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.
FOX News and Disney are unified in support. They're at opposite sides of the political spectrum (Rupert Murdoch's "empire" -- including FOX, the NY Post and others -- is conservative and Disney is much more liberal). It seems that they are banding together for the purpose of world domination... or something like that.
Sen. Hollings says the reason broadband isn't as popular today as it should have been is because media giants are afraid to provide large quantities of digital content to the masses over it. Therefore, the public has no 'interest' in broadband. This is blatently wrong. Then he goes on to say the entertainment industry needs a "nudge" in the right direction... which is presumably to come up with a standard for thwarting piracy. Then, the best part, he says that, in order to increase public interest in broadband, the government needs to step in to regulate the digital media industry a little. So my point, and question, is: Since when is it the government's job to promote public interest in a certain area, especially with regards to entertainment????
"When ABC News (Disney) and Fox News (News Corporation) discuss this, they're not going to be spending much time talking about the downside."
That is, unless they can relate it to the plot of a movie their production studios currently have in wide release. Then it will be the lead story!
Read our Oscar Predictions!
tcd004
Probably the largest advantage the CBDTPA gives corporations over the SSSCA is that it is extremely hard to pronounce or remember, and is sufficiently long enough to keep it from coming up in day-to-day conversation.
slashdot!=valid HTML
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 called both of my states (MD) Senators earlier today to make sure that I got in my "Don't you dare vote for this" early.
Neither office even knew the bill had been presented to the Senate.
This isn't on everyone's radar yet. We need to make sure it *gets* on their radar, though. Call them. Bug them. Make them realize just how unpopular voting for this will make them. (But, as I'm sure others will say, don't be rabid about it...just firm.)
The Politech site has more background here, including press releases from supporters and opponents. EFF and ACLU have not said anything on this new bill yet -- I hardly think they support it, but some statements would be nice.
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This isn't on everyone's radar yet.
I was wondering about this very issue. I will certainly be writing my senators about the CBDTPA, but it seems like there might be a risk of having my comments pushed to the back corner of some desk if they arrive too far in advance of the vote. Does anyone have any thoughts on the best time to submit a letter?
so you want to tell your Senators "vote no on S 2048". They'll understand...
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
CALL YOUR SENATORS. Handwritten letters are nice too, but what really matters is calling. You will get answered by a congressional staffer. Say the following:
"Hi, my name is _____ and I live in _______ in your district. I am calling to register my opposition to Senate Bill 2048. Thank you".
That's it. Unless you include a large check, they don't care WHY you oppose it really, but they DO care they you can vote for or against them.
Think about it this way: they can't spend the money, except on getting re-elected. Therefore, your vote costs a certain amount. If you call them and tell them the way you wish them to vote, they know that if they don't vote that way, they've lost a vote regardless of how much they spend. AND if you called, that means a lot of people probably think the same way, but weren't motivated enough to pick up the phone.
It's quick, simple, and took me all of 5 minutes, including looking up the phone number. DO IT.
Umm...they used the word "open", not "free". "open" is unambiguous.
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
1) While technology will often come up with a solution that is "good enough" to do a job, it is quite another to make something technically perfect. Absolute requirements for all devices everywhere to meat a certain perfect standard will meet as many difficulties as mandating a perfectly safe car.
2) No Law should enforce draconian measure to protect an industry that is unable to keep up with the market.
3) Contrary to media industry spokesman, Actual sales on CDs went up during the time that Napster was running, and have since declined since Napster was shut down. Part of this was the browsing capability of the software. This was similar to you visiting a friends house, and seing what books, music, etc are in their collection, and so deciding to check it out since they already have things you like to begin with. Now this shut off.
4) People are becoming more educated about non-mainstream artists, and are starting to broaden their horizons. Therefore, they are not buying the same old product that is pumped out by the pop mills.
5) People may avoid the technology like the plague, and will get really upset for being forced to upgrade their equipment that they bought years ago.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Are you trying to fuck everything up? Are you trying to turn the clock back to the fucking dark ages?
How can so many of you sit on your fat fucking asses and let this happen? I can't do anything about this because I don't live in the USA... but it doesn't matter because sooner or later you'll wind up exporting your stupid fucking laws to my country via treaty or something like that. My own government and people will look to you as an example, and I weep for the leadership you've abandoned.
You're really starting to scare the shit out of me down there, you Yanks. What happened to the land of free? How could you have sold out your precious freedom to big business and corporations? How could we have let you?
The America told in stories, the America talked about in your beautiful constitution is now dead to the world.
You're too big to take on now. I weep for what this world will become.
I know Intel and other big-name hardware companies are opposed to this bill. They ought to sponsor a march/techfest on Washington to make the point.
"When ABC News (Disney) and Fox News (News Corporation) discuss this, they're not going to be spending much time talking about the downside."
That's odd. Fox News did an article bashing the SSSCA. Not that I like Fox News that much, but like MSNBC, they aren't going to skew their story to what their company feels. That would just piss off readers.
Zodiac Survey
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)
when Fox is THE ONLY news outlet to have carried an editorial explaining why the SSSCA was bad, in layman's terms nonetheless.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47296,00.html
Come on Michael. You can do better.
Anyone know whether or not there's a date set for voting on the bill? I want to call my senators to voice my opposition, but their offices are closed until Monday. I'd rather speak with a staffer in person rather than leaving a message on a machine.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
What a marketing strategy for Hollywood - get the Federal Government to start pushing their products. Wow. Does anyone still think Congress isn't for sale?
What if Congress was this interested in promoting education and science instead of movies? You would be better off.
But when you look at the quarterly report they send to their stockholders, do you see an entry showing a huge loss to "piracy"? Hell, no. In fact, you won't even find such an entry!
Oh, I won't deny that "piracy" happens. But when these companies continue to report increased earnings, it should be obvious that "piracy" isn't having the effect they claim -- their claim of huge losses is complete bullshit.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
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?
Remember though, there were concessions made for fair use in the DMCA, and I can't think of a single situation where they've applied. The only reason they've put this stuff in there is to get this atrocious bill through.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't understand why the Hollywood content types would be pushing this. As I understand it (and please let me know if I am missing something), this law would require computing devices to have some kind of copy control mechanism. As has been shown countless times before, only hardware copy controls have any chance of being robust and effective.
So, it would seem that the effect of this law would be to require hardware devices to be integrated into future digital devices. But, if the content producers could, on their own, come up with a workable hardware solution, they could simply start releasing content that is only viewable through such a hardware device. That would cause the hardware industry to include these copy control pieces into the devices that people intend to use to watch content. The beauty of this would be that all of the folks who believe that movies and music on a PC are (and always will be) awful, can choose a PC without these control devices. True, we won't be able to watch all the wonderful Hollywood content on our PCs, but then, I don't believe most people want to.
What I am afraid this law would do is require that I foul up my computers with various control devices (e.g. will I still be able to record music in my home studio and mix in on my computer? How much harder will it be?), even though I have no intention of watching any of this Hollywood content on my PC. What does Hollywood gain by that? Without their hardware control devices, I can't watch their encoded content, so why can't I have a "Hollywood content-free" PC that is configured to work the way I want it to work?
-Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
vote NO on S-2K.
Paul
Throughout history, governments have been subject to corruption and all too often have sold the rights of their citizens away to the highest bidder. The US now faces such a time, as it has before. Therefore, I offer this proposal to solve the problems of rule by the highest bidder.
Now, before I am labelled as an anti-establishment hippie, allow me to present my case to you. I will outline the historic case of government corruption in the United States as well as offering a method to ensure that such corruption will never happen again. Hear me out before you make your decisions. The Historic Case: America in the Gilded Age (1870-1930) The years following the Civil War in the US, often called Reconstruction, are also known as the Gilded Age. During this period, political parties, using political machines like Tammany Hall, they were able to harass, threaten, and force people to vote in the manner the party wanted. All government actions were in control of the party. Appointments, elections, campaigns, etc were all controlled by corrupt party bosses. Voters were often gathered together like a flock of sheep on Election Day, taken to local bars, intoxicated, and then taken around to vote at several different polling stations under the lead of party bosses. Edgar Allan Poe died because of these party bosses, who filled him with liquor (which he was allergic to), took him around to get him to vote five or six times, and then left him for dead.
Such concern for the public is touching, is it not?
