Slashdot Mirror
Copyright [CBDTPA] Bill Universally Rejected
smcavoy writes " Globe Technology is carrying a article about the CBDTPA. "We haven't received one e-mail in support of the Hollings bill," said Judiciary Committee spokeswoman Mimi Devlin. "It seems like there's a groundswell of support from regular users." I wonder if the technology industry was pro CBDTPA, would we be hearing as many bad things about it, in the press?"
The control that media conglomerates have on the press is vastly overstated. Generally I think the press does an adequate job. The superficiality of the press' reporting is due more to the time constraints we, the readers, put them under. You try to gather a huge amount of interviews and information in a few hours. I'm not saying the press is fully accurate, but the problem is that accuracy takes time. By the time that thoughtful analysis can be done, most people no longer care. Further if the press tends towards sensationalism (including in these copyright issues) it is because we the readers tend to go for that angle more.
i.e. quit the gripping about the press only reporting what MS or so forth want.
I'd much more like to see Hollings' career go down in flames. Can concerned citizens still buy those mud-slinging political commercials right before an election? Or did they ban that in the last campaign finance reform package? I think the people of South Carolina need to be told that their guy is trying to make sure they'll never be able to tape another TV show or burn another mix CD for their car.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Remember the Clipper Chip? Encryption export restrictions? The DCMA? The SSSCA?
The drive to regulate the internet and new technology in general, to force it back into the old way of doing things, isn't going away.
Even if we beat this one, there will always be another. Don't get complacent.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
I always have wondered about the actual effect that talking/writing to your representitives has had. It seems like, at least in this case, the decision against it was based almost entirely around citizen outrage. Although there was not the support from the technology sector that would be needed, it feels good to know that there is some balance of power that is not in favor entirely of the RIAA/MPAA. Mmmm...makes me feel all fuzzy inside to know that -all- my rights are not determined by corporate interests.
This is a question for you encryption experts.
Is watermarking just computationally expensive to remove, or could it ultimately provide the sort of check and balance that the movie and music industries are seeking?
I mean, you're free to move things around from machine to machine, unencrypted, but it's watermarked for your user ID. That means you can duplicate it at a reduced resolution (akin to taping the radio, or using a VCR to tape a DVD) when the device detects watermarking.
I do think that the tax we pay on blank media ought to go toward copyright enforcement, rather than assuming it's all piracy, and going to support artists.
. . .to Hollywood to step up the "donations".
Seriously. Since when do politicians listen to their constituents over deep pocketed industry types? I declare rumors of this bill's demise to be greatly exagerated.
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
I hope no one here is dumb enough to hold this attitude until it really is dead...
For all the huffing and puffing I hear about Special Interest Groups, money changing hands, corruption, and the like, occasionally something Really Important comes up that renews my faith in our Government of Checks and Balances.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Public opinion doesn't stop autocrats from making repugnant decisions (look at Nixon-Reagan's drug policies for historical perspective). These politicians have already been paid by their investors (RIAA, etc...) to manufacture their product (:%s/SSSCA/nom de jour/), so this bill will become law soon and a majority of Americans--the majority whose opinions match the opinions of their favorite television news personality--will come to believe it is a Good Thing®.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
From the article:
Of course they didn't "try to make it work." Why would any tech company risk being associated with stripping the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. I think the tech companies have recognized that the media conglomerates are going to get their way no matter what. Why lend credibility to the "solution" by participating in a sham process?
Media companies did learn a valuable lesson with DiVX: don't trust your interests to consumer pressures - it's far more effective to buy legislation instead.
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
Yes, this is a great day in US history. I was just telling someone that I didn't think that public outcry could muster enough strength to make a difference in any given arena, and here I am proven wrong less than a day later. I am very suprised, especially given that I was almost certain that people who held the same opinion as I do regarding technology legislation were in the minority.
Liora
Excuse me, but last time I checked, my rights were inalienable and included everything that I didn't willingly give up for the good of society. It has nothing to do with what lawyers have deemed acceptable for me to have. If your business sense is as acute as your legal sense, it's no wonder your portal is now "defunct".
