Slashdot Mirror
Fox Explains Why SSSCA Is Bad
corbettw writes "Fox News is running an article that slams Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disney") and the Democrats (with the notable exception of Rick Boucher) as having betrayed their principles. More importantly, the article explains why the SSSCA is so bad, in language any American can understand. It's nice to see someone in the mainstream media taking this beast on before it becomes law."
I would be really dissapointed if Hollings is ever re-elected. The point of an elected government is to get rid of those who want to lower our freedom, and this guy is definetly going down that road, and dragging everyone he can with him.
/. all we want, but if we don't send the message in our ballots also, we have given up the battle.
We can rant and rave on
I sincerely hope that the people in his district are well aware of Sen. Holling's attrocities.
Teamwork is a bunch of people doing what I tell them.
The article only mentions Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disney") and two other Democrats, not the whole party as the article title seems to suggest. Then the article makes a blanket statement about how much money the entertainment industry gave to Democrats (which I will will admit is a little suspicious).
On that note, I'm not defending these Democrats that are in the pockets of the MPAA, et al, but this article is a very left-ist piece of FUD.
Nosce te Ipsum
Few journalists will get the chance to report on the SSSCA - even fewer will understand what it is like this reporter. I often find myself being overly cynical about journalism for a number of reasons, but this article hits the issue right on the head.
Frankly, I'm not so worried about the implications of this legislation. If it passes (unlikely), it'll just get attacked in the House or defeated in the courts if it somehow makes it past Dubya's desk.
It's more that SC (and the US in general) has a gentleman like this steering legislative policy on something that didn't even exist when he was celebrating his 60th birthday. I'm not saying older folks can't learn, but in this case, I think it's safe to say that SC is not going to become a technology center (nor will the United States remain one) as long as its legislators insist on kissing up to interests that have less consideration for the proper deployment of technology than they do for the protection of their short-term revenue streams.
Anyway, God help us all. Fritz is a nice man, but he should be ignored on this issue.
FWIW, the "partisan opinion" in question is small-"L" libertarian Republican. What the author is arguing isn't just that the SSSCA is bad. It's that Republicans should take advantage of the fact that Democrats' support for the SSSCA makes Democrats look to be in bed with Big Business. I, for one, find it nice when either of the duopolistic parties adopt pro-freedom positions. It gives me hope that someday they might do so out of principle rather than just because it makes them look good. Is a pretense to virtue a possible antecedent to true virtue? I don't know.
Take from the article, for instance:
Despite being illegal, payola is rife, keeping interesting artists off the air in favor of the manufactured hitmaker of the week.
Okay, assume that statement is fully true, and major labels pay radio stations big bucks to play their manufactured hitmaker of the week. This is keeping the interesting artists off the air?
Wrong.
Somebody listens to it. Someone buys the albums. N'Sync didn't get big because of major label payola, they got big because some clown looked at a shelf in a record store, and said, 'I want THIS one!'
The same with Hanson, Britney, 98, blah-de-freakin'-blah. Someone's listening to this crap. And you know what? It's trendy to call it crap. But when a radio station, that makes money off ad revenue, has to choose what to play, it's either going to choose the mainstream 'crap', or the indie 'interesting' stuff. The rest of what will happen is left as an exercise for the reader.
Other things pointed out in the article are just plain criminal, however:
Record companies regularly deduct 15 percent off the top of sales as an allowance for "breakage" -- a survival from the days of shellac records that now simply serves to reduce artist royalties by that amount
and
And now, record companies -- who have allied themselves with the just-as-bad motion picture industry - want to make it a felony for you to own a computer that is capable of copying music from a CD to your portable player without paying them money, even though courts have held that such copying is entirely legal.
Blame the MPAA for a lot - the DMCA, copy protected CD's, starving artists that sell more than 50,000 records, but not for the bad taste of the little girl down the block.
-- Find the Truth...
That's because it's NOT an "article", it's an opinion piece. Look closely at the page; it's called "Straight Talk", and it's in the Views section, and it was submitted by a law professor.
