Digital Content Security Act

bdwoolman writes "Congress is leaving a special gift under the tree for Hollywood's film industry. Just before closing for the holidays, legislators introduced a new proposal designed to curb redistribution of movies.The Digital Transition Content Security Act would embed anticopying technology into the next generation of digital video products. If it makes its way from Capitol Hill to the Oval Office and becomes law, the measure will outlaw the manufacture or sale of electronic devices that convert analog video signals into digital video signals, effective one year from its enactment. PC-based tuners and digital video recorders are listed among the devices."

Comments

You are violating the act

[arrrrg]

by converting this post from analog to digital in your brain. You will be hearing from my lawyers (fp?).

Re:You are violating the act

[SIGALRM]

I appreciate your sense of humor, but I find it odd that /. would publish this post, which is a clear plagiarism of this article on CRM.

Re:You are violating the act

[Anonymous Coward]

oh my you're right, and word-for-word. Oh the irony!

Re:You are violating the act

[earache]

No plagiarism, they're both published by the same company and both have identical credits to the author.

Re:You are violating the act

[Steve Embalmer]

No plagiarism, they're both published by the same company and both have identical credits to the author

From TFA:

By Jennifer LeClaire
www.EcommerceTimes.com
Part of the ECT News Network
12/20/05 1:17 PM PT

From the post:

bdwoolman

How would you correlate the two sources?

Re:You are violating the act

[SIGALRM]

Actually what I was referring to was the verbatim quoting of the article in the text of the summary.

Re:You are violating the act

[damiam]

If you read the linked TechNewsWorld article, you would realize that it is the exact same as the one on CRM. It's not uncommon or particularly shady for a /. summary to quote the article it links to.

Re:You are violating the act

[1u3hr]

verbatim quoting of the article

"I think "verbatim quoting" is a tautology; moving on, it's one or two paragraphs, making about 20% of the entire story. I'd consider this "fair use", especially as it links back to the source. But of course lots of copyright owners don't believe there is such a thing as "fair use", as witness the topic of the story.

Re:You are violating the act

[Tmack]

However, by typing your reply you already are in violation! You translated your analog thoughts and movements into digitaly stored characters by typing them into your comptuer!!!

Ack! Now Im in violation myself!

tm

Re:You are violating the act

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Nobody said anything about copyright infringement. This is plagiarism, which is different.

Re:You are violating the act

[CSfreakazoid]

Since the Article Links to the original text, It isnt taking credit for it as and original work and is therefore not plaigerism

Re:You are violating the act

[1u3hr]

Nobody said anything about copyright infringement. This is plagiarism, which is different.

Well, the subject of your post "You are violating the act" made me assume that's (copyright infringement) what the subject was. Sorry about that. But I think every single story posted on Salshdot is "plagiarised" by those standards.

Re:You are violating the act

[Stripe7]

Does it apply only to video and audio? If not will this outlaw any computer used to recieve and process faxes? How about the equipment that converts audio into text for the deaf? Analog to digital conversion is required for that equipment to work. Knowing the techo-illiterate congress we have they will probably pass a law so vague that it criminalizes everyone.

/sarcasm
Of course the RIAA will have Homeland Security chasing after every violater of the law because by then they will have made a case that IP is a national security issue. :p
\sarcasm

Re:You are violating the act

[Anonymous Coward]

by converting this post from analog to digital in your brain. You will be hearing from my lawyers (fp?).

Gee isn't it nice to know that every hard drive, cd and dvd player and every video card and every sound card on the market is illegal, because they all include a form of a DAC?

so if analog signal processing is illegal, then i guess next generation hardware has to be all solid state memory, because just about everything else has some system to convert an analog piece of data into digital, and vice versa, and i can't think of a way to use say an analog device like a 'laser' or a 'magnet' without converting it's signal to digital form. heck, isn't electricity 'analog' too? does that mean every power supply on the planet is in violation fo this law? does that mean even our solid state memory devices, by using 'analog' electrical signals and converting them into 'digital' data storage are in violation?

seriously the world IS analog, by the act of CREATING a digital device you are CONVERTING an analog piece of data, into a 'digital' one. nice one, a law that makes computers and all digital devices illegal... but i bet that Would cut down on piracy, what since having a way to display digital media would be illegal...

Re:You are violating the act

[beejhuff]

I've yet to see an article linked to here on slashdot that didn't do this. I thought this was SOP?

Re:You are violating the act

[Amouth]

hell i was just thinking.. look they outlawed webcams.. now where is the net goign to go?

Re:You are violating the act

[Anonymous Coward]

The world is ANALOG. We're all illegal. Stupid peoples and their need to control everything.

Re:You are violating the act

[SubOptimalUseCase]

With that in mind, do you think they just illegalized home security systems? Hmmm, I think I see a problem...

[The scene opens with Mr. Smith lounging on the sofa, reading a book. There is a loud knock at the door.]

[MR. SMITH, moving toward the door] "Hello?"

[VOICE] "This is the IP Police. You are currently in flagrant violation of several Federal IP laws. I have an e-Warrent for your arrest."

[MR. SMITH, opening door] "What?! I'm just winding down with a good book, I'm not breaking any laws!"

[VOICE, now a stern looking man in a black suit, flanked by two SWAT men, weapons drawn] "On the contrary, Mr. Smith. It is blatently obvious, with our state-of-the-art pattern recognition software and peta-flop server farms, that you are reading a currently copyrighted best seller in view of your home security camera."

[SMITH] "Security camera?"

[VOICE] "Yes, the camera that we, *Ahem*, uh, your security provider installed along with the perimeter sensors you ordered."

[SMITH] "I wasn't aware of a camera ..."

[VOICE] "Of course not, if you knew then it would not be very secure now, would it? Anyway, ignorance of the law is no excuse. In addition to the aforementioned novel, you have also been broadcasting the images of several copyrighted works hanging on your living room walls - a particularly heinous violation! You are to come with us to the 'processing' center."

[SMITH] "But I haven't ..."

[Both SWAT officers chamber their weapons. Two small, red laser spots move over Mr. Smith's chest.]

[VOICE, restraining Mr. Smith in 4-point shackles] "You may have the right to speak with an attorney - once you have been 'processed' for your infringement of intellectual property and the particularly callous dissemination of said material."

[Both SWAT officers shoulder their weapons, move to flank the now prostrate Mr. Smith, and pick him up by the shackles]

[SMITH] "OUCH! But, but, I haven't done anything WRONG!!"

[VOICE, now following the unfortunate Mr. Smith as he is carried out the door] "Yea, tell it to the Tribunal."

Re:You are violating the act

[Botia]

Well, there goes the use of my LCD TV which convertes the analog signal from the satellite box and DVD player to digital to show it to me. I guess I won't be subscribing to any more broadcasts. I won't be buying any more DVD's either as I can't watch those.

Oh, my receiver uses digital processing. I guess I can't listen to any more CD's, tapes, or the radio as they are all converted to digital.

It sounds like all digital media is a thing of the past because at some point this analog world must be converted to digital to be stored on digital media and all of those devices will now be illegal. So much for making home videos on my camcorder. By the way, how's the music and movie industry going to get by?

Re:You are violating the act

[Guspaz]

I long ago became convinced that the US doesn't actually have a government, but instead is run by a series of competing corporations.

Is the US government so horribly corrupt that it cannot be saved? We're not talking about a third world country here, though with the number of bribe-backed bills being submitted (and passed into law!!) it is getting harder and harder to tell.

Re:You are violating the act

[Botia]

When we started out we were the United States of America. The states had the power. Since then the power has shifted to the federal government. With that shift states' rights have been taken over by Washington. The way to get into Washington and stay in Washington is by getting money from corporations or other large organizations. It is no longer at the local level. This puts large organizations in positions of extreme power over the people of the US. We are currently taxed at over 70% (through countless hidden taxes, income taxes, SS, Medicare, gas tax, sales tax, etc.) Typically countries have revolutionary wars at this point. Hopefully we can turn all of this around before it is too late.

Re:You are violating the act

[stonecypher]

I think "verbatim quoting" is a tautology

Nope, on two seperate grounds.

1) The etymology of "quote" goes from Old Latin "quot" how many conjugated "quotus" which from a sequence to medieval Latin "quotare" to distinguish by numbers; enumerate (esp. as chapters), then old French "coter" (same meaning,) then into middle English as "quote" to mark a book with chapters or references in margins. Those marginal references are the quotes, not the things in the book; it means citation, not transcription. Quotes are by default paraphrases. This is why one hears the phrases precise quote and exact quote. Granted it's a bit silly to use the word verbatin, which is middle Latin, with the word quote, whose meaning has change since middle Latin - its old meaning wouldn't make sense - but a quote, though often expected due to journalist's zealous misuse of the word (qv 'alleged') to be expected to be precise, is not denotatively required to be word for word.

2) A tautology is an argument; this is an internally self-supporting phrasing. The word you're looking for is "redundant." Tautologies are arguments which are true by the nature of their construction; they're generally either accidental, crafty ways to support circular reasoning, or silly. Using reasoning to prove that black people have darker skin than white people would be tautological if one used characteristics of the skin itself to make the proof, given that the distinction between the skins is originally drawn on the characteristic being used as a target providence. Lots of reasoning used to "prove" things based on character arguments or prejudicial arguments is tautological, relying in some inobvious fashion on one of the conclusions as a critical supporting argument. Oddly, I also saw a mathematician use this term on a strikingly inobvious transformation of an equation - the transformation was so dramatically different and useful in such a different way that the mathematician had to in fact display that they were the same thing, and to refer to that as a tautology seems strange, if accurate and defensible.

