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?"
Information on the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act itself is available here.
I guess all those people from my CS classes that were mailbombing congress with "SCREW THE CBDTPA" weren't JUST trolls...
I am !amused.
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.
This is a great day in the US. Not that our technology legislation is that much to be proud of, but today is a great day.
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.
At the end of the day, Campaign Donations from media companies like Disney and Universal only go so far. If enough voters are against something, elected representatives tend to vote against it as well. I would urge people to keep writing letters in protest of the bill, as they do seem to make a difference.
yes i run a goth/punk/emo porn site.
. . .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."
Hey the Consumer Electronics industry and the software industry isn't against DRM and copy protection per se. They just don't want to have the method dictated by the government.
Remember MS received a patent on a DRM OS. They will use that to court everybody who wants to restrict information access, and use it internally to sell/control their own software.
"They seem satisfied to try to attack it in the press rather than trying to make it work," said Sen. Hollings spokesman Andy Davis.
I'd be satisfied too, so far it looks to have been a pretty effective strategy. Let's hope it is successful enough to get this malignant bill killed at the earliest possible opportunity.
Sailing over the event horizon
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?"
I really didn't think the Coyboyneal Big Diaper/Toilet Paper Act was something that should be passed by congress.
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
As the difficult-to-remember renaming of the SSSCA worms its wicked way through congress, I'm seeing a *lot* more press about it. With the exception of the SF paper, most of the articles I've seen about it have focused on the opposition to the bill rather than the 'new age of Broadband' Disney would like us to think they're trying to usher in.
In fact, so many of those articles are getting so negatively slanted that it's becoming sensationalistic. Just like the lurid love affair the press had with O.J.'s (100% Not Guilty!) dirty deeds, the papers, newsrooms, and online news sites have picked up on something that's a 'winner' in terms of public outrage, tabloid sensationalism, and outright bribery.
Can we hope for Gary Condit-esque levels of mudslinging? Dare we aspire to John Wayne Bobbit levels of exposure and discomfort?
Fritz Hollings is getting his name dragged through the mud right now, and the press couldn't be happier than to have a new kicking dog in him and in the form of the CDBTPA or whatever the hell it's called.
For once, sensationalism works for geeks....
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
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
... not until the bill and its variants have been withdrawn! This is the worst time possible to develop a sense of complacency.
Be sure to check out the site referenced in the article. They helped the effort, and apparently want to do more.
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".
I found this blurb interesting
Media firms could also take a page from the antipiracy playbook of software companies, who concentrate on shutting down large, commercial piracy operations rather than trying to control individual users, he said.
I would wager that it would be easier to buy a bill than it would be stop some companies like Kaaza or Morpheus...
Or an even better idea... make digital music cheaper and more usuable.
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
"They seem satisfied to try to attack it in the press rather than trying to make it work," said Sen. Hollings spokesman Andy Davis.
What did they expect?
Hollings: I'd like to pass a bill that will take away all your rights to using digital media.
Consumers: Hmm how about just some of our rights?
Hollings: Will taking a way 2/3 of your civil rights be good?
Consumers: Ok that works for us.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
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.
Is Hollings up for reelection in November?
In November 2004...
<FLASHBACK>
Imaginary interview with Hollings and Davis:
Hollings: It's like the time we tried to legislate that pi=3, and these stupid tech forms didn't want to make it work! They kept doggedly insisting that it was this long number, like 3.14159something, and that it couldn't be expressed as a rational number!
Davis: Yeah, I mean, they wouldn't even compromise on the issue - during Congressional testimony, we had Andy Grove of Intel on the stand, and we offered him "3.14?" He said, "no, it's pi" "22/7?" "No, pi is a transcendental number." Utterly ridiculous. As if good Christians should have to put up with this sort of new age Transcendentalist movement. Maybe in California, but not in South Carolina, by gum!
Hollings: And the engineers were worse than the mathematicians. We got letters from all these so-called rational thinkers tryin' to convince us that simple things like the wheel and the suspension bridge weren't based on rational numbers! Can't they see that they're the ones being irrational about this?
Davis: There's just no negotiating with technology people. They don't want to make it work, they don't even want to try to make it work. Why won't they even try to see things from our point of view? Hollings: So we're moving ahead with the legislation. They kept trying to get us to move from 3 to 3.14whatever? We subtracted double than their beloved 0.14159265whatever, and came up with 2.718281828. They can have pi=2.718 or nothing at all!
