Slashdot Mirror
Seeking Arguments Against the CBDTPA?
ccfpark writes "I am going to Washington D.C. next week to talk to my senator (Bill Nelson of FL) and his technology advisor, Reg Lichty, about the CBDTPA. I am personally against this bill as it has the possibility of labeling me as a criminal for my participation in Open Sorce projects such as Handhelds.Org and Tuxscreen, where we endeavor replace proprietary operating systems on consumer electronics with Linux. If this bill is passed it may lead to outlawing these types of activities because it could circumvent software copy protection in these products. What I need are some good resources for formulating a business and political argument against this bill, so that I can speak to these politicians on their level."
but, more power to you! Sock it to 'em!
A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with. - Tennessee Williams
America was founded for the free individuals, not so that business can screw us over. It was created for us, the common man, not for Big Business.
I am sick of having to read articles about laws that are going to impead or "unalienable rights" whell, they are being alientated.
America needs to stop making laws supporting Big Business, and we need to start supporting the small people, Joe Shmo American.
Seems to be the approach that works best.
"I'd like to donate $20,000 to your campaign fund. By the way, this CBDTPA bill will negatively impact my business"
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
Be sure to check out the FAQ at Digital Consumer for plenty of Q & A on the subject.
Also, Rep. Rick Boucher's Copyright Address will probably help you formulate a good argument.
Good Luck!!
If you wan't politicians to listen to you, bring cash. When your interests ($$$) becomes a more convincing than other clients' interests ($$$), then you'll get your point heard.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Whoops, that should be WELL summed up. Oops :)
Click here or here.
Haven't seen that one before.
There are two "goods" associated with content that are at issue.
The first good is quantity. Those with content rights at stake
would have you believe that content is scarce.
Those who wish to access that content find it plentiful.
That brings us to the second good, utility.
Those who intend to access content, once obtained find their ability to
utilize that content meager, due to the lack of the tools to make use of that
content to the fullest. For example if someone wanted to playback their movie
with a slightly altered soundtrack they find soundtrack alteration tools
lacking. Using StarWars Episode One for an example
if someone wanted to write a utility to mute all of Jar-Jar Binks parts,
they would find it nearly impossible to do. This is due to the laws in place
that support the content rights holders.
The same features that are designed to prevent theft, prevent the sort of
utility mentioned. When end users of content do not get the use they
desire from content, the value of the content goes down.
1. The economy of altenate distribution methods (DVD) for high quality
digital content hinders consumer adoption of broadband Internet service.
2. The laws intended to protect digital media content rights owners
prevent utilities to be developed to fully utilize existing content thus
hindering adoption of digital television products.
3. If laws intened to further protect digital media content rights owners
are passed, no change in consumer adoption of digital television will take
place, because we are aready facing a content glut.
4. Broadband Internet service is affected by communications as well as content.
If someone writes software and decides that they want to make the source available providing anyone who uses their software includes the source to their project, as the GPL states, surely that is their decision and their own personal right.
Hard Work Often Pays Off After Time, but Laziness Always Pays Off Now.
1) The activities they are targetting (wide-spread sharing) are already illegal. (Napster is dead.)
2) The law targets all digital devices. (Does this mean that the locks in hotel doors have to have officially approved DRM technology since they are networked?)
3) This would KILL hobbiest efforts (I learned by building computers).
4) Open source is problematic
5) Hollywood is free to invent their own technology.
6) Hollywood is important to the county, but the computer industry is more imporant.
So why would you ask slashdot? You'd have a better chance getting an answer by using google.
Secondly, point out that computer games, which are one of the most copied things of all time, are a flourishing industry whose revenue is a large fraction of the film industry's despite all the copying that goes on.
So long as a single non-compliant piece of equipment exists that lets you record a screen or the output of a speaker, circumventing hardware protection is trivial.
Rather than repeating what I've already typed up a couple of times, my thinking about what's really going to have to happen is here.
It was posted on /. a few weeks ago. When Elephants Dance
Being from florida I found it interesting that Bill Nelson is actually mentioned in the article.
Anyone seeking arguments against the general trend of propertization of ideas would do well to familiarize themself with Lawrence Lessig's The Future of Ideas. Coincidentally, it's my understanding that he's speaking on similar topic today at Georgetown Law School.
c bdtpa_alert.html) on this topic.
Oh - and talk about economics. Conservatives particularly love that crap. Man, you throw in a little "marginal cost", give 'em some "network effects" and a bit of the old "dead weight loss" and they'll think, "damn, this guy's a frickin' genius."
Specifically, you might start with the EFF's action alert (http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020322_eff_
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
Um, okay. Here is the most common approach proffered in these parts:
Walk into the meeting and shout "Micro$oft sucks, Open Source rules!" (I'm not sure how to pronounce the "$", but go with your gut.) If he disagrees, ostracize him from the conversation.
The key is to be as self-righteous and condescending as possible. This will show everyone listening that you are in charge.
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
* Harder on small businesses, which probably don't have the resources to do all the extra work required for compliance. Aside from the extremely important issues of innovation, this can easily cut down on employment opportunities, as businesses fold, or fail to start.
* More stress on the legal system (courts, jails, police) to monitor the major and minor infractions of this. Would we rather have our cops trying to catch violent criminals, or going after independent coders? Of course, there's the monetary outlays that would accompany this as well. Where are you going to get the cash? Cut other programs? Raise taxes? Neither of these is going to be popular with voters, especially not for something like this issue.
* Unenforcability in general. It's easy to show that encryption's easily crackable (relatively speaking), and that people will find their ways around so-called copyright protection schemes. How are you going to be sure that your particular protection schemes work? Are you going to require updates as soon as someone cracks the existing ones?
* Issues with tech companies: how are you going to inspect their hardware or software, the inner workings of which are supposed to be secret? None of them are going to be very happy about that, and their money and support are going to go to politicians who oppose the bill. Sure, they don't want their stuff pirated, but they probably don't want people poking around the insides of it even more.
For the record, I don't copy CDs, movies, software, etc. (except for fair use, e.g. making a tape of a CD I own for my own personal use), and I'm opposed to piracy. (More reasons I support OSS.) However, I don't think this bill, or measures like it, are the right ways to go about trying to proctect the rights of copyright holders. It'll do more to hurt than help.
I think the best arguments against the type of law that the CBDTPA represents are from Republican playbooks.
First, laize faire. The last thing the ailing tech industry needs is a mound of new goverment regulations.
Second, 'innovation.' If we want to compete in the global marketplace, can we really afford to cripple every single US piece of electronics? Will our crippled products be preferred by other countries?
Third, practicality. Can we really implement a practical form of content control? I would argue that the techincal barriers to setting a standard would be enormous. I would also argue that the creation of a single such standard makes the economic incentive to break that standard orders of magnitude greater. Can any single standard withstand the attacks of the hackers of the world? Isn't it better to allow diversity of solutions?
Finally, I would call the movie industry's bluff. Are people seriously going to stop making movies if they can't have perfect control over their distribution? Would the localization of content creation be such a bad thing? Will it truly be the end of the world if this law isn't passed? People will not stop buying content simply because it is technically possible to get an illegal copy. It is technically possible to get an illegal copy of your neighbour's newspaper by photocopying it before he picks it up in the morning, but no one bothers.
Good luck. P.S., how does one get to meet a senator?
I can't give you any good specific arguments, since I'm not familiary with the specifics of the bill, but here's the tack I'd take: this measure increases the rights of business and corporations and diminishes the rights of individuals and consumers.
Be sure that what you are saying makes sense to a politician. I'm reminded of Contact, which had Jodie Foster as the "good" scientist, and some other guy as the "bad" scientist. My take on the movie was that the "bad" scientist was actually the more effective one, because he spoke the language of those in power and knew how to manipulate them to accomplish the goals of science. Jodie Foster's character didn't do much for science except by chance, because she couldn't make those who held the purse strings understand her. The movie had a happy ending because fo two or three deus ex machinas; in real life that won't happen.
In short, don't even open your mouth to this guy unless you speak his language. Otherwise, you will poison the well for those that come after you:
"Oh, great, not another Napster-loving Linux using technology freak..."
Now that I've finished stating the obvious, I'll get back to work...
This bill shouldn't go through on the premise that it's misplaced to illegalize the tools used in a crime even if the crime continues. The better solution is to enforce the existing law, rather than infringe on the use of tools. Tools used in a crime often have a legitimate purpose (which we're all aware of (DeCSS, Linux), and also a tool doesn't commit an act of bad intentions to deserve its being punished, the criminal performs the act.
where'd my typewriter go?
"Digital files can be copied. Nothing anyone can say or do can change that. If you have a bucket of bits, you can easily create an identical bucket of bits and give it to me. You still have the bits, and now I have the bits too."
If you can get your senator to understand the above (i.e. that the bill is futile, anyway), and to understand that mandating features in software stifles innovation and violates the rights of the programmer, you have a chance of getting them to vote in a sane manner.
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
And believe me, he will notice if you start reciting prepared wisdoms that you picked up on Slashdot or elsewhere.
If I were in the face of a pol on this issue, I would argue as follows:
1. You will infuriate your constituents who have become accustomed to controlling their own music, movies, and PCs (and they will vote against you)
2. You will destroy large numbers of job-creating businesses that work with free and open-source software (and people connected with same will vote against you)
3. You will destroy our liberty, and this is ipso facto a bad thing (and people will vote against you to preserve said liberty)
In related thoughts: I think the folks we should learn from are the pro-choice and gun lobbies. They're not pro-abortion, they're abortion rights advocates; they're not pro-gun, they are defending the right to keep and bear arms. Cast the debate in terms of rights, and then turn out the protesters, and you'll have a lot of success - in liberal and conservative states alike.
And, EFF et al.: it's time to broaden the coalition radically. Send that alarmist direct mail! It works. "Hollywood wants to take away YOUR PC!" Buy mailing lists from right-wing and left-wing groups alike - guns, smokers, abortion, gay rights, you name it. Everyone who sends $ to a group wanting to defend its rights should get an angry, alarmist EFF mailer - that will get the members and the cash necessary for the full-court press we will need to KILL HOLLYWOOD'S BILLS DEAD. Fight fire with fire.
sulli
RTFJ.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
privlegdge. the CBDTPA is functionally similar to the removal of libel protection for legislators.
there, phrase it a way that affects them.
As watching any politician function over a period of ten minutes will demonstrate, money talks. A legal mandate for DRM in all hardware & software is essentially a method for passing the cost of piracy prevention from the RIAA/MPAA to non-related businesses. In cases such as Microsoft, Intel, and IBM, this cost will most likely be dismissed by the targeted Senator as absorbable, but in the case of small businesses it is disproportionately large. And small business is a huge percentage of commerce in this country--and hence, of tax base. I think it's on the order of 90%, in fact, but I don't have a cite to go with that (if I wasn't at work, I'd hunt something up, sorry).
Passing this bill would be kind of like passing a bill making all shirts required to have airbags installed, so the automobile industry doesn't have to. Even if you buy into this as a "solution" for a "problem" that isn't being addressed (which is not, in fact, the case), it doesn't make sense.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Are we just making up acronyms now? Holy moly ...
~LoudMusic
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Why would you want to buy a product from a company that has policies that make you so upset? Are you a masochist? If "International Widget Machines" says you can't hack their product for Linux with a group of your buddies online because it violates their IP, don't buy their fsckin' product! No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy it. Just say, "No!", with your pocketbook. Support companies that do allow for this activity. If this is such a huge problem, there are going to be companies out there that will cater to your desire to rip apart their products so you can port Linux/BSD/etc on them. If there is truly a market out there for this, some smart guy/gal will cash in on it.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Solicit donations and tell the politician's you will give $$$ for their campaign. This is about as high a level as most politicians can get to.
DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF
Isolationism of any kind is counterproductive to economic development. This bill seems to enact such a wall from the rest of the world in the distribution of new technology. Most such walls are creted in the form of tariffs, but this would have a similar effect. Economists often attribute growth in economies to effeciencies. Efficiency is created through intoduction of better tools (of which computer hardware and software are a prime example). by clamping down on newly created software and hardware technologies, economic growth is hurt. Secondly, the parties within this country who stand to benefit from this bill is not limited to the entertainment industry. Large players in the hardware and software industries will be able to absorb a hit from such litigation, but smaller competitors (often with better products) will not have as easy a time doing so. Competition is also a prime creator of new technologies and thereby economic efficiencies.
My arguments are alittle bit extreme, I do not exactly care much for the RIAA or MPAA and I'm for intellectual propery reform, at least when it comes to dealing with digital property, I dont think digital propery should be owned by anyone.
See my posts & others
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
If you're gona talk on their level then I assume you have plenty of money? That is the only language the understand.
Hmmm... How about this: "I'll give you money." I think every politican will understand that. Or better yet, just keep tapping your nose while you're talking to them.
They'll get confused, assume you're one of the many corporate interests that 'supported' them, and assume they should do just do whatever you want.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
1.3 So what's the problem?
The problem is that copyright protections have become too strong. For the past 200 years, legislation and court decisions preserved a careful balance between the need to protect the rights of creators and the need to protect the rights of citizens. Sometimes those rights come into conflict, for example when a reviewer wants to quote a passage from a novel or when a TV fan wants to record a show in order to watch it later. In the case of such conflicts, citizens were often given reasonable flexibility to use legally purchased content in a convenient manner.
However, that balance has been dramatically shifted by recent copyright laws. Today, citizens have practically no legal rights to use content that they own. We simply want to restore the fair and reasonable balance that served us for two centuries.
But isn't there a fundamental difference in today's technology and so-called "fair use?" If a reviewer quotes part of a book, only a small portion of that book is duplicated and make freely available. If a home viewer tapes a show on a VCR, the most he can do is run a few copies off for friends. But with digital content and the Internet, a home computer user can share a perfect copy of any content with potentially millions of other people, with minimal time and effort. Doesn't that pose an immediate danger to copyright holders? How do you propose we stem illegal distribution of copyrighted material, other than mandating that copy-thwarting be built into any device that can read the original work?
dinner: it's what's for beer
This isn't a troll, it's an honest question:
Hasn't history shown that if you want to speak to them on their own level you should bring a briefcase full of cash?
I'm serious. If Hollywood can do it, why can't we? Hollywood get's it's money from consumers like us, so if we divert our hard-earned money elsewhere (an anti-DMCA fund) we would have just as much miney to buy politicians as Hollywood, right
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
The first is legal, the second is not.
Legal precedent exists whereas the government cannot outlaw tools that have possible illegal uses if they also have overwhelming legal ones.
Good Luck!
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
I don't know if this will hold any water from a legal standpoint, and it may be a little off topic, but it is worth noting that competition in the entertainment industry is non-existent. If it were Sony vs. Universal vs. Paramount vs. Whoever then that might be another story, but what we have here is a unified effort by the organizations to which they subscribe: the RIAA and the MPAA. Acting as single entities, these organizations are responsible for artificial price floors on CDs, movie tickets, and home video releases. The only real competition is piracy. Jack Valenti and Hillary Rosen will tell you that people pirate because it's easy and they don't really see anything wrong with it, and that demand has kept the prices where they currently are. What I see is millions of Americans ranging from the very young and reckless to the very old and conservative willing to break the law to acquire these commodities rather than purchase them. This law just gives the MPAA and RIAA yet another tool to (in my opinion unethically) extend their choke hold on the industry.
This may bring broadband services sooner, but then who would be able to afford them? This will ultimately and irreparably harm the consumer if passed.
One last thought--fair use may not be a right, but it should be understood that consumers expect to have ownership of the products they purchase, not just the right to listen or watch on somebody else's terms. This expectation should be headed and legislation should be put in place to address it, as it seems to be the popular will of the people.
There is a law concerning freedom of speech, but there is no law for free choice of OS or using OSS. How is this possible?
...???... Linux?
You can't buy, machine without OS (Windows), this means Open Source OS does not exists. ???
What am I using now if not Open source OS?
Am I a criminal? No, I don't use any part of software that wouldn't be bought or OSS. And I bought for more than 20000$ worth of software for my company.
Do I feel like being a criminal for helping in OSS projects? It's just like UNICEF (or any free organisation) is a criminal too, in the end thay are giving help for free. Last time I checked that, they haven't charge for that. So in my case... There are projects that I wanna charge for, and there are projects that I wanna give to the comunity for free, so if I'm not feeling robbed, who is entitled to feel that for me? Politicians maybe?
I guess that nobody in high position really cares, as long as they have provisions and all of us common people will just wait for Orwells "1984".
I know I'm giving only questions not answers? But, this are the points that really interest me?
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Any pro-CBDTPA claim they make, simply reply, "No, it isn't."
Even people paid to argue use this technique.
"US prepares to invade your hard drive"
a letter to FL Sen Bill Nelson
All easily found courtesy of google (probably the better place to ask this question, anyway.)
-XDG
Any device capable of reproducing media is a
press in the sense that 'freedom of the press'
is meant in the US Constitution which states:
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom
of the Press (Amendment I).
For example: if a CD can carry text, audio, and
video, then it is just as much a news medium as
the New York Times, NPR, or CNN.
For a more blatant example, any PC with an
attached paper printer is literally a printing
press. Any law which would interfere with the
ability of this combination to print would be
blatantly unconstitutional.
Daniel
I'd explain how consumers dont want this, I'd explain how technology doesnt want this, and I'd explain democracy.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
This may or may not be a dangerous example. (YMMV). In the world of Firearms the manufacture of new automatic firearms and conversions from semi-auto to auto has been outlawed since 1986. However, the KNOWLEDGE of how to produce such conversion kits is not illegal. In fact, the details (even blueprints) of conversion kits are posted frequently throughout the net as well as various explanations of how machine guns work as well as sold in stores. Only the ACT of MANUFACTURING a NEW ILLEGAL KIT OR FIREARM is illegal. If one tries to apply this to software, what "they" are trying to prevent is software piracy. So only the actual ACT of PIRACY should be illegal, not the knowledge or blueprint (aka software) of how to do it.
Cthulhu for president!
open source aside, if you force this on all software/hardware companies in the US, you will not only create a demand for bootleg devices and software, the source will be from outside the US.
Supply and Demand.
Computers and Software being smuggled in from Columbia,,,.
The whole point of this law is to take that choice away from consumers by criminalizing the act of creating or using alternatives. You won't be able to choose to run Linux/BSD/etc unless they comply to the draconian standards created by this law. The only way you will able to say "No!", with your pocketbook or otherwise, is to not use a computer or any other digintal technology.
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
...because you have a valid, sensible point. Politicians simply stare straight ahead and drool when confronted with such a thing. I wish you the best of luck, I wish I had some better advice, maybe talk to some lawyers?
To me these laws are a first assault on the innovation of freeware. You can point out the secondary effects of freeware on the economy when the majority of internet servers are run on apache and routers have embedded versions of Linux. Without this "publicly funded R&D" the economy would probably be in much worse condition. Outlawing, "enjoyable use" of these things will reduce this segment of expertise development in the U.S. making U.S. programmers less completive and create an effect of brain drain. These people are not actually targeting the copying process, of which humans are guilty, but are targeting the competitiveness of garage entrepreneurs. Which is where HP, Apple, Microsoft and many other tech industries got their start.
This prior restraint of trade strikes at the very heart of "the American Dream". And he can be scewered in the Geek Press if he isn't carefull.
Why should the technology industry have to change their business plans, practices and culture to accomidate the wishes of the entertainment industry?
The entertainment industry's way of doing business should adapt to the technological advancement of the human race, not the other way around.
Software companies lose _billions_ of dollars a year to piracy. Yet none of them support legislation. They protect their profits by actively pursuing copyright violators. And they know a great deal more about technology than the MPAA does.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
What I need are some good resources for formulating a business and political argument against this bill
Well, to start off, have a look at these piracy quotes I'm still compiling, since piracy is the underlying issue supporting hardware digital control. Most of them I just put down because of their ridiculous/hypocritical/ignorant value.
"It was penguin lust...at its worst." --someone
I just read the full text of it, ant it looks almost identical to the SSSCA except they changed the name to make it sound like a good thing and added a bunch of bogus propaganda to the "findings". Sooner or later they will realize that it is technologically impossible to stop illegal distribution of video/audio content without stoppingdistribution of all non-commercial content.
Repeal the DMCA!
lets just hope the person you are seeing has a clue what you are on about I really don't want to have to go back to window$ (makes be wonder how many back handers from micro$oft will be getting a say in this law?!?). But i really hope you make a good impression because i know perfectly well that if it get's passed in the States then the UK will follow shortly (You know with Blair being Bush's new best friend)
Modern MR and CT scanner archive data to... guess what: Recordable CDs (they used to use recordable optical discs, which would also probably fall under restriction by the CBDTPA.)
These machines are also built around off-the-shelf workstations running stuff like NT (ug), Solaris, and Irix. Since they're essentially the same thing as a regular workstation, except that they're hooked up to million-dollar pieces of equipment, and run specialized software for medical imaging, it means that they share the same "evil" file-copying capabilities (duh).
Let's assume that they pass the CBDTPA. Does this mean that it will be illegal to sell, transport, or manufacture advanced medical imaging equipment in the US? GE (which makes both CT and MR scanners) would be very pissed to hear about that.
Let's assume that they "fix" the new equipment to comply with the CBDTPA. How will the old scanners and the new scanners interchange data? Even worse, what kind of equipment will we have to buy to read this new data? How will we archive this very important, critical, patient data, so we can move it around AT WILL, review it at a future date, and share it using our installed base of older equipment (including regular desktop computers), in which we've already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in?
It's bad enough that we're paying the RIAA for CD blanks that hold patient data, will we have to feed the music and entertainment cartel in order to practice medicine too?
I discussed the idea that DRM (Digital Rights Management) imposes what I call a "technical copyright" on a protected work, that is, a copyright that never expires. This is clearly contrary to what the founding fathers meant when said "limited time" in the Constitution, it circumvents the power of Congress to control the length of copyright protection, and it does nothing to "promote progress of science and the useful arts."
Howard Roark, Architect
I believe in a Man's right to exist for his own sake.
I wouldn't focus on the need to replace the proprietary OS in embedded systems as my main point.
It is too easy for a non-technical person to see this as using the hardware design of some manufacturer in a way they did not intend for it to be used, and there may not be much support for your right to "do the same thing, in a different way, with someone else's hardware design."
Instead, I might focus on the fact that computing platforms with smaller market shares, both open source and proprietary, may be blocked from using certain content. In the case of open source, it may be illegal to develop DVD and CD content players.
This will have the opposite effect of speeding adoption, and instead will cause the industry to collapse into a hodge podge of competing implementations targeted at different market segments.
Also, do check out the fair use material at the digital consumer site mentioned above-- good stuff from a legal slant.
I've asked to have a hearing in the house Senators Hollings and Stevens are off their rockers
I am sure that someone else has said it, but restrictions built into hardware may make the "general purpose computer" a thing of the pase.
The project was dismissed as a failure.
Finally you all are given a chance to step up to the plate, and you can't even come up with an argument.
I believe Sun is using Linux or some flavor thereof on the ipaq for some of their work, which fits in to this category. You should probably talk to them.
--JP
The government should be very wary of trying to manipulate industries. According to Sen. Hollings, he believes that the entertainment and tech sectors can eventually work things out, but that his bill will give the process a needed kick. The fundamental flaw in this bill is the idea that government lawmakers are smarter than the market as a whole. That is, if the market does not provide its own reasons for adoption of a new technology, perhaps that new technology should not be adopted.
But that's a philosophical argument. On more practical terms, the following things will result from this bill (in my opinion). (I am assuming that when I create digital content, I can choose to turn off the copy protection feature.)
This law only affects electronics sold in the US. It does not affect electronics sold in, say, France or Brazil or China. With so many developing nations becoming gaining technical savvy, this law will make those markets more attractive and the US market less attractive to technology vendors. Electronics makers will certainly still see the US as the single most lucrative market in the world, but other markets will now look even better. Some major electronics manufacturers may put more emphasis on other markets. The rate and quality of new technical innovation hitting the US market will be slowed, and other countries will begin to catch up even more quickly. The US will slip in its leadership position.
The law deals only with devices shipped or imported through interstate commerce. In theory, components could be shipped to a state, then they could be assembled in that state with the copy protection module built in such a way as to be easily removed. The consumer could then legally remove the copy protection module. The unit becomes more expensive, the law fails to protect anything, and consumers are inconvenienced. In addition, customs agents will be unduly burdened by trying to enforce this law. I am pretty sure that they are busy with more important things.
This law does not actually protect the author of a work but rather the copyright holder, or in practice the production company. In fact, it may hurt the artist. Why? Because recording and copying will become more expensive, limiting the ability of small-time artists to produce their own materials. I think this will, over time, end up shifting a lot of creativity overseas, essentially by suppressing it here. (US artists won't move overseas, but again, the US market will be harder to reach.)
In addition, there are celebrated examples of precedent where the government chose to stay the hell out of copy protection. Notably the software industry.
The software industry has a self-run organization to monitor, police, and enforce copyright agreements. This has helped eliminate the worst abuses while keeping the innovation of the software industry at a fever pace. Basically, the industry itself pays to enforce its own agreements with its users. Is money "lost" to software piracy? Sure! But no one in the software industry is complaining to the government about it (any more).
For me, it all comes down to the idea that the market will correct itself and that the government should generally not try to impose contrived rules of this magnitude, particularly to protect a few entrenched giants.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
Just as any good politician does - unfortunately - you must play to the Senator's emotions - and more importantly, the emotions of his staff. He is a Democrat, but probably a pretty conservative one - coming from Florida. From my experience as a lowly intern for a senator, this is what I suggest:
Find out more about this technical advisor. Has he/she always been 'with' the senator or did he/she come from a corporate background? Use this information to help frame your argument. For example, if the advisor has always worked for the government/senator then he/she is probably inclined to be more of the 'socially conscious' type. Using this as an aide, make the argument that this is not good policy - it is a ploy by the 'Disney' corporate culture to push off onto society the potentially high monetary and political costs of copy-protection. (I personally hate the idea of copy protection, but it is within the rights of the companies to employ this, as long as it is clearly labeled on CDs, etc. They don't want to do this because customers hate it. For this reason, they are seeking protection behind the law.)