By the way, the DCSA has nothing whatsoever to do with fair use. The DCSA is an attempt to prevent archival and media retrofit. It's a completely different set of rights than fair use, which has to do with the use of a fragment of someone else's work within your own - media, journalism, sampling in music (especially rap and techno,) quotes in rebuttal, references in derivative journal work, et cetera. Fair use is about the law saying "yes, you may put those two paragraphs from Dr. Joe Blow's thesis on how Shakespeare was a Martian, in order that you can call him a buffoon and display that he was in fact from Neptune." Dr. Joe Blow has no right to say "you cannot use my two paragraphs in your contrary work." DCSA is not related in any way.

Re:You are violating the act

[GuyverDH]

By definition, DAC's would NOT be illegal.
Because they convert digital to analog.

What I think would be made illegal, is all the movie and music studios, that take analog microphone, instrument and video input, then convert it to digital.

As you stated, the world we live in IS analog.

Isn't it ironic, that the RIAA and MPAA would promote a law that would make the equipment they use to make a living, illegal?

RIAA, MPAA - I'm laughing at your superior intellect. Care to try for a rematch?

Re:You are violating the act

[1u3hr]

Nope, on two seperate [sic] grounds.

It's inevitable, the more pedantic you are, the more likely you will make a dumb typo. I've done it myself too often to gloat.

By the way, the DCSA has nothing whatsoever to do with fair use.

I wasn't making a legal argument, just as "He needed killin'" isn't a defence in court, it can nevertheless be true.

marginal references are the quotes, not the things in the book, it means citation, not transcription

I don't think so. I think the meaning is now generally understood to be "the exact words as spoken or written"; something you'd put in quote marks. And while the OED has at least 10 different senses, they include: "Repeat a passage from or statement by;" and tellingly almost all the examples given are of this type (except those referring to quoting a price). The senses you cite are described as "rare".

tautology is an argument

Again, true, but not the only or most common use. The first definition in the OED is "The contextual repetition, orig. of the same word or phrase, now usu. of the same idea or statement in different words", the original logical senses are listed later.

Backed by John Conyers

[ReformedExCon]

I had a lot of respect for John Conyers. Unfortunately, with this bill, he's spent all his political capital in my eyes.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Anonymous Coward]

>he's spent all his political capital in my eyes.

Ewww.

I hope he at least had the common decency to hand you a tissue.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[kypper]

I don't know... he's doing pretty well in my eyes.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Daniel Dvorkin]

He's doing well in some areas but -- obviously -- not so well, to put it mildly in others. That's the problem with high-tech censorship; there's no identifiable voting bloc in Congress that's opposed to it. You can pretty much count on the liberals to stand up against press censorship, and the conservatives to stand up against religious censorship, and assorted ad hoc coalitions of left and right to stand up against political censorship; but when it comes to That Weird Geeky Stuff, there are no good guys. Left and right are equally in the *AA's pocket. There are a couple of individual politicians who do seem to have some spine on this issue, but there aren't enough of them to make a difference when the votes are counted.

Outside the government, it's pretty much the same story. The EFF fights the good fight, but they're small potatoes. The really big, influential civil rights groups which should be up in arms -- the ACLU and NRA both come to mind -- apparently don't have any understanding of how technological issues affect their core missions, and so the EFF is left pretty much on its own.

I'd like to believe that one of these days the *AA will just push a little too far, and Joe Sixpack will rise up in revolt ... but I'm not optimistic.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Penguinshit]

I agree with you. I greatly respect Congressman Conyers, but I totally disagree with him on this subject. However, for the record, here's JC's response from his blog:

I have been hearing today that a lively discussion is taking place around the internet about my cosponsorship of the "Digital Transition Content Security Act," a bill that attempts to plug the "analog hole." Because the tone of some of these discussions has become so vitriolic, I decided to respond here.

First, some who disagree with my cosponsorship of this bill have imputed motives to me in a manner that I think is unfair. My cosponsorship has been labeled a "sell out," a "giveaway" or a "handout" to the movie/music industry, among other things. It has been said that I must have had "a lot of [my] time bought by the content industries" to cosponsor this bill.

The content industries would be very surprised to hear these assessments, which belie a great unfamiliarity with my legislative record and statements about these issues. Over a more than 40 year Congressional career, I have stood up clearly and consistently for the artists and others who work in the content industry. In my view, they are being squeezed from two sides. When it comes to working and contractual conditions, they are squeezed by the content industry. When it comes to piracy, they are being squeezed by illegal file sharing. Collectively, this squeeze has led to a lower standard of living for artists and lower profile workers in the content industry.

To say I am somehow beholden to the content industry ignores a number of actions I have taken. Here are a few from recent years. At a meeting of the Future of Music Coalition (an artists' rights group) in 2002, I rebuked the industry saying "[t]echnology is forcing the record labels and the artists and the writers and the composers to come together...[t]he Internet says to the industry that you folks are yesterday's news, you're following outdated models, your business strategies don't work anymore, and your profit motive is showing rather vulgarly." I also proposed a series of reforms to benefit artists that was strongly opposed by the RIAA.

When the recording industry slipped a provision to reclassify recording artists songs as "work for hire" into a satellite television bill and thereby deprived artists of reversionary rights to their songs, I fought back, saying among other things, "[i]t is about time we separate the people in the recording industry from the recording artists. I keep hearing from the recording industry telling me what the recording artists want. I know a few recording artists, and we will be checking on this. This is appropriately a sensitive subject." I have been outspoken about the industry practice of pay for play (or "payola") as well.

When the film studios have moved film production to Canada or overseas, thus costing American workers their jobs, I stood up to them.

When the publishing industry sought to deprive freelance writers of their rights (something fellow Kos poster Jonathan Tasini knows quite a bit about), I introduced a bill to protect freelance writers, illustrators, cartoonists, graphic designers, and photographers. The publishers did not like that very much.

I hear from lots of people that artists don't care about piracy. While it is true that some artists struggling to make it into the business don't mind file sharing because it exposes their songs to a wider audience, many - many - artists have come directly to me saying that piracy is threatening their ability to make a living. I have heard similar complaints from animators, writers, grips, and cameramen, who have seen job opportunities diminish in part because of piracy.

To be sure, as I have said above, piracy is not the whole problem - industry practices are part of the problem as well, but it is part of the problem. So what should we do about it?

Some say we do not need to do anything because uploading di

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[MasterPi]

RMS for President!

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Greyfox]

And I suppose that 10 grand capaign donation from the music industry is a complete coincidence?

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[RealityThreek]

I can't help but have some grudging respect for his stance.

Let's also keep priorities in mind. He also wants to impeach Bush.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[jcr]

I don't know what's sadder.. That politicians can be bought, or that they can bought so cheap.

-jcr

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Carmody]

"You can pretty much count on the liberals to stand up against press censorship, and the conservatives to stand up against religious censorship"

Really? When have the conservatives stood up against religious censorship, when the religion in question was anything but Christian?

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[dnoyeb]

Same. Not to mention our Other Michigan congressman that flirts with Disney.

I would be much more upset if I had actually taken the time to explain to him how this stuff is bad. He can't possibly have heard the full story could he?

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[weston]

First off, where did you find this entry? I don't see a title containing the words Digital or Content anywhere here...

Second:

"I have said repeatedly that any legislation affecting the ability of consumers to use content must be carefully balanced to respect consumer expectations and rights and, of course, fair use."

Does he really know what he's talking about? How can he not realize that if you outlaw devices except those that follow instructions from content owners, you've effectively eliminated any use except those they decide to give you -- fair or not?

Has he really though through the implications for independent journalism? If you can put an analog signal in a broadcast, speech, performance, that dictates its disposition/distribution, you've effectively ended independent journalism that uses direct A/V sources. Bush messes up in a speech? Sorry, you *can't* rebroadcast it -- hell, you might not be allowed to record it. The only version that will exist and be distributed will be the official version.

"many - many - artists have come directly to me saying that piracy is threatening their ability to make a living. "

Who? How many? Can we really trust decisions in a matter of policy like this to secondhand anecdotal estimates? Make your case, but do it openly and preferably with some references to some analyses that looks harder than that. As the Representative himself stated, there are also many, many artists who don't feel like piracy is a particularly big problem. I'd be interested to know why he's choosing to listen to those who do feel threatened by piracy.

Giving content providers ultimate control is the wrong place to fight this for anyone who can think through the issue and genuinely cares about liberties. If the Representative can't see this, he'll have a hard time convincing me he's not deficient in at least one of the two areas. I'd love to be able to see his responses, thoough.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[EMIce]

So we turn to market forces and technology. In terms of market forces, I have consistently criticized both the recording industry and now Hollywood for being too slow to adapt to the digital world. For years, I was told that you simply "can't compete with free." I believe the advent of online digital music sales has shown that to be a falsehood. Music is still available for free through illegal downloading services, yet Apple's iTunes music service has sold hundreds of millions of downloads. At the same time, it is a fact that rampant piracy of songs on the internet persists. The market doesn't take care of everything.

No the market doesn't take care of everything, but how will blocking analog to digital converters for video thwart piracy? Such technology isn't foolproof, and one technically knowledgeable person is all that it will take for illegal p2p distribution to take place. Analog signals aren't about to change and old equipment will remain around as well. On the other hand barring A2D equipment will obliterate fair use. Joe Blow who pays for HBO and wants to timeshift something to watch later on his ipod, he's the one who will be nickel and dimed for something he already pays for. This bill is there to stuff money into the pockets of the industry fat cats, plain and simple.

