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."

Comments

Bogus Laws

[superx22x]

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.

Re:Bogus Laws

[squiggleslash]

And I strongly disagree that in a pure capitalist system monopolies are inevitable. In fact, I'd suspect that without so much market interference by government (for instance this stupid law being proposed), we'd see *less* monopoly.

At the end of the 19th Century, US government involvement in private businesses was close to non-existant. The only exception I can think of was the railway system, where by necessity competition couldn't exist so the system was regulated, and then with a relatively limp hand.

Did monopolies exist then? Erm, yes. Indeed, it was the antics of one such monopoly, Standard Oil, that brought about the current anti-monopoly legislation we know and love. Monopolies existed not merely in the regulated field of railway transportation, but in unregulated enterprises from steel, coal, oil and even tobacco.

The most famous monopoly in the US at the moment is in the software industry, where Microsoft rules the roost. Has there been excess governmental involvement in the software industry? Actually, there's been pretty close to no involvement by the US government in the software industry. Microsoft has even used existing copyright law lightly, constitutionally granted and would be just as strong for their purposes if it were the founding fathers "20-40 years" system, eschewing it except where absolutely necessary for standard civil contract law instead.

Other monopolies exist, and exist with US government involvement, but nothing as strong and damaging as Microsoft's. And the US government has intervened in some cases to prevent monopolies in the PC industry too in other areas, such as IBM's control over hardware, and Intel's control over the processor market.

Which is why so much emotional capital is being invested by the pseudo-libertarians to claim that Microsoft is not a monopoly. It disproves the theory that only the state can create 'em, and that's a theory that only exists because certain industries, starting with the railways and moving on through electricity supply and telephone service, were state regulated monopolies. Why were they? Because they had to be.

There's a reason why those anti-monopoly laws came into being. They weren't to annoy libertarians, they weren't to increase the power of big gubmint. They're there because at one point in US history, almost every industry was consolidating into a centrally controlled, unregulated, unaccountable, bloc.

Re:Bogus Laws

[Moridineas]

I don't think your example is quite right. Standard Oil got its monopoly because of technology that vastly lowered the price of oil, thus making prices much lower (consumers = happy). It's true that at one time 90% of the market was controlled by Standard, but even by the time the government got around to actually mobilizing anti-trust against Standard Oil, they were down to 60% of the market. A huge decrease. (See Book: Healing Our World).

Having said that, I do believe that Anti-trust is necessary. Microsoft probably is a prime example of what it should stop. btw, my favorite monopolies are AT&T before the breakup and the USPost office.

Choking Innovation

[totallygeek]

When will congress realize that where we are today is due largely to the inquizitiveness of hackers? Do they not realize that when they make these laws they aren't stopping criminals, just detouring the very people that make life better for all of us? You have to admit that the personal computer, cell phones, radar, etc., has made life better, not worse.

Some business/political issues

[MikeDartt]

* 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.

My letter may be of some value

[sulli]

in my journal, in my signature below. Sent to sponsor Feinstein (and note her incorrect reply).

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.

How about this?

[karb]

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.

Re:"CBDTPA" ??

[Erbo]

CBDTPA = Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act. That's an Orwellian doublespeak name for this proposal if I ever heard one, as the law itself has nothing to do with either broadband access or digital television.

And I don't need to have broadband access "promoted" to me, thank you very much. I'm a technojunkie at heart; I can think of a bunch of things that a broadband connection would be useful for, none of which involve music or movies. ("apt-get upgrade" that doesn't take all day, for instance.) But I can't afford it right now. Not long ago, I was out of work for 5 months; I'm damn lucky my family and I aren't homeless right now. We don't have money to spare for anything more than a modem dialup. And I'm not the only one in this fix; did Senator Hollings forget that we're suffering from the effects of recession right now? (Besides, even if I could afford it, I still can't get it; our home is too far from the switch for DSL to work, and we have an oddball cable company (not AT&T Digital, like most of Denver) that doesn't offer cable modem service. Satellite isn't really an option because we'd have to carry something like $500K in liability insurance to put up a dish at our apartment complex, and we don't really have a good sky angle for a dish anyway.)

As for digital television, I have yet to see a good reason to drop $1000+ (which I don't have anyway; see above) on a digital-capable set. They say it's going to be required by 2006, but I'm not so sure they'll be ready for that switchover in time.

