Sneaking DRM Amendments Through the Back Door

SiChemist writes: "Senator Joseph Biden has revised the 'Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002' to make it a felony to bypass certain DRM technologies. The bill has very broad senate support and is expected to pass overwhelmingly. Call your congresscritter! ZDNET story is here."

Comments

Exerpt

[slakdrgn]

"It is possible, for example, that the bill allows criminal prosecutions as well as private suits against anyone who uses a black Magic Marker to disable copy protection features built into some recent music CDs," Baker says. "At $25,000 a CD, that could be a very expensive experiment."

Quick! Throw away all your markers!!

seriously tho, this is getting insane, soon you'll be forced to watermark your work, but inorder to watermark it you will be charged x amount of dollars, what would this do to the opensource community, expecially since opensource doesn't incorporate drm and I seriously doubt that it will be easy to come up with a standard to incorporate drm into linux without it being hacked to shreds.. We need to contact our senate, tell them this is a big no-no, and this really cound hurt innovation!!

~slak

Re:Exerpt

[bcrowell]

OK, this kind of legislation is awful, but:
Merely creating a fake watermark or digital signature would not be illegal, but "trafficking" in it or redistributing the file would.

AFAICT, the bill wouldn't make it illegal to defeat DRM for your own personal use. It also wouldn't mandate special DRM hardware in your computer.

Re:Exerpt

[Analog Penguin]

AFAICT, the bill wouldn't make it illegal to defeat DRM for your own personal use.

Don't we already have the DMCA to take care of that?

Sneaky Sneaky

[Zephy]

Why Do they feel it's necessary to sneak in legislation? Surely you're bypassing due debate and democracy? Eventually you're going to get a government almost wholly controlled by these huge corporations with big pockets who just want to protect their own interests.

Re:Sneaky Sneaky

[slakdrgn]

Why Do they feel it's necessary to sneak in legislation? Surely you're bypassing due debate and democracy? Eventually you're going to get a government almost wholly controlled by these huge corporations with big pockets who just want to protect their own interests.

You mean its not??

~slak

Re:Sneaky Sneaky

[phillymjs]

Eventually you're going to get a government almost wholly controlled by these huge corporations with big pockets who just want to protect their own interests.

"Eventually"? Oh, you must be an optimist. Because it seems to me that our collective tit is already in the wringer, and the crank just keeps getting turned.

~Philly

Re:Sneaky Sneaky

[Thomas M Hughes]

Re: Why?

That's easy. Because its the only easy way to actually get stuff passed. By re-election time, if all you can do is say about how you sat in Congress and talked grand, but never got anything passed, moneyed interests and voters will support someone who is more willing to get stuff done, even if it means getting their hands dirty.

Remember, most interests really don't care for Democracy. They'd much rather just get their own way, at any means required. Democracy was put in place to hamper those efforts, and because of that, democracy tends to piss a lot of people off.

Re:Sneaky Sneaky

[BobSutan]

Eventually?

Hello, welcome to Earth. The entertainment industry has had a stranglehold on the market since its inception. Now the RIAA and MPAA are flexing their muscle in markets they don't primarily belong to, as in the IT industry. They are lobbying congress to pass laws to prop up their dying monopolies. This act in itself is an afront to democracy and the principles our country was founded on. I say we brand them as terrorists! After all, we all know the headlines and subsequent support that'd pull for us.

Re:Sneaky Sneaky

[grytpype]

Oh, boy, here we go. Check out this quote from the ZDNet article:

Then there's Microsoft's Palladium approach and the separate Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA) project, both of which anticipate the embedding of special security chips in PCs. Since Biden's bill prohibits "illicit authentication features" attached to software, it could become unlawful to distribute software that would run on a Palladium-outfitted computer without Microsoft's permission.

This is a serious, serious problem. Microsoft is trying to make all non-Microsoft software illegal! We need a plan of action, and not just a phonecalling campaign to legislators, although that is important. We should face facts: eventually Microsoft will purchase legislation that will put it in the position of being the only legal provider of software and certifier of hardware in the US. The "Free System" PC-compatible hardware platform we've all grown accustomed to, capable of running virtually any software from our choice of supplier, is going to be contraband and illegal to own, make, or sell. You can and should make your views known to your congressmen, but Microsoft speaks their language ($$$$$$) better than we ever can. (Microsoft has a lot of fricking influence with Washington if they can get the U.S. Ambassador to Peru to make a sales call on the Peruvian government, as he recently did!)

What's making this happen is a truly evil confluence of interests. The hardware industry is hurting because Free Systems have gotten so good there's rarely a need to replace them. Microsoft sees its tyrannical grip on the software industry begining to loosen a bit, under pressure from a variety of sources including Open Software. Free Systems, particularly in combination with Open Software, give users/consumers much more power than Big Business (the *AAs) are used to handling. And of course we have our greedy, corrupt legislators willing to take their money in exchange for passing whatever legislation they want. They result: all existing hardware will become contraband, and will have to be replaced with new, Microsoft-certified hardware, that will run only Microsoft-certified software (of which as much as possible will be sold by Microsoft), and which will include mandatory DRM. Don't like it? Prefer that nice 1.5 GHz Athlon box with Linux or FreeBSD installed? OK, you're now a criminal. I call that despotism. There's no better word for it. Some provisions need to be made so Free Systems and Open Software will survive, even if they have to go underground.

When, in the course of Human Events...

Re:Sneaky Sneaky

[gmkeegan]

Eventually? Got news for you, we're there. Big companies are currently lobbying to lessen the new proposed penalties for corporate accounting inaccuracies, the entertainment industry lobbies to have DRM built into the entire infrastructure, tobacco lobbies to keep a known cancer-causing substance freely available, oil companies lobby to allow drilling development in national wildlife preserves... Not to mention Microsoft being the largest monopoly in the world, but apparently a "good" one, since the gov't isn't really going to do anything to the company.

The immoral of the story is "If you've got enough money, the government will do whatever you want."

Seinfeld

[bcrowell]

Biden said, "Every episode of "Seinfeld" is now available to download free to anyone with access to the Internet."
...and to anyone with a TV antenna.

Re:Seinfeld

[Anonvmous Coward]

Seinfeld is one of those few shows that can be easily transmitted around the web. You don't need to watch very long to see Jerry observe nonsensical about the world, George having a twisted view on how to deal with women, Elaine's problems at work, and Kramer being Kramer. That's why the entire series can fit on one VCD! Heh

Re:Seinfeld

[Danse]

You are aware that if Congress makes a law specifically forbidding fair use (the DMCA already forbids it in practice) that the court would most likely go along with it, right? Fair use is arguably not a Constitutional right, and it certainly isn't explicitly stated. There is plenty of reason to worry.

Obligatory Phone Number:

[staggerlee]

the switchboard at the Capitol is (202) 244-3121, and they should be able to route you to any MoC from there, House or Senate.

sheesh

[krog]

"Every episode of "Seinfeld" is now available to download free to anyone with access to the Internet."

what, does FOX not exist on his planet? :)

Re:sheesh

[slakdrgn]

"Every episode of "Seinfeld" is now available to download free to anyone with access to the Internet."

What I find scary, is people are actually DOWNLOADING episodes of Seinfeld ;)

Alternate title:

[indole]

Forcing Digital Rights Management Up Your Backdoor

Re:Alternate title:

[Richard_at_work]

I guess they`re finally plugging the analogue hole...........

It's not what you think.

[kmellis]

From the ZDNet article:

"Merely creating a fake watermark or digital signature would not be illegal, but 'trafficking' in it or redistributing the file would. In addition to criminal penalties, the bill permits a company whose watermark or digital signature was used to sue for damages 'of not less than $2,500 or not more than $25,000, as the court considers appropriate.'"

That's not circumventing DRM for things you already have fair use on. It's circumventing DRM and then distrubuting pirated material. That's pretty straightforward and even if it perhaps is draconian, it's still only punishing something that's already illegal and that you shouldn't be doing.

Re:It's not what you think.

[evilempireinc]

But what about the methods? Would they restrict you from distributing a program that could add watermarks to your own music collection? This could be construed as 'trafficking' in which case there is a problem here.

Re:It's not what you think.

[Just Another Perl Ha]

It's not just distribution but intent to distribute. For all we know, if you have a copy of a movie (of which you have legal purchased) sitting on your hard drive... the MPAA is convinced that you intend to distribute it.

Those bastards!

Re:It's not what you think.

[Jason Levine]

The article gives the example of a garage band wanting to distribute their music via MP3 and having to fake a watermark to make it playable on certain MP3 players.

Suppose the RIAA actually got their act together with SDMI and forced hardware manufacturers to only allow SDMI-licensed material on their MP3 players (probably via more legislation knowing how the RIAA works). Now Garage Band #5 wants to distribute their songs, but they know they won't be able to be played if they aren't SDMI-licensed. Of course, doing this would cost a lot of $$$ (more than they can afford) but would be included in any standard record industry contract. So GB#5 now has three options:

1. Sign up with a major record label. Upside: Their MP3s can be played. Downside: They are now basically slaves to the RIAA.

2. "Fake" the licensing and distribute the MP3s on their own. Upside: Their MP3s can be played and they don't owe the RIAA money/songs. Downside: They can be arrested for illegally distributing their own music!

3. Forget about making music, split up the band, and do something else. Upside: They don't owe the RIAA anything and they stay out of jail. Downside: Another independent band squished by the RIAA.

If this passes, eventually it might be used by the RIAA (and other similar companies) to squash competition and independents.

Re:It's not what you think.

[Chris Burke]

That's quite true. As written, and in the current computing environment, this isn't a bad thing. The thing I worry about is when the Palladium-enabled Windows comes out (I'm assuming it'll be called Win FU), it will -only- run software/play media files which have official watermarks in them, and you'll end up -having- to forge the watermark. That's a big if, and even if Palladium succedes (I'm hoping very much it dies), certainly the first version won't have that restriction.

So in the end, I guess my problem with this is more about the mentality behind it. If people are creating forgeries en mass, that's already illegal -- so what is the purpose of this law? I can't help but feel it isn't the one stated.

Re:It's not what you think.

[Salsaman]

Well, I would agree with it if the bill mandated that public domain watermarks be created which could be used by anybody to create DRM compliant files.

However, as the bill stands (unless I am very much mistaken), if you create your own mp3 files, say, you will only have three options:

Not include a watermark (in other words, your file will probably not be playable on DRM compliant equipment), or

Pay lots of money to get your own watermark, or

Use a 'fake' watermark.

This bill seeks to eliminate the last option, thus essentially handing a monopoly on artistic production to the big players.

Re:It's not what you think.

[kmellis]

Yeah, this example (a band distributed their own music) shows that something is really wrong. Basically, if it does this, it should also require that "official" watermarks be available free-of-charge for any content-creator who asks for one.

Ultimately, though, there's still the problem of stuff you already have a fair use for. As I pointed out in my post, the law doesn't apply for merely forging the watermark -- it applies only when you distribute something. But, if so, then what's going to happen is that (in terms of file sharing of mp3s) it's only increased the penalties for an already-illegal activity in a roundabout way. A big question is: why?

Personally, I think that none of these people have a clue about technology and so don't understand at all the implications of various laws and proposed laws. I do, however, think that the entertainment industry lobby knows what they're doing, and they are doing everything they can to eliminate fair-use and anything else -- even if very consumer-unfriendly -- to try to protect their profits. Eventually, I think, it's going to come back and haunt them. Right now, it's pretty much only we techno-geeks and early-adopters that are using the kinds of technology that are impacted in a very consumer-unfriendly manners by the things that these companies are pushing. But, as this moves into everyone's living rooms and cars and offices and wherever, people are going to discover that their hands are tied in ways that they will find absolutely unacceptable. Imagine: "I'm sorry, you can't record that episode of 'Seinfeld'". This is the analogy, and people will get really pissed-off. So, in a sense, although I'm quite annoyed, I have a strong sense that all this stuff will be rolled-back in a few years and the companies that are behind it will be punished by the consumer. It will be satisfying when it happens.

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

The article gives the example of a garage band wanting to distribute their music via MP3 and having to fake a watermark to make it playable on certain MP3 players.

And I see no reason to believe that that example is correct. The purpose of a watermark is to "verify that a phonorecord, a copy of a computer program, a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or documentation or packaging is not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright." If the copy is not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright, as in, you own the copyright, then the watermark is genuine, and you havne't broken the law.

Just more FUD from zdnet.

Re:It's not what you think.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Basically, if it does this, it should also require that "official" watermarks be available free-of-charge for any content-creator who asks for one.

That would be nice, even acceptable to me. The RIAA/MPAA would never stand for it though, when people downloaded official free-of-charge watermarks, and applied them to Seinfeld episodes.

You see, for it to work, things have to be restricted.

Re:It's not what you think.

[Salsaman]

Ah, but will you necessarily know what equipment is DRM compliant and which isn't before you buy it ?

Given how many people have been stung by 'copy protected' CD's, you may not know until you get the thing home. Will the store be willing to refund you because your new mp3 (or wma or whatever) player won't play your home made files ?

Also, if the CBDTPA goes through, DRM will be forced into every device anyway, so you may not even have the option of buying non-DRM equipment.

Re:It's not what you think.

[g4dget]

That's not circumventing DRM for things you already have fair use on.

Oh, yes, it is. If I want to produce content that can play on a device that only plays content under DRM, I have to sign it with whatever signatures that DRM device expects. And if those devices are made according to the specs of a small consortium of large manufacturers that only let their own content be played on those devices (or charges steep fees to independent producers), I can't distribute my own content to play on those devices.

That's pretty straightforward and even if it perhaps is draconian, it's still only punishing something that's already illegal and that you shouldn't be doing.

If it were already covered by copyright law, then they wouldn't need this legislation. No, this is a set of new rights for things that are currently probably still permissible.

And it's deliberate: a few, powerful, big companies with lots of money and lots of influence think they can monopolize the market. In fact, for CDs and DVDs, that kind of worked--for a while. This new effort won't really work in the long run either, but it could be painful in the short run. And it could be painful for the stockholders in those big companies that don't have a better business plan than to screw their customers.