Also, during this period, Big Business, fueled by the Industrial Revolution, grew more and more powerful and more and more corrupt. Standard Oil, the Rockefellers, Carnagie, the RailRoads; all of these businesses used a system of bribery and quid pro quo to keep the government from investigating their illegal and immoral practices. The Railroads changed rates, gouged customers, impoverished farmers, all to make a profit. The meat factories in the cities exploited their workers. Upton Sinclair, in his book The Jungle, described the unsafe and unsanitary conditions under which meat was packaged. The American Federation of Labor lobbied for workers' rights and protection against the abuse of Big Business.
Finally, under Theodore Roosevelt, Big Business was muzzled. The FDA, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and other Progressive legislation were all passed. Big Business had a standard to live up to. Workers had rights and dignity guarenteed to them. Finally, the evils of the Gilded Age seemed to be at an end. Will We Never Learn? America in the Second Gilded Age (1950-2002) Now America faces a new Gilded Age. Money is considered a form of Free Speech. Corporations are allowed the rights of citizens (except that a corporation doesn't have to pay taxes and can't be tried for criminal conduct). Once again, industries are trying to enslave their workers and their consumers, all for the Almighty Dollar.
The Recording Industry Artists Association, a group of distributers who can't play Mary Had A Little Lamb on the piano, are now legally allowed to hold the copyright on any work they distribute in perpetuity. The Satellite Home Viewing Act of 1999 has a clause that makes all sound recordings works-for-hire. Courtney Love has spoken out against the RIAA and its illegal actions at Salon.com. This bill was altered after all the arguments and debates were settled. There was no chance for a revisiting of this issue before it was sent off to the President. A boy who only had the authority to spellcheck the bill altered it at the request of the RIAA, in such a way as that no one had a chance to fight the alteration.
The RIAA, the MPAA, Disney, and other Hollywood industries are now trying to force another bill through the Senate. The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), a bill that outlaws all fair use rights of the consumer as well as outlawing innovation in technology has been proposed by Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina. This Senator recieved over $300,000.00 in campaign contributions from Disney alone. Tell me there is no quid pro quo going on now.
As bad as the RIAA is with its desire to enslave musicians in contracts illegal under California law, Disney is worse.
Disney has stolen and made its fortune from the public domain without giving one thing back to the very people they have stolen from. Where would Disney be without Snow White? Without Cinderella? Without Pocahontas? Without the Little Mermaid? Disney has raped the public domain and not given one whit in return. Every time the trademark on Mickey Mouse gets ready to expire, Disney lobbies to have the trademark law extended. Sorry, uncle Walt, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You raped the people, and they demand the Mouse and His Furry Friends for sacrifice.
And Einser, the CEO of Disney, is the chief backer of the CBDTPA.
Let me tell you what will happen if this bill passes:
1. It will be illegal to record anything off of your TV.
2. It will be illegal to listen to CDs you've bought on your computer.
3. It will be illegal to own an MP3 player.
4. The computer you are currently using will be illegal since it's not fitted with Copy Protection.
5. It will be illegal to innovate, to create, or to even write without the blessing of the Entertainment industry.
I've already spoken at length about this here. The Solution Since we can't outlaw soft money altogether to get rid of the quid pro quo going on right now, we'll have to regulate it. I propose that all campaign contributions over $5 be forced to be anonymous. Claims can't be made for tax write-offs on campaign contributions.
Think it over. If all donations are anonymous, there can be no quid pro quo. That way, it doesn't matter how much Disney et al give. With no quid pro quo, Congressmen can't be bought as they can now. They will have to face the people who elected them and do their will.
Does this seem too simple? Well, maybe it is. Maybe only the firebombing of California off of the map of the US will stop this garbage. But, a girl can dream can't she?
Phoenix
I am me. Insightful, isn't it?
Four more people to add to my list of people who'd make the world a better place if they were dead:
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
John Breaux (D-Louisana)
Dianne Feinstein (D-California)
What a crock. Every computer-related device having to have copy protection? Can you imagine how much that would slow down even the simplest programs like Vi? Not only would it dramatically hinder performance, it would violate OUR rights. The congress/senate doesn't have the right to deny MY fair use rights, or force THEIR fucked-up ideas about computers on me.
These people know nothing about computers. They shouldn't be making any decisions about them.
Not only that, but no one has the right to regulate Free Source Software (FSS) or Open Source Software (OSS). Projects like these done for no price, as a service to the public, should not be crippled and hindered because some assholes in hollywood are worried about their shitty movies being distributed on the net.
The last thing most of us want is to spend 24 hours downloading a copy of the latest crappy holywood movie, like Deep Blue Sea.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
From the bill text:
(a) IN GENERAL. -- A manufacturer, importer, or seller of digital media devices may not (1) sell, or offer for sale, in interstate commerce, or (2) cause to be transported in, or in a manner affecting, interstate commerce, a digital medial device unless the device includes and utilizes standard security technologies that adhere to the security system standards adopted under section 3.
Ahh, but nothing in section 3 defines the security systems standards this is to be defined later by some industry panel or the FTC, neither group an elected body.
The bill does spell out a list of goals for the security systems standards:
(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.
Nothing in the bill says how these goals would be met, only that the industry panel or the FTC should achieve "the goal of promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible, the encoding rules shall take into account the limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright owners, including the fair use doctrine."
This is a very end-around way to implement restrictions on computer hardware with very limited public debate. Nothing is the bill does anything to protect the usability of computers or state that these security measures work on multiple operating systems -- the industry committee or the FTC is free to mandate whatever bonehead regulation that they want.
It should be the job of those who own copyrighted works to find as many lawful uses of the work as possible. The government shouldn't be in the business of marketting Aladdin V or whatever new flick comes out.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Hollings is lying.
sulli
RTFJ.
When you actually talk to the Congresscritter make sure to convert S-2K back to S-2048 or they'll be wondering why you're ranting that a bill to amend the IRS code to provide depreciation allowances on certain property is going to kill the technology industry.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"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.
From the bill:
(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 --
...
(2) any software portion of such standards is based on open source code.
Anyone else find this ironic. At least Linux won't likely be left out of the loop if it passes...
OTOH, enforcing open source implimentations of DRM could be quite funny to watch...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
That's an interesting point. The one thing I keep thinking of, while I code away at a lab notebook for the TB consortium, is how this would kill off non-commercial software projects because the technology's cost is "not cost prohibitive," instead of free. I realize that this would end upgrades to the beowulf cluster upstairs that protein folding, protein interaction, sequence alignment, etc. is being done on. This may end the lab notebook because it runs on software that could "reproduce copyright material." This may end most of the low cost Bioinformatics software projects around the country.
Although it's probably possible to make the standards work with the technology in use, I doubt that the industry leaders involved will let that heppen.
Bioinfomatics has nothing to do with Hollywood, the record industry, or Napsterization; but it will get killed so that the Dizzy corp can make another million on taking peoples' rights away.
I'm rather pissed-off about that...
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
The DMCA makes it illegal to crack, this new one makes it illegal to ship anything that doesn't need cracking.
Oh no, they're tyring to legislate Linux out of existance! They're going to take away my MP3s!
Well, yeah... But those are just side effects of the real intent of this bill: Turning the Internet into the next big broadcast media - making the internet another dollar generating machine for Big Content, locking out the little guys, forcing the old paradigm into the new media.
All arguments regarding fair use are moot - if you read Hollings' speech, it's clear that he believes fair use will be protected. I don't see how that will work in practice though. Say I pay for and download a Simpson's episode with DRM, and I want to do a screen grab to make a picture of the Simpson's family to hang on my wall. Is that fair use? Well, I paid for the image, and many thousands like it (the video stream), so probably yes. Will DRM allow a screen grab? If it won't, then they've violated fair use (I think, IANAL), but if it will then what's going to stop me from grabbing every frame in succession and piecing them back together later? Are they planning on degrading the quality of all these works with some kind of watermark to prevent copying? We already know that doesn't work.
Moving on... Will we gain access to their entire archives? Probably not. More likely, we'll be told to "tune in" to a URL on Sunday night at 9PM to catch the latest episode. You'll be allowed to keep a copy for your own use, but you won't be able to remove the commercials because you won't have access to edit the file.
