people that are not being irritated every other year having to re-purchase movies or replace an "old" DVD player.
That would kill any product line no matter what special bells and whistles it offers.
Standards are what make innovation work as a business model.
I could make a million improvements on an item but if they are not standardized in some way, to work with as many people as possible, without nulifying the benifits, they will fail to catch on and make money.
Even hollywood realizes this need for standards set up for success.
"Hollywood executives fret that without strong copy protection in widespread use, digital versions of movies will be pirated as readily as MP3 audio files once were with Napster."
They do not want hundreds of incompatable copy protection methods in place, they want a unified standard of protection that will be used by all.
"widespread use" requires widspread acceptance.
This applies to standards for both sides of the Copy Protection VS. Consumer Rights debate.
Change is good but random change is chaos.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
I'll start buying hardware from companies who don't jump into this flash-fire of anti-consumer's rights. I'm not worried about the software b/c I only use OSS/FSF software... with the exception of a game or two(don't play them much anyway).
OK first things first: I'm an employee of IBM, but I do not represent IBM. This is my personal viewpoint. #include "std_disclaimer.h"
.edu labs and geeks with equivalent home labs, are probably the folks this law is aimed at to begin with)
I called our IP Law group about this law when it first surfaced on my radar, because a lot of the things we do when bringing up a new system would have to change. I was pleased to find out that the HQ people were already up to speed on this.
What would have to change? Like for instance on first power-on the BIOS isn't done and on-board devices aren't fully supported... Well if the SSSCA passes and our very first power-on doesn't have support for their DRM (since there's no exception in the draft SSSCA for systems development or debug) all of us engineers are now guilty of federal felonies. I'm sorry, but I'll change careers and/or countries before I take a job that requires me to break the law.
All of us engineers and programmers know also that hardware diagnostics frequently turn off all onboard devices except for one at a time to attempt to isolate bad devices... guess what? Won't be able to do that anymore. That means diagnostics are less effective, which means more customer downtime and higher customer support costs. Any computer company that cares about their customers will not look forward to that.
And of course, if Sen Hollings adds an exemption for systems development folks the question becomes "Who constitutes a legitimate developer?" The 14-year old down the street probably doesn't, but I know folks who have a home lab that rivals what some hardware OEMs have. And all those college students developing computers for their EE classes then become problematic too. (Since both of these groups, college students with access to
Who knows where this will end? (sigh)
--Rob
Before napster you could already steal CDs or go to the library, borrow them, copy/burn them and return them. Make a product that is worth the price you charge (and stop treating your talent like indentured servents) and people will prefer to buy the high quality original over the (no matter how close to undetectably) inferior stolen version.
I think its a good law for the people,
:)
Take this merge it with the DCMA, and another bill or two the greedy politicians and RIAA and MPAA would like to see law. Start lokcking up EVERYONE that breaks this law on felony charges.
Hell youll have an entire generation of America in Jail within 5 years, The digital black market will erupt and I will become a VERY rich man, nice to live so close to Canada and be able to move stuff without customs worries
Seriouslly, the more these morons ind nazi wannabe's like Ashcroft crackdown the better, the pendulum swings both ways, it doesnt take a Revolution here for it to do just that, look at the 60's and the 70's after a decade and a half of morons like McCarthy.
I could see this as the single largest enfocment failure since prohibition. Bring it on
Digiatl Capone.......lol...
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
The Witness list in no particular order includes:
Panel I
Mr. Michael D. Eisner, Chairman and CEO, The Walt Disney Company, 500 S. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521
Mr. Peter Chernin, President and Chief Operating Officer, News Corporation, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036
Mr. Leslie L. Vadasz, Executive Vice President, Intel Corporation, 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, CA 95052
Panel II
Mr. Andreas Bechtolsheim, General Manager/Vice President of the Gigabit Systems Business Unit, Cisco Systems Inc., 250 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134
Mr. James E. Meyer, Special Advisor to the Chairman and formerly Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Thomson Multimedia, 10330 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290
Mr. Robert Perry, Vice President, Marketing, Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc., 9351 Jeronimo Road, Irvine, CA 92618
Mr. Jack Valenti, President and CEO, The Motion Picture Association of America, 15503 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, CA 91436
Online petition against SSSCA
The Draft of the SSSCA
My computer was working too well anyway. I was really hoping that somebody would come by and make it stop working. If it's Hollywood, so be it.