So we turn to technology. We are now in a debate about whether copyright owners have a right to limit uses of the content they own the rights to; if so, what limitations are appropriate and how we ensure that those limitations are respected. One answer is found in the iPod and iTunes music store. Music purchased through the music store is subject to limitations which iTunes and the iPod attempt to ensure aren't violated.

So you want the equivalent of iTunes style DRM for analog signals, I see. Why can't that work? People seem happy with iTunes, why should protecting analog signals be any different? It's different because iTunes like protection is optional, and doesn't effect users and markets outside the scope of protected content. The difference is akin to that between positive and negative rights, and there is good reason why the founding fathers preferred the later. Currently we are free to convert and manipulate content as we choose unless there is DRM, but what this legislation proposes is that we should not be able to convert and manipulate content as we choose by default. Obviously there are many uses for converting and manipulating content other than piracy, and this legislation casts far too wide a net. For an experienced congressman to miss this - one who sounds well intentioned enough - is surprising.

Perhaps he doesn't sufficiently understand potential of technology outside a narrow sphere, due to lack of exposure. The founding fathers also didn't want congress meeting too often, lest they become busybodies, out of touch with their constituency. They wanted our leaders to be out and about doing civilian things, so they could better understand the will of the people. Todays professional politicians are far too isolated and "handled" by staff, when they should should be out experiencing America and getting intimate with its problems.

------ For reference - From Wikipedia - Negative right

A negative right is a right, either moral or decreed by law, to not be subject to an action of another human being (usually abuse or coercion). Negative rights are sometimes contrasted with positive rights, which are rights to be provided with something by the positive action of another. The former proscribe action, while the latter prescribe action.

One example of a negative right is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which acknowledges it unlawful for the government to restrict a person's speech. A law requiring another person to provide him with a microphone would codify a positive right, as would a law requiring that a person deserves police support to protect and enforce free speech.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[pallmall1]

Yes, Conyers is very consistent. He wants to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and censor every American.

Question: what gives the motion picture and recording industries' a right to survive in a changing consumer environment without having to change their business model? Answer: Congressmen like John Conyers.

What a Hollywood party hack.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Brandybuck]

Great. You guys go trash talk him, calling him a "sellout" and implying that he's been bought and paid for by the MPAA. Now that he thinks the opposition are a bunch of geeks with no social skills, who else can we turn to?

Sometimes I think we get the government we deserve...

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[TapeCutter]

Please note this is not a personal attack against you. I am using your post as an example.

I know what is sad, the fact that so many people instinctively take the lazy argument and assume he has been bought. Even though I don't live in the US and don't have a clue about this particular politician, I do recognise US politians are gaining a reputation for selling laws to the highest bidder. The letter ended with a rational request, yet many will jump to the same irrational (but understandable) conclusion and ignore the offer to discuss.

I also know what is strange, another poster said they could not find the transcript by following the link. I searched the site using the word "analog" and also came up empty handed? Would the OP like to comment?

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[millennial]

Or give you a reach-around.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Fool! In America, Christianity = Religion.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Crayon Kid]

First off, where did you find this entry?

It's comment #96 to his The End of the Legislative Year post.

It's signed "JC", but just to keep the paranoia going, there's no way to tell if it's really his comment or just someone signing "JC". Usually blogs have means of distinctly marking comments made by the owner himself, but not in this case.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Anonymous Coward]

How can he not realize that if you outlaw devices except those that follow instructions from content owners, you've effectively eliminated any use except those they decide to give you -- fair or not?

A prime example, one I demonstrate to my friends regularly, is the DVD format. Obviously there's the whole "region" crap, but even beyond that, there's a flag the "content creators" can set to mark a specific "chapter" as "unskippable".

This flag was created specifically so the creators can add the FBI warning (you know, that notice that incorrectly informs you that you'll face criminal charges if you attempt to copy the content, even though realistically it would wind up a civil case). Now days I find this flag also used to force the viewer to watch previews of upcoming DVD releases, or other advertising material.

So, not only are they lying about their rights and how they are enforced, they are now using this flag to require you to view whatever content they feel you should see -- often for their own profit.

Of course the DVD player manufacturers comply with the content industry's wishes, because hell, they are the only ones who can license the ability to decode DVDs (legally) in the first place. So bottom line is, you're forced to watch a bogus warning that attempts to scare you out of copying, as well as some previews and whatever else the content producers feel you should be forced to watch, even on a DVD you purchased.

To quote the grandparent: "many - many - artists have come directly to me saying that piracy is threatening their ability to make a living."

This reminds me of a couple of things. First, the Napster, Bad! videos published by CampChaos a few years ago. Also, somewhat more recently, South Park did their bit to put this into perspective.

The fact is this: most artists make very little from album sales; the labels rake in most of that revenue. Artists tend to make most of their living from concert tickets, T-Shirts, etc... Sure, by downloading an album you may take a tiny bit from the artist, but you're certainly not breaking them. Album sales make an artist known (via radio play etc) but touring & merchandise is where the artist actually makes most of their revenue. The label should be compensated to some extent of course (usually the label fronts the cash to spot the talent, record & release the album, and to publicise the result via radio or MTV)... but even with piracy in its current state the label makes out big time, while the artist barely breaks even repaying the label...

These are of course just my opinions, so I should just post anon...

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Fordiman]

You give respect for obvious opportunistic political territorial pissings?

Damn. Have some standards, man.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Fordiman]

"RMS"?

I'm all for having the Root-Mean-Square algorithm - or any algorithm (except Al Gore, of course) - for president. Hell, even a prime search algoritm would do a better job than Reagan, Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, or any of the 2008 nominatory candidates I've heard of so far.

Actually, a No. 2 pencil would do a better job.

Fucking useless human presidents.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Anonymous Coward]

This is complete BS. All senators and representatives
receive MILLIONS OF DOLLARS under the counter from agencies
closely associated with RIAA and MPAA. And these agencies
make up whatever excuses to make Senators do these debates.

It's the same thing as with the old-known Metallica claim
against Napster. Metallica band could care less since they
recieve 1,000 timesmore money from concerts than CD sales.
But the management was pushing on them to deliver that
piracy news as a big deal. Read Slashdot posts with
Metallica's interview from that time. There was a question
"so how did you find out about napster" - answer "our manager
told us".

RIAA & MPAA are a mafia of crooks that just attempts to buy
senators and reps to pass out bills. The reason for that
is their ridiculous price fixing and monopoly. And they
don't want to admit to it. Not a single artist who is
"hurt" by file sharing is living poor. In fact, not anyone
from this category has less than a few million dollars.
We all know it. RIAA & MPAA know it. They just don't
want to put this into the equation.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Fordiman]

The term isn't always 'bought'. Somtimes lobbying is enough.

For example, if you read his response, the argument for the bill sounds like the sort of dogmatic story you'd hear from the RIAA and MPAA - almost believable until someone reads off some research (for example, the way music sales haven't actually been effected by digital piracy in any way more significant than the effect of street bootlegs)

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[elgaard]

He makes the usual mistake of believing it is all about music and video.

The industry can put all kinds of control in their products as long as I can just choose not to buy them.

But when they try to regulate the equipment I use to make holiday movies it is an entirely different matter.

I too would like good artists to make a decent living. But bills like this is essentially saying that artists (and their record companies) are first class citizens and that I am a second class citizen.

(If I lived in the US that is but if they succeed in the US, Europe will be next).

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[wkitchen]

I'm reasonably convinced that Congressman Conyers can be counted among the good guys. But regardless of his thoughtfulness on these matters and probable good intentions, I am not at all convinced that this bill and other related ones are anything but heinous.

I hear from lots of people that artists don't care about piracy. While it is true that some artists struggling to make it into the business don't mind file sharing because it exposes their songs to a wider audience, many - many - artists have come directly to me saying that piracy is threatening their ability to make a living. I have heard similar complaints from animators, writers, grips, and cameramen, who have seen job opportunities diminish in part because of piracy.

I see no reason to challenge that claim in itself, but I don't see it as a valid justification for this legislation. Why should we protect the interests of commercially established artists and companies to the detriment of new, niche, or non-commercial ones? I believe that doing so raises the bar to entry for new artists, and increase the media companies' stranglehold over not just an industry or a market, but even our culture.

We are engaged in a debate about whether similar technology that recognizes limitation imposed by the copyright owner should be required in other devices. My cosponsorship of this bill is intended to start that debate, not end it.

My biggest problem with all of this is that it doesn't stop at limiting what people do with other people's creative works. It also limits what people can do with their own creative works.

It also limits what people can do with things like news reports, political debates, speeches etc. Why is this important? Because this limits our ability to fully participate in our own democracy and protect ourselves against those in power who might seek to corrupt it. It is not so easy for the powers that be to perpetrate the lie that "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia" to a populace that posesses and can distribute recordings of those same powers saying otherwise. Perhaps there would be some provision so that such things would contain an identifier that enables recording and redistribution. But the potential for abuse would still be present.