If we do get access to the archives, which version will it be? The "first run" versions, or the ones they trim down for later reruns?
I use the net for entertainment because it's so far outside the candy-coated crap that TV spews. I have broadband because it's useful to me for gaming and for my work. I already have my MP3 collection built to a comfortable level, and the latest batch of hit singles isn't really enticing me to buy OR download. So basically, I'm the antithesis of a good consumer and nothing is going to change that - other than The Simpsons and Friends, they can keep their copyrighted drivel. Yes, keep it. Keep it off our net.
..................
A couple additional points, harvested from the previous discussion:
1) Big Content has never tried to go after the individuals, even though they have said they would do so if left with no other recourse. Doesn't their refusal to go after people who are actually doing the pirating (vs. attacking businesses whose otherwise legitimate tools enable it) constitute some sort of admission that the works are public domain? Like the rules that stipulate that if you don't defend your trademark, you lose it. Same for copyright, or is it different? If it's the same for copyright, then anything that's ever been traded P2P is now public domain and Big Content will just have to suck it up.
2) You'll obviously have to identify yourself to pay for downloadable content, which is absolutely unprecedented. The only content consumers who are currently violated (in the most personal sense of the word) in this way are those who sign up for the privilege of participating in The Ratings. What's to stop them from using my personal information for marketing or whatever? There are huge privacy concerns that no one in congress is addressing.
3) Final word on the matter... One poster (and I'm sorry for the lack of attribution on all of these points, but the comments are still available with the other story) mentioned that this bill will likely die due to senate politics. Seems that Copyright is NOT the commerce committee's ballpark, and the guy in charge isn't too happy about this bill.
I'd love to see what these idiots sponsoring this bill would think if suddenly there wasn't anyone left to hire to manage the IT infrastructure in the U.S. for them, or if all the engineering talent decided to leave the country for greener pastures (this pasture is turning browner by the minute). Or even if the large tech companies (like Intel and AMD) simply stopped selling any equipment within the U.S.
That's just wishful thinking, of course...sigh...
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
So what do they consider a calculator? My computer is used primarily for scientific computation... I'm solving 300,000 coupled differential equations as
we speak (N-body simulation).
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
It's a while from now, unfortunately, but geeks have long memories (ask any /. poster who stole whose "look and feel"). Anyone want to run against her in the 2006 Demo primary?
sulli
RTFJ.
Corny
SSSCA is a little better.
But
Dumb
Terribly
Poor
Accronym
I have no problem remembering the CBDTPA.
but yeah
Slimey
Sneaky
Snakes
Control
Accronyms
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
"open" is unambiguous.
/. would define "open source software" as "software which may be redistributed, with or without modifications, without restriction from copyright".
Is it? In my dictionary, "open" is defined as "allowing passage, access, or view"; which would make "open source software" mean "software, the source for which, can be readily viewed".
I expect that most people on
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
You know, in this sort of thing, we actually have more power than our numbers would indicate...
When your friends need a new computer, who do they call for advice?
Point out that this will damage the economy, as you will not buy any new computing equipment, and you will be advising your (sizeable) circle of acquaintances to do the same thing.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
the callers as a whole seemed pretty well current on the issues, knowledgeable about the technology, and anti-SSSCA.
I am the very model of a modern major general!
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.
Yeah, it failed in the marketplace, so they decided to get legislation so that everyone would have to buy it!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
I say all the IT people in the US have a "sick out" as a protest. That will get some attention, and if it doesn't get the bill dropped, we go on strike.
I'm serious.
We have more power then the trucking industry. If we ever orginize, we'll own the place.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
We should also (separately) push them to add something like this to the bill under consideration:
(c)(3) PUBLIC DOMAIN USE COPIES. -- No person may apply a security measure that uses a standard security technology to prevent the making of copies of a work or any portion thereof once the copyright on that work has expired.
(under (g)(3)IMPLEMENTATION. -- Any final rule published in such a subsequent rulemaking shall -- )
(g)(3)(C) require all secured copies of a work to carry a machine-readable notice of the copyright date and copyright holder
(g)(3)(D) enable and facilitate the production of unsecured copies of the work, by inexpensive technical means and without any action by the former copyright holder, after the expiration of the copyright
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Using VBScript or JScript and one of IEs security holes, you would be easily able to copy around some data. I think it must cover cover websites too ;)
Jan
www.freenetproject.org
I bet that something like this (anonymous p2p) whill suddenly become popular if they try to do this. Someone will hack their box to spit out unprotected versions of tv episodes etc and anonymously post them on places like freenet.
Instead of stopping piracy, they may actually make it easier in a way... or at least more widespread.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
I saw the full clause posted below as well. How can they have let that slip through? The MPAA will shit a brick when it sees this. I think someone has seriously misunderstood the nature of software-based security and open standards. Hackers won't even have to try hard to create the new equivalent to DeCSS. Just imagine: RedHat 9.0 gets released including DRM technology, with full code, and some 14-year-old kid in Russia posts the full "fix" for it a day later. What's the point? (Not that I'd mind; the damage is still done, though, if technology companies have to waste their time covering for content providers or face legal penalties.)
Not to mention that they have stated that the standards will be worked out with industry groups AND consumer advocates.
The bill really does not look bad on the surface.
However, it is not the bill that worries me anymore. Reading RMS's short story "The Right To Read" is certainly disconcerting these days (especially since it was written before the DMCA, SSSCA, etc). Not that I always agree with RMS but this is well worth the read.
I worry that this bill is the tip of the iceberg, and that it is designed in such a way as to make everyone happy, but that it will itself be doomed to fail because, quite simply, you can't have open source DRM. DRM takes control away from the sysadmin, while Open Source gives it to the sysadmin. In other words, this will NOT satisfy the entertainment industry, and they will have to ask for more. This is what we saw with the DMCA, but and we will likely see it again here.
It does raise some interesting questions about the ability of Linux users to easily access things like DVDs etc, though.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Just got off the phone with my Senators, much like many others have. It only took 5 minutes at the *MOST* and went a bit like this:
1) Look up their website here
2) Go to their web page and get their local office phone number.,
3) Call number.
4) Simply tell the person, "Hi, I am (your name), from (your city), (your state) and I would like to register my opposition to SB 2048".
One of them had me spell my name, and the other asked me what SB 2048 was. In case you forget, it's the CBDTPA (Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act).
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
> And two, which adds the most to the enconomy, IT, or RIAA?
The one with the biggest tits.
When Intel or AMD can offer your Senator a roofied pop star dusted with a line of cocaine between her implants, then we'll see some respect given to the technology industry.
So how will it be possible to write software under this law? I can't imagine how you'd make a compiler compliant with this wacky law. Will I have to send my source code to an NSA computer in Washington for every recompile?
We need a similarly pithy handle for this bill, that can be used to strip away the mind-numbing acronym.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
As an amateur historian, I realize that in the longer term it is hard enough to find materials after the normal process of time. The digital revolution has made this much worse (for example a recent /. story mentioned that England could not retrieve census information that had been recorded c.1980 from obscure 14" optical storage disks). The use of encryption and DRM is going to make this situation much, much worse.
The problem is that DRM does not expire when the copyright expires (assuming congress will eventually allow copyrights to expire, and does not keep extending them forever :-) The copyright balance requires that the work goes into the public domain once the copyright has expired. The only way that will happen with a DRM scheme is if the copyright holders are still around, and have some type of motivation to make it public.
This is a difficult problem, with no easy solution. A minimal solution is to require that all copyright holders make their product available when it enters the public domain, but this won't help if the organization is no longer in business. Given this view, I don't know if DRM should be legal under copyrights. If DRM is legal, the only workable solution is to go back to the old method of copyrights (pre-1976) where you actually have to register for copyright protection. If you want to copyright something that is only "published" with DRM controls, an archival copy of the original unprotected version must be registered with the copyright authority (presumably Library of Congress, who will need new funding for this responsibility). This method has another real advantage, which is that it ensures that the copyright holder can be identified. The restoration industry has a big problem with "abandoned" works that are still technically under copyright, but they have no contactable owners.
This is a long term problem, and typically people don't worry about the long term (companies have trouble thinking past the end of the quarter!). But the issue of archiving and availability is extremely important. It goes right to the heart of what copyrights are supposed to do: "promote the progress of Science and useful Arts". Widespread use of DRM will make today's tragedies small potatoes (such as movies from the 1910-40's that should be in the public domain, which are instead literally rotting away without any care by the actual copyright holders).