Davis: They're bluffing when they say math won't work with our proposal. Maybe it'll just make a few things harder for them in the short term, but when the law makes pi=2.718, they'll have to innovate in order to build anything!
Hollings: Yeah! Now we'll see who really knows how to promote engineering and mathematical innovation our children's schools!
</FLASHBACK>
You can still buy mudslinging ads. The only reform that "might" happen will conveniently be enacted the day after this election.... Then after that the Supreme Court will declare it as unconstitutional as it violates the 1st Amendment.
Now that our complaining has killed SSSCA and scored a direct hit on CBDTPA, we should go after Hollings by encouraging the geeks of South Carolina to hold him accountable for these bills in every public forum they can find. If he is voted out of the Senate, then other potential Disney appointees will realize that acting as an errand boy for the entertainment industry is not without risk. Turning him into a national laughingstock is amusing, but the only people who can make him go away are the people who put him there: the voters of South Carolina.
According to opensecrets.org he was elected in 1998, which means the next election is 2004. Is it mere coincidence or is the midpoint of a Senate term the ideal time to deal with the sleaziest bills that PAC money can buy?
I find it really odd that this guy is a Democrat. I'm a Republican, and it's usually my guys who specialize in catering to anti-consumer interests like this. The Democrats ususally waste money on social programs and tax the hell out of the middle class to pay for it. He really should make up his mind: either be sleazy or counterproductive; it's not good to be both.
The battle at this point is only half done. As one user mentioned,...remember the DMCA, SSSCA..
It might worthwhile to consider starting a grass roots effort to now oust Ernest Hollings.
Need to let congressmen know that there are penalties for stupid legislation and perhaps other congressmen might think before doing this.
This would be the "two" of the "one-two" punch.
Then again geeks aren't known for fighting.....
Check This out for CNN's coverage
It is basically a Reuter's article, but they aren't covering it up. Just stashing it in the "Technology" section... where it belongs.
Don't get me wrong, I doubt you'll see this bill being discussed on ANY news analysis show. Their bosses don't want the other side to get the airtime. Maybe it is time to start a letter writing campaign to the O'Reilly Factor and Hardball (screw Donahue).
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
Ordinary people can still get hit by a meteorite too.
Sure, it isn't too probable, but it can happen.
Fortunatly, for me, I'm not planning to hold my breath, if that's alright with you.
I'll do what I can to try and change what I can, but I'm perfectly realistic about my chances, without large sums om money.
Cheers!
The complete text of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c107:./temp/ ~c107KG2pN3
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.
I think things really have gone out of perspective. The thing that really needs to be remembered in all of this, is the fact that these bills really shouldn't be allowed to happen without support. The thing about copyright is that we have it because, believe it or not, people supposedly want it.
/really/ like some pop group / film maker / etc. will pay in an attempt to make sure they make more of their product, but society has agreed that it shouldn't fall to the obsessed few, but instead anyone who gains enjoyment from this sort of thing should contribute - in just the same way everyone should have to pay for trains, not just those that /really/ believe in mass-transport.
/really/ want to download music for free, and nobody is willing to pay for it, society should stop forcing people to. Perhaps some people will stop making music, but, as I say, there isn't some God-given right for them to do this for a living if society doesn't value it enough.
Essentially, copyright is there to protect society from freeloaders - of course people that
The thing that is forgotten, however, is that this happens because society wants it. The moment the population decides that the cost / benefit proposition isn't good enough, they should be able to get rid of these laws. Hence, if people
So basically, whilst many things obviously aren't put to the vote, since copyright can only be defended on the basis that if people really think about it they support it, if people really don't it can't be defended. So if people are really against this sort of bill, it would be ridiculous to pass it.
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.
I've noticed a very cool trend lately: mainstream opposition to this bill. I've seen a number of letters to the editor and editorial columns and even overheard a few non-geek conversations, all trashing it. I even heard some discussion on talk radio last week.
Today, however, I heard the coolest example yet. I flipped on the radio to one of the rock/alternative/metal stations I listen to, and the DJ was ranting about the CBPTPA and inviting listeners to call in. The callers were about as articulate as you'd expect (one of them was obviously *very* stoned), but they still made many of the same good points about this piece of crap legislation that you read on /. and other fora.
Word is getting out -- and *nobody* likes this piece of crap bill, except the RIAA. Not even artists, as far as I can tell, and the RIAA would have us believe its for the musicians that they're doing this.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"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.
