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?"
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.
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.
"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
Sen. Leahy, chair of the Judiciary Committee, came down with an attack of good sense, and said that he won't let it out of committee.
It's dead... for this session at least, but you're right, we need to stay vigilant.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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.
<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 need to understand that politicians listen to deep-pocketed industry types because they give them lots of money so they can fund their reelection campaign. All the industry blood money in the world isn't going to help their campaign one single bit if 50% (+1) of their constituents is pissed off at them.
So politicians will only be swayed by the almighty buck as long as they can get away with it without perceiving a threat from the voting public. When the public speaks loudly, it speaks much louder than all the campaign contributions that could possibly be forthcoming.
Don't give up. We, the people, have power. The problem is that we often don't excercise it and, in that void, corporate interests take over. If it's the Corporate States of America it's because we the people are not doing OUR job.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?