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.
http://www.senate.gov
Find your Senate, find his/her fax number and start sending your letters!
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?
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.
Start stocking up on pre-SSSCA computer hardware whilst you can. It wouldnt be a bad idea to burn or buy a few extra linux distros either.
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.
Isn't the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA) really the
Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Prevention Act?
Email petitions are worthless.
/. sends in $1,000, and convinces every relative to send in the same we'll about match what the entertainment industry spent on politicians in the last month or so.
So is email.
Faxes are a bit better.
Better yet: A well-reasoned, non-hysterical actual snail-mail letter, printed and signed and stuck in an envelope.
Best: A letter with a contribution check inside! I figure $1,000 should be enough to overcome the noise of all those check-free letters.
Remember, this is your last chance to get in some soft-money contributions. Make the check out to the senator's party. He or she will have the honor of bringing it over to HQ and will like you even more!
I figure if everyone who reads
Stefan "Sorry, I'm feeling awful cynical today" Jones
The EFF has some good information on what you can do about this.
--Ben
So they've replaced the SSSCA with the CBDTPA? Well, it'll convince the Senate...
;)
Senator 2: I see there's a major public outcry concerning the SSSCA.
Senator 1: So what's this new CBD- uh... deal... about?
Senator 2: I don't know, but anything with that many letters must be a good thing.
Senator 1: And it doesn't hurt that it's more difficult to say...
Senator 2: Well, it has my vote, whatever it is.
Uh-oh.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Politech has announced that the text of this hideous creation can be found here. Read it for yourself, along with statements from Hollings -- and pals Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti.
'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.'
When is the code used in hardware no longer software?
They are pulling out all the stops with the name Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act:
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
As already mentioned, US citizens should fax your senators (both of them, since you vote for both of them), call their offices (both in Washington and the local ones), and then, if you still have energy, you can also sign an on-line petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/SSSCA/petition.html
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.
----
Sen. Fritz Hollings introduces legislation that prohibits the sale of electronic devices, unless those devices include copy-protection standards to be set by the federal government.
----
It says SALE of electronic device. That could make things interesting.
I am going to be writting my senators tomorrow to get a feel for what they think about this bill. As a computer programmer, me writing a new version of "cat" and trying to sell it could make me a fellon. I don't like that idea, and my representitives need to know that. Your's do too. Write them, email them, call them, show up at their office. This makes the DCMA look like a teaser.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Any computer that can do unrestricted computations can be used to break encryption and be used to copy this forbidden data. If only disfunctional computers are legal, then how can scientists or engineers do calculations with computers anymore?? A computer that can't break encryption surely won't be much use to study DNA or to calculate spacecraft trajectories.
We'll be limited to spreadsheets and graphing calculators.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
"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."
As long as they do not change this, they make sure that it operates well with Free Software and the implementation of the standard does not get too intrusive I'm almost convinced that this is not a bad idea. I think that people DO have a right to protect their things, and that the market will regulate itself: the more restrictions the big media companies introduce ("loud reading of this e-book is not allowed"), the more important will free media get. I firmly believe that this step will actually reduce the influence of the media corporations, because it reduces the usefulness of their stuff and it shows the advantages of free alternatives.
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.
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'
It just means people will buy their stuff from Hong Kong. That isn't as scarry as it sounds.
:P
This reminds me of how the solution to a puzzle in 7th Guest read... The solution was, "There is no possible way."
That is kind of the situation we are in. There is no way to truely impliment unhackable hardware and software. The more money/time you spend into designing the protection, the more resources they are wasting. On a very basic level this is impossible, no matter how rich of a corp. you are.
If this really does come to pass, people will be buying anti-anti-copyprotection black boxes along with the usual cable tv black boxes at fleamarkets.
Really, the question is how much will this damage the industry before people chuck this non-protection concept?
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Of course, since our government is willing to give up as much as what the US government is giving up, I don't think we'll see this type of 2-country device manufacturing if the law passes, so we probably won't have any advantage.
I'm just hoping the companies will just move to more sane counties, if this ridiculous law passes (I bet those countries would flourish then!)
AC comments get piped to
Take a look at digitalconsumer.org- they have an easy "click here to fax your senators and house rep" buttonbutton which is of course inferior to writing something yourself, but better than doing nothing. The fax supports a common-sense Consumer Bill of rights- for more info, read Joe Kraus', founder of Excite's well-though out and to-the-point testimony on the page.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
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?
The Movie/TV industries want to increase their profits, so they are lobbying for legislation that will require the technology industry to develop, at its own expense, technology to allow "protect" them. Am I missing anything here?
While I condemn the SSSCA purely for its effective outlawing of open-source software, I also find it quite ridiculous from this angle.
Clearly, the technology industry is not going to achieve increased profits by doing this. They're a smart bunch of folks... if they saw money in it, they would have already done it. I have no idea how strong the computer industry's lobbying platform is, but I wish it all the best on this one.
Writing to Senator Feinstein only resulted in an explanation of why the *DMCA* is a good thing.
Am I the only person that wishes Rep. Boucher was in the Senate instead of Hollings? He's the one person I can think of in politics who is technologically informed and not in the pockets of big media conglomerates.
We can remember him as the person sending the letter to the RIAA questioning their practice of labelling copy protected CD's as normal CD's, and drafting up tech friendly legislation.
Hmm reply to my own post for the text of the bill:
Him + Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye(sp?), Mr. Breaux, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mrs. Feinsteine(sp?)
(This Space For Rent)
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"
Remember that email link we had in another story that allowed you to submit comments to the government committee regarding this issue? Well, I submitted my voice, only to get this today
m ?comments=1.
We are no longer accepting comments via e-mail, as we have created a new,
web-based submission form. I encourage you to please re-submit your comments at
http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/input_form.cf
So although it's too bad that this apparently means that all those emails were ignored, here is yet another chance to make your voice heard. Please take advantage of it. In my case, I just pasted my email to the comments form.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
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
With reporting like that, how can there even be a rational discussion? I mean, no law-abiding citizen could be opposed to "stopping thievery", right?
Since companies like Disney are succeeding in recasting the debate in a form in which the any use of their content that they don't approve of is called "thievery" and "piracy", the debate is already lost.
The real thiefs, of course, are companies like Disney, which have built business empires on reusing public-domain content while at the same time increasingly violating fair use and public domain provisions of copyright, and even paying off legislators to give them special privileges.
Tack a dead person's name onto it. Examples: Megan's Law, Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. I'm surprised they didn't call this the Chuck Jones Consumer Boradband and Ditigal Television Promotion Act.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
You can prevent this...
...and all it takes is a bit of activism. Write up a letter to your local representative, find ten friends, and have them all write a letter as well as finding one or two friends each. Then, they will pay more note to the issue and quite possibly change their opinion. They are supposed to represent their constituents and often will even if they don't believe in the cause.
I _would_ also recommend writing senators, but that might be a bit more ambitious since they usually represent much larger numbers of people and thus would be harder to coerce.
Oh, and recommend they join Rep. Boucher's informed technological reps bandwagon.
Don't they mean the "Computers are Bad, Disney is Terrific, Politicians are Arseholes" Bill?
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
From Diane Feinstein's response to a condemnation of the SSSCA (emphasis added):
America's music, movie, and software industries are second to none, and we export far more intellectual property than we import.
The software industry is second to none? Looks like its third.
On to Washington! Give Linus or maybe Stallman a bullhorn on the monument steps. :-)
--Rob
Write an actual letter to your two Senators and House member. Do not bother to email the office - it gets deleted. Make sure your letter is at least two pages long and is well written - typed, not handwritten. We use to have a wall where we would put up "nut mail" - make sure your letter doesn't wind up here.
Find out who the legislative assistant is for this issue. The senator or representative has literally hundreds of issues to deal with on a daily basis - so he delegates research and advisory power to people on an issue by issue basis. One guy may do defense and foreign affairs, another maybe judiciary and constituent service, etc. Find out the *name* of the legislative assisatant for this issue and communicate with them directly.
Get a group of similarly minded people to meet with the Senator/Rep and his senior staff. Don't feel like going to Washington DC? Remember that your member probably has several offices spread throughout your area and he always come home on the weekends. Remember - it's important that the member have a senior staff member PRESENT when you meet with him. This means he is taking you seriously.
Be polite. Do not make a damn fool out of yourself and put on a tie. Always be reasonable and patient. This is an easy case to make - maybe /. people can organize "lobby presentation package" that you can use when you meet with your member.
Good luck. I believe that digital media needs to be legally protected, but this is not the way to do it. Civil litigation, not federal legislation.
You know, that would be really neat if someone did just that on a small file. Just to make the point. Civil disobedience. 'So are pencils and magnifying glasses illegal?'
If that doesn't make the point, nothing will.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Hmm, if it becomes a law that the copy protection tools must be OSS
Then you won't have to reverse-engineer it, so the DMCA wouldn't apply to these copy protection mechanisms. Right? Sure, you'll still have SSSCA-2 to deal with, but I don't see how they could apply the DMCA to this.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
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 really. If that is actually in this bill, it was put there to ensure it never passes. The US government would never do something so democratic, unless someone was getting paid under the table. Maybe Hollings has been taking Disney for a ride all this time.