Feel free to use some of these arguments in the letters to your congressmen!
Just post it through old (current, non-protected) hardware.The point is this would be posted from a hacked machine- every bit that is posted is controlled by the hacker.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
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.
Haven't they settled yet the Napster case? I believe they (RIAA) said that, if Napster paid 30 megabucks, the case was settled. This means anything ever traded in Napster became Napster property. Since Napster never copyrighted the stuff that was traded through them, everything is now in Public Domain, right?
Dude, that's highly funny, but I suspect you and I are the only ones that will get the reference.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
The hired help in DC have set up web site for comments, and the comments are, at the moment, unanimously opposed to the bill. Check it out.
Build stuff. Stuff that walks, stuff that rolls, whatever.
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
although, judging from the histories of Geek Marches, they usually do more harm than good.
I think "Consumer" might be better than "User"...
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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..."
Money has much to do with what goes on in Congress, but votes are more powerful. Unfortunately, many people don't realize this. Any politician smart enough to get elected knows that pissing off enough voters is a political death sentence.
So, to answer your question, you should contact him because, if he gets enough angry feedback from voters, he'll have to rethink his stance. Ask yourself why senior citizens get what they want and why the Christian Coalition is such a powerful political force. It's because people in these groups vote, and it's because they aren't shy about stating their political viewpoints. They say what they want, and they make damn sure the politicians know that they'll vote against them if they don't get what they want.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
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
I'm not sure, however, that Congress and the big media corporations are the only ones who could stand to spend some time on the wrong end of a gun. I installed a Gnutella client the other day, and spent a while watching what people were searching for. Fair Use my ass...it's pretty obvious that most people are using P2P for piracy. While I don't like draconian government solutions to problems, equal blame should fall on those who create the problem in the first place.
The requirement for open source is worthless. All it says is that software DRM must be "based on" open source code.
1. Based on open source includes products like IBM HTTP Server and WebTen (based on Apache). That doesn't do anyone any good.
2. Software-controlled hardware DRM is not affected. We won't be able to build Free Software drivers for any new hardware.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Look at it this way, it's a very intelligent move.
Hollings gets tons of flak from geeks over the SSSCA, so he throws us a bone, by virtually guaranteeing that people that run open source OSs will be exempt.....
I have two possible endings to this message:
a) Then later on after we let them get one more foot into the door, they start teghtening down little by little.
b) This is all they want anyway, 99% of the users won't circumvent it, and if any of the other 1% causes a problem by creating something to let the other 99% easily bypass (or being too outspoken about something), they have the DMCA to shoot that person/company down with.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
It matters if a politician can translate this into lost votes. Money makes a difference, but votes are more powerful in the end.
As for posting here, most politicians have never heard fo Slashdot, and they don't care what we say here. That's why the bitching and moaning here has to stop at some point, and the action that matters--educating the public and getting the attention of Congress--has to start. Politicians and the general public don't come here. They read newspapers and magazines, they listen to the radio and watch TV, and they talk to their friends and colleagues. That's where we need to be, not just coming here to discuss it.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Good for you! I wrote a letter that didn't get printed, but I'm glad yours did.
Care to write one for your local paper as well?
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
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.
Recently millions of Americans went to to an Aussie owned theater (Village) to watch a New Zealand made movie (LOTR) based on the works of a British author. Many of them saw the ads for the movie on a network founded by an Australian (Fox) while watching a show created by an American (Simpsons) but animated in India. They can buy the sound track made by a Japanese firm (Sony) with songs composed in Ireland (Enya).
Yep, protecting American creativity...
Does anyone have a good Web site on this to list on a sig file? I looked at digitalconsumer.org and the info on the EFF site, but I found them to be difficult for someone totally unfamiliar with this to easily understand. We need something that explains the issue from the point of view of someone who's never heard of this.
It occurs to me that putting a tagline and link in e-mail and Usenet sig files may be a good way to start getting people to notice this. It won't do the job by itself by any means, but it's one small step. I'm ready to do it, but I need a good site to link to.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Just remember Phil was a professor of economics in a past life so when you write be sure to customize the argument with that fact in mind.
I have one of the Bill's co-sponsors (Breaux, D-LA) and "the bitch who won on the dead vote in New Orleans" for Senate scum so don't bitch about your selection of congresscritters. I'd trade ya Breaux and Landrieu for Gramm & Hutchinson any day of the week.
Yes I am cynical about politics. But we have to take an interest in politics because it is now clear to even the dumbest retard that politics has taken an interest in us geeks. So I'll be writing polite but firm letters to both of my slimeball senators and Congressman McCrery since the best chance of stopping this madness appears to be with the House.
Democrat delenda est
OTOH, I don't see a record of ABC News even reporting the bill on their Sci/Tech or Politics pages. I guess I'd expect Disney to hide the truth like they always do. Any company that forces their Goofy's and Mickey's to wear their own lice-infected underwear can't be that good in the "fairness and truth" department.
Zodiac Survey
Did you all see this article?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48567,00.html
It appears to be yet another article from Fox on the subject.
See-bit-puh. Don't see bits. See incomprehensible garbage. Copy protected. Feh. I think I'll read a book. See-bit-puh. See me putter in the garden. See-bit-sputter. Sputter economy, sputter. Dick is a congressman. Dick likes to vote. Dick likes money. See Dick run. See Dick win. See Dick legislate. Legislate, dick, legislate. See Sally jiggle. Jiggle Sally, Jiggle! Dick can see Sally jiggle because I has the V-chip Plus (TM) in his computer.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The most interesting thing I find about all this is the Business Software Alliance is opposed to this bill. For those who don't know, the BSA is the alliance of companices like Microsoft and Adobe that audit random companys, extorting money from them for failed license compliance. Basiclly, if the BSA is opposed that must mean MS is opposed as well. I am curious why they are not more vocal about this issue? And perhaps we will see some more favorable press towards it on MSNBC? Interesting indeed.
This is one particular issue on which the conservatives seem to be on the right side. Hollings, the sponsor of the bill, is a Democrat after all, and the biggest problem the bill is likely to face in its passage is that Rep. Howard Coble, a Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet & Intellectual Property, is opposed to it.
Part of it is that the media industry and Hollywood have traditionally been Democratic supporters, while the big tech companies (Intel, Microsoft, etc.) are the "big business" that Republicans tend to like, and they're all opposed to the bill.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Fair use is free speech, Congress does not have the right to take it away.
What it boils down to is that the government does not have the right to make any laws that infringe speech. They just have the right to make laws that promote the progress of science and the useful arts. If they can't do this without infringing speech, they have to go back to the drawing board.
For the first time in my life I wrote to my Senators. I mainly concentrated on the impact that I believe the bill will have on the economy. If passed it would throw the tech industry and consumers into a state of confusion. We really don't need that with a weak recovery under way. I also told them that I thought the bill impinged upon my free speech rights as a programmer. The government would be telling my what I can and can't do with my ideas and inventions as expressed in source code. I will be interested in seeing if I hear anything back from them.
with uild in unhackable clock and security id
*snicker*
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Where does that article explain why SSSCA is bad.
It explains why democrats are bad and why record companies are bad, it does not explain why the SSCA is bad at all.
And i seriously doubt it was the only news outlet to do that. Slashdot is a news outlet no?
You seriously do not understand O'Reilly.
To put it very nicely O'Reilly has and will always protect and benefit Murdoch and News Corp.
News Corp. is supporting the bill.
Which means that O'Reilly is supporting the bill.
If you disagree with me, dont flame me, prove me wrong. Call, email O'Reilly. See what happens.
Everybody knows you can't protect digital content. Even if they manage to come up with hardware that only provides analog output, it's still hackable. You just need A/D conversion. If they introduce water-marks, it doesn't matter. Even if they vary the output randomly, it doesn't matter because you can run the movie multiple times and determine a "consensus value" for each sample.
Gangsters in Hong Kong will have this technology before they even need it. So, what it all comes down to is punishing the innocent so the guilty can make more money. Again.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
If you believe that, then why are you here? If this is a foregone conclusion, then we might as well all log off and go watch TV.
