Slashdot Mirror
SSSCA Introduced in Senate
Peter BG Shoemaker writes: "Wired is reporting that Hollings has officially submitted his newly renamed SSSCA, carrying the moniker Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA). It carries all the provisions we've been worrying about...there is a new battlefield folks..." Newsbytes has another story. Reuters has a story about News Corporation and Disney lobbying in support of the bill. I haven't seen the exact text of the bill as introduced; it will probably be in Thomas tomorrow. Update: 03/22 00:12 GMT by M : Declan McCullagh has collected several documents pertaining to the SSSCA, errr, CBDTPA. He's got a faxed copy of the bill (barely legible; read it on Thomas tomorrow), plus statements from Hollings (read it!), the MPAA, the RIAA, and several lobbying groups for the tech industry, who seem less enthralled about it.
I think someone should point this out every time a new piece of rotten legislation gets proposed. Do NOT email your representative. Do NOT send them a form letter. CALL THEIR OFFICES. SEND OR FAX THEM LETTERS YOU COMPOSED YOURSELF, PREFERABLY HANDWRITTEN. Have everyone you know or can convince do this. This is the ONLY way (other than thousands of dollars in contributions) that you will actually influence votes. And, as always, BE POLITE, BUT DON'T HESITATE TO EXPLICITELY STATE THAT VOTING FOR THIS BILL WILL COST HIM/HER YOUR VOTE.
Hollings said that "any device that can legitimately play, copy, or electronically transmit one or more categories of media also can be misused for illegal copyright infringement, unless special protection technologies are incorporated."
We'll just have to tell Congress that "any device that can legitimately hit a baseball can be misused for illegal murder. How do you think MLB would react if the state legislatures tried to outlaw the game of baseball?"
One bright spot for free software advocates: Any software that implements the standards must be "based on open source code." Hardware copy-protection schemes can remain proprietary.
I'd assume that a rational judge would consider "open source" to mean what the community thinks it means. So unless the standards require hardware (which Silicon Valley will vehemently object to), the GNU/Linux system may still be able to decode SSS^H^H^H CBDTPA encoded material.
Will I retire or break 10K?
One problem- constant renaming of bills. A majority of Americans were against the "estate tax," until Republicans changed it to the "death tax" and a majority supported it. Same with abortion- you don't hear Republicans saying they are Anti-choice or Democrats saying they are Anti-life.
Not to mention all the money going through. I honestly don't know why these politicians aren't sued for bribery. It isn't a coincidence that Hollins supports this after all the cash Disney gave him. Same thing with Bush and Microsoft (and the DoJ essentially settling for 10 cents).
If I have a home video that I made on my own can I make copies of it??? How can software/software tell the difference between a movie that I made myself or one who's encryption has been broken?? How can hardware prevent encryption from being broken without breaking a computer's ability to compute??
Hollings surely doesn't know the answer. Hollywood doesn't know the answer.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
From the article...
It does say the final "encoding rules" should take into account fair-use rights, such as making backup copies or reproducing short excerpts from books, songs, or movies. Copies of TV broadcasts made for one-time personal use at home are also permitted.
In other words, if you write congress and rant that they are "outlawing fair use" or something like that, the letter will go straight into the trash because they believe they ARE taking care of them.
If you want to oppose this law (and I think that would be a good idea), the argument needs to be based on economics (making consumer products more expensive), inconvenience (does this in practical terms make it much more difficult to exercise fair use rights), or privacy (will you have to register a music purchase in order to get a digital copy)?
I'm speculating right now, because we won't really know what it says until we can read the actual law.
The bottom line is that arguments that it's your right to steal copyrighted material will play right into their hands as proof that this law is needed. I think it behooves everyone to realize that laws are generally written to solve problems, and the problem here is copyright theft. The argument against it needs to be that this solution creates more problems than it solves.
I think people should also remember that something like this WILL solve the problem of copyright theft, and not try to convince yourself that it won't. Will it possibly not stop certain people from making illegal digital copies? Of course not -- but that's not the point. The music industry doesn't care about Joe L33t making copies, it cares about the mass market making copies. It only has to be "good enough" to be effective.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Crazy thought: How about waiting for the text of the law and reading it before criticizing! Sure it sounds kind of strange, but wouldn't it be more effective to fax your senator knowing what the law actually says?