Technology firms did not want to testify in the hearing, did not offer input while the bill was being drafted, and have offered plenty of criticism but little helpful suggestions since, a Hollings aide said.
"They seem satisfied to try to attack it in the press rather than trying to make it work," said Sen. Hollings spokesman Andy Davis.
How much evidence does he need that we don't want it to work? It is a law designed to prevent people from engaging in legal activities, at the sole discretion of corporate interests with no oversight. That's why no, we're most definitely not trying to make it work.
Nope, no sig
What if you WANT to give it away for free? Is it cool that people pirate music? not really, I have, but as a musician I can say I'm less concerned with whether people buy my CD's than I am with whether they show up at my concerts.
I'd rather have them get a copy of my CD for free, realize they like it and then want to see my concert. The box office is where much the killing is made. For musicians, at least those not on the top 40 - read, most of the musicians that exist - selling CD's is not gonna bring home the bacon. Seeing a live show is just not the same as listening to a CD, there's something about being there, the sheer volume and the whole experience that makes it different. Not that I was there but I doubt Woodstock '69 the complete CD set would have the moxy that the show itself did.
so, to somehow stay on this story's topic, this bill goes against that which music and art is - freedom of expression and getting that expression to the general populace. I'm glad to see people standing up for this bill. think about it - because people want to make a buck they're forcing you to NOT give away your stuff for FREE.
I'm too lame for sigs
Is Hollings up for reelection in November? If so, then the CFR that just passed is not an issue. The congressmen conveniently exempted the upcoming election from the provisions of the bill.
If he's up in a subsequent election, you can still give to Hollings' opponent, that's "hard money" which had the contribution limits raised by CFR, who may or may not run mud-slinging political commercials.
Unfortunately, you won't be able to run issue ads, with or without mud-slinging, about how absurd this bill is right before the election. No, that particular type of free speech has been elminitated by CFR. You can't speak your own mind on issues with media ads right before an election, no, you have to give to a candidate to do it for you.
There's hope that CFR won't stand Judicial review.
Hmmm... I wonder if I don't see a loophole. You could run as a third party candidate, on the ballet or not, and run ads that were essentially issue ads slinging all the mud you wanted. All done with "hard money".
These silly soft money/hard money rules are not going to get the money out of politics, it's just going to move it around.
Its that kind of defeatist attitude that just keeps the cycle rolling. Politicians don't care what YOU have to say because they have already defeated you it seems.
Who is handled more? Those who sit back and preach about how evil government is and how much activism is simply wasted effort or those who at least try (however futile) to affect some actual change? Seems to me your handled with alot less effort by 'the man' than the activists.
I think we'd all enjoy a nice cold beverage. -David Letterman
One article does not a victory make. Yes, it's comforting to hear that the politicians are (maybe) actually listening to their constituents, but that does not imply that the battle has been won. Keep up the fight. Keep writing the letters, sending the faxes and donating to Digital Consumer and EFF.
And above all, don't become smug and complacent. We still have a long way to go.
And remember, as long as the bill is still alive in Congress somewhere, it's still a threat.
Think For Yourself. Question Authority.
And who jumped on the bandwagon in a big way before any other industry? The music industry. When they converted everything from LP to CD. They had consumers throw out all their old equipment and music collections - and what the consumers got in return was, higher quality audio (of course, some audiophiles debate that. For the sake of argument, fuck them).
What did the music industry get out of "going digital"? Remarkably lower production and manufacturing and shipping costs. Cheap digital sound processing equipment. Cheap razzle-dazzle digital effects processing. High quality mastering equipment, cheap. Easy to use production tools (cheaper studio labor). Cha Ching! this went right into the record companies' profits.
However, they squeezed out the digital toothpaste, and once they realized that this allows people to make infinite perfect digital copies, they decided they maybe didn't want digital technology after all.
RIAA-
I'll tell you what. Switch back to vinyl. 'k? Really. It'll kill off the music pirates once and for all (shhhh! don't TELL them!!). I know that you lose all those nice benefits that the computer industry gave you with the commoditization of digital technology - but it will also save you from the ugly side effects of the commoditization of digital technology! Gasp! Everyone now has tools on their desktops to make infinite perfect digital copies at no cost!!
