Slashdot Mirror
Commerce Department Cool to CBDTPA
L. J. Beauregard writes: "Wired reports that the Commerce Department is not too thrilled about S.2048. Commerce Secretary James Rogan claims that 'the DMCA carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders,' a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do."
James Rogan is the Under Secretary of Commerce.
A whore gets money for doing their master's bidding.
A slut does stuff without monetary compensation.
I propose his title be changed to Slutty UnderSecretary of Commerce or 'SUC' (ok, I'm reaching here) for short.
Seeing as he is also the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office, I'd also suggest his title to be extended to 'SUC US PTO'.
What we need to do is capitilize on this opportunity and expose the radical enemies of the public for the political radicals that they are. In addition, the MPAA is showing us exactly how to take the steps necessary to defend our fourth amemndment rights under the US Constitution in regard to digital media and privately owned digital devices.
NY Fairuse is willing, with the help of it's sister organization, NYLXS, and with broad co-operation, it begin in Manhattan in May to gather together a broad coalition of IT Industry members, Librarians, Educators, Free Software Advocates, musicians, artisits, actors, and Internet Information Providers the Digital Property Protection Discussion Group.
The purpose of forming this group is to draft and pass legislation which protects individuals 4th amendment rights with regard to their digital devices and media.
The legislation to be drafted will accomplsih the following main stream objectives which all reasonable people can expect:
All copyrights to individual scores, writings, and recordings will be returned to the original artist after a period of 10 years.
No technology can be deployed which spies on, wiretaps or descloses privately owned information which is stored on digital devices by any government agency or private 3rd party without the issuance of a publically pronounced annd disclosed warrant l limited to a specific criminal investigation.
All copyright cases must prove, prior to a judgement of guilt, proof that the actions in question did not infringe on Fair Use, and the individuals rights under the 4th and 1st ammendment of the Bill of rights US Constition.
Ownership of all physical media and devices to read such media, is the sole property of the purchaser of the media, without an expressely negotiated and signed contract between both the copyright holder and the purchaser.
No technological software or hardware method can be deployed in a digital product available for normal retail sale which inhibits in any way the full enjoyment of the property by the purchasers, regardless of any agreement between the designer of the hardware or software products. Such agreements are null, and not contractable.
Copyright is an exception to Fair Use as it limited the ability for individuals to enjoy their private property and express themselves with the use of such copyrighted materials. Fair Use is a doctrin to be based on the 4th and 1st amendments of the Constitutions.
Individuals have the right to express themselves to others about the means, mechanism and workings of all digital devices, including but not limited to discussion on how to make fair use of media, how to improve such devices, or to reverse engineer all such devices and the allgorithims which are used to help them display, copy or run media.
We need to get as many big guns on this as possible and then relentlessly campaign, actively working to elect supporters and unelect opposition. In fact, we should look to defeat, not just the proposed spyware legistlation, but also defeat Senator Hollings
WE CAN force him from office, because he's a radical.
Ruben
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
What the really want is MORE money, lots more...." William S Burroughs.
I think the use of that word shows more bias than any statements this guy possibly could have made.
"Before Congress rushes into the imposition of a legislative solution," Rogan said, "I hope its members will grant more time for the free market to find its own middle ground."
Thank the gods for that. Its about time somebody stands up and says "Hold on a second, lets give business the chance to make their own decisions,
before we step in and legislate for them." I hope that more of this sort of thing happens in the future. I sincerely hope that those in congress decide
to heed Mr.Rogan's words, and their voing reflects it.
Commerce Secretary James Rogan claims that 'the DMCA carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders,'
Of course it carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders. Thing is, they don't see customers as stakeholders. An argument could be made that customers aren't stakeholders in this sense -- after all, they have no financial stake in whether most CBDTPA-protected works succeed or fail. Never mind the principles that are involved, it's all about money to corporations and to Congress.
a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do
Like pay any attention to whether their customers care about what they're being exposed to? You could make some interesting comparisons here. The corporate whores are exposing their customers to CBDTPA; the rest of the analogy is left to the reader's imagination.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Veto? I pray it doesn't get that far. There can't be that many Media Whores on the Hill... can there?
Maybe he's honest. You know, an honest politician is one who, once bought, stays bought.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
This isn't a time to rest on our laurels. Congress could still pass this thing. A simple majority wins, and Congress has passed many an unpopular act (USA Patriot anyone?) We still have to email and write letters and protest this thing and reach every single person we can.
We keep recieving good news, but that doesn't mean we should slack off... it means that we should work harder and spread our message. Advocacy works.
Take a look at:o l-intel_critique.html
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020322_eff_a
[my comments in brackets]
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do
Allright, now listen - I hate the CBBLAH & DMCA, etc like everyone else. But, come on now, is it REALLY necassary to call them whores when posting this news to the site? ATTENTION SLASHDOT EDITORS: it doesn't make you look very professional or worthy of respect when you result to cheap tactics like this.
Leave it to people like ME to call them whores but please not on the main page. it just doesn't give us a very solid position to argue from if you result to name-calling on the main page.
It's becoming very fashionable to bash Senator Hollings "brain"-child. It's was so outragous a proposal that anything less(no matter how badly it bodes for us) would seem "reasonable" by comparison.
I wouldn't fear the current legislation, I'd watch out for the seemingly more moderate bills that are sure to follow. If our beloved under-secretary of commerce (or whatever) thinks the DMCA is well-balanced, then we're sure to see more of the same in coming days.