This is an opinion piece, not an article. They're not claiming journalistic objectivity here.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
That is indeed a good slogan. But they could draft Charlton Heston as a spokeman too.
:(
How about:
"Keep your stinking laws off my computer you filthy apes!" (the real "Planet Of the Apes")
"Pop culture is people!" ("Soylent Green")
There have to be some good possibilities from "the Ten Commandments" and "The Omega Man", but I just can't think of them...
It's a pity those quotes couldn't be used while playing the clips from the movie they almost came from - it wouldn't quite make the fiar use criteria.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
It's not fox(x-files, family guy), it's Fox News. They've been doing a lot of very excellent journalism lately, especially with programs like The Oreilly Factor. They were the first to bring up the fact that the Red Cross, united way, and other charitable organizations were misusing donations from the money they collected under the guise of helping sept 11th victims. They carried the gary condit scandal before anyone. Fair and balanced, Fox News takes on both the democrats and republicans, and holds them accountable for their actions.
This is all great news anyway - the best way to stay away from corporate ownership of your computer and data is to stop buying their crappy content, which will have the beneficial side-effect of promoting indie artists.
C'mon folks... you absolutely have to "follow the money" when looking
for political motivation. From Enron to SSSCA. Nobody should be shocked when
they hear something like this. Its just an extension of the old golden rule...
he who has the gold, makes the rules. Unless the people (perhaps with help from
the hardware manufacturers) vehemently make their views known, there will be
people like this who try to run through legislation designed to screw the little
guy.
We obviously don't count as much in the process. Voters are needed to be elected...
but MONEY is needed to get voters to vote for you. They don't get money from
the voters. Besides... they figure we'll forget and just vote for the incumbent
anyway.
I'm babbling...
Jason
He's totally creeping out the Great One, eh...
-- Find the Truth...
Do something about it!
t .html
Visit the EFF:
http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010921_eff_sssca_aler
I used that page to send a few emails to my Congresspeople. And they are listening!! I got this reply from Senator Maria Cantwell:
Dear ---:
Thank you for contacting me about the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). I appreciate hearing your concerns.
The SSSCA has not yet been introduced in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, nor does it exist in final form. My staff has been in contact with the Senator Hollings' office, one of the authors of the SSSCA along with Senator Stevens. I was informed that the SSSCA is yet to be completed, and the timeline for the introduction of the SSSCA is uncertain at this point. The early draft that was made publicly available on the Internet, to which your comments are likely directed, may be significantly different from the legislation that may be introduced by Senators Hollings and Stevens. You may be interested to know that Sen. Hollings held a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee to address this issue on February 28 (To view statements and testimony from this hearing, see: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/hearings.htm)
I understand your concern that we must work to achieve the right balance between protecting copyrights and remunerating the creators of those works and reasonable consumer use of copyrighted works. Indeed, the pace of innovation requires a diligent consideration of both of these interests. I believe that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) passed in 1998 helps to accomplish this goal. I feel we need to continue to encourage innovation in technology while protecting the intellectual property rights of inventors, artists, authors and musicians. The DMCA prohibits circumvention of technological protection measures and the trafficking of such technology. Thus, the law facilitates legitimate distribution of copyrighted work by allowing for the use of technological measures by the copyright holder and providing legal protections for those measures. However, you should know that I will not be supportive of legislation that unduly limits technological innovation or consumers' rights.
At this relatively early point in the development of digital distribution of copyrighted works, the U.S. Copyright Office has recommended that Congress make no significant changes to copyright law right now. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyright law, I will be actively considering these issues. Please be assured that should the SSSCA come before the Senate, I will keep your concerns in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to do so in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell United States Senator
The article was not about "the evils of the SSSCA," but instead was about "opportunities for Republicans" to take advantage of a political position taken by the Democrats that goes against the Democrats' normal instincts. Given your tone, I wonder if you would consider the article a rant if the parties were reversed?