Methinks you guys should have gone and taken a few computer classes before you bought into this whole "digital technology" thing.
*snicker*
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"We haven't received one e-mail in support of the Hollings bill," said Judiciary Committee spokeswoman Mimi Devlin. In other news: Duh. People (who use computers that would be stripped down by this) aren't going to run off to e-mail these idiots all happy about the fact Hollings has bent them over and is aiming for penetration.
Can you blame them? The CBDTPA is really just like a gigantic unfunded mandate laid at the doorstep of the tech community with a note tied around it reading "Fix this for us and we'll let you live."
Bear in mind how much effort it would take to DRM-safe all the computer equipment sold in the country, if not world. Proposed DRM standards would spring up from the ground like swarms of rabid fruitbats, and whenever equipment designed for these DRM systems barfed on legally purchased media, it would be the *tech* sector that gets stuck with the blame, not the *media* sector.
The media sector tried to save itself money by drafting a bill to prevent piracy and whatnot, and save their income. No surprise there.
Faced with the expense of all of this new DRM R&D, implementation, and fielding of complaints, the tech sector chose to fight it rather than allow it to pass, and save their income.
This is probably one of the *few* things that defeated the bill: that all large corporations, not just the media hegemony, are typically greedy and lazy, in that order; I don't believe that grassroots action had anything to do with it.
The bill will come back. It was the SSS-whatever, it became the CBDTPA, and it will metamorph into something else as long as the Senator From Disney is in office. In the meantime, the best thing we can do to the media companies' war chests is not fill them.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
The second MP3 wave has yet to hit. How many of us can say our parents are actively downloading MP3's and burning them onto CD's? Answer: Very few. How many people do you know who have never burned an audio CD? Answer: Plenty.
The first MP3 wave hit hard. Most technical savvy people have a large MP3 collection. When the second wave hits and MOST OF AMERICA uses MP3s, the US population will believe it's their *RIGHT* to download free music, and the MP3 revolution will be complete. Until that time, the MP3 revolution is vulnerable. Bottom line: Don't get too happy about the rejection of this copyright bill.
I think it's great that Congress is getting all these comments against the CBDTPA, but anyone who thinks it's dead is terribly naive. It won't be officially dead until the end of the Congressional term, and it can and probably will be reintorduced next year. The absolute worst thing we can do is to stop now. If we do, our opposition will soon be forgotten, and the bill will get pushed through.
The best way to put this into perspective is to realize that we do have the power to raise awareness and get people's attention. This doesn't mean we've won. Far from it. It just means that the big media companies and their allies in Congress know we're here, and they'll now have to counter that. Does anyone honestly think that Jack Valenti will call up his buddy Fritz Hollings and say, "Fritz, we honestly didn't know that people would get so riled up over this. Look, we don't want to irritate our customers, so let's just pull this bill." Hell no! If they're talking about anything, they're discussing ways to put a positive spin on this monstrosity.
Now is not the time to get complacent. That will doom us more than anything else. Keep sending those letters, making those phone calls, and talking with friends and colleagues. If we can get their attention by doing what we've done so far, we can do much more if we take this to the next level.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Technology firms did not want to testify in the hearing, did not offer input while the bill was being drafted, and have offered plenty of criticism but little helpful suggestions since, a Hollings aide said.
"They seem satisfied to try to attack it in the press rather than trying to make it work," said Sen. Hollings spokesman Andy Davis.
Well, duh. Maybe no one's trying to make it work because no one wants it in the first place.
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
The general public seems to believe that it's the "nasty corporations" and the "restrictive goverment" that upsets customers and citizens with these bill proposals. I would just like to remind people that both institutions are comprized of people such as the person reading my post. Both are operated by normal people with normal lives like yourselves.
