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.
WTF is this cryofan talking about?
Well, I hope that copying of copyrighted material IS made impossible. Because when that happens, it means that the content providers will allow the telcos and cable cos to start delivering their content online.
This should bring in another mode of internet connectivity, like wireless, too.
In any event, once content is provided online, PCs will start becoming easily usable for the task of obtaining video online. So lots of people--most Americans probably -- will start getting video online.
THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT STEP IN THE PROGRESS OF BREAKING THE GRIP OF TOP DOWN COMMUNICATIONS IN AMERICA.
Ever thought about why Americans have to work 2000 hours a year to survive, and for practical purposes cannot get longterm healthcare unless they are working? But most west European countries are not this way.
Well, Americans have been under the grip of ideological hegemony for decades now. THat means that the mass media has been effectively used by the elite players in America so that Americans do not operate their own country for their own best interests, but instead for the interests of capital. Capital owns labor to a great extent in America. And we pay for it.
But if video content were commonly obtained online by most Americans, and with video content getting easier to make (edit video and sound with FREE software on your cheap computer), that means that radical political views can be easily disseminated to most America. And when I say radical, I don't mean the race and gender oriented identity politics of the democrats. And I don't mean socialism per se, but instead economics-oriented anarchist-related themes that are really at the root of the cultural differences between W europe and America.
Once these ideas are disseminated to most Americans in a video format, things should start to change.
And with that, neoliberalism should begin to die....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Terminology descriptions for those that do not know or do not speak English natively:
legislation - conversation amongst lawmakers and people in power to perpetuate their power through making new laws (see circular reasoning)"Analog Hole" - Hole does not have particularly positive connotation,but the denotation is pretty benign. It just means a void, butsometimes a void is not good such as a hole in an argument (unlike circular reasoning). Analog means parallel or "old school" electronicsspeak where the signals are much more like the real world, especially interms of audio and video signals, but digital signals that are quantizedor algorithmically fuzzed encoded of analog signals is currentlyprefered because it is easier to manipulate with digital electronics andit has little to no signal loss when being transferred from one device to another. "Analog Hole" is a term used to increase the validity of end users' ability to copy material that is much easier to copy digitally except the people that "own" the data don't like people to copy it because it threatens their business model of profit of content distribution even though people are more than willing to distribute content for free or at a much lower price than the people that do it
now. This is a very similar job of those that do legislation.
"last-ditch pirating mechanism" - another term to increase the validity of end users' skill and ability to copy content without the permission
of the people that try to make a profit off of content distribution.
Pirate used to be associated with people that used to rob ships at sea.
For some reason, this is not much of an occupation despite the lack of
physical or legal protection of goods on ships. Pirates today are more
known for distributing digital content without the consent of those
that try to profit from distributing digital content. "last-ditch" is a
strange term meaning a desperate attempt to do something that has not
been successfully done through more conventional means (see last-resort)
DRM - aka Digital Rights Management. A funny term to describe a way
for those who try to make a profit from distributing digital content by
making it more difficult to distribute digital content (see eliptical
reasoning)
I hope this clears things up, and that it gets seen as a post on
slashdot.org because it is something that actually took time and effort
to think about so it will be placed lower in the ordered list of
quicker, less thought out posts of others.
It must be Tuesday, I could never get the hang of Tuesdays.
Don't ask why the formatting is weird.
The current laws don't seem to be stoping the traders. New laws from a slightly different angle will not help.
The analog hole will always exist as long as 'we' amature musicians can buy microphones and 'us' engineers can buy or design data aquisition hardware (MP3's are just data points). Can't wait to make my PIC based Analog to digital converter/recorder.
People who have more freedom than US citizens will not be affected.
No, I did not RTFA. Maybe I'll go back and do it now.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
While I agree with the original thinking behind parent, I don't completely agree with the "only on two or three issues" sentiment. A political science major by training (IT pro by profession), one of the things that I learned while in school is the one thing that our representatives fear most: not being re-elected. As some have put it, new donors can be found, new voters or Congressional seats cannot be if they don't get reelected.
The problem here isn't entirely the representatives; in fact, I would argue that the vast majority of the problem is with the voters. The only way pandering to "two or three issues" works is if those are the ONLY issues to which the voters are paying attention. Remember, we have a republican style of government, we are the boss -- BUT we have to bloody well pay attention!!!