I really don't think it is possible to create any truly effective combination of DRM technology and laws that would not have a great potential for abuse, or at worst be inherently abusive. Because to be at all effective at limiting piracy, you'd have to tightly close the analog hole, the digital hole, and the privacy hole. That last one is so you can catch anyone who somehow manages to slip through any gaps in the first two, which will inevitably happen. To deal with all the existing technology that leaves all of those holes wide open, a non-technological solution is required. And that means laws. Laws that severely restrict the uses of such equipment, or even criminalize the mere posession of it. Laws with broad (and therefore, expensive) enforcement, and with penalties far exceeding the crime (otherwise it won't scare anyone into compliance). Laws that will destroy a great many livelyhoods and break many families before they seep far enough into the public consciousness to be effective.

I'm quite sure that the above is not at all where Congressman Conyers is heading. But anything less will not significantly impact piracy because it takes only one successfully unprotected and de-watermarked copy to feed that supply chain. But legitimate uses can be siginificantly impacted with far less draconian measures. Those uses cannot be served by a small number of law-breaking technical wizards. Those uses require ready and legal useability by ordinary people.

With all of the wonderful potential for individual expression and participatory democracy that these new technologies offer, I believe that we would be far better served by legislation that does exactly the opposite of these forced DRM and anti-ci

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[jcr]

Washington DC is my home town. I've had congress critters for neighbors. I can think of only one currentcongressman who I would be surprised to learn had been bought, and probably not that many throughout history.

-jcr

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[YA_Python_dev]

"The costs of one such act of piracy can be astronomical."

He is perfectly right that a single upload (I don't agree with the "piracy" and "astronomical" parts) is sufficient to start the illegal distribution.
And this means that all this DRM stuff won't stop the illegal file sharing, but they will only hurt the fair use rights of honest citizens.

Obviously the **AAs know this very well.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[TapeCutter]

My point is not about the merits of the bill. My point is that he asked for sensible dialog and people start hitting the cheap sellout button on the strength of an unremarkeable factoid. With a little background knowlage it does not take much imagination to think that the (spontaneous?) comments from artists could be astoturf. But you only assist the lobbyists efforts to sideline you by jumping straight to the insult phase. You can beat lobbyists with logic, unless of course the politician really is performing favours. If the politician's background is the lobbyists logic, astroturf and bunch acronym filled insults from nerds, does that make him corrupt/stupid/evil?

"Backgroung knowlage" is important and this issue would be considered esoteric by most people over 30. It takes more than a $10K donation, (from people who sprinkle $10K donations like confetti), to convince me he is being pig-headed about pushing the bill in it's current form.

What is his motivation to publicly post such a question if he was in the lobbyists pocket? If the answer is: "to show nerds cannot communicate", why risk upseting an entrenched stereotype?

Skepticisim questions a rush to war, cynicisim produces it. I'm still not convinced the letter is genuine!

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[JonathanR]

Is John Conyers gay? He must be if he is keen to plug anal log holes.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[TapeCutter]

I do not live in the US, so I am really just responding to the alleged letter and the instantaneous insults. Your opinion echoes many others and I am willing to trust you have more background knowlage of the subject than I do. I have some years of experience that would indicate farmers are phycopathic slave drivers who see little difference between workers and animals. I try not to let it blind me into thinking it is hopeless to reason with farmers in general.

For all I know this guy could be your exception. I'm still trying to figure out how Clinton can get sacked because of a blow job but nobody can do anything to stop the current stench in the whitehouse?

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[jcr]

I'm still trying to figure out how Clinton can get sacked because of a blow job

First of all, he didn't get sacked. He beat the rap, because his fellow democrats voted for him against their conscience.

Secondly, he was impeached for lying under oath, not for having sex with an underling. It doesn't matter what you lie about, lying under oath is perjury. What he should have done, is refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it wasn't relevant to Paula Jones' case, which it wasn't.

-jcr

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[nutrock69]

We in the USA have this wonderful document written by a bunch of people who knew what they were talking about when they created our government. It's over 200 years old and it claims our citizens have something called 'freedom from religion'.

Anybody want to buy it? We're not using it anymore...

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Elvis Impersonator]

Maybe this didn't reach newspapers outside the USA, but Clinton did not get "sacked". Clinton was able to finish his full two terms in high style, ending with a yardsale which featured pardons for the highest bidding criminals.
He would have been re-elected if he could have sought a 3rd term too.
Armed with knowledge, its easy to see how we'd allow an escalation to a man who does not deny he has been breaking many laws held sacred by this country, but instead claims they don't apply to him.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[TapeCutter]

So what would it take to get the current mob to answer questions under oath?

Point taken on the sacking and stupid perjury. I thought impeachment was an auto-sacking (forced election). At the time of the blow job scandal I was distracted by my wife leaving to give someone else a blow job.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Anonymous Coward]

That *is* a pretty thoughtful and knowledgeable comment from him, but:

"I have said repeatedly that any legislation affecting the ability of consumers to use content must be carefully balanced to respect consumer expectations and rights and, of course, fair use. I certainly understand that there are some who believes this bill falls short in this regard, and would welcome an open and civil dialogue about those concerns."

Where's the balance? Practically every piece of major legislation I've seen with relation to copyright revision that I have seen in the US and other countries has been tilting the balance further and further towards the content owners, and further away from the content users, with regards to "fair use". It is to the point that there are laws (such as the DMCA) that make exercising "fair use" rights technically illegal because the act of circumvention is illegal.

Maybe it is stating the obvious, but a simple way to ensure the balance he talks about is maintained would be to add the phrase "not illegal if the action would otherwise be legal under copyright law" to this kind of legislation. In other words, if I circumvent copy protections to do something that would, on its own, be legal, then it is allowed. If I am circumventing copy protection to do something that would be illegal (e.g. making duplicate copies and selling them), then I'm in double trouble. If, under plain copyright law, I have a defense, them I'm okay. But I haven't seen such clauses included in most legislation. Usually consumers are left dealing with a fair use "right" they technically still have, but no way to legally exercise that right. That's deeply wrong. With the past legislation to judge whether a "balance" is really being preserved, why on Earth should people trust that it will be this time?

I see these proposals to outlaw uncontrolled A/D converters as accomplishing the same thing. Hell, it might be *MY* content that I'm trying to run through the system, and maybe I don't want it encumbered by protection schemes, because I want to provide it for free distribution. Maybe I have some really old VHS tapes I bought, and I want to transfer them to DVD for preservation. Maybe I want to display some media I *bought* and *own* on an older TV without support for copy protection schemes. Too bad. As an ordinary consumer, I won't be able to buy such equipment legally, and I'm already not legally allowed to bypass any copy protection.

If that ability isn't preserved, then it is obvious there is no real "balance" being sought here, just an effort to push things as far as possible to the content-owner's side of the equation, before the public screams about it. The recent Sony XCP fiasco demonstrates there is a limit, but I think there is deep frustration long before achieving that level of egregious abuse. For me, it was encountering Macrovision copy protection when I was simply trying to wire up my stereo/tv system the way I wanted. I wasn't trying to illegally copy anything! But I was foiled, and to circumvent it I would have to do something illegal. That's stupid.

Piracy is a problem, but it is already illegal, and the law should not make millions of people criminals for doing things that would ordinarily be legal. We all know that pirates set on doing something illegal will find a way to do it anyway. Look ahead -- in 10 or 20 years, these laws would apply to practically everything manufactured. If these laws do what they are supposed to do, by that point legal "fair use" will exist only in theory, not in practice. The "balance" he talks about will be on paper as a quaint copyright anachronism, and not exist in the real world.

Ironically, I think the only glimmer of hope here is if people say "forget that", and stick with the old technology, in which case the law will also stifle progress. Also, I fully expect lawsuits down the line when people discover their own equipment isn't living up to specifications purely because of copy protection schemes even when doing things that are not illegal (e.g., HDTVs that won't display HDTV resolution could be construed as false advertising).

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[BushCheney08]

Pffft...You're just talking about some goddamned piece of paper...

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[MBraynard]

Really? When have the conservatives stood up against religious censorship, when the religion in question was anything but Christian?

Because in the US that's the only religion that gets censored.

Although, conservatives have routinely stood up for the display of the Manora (spelling, sorry) and other religious symbols in public square or Jewish and/or Muslim based home schooling / community schooling programs.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[dangitman]

Because in the US that's the only religion that gets censored.

Are you kidding? Christians get to push their agenda loudly in the most inappropriate places. The most powerful people in the country are religious. Christians are not being persecuted or discriminated against. It's mostly gays, atheists and muslims who get religiously (or philosophically) discriminated against, censored, or even physically attacked. Christians have multi-million dollar PR machines and total political dominance at their disposal.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[eraserewind]

Look, if he doesn't want people to think he was bought he should turn down the donations from people he has supposedly spent his whole political career opposing.

Personally I think the whole idea of corporations or organizations donating in any way to politicians is wholly corrupt. It should be a criminal offense for doner and recipient.

The only people who should be allowed to donate to political candidates are registered individual voters, and those only of a very limited amount of money or a somewhat less limited amount of time and expertise.

And how do they get their message across without millions in advertising? Did they ever think that if they couldn't get it across without all that advertising, then maybe it wasn't worth getting across? Anyway, with everyone in the same boat, less money is needed.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Danse]

The letter ended with a rational request, yet many will jump to the same irrational (but understandable) conclusion and ignore the offer to discuss.

Yes, mostly because I'm tired of writing to my congresspeople, only to get a form letter in response that has almost nothing to do with the letter I sent them. They apparently match up a few keywords and toss it in a pile to get some boilerplate reply. They don't listen unless you're throwing money at them!

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[xystren]

"many - many - artists have come directly to me saying that piracy is threatening their ability to make a living."