Be on your toes and don't let down your guard.
Remember: when they want you to "comprimise" it really means they want you to give up half of what you have. All they need is a few cycles of that, and pretty soon, you have nothing.
The anti-gun crowd has been using that tact for quite a while and painting those who refuse to play the game as unreasonable. Expect the same treatment.
They'll get my Linux Distro when they pry it from my cold, dead disk drive!
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
Replace "customers" with "citizens". The DMCA is not just anti-consumer (which some could legitimately debate), but removes rights that citizens previously had (reverse engineering, study, personal use, etc.) You can infringe and be guilty, even without ever having a "customer" relationship with the sellers (you may just be curious).
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Oh, I see, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a whore. That's a great way to win over people's minds. yup.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Of course. We should have kept recounting the Florida election until it went the other way.
I doubt anyone here sees President Bush as a god. Hate to burst your bubble.
Now, you make an accusation that the legislative body is disregarding the Constitution by passing laws to promote and protect big corporate interests. While I don't disagree about the nature of the laws, I do question your assertion that they are violating the Constitution. Which part?
I will only touch on one other thing you brought up, as I am tired. Social policy. Well, I'm a firm believer that there are plenty of charities out there, and the government doesn't need to be one of them.
I can name a dozen charities that are successful and really help people. I can only name one government program that did the same, and it no longer exists. (the CCC.) I still haven't figured out where people like you get the idea that you should strongarm people like me into giving to beggars on the street like the one who sits at the stoplight a few blocks from here. I happen to know for a fact that he could go to Goodwill or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and they would help, along with most churches, and many non-religious organizations. Why make the government responsible for a task that is already being done?
Maybe we should just hand them money and make people like me do the work?
You really touched a nerve in me tonight.
You know, I've become unemployed in the past (living in the state with the top unemployment rate in the country right now) and you know what? I went back to school to make myself more qualified. The government is more than willing to loan almost anyone money to go to school. But then again, if you aren't motivated to work (or even try to get a job), why would you bother to put the time into school?
Then again, why do anything at all when the government is making the people who actually do the work pay your way through life? Hey, spit out a few kids and get even more, right?
Hey, why don't we make everyone equal by making a standard wage, no matter what kind of, or lack of work that they have? You know, $20/hour for everyone, both the college grads, and the people who dropped out in 9th grade.
You sit here and cry "fasicsm" all the while insulting people like me who do the best we can in life, and telling us how inhumane we are for trying to be successful on our own accord. Here I am back in college trying to improve my employability so I can be successful, and you tell me that when I become successful, I have to support some drug-addicted high school dropout who fucked his own life up, as if I'm the one who told him not to get a job.
Don't compare me and mine to Nazi Germany, asshole. (My family is from East Prussia, by the way.)
You offend me.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
You offend me.
Ever try to see things from any view other than the one you have now? Hell, the original poster might be a twit, but he's not all wrong either. I don't want to support bums with my tax dollar either, but you make it sound like that's all welfare ever is.
Hell, but then, with people like you in charge half the time, and people like the original poster in charge the other half, how could it ever be any different?
The comic strip User Friendly has a great strip today about the DMCA..
:-P
Spoiler: It is 'violate the DMCA' sung to the theme song of YMCA...(Muh haw-hahaha)
The original poster (before you) violated Godwin's law. If you want to continue the thread leave anything he said about Nazis out of it. That's just a red herring designed to piss everyone off.
Now, ignoring all the BS about Hitler, I have a beef or two with what you've said:
>While I don't disagree about the nature of the laws, I do question your assertion that they are violating the Constitution. Which part?
I'm not totally up on American law, but I'm pretty certain that your constitution guarantees many freedoms (such as freedom of speech). If the CBDTPA is just an extension to the DMCA then it is anti free-speech. Isn't that your first amendment?
>Social policy. Well, I'm a firm believer that there are plenty of charities out there, and the government doesn't need to be one of them.
That certainly can be your opinion (and, fortunately for you and many others the majority disagrees with it), however you can't have it both ways.
>You know, I've become unemployed in the past... I went back to school to make myself more qualified. The government is more than willing to loan almost anyone money to go to school.
You can't have it both ways. You can't use the government acting as a charity (and handing out money for people to go to school without any guarantees they'll get it back is nothing more than a backhanded charity) and not want it being a charity.
>I still haven't figured out where people like you get the idea that you should strongarm people like me into giving to beggars on the street like the one who sits at the stoplight a few blocks from here.
Huh? Did he say for you to walk up to street beggars and give them money? You need a fixed residence to pick up a cheque from the gov't, so if there's anyone you should respect with your views, it would be a street beggar.
Again, another contradiction in your ideas presents itself:
>Then again, why do anything at all when the government is making the people who actually do the work pay your way through life?
Ok.
>Hey, why don't we make everyone equal by making a standard wage, no matter what kind of, or lack of work that they have? You know, $20/hour for everyone, both the college grads, and the people who dropped out in 9th grade.
I am assuming you think the 9th grader has an easier life. Hate to break it to you but if he gets a job it will not be easy. People say all the time "Gas pumpers and golden arches flippers have it easy". Well, if so why not do their job?. I know why. Becuase the job sucks. Its physically demanding, or mentally annoying. Either way most everyone who graduates college is looking for the cushy, easy way out with a 9-5 desk job pushing paper.
If you want, feel free to reply and clear up what you've just said. Maybe I'm reading you wrong?