If the advisor and senator are somewhat more conservative - coming from a corporate background, make the argument that it is the obligation of the industry to satisfy the will of the market - not the government's obligation to alter the market for the industry. Also mention the chip industry's opposition to the idea - and the increased costs consumers will have to shoulder. It could be argued that innovation will be hindered. Would you purchase a new system if you knew a copy-protection chip were installed in it? I wouldn't.
Finally, Florida - if I remember correctly - is still one of the states fighting M$. In this case, make it a point to bring up the subject of open-source software and how this legislation could seriously harm its development. When writing my Senators and Congressman (California, unfortunately), I made it a point to bring up the fact that my one-man-shop must run open-source software because of the cost associated with M$ products. This legislation could force me to adopt M$ platforms, decreasing my income and making it harder for me to do business.
Hope this helps.
We The People. If this law passes, it should be changed to We The Corporations
I'll bring it up again. "The Future of Ideas" by Lawrence Lessig argues well against many of our current network-controlling systems, including copyright, patents, and in your case, physical-layer/node control. If you read this book, you'll be able to easily prepare a non-partisan argument that if the CBDTPA was passed, it would seriously hurt innovation.
The CBDTPA would slice the throat of the digital commons and neutrality of network layers Lessig argues for. Innovation thrives on digital commons and neutral network layers. Eliminating the neutrality of digital devices brings us well back on the way to an AT&T-like controlled network, where you need to ask AT&T's permission to do anything.
As John Gilmore puts it:
Forget any sort of whiny "it's my right to steal music" arguments. I think the best argument is this:
It's the entertainment industry's problem, not the tech industry's.
Keep repeating until they are enlightened. It's not fair to saddle tech companies, consumers and everyone else EXCEPT the entertainment industry with added expenses and inconvenience. If the entertainment industry wants copyright enforced, then let them use the laws that are already on the books. Let them sue the pirates. In other words, let them enforce it with their own money, not our money.
Bottom line, there is no need for this law, because copyright violations are ALREADY ILLEGAL. Let the entertainment industry figure out how to enforce it.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
because hammers can be used to smash car windows, heads, and commit other illegal deeds besides smash thumbs, hammers should be outlawed, despite the fact that it makes carpentry more difficult (although it benefits the powered hammer companies, who coincidentally lobby for the bill).
In the Stalinist Soviet Union, copying machines were licensed, because the party apparatus recognized that freedom of speech was a threat to the party, and a printing press (which is what a copy machine is) was an amplifier of the freedom to speak out.
So protestors used old typewriters to produce and reproduce articles and books, to great effect.
Now personal computers have become copy machines for more media than just the printed word. Like Stalin's apparatchiks, people opposed to freedom seek to make these multipliers of freedom illegal!
I almost can't believe that mere money would make people take such an anti-freedom stance, but I guess the old saying, money can buy anything, is really true of some politicians.
There's only one argument I've ever seen work on everyone. Freedom of the press, freedom to inovate and all that is great, but the one thing everyone understands is this: money. What these laws do by taking away choice and forcing us to buy software that we don't want is they're taking away money from us. Relate your arguments to cash and he'll have no choice but to listen.
Hey Editors: get ccfpark to write a Feature about his/her experience. Might be interesting and informative!
sulli
RTFJ.
Congress Breaks Democracy, Takes Peoples America.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
- There is already quality content on the Internet. The simple fact that it isn't owned by the MPAA member companies is no reason to overlook that fact;
- The lack of broadband adoption has arguably much more to due with the "last-mile" and associated problems than with issues of content. How many people who do have DSL, for instance, had to wait in excess of a month for installation because of some Baby Bell dragging its feet to stifle competition, only to then have their provider go under and have to repeat the whole process?
- no evidence is being put forth by anyone that adopting protection measures will stimulate the broadband market
2) The technical requirements enumerated in the bill are vague and/or contradictory:- in light of research into these types of systems (particularly watermarking, but others as well), it's doubtful whether "resistant to attack" and "readily implemented" are compatible, much less when combined with the requirement that the tech be "not cost prohibitive";
3) The FTC has already taken punitive/regulatory measures against the RIAA for anti-competitive practices (like the MAP pricing scheme); Congress should be extremely wary of consolidating further the already arguably monopolistic market influence of the RIAA and MPAA.4) Regardless of the bill's provision that software implementations of the standard be implemented in "open source" software, Microsoft, a company already being sued by the same government for anti-competetive business practices, should not have their monopoly power further bolstered by requiring technology for which MS has a patent and for which no reasonable expectation can exist as to even reasonable terms, much less RF licensing, being available for the technology.
5) The government has a notoriously poor track record at successfully mandating technological solutions -- why don't we have a national ground radar system to prevent runway incursions in airports, for instance?
That's just an "off the top of my head" list. Hopefully others can add significantly persuasive additional arguments.
You have to see your senator to stop a bill from making you an outlaw.......
I think one of the biggest problems with the bill is that it doesn't take into account what happens when the copy protection is cracked. Sure there is a provision that the scheme has to be updatable, but computers are manufactured well in advance of their sale. I mean there are warehouses full of computers as we speak. Well, say those computers had government mandated copy protection. The copy protection board or whoever decides that the copy protection scheme needs updating because the old one is ineffective. What happens to those millions of computers in warehouses and on store shelves? Are BestBuy and CicuitCity engaging in illegal activities? Are these millions of computers not available for salea ll of the sudden? Can you see the lost dollars piling up? To me, this is a major problem with the law. It doesn't really address the problem because one way or another the copy protection will fail, and when that happens non-copy protected versions will be available again. The bill solves a problem for the entertainment industry, but it sets up a whole bunch of new problems for the tech and retail sectors. Anyway, that's just something I've been thinking of lately.
Several arguments against the CBDTPA:
1) It will criminalize the creative activity of millions of Americans who are contributing to the public good and who are not pirates.
2) It will isolate the US from outside imports which do not contain the "copy protection" technologies. It will discourage imports since companies will be unwilling to accept liability for thier product potentially being used to break the law in the US.
3) Said companies in #3 might be unwilling to change thier products for sale in the US.
4) It *WILL* create a black market for such things here in the US and abroad.
Good enough?
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
My reply from Senator Bill Nelson of Florida
It might help you. (If you download it, it will be more legible, but oversized. I had trouble with the scanner.)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
The copyright is atributed to the author. The author normally will relinch it's rights for income. Pre-production income and thru publishing income. So the copyright holders are normally the publishers. This happens as a counterpart for the publishing and distribution process of a copyright work.
If the publisher lets the copyrighted item to go out of print or out of distribution it is breaking the implicit aggreament between him and the author and trhus should have its copyright rights revocad and reinstated with the author so he can continue to deliver his work to the public.
That is the fundaments of copyright that are beign corrupted nowadays!
Cheers and have a nice day...
Then Bell paused for a moment and reconsidered. "There's a risk you could say it covers things like even a digital clock program on your computer," he said.
Later in the article...
"...A second loophole would grandfather in code that existed before the CBDTPA took effect. Software that was manufactured and in the hands of consumers before the FCC's rules take effect would be exempt."
Doesn't this introduce a chicken-and-egg problem? If I can't read my clock (because it's digitially protected using the mechanism discussed) how can I know if the code I'm looking at should be grandfathered in?
The good senator needs his head examined.
Walk in with a big wad of cash, it seems to work great for hollywood..
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
I live in Florida and have found it extreamly hard to get my point across to represenitives, congressmen, or political minded people with power. I've written letters, sent faxes, tried emails, tried calling and nothing ever got responces or even a stock "Sorry, I am very busy" reply. Please bring this up as it both hurts the idea of a represinitive government and forces people to protest or have marches/rallies to be heard.
This is another prohibition era staring us in the face
This is bad law because it doesnt understand software, hardware, how they relate, or offer any enforcable plan.
This would be like passing a law that required microphones reject offensive language automatically. Much like prohibition this seeks to make the legal system sort out a social delemma. It will be ineffective, expensive, and trample on all sorts of legitimate rights.
bo
In the long run higher paid US jobs will go overseas
"I am personally against this bill as it has the possibility of labeling me as a criminal for my participation in Open Sorce projects such as Handhelds.Org and Tuxscreen, where we endeavor replace proprietary operating systems on consumer electronics with Linux."
My first suggestion would be to visit your English 101 teacher.
As with politicos, if you threaten what they hold dear they'll change their minds.
If any digital device manafactured or sold in the US has to have built in DRM then no other country will buy US made digital equipment. This will cause US workers to loose their jobs, companies to loose money and campaign contributions will fall. There will be increased grey imports circumventing tax, so the treasury will loose out.
Oh yeah, and point out that it'll be a vote looser.
Like the man said, "when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
and should not be treated as such. The best argument I can make it that so long as I don't engage in criminal activity I should not have to put up with the inconvenience of being treated as one. In my (cursory)reading of the law it would seem that the only part of it that your activities would break is the part about public distribution. You could probably prevent this by using a DRM shceme on the replacement O/S. I might also bring up the price that folks like myself would pay to protect someone else's property that I will never steal (I know that I am an acronism here but I never have and probably never will use a compter to listen to music). Up until recently it was always the actions in this country that were outlawed not the tools. Even lock picks are not per se illegal they are only illegal if they are used as burgulary tools. Other such burgulary tools are hammers, crowbars, bricks and hammers - should we outlaw them too. What I would do is take the law and draw several analogies between old technology (remember that cars were high-tech 60 years ago) and todays technology. If this type of logic was applied to the automotive industry my entire garage today would be illegal. I think you get the point. Another thing that you might ask for is if there has been a study done of the cost to society to protect Hollywoods profits. This could be compelling argument if it is unbalanced enough. Best of luck.
...which is at
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/
VKh
You might ask the following provisions to be
/their/ works with any of the watermarks
/any/ computer operating
added, since they are entirely reasonable, and
hence likely to "poison" the bill. >:K
1. It must be possible for ordinary end-users
who record and produce audiovisual works on
consumer-grade equipment (garage bands,
amateur film-makers and animators, etc.) to
mark
mandated by the security standard, so their
content can be viewed on all compliant media
devices that require such watermarks.
(otherwise, the bill is essentially asking for
"digital prior restraint" by whoever dispenses
the watermarks, which would surely be found
un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court).
2. Similarly, it must be possible for ordinary
end-users to mark the works they create with
any of the copying control settings defined
by the standard, so they can exercise the
full range of control over how their works
are copied and used.
(i.e. it should not be any more difficult or
expensive for ordinary end-users to mark their
works with digital copyright info than it would
be for RIAA or MPAA members. Otherwise, the U.S.
wouldn't be complying with their Berne Treaty
obligations to automatically grant and uphold
copyright without formal action by the author.)
3. Any software or hardware technologies which
are mandated by the standard must be freely
available, without any patent, licensing, or
royalty requirements, to ensure that it is
possible for open-source "freeware" digital
media tools to comply with the standard.
(In particular, since Microsoft Corporation has
basic patents covering
system with embedded digital-rights management,
the U.S. Government must revoke or buy those
patents before mandating all operating systems
software have this function. Otherwise, they
would be simply handing Microsoft exclusive
control of the entire software industry!)
>;k
Some of the "Findings" in Senator Hollings' bill:
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistribute illegally.
I.E. He doesn't want you to be able to play your CD and record the analog output through the use of stereo jack cables etc.
(15) As solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
I.E He wants laws that will FORCE hardware makers to cripple ALL electronic components that might be used to convert and/or copy digital signals into unprotected analog signals. This would mean that you would be FORCED to pay for crippled equipment because that is all that would be available.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
He is referring to the rampant theft of intellectual property like mp3s etc.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" technology. Much of this activity is illegal, but demonstrates consumers's desire to access digital content.
He is referring to consumers who are exercising their right of fair use but then abusing that legal right by sharing the files with others.
Notice the use of the word "consumers" and not citizens. His interests clearly are for the corporations and not for the average American.
(18) Piracy poses a substantial economic threat to America's content industries.
Ditto with the corporate interest thing.
(19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
He repeats himself. He really wants to screw with our hardware.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate consumer expectations reading use of digital content in the home.
Yeah, as long as we don't expect to exercise our fair use rights.
(21) Secure technological protections should enable owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use that content in a legal manner.
This bill would be changing the definition of "a legal manner", so your current expectations are irrelevant.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
Again, the "legitimate home use of digital content" will no longer include fair use. You will have to pay for content that is streamed to your home each time you listen or view it.
It goes on and on but I think everyone gets the idea. Pass the Vaseline and bend over.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
You can use scanners to scan pages of books in, and PC's to convert them to text, insert them into files, and put the book on the net for anyone to read. Are we going after scanners and copy machines, too?
This also kind of relates to the Celine Dion story from earlier today. I'm working on a major presentation to bring in a prospective client for a very lucrative contract. I pop this crap CD into my PC, thinking to listen to some music while I work. Now my computer is locked up, and 6 hours of work is totally lost!
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
I live in Georgia so I wrote to Senators Zell Miller, Max Cleland and my local Rep. Johnny Isakson (all of you should do the same IMHO). I got replies from Cleland and Isakson. Here they are....
_ __
Dear *****:
Thank you for contacting me regarding S.2048, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, being introduced by Senators Hollings and Stevens.
I certainly understand your concerns regarding copyright issues. The U. S.
has traditionally been a strong supporter of copyright holders. As you know, the development and expansion of the Internet has created questions in some people's minds as to how to deal with copyright issues of all kinds. I believe that we can find a way to balance appropriately electronic commerce with copyright
protection issues. Currently, the measure has been referred to the Senate Commerce Committee, of which I am a member. Please be assured that I
will keep your concerns in mind when the Senate considers this bill.
Again, I appreciate your taking the time to contact me. It was good to hear from you.
Most respectfully,
Max Cleland
United States Senator
________________________________________
Dear Mr. ******:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding technology mandates. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
I do not support legislation of this type for the following reasons:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) gave copyright owners the tools to stop purveyors of "piracy tools" that circumvent copyright protection technology, but it explicitly declined to specify which technologies should be used, clarifying instead that there can be no mandate for manufacturers to respond to particular technologies.
Draft legislation supported by some companies would repudiate the DMCA's carefully struck balance by requiring the Commerce Department to
"certify" specific copy protection technologies and outlawing all interactive digital devices (computers, digital TVs, cell phones, etc.) that do not include the certified technologies. The flaws in the discussion draft of the bill indicate the difficulties in government technology mandates for copyright protection:
* Retards innovation by freezing today's technology in place. By picking specific technologies to mandate in every device, federal mandates virtually guarantee the inclusion of outdated technology in future digital technology products.
* Government picks winners and losers. Even if the entertainment and technology industries agreed on a common approach, the government would
still be picking specific copyright protection products to be included in every computer, cell phone, personal video recorder or other electronic
device.
* Multiple mandates mean extreme performance degradation. Scanning every datastream for numerous certified "digital watermarks" would
significantly slow down computers, even where no protected content is involved. Audio/video capabilities would be unworkable on cell phones, PDAs and other portable devices.
* Government (and lobbyists) as gatekeeper over new technologies. New products that didn't work with the certified copyright protection technologies would be unlawful until the government approved new copy protection. Approval would have to be gained over the lobbying of
companies, NGOs or any others who wanted to stall the new technology.
* Consumer backlash. Unworkable copyright mandates would cause new IT and consumer electronics products to fail in the market and cause consumers to blame technology companies and policymakers.
* Reduced global competitiveness. IT and electronics products produced for the US market with lower performance, higher prices and burdensome restrictions would be noncompetitive in international markets where such mandates did not apply.
* Unintended consequences. Mandates would potentially impact digital products whose uses are unrelated to the entertainment industry, such
as measuring and testing equipment that incidentally fall under the Act, thereby needlessly increasing the cost to the consumer.
Please feel free to visit my website at www.house.gov/isakson for more
information on issues that may be of importance to you, as well as to sign up for my monthly email update. Thank you again for contacting me, and I hope you will not hesitate to call on me in the future if I can be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
Member of Congress
CBDTPA ...
The Road to E-Serfdom.
In short, PCs and computers in general are much, much, much bigger than hollywood. I don't care much for movies streamed to me on my computers if hollywood can't figure out a way to do so with a framework that has worked for everyone else. It doesn't reduce the value of computers for me. As for watching movies I can rent a tape/DVD and watch it on dedicated hardware that already has copy protection. I don't want my computer to be turned into yet another DVD-player/TV combo. I already have that. Btw, computers and the internet weren't put together after years of research for me to turn a $2500 worth of equipment (not including software prices, connection fees etc.) to a 'toaster' like device that replaces a walk to the movie rental store, a VCR and a tv. Movies are already 'streamed' to my home thru cable. What is the value added for me, the consumer to limit the use of the hardware I have paid for? Hollywood has their hardware. Millions are spent on TVs and DVD players by consumers. They have made the rules and I have subscribed to the rules of their game. I have a VCR, a DVD player and several TVs in my home -- all manufactured to the specification of hollywood. Why can't they spend more R&D dollars and create enough value in those existing 'hollywood' hardware? It's obvious that they just want to 'choke the airsupply' of any technology that poses a threat to their stronghold. If hollywood wants to play the computer 'game' -- more specifically, the PC game it can't expect to have the rules changed for them.
Sure computers could be used to pirate. Knives can be used to kill. Hammers can be used to smash heads. Crowbars can be used to break in. Maybe we ought to start selling blunt knives, plastic hammers and well, outright ban for the Crowbar. Therefore, this bill doesn't protect the consumer or add any value whatsoever for the consumer. Sorry i rambled a little but i'm really infuriated at the short sightedness of various elected brianiacs effectively to amputate a technology much much bigger than movies and music for the sake of protecting hollywood (while there's abundence of 'hollywood hardware' that could be enhanced if hollywood was truly concerned about providing consumers more value.)
The motives behind CBDTPA are immoral for several reasons:
* Unjustly suspects customer from stealing.
It offends every just citizen who simply does not do that.
* Misinformes public that what is de facto playback protectio (playback is legal) is copy protection (cooying might be illegal)
* Does not want to pay for its own infrastructure (descrablers, hardware keys, etc...), but rather wants to exploit current computers and internet at somebody else's costs, even non-customers.
Petrus
We've seen some pretty amazing technology advances lately, in fact, I have a friend who with a $1,500 viedo camera (cheap) is making a very high quality movie with his friends in their garage. Within a few more years we could be bombarded with more digital arts than we could possibly imagine today. The barrier to entry for my friend is the distribution channel. With the upcoming broadband very small buget movies like his will become more or less commonplace. With the RIAA out-of-the-way these small mom&pop film producers will truely be able to show their wares!
A bill like this one will hurt my friend. First, he will probably have to go through all kinds of hoops to get his movie "protected" so that he can release it. Also, the equipment he uses will no longer be "consumer" equipment and thus will not be commodiy and thus will be sold at a much higher price... or even unavailable without specific agreements. This could be used to ban small mom&pop shops from the industry. Second, it will serve limit what can or cannot be shown on broadband. Most likely only a few broad band players will be in the market, and rather than risk lawsuit they will only allow "proven", aka "RIAA" companies to distribute movies. Thus, the entire boradband distribution channel could just dry up, once again, leaving the RIAA with the keys to the distribution market.
If someone is hard of sight but can do the job of doing a book review by listening to the book then an employer is required by the American Disablities Act to provide speakers/text-to-speach software. Despite the employer being required to provide the hardware, DMCA/CBDTPA says it's illegal to *USE* the hardware if the publisher chooses to render it useless! If, for example, an Ebook specifies that the screen is the only allowed destination then forcing the software to use a brail reader or text-to-speech is illegal. I see this as being the legal equivalent of requiring buildings to have wheelchair ramps but then allowing the contruction company to declair that the cement may only be used by feet. If congress is going to continue on this tend of invalidating the usefulness of equipement to assist those with disablities they might as well repeal the ADA all together.
It's now called the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act. This bill is being championed as a way to promote digital television. That's where the problems lie...
Under this guise (sp), the bill will be more easily welcomed in congress, so I'd say this is where to start. I'd say point out the fact that this will render useless all EXISTING digital televisions (as the new digital network will of course have to be built with strong, federal copy protection), not only failing to bring digital TV into homes, but killing it all together, or setting it back decades!
I'm not a law expert, but if a senator who is not technologically aware, then they may see this bill as nothing more than a way to protect TV, and think of us techs as nothing more than a small, whiny interest group worried about side effects of an otherwise 'ok' bill.
Good Luck, save us nerds!
What the heck is a 'sig'?
Not saying that U.S. are bad, but U.S. democracy is going to put people to shut up and pay without thinking.
Looks like American dream was reinvented to version 3. And like new version of Corel Draw or Windows, slower and worster than ever
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
I was listening to the Feb 28 congressional hearing, and what struck me huge was a representative from one of the movie studios (or an movie industry representative) talk about how only 1 in 100 movies turns a profit and how they need to protect that one movie and use it to generate enough revenue to cover all of their flops. I was amazed. As a small business owner if I had a 1 in 100 success rate, I'd be out of business. Perhaps the movie industry is so innefficient that it really does need a shake-up. Perhaps a world where broad band allows mom&pop shops to compete could offer more consumer choice and produce better movies?
This here is government protectionism at its very worst. It is protecting big, very wealthy business from small, hard working small film shops.
Simple bring cash
Find out what committees he's on. Tailor your arguements/points to how it will effect them. From his web site I can see that he is on the following:
Senate Armed Services Committee
Senate Committee on the Budget
Senate Commerce Committee
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Space and Technology
Good set of them.
maybe talk about how it will lower corporate production and introduce significant hurdles for products made here in the global market.
This bill will also make it even harder for a startup to compete against established companies, since they will need to either spend manmonths building in copy protection into their software or buy an expensive package that they'll still need to spend extra time implementing.
Next this bill would also seem to indicate that if you update a piece of software you'll need to include copy protection. I know that at work we make changes to code regularly. So after this bill goes into effect, to change just the copyright date in the source, I'd have to implement some copy protection. (probably over the top but...)
Then look at how he voted on key bills in the past like he voted YEA on the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2001
Also a good thing before meeting with him is looking at his PAC contributions and maybe talking to them first and getting their thoughts on how the bill will effect them. Which unfortunatly he got $5000 from the National Association Of Broadcasters Television And Radio Political Action Committee. But also groups effected by the bill have also.
$2000 - Nortel Networks Inc Political Action Committee
$1000 - Technology Network (Technet) Federal Political Action Committee
$1000 - Eds Political Action Committee
The republican side of Technet is run by James "CEO Netscape" Barksdale, this might be a good one to start with since I think they might be against the bill. And their pockets are open to Commerce commitee members of the house and senate.
Then tell him Bill McCollum was all for the bill.
We the People . . . I always thought it said "We the Corporations . . ."
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
It would seem that, at least on something programmable, if you can read something, then you can copy it. To try to prevent this would require deep and difficult alterations to all compilers and interpreters in existance, and potentially, the outlawing of programability of small devices where such DRM-aware code can't be feasibly implemented. Like a PIC chip.
Wouldn't that be a great world, where PIC's and Atmel's are classed as burglery tools?
The notion of hardware DRM enforcement is absolutely broken. As someone much more eloquent than I said, DRM will turn your computer into a Media Delivery Device.
"Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
The fact that every existing computer, operating system, and most pieces of software (including all OSS), even the internet itself, would instantly become illegal should be argument enough. This law mandates the adoption of systems and technologies that simply do not exist.
Find out what committees he's on. Tailor your arguements/points to how it will effect them. From his web site I can see that he is on the following:
Senate Armed Services Committee
Senate Committee on the Budget
Senate Commerce Committee
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Space and Technology
Good set of them. But focus on the Commerce Commitee.
maybe talk about how it will lower corporate production and introduce significant hurdles for products made here in the global market.
This bill will also make it even harder for a startup to compete against established companies, since they will need to either spend manmonths building in copy protection into their software or buy an expensive package that they'll still need to spend extra time implementing.
Next this bill would also seem to indicate that if you update a piece of software you'll need to include copy protection. I know that at work we make changes to code regularly. So after this bill goes into effect, to change just the copyright date in the source, I'd have to implement some copy protection. (probably over the top but...)
Then look at how he voted on key bills in the past like he voted YEA on the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2001
Also a good thing before meeting with him is looking at his PAC contributions and maybe talking to them first and getting their thoughts on how the bill will effect them. Which unfortunatly he got $5000 from the National Association Of Broadcasters Television And Radio Political Action Committee. But also groups effected by the bill have also.
$2000 - Nortel Networks Inc Political Action Committee
$1000 - Technology Network (Technet) Federal Political Action Committee
$1000 - Eds Political Action Committee
The republican side of Technet is run by James "CEO Netscape" Barksdale, this might be a good one to start with since I think they might be against the bill. And their pockets are open to Commerce commitee members of the house and senate.
Then tell him Bill McCollum was all for the bill.
By attempting to introduce a bill that will never pass in its existing form, the industry is gaining valuable experience, of how consumers will react, and using that experience to further their objective of retrying to introduce the bill.
The purpose of the bill, is to require all digital devices to have software that meet certain criteria. It's almost certain that the software will be licensed from America, and non-US software companies will need to license this software and use it in their U.S. products.
Thus, U.S. a select few companies will get a percentage of EVERY digital device that gets sold that falls within the scope of the bill.
These companies will be taking the money from consumers, in the form of higher prices, from other businesses, including businesses that wish to compete with the companies that license the software, and from companies attempting to import software.
This will be the making of an effective monopoly, analogous to the way nearly every new PC sold has MS Windows installed on it.
Once made, the monopoly can't be un-made via competition, as industry trends have illustrated.
Monopolies stiffle inovation: suppose the company that provide the license, is SONY, and they make their own CD players.
Then, suppose I invent a new technology better than CD, and I called CDX.
Right now I'd already have enough trouble trying to get people to use CDX, since SONY is an entertainment company, and I couldn't convince them to make their music in CDX instead of CD.
But if this passes, in any form or guise, then my "CDX" will be even less likely to see the light of day, because for every CDX player (which can also record to CDX's, unlike CDs) I sell, SONY will get a percentage for the license for anti-copy software. (This will be done by making the requirements of the software too difficult for anyone else to make).
