Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Asks for UCITA Reversal
OSS advocate writes "According to this NewsForge article, Red Hat has engaged the services of Carol Kunze (ucitaonline.com) to try to convince the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to take UCITA back. There's a list of email addresses in case you want to send the commish a letter yourself." Red Hat's letter is a good start.
Thank you Redhat for not only helping yourself, but the open source community as a whole.
As an established business, your views will hopefully make it more difficult for the commissioners to justify such laws.
Dear Senators,
I am not an electronics engineer (as per having a paper degree), however I
do engineer electronics that could be said to be equal to someone who has
such a degree. I am an inventor, a musician, a digital creator, an
electronics tinker'r whatever you would like to call it, the name really
doesn't matter as much as the intent. I take thoughts and create material
objects, it doesn't take a degree to do what I am saying. I would also
remind you I am a vetran of the United States Air Force as well as I am
currently a voter (libertarian.) Without creative folks such as myself
and others like Henry Ford, Thomas Jefferson, you wouldn't even have
electricity, lights, computers, and cars.
Statements like the following by the MPAA, "in order to help plug the hole,
watermark detectors would be required in all devices that perform analog to
digital conversions." are not very carefully thought out statements, they
worry me, as to exactly what is going on in my government and here is why.
At least four years ago, I was heavilly into building electronics, I was
engineering a device that converted from analog to digital and from digital
back to analog again. (It was basically a digital audio delay.) I started
with parts from old electronics that people had thrown out on the street. I
have spent many hours desoldering chips, and parts from electronics which
were discarded in this fashion.
I have a full personal library of technical manuals (several different
years) from Motorola, Texas Instruments, Analog Devices, Supertech, Zillog,
Intel, mosteck, National Semiconductor and MANY OTHERS. Basically I can
look up part numbers from nearly any chip and figure out how it works and
what I can use it for.
Durring the course of events I decided one day I wanted to build a digital
delay for my guitar. There were many D2A A2D chips to choose from, flash
converters, etc the list is endless. I won't bore you. To make a long
story short I decided to go with parts from Analog Devices for my A2D/D2A.
I ended up buying some parts from Analog Devices specifically part ADJ569JN,
and I used some memory that I had laying around from all the parts that I
collected. I had to build a counter circuit to make the ram work in each
memory segment for each sample. A fully blown electronics engineer I am
not however such an engineer can easilly verify what I say to be true. So,
basically the MPAA want's someone like me to add a watermark detector to
my digital audio delay. Well first off I do not care about digital
watermarking, that is not my problem, that was not part of my design, and
to be forced to learn how to engineer this into my design is...well insane.
And anyone who passes or suggests such laws is also...insane. So, before
you quickly dismiss me off as some wacko, I would suggest that those who
push such bills and legislation are the true wackos. Where I would rather
be more concerned about removing digital noise from the output (all digital
circuits have noise) and figuring out creative methods of how to modulate
the clock circuit for different sound effects, they *MPAA* would have me
spend my time working on how to put their watermark detector into my
circuit. Frankly with the lack of information (I had to buy books from
overseas to explain how to do digital to analog and analog to digital) that
is available in the United States I would warn those who would decide to
pass such legislation that a.) unless your ready to nuke our economy b.)
ready to make the purchase of electronics illegal. c.) have the brightest
engineers leave the United States d.) anger the public e.) ruin music
f.) ruin creativity by the future youth who take electronics classes in
schools g.) probably ruin your own political career then do not pass such
insane legislation. It is _not_ your place to make such decisions in my
opinion since you are _not_ qualified.
If your so smart to pass such legislation, answer me this. How many memory
segments will I need to use from my 8x8 ram to incorporate digital
watermarking into my Digital Audio Delay Device? Which pins does it need
to be connected to on the AD7569JN? What CHIP (which has the digital
watermarking in it) do I have to buy? How much does it cost? Who is the
maker of said chip? What is the part number on the chip? Is it compatable
with my circuit? Does this chip have any digital noise associated with it
which will bleed into my device? If so how do I supress such digital
noise? If your not ready to answer these questions, then your not ready to
pass this legislation.
I know that most senators and lawyers are not electronics (digital and analog)
experts so what qualifies them to pass law on a technology they do not fully
understand? Furthermore it comes to my attention that other bills like
the SSSCA which have had their name changed over and over, are insane,
poorly thought through, placing the burdon on the wrong folks to solve the
problem.
It also seems to me there are already laws against piracy, so no further
laws are needed. Another thing that upsets me is how these bills slip
through without even consulting the public, or letting someone like me
vote, in many cases government websites are broken and feedback forms
do not work, other times phones are busy, and nobody is around to answer
them, and some political candidates have NO EMAIL ADDRESS! this is
unacceptable. Forcing me to physically stand face to face in order to
get my point across is bad. Forcing me to make political contributions
for legislation is also bad.