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Shouldn't it be:
"Get your laws off my computer, you d*mned dirty CongressApe"!!!!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
And he may be one of the few columnists out there that hates the RIAA as much as the Slashdot crowd.
I thought a little background on him would be appropriate since all the claims of conservative bias and such started being flung around.
-- null
quoting so, those not at -1 can see:
You Americans think that CNN is on the left?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is this some kind of joke? Do you really believe that?
The scary part is in America right now, it IS on the left. Really.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Being Caught with 1 "illegal" copyright work: $25,000
Being Caught 3 years later with an "illegal" copyright work: $75,000
Total: $100,000
For 1000 mp3s: $100,000,000 (100 million)
And according to the SSSCA, an illegal work would be an mp3 of a song on a CD that you yourself bought. Or when the "secure content checker" written about in the SSSCA is on all computers, an illegal work is a work it doesn't recognize, such as a term paper you wrote 5 years ago.
$100,000 for trying to read your own paper.
Vote Repulsocrat!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), a version of which is posted at http://216.110.42.179/docs/hollings.090701.html Think of your reader.
Here is the text of a submission I just made to Barbara Boxer's website.
(If you're going to write, PLEASE be a grownup: typical Slashdot flaming gets us nowhere.)
----
Dear Senator Boxer,
I was a bit surprised to hear that you are favoring Senator Hollings' SSSCA bill. While there are real concerns about illegal file-sharing, an overly-broad and intrusive bill like the SSSCA is absolutely not the way to go about it.
As a technical professional (software architect, security and database systems), I strongly believe that putting hardware copy-control devices into general consumer PCs is a terrible idea, one that will help stifle creativity in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Code is speech, and there are many people who are quite passionate about this issue, and others having to do with free and open access to technology. I, for one, am made very uncomfortable about mysterious black boxes, legislated into hardware, over which I have no control.
The problem is that the PC is a very general device, and requiring "certification" for every operating system/hardware combination will merely enrich the mainstream at the expense of the cutting edge. This sort of legislation is very dangerous to the continued health of Silicon Valley innovation. Our neighbors to the south in Hollywood have legitimate concerns, but harming one signature California industry to help another strikes me as the wrong approach.
Thank you for your attention,
Andrew MacBride
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is how the article touches on corruption in the recording industry.
If a big deal was made about how record companies were not only exploitive, but participating in illegal activities, it would cut the legs out from under their arguments.
Payola and 'breakage' are just the tip of the iceberg. Lets hope a more credible news source picks this up and turns the big labels into the next Enron.
The Internet is generally stupid
Bill O'Reilly brought a USF CS professor of Arabic descent onto his show and accused him of supporting known terrorists- a charge proven false some time ago by numerous other news organizations and federal agencies. O'Reilly said (roughly) "If I were the FBI, I wouldn't let you out of my sight for a moment." The poor prof- who made an ill-advised remark about Israel more than a decade ago and has since recanted- barely got a chance to respond. I used to like O'Reilly, but this episode was sickening. It's as shoddy as Geraldo, and far more damaging. Shame on Fox.
One paragraph of the article said:
Talk about screwing the little guy: audits of record companies routinely indicate "errors" that are always in the companies' favor. (Recording artist Peggy Lee just won a big judgment, and many other artists' lawsuits are pending)
This brought back some memories of conversations I had while consulting for one of the major record companies. Not only is the slanting of "errors" in the favor of the companies common, it's completely intentional and so common that the industry has a name and an acronym for it.
The term is "settle on audit" and the acronym, obviously, SOA. What it means is that if a particular clause in an artists contract is too much of a pain to apply correctly, or even if the company just feels like it, they deliberately choose to err in their own favor, with the idea that when (or if!) the artist chooses to pay a third party auditor to come look at the books, they'll just negotiate a settlement.
In some cases, the contract clauses are so bizarre and impossible to apply that this actually makes a twisted sort of sense (what would really make sense is to write contracts that can actually be executed), but the record companies apply this technique in lots of other situations as well.