It's not sensationalism. It's the truth. It's working through the entire web of implications coming out from what they want to do. All you have to do is start with the bill and play a few "what if" games and you get to scary things right away. I think we would be better off sticking to things that people can understand and care about, like not being able to videotape a wedding because you could record music as a side effect.
Also, boycott Star Wars because this is only one little skirmish, and the companies will want everything forever, and they will keep trying to get everything forever, even if they have to get it in little bits over time. I think getting SW to tank would make a much bigger statement than thousands of letters being sent to Congress.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
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.
From the Wired article on Leahy's stopping CBDTPA, there's this nugget:
"Also this week, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) told Wired News he was drafting a House bill that would be similar to the CBDTPA."
Looks like Mr. Schiff, the "representative from Disney", representing the mouse's backyard in Glendale, CA, also now needs to be slapped down. What saddens me is that it's reps from my own party (Dems) that are doing this. Just goes to show that whoever is paying for the candidacy gets to make the law. I'm willing to support someone else in the primary over this issue alone.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
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.
I'm glad to see that U.S. elected officials still have some common sense!
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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
Dear Representative,
:o)
Support the CBDTPA!!!
Sorry about writing in crayon - they don't let sharp objects in the secure wards.
I'll do what I can to try and change what I can, but I'm perfectly realistic about my chances, without large sums om money.
Democracy requires faith. Faith that a million others will do the right thing. As long as people like you continue to "do what [you] can" then America will continue to be great.
When people give up, thinking that their vote or their input or their work doesn't matter (and in some sense, they're right - the odds are low that a single vote will swing an election or change a nation), then America is a lost cause.
.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
So what are you going to do, kill them?
Unless you are advocating a bloody revolution, I don't see how your attitude will help anything.
The rest of us can continue using peaceful means to try to change things for the better. (Or maintain the status quo when politicians try to make things worse)
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
until the scourge of YOUR beer is stopped.
That's not the way the world works.
If you want to stop 'em accuse 'em of wanting to support child pornography but making sure that they get their tithe everytime some kid takes it in the shorts.
And thay ultimately want to shut down the telephone system so that criminals and terrorists can't communicate to plan their crimes.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
THere have got to be better choices there.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
Thats what they want! They *never ever* expected this bill to pass. This is merely mis-direction so they can get what they want when no one is looking. Now we have to start all over -- find out what new bill is evil -- get the word out again. This is classic strategic manuvering. *Don't fall for it*
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
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
I'm not sure that the media is biased. Much of the time I think it's just incompetent. Some of the time I think that it intentionally plays the news as entertainment, or an arcade game. (Shoot down the alien menace!).
/. is a more reliable source of news (at least for the things that it's interested in) than the local papers are. And this doesn't mean that I rate /. highly, either.
:)
Only occasionally do I think that the media is being biased in favor of their owners. Of course, the general quality is so bad that it's hard to tell what's signal and what's noise.
I honestly think that
(But I do enjoy it!
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And actually the congressional elections are this year. If people want the chance to oust Hollings, I'm sure it isn't far off.
Just because the bill probably won't get out of Judiciary, it still lives. It can be attached as an amendment to another bill and given new life that way. Don't assume anything when dealing with politicians.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
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.
According to this NEWS.COM article, Gateway is going to be voicing its opposition to the CBDTPA. The best part is that they're going to begin airing a national TV spot on the topic of downloading and burning music. Doesn't look like it's going to directly reference the bill, but people will doubtless see it, and it will prime them for exposure to information about what's going on. I'd recommend that everyone here watch for the ad and see if it can be used as a reference when writing letters to newspapers or your Congressional reps.
Definitely a good thing here.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
The corruption of the politician tends to correlate with the size of the constituency.
There are 3 plausible reasons for this that occur to me.
1) In a larger electorate, it costs more to get elected.
2) In a larger electorate, the politician feels less connected to the electorate in general, and only comes into contact with a selected subset of it that favors certain views.
3) A larger electorate has more immoral candidates to be selected from, so it's easier for the fundraisers to find a "good face" that will be morally flimsy enough (or power hungry enough) to do their bidding in return for the election.
There's no reason to believe that only one of these is correct. And there are other effects. And Senator Hollings comes from a rather small electorate, so the correlation isn't perfect. (I also haven't heard anything really bad about Senator Boxer. Again, the correlation isn't perfect.)
