BusinessWeek on Open Source and Copy Protection

prostoalex writes "An article starting with the words "Forget about Bill Gates, folks. The biggest enemy of free software may be Senator Ernest F. Hollings" historically had a little chance of being published in a recognized business publication. In this case, though, Business Week (no registration) runs a detailed but straightforward explanation of how the new copyright bills could threaten free software and open source movements."

Comments

Excuse me but

[Anonymous Coward]

there is software development and usage outside of the USA; the USA isn't the whole world. Free software won't just die out because corporatelisimo senators ban it in the USA. Besides, what geek is going to stop using Linux on his home boxen because of some dumb law?

Re:Excuse me but

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Haha. So much ignorance packed into such a small paragraph. Where do I even start?

The USA may not be the whole world, but it is a decent sized chunk of open source development. Sure you won't miss us?

The law won't keep a geek from running linux. The tiny little DRM chip soldered to the motherboard will do that job.

And, most importantly, the EU is full of copynazi's too. Generally, they adopt laws about 5 years after we do. So you'll get about half a decade more freedom than we do, use it well.

Re:Excuse me but

[FrostedWheat]

the USA isn't the whole world

I agree with this, and most of the development of Linux probably takes place outside of the US. But most of the 'big' computer companys are American. And without support from them, Linux will have a hard time getting the support (ie. money) it deserves. Sure it'll still be used, but if there is no commercial backing it may go the way of Amiga or BeOS.

The best thing that can happen now is already beginning, Linux is becoming popular all across the Earth. And the more this happens, the less it'll be vulnerable to silly laws in one country.

what geek is going to stop using Linux on his home boxen because of some dumb law?

We have Linux in our workplace. That's what I'd be more worried about. There's no way it would be allowed to stay, if it became illegal.

I live in the UK, and looking at the recent history of our government regarding the computer industry - I'm not holding by breath.

Re:Excuse me but

[Anonymous Coward]

there is software development and usage outside of the USA; the USA isn't the whole world. Free software won't just die out because corporatelisimo senators ban it in the USA.

OK, imagine this. Linus Torvalds and all the other US open-source hackers have to leave the country when (if, hopefully) the CBDTPA passes. They can no longer travel between any two countries if they would normally stop in the US, for fear of being taken in for copyright infringement, which is now a felony. They get fined thousands of dollars *apiece* for aiding and abetting copyright infringers. Kernel.org, sourceforge.net, freshmeat.net, and others have to move their servers overseas, along with the people who maintain them, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Besides, what geek is going to stop using Linux on his home boxen because of some dumb law?

If copyright protection is embedded in the hardware such that post-CBDTPA computers can't boot from untrusted, unsigned bootloaders (as it must be for this copyright protection to be more than corporate masturbation), Linux geeks are stuck with three choices:

1) Circumvent the protection. Not every geek has a chip fab running in his basement, so attacking this from the hardware side is kind of out. If someone circumvents it in software, the US flexes its extraterritorial influence, gets the software's distribution stopped, and gets the geek arrested.

2) Run pre-CBDTPA hardware with Linux. A couple years down the road, their old hardware results in them not being able to ogle all those OMG HOT HOT MPEG7 shots of Kirsten Dunst in Spider-Man II. Most geeks have no willpower whatsoever. Put 2 and 2 together.

3) Suck it up and use Windows. This results in all the geeks not being able to post about how 1337 they are on Slashdot. In addition, it renders the computer almost completely useless for anything beyond the capabilities of a TV or radio, because that's what Hollywood really wants; a new tube through which they can spoonfeed us bubblegum pop and blockbusters starring bubblegum pop "artists."

The future is now, and the USA is much more powerful than it should be. Scared yet?

-- Just another AC waiting to turn 18 and skip the country.

Re:Excuse me but

[Fat Casper]

there is software development and usage outside of the USA; the USA isn't the whole world.

There are jails inside the US, and the FBI is good at strongarming others to forget for a bit that they are soverign nations.

Re:Excuse me but

[egreB]

Third, I don't believe we've ever done anything to deserve 9/11.

I never quite got how this discussion ended in 9/11, but anyway.. I don't believe anyone deserves murder. Nobody. But the way I see it, the attacks against the US at 9/11 was understandable. Don't get me wrong; understandable, but not acceptable. A friend of mine wrote a text about this, wich reflects my views as well.. please take a look at it here

Re:Excuse me but

[fmaxwell]

I'm a proud owner of a Mensa membership card.