Then, if my CDX's do well, sony will be making a percentage, and will use the money to lower the price of their CD players.
Hence, my new technology, never becomes industry standard, because I can't compete on price.
Worse, suppose SONY violated my CDX patents in an effort to compete, and I sued them and one 1 billion dollars.
I'd use that 1 billion to make better CDX player-recorders, and I'd sell lots of CDX's with them.
And sony would get a percentage of each one.
Thus if they violate _my_ rights, and pay 1 billion, they end up getting paid back a percentage; let's say, 15 to 200 million.
But if consumers violate _their_ rights, they go to prison.
What is your stand on MP3? This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right. To learn more about digital music, visit the Music and the Internet section.
You want to focus on how the bill will strip away the rights of the consumer, but you want to stay away from the negative side of this. Don't try to defend Napster, don't try to equate piracy with freedom, and don't try to define the difference between a hacker and a cracker.
Unless you're walking in there with 10 large in your pocket for a campaign contribution, or your dad's an old Harvard buddy or something, it's unlikely you'll be given more than a scant few minutes to make your point. "Gosh, I'd love to hear more about this, but I'm a very busy person, so if you'll just leave this information on my desk..." Therefore, it's important that you make your point quickly and forcefully, with minimum of topic distraction. If he asks about something else, respond to it, but do everything you can to keep the focus on what you want to talk about.
To me, your biggest selling points should be Freedom to Innovate (go ahead, steal an MS phrase), and the taking away of consumer's fair use rights. Bring up the fact that VCR's and tape decks, once decried as evil by the MPAA and RIAA, are now multi-billion dollar businesses for them. Point out that, time and again, consumers have rewarded companies (with their business) that give them new technologies.
It hurts when I pee.
CDA? I think it's just missing some letters
This bill talks about what could happen (massive digital "theft") if broadband becomes ubiquitious. The discussion on capitol hill, Feb 28 failed to talk about what sort of good things could happen. For example, broadband may allow for smaller movie companies to entire the market as the distribution channel is much more free. Smaller movie shops may do a better job of meeting demand for movies than a few big movie shops; in fact, this is what Adam Smith's theories are all about. The bill is written largely out of fear of the future, fear for what could happen rather than what will happen.
What is interesting is that even in the face of Napster, sales of CDs went UP not DOWN. Thus, the increased freedom of the internet actually produced more revenue (perhaps people discovering CDs that they would have never tried) than less. Certainly there may have been some theft, but overall, the benifits far outweighed the risks and the music industry as a whole has profited smartly. What makes the movie industry think things will be any different for them? It is perhaps far more likely that movie sales go up with broadband, not down.
We should just sit back and watch what happenes, if massive theft starts to emerge then we can take steps then. As for the arguemnt that broadband won't emerge without the movie industry, this is just false. Broadband will emerge, it may just take a bit longer. But if the big movie shops doesn't want to be on the boradband wagon, I'm sure the smaller shops will gladly take their place.
bring a midget and have the midget hand the senator printouts with all the points you plan on making. He'll be so amused by the midget being there he won't remember what you said, hence the printout. And later on he'll think back and say "Hey...that fellow with the midget, he sure had some good points. Not sure what they were but...oh wait, here they are right here."
The most important thing is that you're not just another face in the crowd. Captivate the guy's attention. A midget may not be the BEST way to do it, but I sure as hell would remember you!
...After all the anthrax I sent you, I can't believe you would vote for this...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I recently wrote to my Congressman, and the point that I tried to stress was that Hollywood has already broken its promises on this score. To help get the DMCA passed, they said that the lack of digital copyright protections were preventing them from distributing content on-line. Once that was passed, they said, they'd be able to start the on-line revolution. Instead, they absolutely refused to do anything on line and only used the DMCA to shut down potential competitors. Today we have no idea whether legitimate on-line distribution channels would suffer from excessive piracy because there haven't been enough legitimate on-line distribution channels to find out. Before Hollywood demands more protections, they should have to follow through on their previous promises and see whether or not piracy is really a problem in the face of legitimate sources of on-line content.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Section 2. The Congress finds:
(1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products.
This is an illogical argument. It can easily be seen that many consumers purchase broadband internet service and digital television with the current quality of content. Second, does Congress have clear evidence that other issues, such as cost, availability, techichal fears or lack of technical experience, or other issues might be the cause?
(2) Owners of digital programming and content are increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize and respond to content security measures designed to prevent theft.
This is not the case. Owners of LARGE SCALE CORPORATE CONTENT PROVIDERS are reluctant. This argument won't go down well in Congress because it is the large scale corporations that are giving them the campaign finances, and they don't want to hurt those... There are many small-scale providers who do not care, including local radio and television stations, budding artists and performers, and hobbiests.
(5) Other existing digital rights management schemes represent proprietary, partial solutions that limit, rather than promote, consumers' access to the greatest variety of digital content possible
This is contrary. DRM systems are inherent limitations. The only way to promote consumer access is to remove such limitations. Citing Napster, when no RM was enforced the service flourished. When RM was required, the service went stagnant.
(9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to facilitating and hastening the transition to high-definition television, which will benefit consumers.
DRM is not a requirement of the high-definition television standard, nor is it a technical requirement for HDTV equipment. As such, it is not a necessary precondition.
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistribute illegally.
All content must be converted into analog form for human interpretation. Although every step from creation to broadcast may be in digital format, media is light and sound when it reaches the human. To prevent the content from returning to analog form outside the human body, the industry must provide a direct transfer connection into the human brain, which is infeasable.
(12), (15) and (19) A solution to [these problems] is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
A solution to these issues (which are debated above) cannot be provided uniformly across all media, especially on the Internet which knows no political boundaries, nor does it respect any particular nation's laws. The culture of the Internet is inherently against regulation, the regulation that exists is primarily done by Requests For Comment, or RFCs, which suggest -- not require -- standard protocols and methodologies.
Section 3. (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; A good lesson in crypto would be appropriate here
(D) readily implemented; This is contrary to (c) above.
(E) modular;
(F) applicable in multiple technology platforms; This would be difficult
(G) extensible; What prevents manufacturer-specific extensions?
(H) upgradable;
(I) not cost prohibitive; and To whom? RIAA and MPIA, private businesses, startups, universities, AND hobbiests alike?
(2) any software portion of such standards is based on open source code. HUZZAH!
(c) ENCODING RULES. --
(1) LIMITATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS. -- In achieving 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.
(2) PERSONAL USE COPIES. -- No person may apply a security measure that uses a standard security technology to prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-premium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in section 122 (j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a cables system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such title).
I am probably mistaken, but doesn't fair use allow me to make multiple copies for personal use, for classroom/education use, or other uses, not just a single copy?
Section 3-(h)-(1) IN GENERAL. -- After security system standards have been established [...], representatives of digital device manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners [...] may modify the standard security technology that adheres to the security system standards rules established under this section if those representatives determine that a change in the technology is necessary because -- (A) the technology in use has been compromised; or (B) technological improvements warrant upgrading the technology in use.
So basically even though the claim is this is government regulation, the industry determines when it needs changing as well as what changes need to be made. That sounds suspiciously like industrial regulation, not congressional regulation.
Section 4 -- An interactive computer service shall store and transmit with integrity any security measure associated with standard security technologies that is used in connection with copyrighted material such service transmits or stores.
No exceptions for bad transfers, bad media, or software errors? (If my transfer is interrupted, does FTP need to delete the half-transfer, or can I resume?)
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF NONCONFORMING DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES.
In reading of the constitution, congress has many powers, but I am fairly sure this kind of restriction on interstate commerce is not one of them... The Constitution grants this right to the STATES, not CONGRESS..
Sec 6.(b) COMPLIANCE WITH ENCODING RULES. -- No person may knowingly apply to a copyrighted work, that has been distributed to the public, a security measure that uses a standard security technology in violation of the encoding rules adopted under section 3.
...
Sec. 8. The Federal Advisory Committee ACt (5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group of representatives of digital media devices and representatives of copyright owners convened for the purpose of developing the security system standards and encoding rules described in section
This is a deterrent to research. How can people (those not appointed by the Government or big industry be expected to develop better encoding rules without testing the rules on other, copyrighted content? Presuming that content must be previously encoded, researchers must either break this section or illigally decode the works. Researches will then have two options -- Either obtain licenses from Big Industry, or perform research illigally.
In summary, the bill meets most of the goals stated in the purpose, provide the private sector (big business) with protection measures (anti-competition, anti-consumer, and anti-piracy) enforced by Federal Regulation to protect content. But it does not promote broadband, (that would be along the lines of a price cap on broadband services) nor does it promote the transition to digital television (which is required by 2006 anyway).
Of course, there are the standard /. disclaimers that I am not anything and I don't represent anybody, but you are asking for help in logical arguments against specific points.
Enjoy!
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
We could start with the companies listed at the MPAA:
Walt Disney Company;
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.;
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.;
Paramount Pictures Corporation;
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.;
Universal Studios, Inc.; and
Warner Bros.
...and the huge list of companies at the RIAA.
Some points I would use if I were meeting with my Congresscritter would be these:
1.) I would suggest that it is bad legislation that assumes that all users of consumer electronics are such incorrigible pirates that they cannot be trusted with uncrippled equipment. This is akin to saying that cars cannot be equipped with engines, because they might be used to make a getaway, perform a drive-by shooting, or be operated while drunk. All such things may be justification for, say, denying driving rights as a parole condition for a convicted felon, but not limitations assumed to be necessary for the general public. Point out that, the legislation would assume that even the congresscritter him-(or her-)self cannot be trusted with uncrippled technology.
2.) Point out that, with current technology, the creation and distribution of entertainment could become a cottage industry (more likely with music than video, but still). Right now, a talented artist could write, record, and distribute his music without the recording industry's involvement, and I think that scares them more than all the pirates in Southeast Asia. The likely effect of legislation like this is that the ability to create music (or video) that does not have the blessing of the music industry will be made more difficult; the programs and devices to make legal recordings will likely become too expensive for the amateur to purchase, and will likely require some sort of proof that the purchaser is not involved in piracy (after all, involvement in piracy is assumed to be the norm, not the exception; if not, why are they doing this legislation?). By raising the difficulty of content creation, they reduce the likelihood of ever facing decent competition.
Hopefully this will be of use,
Jon "Shimatta" Baxter
Basically it comes to this: the parties involved, such as MPAA, want to persuade us that their way of making money is the only correct one. They want the US to protect their obsolete business methods by making it illegal to compete. The CBDTPA will resolve in higher prices, slower development and crappy products (both the technological ones and the actual "art"). And, of course, as a bonus, a lot of people that have nothing to do with the problem will suddenly become criminals (those who aren't already because of DMCA). "When it rains it pours" comes to mind.
:-)). I don't see any way how to combine all these. If it's open source, you just make a decryption library, like libdvdcss, and anyone can use it for anything, so "cracking" it will actually be much easier than the CSS fiasco. If, theoretically, Microsoft developed a proprietary protection scheme, it would be "safer" from a practical point of view, but of course would be yet worse because it would monopolize the market.
Apart from that, the proposal itself is contradictionary. The "protection methods" must be certified, safe, and open source (and I guess they actually must be working
Don't forget, the copyright was created to promote creation of works by protecting the authors and consumers from distributors, not for protecting distributors from other distributors. If some distributors are experiencing problems, it is because the market is in imbalance and the "invisible hand" of competition is trying to fix it.
Instead of restructuring, MPAA wants the US to "break" the poor invisible hand.
Unfortunately, the whole copyright law development in the last decades is like this, doing exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to. It is very important that this misconceptions are pointed out and made understandable to the public.
Bye, shurdeek
If America wants to remain competitive in the 21st Century, She's got to have information markets that are as efficient as possible. The only way to do this is to have reasonably free knowledge infrastructure: education, communication, and culture. Too many legal restrictions will drown these crucial growth industries in red tape and leave American information industries far behind those of Europe and Asia.
Don't let the interests of a vocal and corrupt minority prevail over freedom of speech, freedom of thought and innovation.
America is all about big business now. Yes it snuck up on but it honestly is too late. Business sees a threat with digital piracy or whatever you want to call it and the leaders of the media industry are lobbying Congress long and hard (pun intended) to pass a law NOW and sort out the facts later.
Doesn't this happen all the time? It's just that this one really affects everyone.
Get used to it. People who don't have the same sense of moral value that you do f'ed up the whole thing for us by taking something they had no right to take and they awoke the proverbial "sleeping giant" of the music industry.
When it became obvious early on that encryption and such wouldn't help they turned to heavy-handed legislation and mandates. That's what happens.
Face it, "We The People" brought this on themselves.
I think one important thing that's been missed is that people simply aren't going to comply with this legislation. I'm assuming that nobody /actually/ thinks that all the developers working on Linux and every other open source project out there is just going to pack up and move to Redmond. The fact is that people aren't going to adjust their behaviour because of this. And even if it does have an impact, that will be to force developers to move elsewhere - to Europe or just hop across the border to Canada.
/offenders/ for copyright infringement, not makers of technology.
Either way, it isn't going to make a difference to people who can import these DRM-free devices - and they'll be back to charging
> an enforcement burden and legal quagmire
Witness the fiasco surrounding video camera sales in Europe. Because there is a tax/import duty on items that can record (a VCR tax), manufacturers sell cameras with the external inputs disabled. Thus, you can record your vacation to Paris, but once you edit it on your spiffy Firewire-enabled computer, you can't record it back to your video camera.
A thriving industry has grown around "enabling" the input ports, since manufacturers don't want to have a separate assembly line to make these neutered cameras, and just disable them in the flash portion of the camera firmware.
Meanwhile, everyone else gets their cameras for cheaper, with the ability to record their edited footage back to tape for storage (I'd rather mail a 4-ounce tape, than a 2-lb hard drive, the tape's a hell of a lot cheaper too.) If this legislation passes, we'll have an equally stupid restriction on our equipment here in the states. This will be a death-blow to Firewire, and related industries like network storage. I'm surprised that nobody in the popular media has brought up how broad this legislation will be - it will literally cover every single consumer device under the sun, since everything (or nearly everything) is digital these days.
And I'll bet that there will be import duties in order to cover the costs of implementing and policing this bill too - the politicians like laws that can fund themselves. Even if there aren't import duties, we'll eventually have to pay taxes (on top of higher prices) to fund the enforcement of this bill's provisions...
The CBDTPA is the digital equivalent of requiring car manufacturers to build their cars so that they are unable to transport stolen goods. It would be impractical, costly and make the cars impossible to sell where that "feature" was not required. The CBDTPA would do the same to all digital devices. How many thriving U.S. industries would it drive into the ditch ?
Software has been evolving steadily for years. The entertainment industry (under the guidance of monopoly) has been regressing. Now, the entertainment industry wants the software 'industry' to sacrifice its ability to innovate freely for the sole interest of lining the pockets of industry giants. Why should computer programmers sacrifice the future of computing as a freely available platform to all and turn it into a controlled system that takes the power away from the users and themselves? The act will do nothing for art or music or television, it will only grant hierachical control over those media to those at the top. By resisting the act, both the world of computing AND the arts that exist out of that control will continue to exist. The only losers would be the fat cats, although they will still be fat cats.
An economic argument: David Levine
I'm ignoring the assault rifle argument -- that's already been hammered. They are used by military and police groups.
The second ammendment, in its entirety: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You are right -- studies show a gun purchased for self defence will most likely not be used for that purpose. However, studies also that the concealed weapons permits and regular, visible weapons are deterrents to several crimes. This second argument shows how firearms can be an effective in maintaining the security of a free state.
As to hunting being a legitimate sport -- some places tried to do away with it and found that the wildlife populations would grow and the wildlife starve and die due to overpopulation -- all because the predators are gone.
People in rural areas arguably need firearms for various purposes. Any farmer who has killed livestock knows about this. Animals get sick and it is easier to shoot them than to take them to a vet so the vet can shoot them.
And something you overlook - old weapons are collectables and quite valuable. A hunting gun my dad purchased when he was young for $99 was just appraised at over $1000.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Example: Let's suppose that you want to videotape your daughter at her wedding dancing with her new husband to their favorite song.
If machines exist that can do this, then machines exist that can record sounds such as the music in the background which is on a CD and copyrighted. If you can record the video and edit it, then you can split the sound from the picture. If you can copy this sound, then you can copy copyrighted content.
Example: Let's suppose you're reading an book on your laptop as your baby crawls around the floor. Your baby then stands up and starts taking his first steps. He walks in front of the laptop with the copyrigted e-book on it. Should you be able to grab your video camera and record him walking around?
If you have an e-book and you can videotape it, then you can either distribute video stills or use OCR to convert it into text. Either way, if you allow people to be able to take pictures of e-books on a computer, then those e-books can be copied. The only way to stop this is to make machines that can't record when they're pointed at a screen displaying copyrighted content.
Example: Let's suppose that you're walking around in Times Square with all of the big video screens all around you. Many of them will be displaying copyrighted content. Should you be able to videotape all of the sights in Times Square even though you're copying copyrighted content?
If so, then you can use a camera to copy copyrighted video.
These examples are of people living in a world of content that's constantly coming out of things they own while those people are trying to make their own stuff. If you allow people to make their own content, the same machines and technologies that they will use for themselves can be used to copy copyrighted materials. There is no way to separate these two things.
Once these things are recorded, they will be stored in slightly different formats than the original, so you won't even be able to tell what's copyrighted and what isn't just by comparing files. The industry will be forced to control and inspect all data that goes through any network.
So, the only way to control copyright with technology is to make it illegal for anyone to create anything in any way including using computers, cameras, and microphones.
I wonder how the copyright industry itself will continue to make their content since they will need to have tools for recording that aren't hobbled by the laws they want to inflict on everyone else. I don't think they realize that if they make it illegal to have a machine that can send copies of DVDs over the Internet, they won't be allowed to have computers to send their DVDs over the Internet. After all, they don't own ALL of the copyrighted movies in the world, so if their servers can send MY content over the Internet without my consent, they'll have to be illegal.
Basically, they need to have total control. They have forever to keep trying to get this total control. They will be happy with baby steps because every time they get baby steps laws passed that control things a bit more, they have moved the line of what's acceptable. Since copying cannot be stopped without total control, they can come back and ask for more measures every time the partial measures fail until they have total control.
And, interestingly enough, they will also clamp down on the ability of anyone else to create their own content to compete with the copyright industries, but I am sure that this loss of creative potential is a regrettable but unforseen consequence of the necessity of protecting their IP.
Except for one thing. Will clamping down on all of the kinds of recording and editing machines that people can use to record their own music and movies advance the arts, or hinder them?
I feel that if you have an opportunity where you can use technology to allow everyone to make and distribute art cheaply, you will advance the arts more than a world where the creation and distribution channels are artificially narrowed to serve a few corporate interests. If everyone has the chance to create and to share then arts will be advanced more than if things are controlled by a few.
Since the only way to control copyright is to shut off the creative paths that would have been available to billions to keep thousands employed, I say these kinds of laws protect copyright at the expense of freedom. Since the only reason copyright exists is to advance the arts, and since a law like this will stifle the arts, a law like this cannot be constitutional.
Not only will a law like this stifle:
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
One side effect of DMCA and CBDTPA will have the RIAA is shooting itself in the foot. I volunteer at a public radio station that uses automation. (an Arrakis system for the curious.) Basically it rips CD's to MP3 and makes it possible to program a radio show in a fraction of the time, once a library of music is built up. MP3 over FM broadcast isn't a serious degradation of sound quality.
Going to a DRM-enabled system with unrippable CD's is well beyond the budget of the station. I would assume, though that most commercial stations have similar setups and may well upgrade to a "professional" DRM-enabled system. At this point there are 3 possibilites:
1: Record labels provide CD's to radio stations without DRM. Given the number of promotional copies of CD's I've seen at record shows and in used record stores, piracy would still be rampant.
2: Serious pirates would just buy a "professional" system and rip away.
3: If no "professional" ripping is available, then copy-protected CD's will receive little airplay since they are not compatible with the automation system.
Small label artists and singer-songwriters already get the shaft from ASCAP/BMI since royalties are based on airplay and voting rights in these organizations are based on royalties received. Outcome 3 will just marginalize them even further.
Outcomes 1 and 2 mean going to a copy-protected environment will not accomplish the RIAA's goals.
Thus, the CBDTPA is ineffective, and could make it more difficult for artists to receive airplay.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
How about
Controversial
Bill
Devised by
Truly
Pompous
Assholes
??
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
The driving up of costs for both PCs and network infrastructure would price out much of the poor and also make it economically infeasable to try to provide low-cost Internet to low-income residents. With Linux it could be practical, with Windows XP Server, no way. A Windows XP Server "solution" is not conducive to low-cost ISPs or volunteer networking efforts - at all.
This would worsen the digital divide.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
The simple truth is that when you purchase an electronic device, you own it and have the right to use it as you see fit. Buying a Palm Pilot doesn't mean you have to use it just to keep addresses. For all Palm should care, I could use it as a sand shovel or to wipe my ass.
Passing a bill that restricts our control over the physical hardware or software in the devices we have purchased is wrong. Saying that you may only use a certain type of software with hardware would start to become a common practice (ie: winmodems) that only people in the know would avoid. And at what extent does it end?
Thank you for buying this television. You may not use any other type of remote control device. If the remote that came this this television breaks we will gladly sell you one for $99.
I have a few arguments to make.
.WMV format, particularly if it'd come down at 150KB/s.
1.) Both the RIAA and the MPAA make products that are easy to replicate. The simple fact of the matter is that anybody can make a TV show, anybody can make a song, and anybody can publish it on the net. It wasn't like that 20 years ago, but it is like that today. The RIAA and the MPAA's business model simply hasn't changed to the new market that opened up. PC's took the place of the typewriter. The the Government step in and pass regulations that required that PC's cannot do word processing because it would destroy the typewriter market?
Music is inherantly easy to copy. This has *always* been the case. There has never been a time where music couldn't by copied in some way or another. The RIAA had every expectation that one day it'd be so easy to copy their songs that it'd grow beyond their ability to control it. This was not an overnight event. They should have R&D teams working on the next phase of products they could sell that wouldn't be so easy to duplicate. The Music Video, for example is an application they could have tapped. If part of the value of a song was the video accompanying it, then it'd greatly increase the size requirements of a song from 3 megabytes to 50 or more.
If I were a company that sold shoestrings, I wouldn't ask the government to block sales of velcro.
2.) Despite the obvious demand for compressed audio and video delivered on the web, neither the RIAA or the MPAA has made any appreciable attempts to fill this demand. For example, the RIAA has never provided me with a way to pay for an MP3 after I have downloaded it. Instead of filling the demand I have for more portable media, they tried to sue it out of existence. By supporting this style of business, you are not promoting a good economy. "It is our way, or jail for you." Does the government really want to defend the type of business practice that doesn't fill demand?
3.) When I go on vacation, I want to have movies to watch on my flight. The best way to do this is to rip the DVD to my laptop and leave the DV disk at home. I don't want to risk my $25 investment to baggage handlers at the airport. Yet the MPAA considers protecting my investment in them a violation of their license.
By giving these guys a legal means to force the hardware to reject the media I bought, you're giving them the right to extort money from me. If my disk gets damaged, I can't call them up and get a replacement media. Nope, they'll expect me to buy a new copy. Any step I take to back it up is illegal.
4.) They already have laws protecting them. They already have their innovation-stifling DMCA, why do they need to phsyically stifle innovation as well?
By physically removing my ability to rip an MP3, for example, you are essentially taking my rights away the same way that sending me to jail would. In other words, I am being pre-punished for a crime I hadn't commited yet. Worse, all crimes are JUDGED before punishment is dished out. Basically, this legislation is removing my right to a fair trial. There are plenty of legal uses for MP3's and DVD ripping technology, that has been established over and over again. Yet the RIAA and the MPAA both think that every single application of ripping is illegal. They are not judges and they cannot legally reach that conclusion.
5.) What good would it really do? Okay, so now the industry has control over what I can or cannot do with the content I bought from them. Either this will make me lose interest in all content (i.e. I wouldn't bother adding music to my entertainment budget), or what I would buy wouldn't really do me any good. The people paying for the content are being punished, but the people who are actually commiting crime will simply find new means to make it available for free. Worse, they'll be a virtual celebrity if they manage to provide it. In other words, the people doing the right thing get punished, the people commiting the crimes get a greater reward. This is not going to save either of these industries. Telling the customers they can't have what they want won't let them go very far either.
6.) Both the MPAA and the RIAA have made their content appear to be free. Turn on the radio, you hear music. Open your TV Guide and you'll find they're airing movies released a couple of years ago. Nobody has to pay for this. They just turn it on and there it is. When a consumer goes to buy a CD, they don't think he's buying a license to have a copy of the song, they think they're buying the convenience of hearing it any time they want as opposed to waiting for it to appear on the radio. Consider for a moment the ramifications of what I am saying: How can the RIAA expect people to pay $18 for a collection of songs on a CD when it's the song on the radio they really want to hear over and over again? How can the average consumer have any idea what a song costs to own? At least at the movie theater, you have to pay $8 to go see it. That isn't the case with TV or with Radio. If somebody runs across the ability to download a TV show off the net, how can they be expected to not think it's free?
It seems to me that what these industries had two good options available to them:
a.) Make their content available for free on the web with ad revenue, just like TV. This technology has been around since 1998. The bandwidth needed to do that has been around since 2000.
b.) Make the shows available to purchase on-line. I'd happily pay $25 for a season of That 70's show in
At the very least, they should inform people. VHS tapes have an FBI warning that come up, why doesn't TV if it's such a big deal not to distribute it?
7.) Wouldn't this stifle flow of information? What if I can't watch a news story that happened in Florida? (Hint: I'm not in Florida.) Some TV Stations may stream their content over the web if the technology prevents people from re-distributing it. The moment that inhibits me from watching a news story, it's censoring information from me.
Anyway, these are my reasons. Feel free to alter them however you see fit. Anything to help prevent this stupid legislation from getting through.
"Derp de derp."