Who? How many? Can we really trust decisions in a matter of policy like this to secondhand anecdotal estimates? Make your case, but do it openly and preferably with some references to some analyses that looks harder than that. As the Representative himself stated, there are also many, many artists who don't feel like piracy is a particularly big problem. I'd be interested to know why he's choosing to listen to those who do feel threatened by piracy.

By the same argument couldn't I say that "The govt is taking too many taxes off my paycheque, and therefore taxation is threatening my ability to make a living."

Hmmm, so how I don't think it would fly.....

1. Mislead some misinformed senator to sponsor an anti-tax bill
2. Get bill passed
3. .....
4. PROFIT!!

-Xyst

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[MBraynard]

What we are talking about is the government surpressing religious freedom and expression. Would you really like me to list examples?

OR are you of the mind that putting a Nativity scene in the public square, if paid for by a private entity, along side a Manora, is not legally protected religious freedom?

It doesn't matter. You have no evidence of any examples of anything you are talking about. Your politics are probably more informed by the West Wing and MTV News than actual fact.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[doodlebumm]

Politicians, by the need to please too many people in order to be elected, must lie to someone at some point. They veil this with wording and rationalize it by saying that circumstances made it necessary to screw someone. Even the most well intentioned politicians are forced into this sell-out of their principles.

I believe that most politicians must decide what causes they will not sell out, which they may abandon, and those that they never really plan to back. The politicians that I find the most trustworthy are those that have significantly more of the former than the latter and hopefully not too many in the middle choice.

You can't really blame all politicians, but you do have to wonder about the political system we have. Unfortunately it is impossible to have a benevolent dictatorship, who has truthful, idealistic (yet realistic) advisors. And when I say impossible, I mean impossible. Of all the systems we have available, this one seems to be the best. But it could use with some reform.

If we limited political contributions to small donations from individuals, large corporations and other special interest groups would just funnel money through a bunch of willing individuals. There needs to be a cap on campaign spending - period.

We could allow additional campaign contributions into a common fund to be used by all candidates. If we gave equal minimum free airtime to all candidates, that would level the playing field more. Then those that want to spend the limited campaign spending money on more airtime could do so. Of course we would have lots of wackos coming out of the woodwork to take a piece of the action, but most communists, facists, and psychos would be easy to see. No, it isn't a cure, but its a step in the right direction.

As far as Conyers contributions go, the $10K from the entertainment industry is pretty nice, but there is also money from "misc unions" which could in fact be from entertainment unions. Then who knows where the money from the lawyers came from....

Just to put in one of my pet peeves, I think that politicians should not be allowed to take any pay raise, ever. If you go in at one pay rate, it stays that rate until you get another job. That would prevent them from giving themselves a raise and from staying in forever (which is another problem with most long term politicians - corruption by continued association, so to speak).

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[SomeGuyTyping]

Nope - Freedom OF, not freedom FROM.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Rune69]

If the Congressman is so enamored with artists' rights, why doesn't he go after the recording companies and force them to stop signing artists to contracts that 1) give artists no rights to their own works, and 2) gives artists about $0.03 per album sold?

Money in his pocket!

This has nothing to do with artists rights, its all about the Chicken Little media companies that want make the entire world conform to their outdated business model.

So Congressman Fuckhead can shove it with his "I'm on your side" bullshit. Congressman are bought-and-paid-for whores.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[ElBeano]

Reality is much more complicated than you suggest. Years ago, when Sun Myung Moon was under assault by the IRS, Jerry Falwell et. al made statements supporting religious status for the Moonies.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[rpresser]

(Misspelling "menorah" once is forgivable. Why on earth didn't you spell it correctly on your second post? The spelling does vary a bit, since the actual spelling of the word is in Hebrew letters; but there are a few generally acceptable transliterations - menorah and menora being the most popular - and you missed them all.)

A nativity scene and a menorah are not even close to being coequal in religious meaning, by the way. The nearest Jewish equivalent to the nativity, ironically, would be an image of the two tablets of the ten commandments. (Ironic because most Americans would not immediately realize an image of the ten commandments was meant to be a Jewish religious symbol.)

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Ed_Pinkley]

I agree with most of your post, however:
The fact is this: most artists make very little from album sales; the labels rake in most of that revenue.

This may be true for performers. Songwriters, however, get most of their money from album sales and air play. We need a way to get money to all the artists involved and skip the label.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Eccles]

What he should have done, is refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it wasn't relevant to Paula Jones' case, which it wasn't.

It wasn't a criminal trial, and thus fifth amendment protections against self-incrimination do not generally apply. "In a civil action, in order to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, the witness must be faced with a risk of incarceration that is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)" A judgement of relevance is up to the judge, and Judge Wright ruled the questions relevant initially.

Regardless, the questions never should have been asked. If I've ever compelled under the same circumstances to answer questions like Clinton was, I'll lie too. And if I ever have to vote on whether a president's lying under those circumstances makes him unfit for office, I'll vote no -- and it will be perfectly with my conscience.

To be perjury, it must be material to the case. If, as you claim, he could have claimed Fourth Amendment protection, then it must not have been relevant, and thus not perjury. And indeed, after the fact Judge Wright ruled that it was irrelevant. (Not that perjury is ever pursued in civil case regardless; the worst punishment typically is reserved for lawyers, who get disbarred. As I understand it, Clinton was.)

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Anonymous Coward]

artists have come directly to me saying that piracy is threatening their ability to make a living

Threatening their ability to make a living, or threatening their ability to make $10 million a year?

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[nutrock69]

Actually, it provides both. It's been argued to death which one is meant overall by supporters of both sides, but there are two parts to the 'religion' clause of the first amendment - the first part protects citizens FROM a state sponsored/approved religion, while the second protects a citizen's individual right to worship whichever big-man-in-the-sky they choose.

In context: It is perfectly legal for W Bush to worship a christian deity on his own time. It is NOT legal for him to pass his religious beliefs into federal law and force the citizens of this country to live by them.

No wonder he hates that goddamned piece of paper - although he wasn't above using it to drum up support for his war in a speech last week in Philadelphia...

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Barumpus]

When it comes to piracy, they are being squeezed by illegal file sharing. Collectively, this squeeze has led to a lower standard of living for artists and lower profile workers in the content industry.

These 2 lines cause me to start thinking. It is not piracy that is causing a so called "lower standard of living" but multiple factors combined, if anything at all. How many popular singers and bands are there in this world that have complained because the house he/she has purchased only cost 2.4 million instead of 3.4? How many of the well actors and actresses have complained because of the same reasons? I personally do not see how any person can use a "lower standard of living" as an excuse when they are making literally millions off 1 film and the like. I do agree that the music side has it worse off then then the film due to record companies taking more then they deserve at times. I do not know the actual numbers but there have been disputes in the past over things of this nature. But when it comes to films, how can this even be brought up except for the reason of greed. A prime example of this would be the new MI3 movie with Cruise. It was stated on one of those late night shows that the film cost approx $150 million U.S. and Cruise made approx $75 million U.S. I do not know about the rest of you but I honestly doubt that the difference between $7.5 million and $75 milion will lower anyone's standard of living to the point they would have to complain.

I believe that as long as we live in a world were people have the ability and the means to design, create, and use things such as computers and digital video recorders, this problem will never go away. Maybe it is time for the music/film industry to come up with a solution that will allow them to continue to make profit while not taking away from the people they expect to get money from?

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Shocking that anyone would think congressman Conyers would be predisposed towards the entertainment industry....

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[wfeick]

Congresspeople get a lot of letters every week, and it would take a lot of time and money to write an individual response to each one of them. You indicate the bill number you are writing about, and a general pro or con view of it. They send back a form letter so they can save their money for other things. If they pay someone to respond individually to every letter, they would either have to increase their fund raising efforts or cut back on other things they do. Would you prefer either of those?

If you want better access, you could consider offering to donate time to your local political office, and field letters for them on technical areas. You would have to get over the fact that you would be required to respond with the elected official's viewpoints rather than your own, but it would allow you to potentially help influence the congressperson's views on the topic.

Also, a single letter on a particular subject is not important to them, nor should it be. They represent their entire constituency, and what matters is when they get many letters on the same topic. I believe they do listen when there is significant feedback. They tally the pro and con feedback, and try to get a sense of the public mood. I'm sure they also save all the letters, and eventually a staff member will scan over them and provide a summary of the points raised and perhaps a count of how many times each point was made by a different person. This information will then be used to help form the official position.

This brings up another difficulty in responding individually to each letter. An elected official doesn't know which way their constituents want them to lean on a particular bill until they've had a chance to go over all the feedback they've received on it. Given that, I think it's entirely appropriate to respond with a form letter indicating some of the main issues and stressing what their high level goals and beliefs are.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds misleading to me. Is there more?

This was nice-sounding but contentless, boneless, manipulative argument.

There is no data, and the only thing he says is that yes, he's cosponsoring the legislation, but he's done good stuff in the past which makes this not so bad.

He's just avoided the whole serious part of the issue, which would be the good arguments for supporting the bill.

Seriously, he starts by focussing on his past deeds and I'm-not-a-sellout statements, which distracts the reader. Then shifts very nicely back to the main issues, not *quite* this issue - instead we're back to the cookie-cutter media arguments about piracy and he merely states that the whole thing on limitations-should-be-respected without taking position.

And iTunes is *not* the same. That's not legislation - any good competition could change it and no one has (yet) gone to jail for working around the Apple drm. Not to mention, Apple might just be using the DRM to placate the media industry.