Edith Keeler Must Die
They'd be required to make the french version.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I quote Marc Rotenburg in saying:
There are a couple things that I feel are noteworthy about this article... I'm sure others too will have something to say about them, but I have not seen these things touched upon in this discussion yet...
For one thing, how exactly does Hollings come up with his "billions of dollars a year" figure with regard to yearly losses to piracy on the Internet? In other words, does he (or do his statisticians) assume that for every song traded on the Internet, a real purchase would have been made in its place, or does he somehow compensate for the fact that some people are far more willing to download a single song than buy the entire album that contains it? This is quite seriously not a flame; I really am interested in the reasoning behind this.
Perhaps a bit more to the point, I wonder how this legislation is going to help anybody at all, even the content industry that is so energetically pushing it? While I am against piracy on principle, I am thoroughly unconvinced that half of the music piracy that goes on over the Internet could possibly be translated into real sales if the means to such piracy were eliminated. Further, for me the ability to download songs on Audiogalaxy has if anything increased the number of CDs I buy over any given time period. Again, I am against piracy on principle - but I now would never purchase a CD without first being able to download a couple of songs from it just to make sure I like it okay. Granted, for many this is not the case, and there are people who listen entirely to illegally downloaded music rather than supporting the artists who create it. But one has to wonder what the proportions between these two different music sharing philosophies is an what the overall effect of music sharing on the Internet really comes out to be.
And even if this law really would help the RIAA and MPAA that much, is this really a worthwhile goal? Granted, the ability of money to speak may be the Democratic Way, but I still feel there is something wrong when an entire industry seeks to dis-empower its customers through a legal mechanism for the sole purpose of increasing profits.
Of course, there are other issues to this law; what, for example, will be the effect on computer hardware makers and sellers if this beast really goes into effect? How will this effect those who wish to play MP3s and OGGs on their computers and in their cars? I suppose we will have to wait until we can get ahold of a full copy of the legislation before we can say much intelligent about such specifics.
For my part, I would hate to see this go into effect. I don't want digital media to suddenly become a whole lot less useful to me...
-Niten
The chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Howard Coble (R-North Carolina) opposes the bill and won't bring it up therefore the bill is DOA.
You can get more info over at Wired. That little Disney shill Hollins can try and repay his evil mouse ear masters but it won't avail him...
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Silly Senator Sells-out CAlifornia?
Feinstein, one of the Senators who support the SSSCA is from California. She also voted down a proposal to allow laptops on the Senate floor. Her house may be 30 miles from the Silicon Valley but it may as well be on the moon the way she votes.
She also was one of the clever people who said "I believe President Clinton when he said he didn't have an affair...." She was a little put out, but only a little, when she finally figured out that he had lied to her.
She's clueless and powerful - what a combination.
Don't forget, in the mid 1800's the government ruled that corporations are people.
This is why corporations can lobby and support candidates. So just think of Corporations as being very large, very important people.
The real question is: what do these media companies do to senators who don't play ball?? Dig up dirt on them and splash it across their very own 6:00 news show??
Realty is just what they give you to distract you from the truth.
~Hammy
You're one mean little elf! :)
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Infortunately, our legislators still do not heed email and faxes to the degree they should. This is probably because such technological marvels facilitate communication to a degree that promotes a deluge of mindless mailings that represent to effort or forethought on the part of the sender.
For this reason, our legislators tend to pay far more attention to writen letters sent by snail mail, not least because mailings are limited to some minor degree by the cost of stamps, and it is currently illegal to impersonate others via postal mail, whereas the same is not true via email.
Faxing your well thought out objections to this bill, might be a good compromise, but I recommend postal mail as the most effective means of communicating with your senators.
If you are unsure of how to contact the senators from your state, Look Here. Also, it would be useful to begin to address this issue in the house as well. The house of representatives has a far more convenient contact mechanism. You can Lookup your Representatives Here.
Remember, do your research, and make coherent arguments. Don't waste the time of our elected oficials. They are not stupid, but simply need to be better informed of the problems with this legislation.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Democratic Party members are NOT liberals, no matter what CNN tells you.
...something very, very profane.
As a Canadian I sidelined on this issue, but Canada would probably steer a similar course unless deterred. Under a broader horizon, I'd be concerned that such technology could lead to a pincer attack on the rights of consumers to view preferred data. I mean, if they have a lock on one end what would it take to implement a key at the other end?
There doesn't seem to be an effective Cost analysis in terms of the losses actually suffered by the industries. Going to the movies or buying the current top of the chart CD is a different market that has it's own rhyme and reason and captures an impulse buying market that has a saturation point. I doubt the noted industries have lost all that much income espescially in light of how readily the majority of their products depreciate so quickly into the discount bin. I can't help but think the industry is simply fighting bloody tooth and nail over control of a new lucrative industry.
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
The definition of a "digital media device" on pages 15 and 16 seem to apply not to the computer itself but the Windows Media Player software and the DVD decoder card.
Those encoding rules are limited by the limitations on a copyright holder's exclusive rights.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Instead of wasting your time and effort sending faxes begginng them not to pass the bill. Consider this, 80 million people used napster in 2000-2001. Thats 80 percent of internet users who DONT want this bill to pass.
Face it, they KNOW we are against it and they dont care. The only way to battle these people, is to battle them on their level.
Go to these sites, give donations, if you dont have the money, host a rally at your local campus to gain money, follow these intructions.
http://digitalspeech.org/
http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bill.html
Donate to
http://eff.org/
Support the lobbying groups on OUR side.
I promise you, a petition will get you NO WHERE! People petitioned against DMCA, people petitioned against the Patriot Act, you think petitions will stop this? You have to have massive rallys, protests with hundreds of thousands of people, donations in the millions of dollars to lobbying groups on our side, and people like the EFF.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The first thing to understand about this is it won't work. The idea is each device will not play a file that has DRM on it, unless the owner of the device has legal protection. The problem is it is always possible for some smart hacker to remove the DRM code and post it to Gnutella etc and then eveyone with the new devices still can play it.
When the law predictably fails this way, the industry will in a few years demand that devices be such that they play no file UNLESS it has DRM code on it. In other words, as Lessig and others put it, your computer etc becomes nothing more than a fancy cable box.
Remember, we have been through this before. In 1998 the entertainment industries told congress they would post all their content to the net if congress would first pass the DMCA. It was passed but then everyone by passed it with Napster etc, so now the entertainment industries are demanding a new law that covers devices. When that fails they will demand the final law which gives them complete control while rendering computers brain-dead. It would not surprise me if this three-stage process was the plan from the begining.
My reply to Congress is as follows: /*Please do not copy, send a unique, thought out reply of your own. It will have greater impact.*/
You must realize that government mandated hardware and/or software would isolate the United States market. If we enact such a law companies based in the US are likely to face much difficulty in exporting their products, and a mandate, such as that suggested by Senator Hollings, would ban much, if not all, of imports from foreign markets. As technological integration proceeds this will continue to affect more areas of out market, from Computers to Cellphones to Watches. Thus, we would find ourselves cut off from some, if not most, of foreign technological innovation, and we would lose almost all ability to market our wares abrouad. This action is very detrimental to both the economy of the United States, and the innovation of the world as a whole, and it is my recommendation that you at least rethink, if not kill this bill before this detrimental legislature comes to pass. /*Damn, incomplete sentence. Always reread*/
Fiber optics. It would be hard to generate the inital light without eletricity, but I suppose it could be done...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"CBDTPA" only has one vowel and it's in the MIDDLE. It can't be pronounced and I'll wager that a good percentage can't even remember it correctly.
But in all seriousness, I *WILL* do my part in writing against this legislation. I remember when I wrote in protest of the DMCA. It had already been passed and yet to be enforced at the time. My representative said plainly to the effect of "...you shoulda said something BEFORE we passed it... it's too late now buddy!" Of course, the DMCA was passed the way of submarines which should be illegal as hell.
Anyway, we can't let this one get away. Your rights are WORTH spending 20 minutes and a postage stamp.
Write your senator and your representative and say what needs to be said. Maybe they are already "paid for" and then again, maybe they aren't... This is important stuff.
If this thing goes through, it'll probably mean the end of my little mp3 player project. I was planning to do quite a bit of reverse engineering on several car stereo decks to add support to emulate various CD changer control protocols (all open source, of course). If this crazy legistration goes through, I'll probably have to throw in the towel. I wonder if it'll even be legel to keep the web pages up with the schematic, source code, etc??
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
"(2) Any software portion of such standards is based on open source code"
--PhillipDid petitions stop the DMCA? Did Petitions stop the Patriot Act? Did Petitions from 80 million people save Napster? What about Petitions from all the morpheus users?
Face it, these guys KNOW we dont support this, they dont CARE.
Its that simple, so writing them wont change a damn thing.
You have to fight them on their level, via lobbying groups of our own, have huge rallys, help the freenet project, donate money, protest by doing something.
I'm sick of people who just write some letter to some office which the senate or congress never reads or cares about.