Yes, there are lots of stupid people who don't know the difference between copy protection and a Mr. Coffee, but don't count everyone in that group. And many people who don't care about an issue simply don't vote, which means that those who do are either a prize to be fought over or a danger to be avoided. Do senior citizens get what they want? How about Mothers Against Drunk Driving? How about the Christian Coalition? You bet they do, and it's because they're vocal about what they want, and they vote. Who has more money, MADD or the alcohol companies? When was the last time you saw the drinking age lowered or DUI laws relaxed?
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Does anyone in the /. crowd have any ideas what us non US-guys (and girls) should do about things like the SSSCA?
Well, just wait. As a Canadian, I can see where our fine neighbour to the south is heading. Protectionist legislation is the American way. Fair competition is given lip service, but if they can bully their way into dominating a market through buying legislation, they will. Eventually though, the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave" will simply become the police state that we've all been fearing since the 50's. And we were worried about the Russians. Just shows you what saps we were.
The war on drugs was all about stripping away individual rights. The war on terrorism is finishing the job. (Not to mention lining Bush Sr.'s pockets) Those who can buy politicians get richer, those who can only vote, don't.
So, my advice would be to just wait. Eventually it will be the entire world against the U.S. (probably right after the tanks roll into Canada) Then we'll see where the chips fall after that.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Go to Comments to the Senate Judiciary Committee and check out the comment by Stuart Ballard. +5 insightful doesn't do it justice.
Ctrl-F is your friend. Now go.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
This bill is the logical extention of the DMCA. Encrypted formats were trade secrets, and had NO LEGAL protection at all, until the DMCA was used as we knew it would be. The goal of the exclusive franchise created by copyright is to increase what's available to the public domain. The DMCA severly restricts what gets out to the public domain, as readers of "protected" formats won't work when the copyright expires (crutently 75 years). Unfortunately for the entertainment industry, these formats are not as popular as unecumberd formats, so they have introduced this bill to MANDATE their formats. This will eliminate the public domain altogether as it will eliminate user control of the devices used to create and distribute digital media. In the future, there will be nothing but digial publication, therefore there will be no publishing exept by approved and authorized software. It will outlaw free software. If you don't think that non free software restricts what you say, you need to re examine your non free EULA. Right now, I don't care if Microsoft decides that I can not ever use their software again (as they can by their EULA). If this bill passes, that will mean that I can't publish.
The only rational extention of the DMCA if for the supreme court to strike it down as a clear violation of free speech.
In the mean time, I am going to hand write my representative. Want to guese which letter will have a greater effect, this one or that one? Hmmm, it might be time to use some old fashion press to influence the local comunity. In the future, an inflamatory handbill might not pass the "protection" program in my copy machine. See where things can go?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Ok we have all vented here, I'll be writing letters when I cool off enough to do some good in that dept but that ain't going to actually counterbalance Disney's billions.
I read the whole text of this heap of dung. When you cut through the crap it basically means any coder inside the US border can be tossed in the joint whenever a media company doesn't like something we say (code IS speech). Would anybody be taking this if it were printing presses being so regulated? Well it is, since all modern presses are computerized.
CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW.....
Ok, fine words but what happens when they do it anyway? Well that was what the 2nd Amendment was on about. The Ballot box rests firmly on the cartridge box. So at what point do we decide it is our duty to water the liberty tree? If a few of us rebel at any one time we get branded "terrorists" or "right wing militias", shot dead and used as an excuse to pass yet more unconstituitionallaws.
How about a nice document with flowery oratory with words like "When in the course of Human Events....." in it. Then an activation clause stating that the Revolution begins when:
a) The Supreme Court becomes the third branch of government to abrogate it's pledge to "Uphold and Defend the Constituition" by finding this law legit after Congress and the President violated their Oath by Passing and Signing it.
b) N (100,000, 1 Mil, ???) people have signed the declaration to Pledge their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor to the overthrow of the corrupt Government and restoring the Republic our forefathers gave us in trust.
Of course the first important question would be if signing such a document, even in the event it never reaches the trigger threshold, qualifies as an Overt Act of Treason?
And any cryptoweenies out there, shut the hell up about some cockeyed scheme for anonymous signatures. Any fool should be able to see why that wouldn't work in this case.
As is probably clear from this posting, I'm Mad as Hell and don't want to take it anymore but still a bit fuzzy as to just how we are supposed to get out of this mess.
Democrat delenda est
Oh, I'm cynical too, don't get me wrong. But let me ask you this. Why was it that most people never heard of the DMCA? Because the only people who were talking about it were people who already knew about it.
The same thing happened with the Communications Decency Act. I remember this one very clearly. The people who were opposed to the CDA were all there, on one mailing list or another, and they were pissed. They discussed every facet of the bill, why it was bad, who was supporting it, who was against it, where it was in Congress, and all manner of things. But the problem was that the group of people who were discussing it was relatively small, and they were primarily talking to each other. What they weren't doing such a good job of was educating people outside their immediate group. They left that to people like Par Eobertson, Ralph Reed, the American Family Association, and others in that political grouping. These folks, OTOH, got out there and beat the bushes to drum up support for the CDA. One could argue that the people they canvassed were already predisposed to support it, and that may have been true, but it's also true that many of these folks weren't Internet users. They were contacted using print, radio, TV, and face-to-face contact.
So what I'm saying is that, no, all the discussion here on Slashdot and any other online forums will do no good in fighting this unless that discussion leads to concrete action in the real world. Otherwise, all we're doing is practicing political masturbation. It may make you feel good, but it accomplishes nothing. The online community only has a voice when it takes itself into the offline world.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Before I politely flame my senators (which I DO intend to do if they support this), I just want to take a step back and try to understand exactly what will happen if it passes.
People say that Open Source operating systems will be banned. Is that REALLY likely to happen or is that some people's overreaction?
What kinds of operations will computers no longer be able to do? Will there be restrictions on copying files? Like, if a media file has a "do not copy" bit set, then nothing is supposed to copy it? But how in the world would that work? It would be super simple to write a C program to copy it, ignoring that bit. Will it all be in hardware? Will disk drives be forced to recognize when it sees a file with this bit set? That would be no small pain in the arse. While a fully hardware solution might allow Linux to legally run on it, the drives might necessarily not support all filesystems. And what happens when new media formats come out?
And would it stand legally? There are precedents for source code being considered speech, so it seems as though any attempt to ban the distribution or use of open code could be struck down in court fairly easily.
Any thoughts?
I think that this may be something to consider (taken from a letter to my Senator)
"The movie industry as a collective has had great interest in recent years in selling multimedia machine- basically a highly specialized computer with copy restrictions built in. In a capitalist economy, such a produce would compete against older forms of media and traditional general-purpose desktop computers. All things being equal, the computer market is large enough to support their special machines alongside regular computers. However, it turns out that not all things are equal. When their products were tried in the marketplace, they failed miserably (the DivX machine is the most well known example). Most consumers refused outright to purchase hardware that they labeled as erestrictedf and the few who did purchase these media machines found that the restrictions they contained gave the machines extra technical difficulties and were more difficult to use in general.
Despite their failure in the marketplace, the movie industry seems to still want to sell their movies on similar machines. Having failed in a free market, this legislation would force consumers to buy general purpose computers that have been twisted into essentially being their multimedia players (making them no longer general-purpose. I have read about proposed hardware protections, and there is no way to implement them without limiting how they connect to other computers and without breaking many existing software tools.) Not only are they cheating the consumer out of a truly general purpose computer, they are forcing the computer hardware industry to pay the tab for producing hardware for the movie industry to sell their special protected files for"
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
that this crap bill passes with a voice vote, so that there's no record of who voted for it and who didn't?
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
I am a Citizen. I pay my taxes, I go to work, I try to trust my government that they will do the right thing.
This is complete HORSESHIT to say that I cannot do what I want with the computer I Paid for.
This is called corruption.
-----------
corruption
n 1: lack of integrity or honesty; esp susceptibility to bribery; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain.
HELLO commerce committee, you are corrupt and terrible people and should have NO PLACE ON EARTH TO REPRESENT ANYONE.
This page left intentionally blank.
Yes! Getting the word out is exactly what we need.
First, we need a Web site to explain to ordinary, everyday folks what's happening, why it's bad, and what they can do.