My point is that "losing faith" in the goverment means losing faith in all people, even youself; in which case everyone is a money-grubbing evil-doer. Corporations and the government themselves are not evil, nor are most of their workers. Please disprove lack of faith in capitalism by not violating the rules of the people, so that those who are (sometimes unintelligibly) put into power don't have to rush-in new and uninformed laws.
</rant>
This bill looks like a non-starter in its present form with the present congress, but that doesn't mean it's DEAD. There's a powerful industry with a powerful lobby that wants this, and just 'cause it's unpopular doesn't mean they're gonna stop trying.
This fight will *never* be over. Semper Vigilans!
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
You're clueless. In the City of Minneapolis, we've recently elected a mayor whose first serious involvement, and encouragement to seek the office of Mayor was a result of his own participation in an email list found at www.e-democracy.com. We've had numerous examples of the same email list being used to help spread news when corporate media was worthless, and the Mayor continues to participate in the list (as do a few city council members and even some state level pols). All in all, I'd say you're seeing the future of democracy in a digital age in action with things like the Minneapolis politics list.
Apparently the SSSCA was defeated not by a "a few" emails, but by several thousand of them. And not all from ranting Slashbots (like me) either.
Your talk of "topple the system" is a load of horse-patootie. You're not going to topple this system. Neither do you pose it any threat. Regular Americans by and large approve of this system (they vote for it year after year), or care so little about it that they don't even vote at all. In newer democracies like South Africa, poll rates are double ours in the US, because people know they'd better vote if they care about something... that's what they'd been fighting for. If you want to change "the system" you're going to need to change Americans first, and you'll never do that by talking about "the system" like it's something that needs to be toppled.
I do not have a signature
That means become single-issue voters and supporters. Who here will pledge $2000 of hard money contributions to any candidate who opposes Hollings? Or the max you can afford? Cause that's what it will really take to change things. And it needs to be done even if that candidate has other positions you disagree with.
----- Indecision is the key to flexibility.
Actually, copyright exists to ultimately enrich the public domain. Strange quasi-religous notions about the sinfulness of "getting something for nothing" really have nothing do with it.
The government granted monopoly is only a means to achieve that end. No one is entitled to make money off of "intellecutal property".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I think that codifying the concept of "Right of First Sale" into law would be a good start. Note that the Authors Guild is raising a stink over Amazon's sale of used books. However, they are legally standing on quicksand because US law states that once you buy a book you are free to do whatever you want with it. That's the law, folks! Stomp your feet and whine all you want, you can't do anything about it.
A universal Right of First Sale would invalidate EULAs. In the state of California, you are now free to sell software that came bundled with your PC thanks to a sensible appelate judge who applied the Right of First Sale to software. The RIAA and MPAA would probably love to stop you from selling your used CDs and used DVDs, but there again is that pesky Right of First Sale. It is (still last I checked) legal to buy and sell used DVDs and CDs.
Universalizing Right of First Sale would also put a monkey wrench into attempts to criminalize the use of DeCSS to play DVDs on Linux. Hey, you bought that DVD...you have a right to play it on any OS you choose.
Same with region coding. You bought a DVD from a European or Japanese store over the Internet? Bought it fair and square? You didn't steal it? Good. You have the right to do with it what you will. Including hacking your DVD player to accommodate it.
I have no illusions that this will ever happen. But this is one way of preserving the rights we already have. The doctrine is already on the books. Let's encourage its application to new technology.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
"It seems like there's a groundswell of support from regular users."
WTF? We're not taxpayers, we're not citizens, we're not people, we're 'users'!?!?! That's like one step from dropping all pretense and calling us 'consumers'. Even though this is good news, that one phrase sends shivers of terror down my spine.
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
> I always have wondered about the actual effect that talking/writing to your representitives has had. It seems like, at least in this case, the decision against it was based almost entirely around citizen outrage. ... [petree:#3319491]
This is a real demonstration of the power that large group of people, living in a democratic society, can actually impart on their government. We all know it doesn't happen that often. We've all seen scary bills come up - and pass, again and again. Just like that. Done. New law. More restrictions. Your life is now different. More words in the books to prevent what you can do - as a citizen - legally. Forced into submission. Why these new laws? Here's your answer: Lobbyists.
