Slashdot Mirror
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.
This isn't bad because it limits freedom or any such nonsense. That's a lot of hot air blown by zealots with lots more free time than brain cells.
This is bad legislation because it attempts to force certain types of technology into existence. While a government program designed to discourage people from engaging in media piracy would be a good thing, mandating that all devices have this built in is simply a way to skirt the issue while appearing to be tackling the problem.
Such a law does not stop what it is intended to stop. Pirates will still be able to break the encryption, replicate the media, and resell it on the open street in lands far away from where American law can reach. This law is useless anywhere other than America.
What you get, instead of stopping piracy, is a mandated standard form of copy encryption and DRM that may or may not be adequate for everyone's needs. Instead of letting the market figure out what forms of DRM will be used, the government decides that it's items A, B, and C that need to be addressed. Nevermind that in the future item B may no longer be useful and item D is not provided for at all.
It's unfortunate that the respectable John Conyers (D) is drafting this bill. I would have expected more from the gentleman.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Just a definition, from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Fascism is a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.
For all you Bush-haters, this is not a rant about Bush, because he has zero power to pass laws. This is about members of both major parties in Congress, who regularly put aside their differences to expand the state-granted power of privileged businesses at the direct expense of our rights. This is fascism, by definition, yet we keep saying, "Thank you sir; may I have another?"
The problem is that politicians need pander to voters only on two or three issues, and then are free to do whatever is most profitable to them on all other issues. You might even be able to make the argument that the "major" issues we hear Congress critters rant about (the war, social security, the war, taxes, the war) are simply a smokescreen for the corruption, because it keeps our rights off most peoples' radars.
[ home ]
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yet another piece of legislation that will do nothing to stop the real pirates! Indeed, as *AA imposes more and more restrictions, inconveniences, and expense upon consumers, they will make the cheaper and relatively hassle free offerings of pirates even more compelling. It's been argued before, but it seems all too clear that the most effective way to combat piracy is to offer a better product at a reasonable price. But I guess some people just have to learn the hard way.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Keep on making shitty movies and music that suck ass, and you'll kill all motivation to illegally copy them. This is the real solution, and the MP/RI-AA is a lot closer to it than they realize.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
That's why the next generation of DRM will actually be a small microchip implanted into your brain that does the last step of decoding, taking the scrambled analog inputs from your ears and driving the impulses directly into your somatic sensory cortex. It will probably also have a mandatory "copyright enforcement anti-circumvention device" consisting of a few tenths of a gram of plastic explosive, just in case you try to mod-chip it.
It's the logical next step, really. Where else are you going to go?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
From my point of view it is the principal that is the problem, not the implementation. Yes, the technical restrictions will be broken, but the fact that large corportations are able to purchase legislation that goes against what the (previously) law abiding public want as well as those who choose to break existing laws is extremely worrying. Copyright infringement is illegal, why introduce the DMCA's non-circumvention clause? If you're circumventing DRM in order to infringe copyright, there's a law to stop you already. If you're circumventing DRM for 'fair use' reasons then the law should be on your side. Same goes for the blank media tax that several countries now have - assume you're a criminal, charge you the money for a crime you may or may not commit. Hell, even the length of copyright is only appropriate to big business - most other professions don't continue paying for almost a century after your death, yet copyrights last that long even against the wishes of the original content creators (Happy Birthday, for a start).
Such a law does not stop what it is intended to stop. Pirates will still be able to break the encryption, replicate the media, and resell it on the open street in lands far away from where American law can reach. This law is useless anywhere other than America.
.i.e. share. These restrictions, along with big warnings along the lines of "You cannot record this program", "you do not have permission...." "It is an offense..." etc, etc, all reinforce the idea in his head that a video or sound recording is not his/hers. It is still someone elses, despite copyright law and any monies he/she may have paid for the product.
This law is in no way designed to go after the big guys. It's all about the small fish and keeping them in check.
Essentially the TV and Movie industry is terriffied that what happened to the music industry will happen to them. I.e., people will stop viewing entertainment as a commodity. Or at the very least, people will realise that the prices they pay for it are unreasonable.
How does this law try to change that? Essentially it makes it more difficult for Joe Consumer to view his music, movies, films, tv shows, etc as something he can do what he likes with,
The movie industry is afraid of what's already happened. New technologies have made people realise that information is cheap, and even cheaper to duplicate. There is no justification for charging $20 per gigabyte when I can upload terrabytes for less than a dollar. And people have realised this. Even Joe sixpack cops it after a few days in front of his computer.
But, if you can legislate, you can slow this tide and perhaps even reverse it. It is possible. Rhetoric won't make people revolt. An example of this system failing, but having lasting effects, is alcohol prohibition in the 30's. An example of this system working well( for its proponents) is the illegalisation of marijuana.
May the Maths Be with you!
The only real solution is to overthrow the capitalist giants whose sole purpose is to exploit "consumers" to make money.
But at the moment I'll settle for no DRM.
For a few years, my daughter put a microphone in front of the radio to record the songs she liked. A huge chunck of the the movie pirating market is done by bringing a cam-corder into a movie theater. Neither of these methods produce content of especially high quality but, as it turns out, many consumers don't really mind.
I like my fairly nice audio and video gear, but I don't pirate content either. I imagine that most of the purchasers of nicer equipment don't buy much pirated content. Can you imagine someone spending a few grand on AV and then being too cheap to buy a DVD?
I predict this will do very little to solve the issue of piracy because too many people doing the pirating will be plenty happy with content that ignores these roadblocks altogether. The real losers will be people like me who'll be forced to re-buy ephemeral content that disapears with time.
TW
... as long as one proviso is added. In addition to requiring all consumer devices to honor the copyright protection system, the law must also require all consumer devices to honor all of the exceptions codified in current copyright law. In particular, devices need to detect and permit Fair Use as well as reproduction of content whose term of copyright protection has expired. The things that copyright law allows are just as important as the things it restricts, so if you're going to require device manufacturers to build devices that enforce the law, they need to enforce *all* of the law, not just most of it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
But if you don't buy the **AA's products, the **AA will claim that they are losing money due to "piracy". They will get a law passed that requires you to buy their products. Then, if you don't buy **AA products, you will be thrown in jail.
chown -R us ~you/base