What the CBDTPA really asks is this:
Step 1, consumers must throw out all existing digital appliances. Includes microwaves with digital clocks, watches, thermostats, TVs, stereos, and cars (yes, the whole car).
Step 2, businesses must throw out all existing digital infrastructure, such as cable, phone, DSL, radio, satellite. And all the digital appliances listed in step 1.
Step 3, businesses must build a new digital infrastructure, such as cable, phone, DSL, radio, and satellite, that has copy protection built in.
Step 4, the government decides what the full CBDTPA rules are, and authorizes U.S. Customs and the FBI to search out and sieze non-CBDTPA compliant devices.
Step 5, businesses manufacture and sell CBDTPA compliant devices. After spending a few years adding features, working out compatibility issues, and scaling production.
Step 6, consumers may now buy CBDTPA compliant devices.
The bill is really asking for quadrillions of dollars to be spent, JUST IN THE U.S., to create a subscription-only media distribution system.
An alternative? The taxes collected upon blank media should be used toward copyright enforcement.
No one, upon no one, is putting forth the real costs of doing this.
If the TV companies are whining about how consumers won't buy digital TVs now, think about how much the consumers will be whining when they have to stop using all the appliances they already own, and buy new appliances to replace them.
It is up to the copyright owner to defend his copyright. If people are abusing it, he has a TON of legal recourses to take, including the overly-broad DMCA.
If laws are passed to prevent computers from being able to do anything misuse copyright, then I want a law passed to prevent my coworkers from calling me sissy. It hurts!
"Derp de derp."
Making a system that requires that all new devices enforce copyrights and ignores existing devices (both domestic and abroad) that do not enforce copy restrictions simply wont work: as long as one person is able to make a copy of something on an existing computer, anybody can make copies. This problem is "solved" in one of two ways, neither of which would work: new "Hollings" computers could refuse to network with all existing computers (which would make them essentially useless), OR, the government could issue an order to destroy all existing computers & replace them with the new Hollings machines. Both of these "solutions" would be impractical, and if legislated, would cause major revolts/riots (the last part is speculative, but probable). As with the Clipper chip debate, making this system work (assuming it's possible, which it most likely is not (a mathematical proof could be handy)) would require the cooperation of every country connected to the Internet to either destroy all existing pre-Hollings machines & replace them with new machines, or America would cut itself off from the rest of the world, with American "crippled" computers while the rest of the world enjoys their existing machines. Any legislative alternative is politically infeasible.
The recording and movie industries are engaging in political entrepreneurship. Political entrepreneurship is distinguished from market entrepreneurship. Market entrepreneurship involves offering goods and services in response to customer demands or behavior that is both profitable for the company and satisfies the customer's wishes. Political entrepreneurship, on the other hand, typically involves attacking the customer's demands or behaviors and tries to make such customer demands illegal. Political entrepreneurship is insidious because it goes against the market, which ALWAYS satisfies customer demand, whether in the black market or in the legal market. Political entrepreneurship is typically engaged in by dying industries or industries already regulated heavily anyway.
That said, the record & movie industries need to get a clue and realize that the only way out of this mess is to offer their music and movies and tv shows on the internet, because this is what we, the customers, want. It is the path taken by the software industry that learned that fighting piracy isn't profitable, but listening to the customer, on the other hand, is profitable. If we can present a method that is profitable to both the customers and the record and movie industries without attacking these industries, we could go so far! Ask anybody! I'd be happy to pay either a small monthly fee ($5-10) or pay a small fee (say 25 cents per song/movie/tv episode) IF I knew that I could get whatever song, movie, tv show episode quickly, reliably, and at a high quality. The black market methods guarantee a great selection, and if any industry backed way to distribute music, movies or tv shows wants to succeed, they will need to offer the same sort of selection already provided or better! I want the industries to know that they still have the upper hand because Napster, Kazaa and Gnutella still don't offer very quick or reliable downloads, and even when the download is complete (or incomplete), the quality of what you've downloaded varies widely. The industries as well as the users know this, and the industries need to realize they can still fulfill the customer demands and make a profit at it!
Looking into the future, assuming this legislation has passed with little revision, libraries will be hampered, research will be stifled, the economy will suffer, the demand for higher bandwidth will drop, etc, etc, because of our ability to copy is severly infringed. I'm preaching to the choir here, but it something worth noting that for the music and movie industries, copying is TOO easy. If you can't beat them, join them! The record and movie industries would love to cripple our abilities to copy, but they have so much to gain if they utilize our abilities to make copies.
The following is the text of a letter that I sent to my state senators and congressmen...
...".
..." which makes it a crime to fix any such device.
Please oppose S2048: the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act".
As a Computer Scientist, Software Engineer and Electrical Engineer with 20 years experience I can unequivocally say that the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" a.k.a. SSSCA II is inherently impossible to implement, as written, using any known software or hardware technology.
Section 3.(d).(1).(A) through 3.(d).(1).(I) are contradictory requirements that can never be satisfied together. Any device or technology that does not satisfy section 3.(d).(1).(I) will result in products that cannot be sold because no customer will pay the price. Any technology that satisfies section 3.(d).(1).(A), (B), (C) and (F) would require an internet connection for each such device and therefor will fail to satisfy section 3.(d).(1).(I).
The only possible means of encoding any digital content that will be (A) reliable, (B) renewable (C) resistant to attack, and (F) applicable in multiple technology platforms, would be to have a globally unique identifier for each target device that the content will be played or performed on and to individually encrypt the content for the target device or download the decryption key to the target device so that it can only be decrypted and played on the target device. All other methods of encryption will fail to be either (C) resistant to attack, or (F) applicable in multiple technology platforms.
The nature of encryption is such that you cannot attach the decryption key to the encrypted data and expect it to be (C) resistant to attack. This is the fatal flaw in the encryption used on DVDs as was shown by the trivial attack used by the DeCSS program.
Any media that contains an individually and uniquely encrypted file but does not contain the decryption key would require an internet connection in order to access the decryption key associated with the specific encrypted file. The requirement for an internet connection would add $100-$300 to the cost of each such device except for a fully configured Personal Computer. $100 added cost for incorporating a modem would be doubling the price of a CD player and if the CD player was in a car it would require an added $300 since it would require a cell phone as well as a modem in order to be able to connect to the internet to access the encryption keys for each encrypted file. In addition to the hardware costs there would be the cost of an additional phone line or a cell phone account and an ISP account which would add a cost of at least $50 per month making such media unavailable anyone who cannot afford the $50 per month.
The inevitable consequence of these conflicts in conjunction with the word "practicable" in section 3.(d) will be to guarantee that the "copyright owners" will insist on rules that match what was in the original draft of the SSSCA "3.(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,
Any technology that would meet the requirements of the SSSCA would violate 3.(e).(1) "promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible" and 3.(e).(2) "prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use in the home".
Section 3.(e).(2) contradicts the "Doctrine of Fair Use" for "Space Shifting" as affirmed by the US Supreme Court. Fair Use "Space Shifting" allows the playing of a copy of a copyrighted work on any device owned by or in the possession of a person who has legally obtained an original copy of a copyrighted work. Section 3.(e).(2) in conjunction with the DMCA would restrict "Fair Use" to Television broadcasts and would exclude music CDs, video tapes and DVDs and any other media that is embodied in a material object or transmitted via the internet.
Section 6 makes the practice of maintaining or fixing a computer or any other compliant device a criminal act. All electronic devices inevitably fail and need to be repaired. Section 6.(a).1 makes it a crime to "knowingly remove or alter any standard security technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in interstate commerce,
Section 7 attaches the CBDTPA to the DMCA and since the DMCA is both unconstitutional and self contradictory, the CBDTPA cannot be validly interpreted by the courts.
Section 4, section 6.(a).2 and section 9.2 combined create an undue burden on ISPs ("interactive computer service" providers) and on customers. Unique, per-device encrypted media would require transmitting between 5 million and 5 billion bytes of data per target device for each copyrighted work played on that device. This is because the work must be uniquely encrypted for each target device. Transmitting such large quantities of data would cost as much as the original purchase price of the copyrighted work for each device it is to be played on. The aggregate quantity of data that would need to be transmitted would be as large as the total internet traffic of the US. This would require doubling the capacity of the internet itself which would cost billions of dollars and would have to be paid for by the "interactive computer service" providers.
Section 9.3 is unclear. Section 9.3 does not make explicit exactly what constitutes a "Digital Media Device" or if a component of such a device is distinguished from the whole device for the purposes of the act. A microprocessor or microcontroller is a required component of any "Digital Media Device", but, section 9.3 does not distinguish between a microprocessor or microcontroller used in a "Digital Media Device" and a microprocessors or microcontroller used in a toaster or traffic light controller. The same microprocessor or microcontroller may be used in both devices and the microcontroller in a toaster can "reproduce copyrighted works in digital form" if it has a means of accepting input and providing output. Because of the economies of scale, almost all microcontrollers contain digital input and output ports and are programmable and so would be classed as a "Digital Media Device" even if the microcontroller was incorporated into a toaster or a traffic light controller. "DEFINITIONS: In this Act (3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that -- (A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form; (B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or (C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B)".
Thanx Doug...
The collary here is that it covers a lot more equipment than they think it does. I quote:
By this definition, any desktop computer currently in manufacture qualifies as a digital media device, as do all the software utilities on the system which can be tricked into copying and/or modifying a file. It means it would be illegal to:- sell any computer designed before the standard was avaliable, as any of them can copy and/or strip copyright notices from such digital files.
- distribute any current computer programming environment, as they allow you to write programs which would let you strip a copyright notice from a computer file.
Taken to the limit of what it says, it outlaws any tool used today to do computer programming of any sort -- "(B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible" easily refers to a system which takes a (copyrighted) computer program, and compiles it into an executable program which displays on the screen, or a web browser.So in short, have them ask the legal department at any computer company in their state, whether they want to be able to buy and/or sell a programming language compiler/interpreter.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
Either way, this is going to make it hard to sell hardware. People are, in general, able to do what they want with their current computers. Because of this, sales have been down. It is hard enough trying to sell superior computer nowadays. Trying to sell new computers that do LESS is suicide.
Please don't bury the computer hardware market!
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
It's as simple as this:
The only way to prevent "illegal" copying of copyrighted material that exists in the digital realm is to serverely limit the access/capabilities of the hardware available to consumers (i.e. give people dumbed-down digital walkmans and get rid of programable devices forever). Clearly and undeniably a negative impact on technical innovation, consumer creativity and convenience.
He just has to choose between Progress and artificially prolonging a disfunctional, old-world (albeit campaign contributing) industry.
Halt technology development or find a new business model for media and entertainment companies??
Unfortunately, the answer is not as easy as we would like it to be. Some people will do "everything" to stay in their comfortable present until Alzheimers shilelds them from the impending market reality already obvious to most of us that spend some time at /. Ask your senator who he really represents.
Just bring a big sum of money, and I think you'll find a lot of agreement.
The CBDTPA is Immune to (Conventional) Criticism is probably worth a read before considering how to approach this problem. This is a surprisingly deep problem.
KLAATU, BORADA, NIh*ahem*
For a business reason, I would think that you could claim you need the ability to overwrite a products OS in case the vendor goes bankrupt?
You could use the anology of needing to be able to buy replacement parts for a factory machine. No one would want to buy a car/bulldozer/welder if it was illegal to get a replacement part from anyone but the vendor. The OS/software is just another type of part that we should be able to replace.
http://www.windmeadow.com/
If it's not too late, pick up the May issue of Reason. Their cover story is on Hollywood vs The Internet and explains things in pretty plain terms that may be useful when talking to politicos.
The problem with technology regulation is this: it stunts the competitiveness of an economy and depresses innovation and technological improvement. Some regulation, such as intellectual property rights, provide countervailing advantages. But the Hollings Bill does not -- indeed, it works directly contrary to fundamental intellectual property principles.
At its most basic level, the Hollings Bill requires existing technologists to make deals with existing content owners to develop a mutually satisfactory arrangement to provide DRM.
Here is PRECISELY the problem.
Technological innovation and improvement traditionally does not come from existing, vested, interests, but from small upstart entities that shake at their foundations. Sony might be sanguine about regulations that make it difficult to develop new competing formats and technologies, but America would not.
It is these new, inovative technologists, large and small, that the bill ignores -- but these are the people that could make the next "new economy."
And existing copyright owners are quite happy with DRM that protects their existing business models. But new, upstart content makers dissatisfied with existing owners views of a "fair deal," might want to experiment with new business models, perhaps those using new technologies. It is in *this* manner, that a free market promotes the progress of the Sciences and the Useful Arts -- monopolists who are too greedy lose to reasonable commercial substitutes.
In the 80s, smaller new software companies got the idea that customers would not tolerate copy protection any more as hard disks became common on most machines. They started eating large software companies lunch, and eventually the MARKET decreed that disk-based copy protection and code-wheels should be scrapped. Consumers won their victories. Small companies got to compete by taking chances, and new markets were made.
My concern about the stupid Hollings bill is this: it protects existing vested interests without giving these smaller, present non-entities a seat at the table. It enables the government and a few presently large companies to protect a market that a free market might otherwise have turned into a dinosaur.
Until they figure out a way to do DRM without imposing upon a free market for technological media AND IP business models, they can't --and should not-- pass a law of this kind. The movie industry screamed that the VCR would be their end, just as record companies wailed against radio and the tape recorder, let alone the DAT. Heck, people were whining about piano rolls. In each and every case, these technologies MADE money for content people, at least those smart enough to figure out how, despite their whining.
Government tech. reg. of DRM is bad for technological innovation and American competitiveness, bad for, atleast some, new content creators and as noted bad for the existing content creators. It is bad for America.
It may not carry a lot of weight, but it does move the argument from various abstract points into constitutional grounds.
If posession of devices which can duplicate copyrighted musical performances are illegal, then posession of devices which can dupicate copyrighted sheet music and lyrics should be illegal as well. Posession, sale and transport of devices which can duplicate copyrighted newspaper articles should be criminalized.
There are any number of devices, posession of which should be criminalized under the 14th amendment... photocopy devices... facimile machines... camcorders... pencils... pens... photographic film...
I think a 14th amendment argument could be made on two fronts. First, because an unauthorized duplicate of a copyrighted work is digital, it is to no greater or lesser degree illegal. An analog copy would be just as illegal. The device which enables such illegal activity should be equally criminalized. Second, because an unauthorized duplicate of a copyrighted work is music, it is to no greater or lesser degree illegal than an unauthorized duplicate of a copyrighted book.
-- Two more cents from Jeff
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
The point I'd like to make is that the mainstream entertainment companies represent a very small number of the artists and copyright holders, they simply represent those who ship in greatest volume. As a result, they also represent those who are most insulated from the financial impacts of piracy, although they won't admit that.
For the producers of independent films, or non-major-label recordings, this is a much different issue. Most would prefer to get their work to more consumers, not to artifically limit its distribution. In many cases, these are the ones who are most agressively taking advantage or new media, and would be the most directly hurt by the proposed legislation.
There are also bands who allow or encourage their fans to record their shows and allow trading, including electronic trading, as long as there is no commercial use or distribution. As I read it, these practices would be outlawed by this legislation, despite being expressly permitted by the copyright holders.
Not only do the rights of consumers need to be upheld, but the rights of copyright holders who are not part of the RIAA/MPAA axis of evil need to be upheld as well.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
Isn't there a $5000 limit?
You asked for suggestions no speaking to your legislator on his level. You should prepare you remarks as follows:
"Taliban terrorists anthrax terrorists. Donation, path towards peace donation donation. Terrorist lock-box compationate donation taliban."
And don't forget to spritz yoruself with "O'De Money"
Unless you're claiming that every time someone copies a $100 CDROM the company that produced it originally is losing $100. That would be a very silly claim.
-- SIGFPE
The CBDTPA would criminalize the activities that you and I do every day, such as using an IBM PC, listening to an iPod, or using your existing cable box to watch TV.
Prohibition didn't work out so well. In that case, at least they could make arguments about health and safety risks and what should the legal drinking age be. But the CBDTPA would criminalize digital devices used today by kids from preschool on up, used by the winners of "scientists of tomorrow" prizes, used by office workers, accountants, writers, UPS delivery people for their jobs, ad nauseum.
Imagine the public backlash from the government branding everyone in America a criminal -- unless they run right out and buy all-new electronics fitted with protection and surveillance features mandated by the government.
That would be like going back to the time of, oh I don't know, 1984!
Look if for example the Europians develop some software or hardware and they cant sell in the US see if i care like Europe and Asia isnt big enough to sell those products.
But there is something worse for the US even, if we in the other parts of the world create Open Source or other stuff they would like to get there hands on like new technique's and stuff then they will have a problem, cause there law wont allow it (and we wont have the cash or the licence to make it legal again =), prolly they will steal it anyways.
Now i wonder why i said that stuff, they should accept that LAW and notice how bad it is for them.
Stupid Boonhead American Company's runnings the Goverment with there Capital Money =D
Their 'losses' are equivalent, is the point.
The bill as I read it does not distinguish between ultimate uses of the technology. I do not see an exception for the manufacture of computers and/or components for space, military, IRS or any scientific use. Not only are consumers sitting at home assumed to be criminals, but so are IRS managers purchasing systems for branch offices.
This means that government agencies and the researchers they support with tax dollars (including the aforementioned NASA with considerable presence in Florida) will be saddled with two bad choices:
1. Continue to buy off the shelf systems that conform to the act, thereby paying a Hollywood tax in extra complexity, resulting in higher costs (ie, higher taxes) and less reliability. (Think of the space shuttle running on software with DRM.)
2. Switch over to special systems without DRM produced especially for these agencies, resulting in higher purchasing costs and possibly higher management costs (who is going to make sure that the supercomputers at NOAA aren't cracking DVDs?) And, this produces a manufacturing base for non-comforming systems that now has to be policed.
The military angle might the hardest hitting. The Democratic senators supporting this act would see to be leaving themselves open to charges they are soft on defense - that this bill would negatively impact our military by complicating military technology. I'd ask Hollings this:
Which industry do you support, the one that gives us American Pie or the one that won the battles in Afganistan?
Follow up arguments on how the act would effect research can be found in a letter at the ACM web site:
http://www.acm.org/usacm/SSSCA-letter.html
The purpose of the bill is to attempt to protect the income of a few people. I say that such a purpose is trivial, compared to bills that have never even been introduced, that would attempt to save lives. For example, we all know that pillows have been used as murder weapons. Therefore, BEFORE EVEN THINKING about banning certain capabilities of computers, we should ban pillows! Obviously!
(Getting the bill laughed out of Congress is a far better way to go, than trying to get it argued out of Congress.)
One thing you should always bring up to Congressman when talking about this bill:
CBDTPA will have very obvious effects that will severely annoy most of their constiuents. This bill will negatively affect how all computers, TVs, VCRs, camcorders, and music players will work. People who use this kind of basic technology include most senior citizens (senior citizens always scare politicians). When these consumers call Sony to complain, Sony will blame the bill and therefore the Congressmen who passed it. This bill will make re-election VERY difficult ("Would you vote for the man who ruined your VCR?").
To win the battle, Congress needs to be scared. They should be. Those congressmen who vote for this bill will lose their jobs shortly thereafter.
Jobs and Wozniak, Hewlett and Packard, even Gates and Allen....
They all began 'in a garage.' Precisely the kind of activity outlawed by the C.
With this Act, the Next Big Thing is pretty much guaranteed to NOT to come from the USA.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
1) It becomes illegal to make a computer available to the public that does not have an operating system if there is no built in hardware protection. In addition, it places the copy protection in business environments where is has no place (IE On network servers).
2) we will never know if the technology is resistent to attack since it's illegal to try to circumevent it (thanks DMCA)
3) Sec 4. "An interactive computer service shall store and transmit with integrity any security measure associated with standard security technologies that is used in connection with copyrighted material such service transmits or stores. " To me sounds like the product must be able to "call home" This to me sounds like an illegal search.
I think the only way you can get a congress critter's attention is to take lots of cash.
One argument against the CBDTPA is that technology companies will have an incentive to begin building analog devices again!
Imagine a CD-ROM disc that doesn't have those binary "bumps" but has little waves that jitter the laser as if it were a record needle. There is nothing stopping this completely analog signal from going straight to a completely analog CD recorder to make copies. A CD reader and writer can be enclosed in one really well shielded enclosure to make such good copies of the completely analog music data that people will think, "who ever needed that 20-bit digital music, anyway?"
I can imaging a resurgence of high-quality analog tape and disc devices that will totally replace all existing digital music and movie technology.
Perhaps it could go even further that analog computerss will reign again, too.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Sigh.
With great sadness and little superiority.....
Gosh, guys. I understand this hasn't changed much since it was the SSS...whatever half a year ago last September in hearings. Why don't you go to the ACM site and look in their public policy section. The venerable-and-all-that Association for Computing Machinery sent Hollings a _very_ detailed letter back then that lists _many_ reasons why hardware encrypting all digital devices is utter insanity.
It seems like this is _very_ serious to the tech industry in general as well as death to open source in the U.S. and I haven't seen more than a little hand wringing here and there on the net. Where's that great power for communication and social change of this greatest medium since Guttenberg and blah-D-blah?
For what it's worth, in my letters to my congressmen, I called it the worst self-serving preemptive legislation since Herod decreed the killing of the firstborn. Then I asked whether they would agree it would be insanity to pass a law that jets can't fly faster than 100 mph so Amtrak could be competitive. If they could see that would be crazy, I then asked whether they would agree that legislation that preemptively protected the entertainment industry at the cost of throwing high tech into chaos wasn't equally insane.
Read the ACM letter. After pondering that, it feels like we better all get jobs with Disney or move to Canada because high tech will have to move out of the U.S.
You might want to look the the ACM position letter found here:
http://www.acm.org/usacm/SSSCA-letter.html
It is a little bit dated (Sept. 2001) but it was well thought out and has many valid points. Let me know if there is any way I can help personally...
-Derek
Preventing sharing over the internet can be simple. Just Play like China on a smaller scale, Firewall every neighborhood. Then sharing is limited to people who you could pretty much just ask to borrow a CD to burn a copy of.
Oh wait, everyone would have to have a geographically specific access point to the internet (or maybe require ISPs to firewall off blocks of 50 users), hey while we're there give us all DSL or broadband.
heck if they would offer it i'd subscribe already
--- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
If most politicians are as unethical and corrupt as it seems , gathering a list of the resources who want to fight against the Hollywood Mafia sounds like a census of behalf of them so that they may know who they have to silence and make disappear. What, me, worry about the future ? :)
A guy I work with is in a small musical ensemble, and recently expressed his concern that the SSSCA/CBDTPA would effectively prevent them from making, copying and distributing their own music, which is written and played by themselves. How does such a law do what the RIAA/MPAA want without preventing such small ensembles or people making home movies/videoing their kid's graduation/etc. from making legitimate copies of their own content? Certainly such laws would make it a pain to share home videos taken with a digital camcorder and give home-brew DVD copies to grandparents or fans of independent music artists? Or home-video kids making cheesy movies like Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell started out doing with Super-8 film? If this kind of law is passed, it must take into consideration that legitimate copying/distribution of one's own content should not be made a pain in the ass to do for families, independent artists, and future movie stars.
These are *very* good arguments, and me without any mod points today.
-Z
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
For some guidelines/experience in dealing with Congress, go to http://www.nylxs.com/ This is an organization (New York Linux Scene) that has previously, and will continue to meet with Congressional representatives on the issue of Fair Use and Digital Rights. They have also held regular protests in front of the NY Public Library for Jon Johansen. A quote from their site:
"The Linux Scene has also protested at the DeCSS trail in lower Manhattan in the Summer of 2000, with the help of NYLUG and Hackers around the US who were in town for a convention, when young teen Jon Johansen was arrested in Norway for the crime of watching a DVD on Linux"
The above quote, and more info on their activities including actions on the DMCA can be found here:
http://www.nylxs.com/politics.html
And their protests on behalf of Demetri can be found here:
http://www.nylxs.com/freedmitry
NYLXS has several mailing lists where you can view past posts from their archives, and by joining, you can post your questions regarding meeting with Congressional Representatives, both locally and in Washington. The mailing list archive, or to join the mailing list, is located here:
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/nylinux/mailing.html
This is a good group of people who will be happy to help you with questions on Congress and your digital/fair use rights.
NY Linux Scene (NYLXS) mission statement is located here:
http://www.nylxs.com/goals.html
This is the type of participation that the community needs to be involved in. It is with this type of involvement where you will gain access to members of Congress, and importantly, gain access to a seat at the table when it comes to testifying on these important bills. Showing solidarity by being involved with a LUG or group shows that you represent not only yourself, but others as well. And this means votes to the congresspeople. Don't leave it to corporations to testify. Or all we'll get is SONY, AOL Time Warner, and similar, like we saw with the last Senate hearings on the latest digital ban, SSSCA transformed to EBITDA or some other idiotic abbreviation, with the witness list loaded with Hollywood, Disney and the like.
GIVE IT TO THEM ! Looking for a political alternative ? Maybe we, the "knowledgeable few" should start acting responsibly, and above all in a united manner against the corporate enemies of progress. By progress I'm talking about the free exchange of cultural "goods" worldwide so that even the poorest can - enjoy/learn from - all these massive resources that come from those of us who have access to permanent links to the Net. It doesn't mean that new content will disappear, it means that those who can afford it, share it! The middleman has to go and that is why he is fighting tooth and nail to keep his privileges through legislation that he is trying to get passed thanks to money-based lobbying. I am no commie retard but it is about time that we, the tech heads, took over some of the power whose abuses we are always complaining about! Of course they wield big bucks and, as they say, money talks. The only way around this is to encourage (inform!) artists to refuse any arrangement with the middleman, and make sure they are appropriately rewarded. Rewards nearly always come in the form of royalties on sales. What are we waiting for to create an independant paypal-like micro-payment system based on what people actually "consume" ? You can bet the major pigs are busy trying to make sure they set it up first and then lock us into it. Nothing can change if you don't start by BOYCOTTING these companies. For me, this doesn't mean punishing yourself and your friends by not going to see the latest movie in a theatre, but getting more out of what is already spreading through alternative networks (and which is what you really want, not what some marketing asshole has decided to let us see). Not starving the creators of content, but pushing them to realise their own responsibility in the current situation. Digital Rights Management ! HAH ! How many times do I have to pay for something before I have the right to download a copy of it in a different format because the medium has changed ? THIS IS WAR AND MEDIA IS ONE OF THE CORNERSTONES OF THE MINDCONTROL WORLDWIDE PIGGERY IS EXERTING ON THE MASSES !!! ANGER IS AN ENERGY ! USE IT !