Next, we need a way to get that URL out there. In the online world, this can be done through links on other sites, as well as sig files. These are easy to do, and they're a good start.
However, this is only a start. The word needs to be taken into the offline world. This has to be done in multiple ways. Some that come to mind are:
Whatever we do, we need to get it started soon.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
The really scary thing is, that might have to happen sometime. Our freedoms are being steadily eroded through stupid patents and stupid laws. Our whole freeking government is just corrupt.
This is NOT what millions of people in our history died for in defending our country!!!!
Does that mean Hollings is right? Of course not.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Am I the only one here that actually wants to see this bill go through? [Whoa - put down those torches and hear me out.]
Remember the CDA of 1996 (Communications Decency Act)? Do you remember how absurdly censored web sites were until that bill was overturned? It was such a patently unconstitutional bill that the Supreme Court did their job and overturned the sucker.
That is what needs to happen here. If this bill gets voted down. Hollings (or the media's next shill) will rewrite it, rename it, (maybe lighten it up at bit) and send it in again. And they'll do this until it passes.
But what we've got here is so disgustingly unconstitutional that I want it to get passed. The IT industry will go fucking bananas; chaos will ensue. It will get challenged and the Supreme Court will have no choice but to strike it down.
And then it will be dead.
Ron Kirk (Democratic runoff candidate)
P.O. Box 720160
Dallas TX 75372
(214) 841-1001
Fax (214) 841-1094
Victor Morales (Democratic runoff candidate)
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.
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
Well, if this piece of but wad passes, I'm leaving the country for somewhere where the Luddites didn't win.
I'll do something else with my life, like fish or lie on a beach and masturbate or something.
Bin Laden didn't have to try to kill me, succeed with about 3000 people and and destroy my work place (yeah, I lived next door and I worked there,) because he was just a little impatient.
This piece of crap on a writ insures the destruction of America as a viable entity. (I am SO outta here.) The lawyers will choke you to death.
You'll be reduced to watching the same old crap on TV. They already OWN that. And you can bet your ass (which they will also own) that they won't be paying for anything new. Costs money.
By the way, updates from M$? Fuggedaboudid. That would violate the sacred covenant between the brown lipstick wearing media corporations and the equally brown lipstick wearing puppet politicians.
And the computer industry will be a fading memory.
Shit. What a bunch of whores. All of 'em.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Ok, no more alarming news, lets consider what will change in GNU/Linux, for example:
But maybe there's a way out. What if Free Software license allows only the creation of non-copyrighted material? Of course that Free Software should create brand new file formats, but I think that it's a way out, isn't it?
Maybe we may also exclude our names from our codes, as stated by R. Polk Wagner even reputation increasements maybe configured as commercial activity.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Okay, yeah, calling senator offices is a great idea... do that... TOO!
I hope no one needs help finding the contact information for their representatives. If you do, I'll post the links again.
The nice part about emailing is that, at least in my cases, I always get "some" sort of relevant response to my message. It's actually kinda cool to get a letter from a senator's/congressman's office.
And supposing 'Representative X' was being strongly influenced by 'Special Interest Y.' It will be really hard [impossible] to ignore 'Public Interest U.S.' when we all speak out.
This is not your vote. This is more important. Votes are rigged, miscounted or suffer from other means of failure. But when you write exactly what you want to say, there's no mistaking that you have an active interest in the direction of our nation and the activities of our representatives. And asside from one or two infamous politicians, I don't want to think that the majority of our government is so arrogant that it ignores its people...
... oh yeah, and here's a little of what I wrote to them...just in case anyone's interested:
There are many reasons I wish to express my thoughts on the matter regarding the introduction of legislation referred to as CBDTPA.
The primary reason I feel this legislation is detrimental is that it is not the government's role to control the free market except when monopoly conditions serve to harm the consumer. When there are a variety of buyers and sellers, the market's 'invisible hand' guides the market in its natural course.
We don't need MORE laws saying it's wrong to steal. We have copyright law already and it works. We have established that the consumer has a right to 'fair use' which means we can back-up, protect and use the media we pay for in any manner we find most suitable. This works too. What doesn't work is when the consumer's rights have been circumvented via the DMCA which states that 'fair use rights are not to be denied although the tools needed to exercise those rights are illegal.'
This legislation represents more of such surgical removal of our fundamental freedoms and they are simply unnecessary.
I am against the CBDTPA because it places too much control into hands of the existing entertainment industry. Such restrictions, just as the CSS (the DVD's playback protection system that denies 'unapproved players' the ability to legally play a movie in any manner the home user sees fit which includes denying an armed-forces service member from playing his personal movie collection when he is stationed overseas!!) does, will grant the industry yet another 'source of income' through their 'blessings' (license fees)of various technologies. This sort of system guarantees that anyone except the already successful industry players will be able to enter the arena to do competition. This completely stifles competition from new inventors and entrepreneurs. This will serve only to guarantee that those in power today will remain in power with their government-created industry elite leaders united [anti-trust?] under the union of the MPAA and the RIAA organizations.
I am against the CBDTPA because it represents an exaggerated reaction to 'fear' of wrong-doings on the part of a supplier's customers. In essence, the various industries feel needlessly threatened by what it perceives as a loss of control over its material. To some degree, this has always been the case from the very earliest days of professional entertainment. Art will be copied, preserved and enjoyed by thousands, millions and billions of people. But it doesn't mean the business of producing entertainment will fail because people would like to record a movie playing on HBO while he's watching his son's 2nd grade school play!! (I refer to the practice of time-shifting) And it doesn't mean that a home user shouldn't be able to make a backup of his movie collection to secure his entertainment library against aging and random destruction (such as the same second-grader mishandling his father's video discs). There are a variety of user uses which qualify as 'fair use' such as transferring media from one source to another (for the purpose of keeping 'order' in the family's mini-van while the family goes on a trip... for that I mean being able to play tapes or whatever newer recordable technologies are developed in the next few decades in the vehicle... or hotel room... or wherever!) The CBDTPA presumes there are no justifiable needs for this level of media flexibility and criminalizes the intent every single customer who wishes to enjoy these basic purposes.
And we already have fair historical examples of what we can expect should the measure be adopted or denied. The entertainment industry had protested the introduction of the cassette tape because it 'spelled doom' to their profitability. Clearly, we can see that the industry survived and even outgrew that fear with newer technologies replacing the old as newer and better technologies are created and implemented. As can also be illustrated, the entertainment industry has destroyed entire possibility of American consumer DAT (Digital Tape) industry with its exaggerated fears of doom and destruction. This industry did not die in other countries. In Europe and Asia, DAT as a media type is alive, well and prosperous which meant that for the moment, the rest of the world has consumer technologies that U.S. citizens were needlessly denied. (How many more technologies will be 'banned' from the U.S. due to entertainment industry's paranoia? The CBDTPA represents a carte blanche to impose its restrictions over technologies from now until forever.) We don't know what technologies the next twenty years will bring us, but you can be sure that if they aren't "made in the USA" that they'll be made elsewhere and probably not as well. And with the paranoid entertainment industry in control of such developments, approval and deployment, you can be sure that nothing good will come of this.
This sort of legislation has serious repercussions far beyond your own term in office. It has repercussions well beyond our lives and will affect the lives of our children and grandchildren. As stated simply by the founders of our government, if we are to err, we should err on the side of freedom. So let us act carefully when we vote to restrict and control technology, freedoms, rights and our country's future.
Law such as the DMCA represents a move that puts the legal system in control of the corporate interests rather than in our court rooms. The DMCA has been shown to remove crucial points of our "due process" system. For example, when a complainant issues a demand for material to be removed citing the DMCA, the receiver is obliged to comply immediately without a judges order! This dangerously puts a great deal of manipulative power into the hands of overzealous interests. Threats of prosecution have already endangered scholarly research and education in the past year. Baseless demands of copyright infringement under the DMCA is being used as a tool to manipulate freedom of speech all over the globe. (Search the internet for 'Google' and 'Scientology' for a ready example of such cases of baseless abuse of the reckless power the DMCA grants.)
The CBDTPA must not be put into law. The DMCA must be repealed. Copyright law should be restored to its original intent.