What this means: if you don't like this bill, call/email/fax/snail mail your employees (representatives) and make it very clear you don't like the idea. Or, if you'd rather -- just donate to the EFF and use their pre-filled form when action is required. Believe me, if enough of their electorate do this, there won't be enough money on the planet to get them to pass the bill. Votes > $$$$.
-- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -A.Einstein
For all you Bush-haters, this is not a rant about Bush, because he has zero power to pass laws.
Technically speaking, sure, except you can't ignore the way everybody parrots exactly the same talking points with almost verbatim the same words.
The basic political/media strategy of the Republican party is to win the debate by defining the terms used in the debate. This requires a great deal of cooperation and coordination between leading party members and their media flunkies. The aparachniks must be coordinate from somewhere. Currently this is the White House.
The more abstract an issue is to people the better this works. Gay Marriage, DRM, these things don't really mean anything concrete in most people's daily lives. In any debate where you have to start by educating the public, a coordinated media effort beats accuracy. Issues with real and concrete impact on people's lives, such as gas prices, can't be controlled this way.
I think unless it is largely wrapped up within the next year, the war will be the issue that will break the back of this strategy. Before a war starts, it is an abstraction. Afterwards, it becomes undeniably concrete to more and more people. As an American, I think we should get out of there quickly. However if we don't, although our national interests will suffer greatly, and many indiviiduals and families will suffer unspeakably, it will be a blow against American fascism.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So the analog-to-digital channel is denied -- big deal! How many times have I passed vendors in the NYC subway hawking copies of movies that have just been released in theatres in cheesy cases with obviously color-copied covers? As long as you can afford a digitial video camcorder, DVDs, and a burner, you can copy movies or TV or whatever. Who needs analog?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
China does a pretty good job of censoring the internet. Major telcos want to create their own internet and rights management will be one of the big "benefits" of this new infrastructure.
You'll buy the first set of eBooks because they'll be so convienient and have so many great features. We'll all decry the closing of bookstores with lots of comments like, "Oh, I still read a hard-book every now and then, it's got more feeling that way. Too bad everyone else prefers eBooks." Then, once the eBooks are the majority, they'll jack up the DRM. Hell, these days, most people will buy the eBooks even if the DRM is restrictive.
Let's see... then they'll pass legislation restricting the use of printing presses due to their analog nature and potential for rights abuse. Firemen will be dispached to finally burn all the leftover paper books because "all you need is your offically-licensed DRM eBook reader to enjoy all content." Most people will participate willingly, holding neighborhood book burning parties.
It's so easy to forsee and the corporations are extremely patient. Sure, there will always be EE's and hackers out there who can get around the protections. The protections don't have to be perfect, just enough to stop most casual users, as this legislation will do. Eventually possession of unrestricted content will be a crime. Funny how any "subversive" books and information will be restricted content, but yet nobody will publish it legally. Insert your desired definition of subversive here. Today's version is Mao - which gets you a visit by Homeland Security.
For the record, I stopped watching TV and most movies as well, but for more practical reasons, not as a protest of any sort.
Your suggestion assumes that every election actually features a candidate matching that description...
Reminds me of something I heard tonight on 60 Minutes about Bill Proxmire. Evidently he had a policy of never accepting a campaign contribution. Further, he was said to have never spent more than $200 on a campaign, and most of that was said to have been spent on the stamps used to return campaign contributions. I'm couching it in such careful terms because I haven't verified any of that report myself, but that caution itself sort of points to the problem today -- I have a hard time believing such a thing is even possible.
Imagine, a time when senators thought they were in Washington do do the will of the people. We've managed to evolve a political system where people who don't accept campaign contributions don't have the slighest chance of making it to Washington. Unless, of course, they're already independently wealthy, but I think history has shown us that those people tend not to be entirely in touch with the average person.
Half-assed populism still wins, and will continue to do so until a viable alternative can be created.
To say that I am predicting a societal and economic collapse of this scheme would be an understatement. But in the meantime crooks and thieves will bamboozle or bribe politicians to pass laws to "aid" this "transition", while stealing everything which is not nailed down in sight. The corporate thieves of course fully realizing the futility of this and only hoping that they can get rich syphoning off the vast river of wealth they have created flowing from the US to China (and then probably hoping to profit on the inevietable backlash, economic downturn and eventual re-alignment of economic forces)
Clothing that causes recording devices to perceive the content management signal. If enough people wear it to be an inconvieniece to recorders, perhaps the lawmakers will reconsider...Yeah, one can hope.