/sarchasm
is that Apple had been using the slogan "Rip. Mix. Burn." when it introduced the CD-RW iMacs, complete with a contingent of musicians ranging from Barry White to Smashmouth to Propellerheads and tons of others all playing up how great it is to be able to take your CDs and make custom mixes. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you'd be hard pressed to find an artist that has not, at some point, made a mix CD. It's already been shown that the record companies have been skimping the artists on royalties for the new Napster-like service that is licensed ... when will they realize that they're not necessarily ENTITLED to make billions of dollars a year each, and that the masses will do whatever we want to do?
If these ludicrous copyright measures actually go into effect, and all of our movies and cd's are made proprietary and married to special hardware, what will happen to the companies who have been making bank off of CD-RW component and disc sales? Will Roxio have to recode Toast or Easy CD Creator to not copy any commercially pressed CD?
Personally I'll be wiling to bet that even if this DOES get passed, we won't see a fervent enforcement. 3/4 of the cops out there are swapping music i bet. It'll be like getting a speeding ticket, and also be as common (and EXPECTED) as speeding. Not that that means its OK if it DOES pass, it'll be a seriously blow to individual rights, but I don't think they'll put anybody in prison for it.
Uh, didn't you see the link at the start of the wired article?
Exactly, and when you read the letter itself, you'll see that in spades. The only objection is to having a standard mandated (sec 104, they have 12 months to decide on one or the government steps in). All that means is that each signatory is scared that this will mean that their standard doesn't get used, so they miss out on all those lovely anti-trust exempt mandatory license fees ad infinitum.
They're 100% pro SSSCA, just anti the clause that might lead to government making a bone headed choice about which scheme(s) to go with. I mean, we are talking serious money here, this isn't something that they want left to inbred idiotic incumbent political animals.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Step 1: get rid of all your pot.
:-)
Step 2: burn oregano at your window
Step 3: repeat step 2 a few times
The police will soon think she's an idiot. Plus, depending on your local laws, you can sue her for barratry. Of course, technically that would be barratry.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
For example, self erasing emails were discussed on Slashdot a short while ago. A properly implemented digital rights management system could enable this by the originator setting a mandatory expiry date and setting the "no archive, no cut 'n' paste, no print" permissions on the email.
The makers of that system forgot about one thing: Windows itself is already a circumvention device. Just press Print Screen, start MS Paint, import the clipboard, and then save, OCR, or print the document. Does this mean that users of e-mail DRM can sue Microsoft under 17 USC 1201? Can they sue OCR software vendors?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Perhaps the tech industry should get together and draft an Act that would restrict the output of Hollywood in order to protect computer manufacturers' profits.
For example, a movie would not be allowed to show computers in a negative light, nor to glorify 'hacking'. And there would be a statutory upper limit on how entertaining films could be, because otherwise people might spend too much time at cinemas and too little time at home playing computer games.
We have allowed the irresponsible 'film industry' to damage our profits for too long. If they can't sort it out, government should step in.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
But there's an important distinction here...
If someone is brought up in front of a jury for driving a taxi without a bale of hay, or for selling film on a Sunday (still illegal in several southern states), a jury of lay people can understand the irrelevance of the charge and use their common sense instead of cheap pettifoggery of the prosecutor.
If however you are charged with "illegal circumvention of a SSSCA mandated DRM device in the course of vicarious copyright infringement", the jury is going to find themselves slammed with jargon and manipulated by the state to ignore their common sense.
Unfortunately "a jury of your peers" doesn't mean "a jury of professional software and hardware developers".