What about a bad example? Say Sony? Or lets talk about VCRs? Or MS. Companies do bad things, just like people.

New rules should consider what's the *worst* abuse that could happen to the new law, not what happens if everything is sparkles and everyone is good. Ex DMCA. Thank goodness no one abuses that! Imagine how bad it could have been!

Read up on persuasive (ie manipulative) writing and arguing. This nicely written.

In my opinion though, facts should speak for themselves, and this situation looks bad.

Read the other comments for possible abuses. They negate any good, I'd say.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[fireweaver]

TapeCutter (624760) said:

"So what would it take to get the current mob to answer questions under oath?"

I seriously doubt that. I have an increasing suspicion that BushCo (and other places) is full of psychopaths like those described here: http://www.psychopath-research.com/ or here:
http://www.geocities.com/lycium7/

And not just in the whitehouse, either:
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_11 240.shtml

The prognosis is not good if this is the case. Google it up and read about it. It is scarey to say the least.

"Point taken on the sacking and stupid perjury. I thought impeachment was an auto-sacking (forced election). At the time of the blow job scandal I was distracted by my wife leaving to give someone else a blow job."

Was her name Monica by any chance? ;-)

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[jx100]

It's actually a comment made by him in another thread. Use the site's search for "digital transition", look at the only article that has it, and scroll down much of the way for a very long post by a "JC".

Considering the nonobviousness of this, I think the OP should be somewhat commended for digging this deep

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Danse]

If you want better access, you could consider offering to donate time to your local political office, and field letters for them on technical areas. You would have to get over the fact that you would be required to respond with the elected official's viewpoints rather than your own, but it would allow you to potentially help influence the congressperson's views on the topic.

Also, a single letter on a particular subject is not important to them, nor should it be. They represent their entire constituency, and what matters is when they get many letters on the same topic. I believe they do listen when there is significant feedback. They tally the pro and con feedback, and try to get a sense of the public mood. I'm sure they also save all the letters, and eventually a staff member will scan over them and provide a summary of the points raised and perhaps a count of how many times each point was made by a different person. This information will then be used to help form the official position.

Right. I could do that. Or I could donate 10 grand and get to have dinner with the guy and explain face-to-face. Which do you think is more effective? I think my point was made. Money buys you attention, and given the poor understanding that almost all congresspeople have of technology, it makes it pretty easy to sway them to your side. That doesn't even consider that they were probably halfway there based on your donations. Oh, and by the way, they do have plenty of time to go over the letters. It usually takes a few months to get a response from them.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[TapeCutter]

Nah, Monica had a real job, my ex was allergic to employment.

I have no doubt that many governments and corporations fit a diagnosis of phycopathic. I still hope at least some of the people who comprise the organisations are a little more sane.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[TapeCutter]

I tend to agree that's how the system should be but it's not.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[TapeCutter]

"If you go in at one pay rate, it stays that rate until you get another job."

You would have to at least account for inflation, this guy has been there for 40yrs!!!

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Penguinshit]

Jesus.. if anyone had ever asked me if I'd gotten a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky, I'd lie too!

I think Clinton should have been impeached for being the most powerful man in the world and getting sexual favors from a fat neurotic pig like Lewinsky. As Kennedy proved, POTUS can do *MUCH* better...

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[jcr]

So what would it take to get the current mob to answer questions under oath?

A subpeona from a relevant jurisdiction, or from the congress.

-jcr

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[jcr]

Personally I think the whole idea of corporations or organizations donating in any way to politicians is wholly corrupt.

Ross Perot suggested limiting contributions to those who could vote. That means no money for a campaign from any organization, or from any person not registered to vote in the area where the election is taking place.

It would drastically cut the spending on election campaigns, for one thing. It would also pretty much preclude national parties from pushing local candidates. It might even lead to the demise of political parties, which might not be a bad thing. One would probably have to read the candidate's position papers and maybe even attend a debate to decide who to vote for. Imagine!

-jcr

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[dangitman]

OR are you of the mind that putting a Nativity scene in the public square, if paid for by a private entity, along side a Manora, is not legally protected religious freedom?

You said that Christians are the only ones who are censored. But do you think that Muslims or atheists would also be allowed to display their philosophies like this in a public place? the separation of church and state applies to all religions, not just Christianity. The thing is that other religions generally don't try to use government resources to evangelize. Christians are free to say whatever they want on their own dollar. Why should government be involved? Government is about running the country and its infrastructure, not promoting beliefs.

It doesn't matter. You have no evidence of any examples of anything you are talking about.

Certainly I do. Haven't heard of gay bashing? The "Intelligent Design" fiasco in places like Kansas. Christian programs that get you released early from prison. Rhetoric from the President against people who aren't Christian. the bashing and persecution of Muslims. Open your eyes.

Your politics are probably more informed by the West Wing and MTV News than actual fact.

Excuse me? I have never even seen either of those shows. And you have mentioned no facts whatsoever. Do you read the news at all?

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[wgc21]

This is so much bs, I very carefully read this bill, there is very little dealing with piracy in this proposal, we are talking about the so called analog hole. that is taking a digital signal and converting it to analog and back to digital to avoid copy protection mechanisms. Any true pirate, the ones tied to organized crime and drugs and what other scare words people like your backers always bellow out won't bother with, they have the resources to bypass any firewire or hdmi protection and pull the signal directly from those ports, in fact there are actually some very simple ways to do that, No, the major target of this asualt is the dvr, the motion picture industry has been slowly chipping away at free use ever since sony betamax. The provisions in this bill will severely limit what you can do with your dvr to the point that tivo etc. are only useful for very limited time-shifting, you see the content providers have found some limited potential for revenue there, so they don't want to eliminate dvr's entirely, but they feel threatened by people recording series and keeping the recordings around for a while. Normally when a new technology comes along industry needs to adapt to the new technology, but that is expensive, its far easier to contribute heavily to the political and personal gain of a congress person of your choice. www.ehomeupgrade.com recently (still on the site) published the financial disclosures of both rep Conyers and his cosponser, of course several key players in the entertainmnent industry are named. This bill if passed would greatly hurt the ability of this country to innovate and compete with other contries whose product engineering is not dictated by the content providers whose content may represent and small percentage of the overall total content on a digital device. Think about what that means. A little about myself, I have written my dismay to rep Conyers, since I am unfortunately a voter in his congressional district, I would love to futher debate this issue (webmaster@distribtuted-home.com), I also look forward to his defeat in the next congressional election, and will do my best to convince everyone I come into contact with here in Michigan how bad John Conyers is for Michigan.

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[MasterPi]

I really hope you were joking, but just in case and for anyone else out there wondering who RMS is, see here

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[elsPrime]

screw you

Re:Backed by John Conyers

[Fordiman]

Me? I NEVER joke. It's all about seriousity with me. Definately seriousity.

Shit. I was channeling Mr. Bush again.

Remember people

[Saven Marek]

USA only gets control over USA, and you always have a choice where to live.

Re:Remember people

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the thousands of dead Iraqis. Or don't. They can't hear you or nothin'.

Re:Remember people

[zwilliams07]

You don't know the USA. Give em a few years, soon you won't have a choice where to live.

Re:Remember people

[jasonditz]

and move to Australia, to get placed under house arrest for sedition... or move to the UK, where the government has decided they have to track every car on the road at all times. This is a worldwide problem of encroaching tyrannies, it's not as simple as packing a bag and going to a less insane place.

Re:Remember people

[cujo_1111]

You know that fence on the Mexican border, soon it will be to keep the USians out of Mexico...

Re:Remember people

[TeraCo]

What a load of crap. The Australian 'sedition' laws are the same laws that have existed for decades, reworded a bit. Did you have secret police kicking your door down last year? Odds are good that you won't this year either.

Re:Remember people

[jasonditz]

Odds were good that if you lived in Stalinist Russia you wouldn't wind up in a gulag either... that doesn't mean either was a good idea.

Re:Remember people

[Junior J. Junior III]

Uh, have you ever tried expatriating? It's very difficult, and takes a long time.

Re:Remember people

[chriswaclawik]

Actually, many people have absolutely no control over where they live (due to either social, economic, or political reasons).

Re:Remember people

[xTantrum]

i have to agree. The U.S. has a 2 things going for it. its army and hollywood. with its amy it can plant pupet leaders and disrupt already content countries and with hollywood it sells "the american" dream. making foreigners want a piece of the american pie.

hollywood has a lot of money behind it and i'm sure a lot of senators in their pocket - if the world watches a lot of hollywood films i wouldn't be surprised to see this bill introduced in some forms in other countries.

sad really, i just hope we don't see their army being used to enforce hollywood's intentions.

Re:Remember people

[ZoTo]

The US pushes many of its laws into other countries. Australia for instance is being forced to adopt US copyright laws (amongst other things) in return for being able to export goods to the US.

Re:Remember people

[Lazarian]

"USA only gets control over USA, and you always have a choice where to live."

Unless the US begins to apply political and economic pressure to adopt laws that are the equivalent to the DMCA. Recently here in Canada, the government turned down a proposal from the US to enact a DMCA type law, and the Bush administration "rejected" our "rejection". It was posted here a few months back.

I wonder where the economic thumbscrews are being turned. Softwood lumber dispute, perhaps?

Re:Remember people

[lengau]

Antarctica, here I come. Who's with me?

Re:Remember people

[skribe]

Australia for instance is being forced to adopt US copyright laws (amongst other things) in return for being able to export goods to the US.