What I need are some good resources for formulating a business and political argument against this bill, so that I can speak to these politicians on their level.
You would sink that low?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
This would also include web pages and the images you have on it as its essentially code that the browser interprets to display a page. I would hate to have to wait 6 months in order to update my web site pending Government approval.
I think the content industry fails to see that the reason people make illegal copies is because they can't afford to buy legal copies. If all content were available at a cheaper price the problem wouldn't exist. The money the content industry claim to loose simply does not exist. If they would really achieve a fool proof copy protection scheme, they still wouldn't be making more money.
Please consider the constitutional basis for copyright law: the founders thought the "monopoly" granted the inventor "embarrassing" (Thomas Jefferson, 1813) and sought a minimized harm method of achieving the actual constitutional goal: "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." The question which lawmakers should ask being: what is the least grant of monopoly necessary to achieve the maximal dissemination of invention?
It's informative to remember that while Fair Use is not a constitutional right, neither is a monopoly on copyright. The exclusive assignment of copyright is a temporary monopoly to the profits granted the inventor as incentive and "may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody." (ibid)
The right answer is not necessarily obvious; reasonable people might disagree on the utility of the DMCA, CDA, CTEA, SSSCA, etc. in furthering the net progress of science and the useful arts.
It would seem beyond rational argument that the monopolies granted have generated profits which have been used to promote and distribute arts, as they have also acted as incentive to inventors.
It is also beyond reasonable argument that these laws have in-effect and by intent retarded the progress of the science and the useful arts, particularly encryption and digital media technologies from DAT to digital television.
The correct discussion is an informed debate on the necessity of each embarrassing monopoly granted to meet the goal of furthering progress in net balance. Society's usual, customary, and regular practices must likewise be considered: if society as a whole is unwilling to yield their right to casual, non-commercial copying there is no constitutional or natural law mandate which forces it to. The brand of "pirate" is just as validly applied to those who, seemingly by legislative purchase, defend a monopoly against nearly uniform de facto social dissent.
I would argue that the DMCA already, and far more so the SSSCA, impose astonishing and intolerable restraint on the most important areas of development and invention in all of society and that these restraints are far more onerous a burden on progress than would be the demise of the entire entertainment industry.
I would further argue that society has little empathy for the losses suffered by the wealthy corporations fighting for extension of their monopoly grants and that social refusal to honor those monopolies is of a nature and prevalence that effective enforcement will require such invasive methods of investigation that political speech itself will be chilled, thereby undermining the very validity of government and it's right to rule. And this consequence outweighs the value of all progress.
The entertainment industry's legislative demands have uniformly been destructive to progress, stymieing the development of critical technologies in the US and handing the advantage to our overseas competitors, from digital music to HDTV. Their prophecies have, similarly, been entirely at odds with fact; from the terror of DAT to predictions of the collapse of the movie industry at the hands of home video, the impending calamities have come to naught or proven boon.
You better bring a few hundred-grand in Campaign contributions if you think he's going to act on anything you tell him.
If you want to speak to CongressCritters on their level, then bring:
- A briefcase full of cash
- A few ounces of cocaine
- Two good-looking hookers
He'll vote however you tell him to.Hi I am a manufacturer of waterbottles and I am having trouble selling them because there are so many other things which can hold water. Therefore what I want from you is to make it illegal for anything but waterbottles to be able to hold water. BTW I was planning on donating to your campaign.
___
Congress was worried when cars started to become popular, and horses where on the way out. They passed some laws and found ways to prop up the horse
based businesses. They stopped when the car business
was on it's way to becoming much lager.
That is the case here. Information hardware and software are much bigger a deal than it music of movies. Just compare the infmormation tech sector
to the money made in moves and music.
Had I more time I would have alot more to write on this subject. Sorry for such a short post.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Tell them to think about how much it will cost to replace or retrofit ALL computers in Florida to comply with this one-sided law. Tell them that if this passes, most likely no one will buy any new electronics for a long while practically destroying an industry that (I think) thrives on impulse buying. If all else fails, say that this is a power grab from the entertainment industries to gain too much control over what the people of Florida pay for. Hopefully they'll take that into consideration and see how bad this law is for everyone.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
My friend pointed me towards this website that will send a fax from you opposing the CBDTPA, provided you give them your info (name, address, etc.). The more faxes sent the less likely the bill will be passed.
But with digital content and the Internet, a home computer user can share a perfect copy of any content with potentially millions of other people, with minimal time and effort. Doesn't that pose an immediate danger to copyright holders?
And back in the 17th century, printers could, with "minimal time and effort" (i.e. no more than for any other printed item), set type to make perfect copies of any book and sell the copies to everyone in the colonies and the frontier beyond who wanted to buy a copy. So what it new?
The copyright laws ALREADY address the issue.
The authors of the laws knew that, even then, finding and punishing all the infringers was impossible. So they compensated by having draconian penalties for those infringers they DID catch. And those draconian penalties are on the books even today.
The problem is that the RIAA and MPAA don't want to bother hunding down a few of the people who make "copies of their books" and make bloody examples of them. Instead they want to make infringement impossible by burning all the printing presses. (Except, of course, for a few that they license. For a fee.)
So: Does the legislator want to sign up for burning all the electronic printing presses?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Ask him what his constituents would think, if they actually paid attention, had read this bill, and knew that he had voted for it?
There's nothing subtle about this evil. Anyone who looks at it, will know what it is. Hollingswood's only hope is that the electorate stays ignorant and apathetic.
All the congressman has to do is imagine he's a normal person and had to live in a society where it was an enforced law. That should be enough.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The question is not whether the rights of copyright holders should be upheld. The question is whether the free market or big government decides how it will be done.
The high tech industry has long expressed interest in ways to protect copyright holder's rights while not inconveniencing users of their products. The free market, if you let it work, will solve this problem. Let the high tech industry and copyright holders settle their own differences as to how digital rights should be protected, using the normal mechanisms of civil contract law and competition -- don't bring Big Government into play. Government mandates will simply stifle the computer industry under massive government bureaucracy at great taxpayer expense, while being no more effective than free market solutions.
Notes to users: 1. Note careful use of free market arguments. The Washington dudes worship this whole "free market" thing. This is similar to quoting Bible verses to a Bible-thumper -- you're operating on his own territory. 2. Note careful use of phrase "big government". This is a reflexive no-no in today's conservative environment. 3. Note "massive government bureaucracy" and "great taxpayer expense". These bugaboos must always be dredged up. 4. Finally, note that we had to relinquish ground on one point: the need to protect copyright holders' rights. By doing that, we could turn it into a fight over HOW this would be done -- via a massive government bureaucracy, or via the free market solutions of negotiation and contracts between the entertainment and technology industries. Bureaucracy bad. Free market good. Ugh. When you talk to religious zealots, you must speak their language.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Think about the logic in this. Guns can be used to kill other human beings. Yet there are no laws that make it legal to only manufacture "safe" guns (that can't kill people). Computers can be used to copy digital content. So should we have a law to make it legal only to manufactuer "safe" computers? This would seemingly elevate copying digital content to a level of importance greater than that of taking a human life.
By this logic the government should just lock us all up right now, because at any time one of us could do something illegal, like download an mp3 or kill somebody.
if SSSCA/CDBTPA passes hardware will run slower because of the checks on the datastream. This will place us at a technological disadvatage over countries that dont require hardware/software anti copy measures.
Also, there wikll be circumvention techniques available within a week of the standard finalization. There has been no ani copying schme that hasnt been cracked to date.
Its not worth sacrificing our technological leadership so Disney can make a few extra bucks (there isnt even proof that piracy is causing then a loss)
As far as I can tell, copy protection hardware will be added to all comsumer electronics because I might improperly copy a piece of intellectual property. Since I might also whack someone with a hammer, shouldn't this same law mandate the inclusion of intellect protection in all items that might be used as a blunt force weapons.
From a business perspective, I am going to have a great deal of difficulty preforming backups. Disaster recoverery will become much more difficult if I can not create an image or mirror of my production systems.
What is the benefit to the general public?
That is the single most impressive list of arguments I have heard against this bill yet. When put in the perspective of violating almost the entire Bill of Rights, it is impossible to consider the CBDTPA as being even remotely beneficial. This is one to send to the Congresscritters...
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
I never understood why EFF didn't mention this at the 2600/MPAA trial, because it should have worked. If you make an unlicensed CSS-protected DVD and a Sony DVD player can play it, then as far as the DMCA is concerned, Sony is in the same boat as the author of DeCSS. Their DVD player circumvents without authorization of the copyright holder. (It's important that the CSS be unlicensed (which is probably legal since in the DeCSS cases, MPAA and DVDCCA didn't mention anything about patent infringements), since in getting a CSS license, you probably* grant authorization to other licensees.) (* I have to say "probably" since actual CSS license terms are secret.)
This type of scenario is lethal to DMCA, and would also probably be poison to CBDTPA too.
But the patent question shows how Hollywood can subvert it. Here's how they can do it: Make sure that the mandated spec relies on a patent. Then you can't make any content that is compatable with legal equipment, without somehow getting a license. And as part of the terms of that license, you will grant Hollywood permission to play and be compatable with your stuff.
A detailed hypothetical example: suppose CSS The Next Generation is mandated for all video equipment. Your camcorder will implement CSSTNG. Using a UCITA-like law, when you use the camcorder, you'll implicitly agree to a contract forced upon you by the manufacturer. (And the manufacturer will be forced to force you to agree to this, by their faustian CSSTNG license.) One of the terms of the surprise contract that you agree to will be something like this: "The user of this device grants authorization to all CSSTNG licensees to circumvent the CSSTNG that protects the content created by this device.") Thus when you record something on that camcorder, none of the tools that Hollywood uses for their production, or the consumer electronics that they sell, will be illegal.
Unlike CSS, you won't be able to create your own camcorder that implements CSSTNG, because CSSTNG will be patent protected. Thus, it will be impossible for you to create a home movie that causes their tools to become illegal.
Pretty sneaky, huh? If I grow up, I want to be a supervillain.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Not so long ago, in a land not so far away, there was a period of radical change which we now know as "The Industrial Revolution".
Some people invented machines that made it possible to make bulk copies of a particular textile. There were knitting machines and weaving machines and even sewing machines. These machines were superb at exact reproduction of a particular knit, weave or stitch.
Naturally, lots of textiles workers expected that they'd be put out of business by these machines, so they attempted to ban the machines. When that didn't work, they just went out and vandalised the machines.
Now look at the world 200 years after those events.
The best suits and dresses are still hand made. Humans are still required to create the original product, the machines can't create appealing garments by themselves.
Imagine where the world would be today if the textiles industry associations had convinced the Governments of the time to outlaw these machines which are used to steal their business?
The SSSCA is designed to protect a business model, not intellectual property. I do agree with the rights of content creators to have some protection from exploitation - it is illegal to claim ownership of someone else's work. I do not agree that businesses have any reason to expect that their business models should be protected.
Just imagine if your taxes were being used to protect Digital Convergence from their own stupidity.
2) Highschool Student programmers are required to comply with gov't mandated copy protection standards in the "digital device" Hello World! programs they write for Intro to Programming. Isn't there something wrong with that?
3) It creates a new barrier to companies and individuals entering the electronics hardware industry.
4) It will create a very high barrier to individuals who create and often distribute their own digital works. Under the CBDTPA anyone who wants to produce needs to acquire a digital watermark. There are people who do so.
5) The CBDTPA does away entirely with First Sale Doctrine and Fair Use.
6) Large amounts of existing legal digital media will be unplayable on CBDTPA hardware. Compliant hardware won't be able to tell the difference between a home movie of a birthday party and a theatre capture of Blackhawk Down.
7) It will make libraries of our world's history and culture available only on a pay-per-use basis.
8) It is wholly unnecessary. After all, with the passage of the DMCA in 1998 there was a flood of digital music and movies for sale on the Internet and a rush by American households to get Broadband Internet.
What, you say that the RIAA continued to litigate all potential competitors out of existence and still does not sell digital music?
Well, there is the "PressPlay" service, that's digital music!
Oh, you mean they are just running a online music leasing service you have to keep paying for or lose all your music you downloaded from it?
I guess they really haven't done anything but kill off competitors in the four, going on five, years since the "DMCA made the Internet safe". It will be a really great idea if we just keep believing the RIAA and MPAA thugs who cry they are being driven out of business by Internet piracy.
P.S. I can't help but wonder if so few Americans have broadband and it is for some reason in the Federal Gov't job description to promote it, how is Internet piracy driving the Studios out of business?
Note that this suggests that the content producers will be in the drivers seat. They get what they want, or they refuse to publish. Of course this makes sense, since it's their bill, not the technology companies' bill.
As a result large companies will have to charge more and take longer thus "having a chilling effect" on the IT industry and small businesses/startups may never get off the ground due to the ensuing fees and legal costs.
Even if this hideous thing is done (killing the tech industry entirely) it will have no effect on the Chinese, Koreans, Canadians and everyone else not covered by the law who are free to produce illegal copies and ship em back to the U.S. for sale.
Fundamentally the act of making "unauthorized copies" is already illegal and this added layer with its costs and destructive repurcussions will not affect that so why not juet turn to enforcing the violations as are already being done?
That or getting a business model that isn't mired in a dependence upon people's inability to use technology?
Or just charge a fair price? The fact of the matter is that Disney can supply better content than a ripped DivX so why don't they just do that.?
Anyway my $0.02
Irvu.
The main problem with enforcing copy right laws is that the average joe is not remotly affriad of getting caught. Any family with internet that I know downloads songs. There is just no risk. If the goverment procecuted 500 people for downloading a song, movie, warez ect., then the average user would be know that they are risking punishment. They shut down a big warez ring every once in awile, but do I notice a shortage of warez on the internet? No. As soon as one provider gets shutdown, another pops up.
Hacker Media
Commentary on Copyright Law and the CBDTPA
Carlie J. Coats,Jr., Ph.D.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- Copyright law must itself be lawful.
- Copyright law should not endanger the National Security of the
United States.
- Copyright law should benefit artists, authors, and the general
public.
- Copyright law should respect private property, not subvert it.
- Law should not be over-broad and vague
- Copyright law needs reform, not "more of the same".
- Access for the handicapped and disabled;
- Restoration of Constitutionally-mandated limited term for
copyright;
- Criminalization of fraudulent claim of copyright
- Limited term for copy-protection schemes.
- Public domain status for all laws.
1. COPYRIGHT LAW ITSELF MUST BE LAWFUL.The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it restricts Congress' ability to make copyright law. Senator Hollings' so-called Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA) is unConstitutional on a number of grounds. It should be defeated resoundingly just for that reason.
The US Congress, in the wake of the September 11 bombings, has found that the smooth operation of digital computer and networking technology is critical to the national security. Senator Hollings' CBDTPA would enforce a digital "monoculture". This monoculture would be dominated by exactly the least secure part of digital technology--the Microsoft technology on which computer viruses and worms depend. The CBDTPA would outlaw the open source development that has led to the most secure digital systems currently available.
Senator Hollings' CBDTPA would do exactly the opposite: it would benefit a only tyrannical publishing oligopoly that has attempted to suppress progress and artistic freedom at the expense of artists, authors, and the general public.
The access controls envisioned by Senator Hollings' CBDTPA do NOT prevent pirates from making fully functional bit-for-bit copies of materials; what they actually do is to put restrictions on how law-abiding users can have access to the CDs and other recordings they have purchased. This doctrine makes a mockery of private property -- even after I have bought a work, it is still not mine; it is controlled by the publisher's digital access mechanisms.
Sen. Hollings himself has admitted in interviews with Wired magazine that the provisions are deliberately vague, in order to get a bill passed with provisions that may be applied far more broadly than Congress intends or believes reasonable. Congress should not permit itself to be so deceived.
Sen. Hollings' CBDTPA is going in exactly the wrong direction, strengthening narrow corporate interests against the legitimate interests of the public. There are a number of reforms to copyright law which Congress should be considering:
The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Congress only has authority to make copyright law under Article 3, Section 8, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution.:
There are two points with regard to this Constitutional requirement which are essential, in order for any bill with regard to means of digital copy protection to be legal:The term of protection must be limited. In particular, such protection must expire upon expiration of the underlying copyright. Means of protection that do not terminate themselves at that point are not permitted under the Constitution.
The protection must be afforded to the authors and inventors only. For Congress to permit such protection for works that are properly in the public domain is itself a violation of this Constitutional mandate, and should be punished at least as severely as copyright infringement. Additionally, to be legal, copyright law must respect the rest of the Constitution, and particularly the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. The First Amendment guarantees are in fact the origin of the doctrine of "fair use," as established by the Supreme Court in 1823. In its absolutism, Senator Hollings' CBDTPA would destroy fair use and the First Amendment.
The Founding Fathers did not regard "intellectual property" as a natural right, but rather as a limited legislated monopoly which was of benefit to society as a whole _if managed properly_. They had had relatively recent experiences with both no-copyright situations and with permanent Crown monopolies on publishing (and, sadly, they tended to be better versed in history than many are today.) They knew that copyright was of greatest benefit to society at large if it offered a quid pro quo: in exchange for a temporary monopoly on copying, the authors must pass their works into the public domain--the property of all of us--at the expiration of the limited term. This bargain has already been brought to the breaking point by current copyright law, especially the so-called Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA); the Senator Hollings' CBDTPA breaks it completely. That Act is purely and specifically for the narrow benefit of a few large publishing houses who fear that digital technology will break both their stranglehold on the authors and music-writers and their captivation of the public at large.
2. COPYRIGHT LAW SHOULD NOT ENDANGER THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.
The US Congress, in the wake of the September 11 bombings, has found that the smooth operation of digital computer and networking technology is critical to the national security.
Senator Hollings' CBDTPA would mandate anationally certified standard for software of all types, including operating systems and Internet software. Only the largest "players" among the authors and distributors of these software would survive this regime; in particular, the not-for-profit "Open Source" software movement would not be allowed. The "Open Source" software movement has contributed some of the most secure systems now available, including the Linux and FreeBSD operating systems and the Apache web-server software. These would be outlawed.
What would remain is exactly the systems and software which have shown themselves most vulnerable to attack: the ones from Microsoft. Virtually all of the disruptive "virus" and "worm" attacks of the last five years have been made possible by defects in the inherent design of Microsoft operating system, server, and email and application software. This is well-documented on the web site of Kaspersky Labs (http://www.viruslist.com/eng/index.html) which maintains lists of the most active worms and viruses on a monthly basis. The computer-security situation is so serious that last fall the very staid Gartner Group management consulting firm issued a warning recommending that their clients immediately remove Microsoft internet server software and replace it with products from other vendors such as Apache and IPlanet (see http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101 034). A year and a
half ago, the US National Security Agency concluded that it was
impossible to make Microsoft systems sufficiently secure for sensitive
applications, and constructed an especially secure configuration of the
Linux operating system for that purpose (see
http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/).
As I write this (April 2), one of the stories on ZDNET news this morning has the headline, "The inherent security of the Linux environment was a key motivation for Burlington Coat Factory in choosing the operating system for a large retail point-of-sale environment." See http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/mai n/0,14179,2859688,00.html
The CBDTPA criminalizes secure Open Source software such as Apache, Linux, and FreeBSD, forcing their replacement by vulnerable Microsoft software. This is a clear and present danger to the National Security.
3. COPYRIGHT LAW SHOULD BENEFIT ARTISTS, AUTHORS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
The publishing houses have established a regime in which they, not the authors, have title to the copyrights. As Thomas Hauser writes for MediaChannel (q.v., http://www.mediachannel.org/views/oped/bookcontrac t.shtml):
The situation is similar in music recording and publishing. For $10,000, one can put together a studio recording system with capabilities that would have cost $5000,000 just a few years ago. There ought to be the opportunity for new competition in the music publishing and recording industries. But the current Big Four have a stranglehold on the situation -- a stranglehold they fear might be broken -- and by more artists than just Cyndi Lauper and the Artist Once Again Known as Prince.Senator Hollings' CBDTPA would strengthen this publishing stranglehold, both at the expense of the public (who will never hear the music that would have been produced) and at the expense of the artists themselves. The technology he espouses will be controlled exclusively by the big publishing houses; the CBDTPA creates a situation in which it will be impossible for an independent to break in. This stranglehold is already in evidence with the DMCA: the publishers have a monopoly on the CSS "content protection" system, and have made it quite clear by their statements and their actions that "no one else need apply."
4. COPYRIGHT LAW SHOULD RESPECT PRIVATE PROPERTY, NOT SUBVERT IT
With its demands for "content protection," embodied in first the DMCA and now in Senator Hollings' CBDTPA, publishing industry is making a concerted attack on the foundations of private property. If I own a children's book for my three-year-old and I own a pair of scissors, I am completely within my rights to use the scissors to "edit" the book so that only content suitable for my three-year-old remains.
Consider, however, if you own a DVD of the Disney movie "An American Tail", and want to show it to your three-year-old. But when you put it on, up comes an ad for "Dinosaurs" that frightens him. When he screams, you hit the SKIP button -- but the screen says, "Sorry, DVD action not permitted." The CBDTPA has deprived you of your right to control how the DVD can safely be viewed by your toddler,and criminalized your attempt to find any way out of the situation.
If I buy an item, it is my property. I am free to do with my property as I will, to use or misuse it according to my wishes (at least within the bounds of the law; I am not free to use it as a bludgeon on the head of my neighbor). If I am not free to do these things, then it is NOT my property, and the purported sale is not a sale but instead a fraud. This is exactly the situation the publishing industry wishes to foist off upon us, under Senator Hollings' CBDTPA.
5. LAW SHOULD NOT BE OVER-BROAD AND VAGUE
Sen. Hollings himself has admitted in interviews with Wired magazine that the provisions of his CBDTPA are deliberately vague, in order to get a bill passed with provisions that may be applied far more broadly than Congress intends or believes reasonable. Congress should not permit itself to be so deceived. This attitude is appalling in and of itself. Congress should censure him for it, not encourage it and allow it to proliferate.
6. COPYRIGHT LAW NEEDS REFORM, NOT "MORE OF THE SAME".
- Access for the handicapped and disabled.
- Restoration of Constitutionally-mandated limited term for
copyright.
- Criminalization of fraudulent claim of copyright.
- Limits for technological copy-protection schemes.
- All laws should be public domain.
SUMMARYSection 107 of the Copyright Act should be amended so as to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. It should be established by law that when a handicapped or disabled person owns a copyright work, it is fair use for that person or his agent to make enhanced copies for his use in accomodating his handicap or disability. If technological means are used for "copy protection" that prevent the creation of such enhanced copies, then the copyright owner should be required to make enhanced copies to accomodate the disabilities, and offer them for sale at exactly the same price as the "normal" copies.
The Constitution requires that copyrights have limited term. This is part of the quid pro quo negotiated by the Founders, for which a limited monopoly on content is exchanged for public accessibility and use after the expiration of that limited term. The present Copyright Act violates this in a number of ways:
Moreover, such retroactive action violates the spirit of law itself. In a civil society, law must be knowable and predictable at the time a citizen acts. Provisions that change the law regarding an action after the action itself attack the very basis of civil society, as well as being in violation of the plain reading of the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. (I know, I've heard the arguments that the prohibition is only with regard to criminal law, but in my fifty years as a mathematician I've heard lots of other bogus claims as well.)At a minimum, copyright term for existing works should be restored to what that term was at the date of the work's creation. Moreover, serious consideration should be given to reducing the copyright term so that it is less than the expected lifetime of the physical media on which the works are stored. With anything less, the copyright law itself breaks the law.
Section 506(c) of the Copyright Act describes penalties for the fraudulent claim of copyright. These penalties are miniscule, entirely out of scale with the penalties for copyright infringement, and can only be sought by the US Department of Justice (unlike infringement cases, which can be brought by both civil and criminal actions). Yet fraudulent claim of copyright is stealing from the Public Domain, the legacy of us all. In fact, no such case has ever been brought, according to Stanford Law School Professor Lessig, in spite of the fact that such fraudulent claims are rampant in the publishing industry.
I am a choral singer, principally of baroque and classical music. In a recent survey of the thirty-odd pre-1800 pieces I have sung over the past decade, the four pieces published by Kalmus publishers (NY, Berlin) did NOT claim copyright in entirety. Nor did one piece type-set in 1905 by Oxford University Press. EVERY ONE of the remainder claimed, "Copyright 19xx, [publisher]. ALL rights reserved" (emphasis mine). They did NOT say "Editorial markings copyright..." nor did they (with one exception by Barenreiter) distinguish in any manner between editorial markings and the original text. Case law says that they must do both of these things.
The major work I sang most recently was the Magnificat of Franz Schubert, which Schubert completed on September 25, 1816, almost two centuries ago. The edition we are using is published by Lawson-Gould, a subsidiary of Time Warner, and claims to be copyrighted by them in its entirety, with all rights reserved. To add insult to injury, the entire work is type-set in a tiny print that appears to be the 8-Point Bookman font, and is hard for any eyes over 40 to read (much less someone with a visual disability, or under concert lighting conditions). Not only is Time-Warner stealing from the Public Domain, they are also discriminating against both those with disabilities and even the less-than-youthful.
Fraudulent claims of copyright will cease only if private citizens can enforce the laws against such fraud. Several alternative amendments would so empower us. For instance, Section 506(c) of the Copyright Act could allow a private cause of action for damages; inasmuch as a single damaged citizen may reasonably determine the cost of the attorney would outweigh the damages award in such a case, I suggest the law allow alternative damage awards of either punitive or treble damages (both allowing recovery of the injured plaintiff's attorney fees). As an alternative, fraudulent claims law should be elevated to a criminal act; punishable accompanied by fines high sufficient to act as a deterrent and allow qui tam actions by private citizens to help ferret out the criminals and act at private attorneys general.