I used to do the same thing when I was a kid.
For some people (probably very few) this is "good enough".
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.
Yes, and this brings up the question; is every pirated copy a lost sale of a legit copy? The people behind this kind of legislation would have you believe so.
The real losers will be people like me who'll be forced to re-buy ephemeral content that disapears with time.
And the added cost of the "protected" equipment. This may only be a few more transistors on a chip or a whole black box at each electrical (A/V) port on your DVD player. Either way you will be charged for the extra complexity and its related lower MTBF.
Anyone who seriously wants to record HDTV and has a modicum of technical knowledge can bypass all this cruft. Fast A/D converters on the RGB drivers and scan circuitry of an HDTV set plus some code to convert the raw voltages back into pixel data would do it. The same thing in the digital domain would work for LCD drive signals. VEIL, HDMI and other encryption systems will do bupkis to prevent recording at this level because it's directly at the point of display and that HAS to be unencrypted for himan beings to make sense of the visual and auditory data.
They are our representatives, yet they don't represent us.
BS - They do represent you, just like the represent record companies. The difference is the record companies utilize superior tactics persuading representatives to their point of view. And no, this isnt always in the form of bribes or benefits, there are good politicians on both sides of the isle that are simply misinformed. Record companies put out literature, hold roundtables and most importantly - "convince". Our voices get trampled because we simply do not speak their langauge. Simply throwing up your arms saying congress and hollywood sucks lets all join a pity party does absolutely nothing.
Anyone on our side of the debate that raises their voice is usually a fanatic or at least considered one (FSF is a good example). If you we really want to change the future and secure what we consider our rights, you we have to form organizations that at least have the potential to gain respect in the house and senate. It is the _only_ way to get our voices heard. I am sorry, I like the FSF but they come off no better than southern baptists - "We are right because we know we are but we really can't prove it, just trust us". Believe it or not, not every OSS advocate is a GPL fan and they dont need to be. OSS and fair use are concepts that can exist in a capitalist society if we want them to.
Prove the idea of fair use, let congressman see what a future would be like that is completely DRM centric and employ intelligent and professional lobbyists. Get the message heard, comprehended and acted on.
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
Thank you oh First Republican President. Yeah, the bastard who voided the Constitution and create Executive Orders from whole cloth.
Agreed. If my hardware wants to enforce the law (and I'd like to point out that car governors don't limit cars to the speed limit almost anywhere), then it better enforce it accurately.
More importantly, there should be provision for rights requests to be honored remotely. That is to say, if I actually do call up Disney and get rights to make a copy of a movie that will be on TV tonight, how are they going to be able to "allow" me to do so?
Sophisticated keying systems with authority placed in neutral bodies would be necessary before any such 'law enforcement' electronics should become legal.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I notice that the MPAA managed to pick a district in Wisconsin that has almost no population. Look at the 5th District map and note the distinct lack of any major city -- Milwaukee has been carefully shaved out of that district.
In other words, Senselessbrenner is most likely immune to any form of voter revolt -- there aren't that many people in the 5th District, and most of it is agricultural. No offense to the farmers, but which farmers do you know that have Internet, especially in Central Wisconsin?
If you are a filmmaker in the established industry, you'll be able to afford the pricetag for the professional equipment that ignores and/or omits the copy protection on your work product, optionally adding it in only for the final print.
If you're a small, independent filmmaker using only consumer-priced equipment, all your equipment will include copy protection on everything, so each print you make will have to be a single continuous take since it will prevent you from making any copies or entering it into a consumer-level editing system.
And thus Hollywood is protected against independent filmmakers able to make good movies on the cheap entering their market.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I mean, who makes ADCs? I can think of four companies:
Texas Instruments (usually under the name Burr-Brown), Analog Devices, Cirrus Logic, and Asahi Kasei (AKM in the US). Of those, three are US firms, one is Japanese.
Now those may not be the only companies, but if you look at the hardware you own, I bet you find all of it uses converters from one of those four sources. If they all get on board with something like this, could be real hard to find a non-DRM source.
>And thus Hollywood is protected against independent filmmakers able to make good movies on the cheap
>entering their market.
Here's the real clincher, and if I were giving the MPAA types high credit for brains, this is what I'd peg as the real reason for the legislation. Instead, they produce so much CRAP that they don't deserve the credit for thinking this cleverly. So I suspect they're asking for what they really want, for the reason they really gave.