--Rob
Sharing music can take away my right to own firearms? It's a felony now and <sarcasm>felons are all dangerous criminals who shouldn't have guns</sarcasm>. In 15 states, a felony conviction removes your right to vote forever. LOSING THE VOTE:The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States
As for someone else's arguement that "I won't buy it"- great, me too. The two of us can spend some serious time trying to keep today's computers running for the rest of our lives because laws make us unwilling to buy new equipment. It will be easy as pie to market ourselves on resume's in a decade. "Still able to operate equipment from the 00's" Windows BlahX experience? nah, I don't have a machine that can run that. Apache 6.03 experience? No, but I've got 10 years experience with version 2.0
I'm trying to find a group that will tell politicans not to abuse me. EFF seems interested in doing that but they move at a snails pace. YourCongress.com seems to be interested in getting the people's voice to the politicans but the editors seem more interested in being funny then talking about issues. What groups do people use/belong to/know about that are active in fighting for geek rights?
This is both, but the bad news wins, I think.
The good news is that this sort of thing is very likely to derail the SSSCA. When large, politically respectable (i.e. campaign-contributing) companies tell Congress that they can handle the problem themselves, and that legislation will harm the industry, Congress will listen. A concerted effort from tech giants can stop SSSCA in its tracks.
The bad news is that what the tech corps are promising to do won't happen. Sure, they can design hardware with DRM built in, and they can establish standards and even bring some amount of pressure to bear on companies that build non-compliant hardware, but there will always be a market for non-compliant hardware because that's what consumers want, and they're the real masters of capitalism. As long as that market exists, companies will try to sell to it, and they'll succeed handsomely. By way of example, how many tiny, unknown asian companies made it in a big way in the DVD player market precisely because they were willing to defy the standards (and even break their legally-enforceable license agreements) to make region-free players? Low prices, cool features and suddenly the likes of Sampo and Apex are outselling JVC and Pioneer.
As long as there's no legal enforcement, it's actually in the interest of hardware manufacturers to cut corners and leave loopholes that allow the end user to work around the DRM.
So, the bad news is that after the tech companies succeed in stalling Congress for a few years, the likes of the RIAA and MPAA will come thundering back in, saying "See! They promised to stop this and they failed!" and Congress will nod sagely and pass the SSSCA.
The really bad news is that this action by the tech companies legitimizes the goal. IBM (my employer, BTW, although I don't speak for them, #include <disclaimer>) and the others are basically supporting the content distributors' point of view that this is a problem that should be fixed.
I guess what we can hope for is that by the time Congress realizes that industry self-regulation has failed, the rest of the world has realized that the correct solution is not to hamstring the technology and the technologists so that the old business model can continue to succeed, but instead to find new business models. Unfortunately, I doubt that the members of the RIAA, in particular, will ever realize this, because all of the obvious new business models make them unnecessary.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Where does the basement musician or unsigned artist fit into all of this? If I want to spread my own music far and wide, I should be able to. It sounds like this right is being taken away from me. Will only the 'signed' artists be able to be distributed? As all ideas from the Industry, content and distribution control remains with them, and leaves the 'little' guy to 10 times the work, and nothing to show for it.
This is reprinted from NewsMax but it was also on the Cable networks last night. Hollings is going to be put out to pasture soon. Without Hollings, SSSCA will die.
====================
Hollings Blames Bush Administration for 9/11 Attacks
Apparently frustrated over his inability to gain any political traction on the Enron scandal, Democratic Party loose cannon Sen. Fritz Hollings charged Wednesday that the Bush administration's economic policies actually helped Osama bin Laden finance the Sept. 11 attacks that resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 Americans.
"In came the [Bush] administration with who? [Economic adviser] Larry Lindsey," Hollings told a Washington, D.C., press conference in somewhat slurred speech.
"Larry Lindsey was the $50,000-a-year consultant for Enron who was running around saying it was unconstitutional to try to close down these things [offshore tax shelters]. And so they immediately, this time last year, closed down the Larry Summers effort. And you had 9/11."
Summers was the Clinton administration treasury secretary who Hollings said wanted to close down offshore tax havens.
In fact, the FBI found that offshore tax havens had nothing to do with bin Laden's ability to finance the attacks, reported Fox News Channel, which made Hollings' outburst its lead story Wednesday night.
During the same press conference, the South Carolinia Democrat misidentified Attorney General John Ashcroft as "the secretary of energy" and erroneously charged that Army Secretary Thomas White pushed for deregulation that netted him a $100 million profit from an Enron investment.
"But as Army Secretary, White has never advocated deregulation and denies doing any favors for Enron," reported FNC's Carl Cameron.
