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."
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.
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!!
Click here or here.
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.
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.
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.
* 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 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
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
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.
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
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
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.
And if that doesnt work, ban him from ever voting again just for commenting in a fashion other than what you expected.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
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
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
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.
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.
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:
Well, actually that is precisely what we should do. $rtbl would be a suitable treatment for DiFi, Hollings, et al., but in lieu of that we'll just need to vote them out.
sulli
RTFJ.
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.
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.
Beyond the crippling of consumer electronics, there's an even bigger danger of crippling our labor force in the global marketplace.
All professional computer programmers start out as student and hobbyist programmers. If individuals cannot learn and share code in safety, the chilling effect on the academic and hobbyist community will be tremendous.
The scope of this legislation is so broad, that any programmer could face criminal prosecution for writing software that moves bits or stores bits on an unprotected OS, i.e. any open source OS. For example, Linux and existing hardware will be grandfathered in under the new law, but if I submit even a trivial bugfix patch to cp, I'm a criminal.
Of course that's another danger- bugfixes for open source software become illegal leaving security holes unpatched. Take that one to Tom Ridge.
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)
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.
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 missed the point. It is not against the law for a company to allow a user to modify their equipment. Beyond safety regulations, the US Government cannot force a company to prevent users from modifying their equipment for other purposes. The more people support companies that allow for this, the more the market will follow.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
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
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.)
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.
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.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
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.
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.
...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.
I read this to mean that you could not modify the item and offer it for sale. Government speak is confusing. Are you reading it to mean that if you buy something, you cannot modify it?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
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
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.
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 economic argument: David Levine
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!
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!
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."
Call your Senator's office, say you represent such and such group and you would like to meet with the Senator to discuss concerns relating to a certain issue. Show up well-prepared and in business attire.
It may be harder to schedule an appointment with a Senator than a Representative though. Worse case, you'll end up talking to a staffer but you should almost always be able to talk to someone at the office.
Interesting. I read it the other way due to the Personal Use exemption stated in the Bill that allowed for duplication for backup purposes. That is the problem with the US Congress, too damn difficult to understand anything they write.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
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."
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
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.
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.
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/
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why is it not enough anymore to say "it's MY damned computer, get your interfering mitts off of it!"
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!
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.
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.
Since copiers are merging into scanners, govt. restrictions on xerox technology are a likely secondary effect of this and copying an article in a library for research is eventually going to become an act that can be traced and initiate a prosecution.
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.
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.
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.
These are somewhat related. Most often the reason that predators are absent is that farmers have exterminated them. Since farmers are in the business of feeding people, not the local predator population.
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.
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!
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."
You don't say...
*sigh*
Karma: Non-Heinous