Perhaps you're just confused on the meaning of "fascism". It doesn't have anything to do with work, you know.
Its:
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism"
If you don't consider the president elect (I do consider him elected myself, but by a really thin thread) its easy to see how laws like the DMCA and CBDTPA causes socioeconomic controls (if you don't have the money, you can't participate in society), and suppression of opposition through censorship (DeCSS, anyone?). The other items (nationalism, racism, and terror) tend to be qualitative rather than quantitative, so these are the points that should be argued against the US being fascist. In my opinion the US is still far from it, but bills like this bring it closer and closer to the line.
Wether or not a burger flipper has 10 or 20 babies doesn't really factor into the discussion.
>I have to support some drug-addicted high school dropout who fucked his own life up, as if I'm the one who told him not to get a job.
Where did that come from?
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
It's a little less miserable than the rest? God damn, that's certainly something to be proud of. Of all the shitty nations on earth, the good ole' USA is _slightly_ less shitty than the others. We need to write that into our pledge of allegiance or national anthem or something.
It's days like these that make me weep for joy that I'm a citizen.
Just wait till the apply it to portscans. But hey, there's a war against terror! You can be an Enron exec and squander the life savings of thousands of employees away, but I doubt that there will be more than 10 years of jail time done between the lot of them. However, a 19 year old script-kiddie gets a little full of beans and brings down a couple Exchange servers, and it's a lifetime of forced sodomy for him. Yet people still believe in the "justice" system - why the hell not, we get the best justice money can buy!
This just strikes me as more of the predictable political stances we've come to expect over the last two decades or so. Let's see... a Republican president/administration voicing concern about a bill that is headed up by a Democrat.
I don't give any single politician points for standing on principle here or an iota of credibility. IMO, it's more of the standard attitude, that "it's coming from the other guys so we're suspicious of it" posturing that is so typical.
Just be thankful for now that a Democrat is the one behind this bill (gah... never thought I'd hear myself say that!) If this were a bill being pushed by a Republican, we'd be in deep shit right now.
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I loaded up slashdot, and at the top it said...
This page was generated by a Squad of RIAA Goons for NoMoreNicksLeft (516230).
It's too late, they've already taken over.
This time though we should be producing 'stickers' , 't-shirts' and stuff that people can show and wear in the real world where it will get off-line people taking notice.
Any ideas for a mascot or a logo?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Check your history books. Your fascist example, Hitler, was democratically elected by the people of Wiemar Germany. Whether a leader was elected by a majority of the people or not has little or no bearing on whether that government or leader is considered fascist. Instead, consider the actions and the policies of that government.
As far as I'm concerned, with the exception of environmental and science issues, the current government is better than life under Clinton. Having to deal with the likes of Boxer and Feinsten in the Senate is enough - no need to give them free access to the White House!
Supposing that this legislation did pass, how the hell would you enforce it. Obviously it would push many legitimate programmers "underground" but isn't the underground big enough already?
An whats to stop someone from opening a shell account offshore and building their software on that server. Can they legally restrict telecommunications to such a server? If not maybe I should invest in off shore shell accounts for development...
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
If this isn't the closest thing to the government telling us what to "think" i dont know what is.
Thats it lets firewall all outside traffic to the US, dont want any "propoganda" getting in from those anti-capitalist nations. And while we're at it lets make it so all software must be downloaded from the government servers or bought at government stores...and you thought the bread line was bad in the former USSR...
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Don't threaten doing a "Alec Balwin" and move away without fighting. At the risk of sounding like a rah-rah flag-waver, this is still the best country on the planet(although there might be an intelligent civilization elsewhere in the galaxy).
Running away means you're taking yourself out of the fight (sheep-like behavior at best).
The only way to beat these idiots and corporate whores is to become very vocal and present a well-reasoned arguement against these encroachments.
If we act like immature jerks, we invalidate our own arguements and give the win to them.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
/me prepares to get modded to -infinity....
:-P, and I think it
I should start by saying that I loathe the idea of the SSSCA/CBDTPA totally, since it would kill open source, and grant MS a monopoly as they
own the patent on DRM tech in computers. Well, more of a monopoly than they already have =)
But really, how bad is the DMCA (not CBDTPA)? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that the DMCA affects me personally, and
doesn't have to affect most GNU/Linux users.
It seems to me that most posters here talk of the DMCA as if it is something which is impossible to escape. Its not. No one here relies
on DVD movies, or the latest tasteless music from the record companies FOR THEIR SURVIVAL. There are alternatives. There is genuinely
free music from the 'net (mp3.com, etc), or an indie movie festival. Maybe ifilm.com. You can avoid being affected by the DMCA simply
by refusing to make use of protected content.
So, the movie studios and recording industry want the DMCA to protect their content.... Blizzard wants to protected their game server....
So what? Don't like it? Don't buy it, don't pirate it, and DON'T LISTEN TO/WATCH IT. You DO have a choice. Yes, that may mean not having
Tron 2 (when its out) or LOTR, or Warcraft 3 or whatever the latest fad is, but if you really want to take the moral high ground with
these people (media industry), simply crying "I like shiny things" wont help.
For the record, I do think changes need to be made to the DMCA to prevent future cases like the Skyralov case or the Felten case. These
are quite franly sickening; you should not be on dodgy legal ground just for doing encryption research. Some provisions need to be made
for this.
Otherwise, let them keep their stupid DMCA. =) It doesn't affect me, and it WONT AFFECT YOU IF YOU DON'T LET IT. =) The DMCA can ONLY be
applied to specific works, unlike say software patents for instance.
