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.
If this bill is passed, how will it affect canadians? Aren't most (if not all?) electronic devices made for both countries, and not just the USA or just for Canada?
If so, will Canada be forced to follow this bill simply because there are no other devices available on the market?
That's an interesting suggestion: in a day when essentially all correspondence is printed from a word processor, I would guess that a handwritten letter would simply look unprofessional. I understand that a handwritten note clearly makes the point that you're a real person who put some time into writing it rather than just printing out a form letter, but I'm not sure that this factor wins out anymore.
Technically, when you purchase a CD, the only thing you actually own is the plastic disc. What you spent most of the money on was a license to use that data for yourself. Be it Music, Video Games, Software, etc. The license cannot be destroyed, as long as proof of the license exists. So does that mean if I accidently break a copy of Tony Hawk 3 for Playstation 2, I should then have to pay another 40 dollars for yet another license of Tony Hawk 3? Or shouldn't I be entitled to then buy a CDR and burn Tony Hawk 3 from an ISO? (Yes, I'm aware PS2 isn't CD, it's a hypothetical thing), or perhaps mail away a trivial amount of money (a few dollars for shipping and cost of media) to obtain another copy of Tony Hawk 3? Shouldn't it work that way? So far it hasn't, anyone I've talked to or emailed won't send me a copy of a music CD I scratched badly and doesn't play, even though I'm willing to pay for the portion that's actually the physical media.
For example, a friend of mine was borrowing a DVD from his brother. My friend's laptop was stolen, with the DVD inside. Obviously the laptop is the bigger issue, but he had to go out to Best Buy and plop down another 24 dollars for a DVD to replace the one that was stolen with his laptop. Why couldn't he call Columbia or Paramount or Universal and have them ship him another disc after he provided some kind of verification that he owns a license for it? The actual DVD media costs what, 50 cents max? But nope, it doesn't work that way..
They're treating the data as a sold product and as a licensed product, depending on how it suits them at the time.. And thats wrong. It's that old saying, you can't have your cake and eat it too..
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
"Any hardware or software that reproduces, displays, or "retrieves or accesses" any kind of copyrighted work." Will require access control mechanisms.
Access control mechanisms that nearly everyone here can agree will broken in less time than it takes manufacturers to develop the new equipment. It will create an unreasonable price increase on "clean drives" from olden days, and for black market hardware.
IMO this is sufficient for me to contact my senator (though CA-D-Dianne Feinstein co-submitted the act *boo* *boo*) and say that I feel strongly that copy protection mechanisms are inherently flawed, proven time and time again to fail, and this is not a solution to the admitted problem of copyright theft and piracy.
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.
Now this ought to prove interesting
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Honorable Senator Durbin,
On March 21, 2002, Honorable Senator Hollins presented a bill to the Senate called the CBDTPA (the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act). This bill, if voted into law, would prohibit the sale of of kind of electronic device, unless the device had copy-protection standards built-in as set by the federal government.
As you may know from previous letters I have sent to you, I am a strict privacy and consumer rights advocate. In the 2000 election, many of my friends, clients, and collegues considered my recommendations before they cast their votes. This bill will quite possibly be the most important vote you will cast in my consideration for voting to continue your incumbency in your next election. I urge you to vote NO to this bill, or any bills with similiar intent.
As is consistent with the soft-money problems the Congress and Senate have been facing, this bill has been created solely to protect the copyright holders, and to prevent consumers from utilizing all the rights given to them in the numerous copyright laws that have been past over our nation's history. I believe this bill is justly unconstitutional, and it would be against your oath of office to vote such unconstitutional text into law.
I am a firm believer in a copyright holder's right to protect their works, but no law should prevent copyright purchasers from exercising their rights. The CBDTPA goes too far in condemning piracy -- it prevents MANY of the rights given to the purchasers of a copywritten material. Let the free market offer better ways to protect the rights of the copyright holders, such as better research into encryption technology, or let the software manufacturers create their own hardware that will only play their products. There are ways to totally lock the consumer out of their rights, without resorting to laws that will infrindge on those rights. Let the software authors and publishers work them out themselves.
If you vote YES to this bill, I will assume that you have fallen pray to the large donations your campaign has received from corporate proponents of this bill, such as $2000 you received this year from the MPAA, or the $1000 you received this year from the NAB, or the $5000 you received this year from the National Cable Television Association. If this is the case, then I know that you are no longer working for your constituents or for the common man, but for big business, and my vote will not be YES to keep you in office.