Responding to Hollings' charges, the White House said, "It has begun to make him look less than serious, someone who should not be taken seriously."
Republicans on the Hill called Hollings' effort to blame Bush economic policies for the 9/11 attacks "pathetic."
In November New York Sen. Hillary Clinton made a similarly outrageous claim, suggesting that the Bush tax cut was to blame for the 9/11 attacks.
"If we hadn't passed the big tax cut last spring, that I believe undermined our fiscal responsibility and our ability to deal with this new threat of terrorism, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in today," Clinton told CNN on the two-month anniversary of the attacks.
Microsoft fighting for something that makes sense? Maybe, here's a quote from a Nation article about defense spending: Even our own Bill Gates was alarmed at the United States' apparent hubris: "People who feel the world is tilted against them will spawn the kind of hatred that is very dangerous for all of us."
But from the letter to the MPAA I didn't get any sense that MS, or Intel, or any other major computer manufacturer was actually going to work against anti-consumer DRM, just that they didn't want Congress involved. In fact, if DRM happens without Congress it might be much worse. Congress at least makes a pretense of getting public input and conducting halfway fair and open hearings and publishes their policies freely in many cases. You can bet that if industry (think oligopoly) does this on their own, the public will have no say, get stuck with a less secure (for users) security, and lose any chance for Fair Use and/or DRM-expiration when current media copyright expires (which we all suspect it may never actually do again).
When I hear the phrase "digital rights management" why do I get the feeling the only people who will have any digital rights left to manage are major corporations? Either way, unless consumers get informed and actually stand firm, we all stand to get fooked pretty badly on this one. I have friends who get downright vituperative about a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn baby, but bring up copyright-related freedom issues and even if they do comprehend the issue they couldn't care less. That's the real problem we're facing here: no one understands how this affects them, and even if they do they aren't willing to act differently to prevent it.
to when this speech was given (oh yes .. I heard parts of it, I turned the TV a few times hoping the MF would shut the hell up already) was that members of the crowd were talking, booing, and doing other things.
...
...
.. it is so the Record companies get paid. In fact I am going to have to say that artists DID make more money when nabster was in full gear. More people were into music. more people listened to more songs. More people got off there but and went to the artists concerts.
.. I SHALL NOT buy another work of music again after hearing that speach.
Its just so much BS
Many of the nominees here tonight, especially the new, less-established artists, are in immediate danger of being marginalized out of our business.
If I am correct, artists make very little from the music and more on goods and promotional campaigns. Looks like he means "the record industry is loosing money" Funny how he never mentioned that since nabster took a dirt nap, record sales are down 8%.
And then he comes back to
That will ensure that our artists reach even higher and, deservedly, get paid for their inspired work.
No
As stated before
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Um, Dude -
Fritz Hollings is a Democrat. The Republicans are not the ones pushing this lame ass SSSCA.
Ashcroft is trying to make sure you are not killed by terrorists. That doesn't make him a nazi.
Hollings is trying to make sure you have no rights as a consumer.
Hollings also voted to take away your right to free speech by voting for the Campaign Finance Reform bill. If you don't like SSSCA, and want to run a political ad on TV against Fritz Hollings, you are about to lose the right to do so within 60 days of an election. Because you represent a dirty "Special Interest", and any money that you would want to spend on a campaign ad is considered "Soft Money". So your voice will be silenced during the 60 days that most people begin to pay attention to a political race.
Your only hope is that Bush will veto it. But he might not, because that would make him look partisan, and against reform.
So ultimately bad laws like SSSCA will pass and you have no right to air political ads when it matters most.
Blame the Democrats for this one.
The reason Hollywood is so caught up in this is that they know that any technical solution they devise will fail without the law backing it up. But the industry won't stand for such a law, as we see with this letter.
sulli
RTFJ.
It's been 4 months since you passed 'USA PATRIOT Act'!
If this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to the Majority Leader:
* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
Thank you.
sulli
RTFJ.
Well, one thing that hasnt been hit upon is that SOMEONE is more the likely going to be making money on everyone having to have this "device" in all consumer electronics. And that someone prolly has their hands dipped deep in to trying to get this legislation passed... not naming names of course.