- MrMeanie
P.S. Personally, I use GNU/Linux almost exclusively. I am currently coding an open source program. (not affected at all) I don't have
any illegal MP3s on my system. (I like to take the moral highground and criticise the music recording industry
would be hypocritical of me to complain about their efforts to 'protect' their content if I had illegal music on my system) Despite
having a DVD drive in my computer, the only DVDs I have are cover discs from Linux format magazine. I have no DVD movies, because of
the DMCA and lack of fair use rights; to play a DVD any way I want (ie on Linux) I would have to break the law, therefore I boycott
them. I will continue to boycott any medium which disallows what is commonly called fair use. As far as I can see, I make use of NO
protected content, therefore the DMCA has NO effect.
Those negotiations are the BPDG, a consipiracy of 15-some tech and entertainment companies. They're writing a "standard" that they've asked Hollings to give the FCC the power to give the force of law to. It will be illegal to manufacture or distribute any device or software that can access digital broadcast TV if it doesn't meet the "standard."
And what will the "standard" require? Well, for starters, all tech will have to be "tamper-resistant," which means that you won't be able to tinker with the hardware and software you own. Open source will be illegal.
Those devices that are allowed will only be permitted to incorporate cables and media that limit copying. And new technologies will only be added to the list of permitted tech if Hollywood says so (the standard that the studios have proposed for evaluating new tech is "We'll know it when we see it").
Imagine it: HDTV devices and computers that interface with them will only be allowed to incorporate broken technologies that Hollywood permits. If your computer monitor doesn't include the "approved" inputs, it will be against the law for your computer to output a digital video stream to it. The manufacturer will have two choices:
We all got upset about the Hollings Bill because it would use the force of law to control how a computer could be made. The BPDG will do exactly that -- it's not a "free market middle-ground," it's Hollywood's absolute dominion over your machine.
Don't let 'em fool you -- CBDTPA is just another way of spelling BPDG, and it's a-comin' soon. The BPDG says it'll have its standard finalized by May 17, and no one's even noticing. The BPDG meetings are public (though they cost $100 to attend). There's one coming up in LA on Monday, and wouldn't it be sweet if a couple hundred of us showed up to tell 'em what we think?
If they think the DMCA is "balanced" and that CBDTPA isn't...
Actually, there IS some balance in the DMCA, at least in the text (such as it's reverse-engineer for interoperability clause), but unfortunately, in the DeCSS case, Hillary Rosen and her merry bunch of IP cartel mangates were able to get the DMCA rewritten to not include that.
The CBDTPA doesn't even have any pro-forma acknowlegement of ANY existance of "fair use". But, again, as the DMCA has been enforced so far, there has been NO balance.
Why the commerce department is concerned, is very simple. This law would put the USA at a SERIOUS disadvantage in the world IT marketplace. It would with a stroke of a pen, put the slide rule makers in charge of the computer industry.
It would make open source and free software as we know it illegal. And OSS is where much of the world's software marketshare growth has been occurring...
It's also an incredibly dumb and bad law, one which will likely be almost universally disobeyed. Joe Consumer, who may not yet have been affected by the DMCA will be totally pissed by this.
Indeed, even AFTER CBDTPA OS's and hardware comes out, it should be possible for an OS like Linux to completely bypass any such restrictions, as it is the OS, after all, that controls the hardware.
Frankly, I'm amazed that this thing is even being introduced. There is already a lot of resistance to the DMCA, that is already opposed to this law. Also, academia is starting to get involved. The DMCA has already caused:
1. A respected professor (Felten) to fear presenting an ACADEMIC PAPER.
2. A whole application (DeCSS) to be banned simply because it COULD be used to break CSS encryption for the purpose of burning DVD's without it, ignoring the fact that *EVERY* DVD player ever sold does just this, and the fact that it's purpose was to allow the creation of an open source OS DVD player...
Indeed, the introduction of DVD-R drives to the market, and the ease of copying DVD's on them pretty much destroys the circular logic used to convince "judge" Kaplan (who needed little convincing, he rather was looking for an excuse) to ban DeCSS.
3. Has resulted in LINKS to sites not liked by the IP cartel being banned. This despite there is no legal precedent, and nothing in the DMCA that specifies this. This is by far the weakest part of so-called "judge" Kaplan's ruling.
The Commerce department is more concerned with the market implications. No matter how much the US strongarms, there will be some place that doesn't have this law, and that country will have the chance to surpass ALL countrys with CBDTPA in IT, the largest growth industry in the world.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
This is highly speculative and relates to economic science, so please disregard the comment if you don't see my point. Here it is...
I think the US economy needs it's people to pay $20 for 1 or 2 songs on each almbum that they like. They need you to spent $600 on office. In fact, they need you to spend most of your money on high profit consumer goods.
Why? You that you can earn such a high income as a society. Because they can sell you 100^20 copies of office, 100^20 madonna CDs, and 100^20 CPUs without pushing the real sources much. On the other hand, real resources (food, houses, cars) can't grow much easily. They have a lower profit and really limited resources.
So you can earn $20.000 a month, but if you don't spend much of it in stupid stuff (high profit = low marginal cost) then prices of real stuff would LIKE IT OR NOT, skyrocket. And you'll find you are all poor guys like in many countries. So to be rich, you need to HAVE TO PAY $20 a CD, $600 for office, $500 for photoshop and $20 a DVD. Then that money goes back to some coporations that buy REAL resources aboard. And you can then dominate.