But one of the markers is how much it costs to buy campaign ads.
And one of the markers is how isolated the elected person is from the electorate.
And I will vote for Pigasus before I'll vote for Feinstein again. I sent her a letter in protest against the SS(SCA) act and she sent back saying how much she supported the copyright bill. (I suppose I should say "at least she was honest", but the last time it was up all she would say way "I will take your opinion under consideration", but the evidence seems to show that she was campaigning to get it accepted. So honesty as an excuse is out the window.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
----- Indecision is the key to flexibility.
He received numerous phone calls, emails & letters from informed computer users & professionals stating in careful detail why this was a bad bill.
And how did the esteemed senator respond? ``You're not one of my constituents, so I won't listen to you."
BTW, why would someone moderate the parent comment ``Flamebait"? Sheesh!
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I live in South Carolina, though I'm a transplant from up-north. Down here, Strom Thurmond is almost universally revered by the locals. At least he is not proposing technology bills we don't need. However, he is not running for re-election this year, so somebody new will be in there soon.
Hollings has been in the Senate since 1966! He's next up for re-election in 2004. I did write him about the SSSCA weeks ago, but haven't heard from him.
Most people in South Carolina (and any other state for that matter) don't know about the CBDTPA. So it will be difficult to convince the locals that someone should not be re-elected on account of one bill. And maybe his alternative will want to introduce a bill on a completely different but equally objectionable idea. No one politician will be able to please everybody.
I am in favor of term limits, but I've heard an argument that small states need to be able to get high-seniority (read: lots of terms) congressmen/senators in order to not be overrun by the bigger states.
If you read the bill itself, it is designed to not pass. Key terms such as 'Open Source' are intentionally left out of the definitions section. Those parts would have to be modified or struck.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
-- anyone I disagree with who won't shut up.
And I will vote for Pigasus before I'll vote for Feinstein again.
Senator Boxer is thoroughly 0wned by Hollywood. She's just as bad as Feinstein.
Much as I don't like Republicans and much as I do like women in the Capitol I'm going to vote Libertarian next Senatorial elections. Throw these sellouts to the MPAA and RIAA out the fsckin' door. See ya...
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
You're not distinguishing between the questionable
issue ad ban and the long-overdue soft money ban,
referring to them both as "CFR". The two are
logically and legally separate, they just happen to
be part of the same bill.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Who will run against him (and be able to win!) on a platform of freedom? This could be a job for the GeekPAC mentioned a day or so ago.
sulli
RTFJ.
That is apparently uncomfortably close to the truth. Apparently the CBDTPA is mainly intended as a stalking horse. Its proponents don't seriously hope it to pass in anything like its current form, much as they would love if it did. It seems that what they're really aiming for at present is legislation specifically to enforce their plans for digital TV; after their opening demands have been rejected, they'll barter down to that. The resulting legislation will then be praised as the product of compromise and consensus. Both sides will claim a partial victory. And the studios will have exactly what they were hoping to get. Whenever they want some more, they'll simply repeat the process. Eventually it will become politically feasible to pass something like the current CBDTPA, since it will be possible to plausibly claim that it would only tidy up all the piecemeal copy-protection acts and amendments that by then will already be law.
DigitalConsumer.org is doing something about it. We are advocating a Consumer Technology Bill of Rights that will positively assert a consumer's rights to fair use. The Bill of Rights will guarantee your ability to use your own digital media in the way that you choose. With the support of consumers, we are working to have the Bill of Rights passed into law. Our proposed Bill has already gained support from numerous consumers as well as prominent executives and venture capitalists, but there's a lot more that we need to do in order to let Washington know that this is important.
Got friends?
Are you sure that isn't House of Representatives or the other Senate seat? I thought the Senate was a 6-year term. If he was elected in 1998, that means he won't be up for re-election until 2004, even though other congressional seats will expire sooner.
One of my key arguments is to attack the rationale for this ridiculous bill on its most fundamental level -- the public just isn't interested in a "new age of broadband"
It would be technically feasable to rewire the telephone system so that it could transmit high-fidelity music. It hasn't happened because most people are satisfied if they can recognize words and voices. They certainly aren't willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for some newfangled "high-fidelity telephone".
The same is true of media. The government should just forget the whole notion of pushing a new digital TV standard -- if it happens on its own, fine; if not, so what?
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
that is brilliant. hoax or not. i particularly love his attempt at a url. mod up.
sulli
RTFJ.