Actually, the worst thing is that this would cost electronics manufatures billions of dollars in hardware engeneering, software engeneering, manufacturing, basically every step. They would have to retool all their products. And that 'savings' gets passed on to the consumer. So, we, the common folk, get the royal cd up the nether regions so that the entertainment industy can make it illigal to copy anything? Yeah....
What the entertainment industry needs to do is quit whining about people who copy. Its been around forever. People will COPY YOU STUFF untill the world comes to an end. All the money they throw at content protection will backfire in their face. people dont CARE if its a perfect digital reproduction as much as they seem to think. What these folks need to do, is embrace technology - in fact, push it ahead.
Want to stop perfect reproductions? Not gonna happen 100%, but heres how to get some lost sales.
-if your going to continue to charge 18bucks a CD, at LEAST put some decent content on it. I know a lot of CDs have a video or 2, but think more like DVD. Id more likely buy a CD at 18 bucks if it had videos, interviews, PDF lyric sheets and guitar tabs, songs allready in MP3 (no bs plz thx), active links to tour dates, discography, bios... well, GIVE me my 18bucks worth, make it so that owning a CD has VALUE over having just the MP3s of the songs. And dont just put your advertising package you send to MTV on the disk (thats pretty much what ive seen in the way of 'extra' content.
-DVD/TV -> HDTV. Well, DUUH. The slow embrace of HDTV because of short sighted bean counters is going to be a thorn in everyones side soon. Why? because an industry is currently selling a bunch of equipment that is actually going to keep this technology away. Why? From a previus article... you cant, or barely can fit a full 2hr movie at full 1080 resolution on a dopuble layer, double sided DVD. Not only that, no DVD players out there in the consumer world can even read data fast enough to do HDTV off a DVD. Adding to the problem, all 'HDTVs' are apparently now defunct, as the 'final version' of the spec is just now being decided/was decided upon. And HDTV in itself could have been the holy grail for these companies... Why? People dont have access to tech to make/rip/distribute 20+gigs of data in an efficient manner. You dont NEED copy protection. If they just stayed ahead of the curve on personaly tech (DVD was about, oh 5 years late), it owuldnt be an issue. As anyone can attest, DIVXs are prolly the largest form of vidoe-media over the net well see in a loooooong time. If they embraced that and looked forward, wed be enjoying beautiful HDTVs, DVD2(or, *gulp* we might have to go back to magnetic tape), and content rich CDs for the last year.
The lesson? The content industry is killing itself, by stifling inovation on new tech, and trying like mad to not embrace the digital world. Embrace...evolve...prosper - simple formula.
But i can see it form their point of view. Do YOU want to be the one to tell everyone who has a DVD player and HDTV now that when HDTV HAS to be out (i think the FCC still has this mandated) youll have to buy NEW stuff to play HDTV content? I sure dont, cus im already an angry consumer.
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
Anyway, the speech made clear to me that we are arriving at the most revisionist moment in history since writing was restricted to the priesthood. That's right, that speech at the Grammys was the most culturally backward moment in 3500 years. Sure, that sounds extreme, but consider this; in the year 3000, do you really believe that digital rights management is going to be a cornerstone of culture? And do you honestly think they'll be able to look backwards at 2001 and say "Thank god they stopped that Napster or we wouldn't have survived!" We are actually being asked to cripple the foundations of the technological future so that a small band of carnies i mean executives can keep their jobs holding the keys to the gilded cage where they keep Lars Ulrich.
No, pull the band-aid. Hard. Steal all the music you can and see what happens. It'll hurt for a minute, and then you'll see how much better everything is. All technology is theft; theft of power from above. Ever heard of Prometheus? It's trickery to get the power of the gods. So we found a powerful new fire and Rosen and Valenti are doing their best to say in booming voices "Put that back! Only the priesthood may hold an uncovered flame! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Hollywood really is overrun with Communists...think about it for a moment.
Within the context of entertainment and information media, they want to introduce a centrally-controlled system that dictates how and when individuals access information...an artificial demand system. There will be no free market because there will be no choice. Dissidents will be fined and jailed.