What is there to be so proud about? Mensa membership means that you have a relatively high IQ. Nothing more. It's like boasting that you are tall or have high cheekbones -- also things that are determined largely by genetics.

Those cards don't mean that you have accomplished anything with your life. There are plenty of people that are Mensa members that are boorish, rude, and utterly lacking in morals. There are Mensa members who are drug abusers, wife beaters, thieves, etc.

If you want to be proud of something, do something to be proud of.

P.S. Before you launch into the usual Mensa ad-hominem accusation of "sour grapes", be aware that I was invited to join Mensa by a member, attended one of the meetings, and scored well above the minimum necessary for membership on several tests. I chose not to join and came away with a clearer understanding of the difference between a high-IQ and actual intelligence.

Free software: Its out of the bag

[billsf]

It would seem very hard to take back something that is out and freely available. There will allways be a place where it is legal and a site to download it. Certainly an act of Congress isn't going to stop the worldwide development effort. It has kind of a parallel to the attempt to ban crypto outside of the US. It just won't work and basicly for the same reasons.

Communism!

[weird mehgny]

A while back, the USA had a 'war' against communism. Today there apparently is one against software communism.

/me relaxes in Europe

Re:Communism!

[dattaway]

So you mention communisim. We must first define it. What is it? A government sponsored economy? Such as protection bought by the RIAA and MPAA so we can have manufactured music by the "industry?"

Free software is about as democratic as your going to get in society. Else you have a oppressive government and their owners deciding what rights the common citizen has.

Re:CPU level protection

[isorox]

Nows a good time to stock up on un drmed CPU's, motherboards, hdd's, ram, cdrw and the rest.

Treated well, and unused until needed, each one should late about 7 or 8 years. Get 10 full computers now, a few thousand cdr's, store them well and they should last until the revolution - or at least your death.

Nothing to worry about in ten years.

[3seas]

As CMOS limits in 2012 makes clear, Bloat will have to be removed in ten years in order to continue increasing the power of computing...

Perhaps Hollings thinks he can stop such a machine? Hmmmm.......T3????

Yes MS fate is sealed!!!!!

Re:Hollywood needs to change their business model

[MtViewGuy]

I think the MPAA think they're like the RIAA, but they forget that with the rapid rise of DVD console player and DVD-ROM drive sales many movies now have a major second revenue stream from home video sales.

For example, take the first Harry Potter movie. It has made US$965 million worldwide, but look at how fast the movie has sold on DVD in the UK and the huge pre-orders for the movie here in the USA; that could add US$170 million or more to the total box office receipts for the movie. Indeed, many movies are making their money back just from home video sales.

Besides, the problem with the RIAA is their stupidity in pricing CD's out of the reach of many consumers (US$18 per album-length disc) on a cartel-like basis. If they price is more reasonably (like US$10 per album length disc) the incentive to pirate the music drops dramatically, as anyone who understands basic microeconomics knows.

B Week still does not get it.

[twitter]

It's nice to see them try, but they just can't see past the $. Jane Black misses the point of free software entirely, and so fails to see many important things. While it's true that the Senator from Disney would outlaw all free software if he could, the social harm is not a lack of consumer choice in how to watch movies. Jane's write up confuses and trivializes the basic freedoms that are being threatened.

The first clue that Black has none is her assertion that "consumer groups, plus makers of PCs and electronics gear" were the first to sound the alarm. That may have been her first notice, but others have been thinking about such things and publishing it for much longer, like this man, back in 1983. The whole free software movement is a reaction to OTHER PEOPLE REMOVING YOUR CONTROL OF YOUR COMPUTER AND MEANS OF PUBLICATION, the reasons for it and the evil things required to accomplish that goal.

Jane then goes right back to things that must be nearer and dearer to her heart, Hollywood profits. She's swallowed the lie, hook and sinker, that this is about entertainment and a eighty billion dollar consumer electronics market.

Though confused and rambling, Jane manages to be smug and insulting. Check this out:

Embedding copyright-protection mechanisms into new PCs and other digital devices would mean inserting pieces of software code that are hidden, or locked down, and couldn't be altered. That would amount to nothing less than an assault on the open-source religion, which advocates sharing, collaboration, and free access to code.

That's all I can stand folks, let me set this ninny straight.

It's about freedom, stupid. I don't care if I can watch a movie on my computer. I don't care that a set top box runs propriatory software. What I do care about is some idiot telling me that I have to have a program installed on all of my computers that effectivly makes OTHER PEOPLE ROOT. THAT GIVES OTHER PEOPLE CONTROL OF MY COMPUTER AND MEANS OF PUBLICATION.