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.
Actually, under the CFR you can run any ads you want, as long as you say where the money came from in the ad. Hollings isn't up again until 2004, but then you could run a long "Hollings is a Disney-funded luddite" commercial, as long as at the end you said "Paid for by JordanH" and filed the appropriate forms with the federal elections commission.
...start lighting up over people's heads? I mean, the entire point of HAVING a congress is to do the will of the people. If not a single person wants this to be a law, why was it ever proposed? Of course, you and I know the answer to this question, but you would think SOMEONE with some power would kind of go, "Wait-a-second... What the hell happened to the "represenative" part of ouw represenative government?"
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
How many Slashdotters can I get to e-mail the link for my original posting at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=30881&cid=3319 647 to Senator Hollings at qmail@hollings-cms.senate.gov ?
Sorry, no karma points for posting the "hidden" value in his website's email contact page to Usenet.
Since it was so universally rejected, the question becomes "why?"
Could it be that with all the attention we gave it that they couldn't possibly support it without gaining negative nationwide attention?
One doesn't know for sure if our protests had any influence or not, but we should remain vigilant just in case it helped.
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
For release: April 10, 2002
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
New copyright protection bill would turn government into entertainment 'rent-a-cop'
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), a bill that would supposedly reduce digital piracy, should be rejected by Congress because it would turn the government into a "rent-a-cop" for the entertainment industry, the Libertarian Party said today.
"The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act will not only inconvenience consumers and throw roadblocks in the way of new technology, it will vastly expand the power of the government," warned the party's executive director, Steve Dasbach.
"While the federal government may have a legitimate role in protecting copyrighted material, that role does not extend to acting as a technology rent-a-cop to protect the profits of huge entertainment corporations like Disney, Sony, and DreamWorks."
Last week, Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) filed S-2048, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act.
The bill would make it a federal crime -- punishable by five years in jail and a $500,000 fine -- to sell software or hardware that does not contain shielding measures that make it impossible to play or copy protected materials like songs, movies, or TV shows.
The bill's provisions would apply to computers, video-editing software, CD players, VCRs, MP3 players and software, DVD players, and televisions, among others. The copyright-protection technology would be determined either by manufacturers and entertainment companies, or mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
The CBDTPA is allegedly designed to stop digital piracy, which has become an increasing problem now that everything from songs to movies are in digital form, and downloadable from the Internet.
But the CBDTPA goes far beyond any reasonable role the government might have in protecting copyrighted works, said Dasbach.
"According to the Constitution, the federal government has the power to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries,'" he noted. "In other words, Congress can grant exclusive copyrights, which entertainers can defend, as necessary, by filing copyright infringement lawsuits.
"The CBDTPA, by contrast, gets the federal government involved in the production of everything from televisions to computers, and software programs to operating systems. And, instead of just targeting criminals who illegally steal copyrighted materials, it treats every consumer as a potential digital pirate -- while turning federal bureaucrats into the Digital Police."
Further, said Dasbach, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act would:
"The bill would make it impossible for you to turn a CD you purchased into MP3 songs to play on your computer," he said. "It guts the traditional notion of 'fair use,' which allows consumers non-commercial reproduction rights."
"Federally mandated copyright-protection technology will not only drive up the cost of computers, DVD players, and VCRs, it may force consumers to purchase multiple copies of movies and albums -- pouring billions of extra dollars into the pockets of wealthy conglomerates," he said.
"The bill is a dream come true for Bill Gates, because it could make it illegal to own one of the most successful operating system competitors to Microsoft Windows," he said. "The result would be to stifle competition in the computer industry."
In short, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act is an overly broad, overly rigid, and overly intrusive response to the problem of digital piracy, said Dasbach.
"Digital piracy is a real dilemma, and the entertainment industry has a real challenge ahead of it -- to figure out how to make a profit and protect artists in a digital age," he said. "But the solution is not to pass the CBDTPA, which would turn the federal government into the omnipresent technology police, and treat every consumer like a criminal."
Why, I offered several helpful suggestions in my letters to my senators:
I suggested that protections for fair use rights be written into the bill (appending a copy of the Digital Consumer Bill of Rights as a proposed model), and that the penalties for infringing those rights be made equivalent to those for copyright violation.
I suggested that, to insure that the new standard did not unduly impair independent publishing, the requirements for the final standard would have to include a complete lack of patent, copyright, or trade secret encumbrances.