How about you read the SlashDot posting and the linked article? You'll see things like this:
The bill, called the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), prohibits the sale of any kind of electronic device -- unless that device includes copy-protection standards to be set by the federal government.
And this:
Once known as the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act, the CBDTPA says that all "digital media devices" sold in the United States or shipped across state lines must include copy protection mechanisms to be defined by the Federal Communications Commission.
That's what we were afraid of! While reading the bill when the text is posted is not a bad idea, I also think we're still safe criticizing it.
Because this bill will not pass. It will not. I bet you five dollars.
Four years ago, when we were in this position with regard to the DMCA, Slashdot regulars were saying the same thing.
They lost their bets.
Please send your five dollars to the EFF instead.
--Damian Yerrick, card-carrying member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Will I retire or break 10K?
Although I understand what you're saying, I'd like to respectfully disagree. Rather than "unprofessional", it makes your letter more personal and distinctive. If you have hundreds of emails or typed correspondence to go through, and there is one that is handwritten, I think it has a better chance of being examined. It is exactly because "essentially all correspondence is printed from a word processor" that one wants to be differentiated, especially for a government representative who wishes to appease all constituents, not just those that know how to type.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
In your letters, don't go on and on about "fair use". That is all well and good, but doesn't register with senators. Talk about how this bill with DECIMATE the tech/hardware industry and set us back years, which in the tech industry, is tantamount to complete economic collapse. Talk about how many jobs will be lost, nay, GIVEN to foreign interests, talk about the money and the talent that will be streaming from this country out into the rest of the world. Most importantly, be nice, be pragmatic, be logical, but never stray from the message: If this bill passes, the senators that vote for it will go down in the history books as the men who destroyed the American economy.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Pirates will be in demand, people will pay them money to install mod chips on PCs, and people will buy CD collections from pirates, and other illegal software. This will simply make a black market, dont be surprised if the mafia and organized crime gets involved and people start dying over it.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Accordingly, only early adopters have purchased high definition television sets or broadband Internet access, as these products remain priced too high for the average consumer. The facts are clear in this regard. Only two million Americans have purchased HDTV sets. As for broadband, rural and underserved areas aside, there is not an availability problem. There is a demand problem.
Hold it. A "demand" problem is not the concern of Congress. If the products are priced too high, and there is little demand, then it is up to the businesses to reduce the price.
This is wanton "profit by legislation," just like the auto insurance laws. How long before it will be illegal not to own one of these products? Oh yeah, and for all the "slippery slope" trolls: look what's happened to the copyright laws themselves over the past 100 years.
Roughly 85% of Americans are offered broadband in the marketplace but only 10-12% have signed up. The fact is that most Americans are averse to paying $50 a month for faster access to email, or $2000 for a fancy HDTV set that plays analog movies.
Right. Because they can't afford it. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that all these huge companies are RAISING PRICES WHILE THEY FIRE THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE BUYING THEIR #%&@$$^_)(*@$% PRODUCTS!! WHAT ABOUT THAT, SENATOR??
Oh, we should let the market decide there, right? So it's ok for some mumbling, inept, incompetent corporate middle-manager to destroy someone's career, (and indirectly take their home, and security, and money, and investments, and health insurance, and references, and quite possibly their family and children) whenever they feel like it, but the employee must hand over their money whenever marketing rings the bell?
Well, in the case of the overpriced broadband and HDTV products, the market has decided, and Content Inc. lost. Deal.
But if more high-quality content were available, consumer interest wou! ld l ikely increase.
Let's see some evidence of that first. Let's see some content, any content offered by any large corporation besides Super Bowl commercials. Wait, there is one example. Cartoon Network offers web-based versions of some of their programs. They now have 80 million subscribers and are stomping the living crap out of every cable channel they compete with and are scaring the living crap out of the networks too. Hmmmm.....
The movie studios, and the rest of the copyright industries
Copyright industries? So, they manufacture copyrights? That is a fascinating and very descriptive term.
are tremendously excited about the possibility of providing their products to consumers over the Internet and the digital airwaves, provided they can be assured that those products' copyrights are not infringed in the process.