We weren't forced to do anything. We (aka the majority government coalition parties on our behalf) chose to do so freely in return for greater access to the US markets. We could have walked away from the deal at anytime. We just chose not to.

Re:Remember people

[cranos]

Its this rewording that has people worried. Remember, these are laws, they are based on words, and changing even just one word can cause some pretty serious consequences.

Re:Remember people

[cranos]

In actual fact, the government of australia ran merrily up to the US holding a large stick of butter and said "How deep do you want to go today?". In exchange, we now have the prospect of American pharma companies rendering our Pharamcuetical Benefits scheme(subsidised medications) useless, DMCA style legislation and pretty much zero long term benefit.

Re:Remember people

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that should read *most* people. The idea that moving wherever has the best job/lifestyle/laws is the best way to go is completely overrated. It undercuts the importance of having family reasonably close, which is more valuable than any amount of money much of the time (sometimes a comfortable buffer is necessary, but long distance family visits just don't work very well--too hectic and too compressed for any real value). Cousins can't spend weekends together, adult children only see their parents once or twice a year. That just sucks for any reasonably healthy family.

Re:Remember people

[MegaFur]

USA only gets control over USA, and you always have a choice where to live.

I'm sorry, but that's kind of naive. Suppose I've invested a great deal of time and energy to build a life in a given location. I haven't really, but just suppose I had. Now, is it realistic for me to rip up everything by the roots and move? Or what if I simply can't afford it? Sometimes you have to take a stand and fight instead because moving is too damn difficult.

Re:Remember people

[Rinkhals]

It's hardly relevant to draw comparisons which have past into history.

It's like saying that if you lived in the Deep South, odds are you wouldn't be thrown into jail if you were black.

Oops.....

Re:Remember people

[Anonymous Coward]

Cousins can't spend weekends together, adult children only see their parents once or twice a year. That just sucks for any reasonably healthy family.

Except in Arkansas.

Re:Remember people

[Gravis Zero]

with its amy it can plant pupet leaders and disrupt already content countries...

I hate being a bit off topic but if you are referencing Iraq, I'm sure there were plenty (thousands) of tortured a killed people that would disagree with being "content" and the families too. Also, Sadam is on trial for crimes against humanity. Not a whole lot of content people with having a leader like that in charge.

Re:Remember people

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

New Zealand isn't too bad, yet.

Re:Remember people

[kocsonya]

And, as they say, every nation deserves its elected leaders...

Re:Remember people

[Anonymous Coward]

People still don't get it.

DON'T BUY STUFF FROM THE RECORD LABELS OR MOVIE INDUSTRY.

If you buy their stuff, you're supporting the very people that are trying to screw-over consumers all over the world (starting in the US of course).

Re:Remember people

[EdHockery]

Well, you can allways come to Holland.

Re:Remember people

[Jesus_666]

USA also gets control over the technology used in the USA and by proxy by everyone else. Come on, do you really think that the hardware will miraculously work in Europe? Because you guys have legislation that mandates broken hardware means that we get broken hardwasre, as well - the only way to not get it would be to get our politicians to pass a law that explicitly states that the stuff has to be unbroken. Which would never get passed.
American anti-consumer legislation ends up hurting the whole world, which is why the politics and YRO stories are interesting for everyone, not just Americans.

Re:Remember people

[eraserewind]

Remind me, how many countries USA have a military presence in nowadays?

Re:Remember people

[fury88]

USA only gets control over USA, and you always have a choice where to live.

That statement could open up a can of worms. But sticking on topic, take the internet for example.

Re:Remember people

[jasonditz]

Statistically the odds were you wouldn't... that's exactly my point: making an injustice comparatively rare doesn't make it less wrong.

Re:Remember people

[jasonditz]

Well, you all do have that rampaging gang of drunken Santas, but I guess it's still a step up... Is becoming an immigrant to New Zealand very difficult?

Re:Remember people

[blastard]

That reply is humorous at best. "I wasn't forced to say 'Uncle', I freely chose to do so in order to get the bully off my chest."

Just like the various states of the United States were not forced to raise their drinking ages to 21. Instead, they chose not to lose significant amounts in federal highway funding. Same scenario happened with seatbelts and a host of other issues. I am proud that my state did stand up against them on the seatbelt laws for adults. FYI, I always wear mine, but I retain the right of choice.

I support anti-duplication tech and legislation

[Samir Gupta]

... for Slashdot stories!

Digital Rights Massacre

[Eli Gottlieb]

Wow, and won't all this conversion to DRM'd digital machines obsolete the old ones? Of course, which is probably the real goal here. They aren't merely plugging a hole in their Digital Rights Massacreing, they're forcing everyone to go out and buy new stuff! WOOT, keep the economy fueled and the profits where they belong: in the hands of those who don't need them.

Re:Digital Rights Massacre

[Anonymous Coward]

And no one is buying new equipment or movies, so "piracy" must be increasing which means that they are going to "pass" another law which will only increase "piracy".

You shure can tell that the bookkeepers are in charge of the industry, the old school business persons, who loved the buisness [and also knew a way to make money], will be rolling in their graves.

Re:Digital Rights Massacre

[pete6677]

This will ensure that the bill fails. We should be glad that it is so ridiculous that it has no chance of passing, rather than only being semi-crazy like the DMCA. Hollywood may like the idea of making their movies so secure that most people can't even play them, but device makers won't appreciate having to redesign their entire product line. Competing corporate interests will keep this bill from ever seeing the light of day.

Re:Digital Rights Massacre

[supabeast!]

"We should be glad that it is so ridiculous that it has no chance of passing, rather than only being semi-crazy like the DMCA."

On September 10, 2001, almost everyone in Washington would have told you that the Patriot Act was so ridiculous that it had no chance of passing. All it takes to get a despicable law passed in Washington is timing. Wait for voters to stop paying attention to what's really important, and one can slip any crazy law by. News from Washington in January will see the Alito nomination, more Patriot act showdowns, hearings into domestic spying by the DoD and the NSA, and a lot of noise from 2008 presidential hopefulls. Karl Rove is expected to be indicted soon and rumors of the imminent resignation of Donald Rumsfield just keep coming. With all of that noise on top of the bird flu nonsense, continued post-Katrina rebuilding being bungled, and the latest noise from Iraq constantly coming in, do you really think that it would be very hard for the *AAs to grease a few palms, twist a few arms, and sucker in a few morons to get this law passed?

Re:Digital Rights Massacre

[sfe_software]

Hollywood may like the idea of making their movies so secure that most people can't even play them, but device makers won't appreciate having to redesign their entire product line.

I wish I could believe this, but consider how any commercially produced DVD player obeys the current wishes of the content industry. Region coding, non-skippable portions, etc. There's no technical reason a particular player couldn't play any "region" disc, and there's no technical reason a player can't skip a particular chapter (be it the so-called FBI warning or a preview they feel you just have to see).

Hardware manufacturers will continue to do whatever the content industry wishes if they want to compete. Hell, if they don't agree, the content producers simply won't license the rights to decode the CSS encryption found on DVD discs. If the RIAA/MPAA makes more demands, I'm sure the hardware makers will gladly comply; if not, a hundred others in China or Korea will gladly take their place. If DVD playback hardware was your business, wouldn't compliance be in your best interests business-wise?

Re:Digital Rights Massacre

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully, in this case, the device makers will be greasing those and other hands. If money has to grease hands, I damn sure hope it's going to protect the masses, not a select few.

Re:Digital Rights Massacre

[Lonewolf666]

In the case of 9/11, the government could point to a really spectacular terrorist attack as reason for the Patriot act. Where is the equivalent for the *AAs?

Re:Digital Rights Massacre

[supabeast!]

My point with the 9/11 reference is that appropriate timing can get any bill through. The Patriot act got passed because at that time people were obsessed with the belief that the government had to do more to prevent terrorism that they didn't think about the possibility that our government failed to prevent the attacks because of simple ineptitude. All it takes to get a crazy agenda put into law a good opening to exploit, and that may be what the *AAs are doing here - pushing a nasty law when all the wonks are too busy worrying about a plague of bigger stories.

Re:Digital Rights Massacre

[utuk99]

You obviously bought a big name DVD player. The $20 one I got at Radio Shack doesn't pay any attention to region encoding or anything else. You can skip the FBI warning, previews and anything else you want. The picture and sound quality are fine on it too. I was a little worried about that when I got it. I can barely use the expensive one I bought several years ago simply because it is so annoying. My patients with electronics goes down every year. Now I just watch TV and Movies on my Linux box where I can do whatever the hell I feel like.

Ready to move to Canada yet?

[CokeBear]

Its days like this I'm so happy I live in Canada. Anyone want to move up here? I have a spare bedroom.

Land of the free? heh

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll pass, but I would so love it if we could work out some sort of digital tuner bootlegging pact. :D

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[TigerNut]

Like crypto, excessive legislation and draconian enforcement in the digital rights management scene will just drive software and hardware development (as well as independent filmmmaking) out of the US... you guys down there need to wake up your senators and other government reps and explain to them that they're killing the tech industry just so that the bigwig media machine can make its crappy "entertainment".

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

The way things are going in the USA it's only a matter of time before the **IA demands the Canadiens follow our rules.

Eventually USA will demand Anschluss with Canada, hell USA already tried once in 1812. /conspiracy

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada has its own problems too. CD-R tax, for one thing. Draconian "hate speech" legislation is another thing. So as far as I am concerned, they are just two different poisons.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean land of the free, eh?

That being said... What city?