I think I forgot to suggest that CPR teams be dispatched to watch Jack Valenti, Hilary Rosen, and Bill Gates before the new version of the bill was released for public comment. I can only hope that one of the staffers realized this necessity in time.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
From what I've heard about the way things are run around his office, that's debatable.
/brian
"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?
"They seem satisfied to try to attack it in the press rather than trying to make it work," said Sen. Hollings spokesman Andy Davis.
What kind of logic is that?
"They seem satisfied to try to attack it in the press rather than trying to make it work," said Terrorist Al-Fadim speaking about the terrorist attacks on America in the last few months, "If only the Americans would try and help us, we could destroy the Great Satan so much quicker."
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
"We should go after Hollings by encouraging the geeks of South Carolina to hold him accountable for these bills in every public forum they can find."
Going after Hollings is going to be more difficult than you guys think. Hollings and Thurmond have been Senators here in SC since before I was born. He's a legacy and a tradition in a State where tradition is important (that's why Thurmond has been reelected all these years when he can't even go to the bathroom by himself anymore). Furthermore, he's very well connected and has all the right people supporting him. While it's certainly possible that he could be defeated, I think it's unlikely.
Sadly, South Carolina has one of the most poorly educated pool of voters in the union. They don't really pay attention to the news or anything, and the issues that become election issues are usually petty and stupid. If you try to tell Joe Sixpack in SC that the Entertainment industry is lobbying to require digital rights management built into all consumer electronic devices, not only will Mr. Sixpack not understand a word of what you're saying, he won't care anyway.
As for the geeks, well, there aren't very many. South Carolina doesn't have any big population centers like Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee do, so we don't have a huge tech sector. Most of the geeks that do live here are fairly apolitical. They're like the geeks you see on Slashdot who talk about boycotting the MPAA and then go out and buy shitloads of DVDs.
I'm not trying to rain on your parades. Yeah, Hollings should go, and I might be willing to live with the slimebag who takes his place. Y'all just need to understand that voting out Fritz Hollings is a pretty sizeable task.
Steve
Comment removed based on user account deletion
'Nuff said.
The only "argument" I've heard to support this joke is that "soft money does not equal free speech"
Well, I'd like to see anyone do any kind of speech without money and be heard by more than people within earshot or those few diehards who care about your obscure 'blog.
I would vote for NO RESTRICTIONS on campaign finance whatsoever, but full disclosure and let God, er, the electorate sort 'em out. At least that way, you know who was bought and paid for and by whom.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
> 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.
Thurmond ran as a 3rd party candidate called the Dixiecrats and almost gave the election to republican Thomas Dewey.
Almost? I've got photographic proof that he did.
Hollings has been in the Senate since 1966!
I can understand the importance of keeping experience in office for your state, but someone has got to get the message to Holliings it is not cool to take away our rights. Its hard to believe someone who has built up a reputation for so long could sell out to large corporate interests. We need to reach him and ask him for help.
But knowing doesn't help anything! Since all politicians accept money from corporations and vote accordingly, you can't hold it against any of them.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
"Sen. Hollings says he stands for American values but he tries to bring Big Brother into your house. Sen. Hollings says that big government should intrude into seeing what you watch and listen to on your television, computer, and stereo system."
- links use Javascript to
- popup one of several other windows to
- present text that could have all been included in one page with fragment addresses and
- where nothing intelligent happens for the case where the browser can't or won't execute javascript.
Where the fuck are these people coming from? Most professions have at least an implicit minimum IQ - a floor below which you just don't go. I think for webmasters, it's a ceiling, but it's way below where the floor should be."that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
The purpose of campaign money is to buy ads, primarily television ads. Television ads are done to influence voters.
Politicians mostly run for office to make a difference. They believe that they can make things better. Most contributions come from people that simply LIKE where the Congressman stands. Those that believe in strong IP laws are likely to get lots of money from industry leaders that want strong IP laws. Why? Because they need 51 (really 60) Senators to support strong IP laws, and losing 1 is a mistake. Sure when you give money to the Ted Kennedy's or other shoe-ins its really about saying you care, not about office, but even there the corruption is less than you think. When you give money to the big boy's campaigns, they don't have to listen to you, as you have nothing on them. All donations REALLY do is buy access, the Senator NEEDS to take the call from the big money people. He doesn't need to vote their way (but if he angers them, he won't get money next time), but he needs to listen.
