Slashdot Mirror
More Details on the CBDTPA
Gemini and many others wrote in with still more info regarding CBDTPA, formerly the SSSCA. Wired has a story. Cryptome has transcribed the text. The Senate Judiciary Committee has a web-form where you can submit comments (although directly contacting your representatives may be better). IMHO, the best thing people can do is explain to less-knowledgeable folks exactly what is at stake. When ABC News (Disney) and Fox News (News Corporation) discuss this, they're not going to be spending much time talking about the downside. Update: 03/23 00:55 GMT by M : EFF has an alert with a sample letter to Congress and background on the issue.
Could this even include websites?
"The definition will cover just about anything that runs on your computer -- except maybe the clock,"
As seen in the recent Google fiasco, they could possibly bend this to even including websites.
Jason Lotito
I haven't seen anything recently that comes near this in terms of killing innovation. Am I the only one who envisions people everywhere hoarding dinosaur computers running ancient yet empowered software? Coders in hidden bunkers with a stockpile of unhampered obsolete motherboards, and vast cd librarys of ancient kernels and applications ??
What's in a Sig?
I really wish I could figure out what to do. Reason isn't going to sway these people and neither is the fear of the destruction of the future of computing (not even the future of computing in America).
You know, I honestly wish I could believe the stuff he wrote in the letter about really being concerned about digital theft because then I could try to reason with him. Unfortunately, the way the letter is written, it seems that he has simply chosen the Disney/Fox side of the issue. I mean, the letter is very passively worded but there is no way to look at this except as legislation against the digital technology industry.
I explained the issue carefully in my initial letter, but the points I raised are not addressed in his reply.
I'm pretty stubborn, so I'm going to write a reply to his reply. I don't know if it will help or not. (Still, I've always enjoyed tilting at windmills...)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Does this mean that choosing *not* to publish with content protection is also illegal? Would that not be a mind-boggling violation of the first amendment? Does it not also totally eliminate the public domain and fair use for digital works?
This reading doesn't seem to agree with the Senator's introductory statements of yesterday. Seems that Disney has decided we're all along for the ride whether we like it or not. Good way to put the competition out of business too.
Remember when the words "competition" and "free enterprise" actually meant something?
"It would in essence turn your PC into only a VCR playback machine, and you wouldn't have the capabilities to move digital content around like you do today," complained P.J. McNealy, a research director for the Gartner G2 firm.
http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48567,00.html
I have yet to see a story on Cnn.Com or MSNBC.Com.
Remember, you are dealing with organizations and companies that only care about increasing revenues and profits to appease their shareholders, even when the economy is/was in a recession and/or the number of consumers/buyers stays stagnant.
To the "honorable" Senator from New York,
My name is Kenneth Witherow. I am a computer consultant and writer from the town of Livonia, NY. I am writing regarding a recently proposed legislative bill, S 2048 the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA). I strongly urge you to vote against this bill.
The main premise of the bill is to create encryption systems to protect digital content but despite the good intentions, it will cause great harm to independent content creators, computer programmers, electronic hobbyists and others. It seeks to force digital mechanisms such as computers to restrict the access to various media content used in conjunction with it. In this pursuit, it restricts a person's ability to make copies for personal use as allowed under both law and rulings from the Supreme Court.
Content producers claim that they cannot distribute the works via a digital medium for fear that the content will be illegally copied. The government should not have the power to sustain a business in the modern age because it's old methods are not any longer viable. Digital content is extremely inexpensive to reproduce and the reason why forays into this area fail is because the content producers refuse to lower their pricing to suit the new market. Why is it that a compact disc costs $18 while a tape, which is more expensive to produce, costs a mere $12? The content industry claims that the sky is falling with the introduction of every new advance in their field. Television would be the end of radio, VCRs the end of the movie business, MP3s the end of music distribution. Why is it that an independent band can generate revenues selling their music for a modest price on the internet but huge record labels cannot? The obvious answer is the music cartel, RIAA, knows it's business model is outdated and refuses to change because that would eliminate it's power. If this bill is passed, independent artists will not be able to create and distribute works due to the requirements of CBDTPA and the barriers to entry for non-wealthy creators. The MPAA and other institutions are in similar situations.
Because Microsoft has recently patented the system of Digital Rights Management, the adoption of the CBDTPA would ensure that the Microsoft monopoly will continue well into the future. As a user and developer of an alternate operating system, Linux, Microsoft would prevent us from using DRM to comply with the CBDTPA and it would be illegal for Linux to continue without it. This bill stifles software development and ensures that a monopoly will be further seated in it's power, ensuring that it will hurt consumers even more.