As a side-effect of introducing this system of control, the "entertainment industry" will effectively have control over the flow of information, too, by locking out independent producers of entertainment and information. Thus, the only media you will be able to receive will be "official" media. Again, disidents will be fined and jailed.
When it's all said and done, the SSSCA will turn the American entertainment & news industry (encompassing both mainstream & independents) into a Communist system...backed by the US Government, no less.
The SSSCA is unAmerican, undemocratic, freedom-hating Communism, plain and simple.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Congress is DESTROYING our free market by passing
draconian laws in support of corporate interests and giving out corporate wellfare. This type of thing will stifle innovation, and give big corporations an excuse NOT to find new business models. When the SSSCA fails to make the RIAA and MPAA as much money as they hoped, they'll just lobby for another stupid law even worse than that. Pretty soon you'll have congress passing laws that give them the power to force you to buy a new computer/dvd player/whatever whenever they arbitrarily feel like it, in order to "save the entertainment industry."
This will either lead to the following.
1. People comply, and eventually spend so much
of their money on new lisences, fees, etc. imposed
by congress to benefit megacorps that it forces
the average US family into poverty. No longer
able to afford any more, the entire US economy
will collapse, and the USA will become a
third world country with 99% of the population
so poor they can barely afford food and shelter
and 1% of the population extremely rich.
I'd hope that American people would have another
revoltion before that happens, though.
2. People are disobedient, and they start buying
Asian equipment on the black market, set up rogue
ISPs, etc. Money will get funelled out of the
US economy, and into the Southeast Asian economy.
American companies will start to lose a lot of
money, at a very fast rate. Throwing those in
jail who are caught will not help. Enforcement
will be bribed by some people to ignore the
fact they are circumventing the SSSCA and its kin.
Corruption will get worse. Eventually, The entire US tech industry and entertainment industry will collapse, and the US will be put into
a secondary status, a former shell of the superpower it once was.
If similar laws are forced upon all of our
our trading "allies" in the Western world,
the same effects might be seen there. Or if
they don't pass these laws, they just won't
trade with the US anymore, seeing as how
everything now has DRM that is not needed
or wanted there.
Either way, it will enable Southeast Asian companies to totally dominate the market.
China will quickly become the economic and military
powerhouse of the World, leaving the USA in its
dust if these types of laws are continued to
be allowed to pass. Why I say military as well,
is because if the US economy gets destroyed, we
probably won't be able to afford our military any
more.
The alternative is to let a pure, free market
dominate. If companies can't find new business
models, they will go out of business. Tough. However, people will have choices. Companies
will make money by working hard on making their
products worth paying for. This is how the
US Economy became the #1 economy in the world.
Now politicians who are corporate whores are
ruining this free market. It will ruin our
Economy in the long run.
But I guess that is to be expected. History
pretty much shows that once corruption is so
wide spread in a government like it is today,
that you know you're probably on the way down.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Go get a copy of Joe's Garage by Frank Zappa. It's on an independent label, so you can have a clean conscience. It is a good fable to what is going on.
The goal of any government is to make everything illegal. That way, the government can do anything they want, without that annoying due process stuff.
Of course, they usually get their way, because everyone rationalizes it like this: They couldn't possibly punish every transgression, so only the Bad People have anything to fear. The trouble is that once this is established, who exactly are the Bad People are a matter of caprice and fashion.
In the whole argument here I see that Hollywood says that they need some kind of copy control or that otherwise everyone see/hear music/movie for free and therefore won't buy any CD/DVD any more.
The BIG question I have can Hollywood prove this claim? I read that at the hights of Napster the CD sales INCREASED! So this would prove that MP3 increase sales, so they sould encourige MP3 copy etc. But thats scary for big company's to think a la 'open source' (something for free can be worth something)
I also would like to see how the cost for creating a CD is. I would expect that the prices come down since the introduction, but they are stil as high! I think a very small % is for the original artist, the rest for a Hollywood company. Why not thing some kind of system that enables the consumer to download what he wants and that he pays what HE thinks what worth!