Re:It's not what you think.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

If the copy is not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright, as in, you own the copyright, then the watermark is genuine, and you havne't broken the law.

Assuming, of course, that you can even generate a watermark. But maybe the only legal watermarks will have to come from "approved" sources, and that the price to get one may be high. (We'll leave aside the issue of whether I should have to do anything special to display those digital pictures I snapped or to play that song I wrote and recorded...)

Note that we wouldn't need a new law to restrict the vendors of watermarks down to one or a handful of companies. If the DRM hardware or software requires a particular format, and if that format is protected by Big Company's copyright or -- more likely -- patent, then BigCo has a de facto monopoly on that media type. If hacking, faking, or reverse-engineering watermarks is made massively illegal, then that monopoly is cemented in place. And no law had to be passed specifically naming BigCo as the gateway through which creativity must pass.

Re:It's not what you think.

[Jason Levine]

And I see no reason to believe that that example is correct. The purpose of a watermark is to "verify that a phonorecord, a copy of a computer program, a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or documentation or packaging is not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright." If the copy is not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright, as in, you own the copyright, then the watermark is genuine, and you havne't broken the law.

The question is: Who determines the format for the watermark and how is it licensed? If the RIAA determines it (ala a "Son of SDMI" format), expect the licensing price to be very high. High enough that independents will encounter serious financial hurdles. So the hypothetical garage band won't be breaking the law by applying the watermark to their music, but by trying to circumvent having to pay the RIAA a ton of cash just so they (the garage band) can distribute their own music. (Ok, technically they'll be breaking the law by distributing the music with the cracked watermark code.)

Re:It's not what you think.

[zoombat]

I think what they're saying is that the use of someone else's watermark on your stuff is illegal. It would be like writing a paper and stamping it with the raised seal of the IRS to demonstrate that it is ligitamite. It would be inappropriate to forge the IRS's seal, as it would a digital watermark, because it would be a fraudulent statement of certification by someone who isn't actually certifying it. You should stamp it with your OWN raised seal if you want to verify its authenticity for anyone looking at it.

I think it should be illegal to forge a digital watermark.. but only if digital watermark writers are available to anyone and everyone for a reasonable price (which obviously would make this legislative move a moot point in the anti-piracy game as anyone could write a digital watermark to their pirated Britney Spears MP3s) or players should not require a digital watermark to access the data.

Re:It's not what you think.

[elmegil]

Just to restate what others have said, perhaps more clearly:

You have two ways to go here.

• The watermark is cheap and easy to get. Upside, the garage band can release their music. Downside, pirates can do the same.
• The watermark is expensive and hard to get. Upside, pirates can't easily watermark their warez. Downside, neither can the garage band.

Now explain to me why the RIAA should have this kind of complete control over what does and doesn't get released? (and if you don't think the RIAA will get their way with whatever actual mechanism is used to control watermarks, you haven't been paying attention).

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

Who determines the format for the watermark and how is it licensed?

Nowhere does it say that the watermark must be licensed. It only says that it must be "genuine". I would assume genuine would be interpreted as "not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright." If you own the copyright, then the watermark is genuine.

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

You should stamp it with your OWN raised seal if you want to verify its authenticity for anyone looking at it.

I see no reason not to believe that you could stamp it with your own raised seal which is compatible with the players you want to use.

I think it should be illegal to forge a digital watermark.. but only if digital watermark writers are available to anyone and everyone for a reasonable price (which obviously would make this legislative move a moot point in the anti-piracy game as anyone could write a digital watermark to their pirated Britney Spears MP3s) or players should not require a digital watermark to access the data.

I don't think the government should get into legislating private businesses in such ways. If you don't like the player, don't buy it.

I guess you make a good point though that this technology would be pretty much useless for stopping piracy. Similar to the way that CSS is useless for stopping DVD piracy.

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

Now explain to me why the RIAA should have this kind of complete control over what does and doesn't get released?

First explain to me what control is given to the RIAA by this law. The RIAA can already implement these watermarking systems, and it's already illegal to distribute illicit copies.

The solution is simple. If you don't like the player, don't buy it.

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

So what precisely am I going to do when the only players allowed by law are the ones with watermarks in them, eh, smart boy?

I don't know. What precisely am I going to do when Jesus comes down from heaven to destroy evil?

Re:It's not what you think.

[swb]

3. Forget about making music, split up the band, and do something else. Upside: They don't owe the RIAA anything and they stay out of jail. Downside: Another independent band squished by the RIAA.

This is what they want. In the olden days (pre-mid 80s), it was expensive and time-consuming to produce an actual record (flat hunk of plastic) and the RIAA *liked* that kind of barrier to entry as it pretty much funneled talent through their "system".

Now its pretty simple to make your own music. I'm guessing that a sub-$1k investment for software and hardware would allow you to record, mix, master and reproduce CDs on a PC. It might get more expensive if you wanted to record a large number of tracks without pre-mixing them. The only kind of deal you would need with any label is a distribution deal if you wanted CDs in stores.

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

Assuming, of course, that you can even generate a watermark.

If you can't generate a watermark, it's kind of a moot point whether or not it's legal to.

But maybe the only legal watermarks will have to come from "approved" sources, and that the price to get one may be high.

I don't think that's what this law is saying, and at least one other person, but I think Robert Heverly explains that more eloquently than I.

Re:It's not what you think.

[Danse]

ZDNet had a valid point. I'm sure it will be physically possible to fake a watermark. It never takes some people very long to figure these things out. The problem is that it would be very illegal to do so. You would have no choice but to purchase one from whoever is offering them, at whatever price they ask. From the looks of Hollings' bill that would mandate DRM in all hardware, there would likely be only a single or possibly a small group of companies that can issue watermarks. There would be very little incentive for them to make them cheap either. The vast majority would be sold to corporations with deep pockets. So, the garage band that wants to distribute its music would probably have a very tough time, and probably couldn't do it without either coming up with a lot of cash, or breaking the law. Then there's the issue of whether the controllers of the watermarks would be required to issue them to anyone that wants one or not. If the issuers are in bed with the record industry, then perhaps they would only allow bands that are signed with an RIAA label to get a watermark. There are all sorts of ways this system could be very very bad. Use your imagination. The people doing this are not doing it for your benefit. Keep that in mind while you're pondering possibilities.

Re:It's not what you think.

[dmaxwell]

The solution is simple. If you don't like the player, don't buy it.

This assumes a fair and free market in which I can purchase a player and media for it that are acceptable. The RIAA wants no such thing. What you're really saying is that I can't have a good on terms that are acceptable to me and that it is just fine if the market is not allowed to provide it.

Re:It's not what you think.

[spitzak]

"Official watermarks" would not work, since it would be equivalent to removing the watermark to let it play (because you could easily add the official one afterwards). It should be obvious from this bill that they intend future players to not play data without a watermark.

As I have said several times here, it is their intention to make garage bands and all other forms of independent entertainment illegal. They are using "piracy" as an excuse, they know better than any SlashDot poster that "piracy" is costing them nothing, but it works to get their goals passed through congress.

Re:It's not what you think.

[smnolde]

Requiring the watermark sounds more like the Stamp Act of 1765 which "[u]nder the Stamp Act, all printed materials are taxed, including; newspapers, pamphlets, bills, legal documents, licenses, almanacs, dice and playing cards." Sounds familiar, eh? Each of the items above were required to carry a seal....

All this stuff sounds more and more like a repeat of the American Revolution when a letter to Kinge George III was written in protest to the Stamp Act and others in which the Acts violated the colonists' civil rights.

Again, this all sounds like somebody wants control and have the little people pay the price. I'm not for it. I don't go to movies and I don't buy CDs. Any form of entertainment which relegates me to a simple consumer will not and has not receive any of my money.

BTW - the steps leading to the American Revolution can be found here.

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

What you're really saying is that I can't have a good on terms that are acceptable to me and that it is just fine if the market is not allowed to provide it.

Huh? The market is allowed to provide players which don't require watermarked content. The artists are allowed to provide content which is not watermarked. What's unfair or unfree?

Re:It's not what you think.

[DunbarTheInept]

The strategy here is to pass one law at a time, each one of which seems reasonable to Joe Average, but taken in combination leads to the situation where you lose the ability to be your own content provider on the cheap.

First they make it a crime to tell anyone how to break DRM measures or distribute software source code that can be read by a programmer to figure it out, even if that source code was written entirely by you, and you figured out how it works all by yorself without any help from non-disclosure-agreement sealed documents. This step has already been done, it's the DMCA.

Second, they make it a crime with a gigantic fine to bypass DRM and distribute the 'cracked' version. That's this rider to a Bill that's up right now.

Third, they'll put pressure on hardware manufacturers to make it mandatory to have DRM encoded in the hardware, so that choosing to distribute *your own* non-DRM material doesn't work anymore because people's hardware out there will refuse to make use of it. Steps in this have already been taken. Thankfully they aren't done yet.

Simultaneously to that, they'll set up DRM signature-giving groups that are the only ones to be trusted by the hardware, and these groups will give out the keys for a cartel tax, err - I mean reasonable registration fee.

Fourth - the end of open source and competition to the media industry.

Re:It's not what you think.

[DunbarTheInept]

The solution is simple. If you don't like the player, don't buy it.

Bull. It's the player owned by the CUSTOMER you want to distribute TO that matters here, not the one YOU bought. If *I* am saavy enough not to buy into the bullshit the RIAA is throwing my way, that in no way implies that the rest of the marketplace will be the same way, so the cartel will have effectively prevented me from having my own large audience for any independant work I put out, by duping the average customer into buying something that prevents ME from distributing MY work to them.

Re:It's not what you think.

[DunbarTheInept]

Always remember one thing, in the end, we have all the control. If we don't like a cd, then we don't have to buy it.

"We", meaning those people that actually follow the development of DRM laws and give a damn about them, make up such a tiny percentage of the population that no, "we" do not have all the control. "We" are an irrelevant sliver of the cartel's sales figures.

While I agree that the real path to defeating DRM isn't through Congress, it's through educating the marketplace, I disagree that "we" can make that much of a difference, because the marketplace is composed mostly of "them", not "we". If Joe Average actually knew what was going on, he wouldn't want it to happen either, but the problem is nobody believes us geeks. In most people's minds we are the irrelevant crazies who actually prefer something other than Windows. We're the irrelevant crazies who get a thrill from piracy. We're the irrelevant crazies that can't explain our point in sound bites of less than three sentences so we are boring and unimportant.

So long as that perception remains, NO "we" can't make a difference through our purchasing decisions.

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

Bull. It's the player owned by the CUSTOMER you want to distribute TO that matters here, not the one YOU bought.

So now it's the job of the software companies to make players for you? If you don't like the players out there, make your own.

Re:It's not what you think.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

And how are they going to personalize a watermark, without making it easy as hell to crack?

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

So the fact that the RIAA has been lobbying for legislation to require watermarks and other DRM restrictions is considered to be at the same level of logical reality as claims that Jesus will return?

Pretty much, but the important issue is that if either happens we're pretty much all screwed anyway. And neither has anything to do with this particular piece of legislation.

Re:It's not what you think.

[dmaxwell]

What's unfair or unfree?

SSSCA! CBDTPA!

The market will NOT be permitted to provide acceptable solutions. You'll take it up the ass from the **AA just like a law abiding good little boy or you can rot in jail with those pirate independant technologists and garage bands.

Re:It's not what you think.

[dmaxwell]

But you ARE saying it's the job of the software companies to provide the players that the **AAs want. Even if I could "make my own player" something like the SSSCA would be used to throw me in a pound-me-in-the-ass-prison. The **AAs are buying legislation that tilts the level playing field you are presupposing. In the absence of a true free market all of this free market horseshit is just that....horseshit.

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

Even if I could "make my own player" something like the SSSCA would be used to throw me in a pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.

If the SSSCA gets passed, I'm moving to another country.

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

SSSCA! CBDTPA!

Not to mention those two-way televisions in each of our houses. Oh, wait a second, I was talking about laws which were actually being considered by congress.

Re:It's not what you think.

[DunbarTheInept]

So now it's the job of the software companies to make players for you? If you don't like the players out there, make your own.

And in the alternate universe you live in, where consumers actually know what they are buying, that could work. But this is the real world, where people buy lock-in products without even knowing it or having the attention span to give a damn. You're attitude works wonderfully in a free market. The point of these laws, however, is to get rid of the free market by way of the "average joe" ignorant consumer who doesn't realize the consequences of what he's buying. Free market arguments are irrelevant in a world where the free market economy has been prevented via law.

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

But this is the real world, where people buy lock-in products without even knowing it or having the attention span to give a damn.

So what? They don't get to hear the crappy music that your underground band produced. That's the way free markets work. If you don't have money to advertise, no one uses your product.

The point of these laws, however, is to get rid of the free market by way of the "average joe" ignorant consumer who doesn't realize the consequences of what he's buying. Free market arguments are irrelevant in a world where the free market economy has been prevented via law.

I don't see how the free market has been prevented, unless you mean the market in pirating copyrighted works.

Re:It's not what you think.

[DunbarTheInept]

That's the way free markets work.

It isn't a free market when in order to sell a single item of work you have to build an entire vertical market from scratch with new products from the ground up (which is what you were recommending in your original post I replied to) because it's illegal to use the existing infrastructure without being a member of the cartel that paid for the laws.

I don't see how the free market has been prevented, unless you mean the market in pirating copyrighted works.

Choosing to play some music you *purchased* in a way the producers didn't anticipate (such as on a niche operating system they didn't choose to target with their official approved playing hardware) is not piracy. And, trying to get your own work out for sale in the public without paying a 'tax' to a cartel is also not piracy. If you believe this is actually about piracy like the cartel claims, you are gullable.

Re:It's not what you think.

[anthony_dipierro]

It isn't a free market when in order to sell a single item of work you have to build an entire vertical market from scratch with new products from the ground up (which is what you were recommending in your original post I replied to) because it's illegal to use the existing infrastructure without being a member of the cartel that paid for the laws.

Agreed. But this law does not make it illegal to use the existing infrastructure without being a member of the cartel that paid for the law.

