CBDTPA Finds A Champion In the House

pshoemaker writes: "Wired is reporting that House member Adam Schiff of Burbank is seeking a co-sponsor for his House version of Hollings' CBDTPA. His 'Dear Colleagues' letter lays-out the same inspired thinking: that without copy protection there can be no broadband entertainment." Another reader suggests: "Be sure to also check out who's been paying him just so you know who it is he's representing..."

Comments

Let's buy our own senator

[mgoyer]

I propose that we buy our own senator since Hollings was bought for as little as $300,000.

Only 60,000 of us would have to pitch in $5 to make our very own pro-digital consumer senator a reality.

Matt

Re:Dont you get it? THESE PEOPLE DONT CARE

[Aqualung]

You act like this is a democracy, as if every voice counts, surprise this is a republic

I hate to be a grammar nazi, but you misspelled 'plutocracy' =P

An extra point on the DigitalConsumer.org Letter

[Lethyos]

http://www.digitalconsumer.org will fax a pre-written letter to your appropriate representative for you.

However, it misses out on one point that I think is a valuable addition to the letter. If you are going to send a letter to your reps, please consider adding this!! Here's what I wrote...

5. It is not the responsibility of the government to ensure profitability of obsolete business models. Times are changing and technologies are rapidly evolving. Many large industry players refuse to change their business models to adapt to a changing economy and consumer base. People want the right to create mix collections of the content they purchase, the right to create personal copies, and other various rights that are clearly fair use and do not harm producers. Media industry players feel this will dissolve their profits, and therein lies the core issue driving legislation such as the CBDTPA and DMCA. This issue is the industry's refusal to adapt to the needs and desires of consumers. Traditionally, businesses provide what the customer wants, or they fail. No business has the right to man-handle consumers as the entertainment industry has. This is especially the case when what the consumers want is not piracy as large corporations would have one believe. People want free reign to use the information they own as they see fit. Not everyone will chose to use copyrighted material for the purpose of piracy. However, these bills assume all consumers are criminals and thus violate a principal American ideal: that we are innocent until proven guilty. Large corporations should not be granted greater control over media technologies and the subsequent use of content. If they are granted more power, it will only result in more vicious tactics that will both stifle technology and choice in both American and global markets.

If everyone has suggestions, please post them there!