The most important thing for a congressman or senator to do is please the people. The Presidency is about mobilizing the party, but congressional elections can swing on the silliest things. Realize that only 50% of the registered voters vote in presidential elections, what percentage votes in Congressional elections? 30%? 45? Particularly midterm elections.
Assuming that the party bases are equally energized, they wash, leaving you to win or lose based upon the whims of those few independants. Angering people to get dollars isn't the good plan.
Close elections are REALLY close when you realize that about 2/3s of the voters are members of a party and vote mostly for their party... a 3% margin is a lot more significant when you realize that only 30% - 45% of the vote is in play.
Alex
At least is was last time I looked. 20% of the chamber can challenge a voice vote, it's pretty small. In the House isn't done by electronic ballot, in the Senate it's a Roll Call.
However, his point is valid, Congress as a whole can do unpopular things that way, but you really need Congress to ALL want political cover.
Alex
"wenn Sie glücklich sind und Sie es kennen, sprechen Sie Deutsches!"
... wenn sie Deutsches spreches, und Sie glücklich sind, und sie es kennen, was denn?
... hehe :-)
Hmm
Nein, ich habe kein deutch geschreiben die letzten sechs yahre
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
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?
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.
Can't he get it into his thick head we do not want anything like this bill and in fact want to roll back copyright rather than see it roll over us? The arrogance of Senator 'show me Disney Money' Hollings is unbelievable
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
While it's certainly a victory *for* the people, it isn't a victory *of* the people. The tech industry - primarily hardware manufacturers - were opposed to the bill. They have *alot* more money than the RIAA and MPAA and therefore a greater amount of clout with our politicians.
The side with the most money won. As usual.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Overstated by who ? The press *are* media conglumerates. Besides, the real problem is the control the PR industry has on the press. It's cheaper to print the stories sent in by the PR guys whose salary is paid for by the corporations they work for than it is to pay journalists to actually do anything. When television news covers anything related to an industry, the footage is largely assembled from segments sent in by those with a vested interest in telling a particular story.
You really need to read "Toxic sludge is good for you" to see just how messed up our media is.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Oh, yeah, with the emphasis on 'build systems'. You're allowed to build your own motherboard, with your own home-made CPU, and your own home-made IO subsystems, as long as you dont do it for profit. If you've got a few billion dollars I expect you could do that.
If you, however, want to write a program that can resample and re-encode, sure you can do that. Only, no hardware or OS will exist that will allow your program to run, because it will be illegal to build systems that allow bypassing of the security, such as re-encoding.
The draconian aspect of the law doesnt become apparent until you understand the only way it can be implemented. Any device can be programmed to bypass copying restrictions until you go all the way with DRM included in the hardware complete with cryptographic handshakes between OS, BIOS and various hardware like CPU, disks, display and audio devices. To ensure the restrictions cannot be bypassed the various components have to verify integrity of eachother and any integrity failure would render the system unable to boot. The OS would have separate hooks for reading and writing protected files, and no uncertified program would be allowed to access devices from which protected data could be read.
Linux wouldnt be able to run at all. You cannot guarantee the integrity of Linux, thus is would be illegal to ship hardware that will allow it to run. If you're a programmer, you wouldnt be able to write programs that access protected media (directly), or the OS vendor wouldnt be able to guarantee rights management. Sure, you wouldnt be convicted for writing a program that can resample and reencode, but anyone selling a system that will allow you to write such a program will be convicted.
Here is what I sent them:
Gentlemen,
I am a computer professionnal, being active in the field of software development and IT administration since 1979. Although I am not an American citizen, I would like to comment on the CBDPTA being studied by your committee.
This innovative bill, by crippling the ability of the U.S. computer industry to freely introduce innovative technology, will tremenduously favourize the (rest of the) world computer industry. Imposing limits on computer systems that would be illegal in many countries is a sure way to insure that the rest of the world computer industry will finally catch-up and leave in the dust the U.S. computer industry.
The other 95% of the world will be eternally grateful to the (comparatively) minuscule Hollywood movie industry for having the much bigger U.S. computer industry ground to a halt by having to spend a significant portion of their ressources just to comply with the CBDPTA.
Most other industries (those who use computers) will also benefit, as their U.S. counterparts will be hindered by less performing computers that are hobbled both in cost and performance by their expensive content monitoring "features", thus making them less efficient than their unencumbered foreign counterparts.