So my conclusion is that people in the US are better off buying CDs at $15 or $20 a piece, and paying a lot for software and anything that has huge profit margins. That dilutes the REAL spendings (low profit stuff, pushing resource limits) and allows the dolar and the US to "_expect_ this and that" from the rest of the world "or face the consecuences".
Bottom line: don't complain, it's in your best interest to pay a lot for what IS CHEAP.
unfinished: (adj.)
That the Founders weren't wise enough to end the Bill of Rights as it started:
"Congress shall make no law"...
Every law passed (and there are thousands every year), at the state, local, and federal level creates a new crime and takes away some freedom. And people wonder why we are becoming a Lawyerocracy?
With the million or so laws on the books nationwide, it's IMPOSSIBLE for even the most law abiding citizen to go though any given day, week, month, or year without breaking many...
Which is slavery. The law should be simple, and understandable by all.
We are supposed to be a Republic, based on majority rule through representatives, with civil rights protected by a Constitution. Tell me, anyone, how the DMCA or CBDTPA serves the majority interest, or isn't contrary to the Constitution?
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
" Veto? I pray it doesn't get that far. There can't be that many Media Whores on the Hill... can there?"
Bush already signed an Unconstitutional campaign finance "reform" law, one that makes it a FELONY to buy any advertisement dissing one of your representatives 60 days before an election.
This means, that you coudn't run any ads detailing what Sentator "Disney" Hollings has done TO the Constitution, in the time period where most people who will are paying attention...
Guess who gets an exemption and gets to decide what is said about candidates? The MEDIA, largely owned by the IP cartel. Note that this law will be in full effect next time Senator Disney runs.
This is also the same Congress that passed the DMCA by unanimous voice vote.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
The CBDTPA essentially says: The RIAA and MPAA are good entities, and are being ripped off by the Internet, that was solely created for piracy. So, the only real solution is to turn the computer in to an expensive TV, and making anything that COULD be used for piracy, but probably isn't, illegal. Sad, but thats how the bill reads to me. THe average American would probably say the same thing. But guess what? Most don't even know what the CBDTPA is. FoxNEWS, CNN, and ABC are all owned by companies that back the CBDTPA. Its not going to get reported, and when geeks like us blast this bill after it passes(God Forbid), the news will tell people that piracy is a massive problem and that this bill doesn't do anything but eliminate it. If it passes, I'm convincing all my friends and family to buy brand-new state of the art systems that will last for many years and installing all the software I can get my hands on on these PCs. They can't take away those rights, can they? Then, when the bill becomes active, I'm sitting pretty with high-tech hardware, a DVD burner, Linux and many bits of software that the CBDTPA would outlaw. Of course, it may effect OSS, but since the code is available, you can just remove the offending code. Is it even enforcable? There are thousands of programs available at Sourceforge alone. Come on, the CBDTPA would require TETRIS games to have copy protection inside. If the bill passes, stock up on software and hardware. I mean, get a 1/2 terabyte RAID 0 array. Use Sorcerer/Gentoo and make a 100% updated version of Linux. Buy hundreds of CD-Rs. Build/Buy an MP3 Player. Get Filesharing programs, and share like mad. Buy any commercial software you need/want. Move, do whatever it takes to avoid the bill. Don't buy CDs. Don't buy movies. Go to concerts, and record your music live. There is NO way I want my computer to become an expensive TV. That can't record content. Send your senators mail, telling them to vote against it, or lose their jobs. It isn't the tech industry's job to solve another industry's problem. This bill would give them full rein over OUR computers and technology. Imagine going into a store, buying a CD, going home, putting it in your PC, and your PC tells you that you can only listen to it on a $200 CBDTPA CD Player. You can't rip the songs, and burn them to custom mixes or anything. And you can't play a DVD on your computer, but they have DVD-ROM content. Go figure. FIGHT THIS BILL, SINCE IT TURNS PCS INTO EXPENSIVE TVS!
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
And let the PEOPLE do the PEOPLE's business, which is passing laws. We need a Tammany Hall like operation
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
This shows (again) that the political system called by Americans as Democracy is not that democratic. Where is the statement "From the people, for the people"?
The representatie system the way it is implemented today only represents big corporations and business associations, both capable of keeping expensive lobbies so the legislators can legislate as their will, not as the people needs.
The status quo are supported including for those who controls the media. Ideas like this will never become popular. Don't let them control your opinion, think for yourselves.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
So, instead, paying attention to this comment:
In a speech last week, Rogan said that "negotiations are presently underway among hardware manufacturers and content owners to develop improved means for protecting online content," and legislators should wait for results before voting on a proposal such as the Hollings bill.
We see that the Bush administration instead wants this settled out of public view, in secret negotiations.
Yes, that would technically leave hardware manufacturers free to produce unencumbered devices, but that won't do any good when the mainstream media has copyright protections in the path of accessibility. Then it just becomes the whole deCSS case to view DVD's on unencumbered Linux all over again.
As long as so-called content providers (MPAA, et al) can get a reasonable majority of the mainstream manufacturers to go along, there will be insufficient public outcry to stop them and those who don't wish to give up their fair use liberties will be left out in the cold.
-Robert
No, it isn't. It has to be paid back, with interest. If it is not paid back, they will send it to collections, which will be punishment. They will also take it back from any tax refund, and probably take it to court.
That's not the same as money that does not need to be paid back.