Choosing to play some music you *purchased* in a way the producers didn't anticipate (such as on a niche operating system they didn't choose to target with their official approved playing hardware) is not piracy.

It also has zero to do with this law.

And, trying to get your own work out for sale in the public without paying a 'tax' to a cartel is also not piracy.

Nor does that.

If you believe this is actually about piracy like the cartel claims, you are gullable.

You are the one who is gullable, believing what a few paranoid freaks on slashdot claim. RTFB.

The usual gang of idiots...

[gilroy]

Good to see our regular Rogues Gallery of senators. Blockquoth the ZDnet article:

Its sponsors include key Democrats and Republicans, including Senate Commerce chairman Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the top GOPer on the Judiciary committee.

Re:The usual gang of idiots...

[Tackhead]

> The trio I shall now start calling "See No Evil, Hear no Evil and Speak no Evil", or "Dumb, Dumb and Dumber"

Yeah, but this is Hollywood we're talking about. You think they're gonna put restrictions on evil? Hell, no! How about this:

"See no content, hear no content, publish no content."

Consumer Support?

[Tall Rob Mc]

While it's unclear what Biden hopes to accomplish with his new bill, it is clear that it's forward-looking: Consumers soon will be offered more and more hardware devices that rely on electronic watermarks, digital signatures, or other cryptographic means to thwart piracy and improve security.

Just because consumers will be offered more and more copy-protection enabled hardware, this does not mean that consumers will buy more and more copy-protection enabled hardware. Why am I going to buy a new MP3 player that will only allow me to play mp3s with watermarks when my current 20 gig iPod will be sufficient enough for me to listen to music until it mechanically fails (which could be in 40 years)?

Re:Consumer Support?

[Just Another Perl Ha]

The biggest problem here is the mere use of the term consumer. I'd getting sick and tired of Congress Inc. forgetting that we are citizens first and consumers much later on down the list.

Re:Consumer Support?

[Chris Burke]

It's not like they're going to have the new DRM player in the store with a big sign saying "New player! Restricts your rights like never before! Enjoy new levels of slavery to big media!" They'll just quietly slip it in, like they're trying to do with broken CDs. More likely they'll stick it in with whatever technological upgrade comes next. I don't remember any DVD kiosks with big signs saying "High quality pictures! Extra features! Encrypted region encoding to enforce our artificial market segmentation!", do you?

I'm not so cynical that I think that not enough people to make this fail would care if they knew exactly what was happening. The problem is education, and that's the last thing the media companies want in their consumers. So it becomes our problem, and what I do worry about is that there isn't enough of us around to say "hey, don't buy that, it's a restrictive piece of crap".

Re:Consumer Support?

[zCyl]

If only it were that simple! Unfortunately, politicians "represent" us on a number of different topics. To some people, abortion is the most important, for others it might be guns, economy, military, spending in their district, ...or DRM.

This is the severe weakness of a democracy that requires representation. Those who are eligible for office must both want it and have the rhetorical ability to acquire it. By the time the system reduces to the remaining candidates, it is impossible to choose a candidate based on his or her entire platform. Because of this almost every issue the voters care about must be ignored come election time, and decisions have to be made based on either a single special-interest issue or "general character", which is simply a product of commercials and rhetoric.

I wish someone knew a better system.

Re:Consumer Support?

[Rakarra]

so let me see... that would be about 34 years of 24/7 operation.. If you use it for 8 hours a day (a lot in my opinion).. that would be about 102 years. That seems a little absurd.. but that's what absurd benchmarks get you.

I don't believe that's what MTTF refers to. That's more likely what will happen if the drive is left on continuously with no motion and little or no disk activity. Actually USING the disk will alter that number significantly. Powering down the drive on a frequent basis will lower that number even more. Those numbers are basically meaningless for hard drives.

Re:Consumer Support?

[Rakarra]

If they want to sell mp3 players that force you to use DRM - and I'm reasonably sure companies will be offered incentives to do just that - then they'll just dream up another "must have" feature, and market it.

They don't even need to go that far. One extremely easy way to guarentee adoption would be to convince the RIAA or MPAA to adopt a new format. Since virtually all new content (either music or movies) coming out would be offered in this new format, consumers would jump at it.

Now... this is something that wouldn't be done overnight. If the RIAA stopped selling CDs tomorrow and started only selling DVD-audio with special DRM requiring a new player, there'd be rioting in the streets. But not if the entire process was spread out over the space of... say, a decade. DVDs are close to completely replacing (and phasing out) VHS, but they're not quite at that point yet... but DVDs are still young. The MPAA can afford to be patient.

What he really meant

[Salsaman]

You have to learn to read between the lines. Undoubtedly what he really meant was:

"Every episode of "Seinfeld" is now available to download free (from commercials) to anyone with access to the Internet."

Re:What he really meant

[0x0d0a]

Actually, I believe what he meant was "(I wish someone would break into my website and put up a couple of divxes so that) every episode of Seinfeld would be available to download free to anyone with access to the Internet."

How long until TV shows ARE purely ads?

[Nomad7674]

With all of these fears about our being able to view a show without the ads that pay for it, I have to wonder how long it will be until some advertiser simply completely funds a show with omnipresent product placement. Under this kind of structure, the advertiser needs not worry about the show being displayed anywhere without the money-generating ads, because they are imbedded into the show.

For example: FRIENDS brought to you by Coca-Cola

1. Openning shot of the whole cast chatting in a new Soda Bar, having rejected Central Perk
2. Joey is no longer a Soap Star, but now a spokesman for Coca-Cola and part of the plot each week are the shenanigans surrounding the commercial shoot he is involved with
3. Racheal is managing a new line of fashion clothes with the Coco-Cola logo on them
4. Monica runs a restaurant which makes a point each week or pointing out that they only sell genuine Coca-Cola products
5. Ross is involved with an archeological dig, having left paleontology behind, which proves the ancient Incas lived to over 100 years old because of the home-made cola they brewed and drank every day
6. Chandler makes witty, sarcastic references about other soft-drink companies, without every actually mentioning their names.

Tell me now, is this idea funny or terrifyingly close to reality?

Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads?

[gorilla]

This isn't actually a new thing. Listen to some old time radio shows, and the sponsor was part of the show. The reason that the industry moved away from this model to the adverts in the breaks models we see nowadays is mainly because of reruns - you don't want a program with last years message being shown.

Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Tell me now, is this idea funny or terrifyingly close to reality?

Well it might be pretty close to reality -- see Minority Report for over-the-top product placement (though I think the satiric element justified it). But to be effective, the placement would have to be blatant. I suspect Coke might end up scratching its corporate head wondering why the #1 show tanked so decisively, once the system is in place...

On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I have real hope for the revolution of the average consumer, that people simply won't watch ad-saturated shows or buy over-DRMed media.

On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, I feel real despair at the coming victory of the corporatists.

On Sunday, I don't read slashdot. :)

Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads?

[Thomas M Hughes]

If you stay up late enough, you do end up seeing entire programs dedicated to selling just one product. They're called infomercials (I guess, because they're commericals that provide 'info', or something). Anyway...most are actually produced in such a way as to appear as an actual television program, and to draw in the audience and make them want to participate in this show. Generally, its pretty easy to tell its all a sham. But when you can't sleep, you watch strange things.

Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads?

[elefantstn]

I'm not sure how you could classify Friends selling out as "terrifying."

Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads?

[Arandir]

True, expect for one huge difference: radio shows from yesteryear were actually humorous, witty and intelligent, as opposed to today's television which is so stupid it insults lower simian life forms.

Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads?

[0x0d0a]

What product placement was in Minority Report?

The most egregious product placement I've ever seen is easily in Sneakers, with the asprin bit. :-)

Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads?

[Saeger]

Whether it's communism or terrorism, it's still the shameless exploitation of patriotism.

It's just like those FUCKS who wrap themselves in the US flag or use 9-11 references like "let's roll" in order to create sheep-like patriotic demand for their bullshit warez.

If course, these ultra-capitalists will tell you that exploiting patriotism for profit is the very definition of a god-fear'n capitalist-worship'n American...... even if the product being sold was manufactured by communists(!).

--

Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

What product placement was in Minority Report?

I don't know, but once the movie ended, I felt a strange compulsion to finish off my Pepsi(TM) Cola and check my Bvlgari(TM) watch to see if I had time to hop into my Lexus(TM) coupe and drive over to the Gap (TM) before they closed. But instead I decided to book a vacation using my Nokia(TM) phone and data I'd downloaded to my transparent Iomega PocketZIP(TM) disk.

:)

Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads?

[Rakarra]

The most egregious product placement I've ever seen is easily in Sneakers, with the asprin bit. :-)

If you want egregious product placement, look at the corporate sponsor bit in Wayne's World. Oh, you meant serious product placement! Well, Spielburg seems to be king in that area. Look at the Reeses placement in ET. Or the potato chip placement in Poltergeist (Pick up bag and hold it square in front of camera for three seconds. Then shake a few chips out into hand while the bag remains in front of the camera). Etc etc.

Biden irony, it takes one to know one

[splorf]

Biden is the guy whose presidential campaign in 80's crashed and burned because he was caught plagiarizing a speech originally given by some politician from the UK. Now he's trying to crack down on unauthorized copying of music and software.

Will there be a "campaign speech" exception in his Senate bill? The irony amazes me. What a twerp.

Re:Biden irony, it takes one to know one

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just "some politician," an extremely Socialist one, and the plagiarizing was some stupid heartwarming story about his family supposedly being poor. Biden is the kind of pol who totally supports public schools -- unless you're talking about his own kids!
me

Re:Biden irony, it takes one to know one

[Arandir]

There are no socialists in the US government

Considering that Bernie Sanders is a Socialist by party and by name, and that his views seem moderate in comparison to certain committee chairman, I would say that you are in error.

The only thing stopping the US from being a bona fide socialist nation is the fact that we haven't nationalized all industries.

You know what to do folks...

[Dutchmaan]

WRITE... YOUR... CONGRESSMAN!!!

http://www.berkshire.net/~ifas/activist/index1.h tm l

Re:You know what to do folks...

[zoombat]

Even if you don't (necessarily) know who your rep/senators are, you can contact them online really easily:

Contact your Representative

Contacting the Senate is a little harder since they don't have as nice a web-feedback engine (each senator has a different system), but it is still pretty dang simple.

Re:You know what to do folks...

[symbolic]

This will be only partially successful - it's like trying to stop the flow of water after dam break. I say fix the dam, but obstructing the flow of water further upstream. That "water" is what you and I know as our hard-earned dollars - currently going into the pockets of these IP owners. No money, no revenue, game over - or at least the groundwork has been laid for a different, more reasonable set of rules.

I DO NOT CONDONE STEALING of intellectual property, but I do think the constant, ever-tightening, legal stranglehold that the entertainment industry has on its IP, and worse, how this ownership is being used to control peripheral issues that have nothing to do with the IP, is getting quite absurd. If there were more people willing to pick up their marbles and just stop playing this sick game, some common sense may actually work its way into the process.

DRM advocates: the same silly analogies again

[JaredOfEuropa]

In the article, litigator Megan Gray compares forging watermarks to forging logos on T-shirts:

Gray believes that forging a digital watermark or signature should be just as unlawful as forging a physical watermark or signature. "It's like taking a T-shirt that you've put a design on and then attaching a Disney hologram or the NBA championship hologram, distributing it, and giving people the impression that it's an authorized apparel item from the NBA or Disney," Gray says. "That's a deceptive practice that we have a long history of banning."

They are putting a nice spin on the reasons people would try and circumvent DRM: note how they again portray such people as thieves, and they suggest that the reason they want DRM is to prevent theft. They have other motivations as well, of course.

Why would I circumvent DRM? To steal? Maybe not, and let's take the T-shirt analogy further... suppose I buy some Disney T-shirt in the US, but Disney does not want me to wear the T-shirt in Europe. (Perhaps they've recruited the fashion police to check, or the God of Corporations will smite me with lightning if I do wear the T-shirt). Yet, I want to wear it so I fake a European Disney label and sew it in the T-shirt in place of the US one.

Clearly a crime worthy of a stiff penalty and a jail term

Re:DRM advocates: the same silly analogies again

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

suppose I buy some Disney T-shirt in the US, but Disney does not want me to wear the T-shirt in Europe ... Yet, I want to wear it

What are you, some kind of terrorist?

I wish I could append a little smiley there, but in this climate, there's little to smile about...

Re:DRM advocates: the same silly analogies again

[Dr. Awktagon]

Why would I circumvent DRM? To steal? Maybe not, and let's take the T-shirt analogy further..

Yes, let's...

The new DRM T-Shirt has a small hologram on the corner. If this hologram is not present, the T-Shirt heats to a temperature of 160 degrees and the user is forced to take it off or suffer 2nd/3rd degree burns.

Obviously, this is a great way to keep the conterfeits off the street and out of the closets. So the TIAA (T-shirt Industry Ass. of America) pays for a few congressmen's whores, and we have a new law passed that ALL T-Shirts must be made of DRM cloth (the company that holds the HeatShield(tm) patent is incidentally quite pleased).

No one complains, except for a bunch of geeks that probably steal everything anyway (I hear some of them downloaded their operating systems without paying anybody a dime, what thieves!). A few small T-shirt makers also complain about the extra burden to their business and go out of business. Congress talks about how great this law is for "free" markets. Richard Stallman writes an essay from his undisclosed location (by this time, free software has long been outlawed).

The day after the law is passed, a 7-year old girl playing with her mom's sewing kit discovers that any HeatShield T-shirt can be turned off (that's "circumvented" to you lawyers out there) by sewing a piece of silk to the spot the hologram goes on.

She tells her parents, who say "that's nice dear, did you drink all your Coke(tm)?". Then she posts the story on her weblog and IM's her friends.

Somehow the story makes it to /. and the word gets out. Geeks everywhere laugh and the lawsuits start flying. Sweatshirts (T-shirts require the special cloth, remember) are printed with the words "sew a piece of silk here" and an arrow pointing to the hologram location.

T-Shirt counterfeiters in China who discovered the trick long ago chuckle to themselves: "actually you can do it with the right piece of tape, cheaper than silk".

At 5:56 AM exactly two days after the story hits the FBI breaks down the girl's front door. Luckily, the FBI had a full log of the girl's IM conversations (she had mentioned that she thought something was "the bomb", which triggered the 7-day automatic logging period). And luckily again, due to recent anti-terrorism legislation, the FBI didn't need to waste time with a judge.

The parents are charged with several counts of "hacking" (max. 20 years), several counts of "failing to prevent textile theft" (max. life), and several counts of "electronic fraud" (max. 10 years). The girl is placed in a juvenile prison. Her computer is seized. Slashdot and other websites are forced to sensor the posts and take down the articles.

The T-shirt lobbies for tougher legislation, siting this example. Pockets are lined, the law passes.........

Watermark? Share and share alike?

[Interrobang]

Forced watermarking could be a very bad idea for all of us who produce music/movies/literature in our basements (or reasonable hand-drawn facsimiles). Where am I, a piker who puts together stuff with a PC and freeware, going to get expensive watermarking equipment?

Likewise, what would be the impact on those of us who don't live in the US, but might want to export our created media there (I have a lot of US friends and I like to share)?

What about independent record labels etc. within the US who don't particularly mind people sharing their music? I seem to remember one of the original Dead Kennedys albums came on one side of a cassette tape, with an inscription in the liner notes something like "Home-recorded cassettes are killing the music industry. Go and do your part."

Even though one poster had the valid point that this bill seems to be aimed at direct copyright infringement, where the MP/RIAA and friends are concerned, the definition of "copyright infringement" seems to be "any media transaction where we don't take a cut." We (here in Canada) already have levies on blank media (yeah, the equivalent to the MP/RIAA gets paid for every CD-ROM backup I make) -- what more could they want? Our first-born children? Our souls?

Even their Poster-Boy is against these revisions

[WEFUNK]

Microsoft originally applauded Biden's bill when it covered only physical counterfeiting, saying in a press release in April that it closes "a significant gap in federal protection of copyrighted works including software." Current federal law covers only "counterfeit labels," not physical holograms or other packaging material.

But Microsoft indicated on Friday that it had problems with Biden's revisions. "Those issues, from our perspective, highlight the reason why we support the legislation as it was originally written," said spokesman Jon Murchinson.

I can't see this going anywhere if one of the biggest potential beneficiaries is against the amended legislation (certainly pirated Microsoft software is being used as a key example by proponents).

I wonder if this is because 1) Microsoft is actually concerned about individual rights; 2) they see the 'pirating' of content as an important application/revenue stream for their software and hardware platforms; or 3) they're holding out for something even more heavy-handed?

Redundant Law

[Washizu]

If it is illegal to circumvent DRM technologies, then what are the DRM techs there for in the first place? To prevent accidental copyright infringement?

Re:Redundant Law

[Saib0t]

If it is illegal to circumvent DRM technologies, then what are the DRM techs there for in the first place? To prevent accidental copyright infringement?

Let's rephrase and see if you understand now...

If it is illegal to pick locks to enter houses, then what are the locks for in the first place? To prevent accidental lock picking?

... ... ...

Re:Redundant Law

[Washizu]

If it is illegal to pick locks to enter houses, then what are the locks for in the first place? To prevent accidental lock picking?

Haha. Good point, but I buy locks to protect my property. With DRM, they're selling you locks to protect their property.

I don't have a problem with DRM being used if that it what someone wants, but I don't like that the law may require it.

Re:Redundant Law

[richieb]

If it is illegal to pick locks to enter houses, then what are the locks for in the first place? To prevent accidental lock picking?

Actually, picking locks is legal. Entering someone's house without permission is not (I guess that's breaking and entering, if you have to pick a lock).

DMCA makes it illegal to pick locks, without the entering part. So, if I get locked out of my house I'll get arrested for picking the lock to get back in.

Re:Redundant Law

[Saib0t]

Actually, entering people's house without their consent is already illegal. The original poster said "What's the point of putting DRM, it's already illegal copying". My reply is "What's the point of putting locks on doors, it's already illegal to enter them".

The idea is that although something is already illegal, you protect your things extra to try and prevent the need to file suits or make it harder for people to break the law. If you left your door without a lock, would you trust the people not to enter it?

Re:Redundant Law

[richieb]

If you left your door without a lock, would you trust the people not to enter it?

Depends where I am. I never lock my car when it's parked outside my house (in the suburbs), but I do when I park it in New York.

just delaying the inevitable

[g4dget]

This whole approach to DRM and software will collapse under its own weight. Nothing will talk to anything else, consumers will be frustrated, and there will be endless lawsuits about monopolies (don't believe for a moment that IBM or Sony are going to hand this to Microsoft for free).

Think about it this way: each consumer has some amount they are willing to pay for entertainment per month--the pie doesn't get any larger. Companies that have lower costs, lower prices, and satisfy consumers more will get that entertainment dollar. Do you really think complex DRM schemes are going to lead to usable and inexpensive devices and content?

What's going to win out in the long run is either no DRM at all or devices that anybody can author to; there won't be any need to imitate Microsoft's or anybody else's signatures. That, or people will just go back to small, live performances. In any case, the big media companies pushing for this are going to lose out. They had a golden era with vinyl and CDs, where they could mass-produce cheaply but consumers couldn't replicate, and there was no alternative or competition. That's over now.

Nevertheless, while it just delays the inevitable, it is disappointing that politicians don't get this. And it is particularly disappointing that some politicians are so much in the pocket of vested interests that they try to push through such legislation without much debate.

Re:just delaying the inevitable

[Arcturax]

Exactly! At this point we might as well give up on this worthless fight and when things come crashing down around their ears, we should instead by ready to fill the hole it will leave behind with the next big thing. All these guys are going to do is piss the public off more and more as their laws adversely effect more and more people and eventually destroy their own political careers.

If anything, these guys should be under as much scrutiny as Rep Trafficant was for his own bribe taking.

Re:just delaying the inevitable

[Lysander Luddite]

While your arguments are valid, I believe the idea is to legislate requiring a single DRM soultion into the market place and requiring hardware to conform to it.

If this comes about then cost would be irrelevent since everybody would be required to sell and buy it. I'm sure the proponents thinking is that economies of scale will drive the cost down. Besides, they pass the cost to the customers anyway.

I expect eventually a micropayment scheme will emerge based on access rights.

It still doesn't address how "the little guy" will be able to certify her works will play in DRM systems.

Re:just delaying the inevitable

[j7953]

Companies that have lower costs, lower prices, and satisfy consumers more will get that entertainment dollar.

Ahh, but you're assuming the economies of a free market. When DRM technology is required by law, it will be illegal to operate a company with lower costs, lower prices and satisfied customers.

Re:just delaying the inevitable

[mobiGeek]

or people will just go back to small, live performances.

I hate to point it out, but this assumes that the Mass Market is able to pull themselves away from the mass-media-pushed entertainment.

The reality is that we don't like what is going on here, but the Mass Market is (1) oblivious to it, and (2) susceptible to the Big Media "message".

Britannie (sp? whatever) didn't become tops because she makes good music. Neither did 95% of the "chart toppers".

So we can believe that it will all collapse on itself, but we can't rely on it. The cold reality is that restrictions are pushed on the market and consumers tend to buy it up.

Divx didn't fail because "people can't stand being restricted". It failed because it appeared to bring very little benefit to the consumer (and was in essence wasteful; it's biggest "pro" was "don't return the disc, throw it away").

If Divx had brought some "eye-candy" to the market that was not available elsewhere (i.e. if they had beat DVD to the scene by a few years), then I am quite sure that it would stay.

So, how does DRM/SDMI/etc... successfully get rolled out? The makers put one team into developing the rights-technology and one team into adding "selling features". ... oh, yeah, and twelve teams lining pockets...

Re:just delaying the inevitable

[mobiGeek]

Dark Side of the Moon, which stayed on the charts forever and almost everyone knows, if only for 1 song

Which one song: the first side or the second side?

:-)

With DSOTM on CD, it is just one song...a very close second to Echoes (the original song...they released no albums after 1982...)

I have a little more faith now...

[h4mmer5tein]

....thanks to Sony.
And thanks to kuiken for the leads...

rights?

[dacarr]

When in the course of...oh, fsck it.

Let's keep in mind that this is likely a bill passed in the heat of 9/11. They Who Know Best (TM) are still battening down the hatches, and continually trying to "securitize" this country.

Perhaps we need to remind or congresscritters and our president that the lack of freedom and high security are not a good mix.

Interesting link...

[zerosignal]

http://www.nutsandboltsguide.com/plagiarism.html

"The last straw, however, came when it turned out that twenty years earlier Biden had received a failing grade in a law school course for plagiarizing a legal article (he'd given a single footnote while lifting five full pages from the article). Biden said he'd been unaware of the appropriate standards for legal briefs, but the public was unimpressed. His campaign collapsed and he withdrew from the race."

Problem of education ...

[too_bad]

This again has the same reasons as many other outrageous
copy-right laws that are being danced around. People simply
dont understand the technological details, and blind anologies
are made for the common public.

Take for instance:
> Gray believes that forging a digital watermark or signature
> should be just as unlawful as forging a physical watermark
> or signature. "It's like taking a T-shirt that you've put a
> design on and then attaching a Disney hologram or the NBA
> championship hologram, distributing it, and giving people
> the impression that it's an authorized apparel item from the
> NBA or Disney," Gray says. "That's a deceptive practice that
> we have a long history of banning."

But this is such a misleading statement. Consider the case where
you buy an expensive MP3 player from microsoft which plays only
digitally water-marked mp3 files. On the offset it may look like
this law is prohibiting me from playing a pirated song. But look
deeply. What its prohibiting is me playing _any_ songs which are
not water-marked by the some governing body. Which means that if
I make my own music (however cacofonic it might be) I will not
be able to play it unless I get it certified from this governing
body.

In light of this, it becomes clear that not only they are stopping
piracy,with this law, they are also giving themself absolute control
over what content can be played by people (even privately) and what
should not. How easy would it be for me to certify my own "music"
(or noise) by these governing bodies? Obviously I have to stand in
line along with the other members of RIAA and pay the prices that they
set. This is extremely dangerous situation, since the misleading phrasing
of the bill makes it impossible for ordinary senetors to understand the
ramifications and hence we could expect a wide spread floor-banging approval.
The very fact that this bill is set for fast track, scares me more
becasuse they precisely didnt want the time for people to let the real
meaning sink in.

Re:Problem of education ...

[Chris Johnson]

But this is based on an assumption- the assumption is that the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft will be able to produce media players that play only watermarked content.

That time is not here yet, and passage of this legislation gives you a potent weapon against that ever coming to pass- it impedes adoption of that kind of player, by raising the legitimate issue of penalties for playing your own content.

It goes from "Yeah, you could buy that, but it won't play CDs" to (literally) "Yeah, you could buy that, but getting it to play CDs is a felony that will get you five years in prison, and good luck getting a job as a convicted felon!"

This is an opportunity, not an obstacle, because the fact is that DRM media players are NOT widely adopted. Across the board, this serves as a polarizing mechanism. How appealing is it to upgrade to Windows XP (DRM Edition) when any 'get my mp3s to play' hacking or tweaking could legally land you in prison for five years as a felon? How 'must-have' is that upgrade when (for the first time) it demands you sit still and don't touch anything for fear of committing FEDERAL CRIMES? How appealing would a portable media player be that not only won't play your unDRMed CDs, but if you dare try to fool it you risk five years imprisonment in federal prison?

These arguments against DRM things are not relevant right now. But they could be! And it'd be better to have them available, than to have everything transition (with much pushing from the content industry) over to DRM and THEN have the punishments legislated. This is a political favor and should be treated as such.

Give them their penalties- and then kill any hope of DRM ever succeeding, with 'sure, if you want to spend five years in federal prison for playing your own CD' sound bites. And save the slashdotting of legislators for when the content industry tries (it will) to make unDRMed content itself illegal- because that is absurd, and way more easily fought.

And, if the 'five years in prison' legislation does pass, then it completely sabotages any further attempt by the content industry to legislate away non-DRM stuff. Doing that in a vacuum may be possible. Doing that when 'amateurs', legit users of non-DRM stuff, face prison, is political suicide. Bad enough to make your CD collection legally unusable, but making it a Federal crime to use it? Forget it.

Then, the DRM people can try to sell their DRM products in a market that also includes (by law!) free and unencumbered products, further hobbled by the 'five years in the federal pen' reality.

I would go so far as to say, SUPPORT this and hope it gets through- because we aren't looking for a quick fix, right? It's like judo- the law is mostly unenforcable but political dynamite to be used AGAINST further DRM agendas. You point to it and go, "You can't pass that DRM-mandating law- look at what it would mean!" That's when you fire up the PAC and slashdot the senate phonelines. You use this as a neatly planted spoke in the wheels to stop ANY further movement in the direction of mandated DRM.

Who's writing the DRM software?

[freerangegeek]

One thought that just came to mind is that someone, somewhere is implimenting this software to create and propagate things like digital watermarks. Maybe it's time we as programmers to an equivalent to the 'hippocratic oath?' Swearing to do no harm by agreeing not to create the kind of nightmare software protections we see coming to be?

First do no DRM!

You forget something

[JaredOfEuropa]

In order for these watermarks to have any effect, they need to convince or force hardmare manufacturers to make their hardware play only watermarked, approved media. They know this, and they are already actively trying to get the hardware manufacturers to do this. Without the requirement of a watermark to be present, i could simply strip the existing watermark out and play/redistribute as usual. I'm not creating a fake watermark and thus I am not breaking this law.

The result would be that older unwatermarked media you legally own, music produced by garage bands, and other legal but unwatermarked materials, will not play on a newer player that has DRM. This law makes it a felony to place fake or forged watermarks on such media, even if your sole intent is to allow the media to be played on newer DRM-enabled players.

This bill is a step towards forced DRM, and as such we should oppose it. The next step will be to require new hardware to support DRM.

Re:You forget something

[ThePilgrim]

But you will be able to, because your new DRM enabled Video Cam will add a personal watermark

Re:You forget something

[spitzak]

Your personal watermark will only play on your own Video Camera. It will not play on any other device.

Mom & Pop will be satisfied with this. They may forget that there was once an ability to move data from one device to another.

Re:You forget something

[Hrothgar The Great]

That is because the whole strategy of DRM is to pass SEVERAL pieces of legislation. If they put all of the undesirable features in one, they might actually arouse the anger of Joe Average, and their dream of a country where only cartel-related "artists" can produce content will fall flat on its face. As it is, they'll be done before most people even notice.

Re:You forget something

[Rev.LoveJoy]

I'm paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln, "The best way to get rid of a bad law is to strictly enforce it."

Cheers,
-- RLJ

Re:You forget something

[Stephen Samuel]

It looks to me like the bill does NOT make it illegal to place the watermark on the unit. It DOES, however make it illegal (to the tune of $2~$25K) to lend ("traffic") that watermarked unit to your {girl,boy}friend. I find this bill questionable, but not a terribly high priority.

It is, however, one small step in the direction of a data despotism.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The rights of the many (us) vs the greedy.

[crovira]

Given the shakeout occuring in the media abetted by the rapid disappearance of the advertising revenue stream, the content producers are entering an very difficult time.

Seems nobody can get anybody to pony up some cash just to have some bimbo wave her ass with their logo on it.

Radio and television started this by having "free" broadcast funded by people flogging their wares. Ask PBS how they survive and get a real picture of broadcast costs.

The internet and the web compounded this in an orgy of freebies and swag funded by IPOs, investors greed and lack of common sense (Warren Buffett never invested in the bubble because he never saw how these people were going to make any money once the IPO money ran out. He was RIGHT!)

End result, nobody wants to pay for squat.

But producing content (as unsatisfying as the pabulum that's regurgitated by ad-funded media might be,) costs. And nobody wants to pay for squat.

Given the balooning real and accounting practice BS costs of the blockbuster mentality you get studios that wither on the vine after one less than stellar season. The RIAA and MPAA members are victims of the same pressure and resultant paranoia. They have to play it safe while following a trend which is set by the players who aren't playing it as safe. (It keeps the shares of Pepto-Bismol and Tums in the stratosphere.)

Want to know why DRM is such a pain-in-the-ass but the AAs'll sell the economy down the sewer to get it?

Because nobody makes B movies anymore. They go straight to video and don't generate any buzz that would attract viewers and maybe get them to buy the product.) Nobody know how to generate buzz anymore. Ads don't cut it with Tivo or even the remote having perceptible results on the ad ROI.

Wanna know why the publishing industry is turning into a contentless wasteland?

Same friggin reason.

Misapplied greed. (This is above and beyond the USPO "patent buying for corporate black-mail by the unscrupulous [lawyers and other parasites.]")

The Web has the potential to make a meaningful buzz but search engines don't friggin cut it. The web will have to be ORGANIZED, INDEXED and cross-referenced the same way that libraries have been since the Great Library of Alexandria.

The days of "Cowboy Content Creation" are over. Creatrion of web content will have to be via XML with precise industry standard DTDs.

Otherwise you just get lost in the noise.

Re:The rights of the many (us) vs the greedy.

[Silverhammer]

The Web has the potential to make a meaningful buzz but search engines don't friggin cut it. The web will have to be ORGANIZED, INDEXED and cross-referenced the same way that libraries have been since the Great Library of Alexandria. The days of "Cowboy Content Creation" are over. Creatrion of web content will have to be via XML with precise industry standard DTDs. Otherwise you just get lost in the noise.

That all depends on what you're trying to generate buzz for. If you're one of those same Big Media corporations trying harness the Internet to generate artificial buzz, then you're right.

However, if you're an independent creator who just throws his stuff out there for everyone to enjoy, with no obsessions about profit margins or ROI, then you're wrong. The buzz will happen all on it's own.

A perfect example is Sluggy Freelance. It does almost no appreciable advertising -- and certainly less than MegaTokyo or Penny Arcade -- yet it is arguably one of the most popular and longest running comics on the Web.

How did it happen? Strictly word of mouth.

I think the corporate-driven hyperconsumerism of the last few decades has perverted our fundamental notions of just how the free market is supposed to work. The Internet is simply restoring the universality and equality that we used to enjoy in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, when anyone could buy an old printing press and call themselves a newspaper.

However, the trade-off is that we're now facing some devastating economic contraction. The dot.com bust, the slump in the media and advertising industries, the current financial scandals... they're all just symptoms of a larger problem: as the artificiality of hyperconsumerism is increasingly exposed and rejected, many modern corporations are discovering that they have no real reason to exist. They don't fulfill any real human needs. Their only products are novelty and convenience. Without a captive and ignorant audience, they're doomed.

Re:The rights of the many (us) vs the greedy.

[richieb]

The days of "Cowboy Content Creation" are over. Creatrion of web content will have to be via XML with precise industry standard DTDs.

Hey, Cowboy!

You mean that "content" visible on the web will have to follow standards? Standards that no one owns? You mean that any page will be viewable with Mozilla, not just IE? If, so then let's bring it on.

Otherwise you just get lost in the noise.

Ah, but what a wonderful noise it is.

Internet makes it possible for people to communicate with other people (like I'm doing right now). This is what the big media is missing. Internet is not a broadcast medium, big media is not necessary.

Re:The rights of the many (us) vs the greedy.

[Salsaman]

Exactly. Just remember how fast 'All your base...' got around the net.

Software, CDs and "Counterfeiters"

[joshsnow]

"counterfeiters flood markets with their underpriced products and steal a great deal of revenue."
I think not. If I can't afford to pay for a copy of Windows I won't be buying one from Microsoft regardless of the availability of "counterfeits". If I can't afford, I can't afford. It's the same with CDs - they're way too expensive. I can't pay for what I can't afford. If software and CDs were cheaper, I'd spend far more of my megre disposable on them. But they're not, so I can't.
It's about time that people like this Congressman faced up to the fact that consumers are being ripped off by monopolistic corporates,

Re:Also note...

[Chris Burke]

that the above is a troll.

Making a conclusion based on a 2/3 majority of a sample size of 3 is pretty stupid. By that logic, since 1 of 1 presidents involved with the Enron scandal are Republican, voting rightist is an even worse idea.

Let's look at reality, as encompassed by more than just this one article, and realize the truth: Corporate Whoring is a bi-partisan initiative.

Zdnet?

[asv108]

Somebody better mirror the story quick!

Tom Cruise steps in and says

[Our Man In Redmond]

"Our Man In Redmond, you are under arrest for the future piracy of a copy of 'Dude, Where's My Car.'"

My letter and email to Sen. George Allen. . .

[Salgak1]

(R-VA, one of the co-sponsors. . . )

As one of your supporters, who worked on both your campaign for Governor and Senator, I am appalled to find that you have co-sponsored S.2395, 'Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002'.

Initially, the bill appears to be a legitimate defense of the property rights of the intellectual property community, and if it only went that far, I would support it wholeheartedly: piracy and copyright infringement are serious problems. However, the extent of the bill is so far over-reaching, that the secondary effects of the bill will likely produce a "boomerang effect" in the future.

Why, you may ask, do I think this ? Consider the world in a few years, when Digital Rights Management (DRM) is incorporated into consumer products and operating systems. Microsoft is ALREADY working on this in their "Palladium" initiative, and intends to integrate this technology into consumer Windows in the future.

Now put yourself in the position of a small software company, or of a small band of musicians. The 'Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002' would make it nearly impossible for anyone to publish new software or produce new music for electronic play, unless they had purchased, at high expense, a official digital watermark acceptable to consumer electronics and/or computers.

While this prediction may seem a bit exaggerated, I point out the recent effective death of Internet Radio. . .from too-high licensing fees. The same large organizations who did this back this measure as well.

Great music, great software, and great computers usually start small, and on a shoe-string. Obvious examples are a small college band from Blacksburg that made it big: the Dave Matthews Band. Or a small company that wrote and sold a BASIC language compiler, and grew. . . into Microsoft. Or a couple of guys who started hi-tech in a garage: both Hewlett-Packard and Apple Computer started that way. Or, for that matter, a single grad student, who wrote the core of a major operating system: Linus Torvalds and Linux.

Under the long-term effects of S.2395, none of these would be possible in the future. Senator Allen, S.2395 looks good in the short term, but its' long-term effects on software, computers, and music are no less than devastating. I urge you to both revoke your co-sponsorship of this bill, and to vote against it when and if it comes to the floor of the Senate. . . .

What about first sale?

[anthony_dipierro]

"the term `illicit authentication feature' means an authentication feature, that [...] (B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the respective copyright owner."

How much you want to bet that this is used to stop people from legally exercising their right to first sale on ebay.

Know Senator Biden better.

[Futurepower(R)]

You may be interested to know that Senator Biden said on national TV that Osama bin Laden's complaints about U.S. support of violence and repressive regimes was justified. (NOTE: This does NOT say that violence is justified.) A carefully accurate transcript of Senator Biden's remarks is available under the heading Senator Biden says the Saudi government cannot continue in power without U.S. government support . (The article takes a long time to load.)

Re:Biden irony, stealing speech from Neil Kinnock

[zoward]

At the time, Joe Biden was a presidential candidate. He blatantly stole a speech from then British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. Word leaked out (or, actually, a member of Mike Dukakis' campaign team (I think it was Joe Sasso) discovered this and "leaked it out"), and Biden was forced to withdraw his candidacy.

senators' phone numbers

[benedict]

http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

...scratching its corporate head wondering why...

[dpilot]

and no doubt they'd blame it on PVR and Internet piracy, and call for more/stiffer DRM legislation.

reruns breaking show-as-as model

[dpilot]

But now with digital technology this year's messages can be inserted into those reruns.

What no laws for.....

[3seas]

Where are the anti-innovation and anti-creative/originality laws?

Where are the laws to protect our rights to be innovative and creative?

Attention Delaware Voters

[RailGunner]

Joe Biden is up for re-election this November. Send him a message by voting for his Republican opponent. Throw his ass out of office. He's a career politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's been there 3 decades. DO THE RIGHT THING! FIRE HIM!

C'mon - someone in Delaware register DefeatJoeBiden.org or something and DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS JACKASS... And - idiotic DRM bills shouldn't be the only reason to toss him out of office... see for yourself.

http://www.issues2002.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm

Maybe this is a GOOD thing, iff

[dpilot]

We have another piece of legislation at some point, guaranteeing that non-DRM content ALWAYS be playable on systems capable of playing similar DRM content. Or possibly remove ALL watermark power from the ??AA, so they become customers of the Watermark Police *just like me*. Actually getting that last clause implemented is one thing that gives me reservations about the whole idea.

Let the ??AA keep their old model. Let them make it as onerous as they want. More power to them, let them make it absolutely obnoxious to use their content. Let them make it illegal to watch it anyway except *precisely* the way they intended.

But just keep the door open to competition, some way for the small guy to "publish."

My original wording was "get published," but that can't be, because the small guy could probably always "get published" so by signing away all rights, and letting the small guy keep rights is part of what this is about.

15 Minutes

[borgasm]

Quoting from a report in Biden's website:

...an individual can download a full-length feature movie in less than 15 minutes....

I'd really like to know where to get that kind of bandwidth, and how much it would be per month.

700MB / 15 min = 46.67MB / min = 777k/sec

Please God...hook me up to that pipe.

Re:15 Minutes

[adam613]

A lot of college students have bandwidth like that. I used to be able to get speeds up to 900k/s when I lived in university housing.

But we didn't waste our time downloading movies. We just used Windoze file sharing to watch them from someone else's hard disk.

Too Late

[DerFeuervogel]

Eventually you're going to get a government almost wholly controlled by
these huge corporations with big pockets who just want to protect their own
interests

Eventually? From where I sit, it seems like that's already happened. The
US needs to do something about who and how much can be contributed to
campaigns.

Whatever happened to campaign finance reform?

Re:Too Late

[Arandir]

Whatever happened to campaign finance reform?

The public realized that all the campaign finance reform proposals were coming from entrenched politicians. Unlike the typical media pundit, the typical citizen realizes that putting politicians in charge of this kind of reform is like putting the mafia in charge of police internal affairs.

Oh the irony!

[A nonymous Coward]

For those who weren't around, Senator Biden lost a lot of face, and (IIRC) a shot at the Democratic presidential nomination, due to plagiarism. There was a joke at the time something like this:

Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and Gary Hart are on a cruise ship which starts to sink.

"Save the women and children first!" shouts Mr. Reagan.

"Screw the women and children!" shouts Mr. Nixon.

"We got time for that?" asks Mr. Hart.

Then someone added Mr. Biden to the passenger list.

"We got time for that?" repeats Mr. Biden.

And this is the guy who wants to make DRM breaking a jailable offense. I wonder if it includes just plain plagiarism.

Re:Senator Biden is my Senator

[Oculus Habent]

Perhaps if:

• People did what they knew was "right"
• Companies didn't take advantage of their own power
• Litigation wasn't a career path, but a means to correct problems
• We had more faith in our government
• We used our influence as the populace in goverment
• We cared about other people

... we might live in a better place and all be happier.

But to do that, we'd have to stop living the way the commercials tell us to.

--
Don't think how we tell you; think what we tell you. Drink Sprite!

Just let it go

[Illserve]

Let them pass whatever DRM stuff they want and wait for it to collapse under its own weight. Joe Consumer isn't going to care about DRM issues until it bites him in the ass when he can't play his legally purchased CD because the SONY license server was down. And it won't bite him in the ass until this stuff gets through.

The longer and harder we fight the media conglomerates, the better developed their tactics will be and the harder it will be to undo the damage they've already done. Let them race ahead with blind and untested confidence and make the inevitable mistakes we can forsee, then nail'em hard and make it permanent.

Here's what you do.

[DaveWood]

I just did it; it's pretty easy. You can do it before lunch in about 5 minutes.

You go to this web page:

http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

Search through the page using the "find" function in your browser for your state abbreviation and find your two senators.