IF you want action, you protect with a few million people in front of washington, and threaten to riot, have it all get captured on national TV, raise money from such an event, you cant just tell them with words you dont like this bill, you have to show them with actions.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Afterall, if all the people who love baseball will sit back and let you outlaw it, why not do it? If they just call and mail you that they dont like what you are doing but they dont do anything, why not?
What are you going to do to prevent the SSSCA from passing?
Telling them you dont likee it, is like asking the bully to please stop hitting you.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
CBDTPA--- Corporations that Bought Democrats, too Tight to Pay Artists.
You can't fax a check!
Stefan
What can I said except "uh oh..."
While I agree there is a certain soundness to the logic following "if they aren't alive, they can't be bought" you're failing to realize that when you point at someone to be the target of violence, you're making something of a target yourself as well. Bad move. You think for a moment the secret service will have any trouble in finding out who you are?
All of these people wasting their time faxing people and making phone calls could be doing something to stop this.
Learn Java, and help with freenet development before they outlaw open source development.
Donate as much money as you can to EFF because these are the people who will defend us when all our software is outlawed.
Support lobbying groups which stand up for us, write letters thanking intel and telling them that you plan to boycott their competitor AMD and support them exclusively.
Write letters to people at AOL, and other big software companies instead of to congress and senate, these big companies actually will listen because you are their source of income.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Too bad we didn't have a law like this about 10 to 15 years ago. If we did, then people would have created innovations that would have allowed us to build a global network that connects all the computers in the world...
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Most people using Napster are college students and Adult age, the kids using napster are in minority, although there are some teenagers who used it.
Teenagers cant vote, but its these teenagers who started writing stuff like gnutella and replacements for napsters, while all the silly adults were faxing their congressmen and having petitions.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
DMCA says you cannot circumvent (sp?) any technology created to restrict you from access in any way.
This means by using computers from hong kong you COULD be breaking the DMCA because you bypassed the SSSCA.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
When is the code used in hardware no longer software?
When it's implemented as a netlist in silicon (e.g. from verilog or vhdl source code) rather than as instructions for
When it's eligible for mask work protection (17 USC chapter 9) rather than standard copyright.
Read the bill; an AC has posted the link to its text.
Will I retire or break 10K?
"If you want to oppose this law (and I think that would be a good idea), the argument needs to be based on economics"
Exactly, that's a very good thought indeed. Why should the 4 billion dollar entertainment industry be allowed to cripple the 40 billion dollar tech industry? Which is more important to our GNP and our economy. It does not make economical sense whatsoever. If anything, the tech industry should be lobbying harder and telling the weaker entertainment industry where they can shove it. If you include this point, when you write your congress critters, then you may get somewhere. If you talk fair use or constitutional rights then you are wasting your time.
On of my (many) concerns with this legislation has been that an adopted standard would be unimplementable in an open-source OS. This seems to address that. Hmm.
Its bad enough they ruined the internet, now they want to take the whole computer away from us.
We are letting them bully us and slap us around, sure we have linux and other ways to fight back, but we really need to turn up the heat, I'm talking rallys with thousands of people, at campus's everywhere, and we should protest using our best advantage, the technology.
Develop freenet, or stuff like freenet, think of ways to break all hardware copy protection schemes before they put them in place and post them all over the net, think of ways to keep the technologgy inn our control and not disney.
Radio based internet access
Computer kits which allow anyone to build their own computer easily, hardware or chips which break the SSSCA chips, and dont just end there, publish every little exploit, hack, or way to harm the SSSCA on freenet so it cant be censored.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
...because the bill makes it illegal to import such equipment. trying to get around this only makes you a criminal and eligible to spent time in the pokey with meaner people than yourself.
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
This is the most absurd bill I've ever had the misfortune of reading. It is ludicrously broad in scope and completely unconstitutional in nature.
This thing would require my TI pocket calculator that has an M+ key on it to have copy protection built in.
But I'd still be 'granted permission' to make crippled timeshifting copies, whoop-dee-fscking-doo!
Lightning guns
Tasers
Mace
Bullet Proof Vest
Tear Gas
You cant buy that, but you can walk right into walmart and buy a shotgun, hell even a machine gun.
We dont need guns anymore period, we have better safer more effective weapons for self defense, of course gun companies just like oil/gas companies have to protect their industries.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Hm... Multi-Region DVD Players, anyone?... You can't stop competition.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
That's only ONE party. The American Government IS a "Large Corporation". Or, perhaps, a collection of large corporations (if one considers the various departments and the 5-10 different federal police forces [no joke, think about it - FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, BATF, Border Patrol, US Customs...and that's not even counting the formal military branches...] as separate "legal entities"). Either way "Large Corporations" covers both the government AND its controlling donors and media types.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
[sarcasm --- an advertisement displayed in a newspaper and aired on broadcast television during 2004]
.... Deep in the shadows and during late night hours, terrorists construct computers so they may prevent Americans the opportunity to enjoy music, film, and software. These terrorists are responsible for 20% of unemployment due to reductions in revenue for American businesses. Moreover, parts (primarily manufactured in the non-American and ugly capitalistic and piggish democractic nation of Russia) are purchased via the computer blackmarket and finance drug sales to children at schools.
Why would a person wish to build a computer? Only an anti-societal and evil intention lurks in these terrorists to undermine our common courage: "one nation under god, indivisible, and united we stand."
These terrorists must be reported to the Civilian Protection Team immediately! Now is the time to defend our nation! Do your part... today!
This message brought to you by the Council for an Evil Free America.
[/sarcasm]
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
We have only 40 Senators. The rest are traitors.
For those who don't know, 60 Senators voted for unconstitutional campaign finance legislation.
So, nevermind what those 60 senators do. They are traitors and should be removed post-haste! The Declaration of Independance describes our authority to do that, but it doesn't give any legal specifics. I would like to see them removed peacefully, along with the congressman and the president (assuming he doesn't have a last-minute change of heart and veto the bill).
So, what say to gathering at the Capitol? We will bring no arms. We will simply crowd the Capitol and attempt to remove them bare-handed. If our numbers are insufficient to overwhelm the police, we will at least have the satisfaction of having filled the jails and embarrassed these idiots. Hopefully that will be enough. If it isn't, then we will call on those who bear arms to act as the 2nd wave, freeing the prisoners and taking the Capitol until the various states can send new senators and congressman to replace the traitors.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
OpenSecrets lists donations from the TV/Movie/Music industries to senators. For example, this link shows donation totals over all election cycles they have info for all of the senators.
One thing I found interesting in that page is that Hillary Clinton is #4 in the $ amount for senators in all cycles with $601,345; >90% of that was in 2000 alone. Damn, she works fast... And to further screw those of us in New York like myself planning on writing both senators, Schumer wasn't far behind with $519,935 total; and he was #1 in 2002 with about $95K. Somehow I doubt they'll listen to my opinions on the matter...
From Senator Ernest F. Hollings' Letter to President George W. Bush:
"...comsumers desire high-quality digital contenton on the Internet, and it is not being provided in any widespread, legal fashion."
Of course if the content creation industries and their representatives first reaction was to negotiate a solution rather than sue sue sue, we might have legal solutions rather than illegal solutions with no single liable entity.
Of course, I am of the belief that if the content creators provided a REASONABLE system to aquire content by purchase over the Internet, we would see a decline in online piracy. After all, why would I want to gamble that the other Napster/Morpheous/Gnutella user might cut me off in the middle of a download when I can be assured of getting what I want.
Suddenly I am reminded of those 10-10-220 commercials. 'A buck? What can I buy with a buck?' Well, how about that song you have stuck in your head?
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
It will not be legally binding because contracts for illegal acts are not enforced.
Also your senator might not cash any checks that look so obviously like bribes, because they may not want to risk falling into a media trap for a measily $1000.
The best thing to do is just make a small contribution, and mention that you make those contributions on a regular basis.
Then make another contribution every time the politician votes the way you want him to.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe there is a need for "Government intervention"...but if so, I think the intervention called for is from the Executive, not legislative branch.
Or, put simply, "How about enforcing the copyright laws we already have before demanding more?!?!?"
Surely the cost to the nation of funding a "task force to find and punish blatant copyright violators" would be far less than the horrible drain on the already-stagnant economy here that this draconian legislation would cause...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Yeah that did surprise me at first.
But even the companies of the BSA, such as Microsoft, get hurt if the technology sector of the economy collapses.
And if this passes - that will happen - and it will eventually take down the economy as a whole.
Perhaps the bill should be renamed to the "Technology Sector Collapse and New Great Depression Act".
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
A higher quality copy of the bill is availible at Cryptome
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(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.
You dont understand the cause. Do you know what GNU and GPL is about? Open Source?
Theres two groups in this country. The group which wants informations to be free, which is against patents, and intellectual property, then you have the group which wants information to be owned.
Both sides can make money, its proven, Redhat and AOL make as much money as Microsoft and Disney,
You can make money selling the services and hardware, or you can make money trying to sell the code.
Problem is, anyone can make code, anyone can produce and distribute it, and we can do it better than record companies, we dont need them anymore
We still need Sony to make our CD players, AOL for our internet connection, Musicians for making the music
We dont need Microsoft and RIAA.
