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."
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!!
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.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
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.
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.
I think this came out in a lower post. The law CAN be effective in cracking down on the mass distribution of pirate digital material. Napster is dead. The fact that there are other services more or less emulating napster (e.g. gnutell, kazaa) simply refelcts that the industry concerns havn't been litigating strenuously enough. If they wanted to, they could shut down both of these services. Admittedly freenet would be a little more difficult, but the ease of use theshold there is high enough that it probably won't ever get enough of a following to really hurt profits.
And now I'm going to get ranty...
Beyond that: the far more salient point is that there's no credible research suggesting that people are purchasing less music, books, or movies as a result of digitalization! Surprise surprise, people will still pay for reliable access to quality content. If you want to have a nice evening with friends, do you hit up bloackbuster for a DVD, or spend 8 hours trying to download some crappy divix rip of the same movie?
Likewise, if there were a service that allowed me to pay a reasonable monthly subscription and get reliable access to the music I wanted, I would be all over it. The truth is that the entertainment business has failed to innovate and has dropped the ball when it comes to responding to changing consumer desires. Now they're looking to the government to bail them out. What will be the public cost of creating these security measures let alone enforcing them? This is not something I want my tax dollars being spent on!
Actually, to back out of rant-mode, that's another good point: who pays for the development and enforement mandated by this legislation. Forget for a second that whatever they come up with will probably be emminantly crackable, how much will it cost taxpayers? How much will it cost business to implement? Has anyone done any numbers on this? What are the penalties looking like? What would the added overhead to the criminal justice system be?
A purely fiscal argument might be a strong one to make.
Howard Dean for president
...which is at
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/
VKh
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
I have read the bill and can find no reference to "all digital devices" but I do for "digital media that uses the protection". All I can find are devices that can read the media that is being protected. If you want to avoid this problem, develop a system that has no capability to read the media that is protected. Not impossible. Create an entire open source system that avoids reading commercial media.
This would KILL hobbiest efforts (I learned by building computers)
Sounds like the bill has an exemption for personal use. i.e., hobbiest use:
(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).
If you are going to argue against the bill, argue with some clarity or you will be dismissed by the jerks in Congress.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Point out the fact that if American made computers need this stuff, that lots of people will start importing from Canada.
/. article on the Nintendo GBA Rom Drives).
The DMCA makes that activity illegal. Customs would seize foreign shipments in the name of the DMCA, as they are already doing with some things (see the
An economic argument: David Levine