Your constituent,
xxxxxxxx
Why don't you talk to your representatives? I just got an email invite about my congressman speaking to the public. If your in the Seattle/Bothell Area show up. I will bring up the SSSCA, "Fair Use" and how expect him to vote "Nay" on this or any similar bill. That this bill is not about "Copy Protection" but "Copy Control", and they want to take it away from the public by calling them Pirates and Thiefs.
Dear Mr. Harty:
You are invited to a Coffee with Congressman Jay Inslee.
Please join U.S. Representative Jay Inslee as he hosts an informal discussion on federal issues of concern to you and your neighbors.
Community Coffee
Saturday, March 23
10:00am-11:30am
Lynnwood Senior Center
5800 198th Street SW, Lynnwood
"(2) Any software portion of such standards is based on open source code"
--PhillipMore importantly, do they vote? Many of those eligible, don't bother, and the pols know it. They also know that certain demographics, such as the elderly and the more ideologically motivated (radicals on all sides), tend to vote more.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Free Mac Mini
Here is the letter I just wrote. Please plagiarize as needed to get your point across to YOUR representative:
..." That's what the Constitution of our country said, and nearly all aspects of it have been trampled in the entertainment industries' search for more profit. The fact that I will never, in my lifetime, get public domain access to ANY work created in my time fills me with a deep sadness, for we are not talking about things like popular music and tomorrow's movie premier. We are talking about literature, music, and scientific research. Those words used to have meaning. They used to represent the aspects of our society that we cherished: the Arts. Now they're perverted so that a music executive earns another $50,000 bonus this year. People used to make incredible sacrifices to be able to learn how to read; now the publishing industry would like to charge every time a page in a book is turned. Music used to be an honorable profession, musicians were artists; now our music is churned out on an assembly line so that the RIAA members can increase their bottom line. I make such points not to slander the artists or authors, but to make a point that our society has slowly transformed from one that respects the Arts to one that consumes artcraft.
I would genuinely like to know why our government would insist on providing legal protection to companies so they can continue to turn profits.
The RIAA/MPAA refuse to provide copyrighted material in a sane and fair fashion to those who desire it. They insist on demonizing their very customers to the point where making a videotape of something you see on TV is held in the same light as the rape of a woman [see previous statements of Jack Valenti]. The newly opened RIAA-sanctioned online music venues push consumers into an even more punishing relationship with the aforementioned group. For those people who haven't payed their monthly "music" bill, they lose not only the ability to download new songs, but all of their previously paid for songs as well.
When did it come to this? Copyright was a deal between the public and copyright holders. They get a limited monopoly on money made, and ultimately the work enters the public domain for the enrichment of all society. When did our government decide that Hilary Rosen knows more about writing laws than the founders of our country?
"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
I will make the bold statement that this legislation is bought and paid for. I say this not out of incredible naivety of our political system, but out of the frustrated realization that the entertainment industry has performed an end-run on our culture. They believe that they define our culture, that they should have the right to sell us our own culture, one byte at a time. I say that they reflect our culture, like a mirror, and they should thank society on their knees that we let them charge us at all.
Why? Why is it that some parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are held in such high regard, such as the right to Free Speech, and others, such as copyright, are looked upon as the acts of the devil? Why is copyright extended every 20 years? Why can't I copy an out of print book from 1950 and give it to my friends? Are we ready to draw a line in the sand and say that profits are more important than education? More important than wonder? This is not about MP3s, or DIVX movie streams. This is about taking the basic deal between content producer and content consumer and twisting it until every one of us must pay for every second we are exposed to anything created by anyone. There is no more concept of property. I don't "own" a book, or a dvd anymore. I am merely leasing it from the company.
In court, we are frequently asked to deliberate on the "intent" of the law, rather than the wording. I say that the original intent of copyright law does not exist even slightly anymore. Moreover, instead of a bill that gives ever more rights to copyrightholders and ever more penalties to copyright consumers, perhaps our elected representatives could swing the proverbial pendulum back in our favor by stripping the entertainment industry of its most devastating weapon against freedom of information: the DMCA.
I sincerely hope that our dear Senators take to heart the fact that they are putting the pleading of an industry above the country's Constitutionally provided contract with its own people. For those who have read this far, thank you for your time.