This WAR isnt about laziness, its about technology, technology is making the record industry obsolete, and its changing the software industry to a service industry. Instead of the RIAA adapting, they want to control, they are like Microsoft, trying to keep their monopoly.
Oil Companies use oil not because oil is the only form of energy or the best, its used because the Oil Industry, The Enrons, they have monopoly to maintain and while we can get free energy from stuff like Water, Air, Sunlight, which can power a car for 12 or more hours, (thats more than enough power to last for days) instead we are still paying a fortune for gas, cars are still using gas, the energy in our house while it could be self generated, people still are using oil,
Face it, oil isnt needed anymore, perhaps there was a time when oil was the only thing there but when theres alternatives that benifit the masses, we should follow these technologies.
Napster and File Sharing benifits the masses, the majority of people in the world want it, what happened to democracy?
The only people who are anti napster are CEOs, and elite musicians who have no talent like britney spears and others.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Look at it this way - in order to have even a remote chance of getting voted into office, you must have enough "fame" for the voter to know you exist and what you stand for. That's the purpose of the various marketing and advertising stunts that we call a "political campaign". This, of course, costs money.
This "reform" basically limits how much money a single "entity" can give a candidate or party. That means that with the passage of this bill, only people who are ALREADY "famous" (i.e. incumbents and favorites of the media corporations) have enough exposure to raise enough money for a "visible" campaign - they're the only ones who can make up in volume (number of contributors) what is lost in "total donation per capita".
A real "outsider", who isn't already well-entrenched in the existing power structure could previously have hoped for the slim, but conceivable, chance that a few wealthy donors might be willing to contribute enough for him or her to be heard and possibly elected (where they might, possibly, do something about the problems that have spread over the current system like mildew). NOW...they're screwed. They aren't already famous enough to get millions of people to give them the smaller donations they require, and are now ALSO forbidden to make up the difference with larger donors.
In summary, this "reform" serves far more to protect the incumbent politicians, parties, and 'old-boys network' from competition than to prevent actual abuses. (As far as I know, although Disney can't write a big, fat check to Hollings after this bill, they CAN, if they want, have their news anchors on ABC report on him frequently in happy terms, or hold carefully orchestrated "donate to a politician" parties where lots of individuals get together and each donate the maximum amount allowed to the candidates...
The constitutional issue comes up because the way our current political system works (i.e. is driven by media exposure and advertising), it COSTS MONEY TO BE 'HEARD'. If, for example, you feel Rick Boucher's comparatively rational views on Intellectual Property accurately represent your own views, donating money to help him "get the word out" is arguably (and I'm sure you've all heard this phrase before) "Your way of saying that you agree". In summary, in this context "spending money" = a form of expression = political speech, which is SPECIFICALLY the sort of speech the 1st amendment is intended to protect.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
I've said it before and I'll say it again and again.
Boycott Star Wars because the MPAA wants to take away computers. Get everyone you know to do the same thing.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Computer
Systems Policy Project (CSPP), and the Information Technology Industry
Council (ITI)
Or at least write them saying thanks
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Why is it that I only have mod points when the crap posters are out? You are of course absolutely correct.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
I do not condone assassination. But what is to be done when your government doesn't listen to you? We could get half a million people to march on Washington D.C. and have a peaceful protest of this and similar legislation. Would it cause much of an upset? Probably not. They'd think twice, and then pass it anyway. The next day they'd be out arresting everyone they see for whatever 'crime' we have commited now. Yeah, I know it sounds a bit extreme, but it COULD very well happen. So, back to the question. What do we do? Give up computers? Give up the Internet in fear that we'll be arrested in some MP3/MPEG witch hunt? No. If it ever gets to that point, I'll be the first one to move someplace out of this nation. I will not stand for anything like that.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
... because its going to cost billions of dollars over the next 5 years or so to modify almost every piece of electronic equipment on the planet. And then some smart-ass Russian kid is going to write a cracker which will bring the whole house-of-cards tumbling down.
Sick sense of humour, I know. But thats the hacker ethic. I sure hope Elcomsoft is watching this and having a good laugh.
Time after Time over the past serveral years issues such as the dmca and other laws have passed congress because big business has the biggest say in goverment based on the contributions it provides. Perhaps it is time that the Geeks of the US stand up and begin to lobby along with them. There are millions of us (600k+ slashdot users alone). If everyone gave 10-20 dollars a year we could influence a lot of votes and really get our voice heard in congress. Who doesn't oppose the DMCA? Who isnt going to oppose the sssca? Everyone says.. send email/faxes/hand written letters, those will solve our problems. Well so far, we have lost everytime. We need to begin lobbying! Who is interested in setting up a lobby to influence congress? Yes the EFF is great for fighting legal issues.. but they are not a lobbying org. We need to fight these laws before they are enacted.
Whos interested?
Mike
Since it has a timer, what stops someone from writing a crack to modify the timer to expire all copyrights?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
There is no fucking way I will ever spend $2000 on a TV no matter what features it may entail.
What good is this HDTV if you're not spending $80 a month for digital cable and some premium channels.
How mucb FREE TIME do most working americans have to 'consume' this crap. How many shows are there on TV that you really watch? I can count them all on one hand and I TAPE THEM ALL. My life does not revolve around television neither should anyone elses.
Do you like paying $50 a month for DSL? FUCK NO. If I was paying for the bandwidth I consumed it would be a fraction of that.
Where are these fictional consumers he is talking about find time to enjoy these luxuries? I'll tell you what. It isnt a majority and as we've seen even with technology that is superior to the what's mainstream. If you don't buy it, it fails.
SO DONT BUY IT.
Even if this thing does get passed into law and it probablly will considering his letter...
These devices will be defeated in the same manner DIVX was. They will be rejected by consumers because of
- increased cost
- decreased value
See 1. and repeat.Remember going in to Circuit City and harrassing the sales guy in the DVD section about DIVX?
Picture that and now imagine the same guy trying to explain to you how great HDTV is but if you want to record something... well.. um ugh...
Well use your imagination. The entertainment industry is gonna have to use theirs to figure out how to exlpain their profits without the scapegoat that is piracy to blame.
Peter
www.alphalinux.org
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."
"The movie studios, and the rest of the copyright industries, for example, 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."
No crap they're "tremendously excited". Why should the sell us a whole movie, when they can sell it to us one viewing at a time! I can see the MPAA and RIAA drooling all over themselves at this very minute!
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;
Somebody better tell the makers of wire that unless they include encryption and copy protection schemes in their products, they could be liable! Anything that carries audio with such blatent disregard for copy protection could easily let consumers send audio to another device, or even (gasp) to speakers, and possibly even maybe (gasp again) to their ears where they could enjoy material they've purchased!!!
I've heard it mentioned that much more money is made from recorders, players, etc. than the record companies / film studios make. If this is true, I wonder why industry doesn't get in the way of itself?
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
We are in a position as up and coming professionals to let our grievances be known. Our opposition to this bill as students and soon-to-be professionals cannot be dismissed as opposition for a bunch of leftist university hacks because we'll be affected by this!
So that means.....
Call your Senator's office and tell them that you are calling on behalf of yourself and your family. Tell them that you and your family have supported the Senator in the past and hope to be able to do so again in the future, but that this bill will determine how you vote because you feel that this bill would cripple the industry you hope to work in.
Then:
Fax your Senator's office and say the following as it will have far more weight with the staffers than just geee I don't like this bill:
"As a Computer Science major I am deeply worried about this legislation. Based on the text of this bill I have no reason to believe that it won't have far reaching detrimental effects on the industry I plan to work for."
"In the past I have considered INSERT_SENATOR_HERE to be a man/woman worthy of my support but this issue is critical to my future and this bill and others like it ***WILL*** determine how I vote. I cannot support a politician that supports a bill that will damage my ability to seek gainful employment in my field of choice."
"Therefore I urge you to inform the Senator that this issue is of the utmost importance to myself and many other Computer Science majors at INSERT_UNIVERSITY_HERE. Thank you for your time."
Obviously that is only the general gist of the letter. The idea here is that you tell them you're a CS major. Tell them that you like the Senator even if you don't. Tell them that you oppose this bill and cannot support a politician that supports it. Tell them you aren't alone but don't make it out like you speak for everyone, just let them know that while you don't represent everyone that there are a lot of people that feel the way you do even if they don't explicitly say so. Then tell them that you hope that the Senator will be informed of where his/her constituents stand and that they will take their constituents interests into the highest consideration.
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.
www.opencores.org Better buy up as many of those FPGAs as we can before Hollings and Eisner screw those up too. Boy is this gonna suck! If my choice is between a homebuilt with the power of a Pentium 60 AT BEST or a Pentium 6 Billion Media Player then I'll just get out the soldering iron and the prototyping rig. Fuck Disney and the bitch Hollings they rode in on.
Customers? Bah! Dirty Theives and Pirates, Arrest 'em!
Copyright Be Damned, Totally Prevent Access!
Congress Bought, Democracy Totally Perverted. Alright!
Cast Blame on Decent Tools with Potential for Abuse.
