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.
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.
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
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?"
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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."
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
...something very, very profane.
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
"(2) Any software portion of such standards is based on open source code"
--PhillipFree Mac Mini
...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
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...
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
(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
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."
Newly developed digital compression and memory technologies make it possible to store two complete movies on a device the size of a postage stamp.
Really? Why didn't I hear about these? It would obsolete DVDs, CDs, even hard drives in one go! Wow! When is the wonder technology available?
Or maybe he's just talking about memory sticks. I guess if you compressed it down to like 32x48 with 8 or 9 FPS you might be able to fit two on a 256mb stick.
Or maybe he's talking about actual hard drive space? I guess two movies, in mpeg2 (DVD quality) would take roughly 4GB. In a 160GB HDD, that's roughly 1/40th of the total space devoted to two movies. If you figure that the average harddrive has a volume somewhere around 10 cu.in., that means that 2 movies would be 1/4th of a cubic inch, right? That's still a lot bigger than a stamp. Oh well.
God bless Politicians and their multiple axises of evils.
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
Intel opposes the SSSCA, but they are still in favor of DRM and legislation mandating DRM. I don't know about you, but the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.