A better term for the CBDTPA that I've seen recently is the "Anti-Mammal Dinosaur Protection Act." Sums it up nicely, I think.

Eric

Re:Screwdriver vs. SlimJim

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be more accurate to state that under previous law legitimate uses could prevent prosecution with regards to a tool. However, the DMCA is an additional law, and thus does NOT have to be consistent with previous court rulings except with regards to Constitutional interpretation. Hell, California could legally rewrite its state constitution and become a kingdom tomorrow, as long as a) its current one has some amendment policy, which would have to be followed, and b) they still obey all Federal constraints, such as permitting voting and having equal protection.

Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry

[Jburkholder]

>I've broken ALREADY EXISTING LAWS
>The quality of the reproduction, and the speed at which it can be distributed, are different in the digital world, but that doesn't mean we need new laws

As long as we're playing devil's advocate...

Murdering someone is already a crime, why do we need laws to ban assault rifles?

(I know, but for the sake of argument)

Because of the speed and efficiency with which you can mow down ten or twenty people?

Re:Advice

[fldvm]

Bill Nelson is my senator too. Give me some more info (Meeting date, time, and topic) about your meeting I will fax his office to ask him to give a lot of thought to what you have to say. If you have other FL residents on slashdot do the same before you even show up, we may be able to really get his attention.

His Contact Information:

Bill Nelson, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202-224-5274 Fax: 202-228-2183

This here bill is just big movie pork!

[ClarkEvans]

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.

Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry

[lynx_user_abroad]

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?

Excellent question. I applaud you for asking it.

Perhaps you're starting with the wrong question. May I propose a few of my own?

Why should we assume that the "infinite perfect copies" nature of digital publishing poses any danger at all to copyright holders? Has this been proven, or are we just assuming it must be so?

Even if there is a proven danger to copyright holders, what incentive do we have to protect copyright holders? Has it been proven that protection of copyright holders is a net benefit to the country as a whole? Our Founding Fathers thought so (to the tune of 14 years total) but has it been proven in the context of a digital publishing environment? For the past 200 years or so in this country, we have used copyright law to protect copyright holders, but prior to that we didn't. If times have changed before (and we found the lack of a copyright law was problematic, necessitating the current need for copyright law) why should we presume that times will never change again, and we find the support of a copyright law becoming problematic, necessitating the removal of copyright protections?

Current copyright law protects copyright for upwards of 150 years. That's almost as long as copyright law has existed in this country. Have we really become so wise that we can see the future as well as we can see the past?

Or perhaps you just need a good absurd question to drive the point home...

If I can demonstrate the duplication of copyrighted digital material using (oh , let's say) a bread making machine, will this legislation require the manufacturer to recall all bread making machines and install the appropriate DRM software into the device?

Why yes, it really could get to that point.

Revenue Stream

[fallen1]

It can easily be argued that it is not Congress mandate to guarantee the revenue streams of Hollywood/Disney nor any big business. Nor is it in their best interest to do so. What IS in Congress best interest is to provide an atmosphere where technological innovation thrives and is not derailed by the interest of a narrow group such as Hollywood. If the RIAA and MPAA wish to guarantee their own revenue (which this is really about - they complain this will stop piracy and cut their financial losses) then they are free to denote their time and resources to inventing the technology to do just that. It is at best unfair and at worst severely ill-advised to FORCE the computer/high-tech/digital industries to take on the burden of copyright protection. Is it IBM's fault Disney's movies are copied? No, it is the person who copies the movie illegaly. Is it AMD's fault their processors are on the motherboards of thousands of computers where someone might be downloading an mp3? No, it is not. Should ANY company other than Disney/MGM/Sony/etc. be forced to include digital copyright protection in their equipment (which will cost millions of dollars in R&D and implementation - and said cost will be passed on to consumers who are already struggling with the economy and prices as they are now)? Again, a resounding NO. It falls squarely on the corporations to protect their own revenue streams - and copyrights - not the government of America. The Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA/Disney cabal should go after the groups that are the most pervasive pirates - in Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and other foreign lands. Compared to what overseas/foreign copyright breakers are making and doing, what is happening in the USA is neglible. This bill, if passed, will do nothing to curtail this nor will it give the corporations who seek it any more reach to react to the piracy and copyright infringement - it will only give them the incentive to squash competition within our borders and to turn back the tide of innovation in the United States at least 5-10 years.