Campaign to Ban Digital Technology that Plays Anything.
Campaign to Ban Digital Technology that People can Access.
Corporate-Bought Decision To Prohibit Academia.
Corporate Behemoths Disallow Tinkering, Plan Arrests.
I'd say you've gotten it all wrong.
Patents are not evil, and people for OSS could be for patents as well.
What OSS people are for is the free exchange of community property. That is, projects developed by many should be free for many. OSS advocates will not [and should not] say that privately developed ideas, techniques, algorithms, etc should be community property.
As to your "anyone can code", while yes anyone can "code" or "hack", not everyone can seriously put a product worth using together. Being able to hack out a couple lines of code is useful, but being able to document, clarify and support your software is something else that most OSS zealots are not willing todo.
Not every person who can run GCC will make an OS that will replace Windows. So as to the general notion "we don't need MSFT", why yes we do for serveral reasons
1. For the time being Linux sucks. Its far too diverse for people to pick and use properly. Lots of people have no clue what an OS is, let alone Linux, let alone the distinction between Debian, Suse, Mandrake and Redhat Linux.
2. MSFT Windows provides something that Linux gurus can look up to in terms of usability. Sure we know that Windows has its share of bugs and downfalls. When it comes to user interfaces and ease of use though windows wins hands down.
Overall I'd say your post shows a lack of understanding of the issues at hand. OSS and patents for instance are not the same issue. OSS is the opposite of a trade secret. You can for example, copyright OSS software [OSS does not mean GPL]. A trade secret [or closed sourced] system on other hand is what OSS types are trying to denounce.
As to patents, there is merit in patents as there is in copyrights. Being able to secure your rights to something you researched and developed is the keystone to a money-based society. While patents have been abused totally the approach is not without merit.
Try to put this in perspective. If all ideas were free and all programs for any task were free [including specialized software for say controlling a FABS] who would want to write code? I mean you wouldn't do it for a living obviously. There is only so much money to be had for tech support. I mean how many people install RH linux and *never* pay for tech support?
That and this "pay for tech support" type model encourages bad documentation and coding. e.g. hard to use programs require more help.
Personally I would buy [had I a job] software for the brand name seal of approval type bit. I mean I would buy a copy of Word just because I would get some feeling that its quality code I am buying a copy of [or license to use, whatever].
Its like buying a car. Anyone could build their own, or get one from a third party, but lots of people buy "Fords" for the sole reason there is a sort of trust behind the name. They can think that they are buying something with a track record.
Overall, I think people should be encouraged to follow the OSS method but not to fear or loath patents/copyrights just because they don't follow a hippy view of the world. Also the GPL bandwagon should be abolished as well. Its far too dangerous and from what many have observed too easy to breach.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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
[Do me a favor, mod this up once or twice]
.
If you are on the DALnet IRC network, please gather in #anti-CBDTPA
We need an army to gather/create documents to explain this threat to the every day person.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
I know it's been posted before, but there's no harm in doing it again...
You can locate your legislators at www.congress.org. If you choose to contact them, keep these things in mind:
And if this is going to work, spread the word to other organizations and people who can help oppose it. Do you subscribe to a magazine that would be interested in this? Send a letter to the editor. Does Consumer Reports print letters to the editor? If they do, send one their way. Lots of people read that magazine, people who may not otherwise find out about this.
Talk radio may be another useful outlet. If your local station has a show that has open discussions about any subject of interest to listeners, call in. Calling in to CNET Radio would be a good place to start. The CNET site says you can tune in at 910 AM in the Bay Area, at 890 AM in Boston, and on XM Satellite Radio, channel 130. Most every city has at least one talk station, so there are many places to call in.
There are other things you can do. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. If you get it published, great. Even if you don't, someone there has to read it, so at least the newspsper people will be educated, so they'll be more sensitized to the issue when they see it again.
Whatever you do, think of it in terms of getting information to the right people. With Congress, it's getting lots of people to contact them. With the public, it's getting as many people as possible familiar with the issue. It's a numbers game. Just don't forget that most people don't get their information primarily through the Internet. They log on to get their daily fix of the large Web sites and then log off. They may care about this, but you're going to have to reach them offline. Be creative. Think of it as a way to beat the big media companies at their own game. These guys most likely think they can get this garbage passed without the public ever knowing. Let's prove them wrong.
As a matter of fact, CNET Radio just reported on this thing. It was the last item in their newscast, and the whole report lasted about 20 seconds. That needs to get changed, and only our action can change it.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
I can't believe there are two +1 funny moderations to the above post. sure, sending in a $1000 endorsement is a bit far-fetched, but, damnit, Stefan is right. We would see massive changes and FAST.
It appears that even the slashdot community doesn't realize how bad this bill is.
I am SO scared by it that I almost (and may still) went out and bought a bleeding-edge computer with maximum everything and a DVD burner with a few hundred-pack dvdrs.
Problem is that I can't afford such an undergoing.
this bill will illegalize every computer currently on the market. it will illegalize the GPL and all other OSS. it will illegalize MP3, DivX;-), OGG, PGP, and most SSL. it might even set us back to a level of usable technology equivalent to 1980.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Lies! Damn lies!
... if I can hear it... I can damn well copy it!
There is NOTHING... NOTHING stopping me from pointing a camcorder at the TV and running the audio outputs from my stereo into it and copying the damn thing.
Furthermore, if it can be displayed on a television, it can be copied. Just like Macrovision filters, a way to circumvent it will be found.
Even if the law requires televisions to recieve encrypted signals (which it might, you know), if I can get to the driver circuitry for the TV, I can copy it.
His bill isn't going to stop it, and, isn't even going to slow it down. All it's going to do is create another black market.
He and that scummy, child-brainwashing company called Disney... damn I wish that there was more I could do than write letters and carry picket signs.
What's worse, is that the rest of the Congress is going to buy into it, because none of them are technically savvy.
Sigh...
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Points I touched on (feel free to borrow these, to whatever extent they apply to you):
To save you a lookup:
Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tomorrow I'm going to hit Kennedy.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
the content protection scheme should be"promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible".
Excuse me? What's this "As many lawful uses as possible" stuff? What happens to the lawful uses that are not possible to "promote" with the scheme? I'll tell you what happens -- they get flushed down the toilet, because actually exercising those uses would involve circumventing the content control mechanism, which this act would make illegal. And who wants to bet that the scheme picked will claim that many, many uses are not possible to prmote? This act should have to promote All lawful uses. But it won't, because that wouldn't be possible. And Senator Hollings insists this must be possible. He says it multiple times in his press release, after all!
It really is the DMCA all over again, this time with hardware.
The copy at Cryptome to which you linked is not the bill that was introduced; it's an old draft from last September. For instance, it doesn't have the provision concerning open source software that several people have brought up.
And wrote to my parents and friends an e-mail about this. It's extremely rare for me to say "Please forward" in anything I send. (Forgive me if you think this to be karma-whoring...)
Reading Slashdot every day sometimes makes me want to shoot every corporate and government entity on the planet as I figure out what they are doing to the US public every day. The DMCA, if you didn't already realize, is already doing some heavy damage, and it is highly unconstitutional: The DMCA in plain English.
Here's some of the latest abuses of the DMCA:
Writing a eBook convertor for the blind (the Sklyarov case): 1 2
No DVD software player for Linux and no research on cryptology
Blocking anti-Scientology sites
If you think that's scary, that's not even the icing on the cake! The newly-proposed law going to the Senate right now, the SSSCA, funded by the RIAA and the MPAA, is like the DMCA on crack. Passing it is suicide to all things technological!
The SSSCA in plain English: 1 2 3
The SSSCA (now the CBDTPA) is in the Senate
If this new CBDTPA gets passed, computers several years from now will not be the computers we have today. They will be limited pieces of hardware, hard-coded to prevent you from doing "bad things". They will monitor your activities. And this will affect everything from car stereos to TVs to anything else "computer related". If it has a format or something to "protect", it will be affected. This includes you and the way you use computers!
How can you make things secure, if you don't have the tools to test security? This is on par with banning crowbars because they can be used to break into a home, instead of arresting the robbers that use them.
So, what can you do about it? The ACLU actually isn't paying much attention to this one, because it's not really their realm. The real freedom fighter in cases like these is the EFF. The EFF is a well-known organization that some people have called "the ACLU for technology". Many computer techs are members. Wil Wheaton was one of the Star Trek guests on a "Weakest Link" special episode, who chose the EFF as his donating organization. (He won them $10,000 on that show.)
The EFF is truly the only line of defense for this. Voting doesn't work. Petitions don't work. The only thing that works (unforunately) is money, and fighting the system with its own laws. The RIAA and MPAA "donated" over $50 million dollars to both political parties! We need to fight back and donate to the EFF! I just donated my dues to the EFF today, because they are going to need it now.
Please forward this to all of your friends! Donate to the EFF now!!!
Zodiac Survey
The problem with government is that it only has the power that people give it. How do people give the government power? Through ignorance and apathy.
People are largely ignorant of technical issues, and few of those who know care.
