Chained Melodies

NoData writes: "Salon is running an elegant article that covers the current state of the copy protection and circumvention debate. The article touches on the DMCA and the SSSCA, with input from Touretzky, Lessig, and others. It offers a dystopic vision of a future where geeks battle increasingly complex copy protection schemes until ultimately, any consumer control over media is outlawed outright. Refreshingly, the article is not a "Salon Premium" feature."

Comments

Demolition Man

[apsio]

For anyone who has seen the Snipes/Stalone movie 'Demoliton Man', you have my sincere apology.

But, more importantly, this dystopian future that Salon highlights is paralleled in the movie. There's only one restaurant, Taco Bell, no salt (cause its bad for you), etc.

I recommend everyone watch it but not tell anyone that you did out of shame. Kinda like Mothman Prophecies, except that movie really, really, really sucked.

Re:Hollywood's blessing necessary for broadband?

[sulli]

I sell DSL for a living. (Disclaimer: this is my opinion, not that of my employer.) You are absolutely right.

Hollings is FULL OF SHIT to say that people don't buy broadband due to lack of movies online. Why?

1. Movies are available online, albeit in crappy divx format and illegal. But they are there.
2. At least my customers don't make their buying decisions based on this! They buy broadband for standard internet services. Or they don't, because the coverage isn't there, or they don't use the net enough to pay for DSL. Never have I heard this as a reason not to order, or to cancel - and believe me, I have heard 100s of reasons. NEVER.

Look, movies are everywhere. You can buy or rent DVDs on literally any street corner. You can order hundreds of thousands of DVDs and VHS tapes from Amazon and the like. Broadband has nothing to do with it!

Vote with your money

[anonicon]

It's the only thing outside of mass street protests that will grab both the entertainment industries' and Congress' attention, and this issue doesn't have enough social relevance yet for people to organize and fund protests.

Go ahead if you want and write your representatives, I hope you enjoy the form letter they send back to you in 4-6 weeks acknowledging that lobbyists' money means more than your letter. If you're serious about making yourself heard, call your Reps offices and make an in-office appointment with all of the ducks lined up for your issue. That way when the Rep votes against you, you're more likely to take it personally and vote their butt out of office.

Of course, bitching about this on Slashdot is absolutely the *BEST* way to fight this issue - so convenient, with karma points at stake to boot! Yea...

Keep this in mind

[The Benjamin]

According to a NYTimes editorial a couple of weeks ago, Napster had 90 million unique users at its peak. I don't know exactly how many of those were American, though I hear that the bulk of internet users in the world are American. I don't know how many of them are, or will be by this November, over 18, but considering that Napster was so popular on college campuses, I think we can assume that the bulk of them are or soon will be over 18.

So maybe 45 million Americans of voting age used Napster. Maybe more. That's a larger number of people than the entire populations of African-Americans and Asian-Americans combined. (Check it out at www.census.gov).

My point here being that this is an enormous block of potential voters who are saying, by means of their behavior, that they resist to some degree the current protections offered to copyright holders. (And I mean by this not just IP protection but also access to store shelves or radio play--try to get your music played on commercial radio without major label backing.) No politician would ignore the voices of a group of this size if it were an ethnic group, so why are they so damn inclined to side with the media companies here?

I guess the answer is: we don't present a unified political front. But perhaps we should. Media companies already have too much power in this country.

Re:You can prevent this...

[Brontosaurus Jim]

That's a common misconception. While it is true that many politicians recieve much money from many special intrest groups, almost none are "owned" by their contributers.

Obviously once a politician is in office he's more likely to listen to the people who voted for him; not the people that gave him money. I know you're just whining and bitching with out accurate information, so let me enlighten you.

I worked as an intern for a Californian US House Rep, filing letters, phone calls, faxes, emails etc. Actually my job was to start designing the requirements for a software app that would put all that data together into a statistical form, so the Chief could see the data on how many people were pro on what, and how they submitted.

Here is what I learned: In every case I was involved in the data collection process (which was just about every major issue for the 18 months I worked there), the Chief went with the public consensus. In the cases he went against it, he always made sure to meet with his advisors and other Reps to make verify his own thoughts.

When he envitably decided to go against the constituents (which was only rarely) he always gave me write-up to put on his webpage.

Maybe you should try actually investigating things, rather than just spitting up everything you've ever read.

My letter-to-the-editor to Salon.

[coats]

Salon says it likes editorial letters short and concise, so here's my reply to their article:

Dear Salon:

Congressional authority with respect to copyright, copy protection, etc, is set by the text of that Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution of the United States, which grants the power as follows:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries...

Note that restriction, "limited times." Such measures as those espoused by the existing DMCA and the proposed SSSCA are legal only if they satisfy the following two conditions:

1) Protection MUST expire upon expiration of copyright; and

2) Protection MUST be forbidden for non-copyright (i.e., public domain) materials.

I do not see either of these conditions required in the existing DMCA nor the proposed SSSCA. Both of these acts are unConstitutional on their faces, and those Congressmen, Presidents, and judges who support them are lawbreakers who are violating their oaths of office.

Sincerely,

Carlie J. Coats, Jr., Ph.D.