Analog Hole Legislation Formally Introduced

phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica is covering a recent bit of legislation introduced to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee this past week. The laws would seek to close the 'Analog Hole' that serves as a sort of last-ditch pirating mechanism when corporate DRM goes all crazy and tramples on your fair-use rights: 'Calling the ability to convert analog video content to a digital format a significant technical weakness in content protection, H.R. 4569 would require all consumer electronics video devices manufactured more than 12 months after the DTCSA is passed to be able to detect and obey a rights signaling system that would be used to limit how content is viewed and used. That rights signaling system would consist of two DRM technologies, Video Encoded Invisible Light (VEIL) and Content Generation Management System--Analog (CGMS-A), which would be embedded in broadcasts and other analog video content.'" We've previously covered this bill.

Comments

I, Karma Whore

[rolfwind]

The Digital Transition Content Security Act of 2005 (PDF) is sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) (PDF) and would close that pesky analog hole that poses such a dire threat to the survival of the music and movie industries. The bill was originally planned for introduction in early November, but was tabled after hearings held by the House Subcomittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

Remember, Wisconsin and Michigan residents, these are your representatives. Unless you support the massive "content creation" in your area, you might want to drop these assholes a note:

http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/

http://www.house.gov/conyers/

Oh, and this is how they think on the subject:

According to Reps. Sensenbrenner and Conyers, the legislation is absolutely necessary because of the dire threat PCs and the Internet pose to the content-creation industry's very livelihood. Apparently, it's not nimble enough to keep up with advances in technology.

Tell them why they are wrong.

Re:"Consumer Electronics"

[nolife]

Also, I remember how easy it was to mod a scanner in '93 to make it pick up cellphone signals -- just remove a single SMT resistor. This was the work of minutes. And voila -- full band reception.

So easily modded consumer goods (whatever that is) will be banned too.


To add to your comment..
That is exactly what they did with scanners. They went back and edited the law to include that the scanner must not be able to be easily modified. Here is a paste from a scanner faq:

In its simplest form, US Federal laws (Communications Act of 1934, Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Telecommunications Disclosure & Dispute Resolution Act of 1992, Digital Telephony Bill of 1994) make it illegal to :

1. Repeat what you hear to anyone but the transmitter or intended receiver of the transmission
2. Use what you hear to aid in the commission of a crime (e.g. evading police)
3. Use what you hear for personal gain (e.g. tow trucks listening for accidents to show up opportunistically at the scene)
4. Listen to transmissions relating to the following services :
* cellular phones
* cordless phones
* public land mobile systems
* voice paging services
* satellite/microwave/studio-to-transmitter links
* broadcast point-to-point relays.
5. Import a receiver which is capable of tuning cellular telephone frequencies
6. Import frequency converters which can be used to circumvent the blockage of cellular telephone frequency bands


Then took it a few steps further in 1997 and released directive DA 97-334 to make the modification you described above illegal:

Scanning receivers are required by Section 15.101(a) of the FCC Rules to be certificated by the Commission. Section 15.121 states that scanning receivers, and frequency converters designed or marketed for use with scanning receivers, must be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated to the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service. Scanners that are capable of "readily being altered by the user" include, but are not limited to: those for which the ability to receive cellular telephone frequencies can be added by clipping the leads of, or installing, a simple component, such as a diode, resistor and/or jumper wire; replacing a plug-in semiconductor chip; or programming a semiconductor chip using special access codes or an external device. Scanners and frequency converters for use with scanners, must also be incapable of converting digital cellular frequencies to analog voice audio. Under Section 15.37(f), the manufacture or importation of scanning receivers, and frequency converters used with scanning receivers, that do not comply with Section 15.121 shall cease on or before April 26, 1994.

I have been loosely following the changes over the years and have always been a scanner person. What stands out with these modifications to the communications act to prevent cellular listening is the speed the FCC acted and continued to act and modify the laws as people found ways around the initial wording. I never really fully understood the motivations. I assume it was the cellular providers trying to provide consumers a false sense of security in combination with not having to admit they went cheap and used plain old non encypted analog commun

Boucher is On the Judiciary Committee

[Bob(TM)]

Fortunately, Rep. Boucher of VA is on the committee (Committee Members). Of the current members of the House, he has demonstrated that he "gets" it WRT fair use and DRM.

At least, there's a voice.

Take a few min and write your committee member

[splatter]

Here is a link:http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembershi p.aspx Here is a list of names and states they represent..... If you care about this topic take the time to write them and let them know how stupid this is.
Hon. Hyde(R) Illinois, 6th
Hon. Coble(R) North Carolina, 6th
Hon. Smith(R) Texas, 21st
Hon. Gallegly(R) California, 24th
Hon. Goodlatte(R) Virginia, 6th
Hon. Chabot(R) Ohio, 1st
Hon. Lungren(R) California, 3rd
Hon. Jenkins(R) Tennessee, 1st
Hon. Cannon(R) Utah, 3rd
Hon. Bachus(R) Alabama, 6th
Hon. Inglis(R) South Carolina, 4th
Hon. Hostettler(R) Indiana, 8th
Hon. Green(R) Wisconsin, 8th
Hon. Keller(R) Florida, 8th
Hon. Issa(R) California, 49th
Hon. Flake(R) Arizona, 6th
Hon. Pence(R) Indiana, 6th
Hon. Forbes(R) Virginia, 4th
Hon. King(R) Iowa, 5th
Hon. Feeney(R) Florida, 24th
Hon. Franks(R) Arizona, 2nd
Hon. Gohmert(R) Texas, 1st
Hon. Berman(D) California, 28th
Hon. Boucher(D) Virginia, 9th
Hon. Nadler(D) New York, 8th