The more law is written and updated to serve commercial interests at the expense of the public, the closer we come to the bizarre and nightmarish predictions of 'The Corporate States of America' becoming a reality. Once the damage is done, you will have to be a voting board member to make a difference instead of being a voting citizen. I know it sounds dramatic now, but look at the damage that has already been done to our system. We have had laws in place to serve interests fairly prior to the DMCA. The crimes are still the same crimes regardless of the method that is used yesterday, today and tomorrow. Theft is still theft. Copyright infringement is still copyright infringement. We already have laws in place against that. Newer technology does not require new laws in this case.
I am against the DMCA and against the CBDTPA and any new laws that seek to remove and restrict my ability to use a product which I have already paid for! Again, I reiterate. If I want to watch a movie in my car, that's where I'll watch it. If I want to watch a movie I bought here when I travel to Europe, it is my right. If I am paying for my current cable TV subscription, I should be able to watch both my son's school play and the movies I would otherwise miss out on. None of these 'fair uses' make me a criminal.
Axe gave a valiant effort at explaining it. However, I think the humor is simply that jx100 is taking a swipe at this article here. I believe jx100 is making a rather sarcastic comment about how geeks dwell on semantics. I found it to be quite effective, although a bit obscure.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
I know you were shooting for irony, but other news outlets have criticized the SSSCA, like Newsweek. (I'm not sure which corporate parent MSNBC will adhere to in this fight.)
--- Work, worry, consume, die. It's a wonderful life. -- Bill Griffith
"(a) IN GENERAL. -- A manufacturer, importer, or seller of digital media devices may not --
:D. If those bastards in the MPAA and RIAA want this bill to stick, they'll have to get the law passed in all 50 states. Small victories like this are always encouraging.
(1) sell, or offer for sale, in interstate commerce, or
(2) cause to be transported in, or in a manner affecting, interstate commerce,
a digital medial device unless the device includes and utilizes standard security technologies that adhere to the security system standards adopted under section 3."
It's right freaking there, "interstate commerce"! All you have to do is set up shop locally, not even advertising in a way that will reach out of state, and this bill can't touch you. Ah, I appreciate the Constitution more and more every day
BlackGriffen
The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act introduced by Senator Hollings is a dangerous attempt by a narrow segment of society to regulate the technology sector in order to protect their narrow interests. The Entertainment industry is in the position of horse cart accessory manufacturers at the turn of the 20th century pushing for the right to control the development of automotive technology. Like those manufacturers, Hollywood and Tokyo have the right to be paid for their products: the film and music distribution systems. They ought not to be given the right to control the development of emerging competition to those systems by digital technologies. What seems to them a threat to their inflated profits, looks to me like an exciting new avenue that promises artists and consumers alike a better deal than has heretofore been offered by the plutocrats of pop. I urge you to take a careful look at this legislation before it comes before you in Congress, and to consider carefully where the interests of the majority of your constituents lie with respect to this bill before you cast your vote.
Thank you for your attention
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
The Honorable Sen. Patrick Leahy
Senate Judiciary Committee
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510
Honorable Senator Leahy,
I am writing in concern of the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), S 2048, introduced by Senator Hollings into the Senate on March 21, 2002. The CBDTPA would prohibit the sale of any kind of electronic device, unless the device has mandatory copy-protection controls built-in as set by the federal government.
I am a firm believer in protecting a copyright holder's rights, but no law should prevent copyright purchasers from exercising their ability to privately view, time-shift, and re-sell legally purchased content. The problem of copyright infringement is real, but it is being addressed successfully in the courts (Napster v. RIAA) using existing copyright law. This bill is an attempt by huge media conglomerates to impose complete control over how we can use our televisions, computers, and VCRs.
As the owner of a software development company I am in favor of strong copyright protection for my works. However if this bill is passed, small independent developers like myself will not be able to create and distribute software due to the requirements of CBDTPA and the barrier to entry for non-wealthy creators. Because Microsoft has patented the system of Digital Rights Management (DRM), the adoption of government-mandated DRM would ensure that the Microsoft monopoly will continue well into the future. Alternative computer operating systems such as Linux or the Macintosh that did not include Microsoft licensed DRM would become illegal.
This bill will revoke the basic constitutional rights granted by copyright law: fair use, principle of first sale, and limited term (because DRM never expires). In addition to raising costs and reducing competitiveness, this bill will cause incalculable damage to the high technology industry in the United States. I strongly urge you to vote against S 2048.
Sincerely, etc.
Under the Supreme Court ruling in the Betamax decision, DeCSS would be legal for the same reason that VCRs are. That is, a claim of contributory copyright infringement cannot be used to tax or ban a technology that has a significant legitimate use. For VCRs, timeshifting was one such use. For DeCSS, inclusion of short movie clips or stills in multimedia movie reviews could well be such a use. (DeCSS was also supposedly an intermediate test step in producing a Linux-based DVD player, an application that most assuredly would satisfy the Supreme Court test.)
However, the anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA seem expressly designed for the purpose of banning any lawful access or copying that the monopoly holder decides to interfere with. Thus, DeCSS is illegal - that is, until the courts get around to declaring the DMCA itself illegal (unConstitutional) on the grounds of conflicts with the First Amendment or the copyright clause (Article I, Section 8).
I have found the text of S.2048's introduction in the Congressional Record. For those of you who'd like to read it as well, I can't provide a static URL, so here's the method: Go here, scroll down a little and click on the "Page: S2269" link. (If that doesn't work because of the way thomas.loc.gov is organized, I'll follow-up to this post with a more thorough method.)
The following passage is of particular interest:
So I'd like to pose this question: if a technology that has thorough and unbreakable digital rights management technology is created but the same technology allows for every possible means of fair use for all of my digital media, how are my freedoms and rights being abridged? Sure, I can't break the law anymore, but what's so wrong with that? Is it that right now the paradigm is that we have the choice to break the law if we choose to and with the CBDTPA we no longer have that choice, or is there something else completely different?
By the way, if any fo you are in the 4th Congressional district of Massachuesetts, please vote to re-elect Barny Frank when the time comes. I wrote him about the DMCA and Dmitry and his reply really impressed me. His priorities may not align perfectly with most of yours, but he strongly indicates that he knows what his priorities are and really thinks about the issues. In the end, this is what makes a politician that isn't fooled by complicated legislation. This is much better than a poilitician who completely agrees with you, but is swayed into voting for things with really bad coonsequences.
Next week is Spring break for MIT. Guess who's going to be making some calls? These are some of the points I'll stress to my reps.:
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
Broadband Internet service is by no means required or an inalienable right. I do not feel it is my government's responsibility to meddle in the business affairs of broadband providers insofar as adoption of the technology is concerned. I also believe that there are many reasons why adoption of broadband has not occurred as rapidly as some would have hoped, the lack of high quality digital content being dubious at best.
If such technologies exist (and I do not believe that they do) to create a digital environment that allows all possibilities of fair use and at the same time prevent unauthorized use, adoption of the technology can be assisted by the parties that benefit from the technology by subsidizing the purchase price. A $200 rebate on computers with this technology would be much less subversive (and offensive) than mandating that all computers must utilize the technology.
Huh?
True, but I do not believe technological solutions can be developed that allow for fair use of digital content at the same time that the content is protected against unauthorized use.
There must be a reason why there are competing business interests surrounding deployment of this technology. Further research should be done to understand the competing position rather than simply passing this bill to undermine it.
My response to this is the same as my response to Item (1).
Several companies (CBS, HBO, etc.) are already broadcasting content via HDTV. If these companies are unconcerned about the lack of security afforded their content via the transmission protocol, I fail to see why a change to a secure transmission protocol is predicated. It is my belief that the reason there are so few HDTV broadcasts is because there are so few TVs capable of playing HDTV content. As HDTV becomes more common, so will HDTV broadcasts.
It's also difficult for me to understand why HDTV benefits comsumers. If HDTV truly does benefit consumers, they would buy HDTV sets. The fact that consumers opt for lesser expensive TV sets leads me to believe that the average consumer is satisfied with the quality of their broadcasts. Change may be good, but change for the sake of change isn't.
This is completely false. Encryption can be built into any transmission protocol be it via radio waves, Internet connections, cable, or satellite, regardless of an open or closed nature. The competitive advantage of cable and satellite providers is in the advent of new technology since the standard became common. In order to enable old technology devices (televisions) to use the new technology, additional hardware (set top boxes) is required. The same could be done by traditional signal broadcasts if companies chose to develop such technology. There's a reason they haven't developed the technology; no one believes the benefit of the technology outweighs the cost to develop it. If ABC believed that the benefits outweighed the costs and started broadcasting their signal in an encrypted format that could only be decrypted by purchasing one of their set top boxes, they would have done so by now.
