Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Send Congress Your Comments On DRM Legislation

Posted by timothy on from the high-priced-not-high-class dept.

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."

4 of 39 comments (clear)

  1. Why is a Call to Arms not on Front Page by haplo21112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it that a issue this huge to our community is buried in the YRO section and not showing on the front page?

    This is a big issue and our chance to speak up...
    look what we did for w3c and RAND....

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
    1. Re:Why is a Call to Arms not on Front Page by dimator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dude, it's not like it matters anyway. This type of crap always appears to me to be a PR move more than anything else. The general public is not lining law makers' pockets with cash, lobbyists are.

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    2. Re:Why is a Call to Arms not on Front Page by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You are way too cynical. In the US, free speech has gotten so exclusive to those who can pay for the microphones to broadcast that individual constituents have lost the ability to really express how they feel. Polls are awkwardly worded to target a specific response, votes are virtually guaranteed for incumbents no matter what (it's always been that way), and the sense of political efficacy in the national government has sharply declined in the last 30 years.

      Lawmakers know this. Perhaps this is a way for them to listen to the other side of the story? After all, a /. story a few weeks ago indicated several reps speaking out and proposing legislation against DRM and the DMCA. Do not be so quick to judge and say "America is ruled by corporate swine and $$$." I admit, there is a lot of clear and evident corruption in the government. However, they are "damned if they do, damned if they don't." When they "help us,' we claim that they are really just making a P.R. move, and when not "helping us" they are giving in to corporate interests that aim to lock down or computers.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
  2. Here are my comments... by Tom7 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This article should really be on the main page. Getting a few thousand rather than a few dozen to submit their comments would really help. (Of course, having well thought-out and presented comments is the most important!)



    I'm a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA. As a computer researcher I know that it is vital to have access to general-purpose, open computers. Mandatory Digital Rights Management technology in computers would make it unacceptably difficult to study and improve upon computer systems.

    In addition, I'm also worried that DRM technology would raise the barriers to entry with regard to amateur content creation. As it stands, it is easy for anyone to create their own pictures or music or stories or movies, encode them in standard formats, and share them with people -- this has led to a rich and flourishing landscape of amateur content on the internet. Implicit in the Digital Rights Management proposals that I have seen is the idea that content is created only by the large corporations that make up the entertainment industry. By requiring content creators to license patents or programs, meet difficult requirements, or use proprietary formats, the amateur is locked out of effectively distributing his work. Infringing on the ability for amateurs to create and share their own works is a tragedy beyond any other consequence of DRM. After all, the purpose of copyright as stated in the constitution is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts!"

    Please don't stifle technology innovation, and the vast and wonderful potential for our consumers to become content creators themselves, all just to protect business models of the last century. Leave the burden on these businesses to prosecute copyright infringers, or to otherwise develop content delivery systems that are are profitable AND friendly to consumers.