If you haven't written a congressperson or senator about this issue yet, you are part of the problem. If you do not vote in elections, you are part of the problem. If you do not participate in a party's Primary, you are part of the problem. If you don't write letters to the editor of your local paper, you are part of the problem. If you do not support organizations like the EFF in one way or the other, you are part of the problem.
I'm not saying you have to become a full-time activist to do this. I'm working 60-hour weeks and have a girlfriend and others I need to take care of right now, but I'm MAKING time to take care of this and I MADE time to vote because Democracy is not a spectator sport.
Use the power and rights you've been given, before they are taken away.
Now is the time. Not "tomorrow."
Make time to care.
Hollings was going to go with the above "truth in naming" title for the act, but his advisors recomended against it. But don't think too harshly of him -- The MPAA wanted him to name it the "Happy Children and Fuzzy Puppies Promotion Act", but he declined. Even that was a step away from their first try, the "Child Rape Discouragement Act", which was dropped because despite being more difficult to argue against ("You mean you're -for- child rape, Senator?") it was a little distrubing to think about.
The enemies of Democracy are
Hm, after the whole Anthrax scare, I heard a rumor that letters will be scanned and emailed to offices. Is this true? If this is so, it will be just as easy for the office user to hit the "delete" key and feel no more obligation to reply than to any other email.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
The chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Howard Coble (R-North Carolina) opposes the bill and won't bring it up therefore the bill is DOA.
This might just be the first time a Republican from the ol' Tabacco country actually did something useful.
Oh, and while I suppress my laughter thinking of Hollings' "evil mouse-ear masters" let me point out that even if the SSSCA is enacted, everyone will just buy electronics from overseas non-compliant manufacturers.
Then the USTR will get into the mix, or Customs, and restrict the import of non-compliant devices (if the statute hasn't already...). Then, overseas manufacturers will haul our sorry asses before the WTO becuase our virtual embargoes on non-DRM compliant devices will constituent unreasonable restraints of trade. Bananas, anyone?
Doh... yes, gentlemen, their is a cost of shoehorning open everyone else's markets to our superior goods - and that is that when their goods are superior, they get to shoe-horn them into ours. You can kill the market, but you can't kill the demand. And if you treatied-away your right to kill the market... too bad.
Ricardo strikes (again). Maybe the should have Industry thought that one out before they got us into this whole globalization thing.
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
I think the theory is that if the give the damn thing a clumsy enough acronym, it will fool everyone into voting for it.
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
If you complain/voice your opinion, be nice about it. The last thing your representative wants is to read a bunch of garbage from "Joe USAizain" who is just blabbing off about how he things this bill sucks because everyone at /. does.
Voice your opinions about why you think it's bad, not what others say. If you think it might lock OSS out of PCs, say so. If you think it might make a black market, say so. etc, etc. Try not to go off on tangents without tying them back in to your original topic (SSSCA or whatever it's called these days) and using it to furthur your argument.
Also, KISS. Your rep gets lots of mail and doesn't have time to read 10 page rants. Keep it concise, and offer to provide more info should they be interested (put it on a webpage that they can visit at their leisure so they don't even have to contact you for it). Make sure you don't alienate the peopel who are trying to help you!
--MonMotha
So the sole purpose of this bill is to stop piracy of movies on the Internet?
So now we're supposed to all have difficult addons to all our electronic tools just for that?
How about first starting at making a bill that forces the gun industry to make guns that can't kill innocent people. And if they can't come up with a solution in 2 years, the government will come up with one: Welded-shut barrels.
Then cars that can't run over people and pets.
Then alcohol that doesn't result in drunk drivers or violent drunks.
Then cigarettes that don't spread smoke around the smoker.
Then sleeping pills that can't overdose a person.
...
Why suddenly is the revenue stream of poor unprotected Hollywood so much more important than protecting the lives of so many innocent people killed each year.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
The BSA are the mongrels who send quasi-legal threatening letters to every business in the country demanding we tell them what software we're using.
I Can't see them being against this.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Well, Jack? Where's all those lawsuits?
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
We believe these activities should focus on three key matters concerning digital piracy: (1) establishing a "broadcast flag" to prevent unauthorized Internet redistribution of digital broadcast programming, the use of which will not affect consumers' "time shifting" of programming, (2) plugging the "analog hole" that exposes digital programming to potential widespread theft, and (3) limiting the rising tide of unauthorized peer-to-peer file distribution of copyrighted works.
while the Intel-AOL statement posted yesterday talks about:
Does it worry anyone else that Hollywood is so confident they've figured out a way to protect their digital streams end-to-end that they are starting to focus the debate on preventing analog copies as a means of bypassing DRM?
Hollings has his head up his "Analog hole".
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Here we go again, more stupid old white guys up to no good. When will it ever end?
;)
hehe, that artical about the CBDTPA being for "consumers" is simply (one of) the largest piles of garbage I have heard in a while. Apparently, we are not being allowed to get access to "high quality" content because we we don't have something such as the CBDTPA in place. ROFL... are you KIDDING me?! I can spout off at least 3 real reasons why high quality content might be being held back. One of those reasons is Microsoft, the second is also Microsoft, and the third is the lack of support and adoption of more web standards.
Censoring and corporatizing the web like the television is NOT the answer. For christ sake... look at what a pile of crap TV is (with the exception of The Simpsons and Adult Swim).
What really scares me is that these corporations will probably get their way eventually. They are big, powerful, and they have done it before... time and time again. Heck, some of these guys have gotten the US to invade and occupy freek'n countries... what chance does the little 'ol web stand.
I have a feeling that it is going to get a lot worse then having to cut VeriSign a check for your chunk of cyber space... a lot worse. We need to get some legitimate campaign finance reform to stop these stupid old white men from giving soft money to the people that can make this type of garbage "legal".
Sorry for the liberal rant
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Making assumptions about how a politician might vote based on political party affiliation may have been a safe bet years ago, but it isn't now. Don't forget that Patrick Leahy is strongly against this, and he's a Democrat. I'm not trying to start a fight over which party favors what, merely to point out that you can't make any assumptions on this issue. Everyone's rep needs to hear from them, no matter which way we think they're inclined to vote. In fact, if you think that Sen. Kerry is supporting this to the extent that he can't be turned, then that's a very good reason to bombard him with mail on this issue. It may give him some pause for thought if an issue that he saw as a no-brainer looks like it might turn around and bite him in the ass.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Let's say I record my own song using no RIAA-owned content whatsoever. Now I want to make sure nobody copies it, using this CBDPTA-mandated protection technology that is built into every computer. If it isn't available to me, but only to RIAA/MPAA, then it is even more ridiculous than I thought, but let's pretend it actually protects the rights of all artists, including me...(struggling to stifle laughter)
My song happens to have a waveform that is similar to (but not exactly the same as, just enough so that I am not violating their rights) that of the Windows XP kernel interpreted as raw PCM. Windows XP wasn't music before, so AFAIK it wasn't covered. But, since I have copyrighted something similar to it as music, is Windows now illegal since it could be considered circumvention to have it stored in memory, and it sounds nearly the same as my song?
It seems like this would allow the RIAA/MPAA to arbitrarily lock parts of other people's computers off from them, and even if only on these grounds this bill should face the firing squad. Hey, company X, do you want your database backends, your payroll machines, your top secret R&D machines, to all be open to the record companies because of this ridiculous bill?
OK... I don't know why anyone didn't point this out.
... god... how do you pronounce that?
Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act
CBDTPA
see bee dee tee pee ah?
You can't protest against that! I mean what are you going say:?
"hay ho. hay hay..
we don't want no see bee dee tee pee ah"
!
They did this on purpose!
Kevin
Now that is a good point. I reckon, given a year or so, I could develop an entirely optical CD copier.
:P
I've already made my own CD autofocuser
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
How would someone start such a recall?
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Saying Musicians cant be paid is saying AOL doesnt get paid when you download the free AIM.
Musicians can provide a service, a subscription service for a small fee from which all their fans will subscribe to for say, a dollar a month.
Every month the musician releases a new song, the musician makes a dollar a song instead of a dollar a CD, the musician makes ALOT more money without record companies.
You dont get it, we still need musicians to make the music,
its a service, say you want water, sure water could be free, but someone has to open the gates to let the water flow through your pipes. What I'm saying is, once the gates are opened, anyone can access the water, but if theres a toll on the gate, a group of people who want water will pay.
Basically, only fans should pay, everyone else should just wait until the music is paid for and download it. Theres no one forcing Musicians to make music, which means they can charge a fee to make the music itself instead of charging for the CD.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
MPEG4 + 1GB CompactFlash card. (or microdrive) About the size of a large postage stamp.
He said a 'postage stamp', and that'd be a real big one, and much thicker. Besides, do you think someone who has the bling bling to run around buying 1GB CompactFlash cards and Microdrives expressly for the purpose of movies is actually going to waste the time pirating them? If I had that kind of cash, I'd buy four of each movie just to say I could.
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
No they dont. The musicians rights are already pretty much legistlated away or contractually taken away, they have very close to no rights at all... unless you mean the MPAA corporations have every right to get paid?
Redhat is a new company, all new companies struggle.
But if you dont like Redhat, check out amazon.com,or Ebay, both offer a service, they make money while still being free to us.