"What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris
At the hearings Sen. Hollings held, Intel co-founder (and Executive VP) Leslie Vadasz was the only person there who spoke out against the SSSCA, earning him charges of "supporting piracy" from the other people there. Send him a letter indicating that you appreciate his and his company's support of consumer rights; if you purchase Intel products (not just chips, they make a ton of stuff) let him know that too. I know a lot of you aren't fans of Intel, but for whatever reason when a company does the Right Thing we should let them know we support it (in hopes of encouraging them to take similar stands in the future).
See the EFF page on the issue for contact info and additional information.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
(what I sent to a select few congress people)
... not less jobs as described by
I am writing regarding Sen Holling's SSSCA and request your attention
since I am a D.C. resident who does not have a voting senator. I
listened to the hearings on this bill and was not happy with the
one-sided nature of the discussion. I'd like to take time to point out
a few flaws in the argument.
First, the bill is to require specific "security" measures in personal
computers and other electronic devices to prevent copying of
materials, such as music, videos, books, etc. We don't require such
"security" measures for handguns, which can kill people... why have
such measures on electronic media which educate people?
Second, the witnesses to the hearings were all large corporations and
"common folk" or people representing consumers were not present. Sen
Hollings didn't even attempt to discover what potential problems his
legislation may cause, nor did he question some of the (rather absurd)
testimony by the Recording Industry. He could have included people
such as Lawerence Lessig, for example. But he didn't. This is so
clearly legislation by the corporation, for the corporation. The
public had no voice.
Third, it talked as if large number of people would violate the law if
they didn't enact the measure. The discussion failed to take into
account that _most_ reasonable people follow the law... if they think
the law is fair. If there is a bulk of illicit copying going on, it's
probably a sign that the laws regarding copyright may not be fair.
Indeed, those resonable people who would normally speak out about
injustice are privately pleased by and encourage illicit copying.
Why? Beacuse Copyright law as it stands now is questionably
constituional (Eldrige vs Reno). So, why are we moving so quickly
when copyright itself (namely the extensions and massive protection
the recording industry enjoys) is under question?
Fourth, a large part of the testimony was about how the Recording
Industry is having a hard time making a profit (despite the increasing
profits despite the illicit copying). What struck me as amazing is
that the RI admitted that for every very successful movie, there are
100s of them that are not successful. As a business person who owns
my small business, I'd be bankrupt if I had such a high failure rate.
So, it seems that the RI wants extra monopoly protection (via
copyright law and "security" measures) so that they can continue being
innefficient. If I was on the committee, I'd send them back to their
drawing board... perhaps there entire industry could use a shakeup.
With new digital cameras, small productions are becoming more and more
prevalent. Perhaps we don't need a big Recording Industry anymore?
Lastly, the whole legislation seems premature, largely based on
speculation. Everything works "ok" now... why mess with the dial? It
could come out much much worse if we do. Why not wait till the RI comes
forth with "massively decliining profits" (which I doubt will happen)
and then ask if small recording groups have filled in the hole? If
small production facilities emerge, this could mean _more_ variety,
_more_ arts, and _more_ jobs (taxes)
the recording industry.
Newly developed digital compression and memory technologies make it possible to store two complete movies on a device the size of a postage stamp.
Really? Why didn't I hear about these? It would obsolete DVDs, CDs, even hard drives in one go! Wow! When is the wonder technology available?
Or maybe he's just talking about memory sticks. I guess if you compressed it down to like 32x48 with 8 or 9 FPS you might be able to fit two on a 256mb stick.
Or maybe he's talking about actual hard drive space? I guess two movies, in mpeg2 (DVD quality) would take roughly 4GB. In a 160GB HDD, that's roughly 1/40th of the total space devoted to two movies. If you figure that the average harddrive has a volume somewhere around 10 cu.in., that means that 2 movies would be 1/4th of a cubic inch, right? That's still a lot bigger than a stamp. Oh well.
God bless Politicians and their multiple axises of evils.
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
Intel opposes the SSSCA, but they are still in favor of DRM and legislation mandating DRM. I don't know about you, but the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
2) I am also an amateur artists who does album covers for other musicians
3) I work for Sun Microsystems who makes general purpose computers, and the threat to the industry threatens my job.
4) RIAA/MPAA are not poor; note the huge money spent supporting really awful music and movies.
5) Artists such as Courtney Love dispute claims that they are being supported
6) RIAA in particular has not put their music into any reasonable electronic format: if things are available at all, they are typically $1 per song. For $1 per song, I can buy a typical album, with uncompressed music, artwork, liner notes and a physical medium for storage. Why would I pay the same for a compressed format with none of the other benefits?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001