In order to meet the Constitutional mandate of "limited term," technological copy protection schemes (as under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA)) should be required to deactivate themselves at the end of the copyright term of the material they protect. Not to do so is to steal from the Public Domain, and should be punished at least as severely as copyright infringement.
Likewise the use of technological copy protection schemes to protect non-Copyright material is also an act of stealing from the Public Domain, and likewise should be punished at least as severely as copyright infringement.
Unless the DMCA is amended to meet both of these criteria, it violates the Constitutional "limited term" and "to Authors and Inventors" restrictions upon copyright. The DMCA as it stands is an unlawful law.
Section 105 of the Copyright Act should be amended so as include in the Public Domain not only "any work of the United States Government" but also all laws Federal, State, or local. Note that some trade associations have had local and state governments adopt their copyrighted codes as public laws, while still maintaining a copyright upon them. As a matter of public policy, the law should not be owned by private interest groups, and this practice of copyrighted codes of law should be forbidden.
The publishing and recording industries come to the copyright legislation table with dirty hands. They have persistently made fraudulent claims of copyright, they have knowingly used specious arguments in favor of their positions, and their own trade practices are frequently unethical and monopolistic. In the interests of preserving their monopolies, they have suborned politicians such as Sen. Hollings, hijacked copyright law and stolen from the public all those works -- 1930's jazz, for example -- that should now properly belong to the public, and should reside in the public domain. They are a bunch of thieves and robbers and do not deserve the consideration they have customarily been given.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
is post an Ask Slashdot about it. Sorry, but really.
I've thought a bit about trying to get a meeting with a congresscritter. How is it going to make you look if you have to come to Slashdot to get your arguments? Especially if the congresscritter finds out that you asked here?
The right way to get good advice would probably be via a mailing list specifically dedicated to this kind of thing.
are there any protests planned yet? I am willing to drive my my home in NJ with a car full of Faygo and friends down to D.C. just to protest this. so if anyone would be able to tell me WHEN it is gonna be brought before congress or the senate I would be much obliged(I don't think that was spelled right)
I haven't read all the comments here, but this arguement isn't often raised as it doesn't have much to do with copyrights, Linux, etc.:
It is not the job of Congress to promote one industry at the expense of another. This is antithetical to the concept and practice of a free market economy, and reeks of the political-capitalism of the early 1900s when businesses begged for regulation to prevent competition. Congress should not choose how and how much profit a firm may make, nor should it be in the business of guaranteeing profit by force.
Quite simply, if it is not profitable to release copyrighted works in digital formats, then don't do it. That is the free market solution and the only one that is compatible with the ideals of liberty.
Bryan Baskin
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bryanbaskin
As far as I know, most of the concepts relating to DRM are patented, and most of those patents are held by Microsoft. (Not that it matters who holds them, really...)
To mandate that all digital media devices incorporate technologies patented by a single corporation is ridiculous. It would effectively grant them enormous power over the entire electronics industry, as well as an unprecedented revenue stream.
For the proposed legislation to work at all, those patents would have to be removed from Microsoft, or nullified. I wonder if they would still support the bill under those circumstances?
If you want to give these politicians something that they really understand, do this:
Ask them if either one of them has a computer that can be connected to the Internet. No doubt at least one of them will say yes.
Then ask them how they can know that their computer has not been subverted by persons who wish to do them harm. They probably won't have a good answer for this -- better make sure they understand: Ask them if they can really be sure that nobody is using their computer to spy on them. Ask them if they can really be sure that no one will ever be able to plant incriminating evidence on their computer.
Of course they can't be sure about that. They may point out that nobody can ever be 100% confident of that, and rightfully so. But then you point out that they have the option of using only 100% open source systems. Because of those thousands of eyes peering into code, and those thousands of voices openly discussing what those eyes see, spyware and malware cannot survive for long in an open source environment.
Now point out to them that the CBDTPA would change all that. All software would become collections of black boxes, intimately known only by the companies and government agencies legally entitled to look inside them. And every computer would be required to have a legally mandated black box, which contains the digital rights management code.
This would be a very special black box. It would be illegal to look inside it, or even to talk about its contents (thanks to the DMCA).
No doubt this black box would have the ability to update itself through the Internet. Those giant media corporations will insist on this feature -- they will want to be able to quickly stomp on any hacks that arise, and they certainly won't trust individual users to do the updates manually (they've already made it clear that they don't trust users at all).
Suppose the CBDTPA goes into effect. You no longer have the option of using open systems, and the voices of those who are now watching out for spyware have been silenced. All systems are closed, and all systems contain a black box that is remotely controlled by a closed, elite technocracy. You have to trust that technocracy to protect you from abuses of that black box. You have to trust that the technocracy will not be secretly infiltrated by persons (or agencies) who might wish to use that black box against you.
Suppose some black agency, possibly one that does not exist today, decides that it needs to have the keys to that black box "for national security reasons" (it would only take one really damaging act of cyberterrorism to bring this about). Once they had access to the innards of the black box, they would have little trouble engineering an even blacker black box -- one that could be downloaded onto a suspect's computer through the original black box remote update feature. This new black box could be used for any imaginable purpose, legal or otherwise, and then replaced with the original when it's no longer needed. It could be engineered to cover its tracks, and even to conceal itself from the legitimate agency charged with managing the original black box. Of course, any citizen who attempted to monitor the actions of the black box would be committing a serious crime, and may even be labeled a terrorist.
Now we are talking about a technology that is literally out of control. The agency legitimately managing the original black box can't see it. Individual users dare not look for it, for fear of imprisonment. We have to trust that a black agency will not abuse it -- an agency that may have little external oversight or accountability, and whose very existence may be unknown to us.
In the wrong hands, such a technology has the potential to become the ultimate tool for political suppression. And when you cloak technology in enough secrecy, you have no way of knowing when it gets into the wrong hands. Orwell and his colleagues saw this coming, and tried to warn us about it. Anyone who labels this as paranoia is simply being naive.
One doesn't reach high political office by being naive. Politicians have to take political risks, and sometimes make political enemies. The CBDTPA, in conjunction with the DCMA, is a recipe for political dirty tricks of the highest order.
Today, one can use a computer with some degree of certainty that evildoers will not plant kiddie porn on it. We at least have the option of using computers that we can trust. If the CBDTPA passes, we will no longer have the open source option, and we will never be sure if we can trust our computers to keep the bad guys out. Ask those politicians how they feel about that.
and I'm confused
layer 1: capitalism
layer 2: republic
layer 3: democracy
An analogy to network transport layers would be helpful. For example HTTP is a layer running on top of TCP/IP
truth be told.. locks, blocks, any device to keep people out of any thing, just dont work.. weather it be legislated or not.. all locks or any other similar device do is keep honest people honest and you cant legislate morality, it just doesnt work, we have tried before... the biggest case in point.. is prohibition... that certanly didnt stop people from drinking any.... and this new law wont work either.. neither will it do its intended purpose of premoting broadband intertainment.... something important to add... the networks will have to go digital... they shouldnt need any other encouragement... infact.. I think that fact that they will lose their lisences.. is pretty good encouragement... Robert PS... excuse my spelling.. and grammar
"Technology is too complex today."
or did you waste 25 years under a Totalitatian regime. Layers again.
"man exploits man" is it's own reverse. Man occupies both slots in the statement.
An argument that is very powerful that I never see anywhere is the damage that this bill wil do to artists.
The main argument the RIAA and MPAA make is that this is for the protection of artists from consumers. This is only partially true; the only artists who are protected are signed artists who are receiving heavy promotion from the industries in question; independent artists, up-and-comers, and the like use the cheap digital equipment and freely-distributable content to sell their wares.
Once CBDTPA passes, independent artists and musicians will basically have to break the law to have the free and cheap promotion and development tools they have today -- or they simply will not be able to pursue the arts for a living.
Think about it. Over the past couple of years, there has been a storm of new independent films and music that have become famous overnight thanks to inexpensive and easily-copyable technology. Anyone can make an MP3 or a Movie, and distribute it easily. This means that there's a lot of really bad art out there, but the cream is able to rise to the top ("Hey, check out this awesome song I just got off of Kazaa!") and music/movies the RIAA/MPAA never would have approved of get out, and through this advertising people are able to make a living.
Need an example? How about Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of South Park. The internet made them. They mock the MPAA. And the MPAA is trying to make sure that no one can make movies without going through them.
That's what's really happening here. This is not about protecting the artists at all; it is about control. Control over what you listen to and what you watch. It is outright racketeering.
Please tell them about the artists. From one wannabe musician.
Back in the late 1700s when society moved and changed much slower than it did today, copyrights were granted for 15 years. Today, with lightspeed communication and accelerating rate of change, copyrights are granted for 75 years. Long copyrights are the antithesis of change. Copyrights should last no longer than 5 years.
Ok - I've a solution to all of this crap that the "industry" is complaining about. Lets just all go back to the way things were with analogue devices - then their argument of "perfect digital copies" doesn't hold water.
WTF? Its the 21st fucken century - get a CLUE RIAA and MPAA! Old ways/models of doing buisness DIE a horrible death - like the dinosaurs they are.
A solution to the problem? Implement protection YOURSELF - don't make everyone ELSE suffer because you can't learn from your mistakes.
I love their arguements of losing money to piracy....Piracy has been around ever since the media to copy it has existed. Why do you think they have enlisted the help (wasting TAX PAYERS money nontheless!!!) of our government to enforce this? Because they KNOW that copy protection is a losing battle!
No matter what steps they try to come up with to "secure" content - it has to be converted back to good 'ole analogue for us humans to enjoy it.
Funny thing is - if this bill passes, its just going to be like throwing gasoline onto a bonfire....People will be CRACKING shit left and right just to "stick it to the man." Its a complete waste of their money - and OURS as Taxpayers!
Sorry about this, but I am a poor college student with no "phat pipe" to place this on.
I am writing to express my serious concern and dismay in regards to the potential passing of the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), formerly known as the SSSCA (Security Systems Standards and Certification Act), introduced by Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina. This law is a horrible obstruction to individual freedom, economic growth, and technological and artistic innovation. In the following paragraphs, I will layout a specific and detailed listing of all the reasons why this legislation is the pinnacle of a bad trend started by the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
WHAT IS THE CBDTPA?
The CBDTPA is more or less an addendum to the DMCA. The DMCA made it illegal to circumvent any encryption placed around copyrighted works. This is, simply put, a large loophole around fair-use rights. If a copyrighted work is encrypted, you are forbidden to break the encryption in order to make a legal backup of the media. For the sake of "preventing Internet piracy" (which has yet to be proven to hurt sales), the honest consumer is being treated as a criminal, and denied rights to items he/she legally bought and owns. For a fantastic explanation of the effects of the DMCA on the customer of digital media, read Damian Yerrick's plain English explanation at:
http://pineight.evilpigeon.net/rant/dmca/
The basic premise of the CBDTPA is that eventually any hardware capable of storing or playing digital media should have built in copy protection or "Digital Rights Management" (DRM). The bill so broadly defines hardware as to be laughable. Hardware ranging from calculators and watches to supercomputers are susceptible to this bill. Additionally, the proposed bill and it's supporters hint at the eventual demand for mandatory DRM in all software. For the sake of clarity, hardware refers to the physical parts of a piece of electronic equipment; for instance, in a computer the hard drive and the processor are considered hardware. Software is the coded applications that run on the hardware, such as operating systems and word processors.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CBDTPA
I have divided this segment into four issues. First, I reiterate the constitutional goals of copyright and the proposed CBDTPA's dismantling of them. Next, I remark upon the current power of the media conglomerates in support of this bill, their lies, and their selfish motivation. Thirdly, I point out the cultural and ethical implications of this proposed legislation. Lastly, I remark on the CBDTPA's effect on an already economically struggling computer and IT industry.
THE ORIGINAL GOALS OF COPYRIGHT
Copyright was started in England via the passage of the Statute of Anne in 1710. This statute encompassed the first legal protection for consumers of copyrighted works, the first written record of an author's copyright, and more importantly, the creation of the "public domain". Accordingly, the United States followed this statute very closely when its own initial version of copyright law was passed in 1790. However, the United States version was naturally more federalized then its English counterpart: "The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries." This excerpted phrase from Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution is the cornerstone of my argument, and I urge you to read the entire clause over again.
Naturally the current state of copyright law has been continually revised and updated according to the demands of a changing worldwide information structure, technological innovation, and new means of expression; major changes in copyright law occurred in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976. However, the underlying premise has not been altered; that is, the constitution's outline for copyright policy has not been changed (at least within the constitution itself). Obviously, this is not to say that the motivation behind copyright has maintained consistency or true harmony with the lofty goals of the constitution. In fact, I would venture to say that the current state of copyright is in direct contradiction with the premise it is ironically built upon. The CBDTPA is the nail in the coffin for traditional copyright, as it seeks to obliterate the use of copyright for any purpose beyond a form of corporate weaponry against private citizens and competing companies.
ISSUE 1: THE DISMANTLING OF FAIR USE RIGHTS
There are intentional limitations to the power an author holds over his/her respective copyrighted works. These limitations exist to encourage other individuals or companies to expand and build upon those copyrighted ideas/works, thereby increasing innovation and promoting scientific development for the benefit of the public. The most important limitation on author control is the "fair use privilege". This right of the people specifically addresses the ability of an individual to use copyrighted works without consent of the owner to a reasonable degree. In Sony v. Universal City Studios; the U.S. Supreme Court stated that, "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use;' the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." This "doctrine of fair use" was initially created via judicial review, but has since been intentionally written into copyright law. Although this principle may seem to be counterintuitive to the overall premise of copyright, it is an extremely important link between the inventor who wishes to receive payment for his work, and the public that wishes to access and make use of it. The U.S. Supreme Court remarks, "the fair use doctrine exists because copyright law extends limited proprietary rights to copyright owners only to the extent necessary to ensure dissemination to the public." This is directly correlated to the goals of the constitutional explanation of copyright.
The obvious issue associated with this doctrine is how exactly to determine what is fair use as opposed to copyright violation. The law is not at all clear as to how a process is to be determined "fair use", but over the years many examples have surfaced. In general, criticism, comment, parody, new reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, or personal use such as time of format shifting are considered to be within the guidelines of fair use. Companies have never been to comfortable with the fair use clause in copyright; it represents a significant loss of control. As of late, corporate profits have taken an ever increasing priority over public relations and proper customer satisfaction. Older ethical standards for customer rights have become less important to business executives then their efforts to increase profit margins and market domination. Take for instance, the Disney Company's stance on copyright and fair use. The Disney company is an unabashed supporter of the DMCA and the upcoming CBDTPA. For instance, Disney has helped in donating over 200,000 dollars to Senator Fritz Holling's (D-South Carolina) campaign. At a one day workshop entitled "Understanding Broadband Demand: Digital Content and Rights Management", Preston Padden, head of government relations for Disney, remarked, "There is no right to fair use. Fair use is a defense against infringement." Indeed, the motivation for Senator Holling's bill is blatantly motivated by corporate donations rather than public interest. But just for the sake of proof, here are some wonderful examples denoting where Senator Holling's true motives lie:
from http://www.publicampaign.org/press_releases/pr6_2
"This past May, Senator Hollings cast a most unusual vote, as the only Democrat to support the Financial Modernization Act (FMA) of 1999, S. 900. Hollings' vote regarding this bill is difficult to explain, given his pro-consumer voting record. But when considered in the context of the over $250,000 the Senator received from industries that would most benefit from the legislation, additional light is shed on his decision.
The Golden Leash Award is a modern incarnation of former Senator William Proxmire's legendary Golden Fleece, which highlighted government waste and abuse. "Senator Hollings' vote is an ideal example of how campaign contributions appear to influence strongly the way a Senator votes. What else would explain his puzzling anti-consumer position on this important bill from a senator who has a long history of pro-consumer stands?" said Ellen Miller, executive director of Public Campaign."
from http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/2183
"As the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, one of the most important committee chairs on Capitol Hill, Hollings has attracted quite a stable of high-profile donors over the years. According to Federal Election Commission data presented by campaign contribution watchdog Open Secrets, there are five major media and entertainment companies in the top 20 list of Hollings' most generous campaign donors. They include AOL Time Warner ($33,500), the Murdoch-owned News Corporation ($28,224), Viacom's CBS ($16,632), the National Association of Broadcasters ($22,000), and Walt Disney Co. ($18,500).
The individual donors from those companies include a flock of high-ranking executives from various News Corp/Fox subsidiaries, Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone, and Ted Turner from AOL Time Warner. Since 1995, employees from companies producing television, movies, music, and other media content have sent Hollings $287,534, making the entertainment industry his second most generous supporters. Those individual donations look like small potatoes, especially when you find out that they cover the past five to six years of campaign contributions."
The attitude highlighted by Padden is heavily endorsed by Jack Valenti, President of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). Basically, corporations such as Disney and industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) cannot seem to fathom the existence of a customer who is both honest enough to not steal, yet smart enough to not let him/herself be ripped off. This assertion is further examined within issue 3 below.
The CBDTPA seeks to eliminate any rights to fair use in the digital spectrum. The popular digital music format MP3 would overnight virtually cease to exist. The CBDTPA, as written, makes "ripping" a CD to MP3 illegal. Not only is making a legal backup suddenly illegal, the DRM clause would cause your hard-drive to potentially no longer store the media unless authorized, the operating system to no longer allow you to move or copy media files, and the media player to no longer play "unauthorized" files. If these changes are made, my desire to own a computer diminishes considerably, and I would wager that most people use their computer for far less than I do.
ISSUE 2: THE INFLUENCE AND POWER OF THE RIAA AND THE MPAA
Ever since the introduction of the DMCA, copyright law has become less and less motivated by the rationale of protecting the consumer and more motivated by the lobbying groups of various companies. With regard to copyright law, the offenders are almost entirely made up of the major media companies. In particular, the RIAA, the MPAA, and the Disney Company have been prime supporters of legislation such as the aforementioned DMCA and Sonny Bono Act (which incidentally kept Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain again - see the references). These company's tactics have been completely insidious and purposely misleading. For instance, the RIAA blamed Napster Inc. for falling CD sales. Napster of course, is the most famous of the song-swapping services formerly available on the Internet. What most major stories neglected to mention was that the demise in sales was with regard to CD singles, not CD albums. RIAA president Hilary Rosen also managed to "forget" to mention this important point when she candidly remarked "Napster hurt record sales." There is a very important difference in CD singles and CD albums. I have never personally purchased a CD single in my life and I cannot think of anyone I know who consistently does either. The fact is that singles were a "mainstay of the industry in the 1950s and 60s", and have since "fallen out of favor as a tool to inflate sales figures and influence radio programming", according to Roy Lott, president of EMI Group's Capitol Record Label. The point is that CD singles are a markedly unpopular form of media that have been gradually declining in sales for the past three years, even before the 39 percent downturn in 1999. To claim that the RIAA suffered "irreparable" harm from this downturn in sales is completely false. CD singles constitute less than one percent of the RIAA's total profit. They lost 36 percent of 1 percent of their total profit. However, the spin put on this news by the RIAA and the media made it seem as though total sales had fallen 39 percent. Even more damning, the RIAA as a whole curtailed CD single production in order to increase album sales, which of course generate more profit than a single. Furthermore, the advent of Napster in 1999 was followed by an overall increase in record sales by the RIAA for the next two years! The RIAA sold 10.8 percent more CDs that year even after increasing the price on those discs by over 12.3 percent. In 2000 this trend continued with another increase in CD price (from $13.65 to $14.02 on average) and an increase in sales again by over 3,600,000 CDs. It is worth noting also that in the last nine years the RIAA has tripled their annual income during a supposed economic downturn. For the years 1999 and 2000 the total profit made by the RIAA went from 14,584,500,000 dollars to 14,323,000,000 dollars. However, they lost 579,500,000 dollars on vinyls, cassettes and music videos, areas that Napster cannot possibly have an effect upon! In the formats Napster can trade, the RIAA made 318,500,000 more dollars than before!
Still think this is just clever accounting on my part?
Read the RIAA press release: http://www.riaa.org/PR_story.cfm?id=374
and compare it with the actual numbers: http://www.riaa.com/pdf/year_end_2000.pdf
Note how the press release makes the actual numbers seem far more terrible than they really are.
The fact is that Napster's popularity appears to have spurred CD sales to new levels. This makes sense, if you think about it: The large majority of people are not on fast broadband connections to the Internet. On a 56K modem, downloading an MP3 can take some time, certainly enough to make downloading an entire album seem like a lot of effort. Then, more time is required to get the songs onto the CD. Common sense says that if people using Napster liked a song enough on MP3, they would probably go out and buy the album, just as if they heard it on the radio. Napster gave people the chance to experience music they otherwise might have been loathe to pay money for, only to find out that the music wasn't something they particularly enjoyed. Need more proof? In 2000, CD sales were up 8 percent, even with Napster usage at an almost all-time high. At the same time in 2001, CD sales were down 8 percent, but the RIAA's lawsuit had all but halted Napster usage. See the correlation?
Napster increased the plausibility of individuals being exposed to new music genres, thereby increasing music sales through new or expanded markets.
So what exactly does this have to do with the issue of fair use rights and copyright? In a word, everything. The RIAA sued Napster because it was "violating copyright", and the judge eventually agreed with the RIAA. Before I go to far, however, it is important to illustrate how exactly Napster worked. Napster's technology is a form of Internet protocol known as a peer-to-peer network (P2P). In a P2P network, computers not locally connected communicate directly to each other through a specialized piece of software that "simulates" a local area network (LAN), like the kind most companies have at work. Through this P2P technology, computers that otherwise would not be able to share files can communicate very easily without some other form of communication such as HTTP, (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) which is used by all Internet web sites, or FTP, (File Transfer Protocol) used mostly in the past for remote data servers. Both of these forms of communication are much more archaic when it comes to massively interconnected file sharing schemes. P2P networks by definition are completely decentralized, that is, they have no "main server" that one must log onto in order to access the network. Security and permissions are handled at each node individually. Unfortunately, this is also the bane of P2P networks. As more and more machines are added onto the network, locating the appropriate file on the network can become a time-consuming process, especially as more people with slower connections join the network. To offset this, Napster slightly centralized there architecture: Central servers kept a listing of which shared files were stored on each computer of the P2P network. This of course opened them up to litigation. Although Napster was not directly breaking copyright, they were facilitating it to a degree that the judge felt outweighed the opposing arguments. Let me reiterate that: Napster did not ever copy and redistribute copyrighted works. However, Napster was aware of the abuses due to its central server architecture. Modern P2P schemes do not rely on central listings, and are virtually uncontrollable. Which is the point. The RIAA and the MPAA cannot grasp the concept of an uncontrollable medium. They believe that an uncontrollable medium will result in the breakdown of the industry. This would be a legitimate fear, except that CD sales have increased! People are willing to support their favorite artists and are willing to pay extra to get an "official CD" that is guaranteed to work and sound "perfect". In fact, a study compiled by the Yankelovich Partners surveyed 16,000 Americans between the ages of 13 and 39 who say they listen to more than 10 hours of music a week and have spent at least $25 on music in the past six months. Among the findings: 59 percent of those who said they heard a certain piece of music for the first time while online ended up purchasing that music as a CD. I am certainly not defending Napster or proclaiming the outcome of the trial unjust. However, it is plainly obvious that the RIAA consistently and intentionally convoluded the truth to further its own ambitions.
The reason the RIAA and MPAA's lawsuits strike me as suspicious is that the motivation is strictly corporate profit, not public welfare. Suddenly a company can be held liable for another company's dead or dying business model, leaving the public entrenched in an antiquated and expensive system. Consider a few things: First and foremost, Napster quite obviously helped CD sales, as the data above suggests. Second, it is quite devious that the cohorts of the RIAA and MPAA continually litigate against small Internet start-ups such as Napster but refuse to engage the manufacturer's of CD-burners, which create an exact, full-quality copy of a CD in minutes, as opposed to the individual downloading of songs in lesser quality MP3 format. The fact of the matter is that the RIAA and MPAA know that their strong-arm tactics and current stance on copyright could not hold up against a vigorous and equally well-funded enemy such as the information technology hardware and software firms that actively market CD-burners and CD-burning software. Also, copyright compliance in this regard is already quite clear via the 1984 Betamax case resolved by the Supreme Court. In that instance, the movie industry attempted to block the distribution of VCRs. The court rejected the industry's claims that VCRs would ruin their business. The Supreme Court stated:
"The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses. The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses."
The movie industry should thank the court's for this decision as well. Think of all the money made on VHS sales since their introduction!
Fourth, copyright law and fair use cases in the past make it quite obvious that copying a CD, whether to another CD or a compressed digital format such as MP3 is legal. Fair use doctrine allows any individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted works as long as the motivation is personal use. Legitimate and legal copying provides for increased consumer convenience, an enlarged market for the copyright holder, and a natural defense against future media failure. P2P software then has an obvious myriad of noninfringing uses, both to consumers and artists. In fact the artists have the most to gain.
Which might be what has scared the RIAA into action.
The RIAA is composed of five major labels that control collectively almost 90 percent of the total industry's output. Of the members of this oligopoly, four of them are not even U.S. companies but subsidiaries of foreign-based media giants. This combined power is totally detrimental to artists rights. The RIAA's policies with regard to artists include routinely stripping them of all copyright to their own works as part of the recording contract. Think about that. This is akin to you or I writing a book and then being told that, in order to publish it, you or I must rescind all rights to owning and exploiting that work. Recently, the RIAA almost convinced congress to never let the artists regain control of their own copyrights by rewriting copyright law so that all sound recordings were classified as "works for hire". Only an extremely outraged artists coalition managed to persuade congress to see the detrimental aspect of what the RIAA claimed to be a "mere technical classification." The RIAA and the MPAA are in effect, just middle-men. The only way they can continue to make money off of the actual workers (the artists) is by continuing to control the means of production and publicity. The Internet threatens the RIAA's strangle hold on media outlets. Faced with an almost insurmountable challenge, the RIAA and MPAA have basically turned to buying laws to protect their profit margins.