Don't get confused. Telecomunications companies, entertianment companies and your federal government are afraid of freedom. That's why someone else controls the wires that go into your house. It's why a 69 channel TV tunner will only pick up 4 or five stations owned by three or four companies. Hollings stuff, however, has the potential to control ALL forms of publication and must be stopped.

A supposed friend that trivializes your issue and get's it all screwed up is not a good advocate. Thanks for looking into it Jane, but keep digging. There's truth at the end of your quest, but you will have to stay away from entertainment pimps, their attorneys and other people only interested in extracting money from you.

note...

[kevin lyda]

before the libertarians mouth off, please not that this is private industry pushing hollings for this law. bad gov't typically gets bought by "free enterprise" when people don't pay any fucking attention to their gov't.

too many people in america complain that their gov't doesn't work right, maybe they should get off their ass and vote a better one in.

ah, rant done, feel better.

hey, go visit fairvote.org

Re:note...

[bafu]

before the libertarians mouth off, please not that this is private industry pushing hollings for this law.

While I am less inclined than yourself to speak for all libertarians, I am intrigued by how close you come to the nub of the issue without actually getting it. I don't assume that private industry is good and gov't is bad... after all, they both have humans in them (and we know how they can be ;-) ). The reason I prefer private solutions in general is that private entities have a much harder time coercing people than gov't ones do. They undoubtably want to coerce just as much as the humans in gov't do, they just have a much harder time. Your next statement illustrates that... what they are proposing to force on others could never be accomplished without the apparatus of gov't coercion.

bad gov't typically gets bought by "free enterprise" when people don't pay any fucking attention to their gov't.

I don't think there is "bad gov't" insofar as that would seem to imply the existence of a good one somewhere, and there's been no evidence of that. The problem here is the ability to coerce that's built into gov't. We allow the gov't to force people into doing things even though we would never allow any private individuals that same ability. Now I'm not debating in this post whether that is a good thing or not, I'm just pointing out that it is a fact. And, whenever we give the gov't new powers, we also increase the scope and strength of that ability to coerce. That's why I have a problem with immediately assuming there has to be a "gov't solution" to every problem that comes up. It's not that I think private entites are saints, it's just that the private devils are inherently weaker than gov't ones.

maybe they should get off their ass and vote a better one in.

...after all, the fact that it has never solved anything before doesn't mean it won't this time. Anyway, voting isn't our only option. We can also try to get interested folks to pay "fucking attention" to attempts at gov't coercion that are beyond even your ability to rationalize away. That what the BusinessWeek article, and this thread, are all about. Your attacks against your imagined views of libertarians are just a distraction from that goal.

Re:Another mainstream advocate on "our" side...

[NumberSyx]

Aside from Intel, I haven't heard any comments from other computer industry companies.

Besides Apple and possibly Gateway, I think we can expect the continued silence of the PC industry. The reality of this unfortunate situation is that the PC manufacturers have nothing to loose. They will make a ton of money selling Non-DRM systems to those in the know and then after the law comes into effect, they will make more money selling DRM systems to those people who don't understand. The OEM's do very little real R&D beyond testing components for compatibilty, it is the component makers who bear the responsibility and cost developing DRM components. By keeping thier mouths shut, they never have to explain to anyone why they sided with priates and terrorists.

Do They?

[wirefarm]

Hollywood is doing just fine the way they are.

The thing is, Valenti's rantings aside, they have a killer business model - no matter how nazi-ish their percieved business practices are, people still flock to the theatre to see whatever crap they decide to spoon down our throats.

(think Matrix, LOTR, Crouching Tiger et alia, Star Wars, and so on...)

I mean, COME ON!?!? This is perhaps the one place on earth where people actually are aware of what is happening with this industry and yet every other story lately seems to be about how we should all flock to the next MPAA/Time-Warner-AOL-Disney-CocaCola/Scientology/R IAA/DVD-Association-endorsed reel of advertisement-laden "entertainment".

If you don't support what they are doing, Don't Go:
Don't go to the theater. Don't rent the DVD. Don't buy the Harry Potter Happy Meal. Don't buy the T-Shirt...

If you can't do that much, then you are showing that this tiny minority has absolutely no hope of making the slightest impact on how Hollywood operates.

Why don't we all just officially give up on this topic?

We're the only ones who claim to care and we don't seem to care enough to change our habits.

Whatever...
Jim in Tokyo