The real issue, according to the US Constitution:
To promote invention and the arts, artists and inventors are granted limited exclusive rights to their works. Most of us think that the purpose of this is twofold. First, to get them funding so they can keep inventing or artisting. Second, the patent/copyright was supposed to expire, so future inventors/artists can build on that work. So the real issue in the entire current copyright brouhaha should be how do we insure that artists are properly compensated so they can keep creating.
At the base of all of this, electronic communications, as embodied by the Internet, has turned the concept of publication on its ear. It has reduced the incremental cost of copying information to zero. Yet we still have publication industries in place, trying desperately to preserve their existence. So in an Orwellian turn, these publication industries, especially ??AA, are spending an incredible amount of time *preventing* publication. In truth, the "replication" portion of the publication industry is pretty well obsolete, leaving the "studio," "editorial," "promotional," and other such functions. Well, even the "studio" function is diminshed as electronics makes many of those capabilities much more affordable. One could argue about the fine line between "promotional" and "payola", and one could also argue, given the quality of today's media about how well they're doing with "editorial."
But this is ALL about protecting a business model. Last I knew, there was no protection in the Constitution for business models. It just needs to be exposed as this.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I sell thousands of products from major manufacturers (ABB, Tyco, Flowserve, and others). Every single one of my manufacturer's gets castings and machined parts from China. I deal in heavy industry-type items. Valves, piping, pumps, etc.
The parent post is dead-on. Back in the early to mid-90's, the castings and machining was sub-par out of China. Nowadays, that is NOT the case. The products coming from China are excellent. World-class, in fact. And guess who's jobs those used to be? Yep. Americans.
Apparently, it's a hard sell to say "I am worth $50/hour", when the company can go to China and pay much less -- with the same quality. Go figure.
The only downside is the delivery times. It takes time to get that stuff in from China and as such, the JIT (just in time) model, blows up. But who cares if you can sell it at 40% less than it takes to make it here stateside.
The original poster and everyone commenting that i can see missed the best part. The bill limits you to a grand generous total of 90 mins of timeshifting.
Quote from original article:
"And this bill is ridiculously hard on timeshifting. Section 201 (b) (1) of the DTCSA gives you all of 90 minutes from the initial reception of a "unit of content" to watch your recordings. Heaven forbid you get a long phone call or an unscheduled visit from a neighbor when you're engaged in some delayed viewing--once that 90-minute window closes you're out of luck until the next broadcast."
Can you imagine...
Creating a bunch of devices that emit the "Do Not Copy" signal cheaply, battery powered... Now place this device in front of your favourite landmark. In fact, place them wherever you want!
All of a sudden, people are unable to take pictures of it.
Now, take one of these devices to a press conference. The TV cameras won't be able to cover it!
I forsee a lot of warranty returns if that happens.
Still, might be good for individual privacy. Can you imagine carrying one of them and security cameras not being allowed to record your presence?
Awesome!
Can you suggest a way to "detect and allow Fair Use" while still protecting against unauthorized copies?
As a matter of fact, no. Actually, I think it's impossible, because intent is central to determination of Fair Use, and the machine can't read the user's mind. That's not the issue, though. A law that prohibits broad classes of activities, many of which are legal and valuable, in order to attempt to stop those that are illegal, is a bad law. For example, suppose we introduce a new bill to fight child porn. This bill requires all ISPs to install filtering software that prevents the display of any web page that contains images of nude people, as detected by an algorithm looking for flesh tones. It would do the job, mostly (there are obvious workarounds for more technically-minded child pornographers), but it would also prevent the display of adult porn, not to mention lots of other photos of people and even images that don't contain people at all.
Is that a good idea?
If you're going to make a technical proposal, you should at least be able to outline the means by which it can be implemented.
I'm not the one proposing that media players enforce copyright law. The media companies are the ones pushing that. I'm just saying that if they enforce the part of the law that favors content owners, they also need to enforce the part of the law that favors the public. Particularly since benefitting the public is, theoretically, the reason we have copyright law.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"It doesn't. It's to prevent John Q. Public from doing anything - they couldn't care less about the random EE inclined hacker who would could patch something together."
Which is pretty fucking dumb considering one random EE inclined hacker is enough to leak their precious motion picture. I know it's been said before, but I'll reiterate: this will not even inconvenience me, the pirate, while it will surely hurt paying consumers.
I'm glad I'm not a paying consumer; at least I don't feel bad about being treated as a criminal by default.