So if cable and satellite networks already have encryption technologies and over-the-air broadcasts do not (by choice), why must the decision to encrypt or not be forced onto the Internet?
I don't think a solution is technologically feasible in order to ensure fair use. If the technology could be developed, I still don't think government intervention would be necessary to ensure adoption. Adoption could be gained simply by having desirable content made available only in an encrypted format. If, rather than subscribing to NetFlix, I could watch the latest videos on a pay-per-service basis, but only if I purchased special hardware that enabled me to view the videos, I would buy the hardware if doing so was cost-effective and to my benefit. If it's not cost-effective or to my benefit, there's no need for the technology to be developed, much less forced by the government.
In most cases, content originates in analog form.
Content will always be converted to analog in the "last mile" between the viewing device and my eyeballs. Though the quality would be dubious, there is no way short of creating a fascist technological state to prevent me from using a digital video camera aimed at my viewing device to capture "protected" content and converting it into a format most convenient for my own use. Certainly, keeping the content encrypted up to the point of being displayed on the viewing device may make unauthorized use more difficult, but it will also make fair use more difficult (or impossible). Considering this, I think it is in the consumer's best interest to not pursue this technology.
See (12).
But if the technology exists to prevent piracy, couldn't this significant piracy be prevented by the owners of the digital content choosing to protect their assets? Is my government responsible for covering the asses of entertainment companies because entertainment companies do not wish to protect their assets without preventing fair use? I don't believe so.
Millions of Americans drive faster than the speed limit every day. The demonstrates drivers' desire to go fast. Would the appropriate solution be to mandate that all cars must have a device that disallows going faster than the spped limit, or would the appropriate solution be to increase the speed limit? My answer to this is: neither. In the case of both speeding and protecting digital assets, no government action is necessary. If the entertainment industry desires protected digital content, they should protect their content. No government mandate need be required.
There are economic threats to the consumer if this bill is passed, including the necessity of purchasing new computer hardware in order to view content they otherwise have a legal right to.
America's content industries have the resources to fend for themselves with regards to protecting their own content.
See (12).
I'd like to see legitimate consumer "expectations" spelled out, and I would like to see law make it a punishable offense to prevent any of these consumer "expectations" from being allowed. With "fair use" explicit and an inalienable right, moving forward on protecting digital assets is reasonable.
See (20).
See (20).
And most importantly, I can't reiterate this enough, legitimate use of digital content should be mandated.
SEC. 3. ADOPTION OF SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS AND ENCODING RULES.
(a) PRIVATE SECTOR EFFORTS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--The Federal Communications Commission, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall make a determination, not more than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, as to whether--
(A) representatives of digital media device manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners have reached agreement on security system standards for use in digital media devices and encoding rules; and
(B) the standards and encoding rules conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e).
(2) Report to the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.--Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House of Representatives Committee on Commerce, and the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary as to whether--
(A) substantial progress has been made toward the development of security system standards and encoding rules that will conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e);
(B) private sector negotiations are continuing in good faith;
(C) there is a reasonable expectation that final agreement will be reached within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(D) if it is unlikely that such a final agreement will be reached by the end of that year, the deadline should be extended.
(b) AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION.--If the Commission makes a determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on security system standards and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has been reached, then the Commission shall--
(1) initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on which the determination is made, to adopt those standards and encoding rules; and
(2) publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, not later than 180 days after initiating the rulemaking, that will take effect 1 year after its publication.
(c) NEGATIVE DETERMINATION.--If the Commission makes a determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on security system standards and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has not been reached, then the Commission--
(1) in consultation with representatives described in subsection (a)(1)(A) and the Register of Copyrights, shall initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on which the determination is made, to adopt security system standards and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e); and
(2) shall publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, not later than 1 year after initiating the rulemaking, that will take effect 1 year after its publication.
So if the industry can't determine what is best for their consumers, the government will. Because the government is an expert with regards to what is best for consumers. It takes gall to think that the government could provide swifter and more equitable results than industry negotiations.
Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of encoding the content in the first place? Or would it force all security to be performed entirely by hardware?
And somehow, requiring "fair use" of content was left out of this section... go figure.
There it is in black and white. Fair use must be protected. Now if only fair uses were specific and itemized.
Having read the rest of the bill, there's nothing that I find particularly problematical. Devices controlling digital assets will be mandated and it will be illegal to transport devices that don't have the digital rights control across state lines. It will also be illegal to modify the security system. Those are the least of my concerns if the above material isn't ironed out and addressed.
There are various reasons people don't get broadband.
1) They don't know much about it.
2) They haven't used the Internet long enough to get sick of 56k access
3) They don't know what hardware to get/ are put off by the ongoing expense. and of course availability too.
Number 3 should probably come at the top of the list. Other bits would be "dosn't appear to be worth the asking price" and "the whole package is somehow wrong" (e.g. some ISPs appear to deliberatly make their cable modem/DSL offering emulate limitations more applicable to modem dialups or to cripple the service in some way)
Creating Billions of Dollars Through Punishing Americans
Definition:
CBDTPA -
The noise that you make when someone accitentally spills hot coffee over your gonads.
Lets be absolutely fair, this bill is about one thing only, total control over the production and distribution of digital media. If anyone non-technical cares to listen, they may be reminded why Hollywood exists.
Hollywood was founded to escape from tight control and enforcemnt of various key patents on the production and display of movie pictures (a lot owned by our friend Edison). This was based around New York, so the guys who wanted to make pictures did so as far away as possible (but with better weather), so they went to the west coast.
Why do I bring this up, well perhaps Hollywood itself should be reminded that tight IP isn't good for business. One of the most productive cinema industries in the world is "Bollywood", in India. Their products are smaller scale but are widely pirated. However, they still seem very profitable.
I say to give the industry a choice. They can have perfect protection of IP. Then they should have copyright lasting five years only. After which the stuff can sent via HDTV or broadband and nobody need to give a damn about protection.
See my journal, I write things there
We appreciate your past efforts to bring the PC and Internet into the mainstream. The benefits to the economies of the world over the past 15 years has been phenomenal. However, now that this task is completed, your services are no longer required. Please put your computer hardware on ebay and find new professions.
Some 500,000,000 mainstream users are online today. We must bring their offline world IP laws into the online world. This is necessary for their protection.
A couple million technically inclined people stealing music, movies and software is no big deal. However, 500 million (and soon billions) of people stealing information is the equivalence of Marxism.
So you should welcome this new law. This law will end warez forever. It will stop foreign countries who don't enforce IP laws from benefiting from the hard work of persons in the developed countries.
And finally let's not forget our friends in Hollywood. The end of the mass theft of music means better music in the long term.
We thank you for your hard work to create a sophisticated useable information distribution system, as well as easy to use terminals to access that information system. Your input in the legislation of these devices and their medium is not desired. Please let the professionals in Washington handle it from here.
The moment that you have a customer hook up a device to the Internet, you're in violation of the law. The devices you sell would be in a manner affecting interstate commerce.
No, that's not quite what the law sates, but I'd bet good money that it'd take a damned good lawyer and a LOT of money to take a chance on proving that interpretation's not possible with the law as it's written.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Does anyone else find it bizarrely ironic that the bill's number is a multiple of 1024??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Hmmm...isn't a focus on the entertainment of the populace just as important for keeping the masses ignorant or apathetic of the downfall as it is for causing the downfall?
Orwell did not advocate tyranny! He would be saddened if anything by this were he alive today
Start off with a short, one sentence paragraph, stating your aim. Eg:
This is probably the only part of your letter which will be ready. Put it up front.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
There are already movies on DVD that are in the public domain. While the compilation is copyrighted, most of the actual movies on The Movies Begin - A Treasury of Early Cinema, 1894-1913 are out of copyright, even allowing for Sonny Bono.
--
E_NOSIG
Was this encrypted w/DeCSS?
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I mean w/CSS...duh..
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I don't know. I imagine so.
Taco: I can type a lot in 19 seconds. Your limit sucks!
--
E_NOSIG