And, if that weren't enough, they also make absolutely no effort beyond the minimum required by the contract language to facilitate these audits. One common practice is that when the auditors request sales records, rather than giving them the information in a nice, easily-manipulable electronic format (which is what the companies use to look at and process the data themselves), they print it all out and provide it in paper format, sorted in some less than ideal way. For a major artist that has sold millions of CDs these paper records can fill dozens of large boxes -- truckloads of paper. And the auditor is paid by the artist, typically by the hour.
I guess in one way all this chicanery is actually in the artists' favor: The artist never has to wonder whether it's worth it to pay an auditor, because however much the auditor charges, they can always be sure that the record company has screwed them for worse, so they'll come out ahead in the end. I pointed this out and the folks I was talking to said that there was some debate over that point, that maybe they'd be better off playing it a little closer so that some sizeable percentage of audits showed no underpayments. But they're pretty sure they get to keep more of the artists' money this way.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
what a load of BS, Enron did far more damage but sicne *they* gave money to Republicans, Fox calls them Boy Scouts compared to Entertainment Industry. As far as I can tell, the ET hasn't been shredding documents, wiping out retirements accounts, pleading the Fifth, and holding secret metings with the Vice President. What balanced objective reproting--NOT!
Did you even RTFA?
Maybe you should also consider that fair.org is biased as well?
But that thought probably didn't cross your mind... you probably just pick a side and close your mind...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I'm disappointed in Slashdot's readership.
A lot of the comments so far are just reactions to where it appeared - not what it says.
Whatever you think of FoxNews, try to read the article without projecting on it what you think it's going to say. Note that it's really an opinion piece, apparently part of Fox's Straight Talk feature - corbettw mislabelled it in his summary.
The article in my view is really just analyzing the political risks and possibilities for both parties here. The reality is that both the Democrats and Republicans support constituencies at times that are at odds with the philosphies they publicly profess. In this case it's the support that several heavyweight Democrats have been giving to the recording and movie industries for the SSSCA. Glenn Reynolds (the author) really would like to see the SSSCA buried and all he's really doing here is pointing out is that the Republicans could help kill it AND potentially score political points for doing so.
Glenn Reynolds also produces music in his spare time when he's not teaching law. He also runs a 'blogger' website with nearly hourly comments. He's also a Slashdot reader and poster (which is how I first heard about his web site InstaPundit). I've been reading his site since just before 9/11 and he's been consistent in criticizing the record industry for its corruptness and sneaky ploys to take advantage of the consumer. He's hardly a ideological Republican. Mostly he's libertarian and anti-Idiotarian in his viewpoints. In this, I don't think he's that far off from most Slashdot readers. That is, if they can overlook their media outlet biases.
I recall reading an article about Winston Groom - the author of Forest Gump. He had cut a deal with the studio for a percentage of the profit from the movie. The movie generated revenue of over $600 million, but according to the studio, did not make a profit. So, when Valenti states that only 2 out of 10 movies generate a profit that's probably true. Hollywood's accountants may well be the most creative people in the entertainment industry.
[Insert pithy quote here]
I enjoyed reading an article from mainstream media that, for once, gets it almost right when it comes to the entertainment industry's attempts to manipulate and encroach on the rights of consumers.
I say "almost" because I don't feel turning the story into an angle for the Republicans is the correct way to go about this. I think this approach gives the appearance that Republicans should approach this case with an eye for strengthening their political power rather than to show their concerns for the consumers (the "little guys"). This article would probably turn away a significant number of readers who would invalidate the article in their minds as some sort of Republican "propaganda".
Also, I don't think enough information was conveyed regarding what exactly the SSSCA does, except that it has something to do with "computer laws". By putting such a broad generalization on the SSSCA you water down the effect the article has on the readers. In the past several laws have come to pass which many individuals and organizations within the technology industry have vehemently fought against and lost when the safety of children or safety from terrorism was made as a major point behind the bill. This is not happening with the SSSCA, however there's been such a saturation of computer laws dealing with terrorism and child safety in the past that the general public will probably gloss over any new story on the subject. To most individuals it's just another story on their local news to ignore.