Furthermore, one could treat school, and becoming a better benefit to society, as an occupation. At least it's a form of work. It certainly isn't "free" money.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Mac OS X users should check out SlashDock, which is also free and has similar functionality. It sits in the dock and polls the XML feeds of the sites you select (you can add new ones too), and flashes the icons of new stories when they appear.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
"...a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do."
Nice way to earn allies, asshole.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Do you people not read Lawyerpoint? Rogan is working in the background to get most of CBDTPA accepted without passing CBDTPA (through voluntary standards-setting, but with that legislation hanging around in the air, how much of the tech industry's involvement is 'voluntary' and how much is 'I will participate to prevent a worse disaster')
I'm not totally up on American law, but I'm pretty certain that your constitution guarantees many freedoms (such as freedom of speech). If the CBDTPA is just an extension to the DMCA then it is anti free-speech. Isn't that your first amendment?
... acting as a charity (and handing out money for people to go to school without any guarantees they'll get it back is nothing more than a backhanded charity) and not want it being a charity.
I don't like the way the law is written, either, and I don't like governent regulation of technology, however... ARTISTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR!!!
Believe it or not, it takes real thought and work to produce music and other artistic expressions. The creations are each unique. The bullshit argument that "the people who copy wouldn't have paid for it anyway" doesn't fly. Things distributed in limited quantity have value. The mere act of copying devalues music, just like a counterfeit painting devalues the original.
No, it is not a charity. Sure, there are some people that screw the system, but most do not. Like any other lender, the government expects to be paid back, with interest. They will do everything they can to get it back, including collections actions, witholding of tax refunds, and civil lawsuits. That's not the same as handing out the money for free.
I am assuming you think the 9th grader has an easier life. Hate to break it to you but if he gets a job it will not be easy. People say all the time "Gas pumpers and golden arches flippers have it easy". Well, if so why not do their job? . I know why. Becuase the job sucks. Its physically demanding, or mentally annoying. Either way most everyone who graduates college is looking for the cushy, easy way out with a 9-5 desk job pushing paper.
I NEVER said it was easy. I have been a burger flipper at McDonalds, and it paid the bills. Within six months I was a manager. When I decided I didn't want to do it anymore, I went into the Army. Partly so I could afford more education, and partly to gain more work experience. When I left the Army, I had a job within two weeks. It paid a lot less, but it was still honest wages. When I got laid off from that job, I got another job immediately, again, honest wages. When I became unemployed last year, and could NOT find a job, I went back to school.
What I have a problem with, is that while there are people who genuinely need help, most people "out on the streets" CHOOSE to be there, because they aren't willing to do what it takes to make them successful. They won't go to places like Goodwill or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, or any number of employment charities. (That I routinly give money to so they can continue to do so.) They won't go back to school, and they won't flip burgers. Not because they can't, because they won't.
You can bring up the point that they might be physically or mentally disabled. My school employs about 250 people with varying problems like downs-syndrome, confinement to wheelchairs, and other disabilities. For people with acute sociopathic disorders that prevent them from working, there are institutions that can and will take care of them.
The simple fact is, that the original post pissed me off by basically saying that people who are successful are directly responsible for people who fail, and made the implication that it is the government's responsibility to take from the successful and give to the unsuccessful.
Perhaps you're just confused on the meaning of "fascism". It doesn't have anything to do with work, you know.
I know damn well what fascism is. Our country is a far cry from it. My problem was, the original poster was calling the U.S. fascist, all the same advocating socialism-near-communism. The specific comment "a social policy that leaves people hungry, homeless, undereducated and in poor health" is what pissed me off.
People are hungry because they choose to be, either by choosing not to work, or by choosing not to go to one of the established charities who would love to help them.
People are homeless for the same reason. In the United States, if you are a high school graduate under age 35, I know someone who is constantly hiring. It's called the Army, and they have 212 ways for you to be a soldier. And I'm NOT a recruiter, just a happy customer. They'll give you a home, a job, and a paycheck.
People are uneducated because they choose not to take advantage of the aforementioned student loans, or they drop out of high school.
People are in poor health because they smoke, eat junk food all the time, and don't bother to plan for health care.
All choices for most of those people. For the relatively few who need help, the help is available.
The original poster was trying to imply that our "fascist" society forces them into the position they are in. For most of those people, they put themselves there.
And that's where the last comment I made that you said you didn't know where it came from fits in, though I could have stated it better.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
hhmmm, 2048, multiple of 8... as in bits in a byte. Consipiracy or coincidence?
:)
Yeah, I noticed it after I subtracted 1 and did an XOR with the result.
(I don't normally post this kind of thing so bare with me this time...)
That's the most intelligent piece of political commentary I've ever seen on the Net. Send it to 5!
Especially: The law should be simple, and understandable by all. Is that not the truth?
I don't know why i am replying to a troll but.. oh well. I don't care about the Bias. That is why I come here as a matter of fact. What I care about is a somewhat professional job by the editors.
Go to DC. Find yourself a Sentator. 'Nuff said.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
From the actual text of the bill:
(3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that -- (A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form; (B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or (C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).
Seems to me the only software that would be effected would be CD/DVD writers, media players, web/mail servers, ftp and napster like stuff, mails clients, web browsers, and possibly other stuff I'll think of once I hit the sumbit button.
The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
Refugees exist because smart people know when to get the hell out of the way. You don't call a smart pesant a coward because they managed to get out while the rest of the village has been neatly killed and buried. You call them smart. Smart AND lucky.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
Nice try, thanks for playing.
