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.
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.
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.
I've been suggesting this ever since learning about the encoded patterns that make dollar bills uncopyable.
I haven't had time to play with it yet, but I'd laugh pretty hard if people couldn't print hardcopy pictures of me wearing a certain shirt. (Oh man, my next drivers' license photo would be a fiasco. "I don't know *why* the printer spits out a purple page!")
>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.