The Internet could provide for artists an alternative to the contractual and extortionist policies of the RIAA. Imagine if the works that an artist created were produced and directly sold via the Internet, without the middle-men of the production company. To understand the current plight of artists, read the revealing editorial in the 18:23 edition of SBI:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:cHwstL-QH2
What the RIAA does not want you or I to realize is that they most certainly do NOT represent the artists contracted to their labels. They represent nothing more than a coalition of companies milking copyright to its fullest extent. For the sake of time, I will demonstrate further by paraphrasing user Iblack from slashdot.org in a user-moderated discussion on the CBDTPA, found at:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/27/161
Think about video rental stores as a fantastic example. Imagine I rented a movie that I wanted to watch, took it home and then placed it in my VCR and turned it on. I then flip the record switch on my second VCR and create a copy of this tape, effectively pirating the medium for about 5 dollars, including the blank tape. Technically, with some moderately cheap equipment I could just as easily record the tape to a computer. Taking into account the past many paragraphs devoted to the MPAA's and RIAA's abhorration to pirating on-line, doesn't it seem very odd that these same groups would not be pointing out the immense amount of profit lost to people rent-pirating rather than purchasing their wares at video stores? Even more curious, it requires considerably less technical savvy to pirate a VCR tape-to-tape compared to a digitally encrypted medium such as a DVD. Furthermore, grabbing a blank tape is also very easy. Comparatively, downloading full-length movies takes a long time, even on broadband connections to the Internet, and they usually require a specialized media codec to be viewed. Why has the MPAA turned a blind eye to video rental stores?
Simply put, because they generate revenue. However, as should be expected, the movie industry did not see this potential until after the fact. The popularity of VHS was the only reason the industry ultimately accepted it. The easily controlled betamax was their preferred method. However, as common sense dictates, the increased functionality of VHS resulted in a much larger support base and an accordingly much larger market. With the Internet, the same line of thinking is emerging.
The MPAA, however, is convinced that the sheer size and speed of the Internet is a threat to its business method. The latest reports indicate that worldwide over 1 billion people are online. This statistic is read by the MPAA as "1 billion people can download and watch our movie for free unless we cripple their computers". The problem with this ideology is that the MPAA fails to realize that:
1) Very few people actually have the bandwidth/technical savvy to collect a horde of digital movies.
2) If they offered a service akin to a movie rental store, perhaps 10-20 percent would be willing to pay a 5 dollar service fee (including me!).
It makes sense. I am not going to sacrifice 4 hours of my time to pirate someone else's VHS tape, or 12 hours to pirate someone's DVD, when I can walk to blockbuster and rent it for 2 dollars. For 2 dollars I save time, and I am guaranteed a good quality copy.
The RIAA and the MPAA are trying to push their existing business methods on-line. The problems they are having stem from the fact that current technology provides for stiff competition from piracy. Media has been, and always will be, pirated to some extent. The Internet and formats such as MP3 audio and DIVX MPEG4 video have only made the work of the few die-hard pirates more available to the public. Which is the point. The RIAA and the MPAA have not made any serious ventures into on-line digital service, therefore stimulating piracy, since it is the only current method. All they have to do is make their service offering more attractive than theft.
You'd think it wouldn't be hard to do that, except that their service offering is, and has been for about 40 years now, theft. They overcharge, they price in a predatory fashion, they artificially increase demand and artificially decrease supply. They constantly reduce production costs and yet constantly raise price tags.
Look at the computer industry: Ten years ago a 386SX20 with a 20MB hard drive cost over a 1000 dollars. Now, I can buy a 1 gigahertz computer with a 40GB hard drive for that price. Or, I could buy myself a low-end budget PC for $300. An increase in production efficiency coupled with a decrease in production costs resulted in a decrease of the price-to-consumer. Basic economics.
Now compare that to CDs. Ten years ago, the album Stop Making Sense by the Talking Heads cost $18.99. Today, the album Strange Angels by Kristin Hersch cost $24.99. Not surprisingly however, CD production and material costs have decreased each year since their introduction. See the problem?
The problem is not the capability of the computer to facilitate "piracy"! The problem is the media industry's unwillingness to sell a reasonably priced and diverse digital medium without again attempting to convert the "customer" to a strict "consumer" as in the Betamax scenario. The problem lies in the industry's blatant greed.
ISSUE 3: CONSUMERS BY FORCE
The CBDTPA seeks to divide everyone into two categories: The content creators and the content consumers. To many people inside the corporate media sphere see themselves as the only suppliers of creative ingenuity, innovation, and art. It appears that for the sake of "protecting" their egomania and "intellectual property" anyone who owns a computer is going to be forced to have it turned into nothing more than a fancy TV.
The word consumer, as a whole, is also a source of aggravation. It implies a notion of being fed, of being given content that you don't necessarily desire. And this is precisely what the CBDTPA is demanding of you. Sit down in front of your computer, pay an exorbitant fee, and watch the same old boring content and advertisement barrage over and over again. The great thing about the current computer is its ability to allow for the construction of content, not its ability to supply it. This is further amplified by the Internet, and the accompanying ease of distribution and immense audience. For instance, a musician could record a song onto his computer and sell it via the Internet, or a graphic artist could market his art. In the future, perhaps even an independent film company could market it's wares online. A future dictated by the CBDTPA allows only a few select companies to digitally "watermark" their media in a manner which the now-crippled computer can read. Does anyone honestly believe that these same companies that desire such immense control will relinquish it in the future to independents desiring to sell to the same market?
Suddenly a person is no longer an individual, but a forced consumer of multiple mega-corporations. The prospect is as disturbing as it is possible. The myth of "intellectual property" is curbing and inhibiting the free expression of ideas and content, precisely what copyright law was intended to promote.
ISSUE 4: ECONOMIC CONCERNS AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR OPEN SOURCE
The CBDTPA, perhaps unwittingly to Senator Hollings, poses an extremely large threat to the economic lifeblood of a sprawling computer and IT industry. The expectation that the average user has when purchasing a computer is that the machine will allow for the creation of content, the viewing and enjoyment of content, and the storage of content. The CBDTPA, as currently written, effectively changes the operational power of a computer to creating limited content, displaying only "allowable" content, and storing only a limited amount of content. In effect, the CBDTPA turns a computer into little more than a high-priced and crippled TV/radio/typewriter. It is absurd to assume that the average consumer will have any motivation to upgrade their existing "normal" computers to the crippled version, nor is it at all reasonable to assume that computer users as a whole will find these changes appealing. The United States Association for Computing Machinery (USACM) wrote an informative letter (link available in the references section) to Senator Hollings regarding these issues, and I quote them below:
"We would ask that you carefully consider the issues of cost, liability, and government interference in technology standards-setting that would be imposed by this legislation. We can think of many objections to the legislation, based on our reading of the draft bill.
Here is a small sampling:
* Colleges, universities and trade schools throughout the U.S. would no longer be able to teach advanced computer science and computer engineering.
* The acts of writing basic operating system software or assembling simple computer systems in classes or as assignments would be against the proposed law.
* Research in computer security and protection would be further curtailed,as any such research would be required to be done on (and not interfere with) whatever technology is imposed by this law. However, malicious actors do not need to be so concerned. This has significant national security implications.
* Researchers and hobbyists seeking new uses for innovative technology might well find their experimentation and prototypes to be criminal under this law.
* Devices as disparate as electronic cameras, wrist watches, electric pianos, televisions, ATM machines, cell phones, home security systems, and medical equipment (among many examples) all process and display information electronically. Under the proposed legislation, all would be required to support anti-copying protocols. In most such cases, this is absurd and will raise costs unnecessarily. Inclusion of anti-copying technology in general purpose equipment -- including real-time computing devices used in traffic control, air flight control, medical equipment, and manufacturing -- adds to their complexity and potential for failure. Unexpected interactions with other code, and accidental activation of protection protocols cannot be ruled out in every case, and in many venues the potential for damage is extreme.
* Photocopy machines, telephones and VCRs are now digital in form and can copy information. Forcing adoption of anti-copying protocols on those machines will change accepted modes of use, at best, and may render them unusable for their intended purposes.
* Other countries will not have similar requirements in their laws and may actively fear the imposition of anti-copy technologies; this will put U.S. products at a competitive disadvantage with other products manufactured elsewhere in the world. At a time when electronics manufacturers in other countries are seeking an advantage over U.S. firms, this could be catastrophic for the U.S. electronics industry. In addition, the draft version of CBDTPA would have significant negative impacts on foreign technology imports, such as the Linux operating system, in direct violation of our obligations as a participating member of the World Trade Organization."
Intel Executive Vice-President Leslie Vadasz was recently present at a CBDTPA hearing as well, and he was one of the lone dissenters to the plan, bravely facing a torrent of insults and accusations from Hollings himself. To completely clarify his position, Vadasz later wrote a letter to Hollings, in which he states:
"Another major point of misunderstanding is our differing perspectives on the role of the PC in the hands of the consumer. Mr. Eisner's [CEO of Disney] characterization of the phrase "rip, mix, burn" as emblematic of our industry's perspective on piracy is utterly false. What the content community fails to recognize is that these utilities, [which allow] the ability to copy content, remix and manage it and port it to other storage media for personal use in a protected fashion, are features that consumers have come to expect. The ability to rip, mix and burn in a protected manner is not piracy, it is simply fair use of content as permitted by law."
The phrase "that consumers have come to expect" is critical to this argument. What the CBDTPA proposes is not what the consumer, and therefore the public, desires. What the public desires is nothing more than what they have always had: The right to do whatever they please (within fair use) with media they legally obtained. This bill basically rubber-stamps the media industry's procrastination to extending their services online and aggravation at the prospect of alternative companies filling the void. The IT industry as a whole will suffer an incredible burden if this bill passes. One of America's largest industries (considerably larger than the media business) is going to be handicapped so that Disney and the MPAA/RIAA can stop "piracy". This rhetoric is:
1) A falsehood. As has been previously shown, The actions of the MPAA and RIAA are motivated entirely by profit and control.
2) Impossible. Digital protection measures and laws will never stop the "die-hard" pirates.
A common misconception (illustrated wonderfully by DVDs) is that digitally encrypted mediums are secure. They are NOT. Put simply, digital encryption/watermarking schemes rely on one weakness: Somewhere along the way, the media stream must be decrypted in order to play. Wherever this occurs, the media is subject to all sorts of attacks to decipher the encryption mechanism, or emulate the decryptor. The hassle associated with this scheme is immense for the ordinary non-pirating consumer. For instance,
*The new Windows XP registration feature makes setting up the software an immense headache. Additionally, more than two changes to your hardware configuration require you to reactivate the OS again. All to prevent piracy. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/pirac
*New encryption standards being discussed by the MPAA for HDTV (High Definition Television) will obsolete all sets bought before 2002. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_1/feature
To sum up, this legislation intends on preventing free market forces from being allowed to shape the economic growth of these industries by creating artificial barriers intended to maintain the current balance of power/wealth held by the copyright holders. This is very similar to the competition felt by the railroad industry from the automobile, in that both the railroad and record/movie labels depended upon their absolute control over all major distribution channels for their sources of revenue (the record industry receives 94% of total revenue from CD sales). The PC/internet is like the automobile/highway system in that it frees the masses from having to rely on a bulky, inefficient, and tightly controlled distribution channel.
The economic impact of this bill is twofold: First, it forces the PC to become considerably less valuable in that it significantly decreases its functionality and usefulness to the consumer. Second, it retards innovation in that the computer no longer can grow out of current technology to produce better experiences for the consumer, dooming it to become another fixture of antiquated media distribution. Both of these truths will result in a large reduction in PC sales.
As a last addendum to this letter, I would like to express my concern towards the CBDTPA with respect to the Linux operating system. The Linux OS is an open-source project driven by millions of contributors around the world. The Linux OS is a robust and stable operating system, routinely outperforming Windows in a variety of computing applications. Due to its open-source nature, Linux would be outlawed in the US if software ever is forced to include DRM. To demonstrate, since Linux is open-source, any code used to employ DRM could be easily circumvented or erased, thus causing the illegality. While Linux certainly has its advantages to Windows in terms of stability, virus-prevention, interoperability, cost, and functionality, it is also a huge business within and without the U.S. IBM alone invests over 1 billion dollars in Linux each year. Linux is seen as one of the biggest competitors to Microsoft Windows, and damaging it's already fragile market-share could keep the proven monopoly, Microsoft, bigger and more powerful than ever.
Furthermore, even if the Linux OS is somehow immune to the CBDTPA's forced DRM, one needs to note that as of now, Microsoft holds a patent on a Digital Rights Management OS. If the U.S. Government passes a law requiring DRM in all software, they in effect make it illegal to use any OS other than Windows, and basically write a Microsoft monopoly into law.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I quote Robert Heinlein's "Life-Line":
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Thank you for your time. I hope that in light of this letter you seriously consider all of the ramifications to this bill from a moral, economic, and constitutional perspective. Vote down this legislation.
Sincerely,
REFERENCES
For an incredibly in-depth analysis of the implication of this type of legislation, the best choice by far is:
Lessig, Lawrence. "The Future of Ideas". Random House, New York, NY: 2001.
The rest of my sources are from the Internet. For great discussions on these topics, some good sites are:
http://www.eff.org
http://www.linux.org
http://www.anti-dmca.org
Individual facts and citations were garnered from the following sites:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/24262.h
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:uVMlxVS8tj
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/27/154
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA/20020228_intel_holl
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA/20010926_usacm_holl
http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020308_eff_sssca_al
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03215.html
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2002news/copyright.htm
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,48625,00
http://www-sul.stanford.edu/cpyright.html
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,49201,00
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/rice.html
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17327
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
First of all, do _not_ say that this bill has constitutional problems. The First Amendment argument is dubious at best, and the Copyright Clause does nothing except say that Congress has the job of passing bills like this one.
Get some demographics of people who will be angry at the results of this bill. For example, will this change the votes of college students, geeks, or retiree's? If you can come up with polling numbers, even better. Remember, the most unprincipled politicians will do whatever it takes to get enough votes to remain in office, while more principled ones may sincerely want to represent the interests of these people. If you're talking to someone who is already against the bill, this sort of information provides them with more ammunition for debate.
You might want to talk about the history of the VCR. The movie industry made the same sort of arguments that the RIAA is making now, and so this is a good time to show what actually happens when technologies like this are available.
I am officially gone from
The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA) as proposed is a blatant violation of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
This legislation would essentially amount to the government forcing the computer industry into involuntary servitude for the benefit of the recording and motion picture industries.
It is involuntary if the computer industry does not want to do it. It is servitude because to design, implement, and build these devices and software requires the expenditure of work and resources. Therefore, to pass this legislation would be a violation of the Constitution!
If you think about it, this law will only stop the 'casual copiers,' but they probably have a buddy who can get around it anyway. This law is for the 1% of violators, who have ALREADY found ways around the current copy protection (DVD country codes, etc....) and stops the other 99% from doing anything related. Those 1% will STILL do what they want, and will still get around the protection. Basically, this law will stop the law-abiding people from doing anything related to copying anything on their computers, nothing else.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The CBDTPA could have the same negative impact that the former encryption software export restrictions had. Other countries will be able to develop and market technologies (open source software, open systems, academic research, etc.) that will be illegal in the US. The US will fall behind techologically and lose business to these competitive nations. Pretty soon the US mega-corporations will start complaining that they are getting locked out of big international technology deals.
take either a suitcase full of money or a suitcase full of weapons.
All women want is honesty, if you can fake that, you're in.
Why is it not enough anymore to say "it's MY damned computer, get your interfering mitts off of it!"
if passed, then the fix is in and we NEVER have to worry about this anymore.
The tech community gets all warm and fuzzy over Free Speech stuff. The Senator won't. Note how many extreme left Senators are supporting the bill. The Senator will believe that the the clauses aready there cover these things. Senators deal with big money, tend to be lawyers and are usually quite pragmatic. Focus on that when choosing arguments. Try these.
1)RIAA states that its entire industry has sales of about $15 Billion. They are asking for something worth more than their entire industry. Think about this strictly on a money basis. Any technology that MUST be incorporated in EVERY computer, phone, fax, PDA, etc etc is worth far more than $15 Billion, no ifs ands or buts. For comparision, the only single source required component for just computers is Windows, therefor a reasonable valuation of the antipriracy product as specified is on the range of the market cap of Microsoft (Around $300B depending on the market that day). It would be cheaper for the US economy if the entire music industry was simply nationalized and all of its products given away. In essence, the entire music industry for the future will not be valued for creating anything, its value will be based entirely its ownership of the anti-piracy technology. Technology which it refuses to develop for itself, prefering to force the cost of development on the tech industry.
2)By moving copyright violations out of the civil court system and into the federal criminal court system, tens of thousands of copyright lawyers will be out of work. Additionally, there will be major increases in costs for the DOJ to hire criminal prosecutors, and since a federal prision population increase of 10000 is quite forseeable, maybe a couple of billion in increased Bureau of Prisions costs. Not to mention extra judges, clerks bailiffs etc. How much further behind on appointing judges will they get when an extra 10,000 cases per year are dropped on them. Of course, 50 Million Americans would currently be indictable under these provisions so that 10000 figure could be quite low. $15 Billion in in annual expenditures for the Feds is very plausible. Again, more than the industry to be saved is worth.
3)The technology which the music industry demands simply does not exist and there are very strong reasons to believe that it is impossible to create. Don't get techie on the guy, he doesn't understand computers. Tell him in easy to understand words. Remember, RIAA is demanding something that will keep a secret for 95 years, despite millions of people around the planet having the decoding device in their hands. Ask him if he has ever heard of something being kept secret for 95 years.
4)The ability to deny usage by denial of permission for any given stream of bits is part of the specification. Ask him how this will help human rights in China if anything they deem offensive can be blocked simply by flipping a switch in a central location. What does he think will be the response of every newspaper in the country when they realize that in order to publish, they have to get permission from Disney? Yes, they all use computers. Point out how hard it is to run his own political campaigns without using computers. Unless he wants to give ALL of his targeting, literature, call list and other campaign information to Disney, RIAA, Sony etc.
5)Giving this power to Disney and RIAA effectively gives complete veto power over every technology developed. In other words, no matter what Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM or CA builds, Eisner must first give his approval before it can be sold. Without this requirement, there is no way the anti-piracy technology can survive. Use big companies that he has heard of since Senators rarely actually deal much with small businesses, despite the lip service.
Do not mention Open Source. If the Senator has even heard of it, his impressions are of a lot of "semi-communist, long haired furriners" trying to destroy major US corporations. Guess which side he is on. Give him rational solid costs and real constituencies he is going to anger.
Like it or not, he doesn't listen to particular people, not even particular industries. He will NOT listen if you point out how this is going to hurt a lot of very important businesses and groups who will actively try to hurt him next election cycle. Never ever even imply that when talking to him since it will make you look like an amatuer and an idiot. Talking points like those given above will get his attention since he knows with excruciating exactness what pissing off newspapers, big tech firms, anti-China nuts, lawyers and such will result in. Or any other group for that matter. He didn't get where he is by being stupid in that subject so making any kind of an implied threat about it will simply get you tuned out.
Good luck and you must have lots of clout to get a Senator to give an appointment during session. Thanks for risking that clout for all of us.
Good Luck!
The one sure way to defeat any bill is to convince the voters (congresscritters) that it is too expensive for its benefit [and that that expense can't be pork-barreled to their own constituency].
The renamed SSSCA has an unbounded cost of enforcement. It is the prohibition of alcohol on steriods.
It will create a black market.
It will require a demonstratably impossible (and therefore currently non-existant) technology be installed at several levels within each device. [c.f. hard disks, CPU and OS will each independently need to be conformant]
It will make huge numbers of existing technologies instantly illegal to continue manufacture. This will close factories at least for retooling and cost 'jobs'.
It will blast business tax revenues.
It will move jobs overseas because devices that will have crippled US versions and non-crippled international versions MAY NOT be manufactured in a domestic factory (while duplicate factories are not generally cost effective and overseas factories that make both classes of device are fine).
Added cost of components and complete products will reduce profit margins which will, in turn, devalue companies, and therefore stocks and the market for same.
And so on...
The raw financial impacts of the kind monitored by congresional types are neumerous and unlimited. Find a pork-barrel or pet economic project of the delegate in question and "examine it" with them.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I wrote an essay called The Subversion of Democracy.
Our government is becoming a fucking tool to the corporate conglomerates.
Especially in the wake of September 11th, there has been a rush of stupidity. Not only are the American people willing to drop $30 on a novelty sized flag stitched by the hands of a tiny Korean girl in the annals of a sweatshop, but they also seem to encourage their officials that they elected in office to lose their heads, and to vote YES on anything with words such as "Patriot" or "America" in the title.
And don't even bother bringing up the TERRORIST FRIENDLY system of checks and balances our forefathers actually thought about before making a permanent part of government legislation.
The legal possibilities for this legislation are so far reaching and preposterous that they can ban half the things in my room - all LEGAL things, including my 35MM, digital and video cameras, VCR's, non-neutered (read: Normal) PC's and Mac, blank CD's, disks, tapes and magnetic-optical media, and non-blank media with open source works on them. Books (what? First amendment? That doesnt cover code!), Networking/LAN equipment (which could be used for the transmittal and redistribution of the copyrighted works), as well as my collection of classic and antique computer and video game equipment, none of which has watermarking technology implanted in it (Thank god).
This is not the time to stand back and watch the grass grow, or the legislation pass. Not only do I encourage you to take action by mailing and generally annoying your elected officials right now, but harassing and annoying more the people and industries that support this fucking bullshit - Jack valenti, Hilary Rosen, RIAA, MPAA, Major music labels - they should all be forced to stop. Vote with your wallet. Don't vote a major party you don't agree with over a smaller party you do agree with based upon the smaller party "not having a chance." And please, PLEASE don't vote for any of the people supporting this bill.
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
How about plain old freedom? I think of this as the freedom to do with things what I want, without being restricted by other people who wish to protect their profits by legislating what should be commercial systems. Government lead copyright protection systems are not at all in the public interest, as they do nothing but lock us all into using existing infrastructure, while hampering the development of new technology. This is in direct opposition to free-market capitalism, nothing more than socialism that benefits the rich, and absolutely unamerican.
Not only does such a system hamper new technological development, it hampers development of new content. By allowing corporations to control the handling of all media, it will be easier for these corporations to decide what is seen, heard, read, etc.. It will be easier for these companies to ignore new artists as it finds ways to dig up and resell old content over and over again. These companies will find ways to direct people to their most profitable content via the control software, while finding creative ways to lock other artists out of their systems by making it inconvenient, if not impossible, to access any media that circumvents the system.
When the government restricts the way computers handle information, it also restricts the flow and dissemination of information, and thus restricts the freedom of expression, something specifically prohibited by our constitution.
The CBDTPA is blatant tyranny; an obvious sign of class warfare in American, the haves are attempting to control the lives of the have-nots as much as possible, and then to squeeze every last drop of money as possible from the have-nots. Of course, the haves never need to fear these kind of restrictions on their freedoms, because they have money, lawyers, and if all else fails, passports.
I say, instead of making the stuff in the bill illegal, why not make broad band illegal? I know that napster really sucked waiting half an hour for a 3 minute song to download on my 56k.
Piracy has its place. It is called college. With the fat pipe right into your room and everyone on campus sharing files.
The implications of this bill are way too sweeping. The cost of enforcement will be far worse for our economy than any damage we could try to pin on Napster.
Maybe if DVDs didn't use some lame 5-and-dime encryption (not to mention unprotected audio CDs) we wouldn't have to be out billions of dollars to cover Hollywood's ass.
If the bill passes, then Joe Consumer will have a strong inducement to hold onto his old computer rather than buy a new one. The old machine lets him download, save and trade materials like mp3s, porn (almost all copyrighted), and games. A new machine would be faster, but doesn't do any of that. I know i will go a looong time before i buy a machine that only lets me do what Disney thinks i should.
And Joe Consumer holding on to his old machine not only affects the computer-makers, it hurts the software industry as well. As it turns out, even though 2/3rds of Joe's mp3 collection was downloaded off the net (and therefore illeagal according to RIAA, even though most of that was replacing vinyl he paid for twenty years ago), over half his applications were store bought at full retail price. Since he is sticking with his old, slower computer, he has no incentive to upgrade his Apps (and couldn't if he wanted to as his machine is too slow to run the new stuff). And then there's all that software that's usually included with a new computer.
So who wins?
Nobody actually. Consumers lose. computer makers and software companies lose. broadband internet roll-out is slowed even further (the slower machines can't handle it).
And even Disney doesn't get ahead. Rightously pissed hackers will devote special effort to insure that Disney movies are the first ones cracked and made available underground. And Joe Technophile (lives right up the street from Joe Consumer) has been quietly boycotting Disney, ABC, and Sony since he first read about the SSSCA on Slashdot. And then there's the mess in the Courts when Prof. Joe Sklyarov publishes on the technical weaknesses of the mandated copy-control encryption.
This is all about the Buggy-whip manufacturers screaming about that new-fangled car. Don't you think it would have been a very bad idea to make VCRs play-only back in 1978. VCRs never would have caught on if you couldn't use it to record a TV show, a practice the broadcast industry still considers a copyright violation. Oh and how the movie industry screamed back then, even though a typical disney flick today will make more from video sales than it will in the theatre [double check that factoid].
The movie industry is in little danger in the near future due to the file sizes required (even on a 400kbps internet connection it would take over 10 hours to D/L a typical movie DVD!)
The RIAA is in fact in some danger, but not from the direction you think. I have personally spent more on CD's this year than the last 10 years put together (though i have made a point of buying at used CD stores since the RIAA has pissed me off so much lately). The ability to store music on my computer and make compilation CD's of my favorite obscure music for friends and family has made it actually worth the money to buy CD's again.
The RIAA are in danger because they are simply middle-men. An amatuer musician can put together a basement studio capable of putting out pro-quality tracks for less than $10K (and that number has a lot of fudge built into it, if you have talent and already have a computer you can make a quality recording with another $500 worth of equipment). It used to be that the record company made a big investment in an artist by putting up the money for studio time, but those days are fading fast. And now the internet is on the verge of freeing the distribution channels from their grasp. The only aspect of the music biz that the RIAA still holds tight is the Star-Making (i.e. promotion), and that's really in the control of the radio and television broadcasters anyway. The music biz is in for a bit of a shake-up over the next decade or so, and the RIAA will probably not enjoy the changes, but when the steam engine's time comes....