Re:Take a few min and write your Rep.. Part 2

[splatter]

Damn slashdot filter wouldn't let me finish the list... Here is the rest
again this is from:http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembershi p.aspx

Hon. Scott(D) Virginia, 3rd
 
Hon. Watt(D) North Carolina, 12th
 
Hon. Lofgren(D) California, 16th
 
Hon. Jackson Lee(D) Texas, 18th
 
Hon. Waters(D) California, 35th
 

Hon. Meehan(D) Massachusetts, 5th
 
Hon. Delahunt(D) Massachusetts, 10th
 
Hon. Wexler(D) Florida, 19th
 
Hon. Weiner(D) New York, 9th
 

Hon. Schiff(D) California, 29th
 
Hon. Sánchez(D) California, 39th
 
Hon. Van Hollen(D) Maryland, 8th
 
Hon. Wasserman Schultz(D) Florida, 20th

Even major ones

[Sycraft-fu]

Funny enough, that sort of thing isn't reserved to just cheap knockoffs. Take, for example, the Yamaha S2500. That's Yamaha's top of the line DVD player. MSRP is $750, street price is probably around $500. Ultra high-end components, DVD Audio playback, etc, etc. Ultra high end in other words. However, a brief search on the net reveals that it has a region hack built in. Just enter some codes on the remote, and like magic, no region lock.

That's not what the American Heritage Dictionary..

[rcs1000]

...says

From the actual dictionary:

Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

That's not quite the same thing, is it? Did you, per chance, think you could just slip through a random definition (blatantly made up); throw a few (admittedly largely well deserved) insults, and get some instant "Karma".

Well, I guess you succeeded in getting the "Karma".

Re:A Filmmaker's Perspective

[HTH NE1]

The properly manufactured devices only recognize the flag when it is there; home produced recordings won't contain it.

Why not? It will be for your own protection so that others won't be able to copy your original works, giving you the same protection as enjoyed by the industry.

Except that the trusted members of the industry will be able to subvert your protections anyway.

Why do you think dual deck recorders are manufactured and sold at electronic stores?

Not for much longer I fear. Or at least the next models will include DRM support and force copies made from unprotected media be protected.

Have you forgotten this story of Fontographer's by-default restrictions on how fonts you create with it can be used?

Look at this guy's campagian finance's ...

[Delta2.0]

This guy's had a couple thousand thrown his way by some companies that might be wanting this bill

check it out for yourself
Campagain Money

Or you could write something meaningful...

[The Last Gunslinger]

Instead of trying to wring a cheap laugh out of the situation, you might hop on over to http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.asp x and see if your Congressman sits on the Judiciary Committee where this has been introduced.

If so, write them a note voicing your displeasure with H.R. 4569. If not, write to YOUR representative (http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Be tactful. Be succint. Don't be a flaming jerkass. Here's what I sent to my representative...feel free to plagiarize:


Mr. Carter,

I am aware that you are not a sitting member of the Judiciary Committee, but I am writing you in the hopes that you will discuss upcoming legislation with fellow Texas representatives Lamar Smith, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Louie Gohmert.

It has recently come to my attention that the House Judiciary Chairman has introduced a bill (H.R. 4569) into committee that embodies, in my opinion, an appalling attempt by a private industry to subvert the legislative process in order to protect its archaic business model.

As I'm sure you're well aware, the United States Congress exists to serve the liberty and security of its citizens, and not to guarantee the existence of any public corporation or private industry against the winds of change and innovation. Legislation such as this proposed "Digital Transition Content Security Act of 2005" is not crafted with the interest of the American consumer in mind, but rather with the intent to protect an existing content delivery and distribution model by criminalizing techonological innovations in this digital era.

An Act such as this one effectively deprives American consumers of their Fair Use rights as provided under existing U.S. intellectual property laws, and by extension, damages our economic stability by stifling the innovative forces that have kept America at the forefront of technological development. Furthermore, forcing U.S. manufacturers to adopt specific technology into all of their products places them at a distinct economic disadvantage in the world marketplace, and this country can ill afford the further loss of exportable goods.

Please do not be misled by the entertainment industry contentions that they are "losing" millions of dollars in revenue annually due to digital copyright infringements. Any first-year college student with a logic course on his transcript knows this is a fallacy of the most obvious variety. One cannot substantiate the presumption that every "pirated" copy of a protected work necessarily translates to the "loss" of one retail sale. One honestly cannot even translate it to the loss of one potential sale. It doesn't take an MBA to realize that the industry's claim of "lost revenue" is truly nothing more than "potential, unrealized revenue possibilities." That is to say, they display a best-case sales scenario and blame digital piracy for the shortfall that reality presents.

I urge you to voice your disapproval for H.R. 4569 to your fellow Texas legislators on the Judiciary Committee. This bill does NOT represent the interests of the citizens of Texas, nor of the U.S.A. as a whole. A vote for this bill would be a vote against the Fair Use rights of the taxpaying people of this economy and a vote against the spirit of innovation that made this great nation the undisputed superpower in the world today. I place my trust in you, and know that you will make the best decision in the present and future interests of the *people* whom you represent by voting down such special interest legislation as H.R. 4569.

Respectfully,
[real name omitted]


Comments and criticism welcome, flames redirected to /dev/null