Perhaps that this article appears on FOXNews.com is something like preaching to the converted? At any rate, I think this story could have focused more on what the SSSCA is and why it's bad for consumers, rather than just telling the reader that it's so.
I think getting more information out to the general public, in terms they can understand, is really the only way to approach the SSSCA and other such acts.
They make a lot more sense now, don't they?
Should be some sort of limits as the maximum amount of money that can be used, as well as maximums from any one source, as well as industry. Of course, industries will collude together, and offer contributions that "have no monetary value."
It could be a start though.
Of course, it is hard to find enough Republicans and Democrats that would be willing to give themselves such cuts...
Heck, we might even get ourselves into a position where there is more than two major, influential, political parties in the United States!
I dunno. The movie industry is pretty worthless to California compared to the tech industry. If the tech industry went under California would suffer a lot more than if the movie industry went under. Also the tech industry is a LOT richer (i.e. more donations). If Boxer had two IQ points to rub together, she wouldn't give a flying fuck about what the movie industry wants.
I couldn't believe this when I read it. I'm a public policy student doing major research on high tech's influence in DC. The Digital Rights Management (DRM) debate was brought to Hollings not by Disney alone, but by News Corp. as well (FOX)! News Corp, and its movie production studios stand to win equally as much as Disney in this debate. I've spoken with hardware makers government affairs spokesmen, and they're ready to fight this to the hilt...and they have DEMOCRATS supporting them!
Talk about bad journalism...
-Ozzy
All right, finally we have a good debate. Ok, you've stated how libertarians see it. Now socialists, like me, say "Without a strong government, the strong are free to hurt the weak and the weak have no way to defend themselves."
Who are these strong you're talking about? Who are these weak?
I'm sure you'd agree that the bill of rights is valuable, and having some way to enforce that is necessary.
The Constitution allows for its own enforcement. The Federal government was strong enough to stand up to Standard Oil at the turn of the century and break it up, so I don't see how expanding the Federal budget by so much over the past hundred years to continue to stand up to the strong is really necessary.
Furthermore, I suspect most people would agree that some amount of government will always be necessary. I.e. we will always need a military to protect ourselves and a police force to stop the occasional nut. Y'know, traffic lights so we can drive the streets in safety. Garbage collection so the streets aren't full of trash.
The items you mention (apart from the military) are local issues, best handled by local governments. This decentralization of government business acts both to be more responsive to localities and to reduce the amount of cash flowing through the Federal government (which is a good thing).
So in other words, there's a limit to this "small government" thing. Yes, going back to services specified by the constitution as you propose would be a smaller, but it would not be better. For example, there was no concept of an Air Force in the original constitution. No internet. No kiddie porn. Hell, blacks were considered 2/3 of a person and women couldn't vote!
Nice straw man. 1. No one said anything about the "original Constitution", just the Constitution as it now stands, which allows for womens' voting and the equality of blacks (btw, they were counted as 3/5ths a person). 2. Of course there's a limit to this "small government thing", of course we have to allow for modern things like the Air Force.
No, that's no solution. What we need is to remove the power of money in the government, not less government.
Here are some ideas that make sense to me:
1)Let's pass some legitimate campaign finance reform legislation. Maybe McCain-Feingold is a start.
The soft money problem and the dramatic escalation of money needed by politicians was caused by their mucking with the system in the first place.
I have a significant problem with the government restricting political speech by controling how people spend their money on political advertisements and campaigns. I'd be happier if they removed restrictions, but mandated the strictest of reporting, so that you could know who gave what to which parties/candidates.
2)Let's open the debates up to any candidate that has gotten on the ballot in >50% of the states. Ok, so maybe they won't win, but at least we can find out what they have to say.
So, the government will now be in charge of the debating process? I think that a little government intervention in the political process goes a long way. I don't vehemently oppose your suggestion, but don't really embrace the idea, either.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?