AOL is an ISP, most of their money comes from that, which is why they were able to buy Time Warner, Time Warner is a cable company, a magazine company, all of these things are services.
AOL controls your access to information, they do NOT sell information, the only part which sells information is the movie part of time warner, and that part is much smaller than the AOL, Cable, News and Magazine part.
Musicians have supported napster, the majority of musicians do not have record deals, they are playing music in subway stations, and having concerts barely surviving, these people see napster as a way to make big bucks in the same way people saw the internet as a way to make money.
While you are right, most people on napster wont pay for their music, fact is, they'll create fans, so more people will go to their concerts, buy their tshirts, and eventually the musicians will be able to set up a website and offer new songs directly to these people via a subscription service.
Yes you CAN make money with napster around, see you only listen to rich artists like metallica,
Thats as bad as only listening to rich CEOs asking them what they think about social security and the reccession, and then saying its the publics opinion.
Just because rich elite musicians are in the media all the time, doesnt change the fact that hundreds of thousands of musicians really made a living from stuff like mp3.com, and napster
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Thats true if record companies offered better quality and more songs people would still buy from them MAYBE, but thats not the point.
The point is, the internet FREES musicians from record companies, and frees consumers.
Musicians and Fans now have direct access to each other, if you like a song you can pay a musician a buck, a buck doesnt sound like much but to a musician who has millions of fans, thats far more money than they'd get from record companies.
Musicians with millions of fans could offer a subscription service, ISPs do it, Cable companies do it, why shouldnt musicians?
You dont have to sell content if you sell access to the content.Once content is released its released and its free, but someone has to pay for it to be released. If you think some artist with millions of fans, wont be able to get a few hundred thousand of those fans if not all of those fans to subscribe, then you are crazy.
Especially if its like a dollar a month. Hell alot of people would pay a dollar a track.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Ron Kirk (Democratic runoff contender)
P.O. Box 720160
Dallas TX 75372
(214) 841-1001
Fax (214) 841-1094
Victor Morales (Democratic runoff contender)
P.O. Box 878789
Mesquite TX 75187
(972) 427-9946
I have been unable to find a web page for Mr. Morales. Also, note that the email address may be incorrect.
The runoff is April 9, 2002.
John Cornyn (Republican nominee)
P.O. Box 13026
Austin TX 78711
(512) 494-8535
Fax (512) 494-8161
There is also a contact form you can fill out.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
I believe, legally speaking, that a "sale" is any time when you exchange something for consideration, in any form. So I don't think you can get away with any "Donate 50 bucks to the Peter Daly Beer Fund and get a FREE cd-rom!" tricks. But maybe you can, I'm no damn lawyer.
Wouldn't this make DVDs illegal?
But seriously - if there is something good about this bill, this is it.
Write letters to the eidtor of your local newspaper, write your old instructor at college, write your mom.
About 1976 in Missouri a ragtag group of us (and deed major credit to others) defeated an Army Corp of Engineers dam that had been planned for 30 years for the Merrimac River south of St. Louis. Our representatives all supported it - big money, inside influence, and all that was on the other side.
But, they did not focus on public opinion. We did. We organized letters to the St. Louis and all the local papers on a regular basis - we talked to the editors of the newspapers to get positive editorials - we honed and refined our arguments - we conducted opinion surveys - we did a thousand little grass roots activities. We got to know reporters, held protests, created organizations and issued press releases.
In this case, think of:
a) Finding a local newspaper and write to them this week. Then get a friend to write a letter the next weeek. Then repeat. The editors decide what to publish partly on volume.
b) After a while, organize a group and ask to see the edtior about the newspaper talking a stand in an editorial. See what it takes to get them to commit.
c) Figure out who does the local tech beat at the paper (or tv station) and figure what it takes to get them to write a story. Talk to them if you can. Organize, hold protests, issue press releases, picket a movie theater - get press.
d) Find allies. Who else cares? Movie theater owners? Perhaps a secure digital pipe means the theaters will lose out. Having chamber of commerce types on your side helps.
e) Produce graphics. T-shirts "I hate Hollings - ask me why!", Web banners, posters, anything to make it easy for someone else to express this opinion.
f) And, instead of letters, show up in force at your representatives town meetings. Ask questions at these forums. Make them give their opinion in public.
It takes hard, continuous work to fight a battle like this, and you have to match the opponent on all the battle fields, not just Congress.
Look at DVDs today? Can you put your home videos on DVDs and play in all DVD players?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
You dont understand the cause. Do you know what GNU and GPL is about? Open Source?
Theres two groups in this country. The group which wants informations to be free, which is against patents, and intellectual property, then you have the group which wants information to be owned.
Except that the GPL certainly isn't against "intellectual property". Since it is a copyright licence.
Also this is being presented as a false dicotomy of IP or no IP. There are many ways in which copyrights and patents could be reformed to work in ways which might be better. e.g. more limited terms, not being transferable, ending when the author/inventor dies, etc.
Microsoft makes money because Windows is preinstalled on almost every computer and most people have no idea there are alternatives.
The easiest way to make lost of money is to have a highly non-free market. If you had a free market then you'd instad get lots of companies making a moderate profit.
Actually, we don't need Microsoft. If Microsoft disappeared, there would be initial panic, then adjustment, and finally we'd realize we got things done in spite of Microsoft, not because of them. Developers would find it very easy to write code that would compile on Linux, *BSD or OSX.
You don't even need Microsoft to still be around for people to write programs for Windows. Indeed it might be easier, since programmers wouldn't be trying to hit a moving target.
We can control the market. Don't buy any new hardware that's SSSCA compliant. Don't go watch
movies that are lobbying to get this bill passed.
20th Century FOX is actully against this so I am
a FOX fan now, big time!
Boycott Disney!
It was shut down before they implemented features for artists to get paid and believe me it was in Napsters best interests to generate revenue.
Mp3.com had a business plan, Napster did not.
I've purchased CDs from mp3.com.
No name bands? Bands are no named because the record companies have a monopoly, destroy their monopoly and no name bands will become popular in their own right.
Mp3.com was a good example. alot of so called no named bands made hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Napster was used to get Music from MTV because Napster didnt have enough time to develop its own market.
Its true, you cant have the old and new. You have one or the other. MTV would eventually begin playing Mp3.com bands if the record companies lost their Just like OEMs will eventually pack in Linux once Microsoft loses its monopoly.
Who says the current monopoly is better
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The Digital rights management of the CBDTPA depends upon
watermarking. The sound card on a `copy frustrated' PC
checks whether the file it is being asked to output has a
watermark indicating that it should not be played. A major
danger is that false positives from the watermark check may
preventing you from playing your own content. You can repair
such a malfunction in either of these two ways.
If you are content with mono output, you can create a mono
signal M=L+R. Then, using an arbitary signal X, create new
left and right channels L'=M+X, R'=M-X. Finally, combine the
left and right channels outputs with two accurately matched
resistors. A trim-pot may be needed to prevent residual X
being audible in quiet passages.
Alternatively build a simple circuit with two resistors and
a diode to give an instantaneous non-linear transfer
function f. You will need another one g for the other
channel. Digitise a mono test signal T, with f(T) going to
the right channel and T going to the left channel. Calculate
the inverse of f, say invf. Similarly for g. Now put f and g
on the outputs of your sound card and play invf(L) and
invg(R). Your speakers recieve f(invf(L))=L and g(invg(R))=R
Why does this work? In the first case, DRM must permit the
playing of content with a large added signal, otherwise it
would block recording of talking when copyright music was
playing in the background. In the second case, the central
assumption of music watermarking is that attempts to erase
the watermark must preserve the short term magnitude
spectrum, otherwise the music will be distorted, but a
non-linearity gives rise to harmonics and intermodulation
products that change the short term magnitude
spectrum. These will shift your own content clear of any
accidental matches with copy frustration codes.
Anyone who buys so much as a single CD or DVD is directly contributing to the financing of bills like this. If you want to do something, stop buying them. Stop going to the movies. If you can't do that, spend your money on a huge hard drive, go to the local library or video rental place and take out whatever you want, take it home and make yourself a copy instead of supporting the enemy.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Note however that if this does pass I will buy a new computer before it goes into effect. I've been using my current computer for nearly 4 years now, and it still works fine. I've considered upgrading, but there is no compeling need to do so. However if this goes into effect I won't be able to upgrade afterwords, so I will upgrade to the best computer I can buy now, and live with that for as long as possibal.
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
If you really want to hurt them, boycott LOTR:TTT and LOTR:ROTK. They've already spent the money on those, so it's 100% pure loss if no one sees them.
Actually, I read recently that the money used to finance the shoot was so heavily leveraged and also subsidised by the NZ government, that New Line stood to lose less than $20 mil if LOTR flopped. They also used active duty NZ military for extras in the battle scenes, and to move all the earth needed to create the outdoor areas of the Shire. And the soldiers received only their regular government paychecks for their efforts.
Edith Keeler Must Die
From the Congressional Record:
Committee members are the following (note that both senators from Oregon are here, your call/letter will matter!). I'd include their phone numbers but the lameness filter doesn't like that...