Anyway, i see i went into a bit of a rant without bringing it all together (summation: the SSSCA by any other name, does in fact suck as bad), but i tend to do that. It's a good thing i wont be meeting with the senator, since i would likely go into an extended rant about the length of copyrights (why, exactly, should they last any longer than patents?).
Good luck, and go win one for the Ripper.
-DrLuckie
(alias for Rob Ryland)
Er, preventing independent media publication is what the RIAA/MPAA want.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
This makes me wonder if the law is more focused at "entertainment" copyright protection than "software" copyright protection. So "Lord of the Rings" would be protected by this bill and not "Norton Anti-virus".
The software industry didn't really chip in to help pay for this law. Let them buy their own damn law.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
How many complete copies of the disk image of the DVD can you transfer per day at that rate? My guess is, less than one. (Based on my experience with modems, cable modems from several different cable companies, and dual ISDN connections.)
Now, are you really going to leave your machine on the net full time using *all* of your bandwidth just to illegally distribute perfect copies of a DVD to people you don't even know? I don't think so.
Then when the recipient has the complete 17 gigabyte disk image, what are they going to do with it? Nobody sells DVD writers that write disks with that capacity. They'd have to store it on a hard disk... which would cost more than buying several original, unquestionably legitimate copies of the DVD at a store.
That doesn't seem like "minimal time and effort" to me. It sounds a lot more like "run a few copies off for friends", but with a lot of pain and effort and expense on both sides.
The truth is, to get video data to be small enough to distribute in even vaguely acceptable amounts of time, you have to compress the hell out of it. Even the best compression algorythms available (such as DIVX) cause significant loss of video quality. Also, I don't think people are distributing DIVX files including all the supplementary materials available on the usual DVDs. We are not talking about "perfect copies" being distributed by any means.
So, consumers have continuing incentives to buy videos instead of downloading a crappy copy over a P2P service: substantially better video quality, value-added supplementary materials, and the fact that it costs more to make a perfect copy than to just buy another original.
Now audio is another story... there is very good audio compression available. However, experience shows that even though plenty of people go online and download music from P2P services, they keep going to their favorite music store and buying it on CD anyway.
Besides, congress *did* pass a law that allows private individuals to exchange copies of audio recordings as long as no financial compensation is provided. Judges that have ruled P2P services to be illegal have basically waved that aside, claiming that it never considered the possibility of perfect digital copies or online services that hook up people to exchange desired music... but it has not been repealed and is, no matter what the judge may opine, still the law. IANAL, but IMHO free P2P services for distribution of audio content are legal.Apparently not any significant danger, given the absolutely absurd amounts of money movie and music studios make.Is there illegal distribution of copyrighted material going on? Yes. There is. Do I think movie studios should (legally) be able to pursue legal cases under current law against persons unlawfully distributing copies of their copyrighted movies? My moral opinion aside, yes, I do believe that legally they should. Do I think record labels should be able to pursue legal cases against persons distributing unlawful copies of audio content in ways that are not protected by the Audio Home Recording Act? Yes, again, my moral opinions aside, I believe that legally they should.
However, I would like to make two other observations:
1) As the industries complaining that they are the victims of illegal distribution of copyrighted material are making simply absurd amounts of money, I can't believe the problem is so big that it can't be taken care of via lawsuits against individuals under existing law, particularly since if the corporations start suing any substantial number of private individals, many (most?) others will become afraid to violate the law.
We need to examine the cost/benefit ratio. The cost to society of fucking with every single computer and electronic device made for the benefit of stopping the relatively low level of copyright infringement we're talking about is much too high.
2) If there really are so many people violating these laws that the only way to stop it is to fuck with every single computer and electronic device made, maybe the laws should just be eliminated. The laws are supposed to serve and protect the people. If a majority of people are violating the law, something is very wrong with the law.
Your points mirror the lies (or, to be charitable, let's call them "utterly incorrect statements based on complete lack of knowledge of the relevant technology") told to congress a few months back by Jack Valenti... I assume you're just paraphrasing him to get a reaction here. Please consider the issue better and look at some before posting such spurious arguments in the future. We've been over this issue a million times.
I see it as the media industry attempting to do several things:
1.) Penalize the hardware industry for creating products that could be used to infringe upon a copyright.
2.) To legislate the hardware manufacturers into footing the R&D and implementation costs required to make the copy-protect schemes possible and ubiquitous.
3.) To force the hardware manufacturers to do something that they have no leagal authority to do: Police consumers. In fact, they want to force hardware manufacturers to handle all of their IP protection.
4.) Try to shift the responsibility of enforcing copyright from the copyright holder and the government, to the hardware industry, who (as mentioned above) has no such authority.
So I see it as the following statement from the media industry to the electronics industry:
You've done a good job of helping us sell our products in the past, but now we're going to force you to do more. We're aware you have problems protecting your own IP, patents, and copyrights, but we believe you should also carry the burdens of protecting our copyrights and IP as well.
And, of course, if we find that your products are unable to stop piracy, we will take even more money from you in court for failing to protect our rights.
It's like a trucking company giving a city a bill for using public roads. "We sure liked using your roads, but if you want to keep those roads open, you'll have to meet our demands."
The hardware industry makes it possible for media companies to make money -- Without hardware makers, they wouldn't be able to sell CD's, DVD's, movies, etc -- because without the player, it's just a plastic disc! Yet the media business is trying to make people believe the opposite-- that without their content, it would be impossible to watch video or hear music/audio on a device.
Too bad anybody can make noise, and hence, audio (some people can even sing or play an instrument, creating various qualities of music) without the input of the media industry.
Don't get me started on video... the media industry has been so tapped for content that they ask for OUR videos, and created gems like "America's Funniest Home Videos."
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
One of the unintended side effects of the CBDTPA that has not been explored
is the negative impact on many ongoing high-tech DoD programs vital for national
defense.
In these days, especially, no politician will want to be perceived as obstructing
the "war on terrorism" to benefit Hollywood and Disney.
In general, one part of the argument you should develop is that CBDTPA will
increase complexity and costs of all programmable COTS hardware and associated
software. It should be an easy task to point out the benefit of using
low-cost COTS solutions to the national defense. This SEI
Monograph discusses various laws and regulations that encourage or mandate
use of COTS technology in DoD programs. Note that the term "COTS" refers
to open source as well as proprietary software, and is meant only to exclude
custom, one-off type software.
As far as the negative effect of the CBDTPA on open source software, and
the resulting impact on national defense, you need only do some research
on the wide use of open source solutions in ongoing DoD programs and operations
to prove your point. Here is a link to a presentation
(pdf) prepared by MITRE that discusses general use of open source software
by the military. A couple of specific programs I would point to: Linux
is a supported platform for the OneSAF testbed, and is
practice is the platform of choice for ModSAF. These
are especially important because much of the development for these packages
is centered in the Modeling and Simulation industry concentrated around the
Florida I-4 high-tech corridor (especially in Orlando).
Which brings me to a second argument that is likely to carry weight with
a politician: the CBDTPA is bad for business (especially local business).
Here I would emphasize the detrimental effect of the CBDTPA on
the efforts of the High Tech Corridor
Council. I would recommend that you contact CEOs of hardware and
software companies located throughout Florida, and suggest that you are willing
to lobby the senator on their behalf against the CBDTPA. It will take
a lot of weight to counter Disney, but you may get more support than you
imagine. One very pro-linux Florida software company that I am familar
with is I.D.E.A.L. Corp,
you should contact their CEO and start to network outwards from there.
...against this kind of law is that in all practical applications it legally mandates everybody who wishes to produce software, computers or other electronic devices capable of playing audio and video, to either join some kind of "industry alliance" group, formed by corporations to protect the secrecy of copy-protection technology, or license some way to access it, thus differentiating himself from a regular consumer, to whom the access to those technologies must be denied (or he will just use them to pretend that he is allowed to play all content he can receive, "protected" or not). This creates an artificial barrier to entry for everybody who isn't allowed to license the technology or access to it, and the decision, who is allowed, will be made by the very people with whom they are going to compete. Even if the government will take over the control of this licensing process, it will be unable to license anything to parties that it can't trust, and most of electronics and software is now being produced by the people who definitely will never be trusted with this kind of secret -- this reduction of the set of possible producers will drive the costs to heights that only worst monopolies can achieve.
Also it is known that currently large amount of copy-protection technology is covered by patents. It is entirely possible that some patents cover ALL possible copy-protection schemes due to their breadth. If some copy-protection scheme will be considered to be acceptable, it is very likely to fall under those patents, or be challenged to be under some, therefore the companies that own patents will keep the control, being "gatekeepers" for everyone that wishes to produce software, computers and electronics capable of playing audio or video.
Both those problems will completely destroy all kinds of projects that are mandated, by licensing or by the set of participants, or by ethical reasons (such as open source projects, academic research, international projects, etc.) to be non-patent-encumbered, and to avoid association with industry groups who oppose the development of technology that obsoletes their current products.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
BTW, I am willing to help out further, offline, in any way I can. Go to my homepage and feel free to send email.
When Intel made the first CPU, it deviated from the beeten path and made a chip that could do ANYTHING you threw at it instead of a predetermined few functions, like the chips in calculators and VCR's.
What's the point in having a computer that has limited functionality? VCR's are cheaper.
TCP/IP is open source, if we can't use open source stuff, we can't use the internet to disstribute the content anyhow... right?
The problem with this bill is it upholds the interests of big corporations and ONLY the interests of big corporations...
A congressman is supposed to be a representative of people. Since a Corporation is a paper entitity and NOT people in any sense of the word... a congressmen should NEVER vote on a bill to protect their rights.
Since when do imaginary beings have rights? I was under the impression that people had rights not entities. You know actual flesh and blood human beings. A significant chunk of the bad laws, and rulings on interpretation of those laws could be avoided simply by following the rule that goverment represents flesh and blood people.
I realize that most would think not giving corporate entities rights would crash the enconomy and crush capitalism. But that is nonsense. in place of those corporations would be 10's of thousands of independently owned companies. The people who owned them would actually be liable for the actions of thier company (imagine that, if a company breaks the law, people actually go to jail!).
We would have competition, and laws like this would be deemed ridiculous.
imho the government should spend a little more time regulating the government than trying spend an 8hr workday everday coming up with new ways to restrict the people. like maybe requiring a minimum IQ of 150 to be a member of congress.
We should not burden the technology industry (which produces all kinds of amazing stuff) with the responsibility of protecting the entertainment "industry" (which actually produces nothing). Simple.
The 3 points are on target. An additional point to consider is:
4. If you make it illegal to work directly on the digital data, you have most likely closed the door on what will be the next development in data accessibility of the impaired. Think about most of the software advances that exist today. Many of them came about because of people who accessed either proprietory files (Microsoft, Lotus, WordPerfect formatted documents) had the need to get these files into a more functional format (audio devices, brail, etc). Nelson is a former fire cheif. Imagine if the only people allowed to work on the fire engines were mechanics certified by the company that produced the engine (this being done because others might steal ideas from the design). It is the same thing in so far as protecting the digital data is like protecting the physical design.
5. This type of action will also cost the state a ton of money in the educational department. Many of the people working on this type of media and its transmission are associated with the education system. They are working to push the envelop without bleeding the system dry of finances which are already very limited. Close the door on this level of development and you are saying that big buck solutions are the only game in town. So, I guess if you are planning to dump more money into education, the go for it.
In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than this, look for me there...
tunnel vision. There is a huge number of general computing devices that will never see a single bit of Hollywood's or the music industries content. So, how can anyone seriously propose adding cost and the threat of criminal offense?
This is equivalent to saying that all hammers must be registered for a fee since they could be used to create knock off sculptures. "What? An unregistered home made hammer...why you must be a crook!"
To be honest, Hollywood & the music industry has gotten so silly about digital content issues that I'm ready stop consuming it. I find that most of the content is worthless beyond the basic cost of production...not to mention artistic & entertainment value.
The cost of consumption is not cheap either as I can look at my CD collection and quickly witness several thousand dollars worth of purchases. Movies & music are expensive to produce? Well, movies can be, but have you ever noticed how vibrant and full of life a low cost production is with a good script, producer, and cast? Beats the "refined" stuff hands down. Music is not expensive to produce, period. A studio with a couple hundred grand of equipment more than pays for itself even considering the human costs. Advertising....nearly free with the internet if used with any decent amount of marketing savvy.
This actually reminds me of Sega's push to have games downloaded via cable. The costs of which were so much lower than building cartridges and packaging them, and storing them and shipping them....all this when their profit margins were already well into the sinful range.
And what about embedded systems? Some of my hobby materials will have to be registered or include content protection? What? A microcontroller being used to control a robotic servo....phhhhft.
Now, Hollywood & the music industry both have every right to make a buck and protect that right. Lets face it though, this is not the way to go about it. I don't mind paying for content, but I have slowed my CD purchases alot due to high prices alone. Note too that I have no mp3's either.
In the end, my prediction is that the next big "internet" wave will be the Open Content movement as artists, creators, and consumers get sick of the moguls.
YACCY - Yet Another Car Chase; Yawn...
A while ago I had posted a link to a pdf that challenges the legitimacy of intellectual property laws in general. Perhaps some of the arguments presented by the author would be helpful to you.
I think we should get the software that spammers use to send millions of email and a couple million
emails to congress to tell them to stop making laws like this.
The problem is that the RIAA and MPAA don't want to bother hunding down a few of the people who make "copies of their books" and make bloody examples of them. Instead they want to make infringement impossible by burning all the printing presses. (Except, of course, for a few that they license. For a fee.)
If they did this they would then have to ensure these "licences presses" were protected by very well paid armed guards.
First I'd like to say that the reason gnutella hasn't been shut down by litigation is that the record dudes know that freenet is there. Freenet, even if not actually used is valuable as a threat. If they shut down Gnutella, freenet would quickly become user friendly to meet the huge demand.
Second, the biggest thing holding back P2P is the lack of a good search engine.
At the present state of things you can only search based on filename! This is ridiculous! People ususally choose dumbass filenames to begin with, so you are left guessing what they called something.
Why not instead integrate P2P networks with the rest of the internet? Then you could type p2pp://oops+i+did+it+again+britany+spears+mp3 into your web browser, and it would do a search and give you a google like list of indexed content to choose from. Every time you downloaded content it would be mirrored on your machine, and so popular content should be the most reliably mirrored stuff. The search algorithm might be a distributed one, or maybe google's algorithm would apply well.
p2pp:// urls would be essentially search criteria, and may not reliably produce a result, or a small set of matching results. There might be a way to do say add a MD5 Sum ( or something ) to the url and also have that indexed. Urls with 'guaranteed' specificity could be automaticaly followed (Like google's I'm feeling lucky).
This way one could publish html documents to the p2p network without having to pay for a permanent server/ipaddress or put up with automatically inserted ads and in the case that your page was hugely popular you would not be stuck with huge bandwidth costs. There might also be some way to write something like p2p cgi scripts and have distributed interactive web content. Maybe they would talk to each other. Maybe they would evolve, maybe they would decide humans are unnecessary and that THEY should rule the earth...
Eat at Joe's.
The simple reality is that piracy just isn't that big of a threat. Look at the software industry. It's had to deal with "piracy" since day one. That's just the nature of the beast. If the easy copying and dissemenation of digital copyrighted material was really the deathknell of an industry, then there wouldn't even be a software industry! Why does Microsoft have so much money if digital piracy is such a threat?
The simple fact is that most people are happy to pay for things assuming that they are of sufficient quality and properly priced. The music industry is suffering because their online offerings suck and are simply not as useful as unencumbered MP3's, nor as comprehensive as P2P networks. CD sales suck because they are simply overpriced, and everyone knows it. I only buy used CD's now, because those are the only ones that have reasonable prices on them.
If the people who run the music industry would just realize that "piracy" isn't the problem, they might recognize that they all seemed to have failed "Capitalism 101". If you try to sell crappy products (ala legit online music distribution) or overpriced products (ala new CD's), your sales will suffer. New legislation is not necessary because the extent of the problem is that the music industry is unwilling to respond to market forces. Period.
Both the RIAA and the MPAA make products that are easy to replicate. The simple fact of the matter is that anybody can make a TV show, anybody can make a song, and anybody can publish it on the net. It wasn't like that 20 years ago, but it is like that today.
There were "garage bands" and amature film makers 20 years ago. However there is likely to come a time in the near future where such people can produce products of similar standard to the RIAA & MPAA but at lesser cost. Indeed this point has already been reached in some cases. It's with such things as CGI and other "special effects" where the established industry still has the edge, at the moment.
The Prohibition amendment, the so-called "Freedom from Alcohol" legistature. The CBDTA will fail for the same reason:
It turns an ordinary citizen doing a mundane task into a criminal.
Quite ironic that Hollings is in his 80s.
"There were "garage bands" and amature film makers 20 years ago."
The internet is the next big distribution medium. It's already happening today. I could go to my complex with a video camera, shoot a cheap movie, edit it on my pc, and put the streaming version up on my website.
This wasn't available 20 years ago. If enough people make use of the internet for this reason, then the RIAA will certainly have a lot to fear when the internet becomes the first place people look for music and what they get isn't made by the RIAA at all.
"Derp de derp."
Now let me break the news to you: there is this thing called "the rest of the world".
And yes, we tend to follow US lead, but we only do that as long as it suits us. (GSM, anyone?)
Be stupid, lock yourselves into a DRM no-evolution prison, and watch Europe and India and Australia and everybody else evolve while you sit in your couch, get fat, and watch Hollywood crap in your DRMBox.
</rant>
free the mallocs!
So you are looking for arguments to convince politicians, are you?
But that's so simple! Just copy the techniques used by others who've been successful at doing this.
For example, you could start by figuring out the arguments Disney must be using to persuade Hollings.
You could explore some parallels and contrasts with the MS case:
MS is forced to disclose APIs -- which suggests that copy-protection schemes that people aren't allowed to reverse-engineer or even discuss are harmful to consumers.
MS is forced to allow other companies' middleware -- which suggests that limiting choice, such as by saying "you can only view this movie with this piece of software", harms consumers. This is an argument in favor of running DVDs on Linux and other freedoms that the Hollings bill is trying to limit.
It's taken years for the MS case to wind through the courts, and MS has avoided any significant sanctions on their programming practices by making arguments like "it's too hard to take IE out of Windows". Arguments about the difficulty of getting effective copy-protection, the added expense for consumer electronics, and the likelihood of buggy DRM schemes causing grief for consumers, should be given equal weight.
Some dipshit moderator went around and modded some of my posts down as a Troll. I have evidence of this, if you are interested. Check out this screen grab:
http://www.nanogator.com/slashdot.jpg
The last 5 posts are of a moderator that went through and just modded me down. If you look at the times, you can see that all 5 moderation points happened within a few minutes, vs. every other moderation I've had rarely happens within a half hour of each other.
If you are a moderator reading this post now, please, before you mod me as off-topic, understand that I'm trying to re-claim the visibilty of the parent post. Since it has a score of -1 now, it will slip through most people's filters. I just don't feel that my post deserved to be modded down, specifically considering the point I was making.
If you need to mod this down as off-topic, I understand. But could you please look at the parent post and consider moderating it too? Thank you.
"Derp de derp."
Take alook at the music industry like korg and tascam. They both offer pocketstudios and such that record sound to mpegs with uploads to pc's. Much more too. This is stuff for music creators but guess what, I would guess all this stuff will be illegal without alot of dumbing down, extra cost, and performance loss. The movie and music companies are stepping on the heads of those who create for them as well as those who buy their discs. Stupid. Hope our government isn't so stupid to see this.
A interesting audio speech about this :
:
matter can be heard here
Richard M. Stallman's speech,
Copyright vs. Community in the Age of Computer
Networks given at Queen Mary University London.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/#QMUL2002
RMS apparantly has seen the current
troubles and questions seen coming long time ago.
Although lotsa people in the past just
ignored RMS and the things he was talking
about, to me his viewpoints become more
valid and interesting today.
Robert
Just a short comment from this side of the ocean. I would like to say thanks for taking these outrageous bills serious and even taking the time to go and talk to your representative. Looking from this side of the ocean at the laws that are made in the USA, I can only sit back and fear. Fear because I know that someone overthere a government, I have no influence on, is making laws that will finally influence the way I live my life overhere.
Since the internet is a global platform USA laws are slowly getting a global character (I think we've seen proof enough of that). This scares the shit out of me. There is no democracy involved whatsoever.
Trip
By the way: did anyone notice how Linux won parts of the German government (all servers on tux, the clients on XP) and big brother Bill files a patent for connecting with Samba?
The site where: "I'm right, as long as you ignore the things that prove me wrong", became a valid method of debate.
1- sec.2: findings: These findings are all questionable and obviously constructed to support the legislation. You might consider looking for facts that contradict these findings. E.g., the finding (1) says "the lack of high quality digital content continues to hinder consumer adoption of broadmand internet service and digital TV...". You could point out other market factors that also hinder widescale adoption of broadband. It isn't just piracy that hinders it as the bill asserts, there are other economic factors. You could point them out. Basically, attack the findings of section 2 of the bill with contradictory findings. That one is only an example, all the findings are subject to such attack. By attacking these premises, you call the remedy (i.e., the bill) into question.
2- Sec. 3: The fact that there is only a set period of time for the three groups mentioned in section 3(a)(1)(A) to come to agreement puts the content industry in complete control over the standard they are developing. Why? Because if they consumer groups and tech groups dont like what the copyright owners suggest for the standard, the copyright owners can just hold out for a year (see section 3) and the congress will step in to mandate a standard, and that standard will doubtless be in favor of the copyright owners, who are intended to be the beneficiaries of this law to begin with.
3- Sec. 3 (d) and (e): Note the language of these two sections, and how they differ: Section (d) says that the security standards SHALL ENSURE all the enumerated things in sec. (d). But in contrast, sec. (e), which places supposed limits to this power, only says that public access and fair use need only be "TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT", not "shall ensure." This different language in a statute is a signal to a judge interpreting the statute that congress intended these two passages to have different effect. Copyright owners rights SHALL BE ENSURED, while public access and fair use of copyrighted material need only be TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. This means that protecting fair need not be part of the standard at all, because the law only says that in making the standard they must take fair use into account. If they intended the standard to PROTECT fair use, they would have said that the standard SHALL ENSURE PROTECTION OF FAIR USE, just like it says "SHALL ENSURE" in sec. (d).
This is one of the more telling parts of the statute. It reveals that protecting copyright owners property is more important to the law than protecting consumer access to that property. However, the whole reason that property rights are granted in content is TO PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO CONTENT. They are ignoring the entire constitutional justification for copyrights here. They are willing to protect the industry at the expense of public access. They will argue that providing property rights and protecting them will ultimately increase access to high qhality digital content, but if that were truly their goal, then they would have made the protection of fair use a mandate, and not just a suggestion, as it is in the current version of the law. This is maybe the biggest problem with the statute.
4- sec. 3 (e)(2): This section pretends to protect consumer rights to make personal copies of copyrighted work (which is protected under fair use), but the actual protection is extremely limited. E.g., they can't prevent copying of programming "at the time it is lawfully performed," and it only applies to TV basically. This means lawful copying of online content may be prevented under this law. In fact, by specifically mentioning cable tv, etc. and NOT mentioning the internet, this section specifically provides that lawful copying on the internet CAN be prevented under this law. This section basically says fair use may be prevented by the standard as long as it is not cable or broadcast. It is another example of the illusory protection the bill offers to consumer access.
This section should say that no lawful copying of any copyrighted works may be prevented by the security measures. That would protect consumer access. Instead it basically only protects lawful copying of broadcast content you get through your tv.
5- Sec. 3(h): this section provides that the security technology can be modified in the future for two reasons: first becuase the technology has been compromised (i.e., a way around the protection has been found, and they need to change the standard to prevent this circumvention); and second, if better technology has been otherwise developed to protect content. Note that there is NO REVISION POWER to increase public access to content or protect fair use and other lawful copying. In short, they allow revision of the standard to better protect content if it becomes possible, but not to better protect fair use if THAT becomes possible. This is another example of the fact that the bill chooses to protect property rights at the expense of access and fair use.
Hope this helps. I am really against this law in its current form. It could provide utter hegemony of net content by a few corporate entities.
We don't. "Assault rifle" is simply a term used to stir up emotional support in favor of suppressing the right of the people to bear arms. Any firearm, or a variety of other items (for example a log, miniature statue, glass bottle) could be used to "assault" someone, and therefore could be labeled an "assault weapon". Even if you believe you have "legitimate" reason for advocating the governmental control of individual ownership of firearms (the Constitution says you don't), don't use this type of emotionalistic and terroristic (tending to incite fear and using this fear of harm as a "political weapon" eg. to influence public opinion, pass laws, etc.) drivel in attempting to support your arguments.
as an "assault rifle". where can I buy one?
You're one of the assholes who thinks Ground Zero(tm) is WTC copyrighted.
The defining characteristic between your grandpa's deer rifle and a so-called assault rifle is one or more of these:
1. A bayonett lug
2. flash suppressor
Look at FBI, DEA, etc statistics.
The fact is, most "assault rifles" are used in "crimes"... in movies!
In the REAL world, very VERY few criminals use M16s, Ruger Mini-14s, etc.
...surrendering your driver's license, since you might maybe someday drive while
tired / drunk / eating / drinking / not paying attention
and you can prevent possibly having an accident.
Passing new laws is NEVER the answer. "Assault Rifle" laws did NOTHING to help law-officer's safety -- I am one.
You are right, enforcement is the answer... But to enforce it you have to violate privacy. That is the quandry.
so maybe you should just MOVE to the UK.
Getting rid of firearms isn't going to solve the problem. Guess what? Americans also beat each other to death -- BY HAND -- 10 times more often than any other country. "By hand" meaning no weapon assaults.
That's No shit. Are you going to outlaw assault fists?