Sure, as long as they can re-engineer the entire high-tech industry (which manufactures actual products, by the way) before doing so. It wasn't always this way. First they had to lose a Supreme Court case back in the 70s-80s to "allow" the public access to VCRs.
Although marketplace negotiations have not provided such an assurance, a solution is at hand. Leaders in the consumer electronics, information technology, and content industries are some of America's best and brightest. They can solve this problem.
So what do we need this legislation for?
the private sector needs a nudge
A nudge? A letter is a nudge. This bill is a #%&@$^)(*@$ avalanche.
consumers desire high-quality digital content on the Internet, and it is not being provided in any widespread, legal fashion.
Because the Copyright Industries (heh) won't allow it. How about solving that problem? Why is this the "consumer's" fault. (I hate that word).
mandate to ensure its swift and universal adoption.
You meant nudge, right, Senator?
Congress mandated that all television receivers include the capability to tune all channels (UHF and VHF) allocated to the television broadcast service.
..while this bill requires all computers to tune to the *one* channel allowed by the Copyright Industries.
would not be permitted to thwart legitimate consumer copying of programming in the home
Like Macrovision does?
- for time shifting purposes, for example.
How are they going to know the difference? This law mandates it's own uselessness.
We have listened to their arguments delivered in dozens of meetings with my staff,
..and ignored them.
and the bill we introduce today does nothing of the sort.
Called it.
Sigh... it sounds like Macrovision for computers. This will slow down the "Napsterization" of the Copyright Industries (heh) for about six hours. I'm saddened that Diane Feinstein was a co-sponsor of this. She seemed to be quite critical of the bill only a few months ago. Which leaves Californians with only one potential representative on this matter: Barbara Boxer. (ugh)
The House will probably not pass this legislation, but letters to Senators, Congressmen, *and* the President would probably be a good thing(tm). If this becomes law, computers and software as an industry are going to be damaged and the Internet will become the exclusive domain of the Copyright Industries.
This goes to show the Cluetrain was right:
"Big Business sees the consumer as a gullet who's primary function is to swallow products and crap cash."
The slogan for this bill?
"Get back on the couch."
1. It is the CBDTPA, not the SSSCA. Make sure you reference the correct legislation. It may be the same to us, but there's a world of difference to the congresscritter.
2. This legislation will create nearly insurmountable challenges and cause serious harm to the computer hardware industry for the benefit of the copyright control industry which is only one-tenth the size.
3. This legislation eliminates the need for the copyright control industry to create partnerships with the hardware industry to achieve their goals, thus robbing the economy of that growth as well.
4. Do not insult your congresscritter. Do not accuse them of taking bribes or being stupid. Do not accuse them of being bought off. They may be any or all of these things, but don't accuse them of it.
5. Tell them you support them, think their ideas and ideals are worthwhile, and voted for them in the last election because of this. (If you do not and don't feel comfortable lying, don't say anything about how you voted or who you support)
5. Your vote in the next election rides primarily on this particular issue - larger than any individual candidate's ideas or ideals.
6. The copyright control industry has refused to use the legislation already in existance to prosecute copyright infringers - only those who would provide the means. How serious can the problem be if they do not even make cursory attempts bring actual offenders to justice?
7. Stay calm and very courteous. Write your letter, leave it for two hours or more, then look over it again.
8. The issues of audio cassettes and VCRs, both of which were supposedly going to kill the industry - have not. This is certainly an equivalent over-reaction
9. The legislation assumes that you and the congresscritter are criminals already, and cannot hold yourself in check without some sort of technical provisions. Feel free to say how the legislation insults the congresscritter.
10. The software industry has been dealing with this problem since its inception, but has not required legislation forcing another industry to change their business, why is the copyright control industry different?
11. If your congresscritter is Democrat:
This legislation unfairly impacts the less fortunate who are not able to afford the new DRM equipped devices and may in future be unable to access content.
12. If your congresscritter is Republican:
This legislation will work as an unfair tax on hardware makers who will have to research and develop this technology. This will wind up most affecting those who make the majority of computer hardware purchases - the successful American businessman.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze