Send Congress Your Comments On DRM Legislation

stry_cat writes "The people who want to control what you can and cannot copy have got Congress to consider requiring every computer sold to include special circuits that limit what files you can copy. The Senate Judiciary Committee is soliciting public comments on this legislation."

Comments

My comment to the commitee

[dacarr]

Just like I posted it, here it is. - As a voter and a citizen of the United States of America, I think it is time to make a comment to congress regarding the recent proposal of a chip to be placed in new computers to control what can (not) be copied. In short, this is a very bad idea. I honestly see this chip as proposed by DRM proponents as something Congress could use to control what we could move around on our computers. Basically, it would be an embedded dongle. The problem here is that these proposals are being foisted around by people who don't understand technology, and unlike the V-chip, would shake the foundations of the computing world, requiring major redesigns in every aspect of computing. I also see this as something of a violation of our rights as granted in the first and fourth amendments to the US Constitution. It is Congress passing legislation that controls what is stated by the people, which per the first is wrong, and it would also have Congress assuming that everybody in the US is committing a crime. This brings up another tenet of the constitution: was not one of the principles this country was founded upon being that all people (criminals included) were innocent until proven guilty by the courts? We've stepped away from that because of media distortion, however this brings the ideal that the government assumes we must all be stopped from committing these crimes. The third reason I am against this is due to the waste. Plain and simple, such a device will not work. Whereas in the physical realms, one must exert tremendous effort and/or money to work around something put in place as to block them from doing something (let's say a tax lien being a problem that prevents somebody from taking a loan out, for instance), in the "cyber" realm, as it were, one can easily crack through the chip. It is not foolproof, nor will it be, and it will be worked around. In short, please do not waste your time on something that cannot be enforced.

Re:It's a trap!

["Zow"]

Well, I have to take issue with whoever modded this as a troll -- flamebait maybe, but not a troll.

That said, I take issue with being called a pirate. I am staunchly against the illegal copying of copyrighted material. I do however believe in fair use. I just finished re-ripping my entire CD collection to ogg format (I previously had it in mp3 format). Why? I think ogg is a more efficient format and I have no desire to infringe on Freehausenfritter's (or whatever their name is) patent. In the process I found that I've lost a few of my CDs since I ripped them to mp3. Not sold, not gave away, just lost. So now I'm going to go out and buy new copies. That means more money in the RIAA's pocket. If I hadn't meticulously gone through my collection to rip it, I probably wouldn't have noticed a few missing from the hundreds I've acquired over the years. So that's fair use, and I think the record companies would have a hard time arguing that fair use hurts their sales.

The other reason that DRM matters I think is summed up well by the guy that posted from CMU -- I don't think I could say it better, so I'll just defer to them.

-"Zow"

Here's what I wrote

[yerricde]

I included a better method of "Consumer Broadband ... Promotion" in my comment:

The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, introduced as a bill by Sen. Fritz Hollings, is a bad idea. It would let Hollywood, admittedly a large industry, dictate terms to Silicon Valley, an even larger industry, and it would stifle innovation. It would infringe on the freedoms that make America America. And it wouldn't even work as promised.

The CBDTPA would be horrendously expensive to implement. Watch as an Internet router becomes five times because it has to use so much processing power to determine whether or not a packet violates a copyright that it can't perform its core function: routing packets. Watch as a twenty dollar pocket calculator needs a ten dollar copyright protection chip because its memory can hold numbers that happen to represent the sequence of notes in a copyrighted musical work. Watch as the open-source computer operating systems used by hundreds of tax-paying businesses become illegal because they cannot interact with trade-secret protocols established by the consortium that the CBDTPA creates.

Even neglecting the financial cost, the CBDTPA would still stifle innovation in technology. Electrical and computer engineering students would have trouble in their experiments for fear of creating a "digital media device" subject to the restrictions. The related "broadcast flag" bill would give Hollywood motion picture studios a veto power over any innovation in audiovisual technology. In addition, Microsoft Corporation holds patents on processes essential to implementing the security standards described in the CBDTPA; thus, the CBDTPA would give Microsoft a statutory monopoly on computer operating systems, and experience with American markets shows that monopolies rarely innovate faster than a briskly competitive free market.

The CBDTPA would either demolish fair use or be completely ineffectual. There is no way for a device to reliably distinguish a infringement on the exclusive rights of a copyright holder (17 USC 106 and ch. 5) from a permitted fair use (17 USC 107). Imagine taking a camcorder, pointing it at your child who is taking her first steps, and having the camcorder shut off when the child walks past the television that is showing copyrighted programming. Please read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html to see a story of what could happen in a post-CBDTPA world.

The CBDTPA would have a negative effect on freedom of speech. Currently, copyrighted works are not created solely by Hollywood; But under some interpretations of the CBDTPA, the barrier to publishing even the simplest work of literature, art, or music would rise drastically, possibly out of the reach of any amateur. If you were passionate about your art, would you want the government to lock you out of being able to share it with your fellow Americans? Way "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" (heavy sarcasm)!

The bill might not even be constitutional. The security systems mandated by the CBDTPA have been called "policeware" (see http://www.stoppoliceware.org/), and requiring all digital media devices to carry policeware could easily violate the Third Amendment and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The interference with free speech in some cases may conflict with the First Amendment.

Worst of all, the CBDTPA would not even live up to its name: it would not promote consumer broadband Internet access. The chief reason that I have heard about why more people don't have broadband is _not_ the unavailability of Hollywood feature films but rather 1. the cost, and 2. the limitation to a point-to-point service (making it useless to travelers). The right way to promote consumer broadband would be to open up the currently closed "last mile" of copper to the home to competitors. To do this, Congress should regulate how much the incumbent telephone and cable monopolies can charge for access.

I, along with thousands of members of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the over 100,000 people who have signed the anti-CBDTPA petition (see http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi? SSSCA), oppose the CBDTPA and the "broadcast flag" legislation and urge Congress to reject them. If Hollywood studios don't want to offer its movies through channels that they consider "insecure", then let the studios build their own "secure" infrastructure. Congress, please help preserve American freedoms by voting "NO" to the CBDTPA.

Sincerely,
Damian Yerrick

From my comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

...

But there is something you may not have considered. What the movie and record industries are asking you to do is to prevent one individual from sending information (copyrighted data) to another individual. A reasonable request, but this is currently not technically possible--hence their demand for mandatory DRM. But consider the situation in countries like the People's Republic of China--the government wants to prevent one individual from sending information (that is critical of their corrupt government) to another individual. But the very same technological abilities that prevent movie studios from stopping American movie and music pirates also prevent the Chinese government from stopping criticism of the government by Chinese citizens. If you mandate the elimination of these technological abilities in American products, the Chinese will be able import the same technologies for use in their own country.

In essence, Film and Music lobbiests are asking you to destroy the best tool for guaranteeing free speech in the midst of tyranny, all so they can save a little bit of money.