In 1998, another bill, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was signed into law. This law greatly restricts my fair use rights, especially because I use an operating system without a licensed DVD player available for it. One of the most damaging portions of the DMCA is that it makes illegal what made the PC possible in the first place - it outlaws reverse engineering. When the DMCA is combined with products sold under the CBDTPA, it is quite obvious that the result is content which is not available in a usable means, not copyable and illegal to retrieve via engineering methods. This ensures that content will never effectively enter into the public domain after it's copyright expires which is a gross violation of the Constitution's decree "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;". These two bills, not to mention the continual extension of copyright, ensure that the first two portions of this charge are violated. Restriction of engineering and software creation does not promote science. Inability to access works in a non-creator provided method does not allow exclusivity to last for a limited time.
You also recently voted for the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill which means that you personally think money has a corrupting influence in politics. It is well worth noting that the entertainment industry was your fifth highest ranking donator so I am sure their money may influence your decision since you've stated it does. I never voted for you, nor will I ever vote for you, but if you vote for this legislation, my simple vote against you will turn into a local campaign against you assuming your Campaign Finance Reform "fix" doesn't ban me from speaking against you before the election as it currently does. Again, I strongly urge you to vote against S 2048.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
I liked the idea, from the story about Christian Scientists, of us "small guys" running ads on Google. So I put up a "recall Senator Hollings" ad which ran on any search of "South Carolina" -- but that was pulled after 600 impressions. I've revised it now to warn of the loss of fair use and expired copyrights, and it appears on any search including the words Hollings, SSSCA, or CBDTPA. It links to the EFF alert. I could only put $250 into this, so the ad will probably disappear after a week or so.
I hope others might consider "extending" my ad with ads of their own, especially if you can think of some smart keywords that might make the ad more relevant as people are searching. Or donate directly to the EFF. Or put your weight behind digitalconsumer.org (they've got some big names helping them out, so we're not alone here).
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Well, if this one passes I'm thinking of renting a bus, getting a bunch of coders and heading north. Obviously it will become impossible to continue working in the IT field here in America.
I think we should probably emphasize this fact to the legislature. Passage of this bill in its current form would basically destroy IT here in this country. Since I work for a multi-national corporation it would be particularly interesting to see how that would work. Just think of the efforts required to change every file server and mail server in the US...
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Frankly I am sick of the power of the Federal Government. This goes WAYYYY beyond their function.
For me as a tech professional, the answer is simple. I WILL emigrate somewhere else if this passes. The tech industry will dry into nothing behind the content firewall. The only employemnt you will get will be black market work and you will always be looking over your shoulder (although you will probably double or triple your salary, of course on the other hand you could go to prison). Hell of a country eh?
I like the idea of moving to Germany. At least they had enough sense to boot out M$ and embrace Linux. Good Bier too!
I am not joking. If this passes, I'm out of here.
-- Mean People Suck
Before they wrote the US Constitution they wrote a preamble explaining why they did it: "in Order to form a more perfect Union, etc..."
Well, the Honorable Senator Hollings' law will have a preamble, too: "We the Lawmakers of the United States, in Order to form a more profitable Media Industry..."
That said, I do plan to let the Honorable Sen. Boxer (D-CA) know how I feel about this...
Also, I don't recall seeing a good list posted of what to do and what to avoid when contacting government, so here is the EFF's list of Dos & Don'ts. Read it. Know it. Live it.
-MKD
As soon as locked DVDs move into the public domain, DeCSS suddenly has a very legitimate use-- to permit access to "free" content.
The supporters of this bill are also working to see that stuff doesn't ever elevate to the public domain.
But I wonder: Wouldn't it just take ONE copyright holder who's previously locked a DVD with CSS to say "AS OF NOW, My movie is now in the public domain" to totally legitimize DeCSS? It would no longer pass the "solely to circumvent protection of copyrighted works" test.
On this view, copyright expiration and/or the potential for voluntary relicensing may legitimize every single anti-DRM tool.
Has this been discussed before?
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Hmmm... the bill states that no person can offer for INTERSTATE commerce a device that has had the copy-prevention technology "castrated" from the device...
I live in good 'ole New Hampshire --- does this mean that I can sell non SSSCA/whatever-compliant computers, but only to people who live in NH?
-RickTheWizKid