If you have trouble getting their names, they're also listed by state on this page, but without phone numbers:

http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state. cf m

You call each of them. Calling senators and even house members is generally very easy; they usually know not to make potential voters wait on hold, they're very polite, and they are supposed to take notes and tally the opinions of callers throughout the day. This isn't as important to a senator as money, but if, say, 20,000 people (a tiny fraction of the /. readership) attempted to call about an issue on a single day, they would take serious notice.

Keep it polite, friendly, and under 5 minutes. If you can make your point in under 60 seconds, bonus points. Remember, you're just talking to an intern manning the phone, not a participant in a conspiracy. They might even be curious about what you have to say.

"Hello, I'm a voter from the Senator's home state of XX. I'd like to express my opinion on some pending legislation." And then they say go ahead, and you say, "I believe that the extravagant protections we are considering affording copyright holders are bad for our society and bad for our economy. I strong support the repeal of the DMCA, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and today, I'm calling to inform you of my intention not to vote for anyone who supports S.2395, the Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002. Existing protections for copyright holders already go too far, and this bill would make it worse. Unnecessarily restricting fair use, free speech and free expression to protect the interests of media companies is morally wrong, and will make it harder to protect intellectual property in the long run."

You could get into a habit of doing this. Calling your representatives about an issue should be a normal part of your routine, like paying your bills or cleaning your house. The more people do it, the better things get for everyone.

Re:Here's what you do.

[tongue]

I just called Phil Gramm, and while you're right, its way too easy NOT to do it, I have my doubts as to whether my opinion is going to make a shred of difference to this congressman.

I'm not convinced that the intern manning the phone will pass along my opinion for one thing--the guy sounded like i was interrupting his soap operas or something. secondly, the guy is a republican from texas, and frankly, I think he's a little too beholden to big business, and media in particular.

Re:Here's what you do.

[Hornsby]

Great advice! I never realized how easy it was to voice my opinion. I'd like to add that if you don't have the time or inclination to call, or you can't get through(i.e., busy signals) then there are forms for comments on all of the senator's website where you can simply type in whatever you were planning on saying. Granted, this probably isn't quite as effective as a phone conversation as you can't guarantee anyone is actually reading what you write; however, it's still better than nothing, and if you like being a lazy activist, it might be right for you.

Re:Here's what you do.

[shaunj]

The problem with this idea is that the average slashdot reader is not knowledgeable enough to express their own opinions on this. I've been guilty of it myself (though less and less). Sometimes I find myself telling about all the evils I read about on /. and then when someone challenges me, I realize that I don't really know anything about it.

What you propose is something simple. But being a responsible citizen is not simple because you have to be aware and savy. You said it only took you 5 min, but I don't think you would have been able to write that speech if you hadn't spent at least 30min researching and thinking about what the issues here are.

-Shaun

Re:Here's what you do.

[DaveWood]

All your points are very good ones. I can only say this. I wrote this speech because I'm familiar with the issue, as are a growing number of people here, so that others who get the jist can just read it and be saved the 30 minutes.

Society is supposed to work that way; opinions and strategies trickle down from specialists near an apex of a paricular issue to successively less and less specialized citizens. From experts and attorneys and career civil liberties campaigners to journalists like Taco etc. to me, and I reinforce that with some redundancy (reading about the issue from multiple, hopefully independent sources, and thinking about it critically). Then I digest it and pass it on again.

Specialization is vulnerable to counterfeiting; that is, pretending to be an expert whose opinion should matter, but actually just saying whatever benefits you, or whatever you've been told (or taught) to say. This is more commonly known as lying. This is a big, essential problem with our society today. Nonetheless, the system isn't broken, just under stress, and /. is an excellent example of a system that helps us accurately do this process online.

Re:Here's what you do.

[seaan]

Yes, contacting them by phone is easy, but I do have one suggestion. Instead of giving them a 5 minute speech on the phone, simply tell them that you are opposed to it. Than offer to let them know the reasons, and ask them the best way to do that.

During both of my phone calls they asked me to fax my reasons instead. It makes sense, because your carefully selected words have a better chance to get through that way. The person you contact on the phone is going to make notes, but don't count on an exact rendition of your elegant arguments. Most likely the senator will get some kind of mass summary of all calls, but important points you may have made will be lost. If you really want arguments heard (as opposed to your simple opposition), you have a much better chance with fax or email.

Re:This will even out....

[Chris Burke]

I really, really you're right.

I guess the difference is going to be how much they are able to make it like the VHS -> DVD transition, instead of the working CD -> broken CD transition. Most people don't realize they're missing anything with DVDs. If they can somehow get mom to not -expect- it to play her old mp3's, but still want it anyway, then they can still win.

The examples of DVDs and DiVX

[A nonymous Coward]

DVDs and the region codes got in without much complaaint. DVDs also don't allow skipping certain parts, like the FBI copyright warning, and some trailers and advertising. The public has accepted them.

DiVX failed. It was too blatantly a lousy consumer sell.

So the RIAA and MPAA have learned. They have a good chance of slipping in all the DRM crap they can pay for in Washington, DC. Once it's legally mandated, there won't be any alternatives.

Re:The examples of DVDs and DiVX

[Rakarra]

DVDs and the region codes got in without much complaaint. DVDs also don't allow skipping certain parts, like the FBI copyright warning, and some trailers and advertising. The public has accepted them.

To a certain extent. When Disney released DVDs with commercials that couldn't be skipped, the uproar was loud enough to convince Disney to change its policy and allow commercial skipping. But usually there's no way to fast forward through the much-shorter FBI warning. Thus, they have learned that you can't impliment a sudden change that is extremely obnoxious to the average consumer. You have to take baby steps over a time frame. A little here, a little there. Careful erosion is the key.

This is unenforceable.

[zerofoo]

Even if these laws are passed, are there enough lawyers and policemen to actually prosecute the 150-200 million music listeners in this country? How about the entire world?

Congress has bent over so far to accomodate the music/movie industry, that they are now creating laws that can't possibly be enforced.

These guys just don't get it...the pirates will still go about their activities and the DRM crap will just make life hard for the paying consumers.

-ted

Re:This is unenforceable.

[Dyolf Knip]

Go ask the DEA. I'm sure they're very knowledgable about trying to enforce stupid, unenforcable laws.

Re:This will even out....

[zzyzx]

The VHS->DVD transition might be a poor analogy because the region encoding is much worse with video tapes. With DVD's it's just a software flag, but VHS regioning is due to different formats. No one lost anything with their DVD player that they had with their video tapes.

Restrictive technology advertising and prediction

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

At Comdex before the DeCSS fiasco, a vendor was advertising a DVD playback card that had "CSS support to play Hollywood movies" (undoubtedly with all the restrictions on copying/using the output that would entail).

I predicted the whole DVD fiasco here on November 21, 1998.

Here's my letter (1st draft)

[Irvu]

Dear Senator X,
[it's going to both a version will go my Rep as well]
I am writing to you today in regards to Senator Howard Berman's proposed Digital Rights Restriction provisions. These provisions have been included as amendments to bill number S2395. As a Software Developer and a citizen I oppose these provisions wholeheartedly as they will only serve to stifle competition and restrict legitimate research not prevent any unauthorized copying of copyrighted software, music or movies.

The stated goal of these provisions is to prevent the unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials. To that end, they make it a felony to produce a fake watermark or "digital signature" in order to fool watermarking technologies. They impose stiff criminal and civil sentences on the act and make distribution or intention to distribute these watermarks an offence in their own right. While this may seem reasonable on the surface I assure you that it is not.

Digital Rights Management is becoming a ubiquitous technology. It is already at work in DVD players, many music players such as handheld mp3 players. Microsoft and Intel have announced that it will be embedded at the lowest (Processor) level of their new systems, and the FCC is seriously considering mandating it in the Digital Television and Digital Radio standards. One pair of senators (Fritz Hollings and Ted Stevens) are seeking to make it mandatory in all new technology via the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act.

Because this technology will lie at the core of Microsoft's new operating system it will be necessary to obtain a watermark key in order to run any software on future versions of Windows. As a software developer I would be forced to obtain Microsoft's permission to develop and run software on my, or anyone else's machine. In short, I would need Microsoft's permission to do my job. I cannot imagine any legal tool more anticompetitive than that.

The same is true for Intel and AMD's proposed secure chips. These chips would embed watermarking at the processor level making it necessary to obtain a signature in order to develop any hardware or software for the AMD or Intel platforms. This would stifle the hardware vendor competition that has made computer hardware a 300 billion dollar a year industry, brought the prices of computers down, and fueled the recent economic boom.

Let me be clear that I do not oppose the principle of watermarking in any way. As a security technology it is useful and I feel that Intel and Microsoft should have the right to include it in their systems if they wish. However I feel that such technology should be open to examination and the general public should have a choice about which technologies they do and do not adopt.

It was Microsoft's ability to examine the CP/M operating system that allowed them to produce the first version of DOS, and Intel's ability to examine IBM's PC designs that allowed them to enter the PC market that they dominate today. Such open competition is beneficial to the economy.

This is also the case for movies, music and electronic books. By prohibiting other users from producing watermarks you are allowing groups such as the MPAA, RIAA, and others to control the DVD, and Digital Television distribution channels. In, effect, granting them monopoly control over who can and cannot produce movies and music in this country. Again this competition would stifle, not only innovation but the economic gains to be had from the 30 billion dollar a year music and movie industries.

Lastly, these provisions will also stifle useful research. Digital watermarking technologies and Digital signatures underlie many security systems in use today ranging from defense to private industry. Research on these systems involves attempts to break into them in order to test their strength. Scientific Peer-review of this research depends upon the ability of these researchers to share their findings and to test each other's results. This work allows those individuals to produce better, more secure systems to the benefit of our National Security and Economic infrastructures. These provisions would make that work illegal. This would seriously impair both our Economic and National Security.

These provisions are unnecessary because, as senators Berman, Hollings, and Stevens well knows making unauthorized copies of "Sinefield" or any other copyrighted work is illegal. These acts are already punishable by law. We also have a justice department capable of carrying out such investigations and prosecutions. Indeed, these provisions will not make the act of piracy any "more" illegal. They will only stifle economic competitions and industrial research.

In the end, even if these provisions are passed they will not prevent piracy. They will only permit a small subset of the business community to unfairly control the economic and cultural landscape of this country. This group will be in a position to decide who can develop software, who can distribute music, who can distribute movies, and who can conduct security research. In such an environment of inflated prices, the incentive to piracy will be far greater, and the likelihood of any real security weaknesses being identified will be far less.

Thank you for your time.
Irvu.

Re:Here's my letter (1st draft)

[Irvu]

True, Intel does not make full PC's. However, they do make Motherboards in addition to their processors, and derive much of their business from the massive clone market, a market that they help to direct by setting "standards" and acting as point of refrence for rival chip makers and motherboard designers.

So, I am not asserting that they are clone makers per-se but that their business, and their leverage within the market, derives from their initial ability to access the PC spec and to build off of it. Imagine what position they would be in if IBM had simply demanded the chip but told them (along with everyone else) nothing about how it worked? They would be, basically, a subserviant chip maker building to IBM's Spec. At preset they are the bull in the HW market.

haha

[Dr. Awktagon]

The T-shirt lobbies for tougher legislation,

Ha, of course I mean the T-shirt LOBBY lobbies for tougher legislation.

Fax Your Congressman for Free

[Alien54]

Congressmen and Senators really pay attention to faxes and phone vs email

Numbers USA has a free service for faxing them. Yep you got to register, but this makes sense so that you don't have spam bots abusing the service.

Re:You forgot option #4

[Danse]

Wow, even a post attempting to put the best possible face on this concedes that it would be quite unfair and difficult for independent musicians to get their music out. I think that's reason enough that this bill should die a horrible death. But unfortunately it won't. People will gradually get used to the fact that you must have major corporate backing to publish anything at all. More and more laws will be passed to cement this idea in place so that existing oligopolies will continue to thrive, with no real chance for anyone to challenge them.

Re:Watermark? Share and share alike?

[Dolly_Llama]

What about independent record labels etc. within the US who don't particularly mind people sharing their music? I seem to remember one of the original Dead Kennedys [alternativetentacles.com] albums came on one side of a cassette tape, with an inscription in the liner notes something like "Home-recorded cassettes are killing the music industry. Go and do your part."

That was In God We Trust, Inc. The Casette version (it was an EP, their best one imho). The B side was blank with a note encouraging the listener to record other music on the blank side.

Re:Watermark? Share and share alike?

[eyeball]

[MP/RIAA]...what more could they want? Our first-born children? Our souls?

They do, but their marketing people haven't figured out exactly how to take our first-born and souls, then license them back to us on a pay-per-view basis.

Re:Senator Biden is my Senator

[Tackhead]

> Perhaps if:
> > People did what they knew was "right"

"Quaker Oats. It's the right thing to do."

> Companies didn't take advantage of their own power

That commercial where the lovely guys at Philip Morris send a truckload of Kraft Dinner to some flood-ruined podunk town. Gee, what a nice happy ccompany! Or all the Exxon "Who cares about the environment? People do." ads after the Valdez spill? Wow, Exxon cares more about cute birds than anyone!

> Litigation wasn't a career path, but a means to correct problems

That luser in the $10 suit saying he's the "people's lawyer", and he'll "work for you against the big bad insurance companies that want to deny you your accident coverage".

> We had more faith in our government

Any public service ad, with double points for linking the War on Terror to [continued funding for] the War on Drugs.

> We used our influence as the populace in goverment

Any "Proposition" or "voter initiative" ad, whether it be for the left (usually environment) or right (usually insurance industry), fits this bill. It's never about the industry/lobby group sponsoring/opposing the initative, it's always about people needing to voice their concerns.

> We cared about other people

Any other PSA, or the infomercials to raise gazillions for "charities" that spend 5% of the money raised to the starving chiiildrun in $THIRD_WORLD_SHITHOLE and 95% in administrative expenses.

> . we might live in a better place and all be happier.
>
> But to do that, we'd have to stop living the way the commercials tell us to.

Au contraire -- Your utopia exists only in the commercials.