We just sit there an let it happen. The lobbyists are paid to sweet-talk out lawmakers. Tell them it's 'A good idea for the people', 'it's the right thing to do' or that 'this will protect the good people; the god-fearing, law abiding, tax-paying citizens, from the scum of the earth - the good ones are the people you're working for sir.'
These lawmakers listen to them - the lobbyists - BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES SPEAKING!!!
People - if there's a law out there you don't like - do something people have been doing for hundreds of years. Do something very simple. Tell that person that makes the laws that you don't like what they are doing. Be honest with your lawmaker (in writing - handwritten) and tell them what you think. Just express your opinion. Takes 10 minutes (or longer - if you'd like). Get out a piece of paper and a pen. Blank page - but don't be scared. You can do this - even if you never have before.
This is what our government is really about, remember? They are called "Representatives." Remember that word? You learned it in 4th grade - when Mrs. Crabapple told you about the various branches of government, and the checks and balances, and the lifecycle of something called a "bill." Ok think back to that. These people are representatives - that we elect - to us in the house of government. They represennt us - but they need to know how we feel!
Forget the government you know of today. The one where things just happen and it feels like you have no control. These people are supposed to be representing you..... No - not the YOUr city, or the YOUr county, or YOUr voting district.... You as in YOU [insert your name here] - an individual. A person with thoughts and feelings, with bills to pay, with kids to take to soccer practice, with laws to abide by. You are the ones that matter. You are the ones that pay the bills - pay their salary! They better listen to you.
>Now is not the time to get complacent. That will doom us more than anything else. Keep sending those letters, making those phone calls, and talking with friends and colleagues. If we can get their attention by doing what we've done so far, we can do much more if we take this to the next level.[SomeoneYouDontKnow:#3319793]
Who makes these laws?
Lobbyists make these laws and they think they are protecting you. Often they are. But more than often - they have NO IDEA ABOUT THE LAWS THEY ARE INTRODUCING. And who's the expert? - you. You're obviously concerned about it? Right?............. Well then.....<nudgeNudge> go ahead. Tell him. (or her) Do it in writing and encourage others to do the same!
Ok - now. Remember that paper and pen you got out? Right. Now set them down in front of you - ok... Now write on the paper - in nice, neat letters: "Dear <insert your representative's name here>,"
Good start. Now - tell him (or her - please rinse/repeat ther "her" thing throughout) which bill he has recently introduced that you will be refering to, why, or what parts of his decision you may support, OR would support his decision IF <insert modified clause here>, then tell him the things you don't like about it. Continue with how such a bill, if introduced, would change the way you live, would limit your freedoms, or would cause you undue stress or unfair setbacks. Plead with them to reconsider the bill in it's current state and to either drop it alltogether or modify certain clauses to cause you less distress or potential problems. What we all need to do is share our views with our representatives when we hear about a bill we don't want passed. I have alway thought that I wouldn't have much of an impact on my government decision-makers because I am only one person - one voice - on letter of angst. But obviously, as we've seen tonight, the common man can make a difference - IF HE SPEAKS LOUDLY ENOUGH. Raise a hussy. Tell them you don't like it! Be honest - it's your governement too!
Heck - even if they end up passing the law - too much big money pressure - you can at least make them feel guilty about it. I know - the torture we put these guys through :) Just remember - they are supposed to be working for us - not JUST big money. Remind them of that. Give them your sob story. --AND DO IT IN HANDWRITING--
Yes --DO IT IN HANDWRITING--
Tell them you don't like their law. Tell them you know lots of other people in your comunity, or at work, or at PTA meetings, that feel the same way (if such a thing is true). Just be honest and put down what you'd like to say to them. Dont' be rude. Be civil and professional and express yourself in writing your feelings about their bill. (or about someone elses bill they will be voting on).
If you've got somthing to say - fscking say it. Express your disapproval. Write your representatives. 10 minutes and a stamp. Take a night off of watching one TV show. (It's empowering to do something useful - for you and your country/county/state/whatever instead of watching advertisements and listening to laugh tracks).