DEMOCRATS
Ernest Hollings, SC, Chmn
Daniel K. Inouye, HI
John D. Rockefeller IV, WV
John F. Kerry, MA
John B. Breaux, LA
Byron L. Dorgan, ND
Ron Wyden, OR
Max Cleland, GA
Barbara Boxer, CA
John Edwards, NC
Jean Carnahan, MO
Bill Nelson, FL
REPUBLICANS
John McCain, AZ
Ted Stevens, AK
Conrad Burns, MT
Trent Lott, MI
Kay Bailey Hutchison, TX
Olympia J. Snowe, ME
Sam Brownback, KS
Gordon Smith, OR
Peter G. Fitzgerald, IL
John Ensign, NV
George Allen, VA
The Daily Build
It would be great if I knew who was paying off my senators here in Indianapolis-- where did you find that information?
Thanks!!!
But the people pushing this law don't care about new inventions. They only care about making more money. The carriage and buggy-whip industries would have had the right to outlaw automobiles if the government had granted that right.
I will buy a new computer before it goes into effect
Heck, I just earmarked $2000 to buy 3 maybe 4 computers (no monitors, no Windows). My current systems should last another 2-3 years and if each of the new ones gives me at least 3-5 years each, then another 3-5 years through cannablized parts, I should be good for about 20 years. Hopfully by then the "War on Freedom" will be over and we will have better times.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
The biggest problem with a mandated content control regime is that we all know the mandated scheme won't follow ALL the rules of copyright.
The content owners are all over the requirements regarding limiting of copying. They make noises about respecting fair use (we know they're lying, but let that go for the moment).
But, I haven't heard ANY proposal that deals with the Constitutional requirement that copyright is for a LIMITED time, and therefore any scheme for automatic digital rights enforcement MUST have an automatic expiration - there must be a way to disable the protection when the copyright expires.
This expiration mechanism must be built in at the same level as the copy-protection mechanism, because BOTH of them are required by the Constitution.
What do you think the chances are that a mandated content control scheme will simultaneously prevent copying, allow fair-use copying, allow unlimited copying when the copyright expires, and be uncrackable? And if it can't do all those things at once, guess which ones will be dropped as infeasible.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Usually "Fair Use!" is the right rallying cry, but in this case I doubt it will be effective. They are already promising to uphold fair use of the content you purchase. (Yes I know, I don't trust them either, but that's what they'll say -- it's what Hollings already said -- RTFA.)
In this case the right thing to point out is that they are tying the hands of hardware and software designers. Most specifically, open source software will no longer be legal ... but neither will open hardware specs. Innovation will be constrained to follow whatever rules industry / the FCC comes up with.
Perhaps the right way to protest this bill is to point out that it will stifle innovation and erect an unreasonable barrier to entry into all computing markets.
If you want to argue fair use, point out that in developing this industry standard we will all be forced to comply with, there is absolutely no incentive to protect any fair use rights - essentially the individual consumer doesn't hold any cards. So unless we can trust the FCC to be a watchdog for consumer rights (har har har), fair use will be an almost certain casualty - whatever the bill says about protecting it.
Other flaws that come to mind:
1. The DMCA was supposed to bring us exciting new media content. It didn't. If Senator Hollings wants to tell us that that's the whole purpose of the SSSCA^H^H^H^H^HAICNQR (Acronym I Can Never Quite Remember), he's either lying to us or to himself, or just deluded by the unofficial sponsors of the bill (you know who I'm talking about).
2. One of Sen. Hollings's points is that broadband is offered to something like 60-80% of the American public but only 10-15% subscribe. (I could have messed up the figures - but I did read the article. (: ) He basically blames this national calamity on the assertion that Hollywood just hasn't made the 'net cool enough yet. Therefore, to make sure everyone gets wired, we need to create a safe world for Hollywood.
Stuff and nonsense! Whoever said that universal broadband was necessary or even desirable? If the consumer doesn't want it, well, maybe that's OK! Maybe broadband is just overpriced and the various cable monopolies / cartels need to be addressed, or something. But since when was it the role of the federal government to ensure the mass adoption of specific new technology? (OK, so the FCC tries to do this cf. HDTV, but honestly, cable modems?!?!?)
My point here is that Hollings is again being either deliberately deceptive or is himself deluded. If the stated goal of the SSSCA is to increase broadband use, the federal government is definitely stepping way out of its mandate. If not, it's a smoke screen and someone should probe Sen. Hollings's real movitavation. (Yes, you and I already know the real motivation. But anyway.)
3. Point out that the technology isn't feasible. From an electronics point of view, a camcorder pirated movie looks a great deal like a home movie. Watermarking is supposed to differentiate between the two, but all watermarking can be defeated so far, according to Professor Felton, who should know. Sen. Hollings seems to have a lot of faith in technology - but can he really guarantee that the industry will be able to produce consumer-grade technology which will successfully prevent camcorder movie piracy while still allowing camcorders? I wouldn't bet on it, and neither should Congress.
4. This bill is being billed as good for consumers. Shouldn't they get the opinions of a few consumers? Ask anyone: "If Congress passes a bill that makes MP3 players illegal, and many consumer electronics will go up $100 per unit to cover new features whose purpose is to prevent you from breaking the law, on the assumption that you would otherwise break the law, and you probably will not be able to burn your own `mix' compilation CDs as is perfectly legal today, and third-party plugins for Windows Media Player to do fancy oscilloscope displays and such will most likely disappear due to the new restrictions ... but in return, you will be able to buy movies over the Internet and download them instead of having a DVD shipped to you ... given that set of tradeoffs, would you be in favor of that?" This of course ignores many issues such as making free software illegal, but I'd still bet the average consumer would look at you funny and say "They'd never pass that sort of law!"
Semi-offtopic: my 13-year-old sister was in town yesterday. I happened to be wearing my copyleft DeCSS t-shirt, and she asked about it. I explained that the back of the shirt was an illegal computer program, a guy had gone to jail for it. She was puzzled: "Isn't that free speech?" And she's not (yet) even a geek! I was so proud! (: Just goes to show that even the "average American" (not that my sister is average, mind!) can "get it", given a few facts.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
On the other hand, lack of broadband penetration has a *lot* to do with availability. The notion that people aren't getting it because Disney films aren't available online is laughable. First off, the infrastructure couldn't really handle the load if everyone viewed streaming video for 8 hours a day. Second, prices are actually rising because the FCC has failed to use their regulatory power ot open markets, and has instead encouraged the "market" by giving monopoly powers a free hand to strangle the competition. If you don't think so, ask any of the hundreds of small (and many large) DSL providers wiped out in the last few years. Ask almost anyone who's tried to get DSL. Ask anyone who wants to host games on the internet, but can't because AOLTimeWarnerRoadRunner says so. Ask what the lack of pay-per-view Brittany Spears video from the Rat Kingdom has to do with that (though the video where her boob pops out is pretty funny).
The whole situation gets worse. If they enact these kind of controls, people will hold on to their legacy devices longer. Especially as the costs of compliance with this legislation are passed on to them. The electronics industries will lose, in real dollars, far more than the entertainment industry will lose in imaginary dollars (where the imaginary dollar is me downloading a track I wouldn't have bought anyway).
If this legislation passes, I bet the NASDAQ hits 500 within six months.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Excerpt from Sen. Hollings letter to President George W. Bush.
Shouldn't broadcast television not be encrypted? Why waste the time and effort to hide the content... isn't the point of broadcast to flood the area with the content... FOR FREE!?!?!?! Flooding the content... same with radio! Television/radio stations get their word out by giving away the content in mass form for free! They certainly are not in dire need for super strict legal actions to be taken by the federal government. Similar with drugs and many other things, making these kinds of laws wont decrease crime, it will increase the number of criminals and thus increase criminal activity (punishable by $500,000 fines and 5 years in prision).
To quote one of my favorite bands, Pro-Pain:
"If you're proud of your country then you're probably rich
But if you're fed up you better piss, moan and bitch."
Democracy leaves a foul taste of freedom in me!
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
So, I feel I can complain. I found out which candidate was closest to my world view -- and voted for him. However, you had to really look to find anything out about Harry Brown, and even Nader did not get the kind of coverage that Bush and Gore did. Even at that, the two-party system has fooled people into thinking that they have to vote for one of the major party candidates or their vote is wasted.
-------------------------------------------------
Result: no new movies, the MPAA goes bust, and then we can repeal the bill unopposed.
(d) SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS. -- In achieving the goals of setting open security standards that will provide effective security for copyrighted works, the security system standards shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that -
(1) the standard security technologies are --
(A) reliable;
(B) renewable;
(C) resistant to attack;
(D) readily implemented;
(E) modular;
(F) applicable in multiple technology platforms;
(G) extensible;
(H) upgradable;
(I) not cost prohibitive; and
(2) any software portion of such standards is based on open source code.
hmmm...
"All these techies say it should be open source, let's cave in so we can pass this thing."
"Ok, sounds good, but what's open source?"
"I donno, but if all these nerds like it, it must be good!"
The phrase "to the extent practicable" is an open-ended bit of weasel wording.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.