Re:Watermark? Share and share alike?

[moncyb]

Where am I, a piker who puts together stuff with a PC and freeware, going to get expensive watermarking equipment?

Just so you know what to look out for: the watermarking/DRM equipment will most likely not be expensive. The "equipment" to generate/read the watermarks/DRM will just be software and/or a chip that uses things like public/private key cryptography and digital signatures. The keys to produce and widely distribute DRM/watermarks will be expensive. Note that the software or chip to encode will not be any more expensive than the stuff to decode, however it'll probably increase the cost of your licensed computer/recorder/player by a noticable amount at any rate.

You could create your own keys, however I presume that many devices and player software will only play files with keys made by some future DRM consortium. The entertainment cartel will use this as an argument: people can still make their own content. The problem with it is politicians and the general public will believe this and not realize that it will limit them from distributing their content.

Likewise, what would be the impact on those of us who don't live in the US, but might want to export our created media there (I have a lot of US friends and I like to share)?

The entertainment cartel may create a more fine-grained region control than even DVDs. There could be different DRM constortiums in each country, so if you want to distribute something internationally, you'll have to buy keys for each country you wish to distribute your media. ..or perhaps they'll esablish different formats in different regions--like NTSC vs PAL.

We (here in Canada) already have levies on blank media (yeah, the equivalent to the MP/RIAA gets paid for every CD-ROM backup I make) -- what more could they want?

I'm in the US, we have those levies too. I am also offended that I have to pay "taxes" to the entertainment cartel for all the blank media and CD-RW drives that I legally use. I don't know about Canada, but here we also pay it on "recording" devices. What they want is the same 50% of everyone's income that the government takes and be a government entity that can enforce "anti-piracy" laws (really meaning anti-competition laws) and restrict trade of "non-approved" video, text, and audio such as your stuff, independent films/music, and unfavorable reviews of cartel products.

Re:Watermark? Share and share alike?

[spitzak]

About time people, even here, started to realize that the RIAA and MPAA's goal is to make recording devices illegal. This will be done by introducing a new format that no home user can record. The best method would be to device a mechanical system so that it is totally impractical to manufacture disks in quantities less than the tens of thousands. More likely there would be an unbreakable 1-way hash (probably computer-generated and embedded in a tamper-proof chip in the RIAA's basement so nobody knows the key) that you have to pass your data through in order for it to be playable, and just the manufacture of unlicensed recording devices would be illegal. All players would only decode this hash, players that played data that had not been passed through the hash would be illegal.

Of course this will do nothing to stop "piracy" (or at least the real piracy that is for money) since those people will easily be able to steal or manufacture a recording device and produce 10,000 disks. The hash also does not stop them because they are only interested in duplicating disks that have the already-hashed data.

What it will do is make it impossible for anybody to produce any kind of entertainment without buying a license from the MPAA/RIAA and submitting their data to be encoded. Thus all competition is eliminated.

By the time everybody realizes this they will be able to say "well, that's too bad, but it's just the price we have to pay to stop those horrible pirates".

Copies Are Legal In Canada

[Myriad]

We (here in Canada) already have levies on blank media (yeah, the equivalent to the MP/RIAA gets paid for every CD-ROM backup I make) -- what more could they want? Our first-born children? Our souls?

While I agree that the levy is ridiculous - virtually all of us buy blank CD's for data, etc. - there is a point to remember:

In Canada it is legal to make copies of CD's you own (of course). But it's also legal to make copies of someone else's CD's - provided you make the copy. Ie, I can borrow a friend's CD and burn a copy for my own use. I cannot burn a CD and give it to a friend - that would be distributing a copied disc.

So long as the disc is for personal use (no public presentations, radio, etc) you are legally free to make a copy of whatever you want. Just be the one who pushes that Burn button.

True, but

[DaveWood]

FYI, Democrats _and_ Republicans are both beholding to media interests (put simply, they're terrified of crossing the people who run television, radio and newspapers), although I think the Repubs are worse on the balance it barely matters who your rep is.

You're right. One guy calling a senate office they utterly ignore. But if you and 20,000 of your friends do it, they will shit themselves.

Trust me.

Now, how many millions of people read /. and agree with you on the issue? Just keep calling, and tell your friends to do the same, and have faith in the process. We got a long way on that method in our country, and we can certainly go farther on it.

Re:True, but

[bwt]

FYI, Democrats _and_ Republicans are both beholding to media interests (put simply, they're terrified of crossing the people who run television, radio and newspapers), although I think the Repubs are worse on the balance it barely matters who your rep is.

Republicans worse in supporting big media? Not even... Unlike most industries which support the GOP more, the Entertainment industry gives 2/3 of their money to democrats and 1/3 (half as much) to republicans. The GOP beats them up for being the "sex and violence" industry and for Hollywood's "lack of family values" pretty regularly. If you've noticed, the Hollings bill (formerly the SCCCA) has been sidelined by republicans, while all the democrats, like Sen. Feinstein, just love it.

Re:The End Game

[Lysander Luddite]

Perhaps all hardware that makes these hand-made debut CDs will embed a watermark by default. That's what I'm trying to say when I say all hardware will require DRM if the IP industry gets their way.

Because...

[Svartalf]

In the case of the burglary tools, they have a fixed purpose (i.e. unlocking locks without the requisite key...) whereas, many of the "tools" for which one can circumvent DRM with have other useful purposes.

A black Sharpie(TM) permanant marker, for example, is something that could get you a felony charge with the law in question. (No, it's not likely anyone in their right mind would charge someone with the proposed criminal act- but the wording of the law allows for it all the same and someone not in their right mind (which appears to be going about these days with all the bad laws, bad judicial decisions, etc.) can and would likely press charges and get you a nasty sentence for your troubles.) This is a bad idea, really.

Infringement is already illegal. Why in the hell do we need more laws making it illegal- it's not going to make it any more illegal than it is already.

("Sharpie" is a registered trademark of Sanford...)

Who certifies that you own the music?

[yerricde]

Which means that if I make my own music

<devils-advocate>
How can you prove that it's your own music? For all I know, it could be your performance of a song written by some other songwriter. And don't tell me you wrote that song; surely you "accidentally" cribbed a melody from one of the millions of songs written since January 1, 1923, all of which are under copyright in the United States of America.
</devils-advocate>

Re:Who certifies that you own the music?

[symbolic]

Rediculous. When a government bureaucrat needs to verify that what I'm saying (or expressing) is "legitimate" before I can diseminate it to others, it would seem to raise some serious constitutional issues.

Blame Republicans, sure, but not for MEDIA abuse..

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

[...]the guy is a republican from texas, and frankly, I think he's a little too beholden to big business, and media in particular.[...]

Here we go again...I really wish people would quit pretending that only "Those Evil Republicans(tm)" are owned and operated by Big Business. I especially don't "get" the notion that MEDIA controls the republicans, especially with Hollings' and Biden's legislative behavior lately (and, e.g. Feinstein's vocal and passionate support for Big Media in California...)

Face it - BOTH of the "two parties" that the press ever mentions in any important way are wholly owned subsidiaries of major donors. The alleged "left" seems to be owned mostly by lawyers and media companies, while the "right" seems to be owned by "old-school" industries like manufacturing, oil, and power. Don't trust EITHER of them...

(Most of the "Big Media" companies DO give me the impresssion of having a "leaning" towards the Democratic Party [NOT a "liberal" or "leftist" slant - if that were true, we'd be seeing a lot more favorable stories about, e.g., Ralph Nader and the "Peace and Freedom" party and the "personal freedom" aspects of libertarianism and so on], with the exception of Rupert Murdoch's "FOX" channel. "The Two Parties", then, aren't really "Democrat" and "Republican", they are "Disney" and "Rupert".....)

IT'S TERRIFYING CLOSE!!!

[JohnDenver]

[begin shrill]
...and people are so stupid they probably won't even notice!!!

In the future, Television will subconsciously dictate how we will dress, how we will react in different circumstances, and paint perfect lives so people will be obsessed emulating everything they see on TV!!!

TV will be the way companies will create demand where there was none, and add value to things that are meaningless!!! All to the highest bidder!!!

Your Coca-Cola dystopia is NOTHING compared to the dystopia that TV will sell to the highest bidder!!!
[end shrill]

[narrirator] ...and life will continue to be as meaningless as it ever was...

Re:Old CDs (Reflux)

[Chris Johnson]

I'm not sure that's relevant to this story.

It looked to me like this one's about jacking up punishments for counterfeiting stuff to outrageous levels, and the DRM bits were about counterfeiting or evading DRM.

The answer is simple really- let 'em have this one, and then make it illegal for home electronics manufacturers to produce media players that refuse to play non-DRM media.

Surely people determined to copy can take their own risks, whatever the penalties? The real concern is ensuring that independent content producers don't get shut out of consumer media completely.

Re:Senator Biden is my Senator

[fmaxwell]

Again a DEMOCRAT senator whom 'believes in free speech' wants to restrict your civil liberties.

If only you believed in reading the article, you would have found that the bill has 13 cosponsors including the following Republicans:

Sen Allen, George - R - VA
Sen DeWine, Michael - R - OH
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. - R - UT
Sen Smith, Gordon - R - OR
Sen Thurmond, Strom - R - SC

I guess you get what you vote for.

Not always. Bush is President despite getting half a million fewer votes than Gore.

DONT SEND THAT

[Hrothgar The Great]

You meant Senator Joseph Biden. Berman was the guy with the "Legalize DOSing for large copyright holders" bill from a couple of days ago. Whew!

Re:DONT SEND THAT

[Irvu]

Point, thanks for pointing that out!

Irvu.

Re:Blame Republicans, sure, but not for MEDIA abus

[namespan]

.I really wish people would quit pretending that only "Those Evil Republicans(tm)" are owned and operated by Big Business.

In me, this idea comes from the fact that most of the republicans and other people I know on the rightish side of the political continuum tend to beleive that markets will solve most (if not all) problems. This ideology tends to favor those with lots of market power, ie, big business.

Assuming this means they have been bought is a classic logical error, of course.... a => b does not mean b => a. In this case, just because someone acts in the interest of big business, it does not mean they have been bought, despite the fact that those bought by big business will act in its interest.

(It's sortof like the Turing Test, and this is one of the big problems I have with the Turing Test. a (a consciousness with the ability to communicate) => b (ability to convince another consciousness of its consciousness), but that doesn't mean b => a ).

One piece of the puzzle

[Hrothgar The Great]

Alone, this sort of bill is useless, but sooner or later, they will get their federal mandate requiring hardware to contain DRM technology. Are you happy never buying another electronic product, ever again?

Can We Refute These Principles?

[namespan]

The following principles are the basis on which congress is making laws like this. Anyone got any stats, articles, papers that can refute them?

Congress finds that--

(1) American innovation, and the protection of that innovation by the government, has been a critical component of the economic growth of this Nation throughout the history of the Nation;

(2) copyright-based industries represent one of the most valuable economic assets of this country, contributing over 5 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States and creating significant job growth and tax revenues;

(3) the American intellectual property sector employs approximately 4,300,000 people, representing over 3 percent of total United States employment;

(4) the proliferation of organized criminal counterfeiting enterprises threatens the economic growth of United States copyright industries;

(5) the American intellectual property sector has invested millions of dollars to develop highly sophisticated authentication features that assist consumers and law enforcement in distinguishing genuine intellectual property products and packaging from counterfeits;

(6) in order to thwart these industry efforts, counterfeiters traffic in, and tamper with, genuine authentication features, for example, by obtaining genuine authentication features through illicit means and then commingling these features with counterfeit software or packaging;

(7) Federal law does not provide adequate civil and criminal remedies to combat tampering activities that directly facilitate counterfeiting crimes; and

(8) in order to strengthen Federal enforcement against counterfeiting of copyrighted works, Congress must enact legislation that--

(A) prohibits trafficking in, and tampering with, authentication features of copyrighted works; and

(B) permits aggrieved parties an appropriate civil cause of action.

(taken from the revised header for the bill on Thomas)

Re:Can We Refute These Principles?

[Dyolf Knip]

Well, to begin with there's...

(5) the American intellectual property sector has invested millions of dollars to develop highly sophisticated authentication features that assist consumers and law enforcement in distinguishing genuine intellectual property products and packaging from counterfeits;

Which I would respond with: So fucking what? They sent lots of good money after bad, precisely why should the we the people spend our freedoms to get them their money back?

(6) in order to thwart these industry efforts, counterfeiters traffic in, and tamper with, genuine authentication features, for example, by obtaining genuine authentication features through illicit means and then commingling these features with counterfeit software or packaging;

Pure bullshit. Napster, Audiogalaxy, DeCSS, KaZaa, etc, never once proclaimed themselves to be legitimate distributors/authenticators of whatever it was you got from them.

Unfortunately, I, being a mere 'Consumer', must trust to the wisdom of my betters when it comes to deciding what I should and should not be allowed to say.

Making the proposal more resonable

[ClarkEvans]

This amendment needs a compromise; the watermark should only be enforcable if it is created in a non-biased manner by a non-profit organization with a board of directors from the general public, free of charge for those distributing their content without charge. Thus, any garage band should be able to get a watermark as easily as the RIAA for their stuff, regardless of financial ability. What we *dont't* want is SONY or the RIAA itself minting these watermarks. We need a non-biased "authority" otherwise this will just further entrench media monopolies at the expense of small businesses (such as a local band).

The way out... for all of us.

[mark-t]

Other than trying to make sure that bylaws such as this never get passed (which, I am afraid, is probably impossible), there is one other way out of this mess. In fact, it's so simple, I'm suprised nobody has mentioned it.

The time has come for people who program for the joy of programming to acknowledge that software, _ALL_ software, is artwork, and not something that must be approved by a committee before it is allowed to be appreciated by the public.

This point must be stressed, and stressed hard, for it may be the _only_ way that we can be sure that free software can continue to exist. Those who fear that bylaws such as these will stifle open source software should be pushing this point hardest of all. If this point could be generally accepted, it would become clear that laws whichs stifle it are also stifling artistic expression -- a socially unacceptable act -- and would gather opposition even from those who don't know any better.