Although I am no longer designing electronics at this current point in time
I may want to again. And I know that others like myself in the future will
become interested in Transmitters, Receivers, Digital and Analog
electronics, what in effect you are doing is pushing a new electronics
law (A very stupid law) into the natural laws of electronics. Especially
the young should be encouraged to get into electronics design early on in
their lives. It keeps them out of trouble and away from drugs and alchohol.
Another thing that frankly angers me is by passing the CBDTPA act you are
condemning me for using Linux, which is an operating system that does what
I want. You would be making the personal computer into some bastardised
piece of equipment that plays mickey mouse videos, when I do not even want
that on my computer at all. I use my computer to write code. In some
cases the code can do the exact same thing my earlier discussion on the
AD7569JN does. I do not want my resources being used by the media.
I want my resources being used for what I purchased them for. And that
is development. CBDTPA stifles development. It sacrifices the IT sector,
at the expense of the MPAA.
I do not pretend to have the money that the MPAA has. However is is
unfair to destroy education about electronics and dumb down america.
Which is, despite all, the BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!
I may not live long enough to get back into electronics design again, but
PLEASE DONT ruin the future because of a damned mouse.
Thank you for reading my comments.
UCITA is bad for users of Free Software, but it's also bad for users of proprietary software. It lends validity to the concept of a shrink-wrap license, which means the software vendor can impose pretty much arbitrary restrictions on the use of a software package. Suddenly all those EULAs become legally binding contracts. All it would take to restrict your rights as a customer is a list of terms. It's way too easy.
Just imagine restrictions on the number of people allowed to use a software program, or website terms stipulating that whatever you write becomes the property of the company behind the website. Such terms are not unheard of, and UCITA would turn these and many others into binding restrictions.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
I said UCITA is "bad for users of Free Software" when I really meant to say that it's bad for Free Software in general (the FSF has a good explanation of it).
Having said that, UCITA is indeed bad for users of Free Software. When Free Software authors are held liable for defects while software companies are allowed to disclaim liability (exactly the opposite of the way it should be!), both the developers and users of Free Software suffer. When proprietary vendors are allowed to create closed and legally inaccessible file formats, the developers and users of Free Software suffer greatly.
UCITA is an immense threat to anybody who is not a big corporation.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
example:
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I have read the articles here and on several other sites, and I've read many Infoworld articles over the past few years on UCITA, and I _still_ don't see how it is damaging to Open Source. As pointed out earlier, this page seeks to address the concerns of Open Source advocates, and does a good job of such. I have understood the dangers of large proprietary corps like M$ being able to turn software off and abuse consumers in other ways, but I have not been able to find a single credible reference to how UCITA will hurt Linux developers or users. Can someone post a rational and clear explanation using traceable references to UCITA language that demonstrates the potential for harm? I'm certain that many others would also appreciate clarification.
Thanks
Now, I used a EULA (if you like) on my installer to disclaim responsibility if the program breaks and other various stuff.
Now, as I see it (and please correct me if i'm wrong) the UCITA would benifit me because my disclaimers would be legally enforcable. If the UCITA went away, then I would be stuck in a rather tricky situation where I could be held liable for all the stuff that my licence disclaims.
Or am I wrong? Can someone please explain how the UCITA would appect the hobbyiest programmer like myself that doesn't use the GPL (and hence doesn't distribute source).
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
AOL is the last company that should be involved in anything like this.
AOL = AOL/TW
AOL/TW owns several members of the MPAA & RIAA (who are the enemy with laws like SSSCA and DMCA)
I cant think of too many cases where AOL has been friendly to open source. Mozilla didnt come from AOL, it came from netscape.
Basicly, anyone involved in open source could be involved with this Open Source Association Of America. For example: Red Hat, IBM, SuSe, FSF, OSDN (including sourceforge), mozilla.org, Apache people and others. Such a society could provide assistance, lobbying and stuff with regards to cases where a Big Company is doing stuff thats anti-open source (such as M$ suing someone for figuring out the windows media file formats or blizzard (aka Vivendi Universal) suing someone for figuring out the Battle.Net protocols.)
We need to lobby for laws that protect open source. And also for laws that make reverse engineering 100% legal. Reverse engineering is important to enable Open Source projects to interact with Closed file formats and protocols. Too many companies are using closed file formats, protocols etc to keep open source alternatives out. This practice has been going on since the days of Richard M Stallman and the famous "Laser Printer" incident and it needs to be stopped now.