If you think that just one person can't have a big impact, try going to bed with a mosquito.
The problem is that voting, even if presented with a decent candidate (which I haven't had in years), rarely changes anything. Why? Because the underlying bureaucracy is fundamentally invested in making sure that things work just the way they do right now, leaving the real power in the hands of unelected officials.
I'm not speaking as a typical slashdot ranter here (I do that elsewhere), but one who (unfortunately) has worked for government at various levels in the past. The administration - meaning the bureaucracy the politicians are supposed to direct and control - is actually in charge of the system. They can, and often do, ignore the directives of elected officials, convincing said officials that they actually are doing as they're told to the best of their ability. At every level of government I worked in upper, non-elected management had nothing but contempt for elected officials and openly plotted (yes, I use the word 'plotted') ways to get around directives or ignore them altogether. And, since 99% of the information available to politicians *comes from these very same departments* they were able to present a convincing case that 'thing x' couldn't be done, or could be done only by 'process y', while at the same time deriding public opposition as being from cranks for folks who 'just didn't understand the realities of the situation'. Elected officials, who generally aren't the brightest bulbs by any standards, are just as easily snowed by 500-page reports full of tables and statistics as anyone else is, no matter how bogus the numbers might be.
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that these bureaucracies - at all levels, check your city code if you think otherwise - have the unconstitutional power to pass laws without the permission of elected officials (they're called 'administrative rules', but they have the same force as any law) and to raise taxes as well (these are called 'administrative fees'). The ability to legislate and tax at the whim of unelected bureaucrats without having to answer to whatever legislature is in charge at that level of government allows the system to do as it pleases while paying lip-service to the politicians.
So what do these management-types occupy themselves with? Primarily in contesting with other management-types to increase their own power while diminishing that of rivals. This is done mostly through trying to get the biggest cut of the budget pie and through employing as many people in that division as possible. It's a rather 20th century version of feudal dukedoms hashing it out for the most 'territory' and 'serfs'. There is no 'ultimate end' to this contest; only the contest itself, and the self-worth it generates for these management folks if they score a 'win' at the expense of someone else's 'loss', counts.
You'd think that the whole damn system was run by a bunch of overgrown frat boys.
This also explains why government is so bloody wasteful (apart from people taking every opportunity to pad their own pockets, or those of relatives and friends). Enormous resources are thrown towards improving one's place in the contest, without regard as to whether or not it's a wise use of tax dollars. Not that this presents a moral problem; the 'fuck the taxpayer' attitude is also common in management, especially when the taxpayer dares to question the decisions of said management.
The end result is that you not only have elections where the race boils down to 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' corporate sluts, but a bureaucracy which will do anything in it's power to emasculate a candidate who actually seems interested in serving the common citizen and isn't snowed by internal reports. So even when an election doesn't present you with two versions of the same corporate whore, the system is sure to sabotage the honest guy you vote into office.
At all levels, the system is fundamentally broken. What to do about it is something I haven't settled on, but I do know that just voting in a decent candidate here or there won't make a damn bit of difference. If you have a decent candidate, that is.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
It probably wont be airtight. It would likely include automatic patching tho, so... well, if you disable the DRM system, again, the BIOS wont boot the OS. You might be able to bypass it through bugs, but the next time you connect to the internet you'll be patched, so such a hole will be temporary. And, again, if you try to disable the autopatching, your OS will stop booting.
It will probably never be completely airtight, but it will get painful enough that almost nobody will hack it. Digital satellite recievers and the newer game consoles are a precursor to what you are going to see, and while it's still possible to modify those, fewer and fewer people are even trying to for every generation. Once you get to the point where you have to make shady deals with a friend-of-a-friend and buy your own $1000 soldering equipment to replace the chips that form the foundation of the DRM tech, most people give up.
Nobody but the RIAA/MPAA wants systems like this. It will easily hike the price of a PC by several hundred dollars, if not more, and turn it into a glorified digital decoding device for media playing rather than what it is today. Which is why they try to push it legally, because neither the consumers or the IT industry wants it.