Art is something that comes directly from the imigination of its creator, having no intrinsic value other than the amount of appreciation that other indivuals will have for it.

How is software art? Consider the similarities: Art is created, not simply built. Art's aesthetic or practical value (not cost) is determined by those who experience it, not by any measure of worth that is associated with its creation or production. Art is developed by the conscious use of a combination of a person's acquired skills and their imagination -- not by instruction. The best art comes from those who do it because they want to, not _just_ because they're getting a paycheque.

Software _IS_ art. I am convinced of this, and I would hope that others would see the truth behind this as well. It is probably the cleanest way out of this whole mess.

Wouldn't this be a good thing?

[vanyel]

Since Biden's bill prohibits "illicit authentication features" attached to software, it could become unlawful to distribute software that would run on a Palladium-outfitted computer without Microsoft's permission.

I think the best possible outcome would be for Palladium to not be able to run free software. I can't think of anything that would kill it faster.

Not about piracy

[Lonath]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This has nothing to do with piracy. It is about control and preventing competition. This is an example of that.

If hardware makers only make machines that play "watermarked content" and you can't add a watermark to your own content to play it, then they've taken the control back. When you write your congressmen, point out that this will make it harder for independent artists to make and distribute art and it therefore hinders the progress of the useful arts and sciences.

Re:America isn't America anymore

[richieb]

This is really getting old. Every few weeks something appears about Senator so and so passing some legislation to essentially suck off of the media giants just to make some quick money.

If you study a bit of history you'll find that this is nothing new. Read about the financial dealings and political corruption that occured during the "railroad bubble" during 1840s.

Why do you think Lincoln was referred to as "Honest Abe"? He was running as an outsider, not corrupted (or currutapble) as other present day politicians.

Read about the backstabbing that took place during the post Pearl Harbor hearings in 1942. Jeez! And you think politics today is bad?

The political process that we have is all that we have. Just work it. If enough people speak up, the world can be changed and it has been getting better, just slowly...

For the Tarheels

[lunenburg]

Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is at 1-202-224-3154, and the bill is S.2395. Call now!

(Not that it'll help - he's blatantly whored himself out to Big Hollywood, but we've got to do our part).

it doesn't say that - funky bs

[BlueboyX]

I looked through the bill, and it doesn't say anything like that. You can watermark music by your own band. Someone made that up. It only is against people who are breaking copyrights.

That kind of bs hurts us. When we use messed up info to try to counter goofy DRM bills, we just make ourselves look like idiots. Just look at the environmentalists; they have been giving exagerated reports etc. so much that most people don't listen even though they have a good point. We would not like to share that fate.

Re:Senator Biden is my Senator

[Oculus Habent]

See the line below it. If we don't believe the people we elect are worthy of our trust, it's time to let them know.

Re:Senator Biden is my Senator

[Oculus Habent]

Au contraire -- Your utopia exists only in the commercials

Not commericials, family sitcoms. This is why Everybody Loves Raymond. They live is a world not too different from our own, except that people, who have their good and bad moments, are generally good, with consideration and caring for others.

--
Read Bowling Alone - The Collapse and Revival of American Community

Keys, equipment, SSDP...

[Interrobang]

Just so you know what to look out for: the watermarking/DRM equipment will most likely not be expensive. ... The keys to produce and widely distribute DRM/watermarks will be expensive.

Either way, the --ahem-- key word is expensive. I think that's what the content-brokerage cartel wants, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.

Re:Keys, equipment, SSDP...

[moncyb]

Yes, but my point was that when people find out that the encoding equipment will cost the same as the players, many will think there is no problem. They will not realize that they won't be able distribute their content.

Re:This will even out....

[Chris Burke]

Okay, I could have sworn at least my TV could. Now, I know for a fact that my TV tuner card for my PC can do both. Maybe that's it -- I just assumed that if my $60 add-in card could do it, my other components could as well.

Re:America isn't America anymore

[richieb]

Or just look at modern China, Russia, etc. I think the main thing the U.S. has going for us is that corruption is at a low enough level that it's worth it for us to support the system.

US is the worst country to live in, except for all the others... :-)

Re:It happened 15-20 years ago with cartoons

[cyberformer]

Yep. The company that produced it, Sunbow, was actually owned by an advertising agency.

But to be fair to the Transformers, it did at least have another rationale for basing the TV show around the toys rather than the other way round. (They wanted the on-screen transformations to reflect something physically possible in a small toy.) The first major toy/TV series in the US was He-Man, which didn't.

If this bill passes...

[Alsee]

Senator Joseph Biden: "Windows XP was available for illegal use on the streets of Moscow two months before it was released in the U.S. by Microsoft," and "Every episode of "Seinfeld" is now available to download free to anyone with access to the Internet."

And if this bill becomes law...

Windows [all versions] will be available for illegal use on the streets of Moscow and Every episode of "Seinfeld" will be available to download free to anyone with access to the Internet.

YOU MUST PASS THIS BILL BECAUSE WE MUST STAMP OUT PIRACY!

-

Of course it doesn't say that!

[JaredOfEuropa]

I never claimed it did... I pointed out that the next logical step after watermarks, would be mandatory DRM hardware. Why? Because watermarks are useless by themselves.

What is the point of watermarks in fighting piracy? You cannot use watermarks to track pirates unless you put individual watermarks on each media, and in that case the pirates will vertainly strip the watermark off. The only possible use I see is that the RIAA/MPAA can set up automatic sniffer bots, looking for files with their watermarks on Kazaa and other file sharing systems. They certainly don't need it to legally establish a certain work as their property, simply looking at or or listening to that will do the trick.

So... once all sanctioned media are properly watermarked, it will be a small step to DRM in our hardware. Illegal copies won't play. Oh, your DVD player will still play the holiday movies you made i.e. your own material, but what about taping shows from TV? You may one day find your VCR or DVD player refusing to record some TV shows or movies. You may find that your own recordings receive a "local" watermark that your equipment recognised, but your computer will not accept, and neither will the neighbors player.

That is what DRM potentially means. Farfetched? Far beyond the scope if this bill? Perhaps, but a complacent attitude by us the voters and comsumers will mean that the rights and possibilities we enjoy today, are eroded away a bill at a time. You can bet there'd be an outcry if DRM was to be implemented overnight, and the proponents of DRM know that full well. They will attempt to bring their ideas of DRM about, step by step, in vaguely or broadly worded bills, packaged together with a bunch of other laws perhaps.

My final piece of advice for when you make a judgement about any proposed bill or law: never assume that the lawmakers have our best intentions at heart. Always assume new laws, rules, and bills will be used to the furthest possible extend they will stretch, not just to the extend most people would deem reasonable. Demand narrowly defined laws.

Re:Of course it doesn't say that!

[BlueboyX]

Alrighty. I thought you mean that this bill would directly lead to that. Which I don't think it does.

However, I do think the CBDTPA would directly lead to that. I presented a speech at my local U. about that. I think the CBDTPA is more about their trying to create a closed multimedia machine and having the computer industry pay the tab, but that is a seperate rant. :>

What this bill brings to mind to me is distribution control. Basically the big 5 in the modern music industry exists only because they control distribution. The net can allow artists to do their own advertising and distribution, completely eliminating them. People could buy the mp3s online and burn a cd without even stepping in a store. Yeah, you will still have to buy a burner + blank cds, but the music publishers don't sell those. :P

I totally agree with you about how to interpret laws.

'Demand narrowly defined laws.' I know what you mean, but it isn't going to happen. Politicians take pride in our flexable (by virtue of being broad) Constitution. Also, much of American politics is based in tradition (which is why legal documents still use 'old style' wording, and how certain aspects of Congress are handled). To demand narrow laws in the US would be to tradition and the Constitution bad things. That probably won't fly too well.

What really bugs me is how they are trying to sneek things in. If things are truely getting well debated and are visible to the public, things like this wouldn't get through so easily. But maybe this is just a fad. A previous trick that they used to do alot was to pass a highly publicised bill that supposedly do something that the people wanted (but that they didn't really care for) and intentionally leave key words undefined. That would render the law useless, and unenforcable or to be struck by theh courts outright. Look at the history of food industry regulation as an example. Alot of their laws were bs and never enforced for the above reason.

Things do get scarier, but normal people aren't aware of it. If you go to law school you get to learn all about blatant mafa involvement, for example. It looks like The People never will truely control the legislative process.

We are all doomed!!! :P

Blueprint for transition

[0x0d0a]

To transition to a DRM world:
Examine current media playing system A. Determine neat enhancements that should have been done some time ago. Call new spec playing system A2. Require all manufacturers to support future media playing system B if they use A2 spec. Consumer wants A2, also gets B support. A few years down the road when 20% of the population can handle system B, some System A2 media is also available in System B format, with minor additions. This drives more demand. A few items come out System B only. When 80% of the population can handle system B, a mass migration to system B media begins. A lot of media is System B only, and (cheaper) System B only players start shipping. A year or two later, System B rereleases of System A/A2 stuff start shipping, giving the media moguls more money.

American citizens, on the whole, are *easy* to manipulate.

Re:I hate to say this...

[Dyolf Knip]

Still won't help. Even if 50% of the -AA's income dried up in boycotts, they'd just run to Congress complaining about "rampant piracy destroying the American way of life" or some such nonsense, and then spend enough loose change to get the CBDTPA/SSSCA passed the very next day.

Re:The new Prohibition?

[Dyolf Knip]

War on Drugs? It's been going onf for what, 30 years now? That's more than my whole life. It is painfully obvious that it has accomplished nothing except to give more control over the populace to those in charge.

I would love to agree with you that government-mandated DRM would curl up and die if it were attempted. But we cannot count on that. The various institutions of this country's government have a long and cherished history of doing stupid things for decades on end rather than admit they were wrong.

Re:Common Sense Interpretation...

[Dyolf Knip]

Did anyone really think that the DMCA, 1998's Holy Grail for IP law enforcement against long-haired hippy hackers in the 21st century, would end up being used against university professors for trying to publish research on encryption?

The DMCA is a prime example of a bad tech law gone worse. And Corporate America's esteemed representatives (they sure as hell aren't ours!) aren't even waiting for the dust to settle, they're passing more of its ilk. In the process, Biden and the rest have probably managed to doublethink themselves to the point where they believe they're doing the country some good, too.

And before you start prophesizing about the guaranteed demise of these insane laws, just look at Prohibition. Version 1.0 lasted for 15 years. 15 years of Al Capones and raids on speakeasies and police corruption and 'Untouchable' law enforcement and arrests of people for no other crime than having a still. The War on Drugs has been going on for a quarter of a century and has had even more disastrous results and yet The Powers That Be are as gung-ho for it as they were when Nixon proclaimed it to be more important than life itself. Can we really afford to risk a 50-year Dark Age of computing? Where "possession of illicit programmatic tools and paraphernalia" (read: a hex editor and an O'Reilly book) gets you 15 to 20? Where info-havens like Sealand get firebombed by the Copyright Enforcement Agency for being Public Enemy #1? Want a nation-wide firewall to protect our wholesome, media-industry-loving citizens from the corrupt world outside? The way this is going, I'd be surprised if it's more than 10 years away.

Re:United Kingdom

[Dyolf Knip]

Tell me about it.

I love my country. I live in fear of my government.

Re:From True Democracy to Corporate Democracy to .

[Dyolf Knip]

Not that I would, but out of idle curiosity, does Godwin's Law apply to Nazis in particular or can it also be called on Fascism in general?

Re:Senator Biden is my Senator

[fmaxwell]

Hmmm...does that mean that if there are 4 people on an island and 3 of them vote to kill the 4th one, that the murder of the 4th one is ok.

Sounds like Texas under former Gov. George W. Bush.

Re:It happened 15-20 years ago with cartoons

[Rakarra]

But to be fair to the Transformers, it did at least have another rationale for basing the TV show around the toys rather than the other way round. (They wanted the on-screen transformations to reflect something physically possible in a small toy.) The first major toy/TV series in the US was He-Man, which didn't.

What about GI Joe? :) Or if you were unlucky enough to watch the show, the Gobots?

Re:Watermark? Share and share alike?

[MulluskO]

Thank you, music geek. You get to keep your medal.

Citizen different than consumer

[SgtChaireBourne]

Serving people as citizens means something very different than serving thems as consumers. There is already a separation in most countries between religion and governance and, in the long run, a similar separation of governance from corporate interests is needed.

One of many problems with DRM is the large conflict of interest with the same large corporations pushing this twisted legislation being the same ones that own nearly all modes of (dis-)informing the citizenry. Controlling information is an old political fight going back to way before the Gutenberg press. Control of information is a key to controlling the population.

Broadcasting, mostly in the U.S., has shifted away from being a means of stimulating active citizenship. In particular it has shifted away from adressing citizens, where its purpose was to be useful, to addressing consumers, where its purpose is to turn viewers passive and into customers.

In the short term this has gotten out of hand in the U.S. and requires rapid corrective action. However, some European countries have chump leaders too and the concept needs to arrested at an early stage before it can metastisize through the rest of the world.

In the long term, there needs to be a stronger separation of corporate interests and governance. The former is short term and often is counter to the best interests of citizenry.

Re:Senator Biden is my Senator

[fmaxwell]

It seems that Sentator Biden started this mess by introducing this legislation.

And Republican technical wizards such as Senator Strom Thurmond quickly jumped on the bandwagon, so don't try to paint this as some kind of "Democrats are evil" thing.

Just look at the intrusive spying that Ashcroft and his colleagues have put into place since 9/11 and you'll see that Democratic initiatives on DRM are hardly the biggest concern we face.

If you vote for an activist/expanding government, you get some laws you won't like and, quite possibly, some which will harm you.

And you will get some laws that you do like and, quite possibly, some which will help you. I like laws to reduce pollution, make corporate officers accountable, and those that make fraudulent and deceptive advertising illegal, to name just three examples. I think laws banning the sale of tobacco to minors are good. I like laws against animal cruelty. I think that making junk faxes illegal was a good thing. I just don't subscribe to the "government is bad" theory that seems so popular among the Timothy McVeigh types.