/., Mr. Baldwin.
I wasn't born with privledge, nor was my family wealthy. I earned my own way. In this country such things are possible and happen every day.
All that it takes is the will and to refuse to play the victim. With your defeatist attitude, you've lost before you even begin to compete. Don't think like a sheep. Be a wolf. survive. win. sheesh.
And on that note, Welcome to
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
Delivery boys for the DMCA as bought and paid for by the MPAA and RIAA. You think it's no coincidence that Hollywood gives about 10 times as much money to Democrats than Republicans?
>ARTISTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR!!!
...don't bother to plan for health care.
I agree. I don't agree about your feelings on piracy (American satellite TV in canada, until this weekend, was absolute proof against your argument), but I agree artists have the right to control their labour.
Unfortunately IIRC, part of the CBDTPA would control how free software can be given away (perhaps I'm confused on this). If so, how can you possibly say the CBDTPA allows for the freedom of will for artists? Perhaps some artists (actually, when one considers most non-commercial sites on the internet a work of art, one could say most people) would rather their work be used by everyone, rather than just everyone with money.
It seems you're a nice person who gives to charities directly. I personally don't (again, a surprising majority of people, especially your friends up north, don't give much to charities). I'd rather (and most of us would rather -- again, if I could find the stats on the net I would, but I only have them on paper) the government worry about who needs my charity money most, and that's why I prefer the government to give it away for me.
>The specific comment "a social policy that leaves people hungry, homeless, undereducated and in poor health" is what pissed me off.
Well, you've got to consider the reason they never make it even close to #1 on the "World's best country to live in" is partly because when the judges see the slums there they are disgusted. [Thank God they haven't seen our Canadian Indian reserves yet]. I'm not an expert in social policy (but I play one on the internet) so I really don't know how to fix that problem.
In most 1st world countries when you are broke, though, you can still get basic medicare, and you can still get a basic living allowance no matter what.
What the guy should have said is "a social policy that leaves lazy people hungry, homeless, undereducated and in poor health". A lot of us feel that just because someone isn't interested in putting in an effort doesn't mean we should leave them in the street to die. You've part of that set of people who think that's wrong, its just your way of giving is diferent.
My thinking has always been that there's a fine line between keeping someone alive and giving them a reason to be lazy. Our Indian reserves are exactly the second half of the problem -- too much money means people who don't care about their lives...
(but anyways, this is probably way off topic now)
>In the United States, if you are a high school graduate under age 35, I know someone who is constantly hiring. It's called the Army
Well... where I am they aren't hiring, and there's a lot of people who take offence at being torn down as a person and built back up as a killer (again, try not to take offense at that, but as a pacifist that's how I see the situation). However, I do agree there's more than enough work out there for people willing to do it! [I've held as many as 3 jobs at a time on top of college when I wanted money, so if I can do that, why can't others?]
>People are in poor health because they...
Well, I'd disagree with that. Yes, they don't plan for the worst (bad health) but that's the human condition, not to mention an aversion to paranoia. That's what stops a LOT of people already in 1st world countries emmigrating to the US [I know its what's stopping me!]. They just don't want to save $100,00 in the chance they'll need it for health care -- insurance doesn't work, I'm sure you've heard the many ways they squirm out of their policies when you need them.
Anyways, I also strongly disagree that the US is Fascist in general. However, I would say that the US would be implementing a Fascist policy in the CBDTPA, and that's why it needs to be stopped!
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Mostly I was just pissed off that anyone would dare call the U.S. fascist. My family is from East Prussia, and one of my relatives was Hitler's chief-of-staff for the military. (A soldier, not a Nazi... I've read his autobiography and other texts.) But, people don't make the distinction of oath of service one's country, and believing the national regime's propaganda. So, as a result, I grew up being called a "Nazi" as soon as that came to light in a class in grade school. So, you see the basis for being offended. After that, it was tirade.
:)
Let me clarify my stance on the CBDTPA:
For the record, I agree with you about the CBDTPA. I don't like the law, and have written letters against it. I agree that there IS a problem with piracy, however.
I used to be a pirate. To be honest, it was mostly because I couldn't afford the stuff I wanted. I would have paid for it otherwise. Then I discovered Linux.
The main reason I brought up content control is that the original poster seemed to think that ANY copyright system of any nature was wrong, and limiting free speech. (freedom of speech and expression is already limited, and I don't have a problem with reasonable limitations... yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, for instance.)
I agree with a non-renewable copyright system. A shorter-time patent system that doesn't include software (reimplentation is fine for all things, and software is covered in copyright) or naturally-occuring substances (DNA).
The big problem with patenting software and algorithms, is that with patents on physical objects, one generally has the chance to invent something that gets the same (or similar) result through different means, at least for processes. That is not true of software, and getting the same result violates the patent. That is just plain wrong.
Anyway, thanks for listening to my point of view, and seeing past the way I put things. That makes you a lot more respectable than most people.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Before you get on your high horse, you would do well to remember that it was your pal Slick Willie who signed the DMCA into law. [...] Left-wingers have never been known to let the truth get in the way of an argument, though...why do you think we had eight years of lies, quibbles, and equivocations?
... one man was even drawn and quartered for copyright violation in merry old England back in the 17th century IIRC).
For the same reason we had 12 years of lies, quibbles, and equivocations before that [Reagan-Bush Sr] (including the sale of what were likely CIA drugs on American streets, Iran-Contra, and a war in the middle-east that was either engineered or a result of amazingly incompetent diplomacy), 4 years of the same before that [Carter], Eight years of the same before that [Nixon-Ford], etc. ad nauseum, back to probably within a generation or two of the founding of the Republic.