Another foreign industry that shall benefit will undoubtely the illegal drug industry, as it will be easier to ship illegal drugs to the United States as the U.S. Customs service will undoubtely be very busy searching for illegal computer contraband.
Please do consider the passage of this Act, as the world's computer industry needs a reprieve from the very innovative U.S. computer industry.
Thank-you.
I think the word you're looking for is 'Favour' (Or to use the U.S. spelling, 'Favor')
It's as bad as 'Burglarize' instead of 'Burgle' and my pet hate, the use of 'Leverage' as a verb, rather than 'Lever'.
Whew. I guess I can delay moving to Canada by a few months, at least. But now's not the time to become complacent.
Now is the time to start writing your Senators and Representatives and tell them it's time to codify precisely what the copyright bargain means as copyright is applied to today's media. Make sure the new copyright laws define fair use as well as protect consumers' rights to format-shifting. Alert them to the problem of the stagnant public domain due to the constant extension by Congressional act of copyright terms.
I, for one, intend to draw heavily on some of Lawrence Lessig's ideas. Let's move the written word and recordings to the exponential renewal system -- where if you want to hold it 100 years, you can , but the renewal fee grows exponentially every 5 years. Software distributed without source code should be subject to holding source code in escrow and subject to a short term -- say, 10 years -- at which point the source code, along with the software it produces, should become public domain.
The best defense against more CBDTPA-style legislation is a good offense.
They also want to make it illegal to buy a device that can play non-secure content and to control the tools required to create secure content -- instant publishing monopoly.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
If I had Moderator status right now, I'd hope for a [+0 uummmm....] moderator rating
You provide an interesting point. SHOULD the bill become law, 'media resamplers' might become a fast moving market and hopefully leave the RIAA with their pants down around their ankles.
However, on the flip side, I don't think I want to open that Pandora's Box. I'd rather not see the bill pass at all.
There are no DRM controlled OS's today, nor any hardware really (except certain bank crypto processors that work according to similar principles of multilevel crypto and verification). That will change with if the law forbids the sales of non-DRM controlled hardware and software.
With DRM, there will be no way you could compromise the integrity of Windows. The hardware would check that the OS wasnt compromised before booting at all. Sure you can go ahead and hack it. Only your computer wont boot because the BIOS no longer gets the right handshake. Go ahead, flash in a hacked BIOS, only now your CPU wouldnt even start executing the BIOS since the BIOS couldnt handshake right. Stick a hacked CPU in it, and your northbridge will deny the CPU access to memory.
No, Linux wont be illegal. It will only be illegal to build and sell a machine that can run it. Of course, it will be illegal to build and sell a machine that runs any version of Windows up to date too, but do you really think Microsoft would be upset about having to sell everyone a new version again?
I think they did ban them. Still, if you have the money, just buy one anyway, and when they arrest you plead the first ammendment. It would be an interesting test case, and you can bet someone will do it (though maybe not quite so blantently.
I was pleasantly surprised to see the Libertarian Party release a press release entitled "New copyright protection bill would turn government into entertainment 'rent-a-cop'" talking about the CBDTPA, and basically pounding a million holes in it, in typical libertarian-style.
I just noticed that the party is also yelling about the campaign finance reform law. Cool.
If you're seriously upset about the way that government is being run and the laws that are being passed, by all means get involved. The only way we're going to win this is by getting the people passing these laws out of office. Take an active stance on issues. Let you congressmen know how you feel. Consider running for office yourself (yes you can do that) or helping with a campaign, even if it just a local office or state senator/representative, etc..
Personally, I've found that the Libertarian party is the closest to how I do about the way things should be run - specifically that the government should keep their noses out of our lives. Their views may or may not be in line with yours. Do some research and figure out where you feel you're making a contribution. But get involved. If all you do is gripe on slashdot every once in a while you're not making an impact.
You're insane. They both have tremendous areas of disagreement. Their areas of agreement are largely to product businesses that America dominates despite Slashdot users desires to get for free.
Areas of disagreement: abortion, affirmative action, tax policies, UN funding, and some disagreements on trade policies.
Sometimes they put aside ideology when they pragmatically believe that they are doing what is in the best interest of the Republic.
Give me a break.
Alex
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.
"Purple unicorns ate my baby" is not true, whether people believed it and acted accordingly or not. After all, everyone knows that the dingoes at my baby.
"US democracy is a crock of shit" is not true, but it would be if everybody believed it and acted accordingly.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...