A number of people have claimed that the market won't accept crippled devices and that people will simply buy the uncrippled ones. I ask: given that the RIAA and MPAA are more than willing to pass Draconian laws to protect their oligopoly on entertainment media, what on God's green earth makes you think they won't go further and outlaw all devices *not* approved by them? It's silly to believe that 'the market' will take care of the problem when the folks vested in the old way of doing business are capable of buying legislators and laws to make any alternative a felony.
Furthermore, others have stated that different ways of doing things will put the RIAA/MPAA out of business, e.g., more and more bands selling their cds directly using the internet as cheap advertisement. Let's wise up a bit, shall we? If this becomes a popular way of doing business - cutting the RIAA out of the picture altogether - do you really think the powers that be will stand aside and let this model edge them out of the market? Hell no, they'll once again buy the laws needed to make the sale of music cds via the internet, or without RIAA approval, or both, a crime.
As ridiculous as this sounds the loons that run the music business (and now the movie business) have shown themselves to be quite capable of backing Orwellian laws and buying the support required to pass them. They'll do anything to retain their power even if that means imprisoning anyone who defies them, using the U.S. government as their tool.
What's more than a bit ironic here is that if a new technology comes along that eliminates my business and my job, I don't get to go crying to Congress to set up a protection racket for me. I have to learn new skills for a new job at a new business - that's called 'capitalism'. The RIAA, however, if presented with a market that makes their way of doing things obsolete, simply buys the legislation required to outlaw the technology that threatens their favored status. Now that's fair, American style!
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
http://congress.org/congressorg/issuesaction/lette rs/
Luckily, one of my Senators is on the Commerce committee. I urge you to write now.
We asked three high-school seniors to take these Corvettes and drive as fast as they could in the nearest highway, without regards for safety or concerns about law enforcement agencies.
The death toll is, so far, 23 victims, and 36 wounded.
We would like you to ask Ed, Bud and Chuck about their experiences, but unfortunately two of them died in the accidents; Ed made it to a Mexican brothel, but we haven't heard about him ever since.
Now, multiply that by the thousands of teenagers that get driving licenses before they get to college. This is not a problem that can be solved in short order. It's going to require education and discipline.
Above all, it's going to require that we increase the insurance fees for teenagers by a couple thousands per cent.
We ask you to support our cause by buying our compulsory insurance for houses with teenagers within three blocks of the residence area, and by keeping your irresponsible children away from the vehicles. This experiment of ours has clearly shown what happens in everyday America.
Excuse me, you have a question? Of course we believe these represented typical conditions of teenage driving. What do you mean by that? Security!
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
That's a cave-in to the entertainment industry. The reply could have read something like "The computer industry is a major engine of economic growth in the United States. Interfering with its freedom to innovate purely to help a small number of entertainment companies maintain their monopolies is harmful to the nation." But that's not what the computer ndustry representatives said.
That's what the promoters of the SSSCA really wanted. That legislation isn't going anywhere, but introducing it has intimidated the computer industry into doing what the RIAA and MPAA want - putting in hardware copy protection.
We will never have our freedom until the DMCA is overturned. Better sooner than later - when the economy collapses because innovation has been brought to a standstill by stupid laws.
The DMCA means any programmer who can write a trivial encryption routine to "protect" (restrict) content can act as a legislator by making certain actions regarding that content illegal.
When a programmer can outlaw exercise of fair use rights to a piece of content - fair use rights become meaningless.
Isn't that an illegal delegation of power from Congress to those that write content "protection" (restriction) code? I think so.
Of course we can avoid their content - but that puts Linux at a disadvantage (people will cry "It can't play movies - unless you go to a bunch of criminal hackers and use (un-American) illegal software").
It is better than the SSSCA, which would at best seriously mess with Linux and at worst make it difficult or even illegal to run at all.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Many posts here argue along the lines that "people buy computer gear for entertainment, the entertainment industry will only produce stuff for gear that has DRM, ergo companies who produce DRM hardware will sell more hardware than those that don't". Well they got one bit right. It is all about money, and I don't doubt that if the hardware people thought they could make more money by selling DRM gear, they would.
But they don't think that. They think the reverse. There are several good reasons for this:
The hardware companies aren't stupid. They know which side their bread is buttered on. They will oppose DRM all the way. Not for altruistic reasons, but for the very same reasons the entertainment industry wants DRM - they will make more money without it.