The draconian controls Copyright Cartels enjoy under the current legal regime over our popular culture, the draconian laws being enacted to impose an unnatural economic regime (capitalism as envisioned through monopolistic intellectual property regimes) on a domain with no inherent scarcity (electronic media and, specifically the internet) that will likely make the old Soviet attempt at doing something similiar (trying to impose an unrealistic communisim on a world of natural scarcity) look postively liberal in comparison, and the unconstitutional precedence copyright is taking over freedom of speech (despite the fact that virtually every constitutional scholar will point out that Amendmensts, even the first one, always take precedence over their antecedents when they conflict, and thus freedom of speech should constitutionally trump copyright every time) are neither a democratic or republican issue, and attempts to argue this in those terms are bound to result in failure.
Both parties have colluded in passing numerous extentions to the duration of copyright since the 1970s, legislatively robbing the public domain of its constitutionally guaranteed material.
Both parties passed the Sony Bono copyright extention act, which retroactively and unconstitutionally removed material from the public domain.
Both parties passed the DMCA, criminalizing copyright violation for the first time in American history (though not for the first time in western history
Both parties have been in bed with the Moghuls of Old Guard Media, be they recording companies, Hollywood Studios, or television networks stealing billions in public airways for a pittance.
Both parties have blatently accepted legalized bribes and allowed their respective interests to purchase legislation in flagrant contradiction to the public interest, and with open scorn for the same.
In short, politicians in both parties have earned the moniker of "whore" quite publicly, and the only real criticism of the term that is warrented is the lack of the adjective "cheap." How else can one describe selling out one's multi-trillion dollar nation, and multi-billion dollar growth industries, for a few hundred thousand in campagin donations (a total of a few tens of millions for the party, including all soft monies). These people, democrats and republicans alike, are not just whores, nor are they just "corporate" whores, they are cheap whores, who have sold every American man, woman, and child down the river for a pittance.
That all having been said, may I suggest you concentrate on fighting together to prevent further ravagement of our freedoms by both parties. The struggle for freedom of thought and expression, against the copyright and intellectual property regimes being forced down our throats by a particular, concentrated special interest, is a non-partison one, and the enemies to the same are most emphatically non-partison, for they encompass many in BOTH parties. This partisan bickering of conservatives vs. liberals misses the whole point, is divisive and hell, and quite frankly undermines your ability to act effectively in countering these attacks.
In other words, if you remain partisan and distracted from the issues you will have not only been divided, but very effectively conquered, before the battle is even joined.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I don't like the way the law is written, either, and I don't like government regulation of technology, however... ARTISTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR!!!
Believe it or not, it takes real thought and work to produce music and other artistic expressions. The creations are each unique. The bullshit argument that "the people who copy wouldn't have paid for it anyway" doesn't fly. Things distributed in limited quantity have value. The mere act of copying devalues music, just like a counterfeit painting devalues the original.
And the legitimate alternative is "This MONA LISA will self-destruct in 1 year unless you renew your viewing license! You are on day 364 of your viewing allowance! All attempts at photographing or redrawing this MONA LISA will immediately void your license regardless of your previous fee payments and also voids your right of refund!"
Yeah... the no-copy society sure adds value. There is another way of regarding this mindset - EXTORTION. Pardon me if I will ignore all "ART" under these conceptual limitations. The mindset of science is "Publish or Perish". If you don't share your ideas they simply die when you die. Creative information unshared is WASTED and DESERVES TO PERISH.
Imagine a social upheaval that destroys most of the original work and artists. If that work remains uncopyable then it is certain to be lost forever. There is another form of social upheaval that is always present - TIME. The art that has shaped our society remains in PUBLIC collections and not private homes (which can burn down more easily and destroy that art forever). Certainly well-maintained and loved private collections can become a wealth of public value only if they are later shared with the public.
To make a living in the artist's lifetime there must be some copy control. However, in the public's interest the artist must release that copy control so as to ensure their work survives past their limited lifetime. No matter how great the artist the work will not survive their lifetime if they keep it under private control.
The best example you can regard at this time is in the genre of computer games and emulators. Without rampant piracy from that era - EVERY SINGLE GAME AND PROGRAM OF THAT TIME WOULD BE LOST! Think about it. There may have been some financial loss to the artists of that time, but the cost is offset by the value given to later generations by these "concerned collectors". Private individuals will dispose of their old software and hardware when something better comes along at a reasonable price. Pirates will keep their collections intact and transfer it to the new media formats for the later generations regardless of whether they can get some immediate financial returns from the effort. Hell, I honestly feel bad when a software piracy ring gets busted purely because of the long-term value they provide as private archivers. Sure there are public archivers, but they do not keep copies of corporate software because of the fear of piracy. Which means the public archivers have most shareware, freeware, and really crappy freeware. Even though piracy is regarded as wrong it still provides value in the long term that the short term mindset NOCOPY CROWD PERISHES FROM.
Think about it as we return to the age of DONGLES, KEY DISKS, COPY BLOCKS, and other archival-unfriendly methods which kill the joys of our day to future generations. You know what is even more sad? Games today are released with patches being released weeks afterward for obvious bugs. If our future generations want to play the games that thrilled us then, they most likely will not have the patches available that made the games tolerable and will see the bug-filled mess that we endured pre-patched.
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.