Is there anything I need to know... I like beer, hockey, I have been in a Tim Hortons, I like Rush...

Did I miss anything?

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[brainhum]

That's about it. Welcome to Canada.
C'est tout. Bienvenue a Canada.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to actually see that happen. Unfortunately all those people who said they were moving to Canada after the 2004 Presidential elections were just talking out of their asses, as the emigration to Canada was almost negligible.

Meanwhile, I see the reverse still happening. The best and brightest from Canada and other parts of the world are continuing immigration to the US in record numbers, so we are more than making up for any losses to the 51st state.

I'd actually like to see more of these lefties move out, then they'd see how good they really had it in the US of A. But it's all talk, just like on slashdot.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Kristoph]

You are correct that Canada has a tax on _AUDIO_ CD-R media. It is for this reason that said media is either not availlable or shelfware while we happilly buy non-audio CD-R media which, coincidentally, works really well in audio media players :-)

I'd have to say I support the hate speech thing because, you know, I think it promotes hate ... but that's just me.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Braino420]

Don't you mean 'that's aboot it'?

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Nataku564]

We try, at least some of us. The problem is the people need to get woken up first. Most people don't care about such things - or much beyond the walls of their own home (and the taxes thereon) really.

The patriot act is far worse, and very few seem to care about that. I'm just glad I came from the only state to vote against its inception in the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

Feingold = the awesome.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Nataku564]

Yes, its still good, but its kind of like when you see a kid stomping around in your nice flower garden. Sure, when he is done, you still have the other flowers in the garden, but you kind of like it better the old way, eh?

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[ergo98]

Canada has its own problems too. CD-R tax, for one thing. Draconian "hate speech" legislation is another thing. So as far as I am concerned, they are just two different poisons.

Canada absolutely has its own share of problems. Indeed, there was some legislation on the table (before the election was called) that shared a lot of similarities with the much-reviled DMCA. I think it's naive if any fellow Canadians get smug about our position.

However, complaining about hate speech is really bizarre. If that's what's wrong about Canada, then we must be doing incredibly well.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Penguinshit]

You forgot your mullet.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind sir, I believe you've confused Canada with Ohio.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Teresh]

Land of the free? heh

Indeed. I present the following extension of that idea.

The Hollywood's Mangled Manners
by Teresh
to the tune of 'The Star Spangled Banner' by Francis Scott Key

O, say can you see?
By hollywood's early light,
What so proudly we hate,
At the fair use's last gleaming.

Whose broad strides and Right bars
From the perilous 'Net
O, the controls we watch
Are so ungallantly growing

And the rootkits red glare!
The rights bursting in air!
Gave proof through the night,
That our DRM was still there!

O, say does that star spangled XCP yet wave?
O, the land of the Free*!
And the home of the RIAA!


*Note: 'Free' refers to the freedom to buy multiple copies for the same additional price.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[supabeast!]

"Its days like this I'm so happy I live in Canada. Anyone want to move up here? I have a spare bedroom."

Given Canada's history of taxing media and giving the proceeds to the music and movie companies, it's quite foolish for Canadians to assume that their government won't institute this law as well.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Grishnakh]

Most of the good filmmaking has already left the US, and is in Vancouver, Canada now. After all, Stargate is made there!

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Grishnakh]

Actually, hate speech legislation in Canada strikes me as very bizarre, because I just came back from a vacation there and was astounded by how friendly everyone is compared to the USA. Here in the US, any random person you run into is about 50% likely to be a complete asshole. In Canada, assholes are extremely rare, or at least are very good at not acting that way in public. The one asshole I ran across in Vancouver was an American tourist.

(For those interested, the other huge difference I noticed between Canada and the USA was competence. Go into any store, or deal with any person that has to deal with the public in the USA, and you have a 50-75% chance of them being completely incompetent, or at the least totally unhelpful (and very likely an asshole). In Canada, people actually seem to know what they're doing.)

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Fordiman]

You know, I've always wondered why media production companies differentiated 'audio' vs. 'data' media, and why 'audio' costs more. I mean, AFAIK, they're all identical - the only differentiators on CDs are rewriatability and max speed, right?

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Spackler]

Most of the good filmmaking has already left the US, and is in Vancouver, Canada now. After all, Stargate is made there!

Dude, have you seen Stargate lately? I think it lost it's "good filming" badge about 2 or 3 years ago. Ever since Teal'c grew hair, the show is just Lost.

(PS: If you write for Stargate, please don't shave his head to get ratings again. I'm not coming back.)

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[justasecond]

Is that the same Canada that forces its citizens to pay protection money to the recording industry for every piece of blank media they buy? Sorry hoser, you're screwed too.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[CokeBear]

In Canada, people actually seem to know what they're doing.

I think that has something to do with our well-funded education system, quality teachers, and lack of fundies messing with our science curriculum.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Generic Guy]

will just drive software and hardware development out of the US

I'm surprised that the number of times I've seen this type of phrase bandied about, that nobody seems to respond with the obvious reason:

• Hardware is already made in foreign (to the U.S. anyway) countries.
• Movies are made domestically (whether actually true or not, its the mainstream belief).

Therefore, I am never surprised to see draconian measures enacted to protect domestic content producers at the expense of foreign electronics makers.

Even more nefarious when you realize that a lot of "content" is being filmed overseas, but they still want heavy local protectionism after they "import" their work back here.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you have never been to Quebec.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you meant to say "Land of the free? eh?"

P.S. Aboot that room...

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Grishnakh]

I don't think so. While this may have an effect in certain professions, I'm really talking about this from a tourist's point-of-view, where I spent all my time walking around and dealing with retail workers and other such people who don't really need much education to do their jobs.

I think it comes down to a difference in attitudes. The Americans who gets jobs in retail have very poor attitudes, many tend to be assholes (see my prior comment about how half of Americans seem to be assholes) and they simply don't care about doing a good job, being helpful and friendly, etc. So they just do the minimum to avoid being fired, and that's it. Don't expect them to ask you if you'd like ketchup with your fries, or to do anything else resembling good customer service, or to bother understanding their job well enough to answer simple questions.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[CokeBear]

Even retail workers in Canada got a good education.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Grishnakh]

I'm not disputing that, I just don't think that's the problem. You don't need a good education to be helpful, friendly, and make a cup of Starbucks coffee the right way without screwing it up. What you do need is a good attitude about life and your job, and an interest in doing things right instead of being a slacker, having some pride in what you do, etc. All that is missing in many American workers, and I just didn't see such a problem with that in Canada.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[proudhawk]

It isn't just here.......

India is starting to see the same sets of problems....
oh yeah, do go to china (as an outside), their
government doesn't like the competition (china is
probably the 1 place with the highest level of dvd
piracy on the entire planet and they export that
to the tune of $30 Billion USD annually).

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[CokeBear]

I'm curious then, why do Americans not have these things? All the propaganda streaming across the border extolls the virtues of the "land of opportunity" and the "land of the free". What is missing in America?

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet?

[Grishnakh]

My guess probably isn't much better than yours, but some ideas:

1) People here feel entitled to some sort of luxurious lifestyle. You can see it with the ridiculous spending habits many people have, and the consequently enormous consumer debt. It seems typical now for people to have a big mortgage, a big car payment, and all their credit cards maxed out. As soon as they have one problem with cashflow (loss of job, etc.), the house of cards comes tumbling down and they go bankrupt. Personally, if I were to lose my job tomorrow, I have enough cash to pay my living expenses and mortgage for probably at least a year, maybe 2 or 3 if I include my fiance's savings. We already own both of our (11-year-old) cars outright, and always have, and we're in a situation where we'll be moving into a new house soon, and plan to have it paid off within 6 months. This is pretty rare around here.

2) Parents have done a horrendous job of raising today's younger generation (the college-age ones who typically work in retail). Instead of spending time with their kids as they grew up, and teaching them good values, they (both parents) spent all their waking hours at work so they could have a bigger house and fancier cars (and also because the stupid companies in this country expect that level of commitment or else they'll find someone else who has it), leaving the kids to raise themselves.

3) You've heard about "land of opportunity", but not "land where we try to be friendly to each other". It's just not highly valued in America to be friendly; notice how asshole lawyers are worshiped here. (Seriously, my fiance saw this at a retail store: a snotty-looking woman walks up to the counter, and has some sort of problem, and the first words out of her mouth are, "I'm an attorney, and ...". Whatever this problem was had nothing to do with her being an attorney, any more than my being an engineer entitles me to special treatment when Starbucks gives me a substandard cup of hot chocolate, but immediately everyone starts cowering and doing their best to please her.) Americans think a lot about making money, and that's about it. The religious right isn't much help either, because they're all holier-than-thou, and think it's more important to "be on the right side" than to love your fellow man. After all, people who aren't in the specific sect of Christianity that they're in are all going to hell. (Yes, Christians really believe non-Christians, and Catholics too, are all going to hell.)

4) Total lack of humility. You hear Americans talking about how great they are, or how great America is, but you never hear any acknowledgment that some things are better elsewhere, or that we're doing anything wrong. If you complain, you'll be met with the response, "If you don't like it, then leave!" Worse, the Americans that see no wrong have little or no clue how things really are in other countries, because they've never been to them, or even read about them.

The senate can leave this present under the tree..

[theheff]

...but I'll still be leaving the flaming bag of poo at the front door.

But I like my microphone!

[masgrada]

So now I can't record my guitar to my computer? No more computer karaoke? How broad of a "analogue" device definition are we talking?

Re:But I like my microphone!

[icecow]

quote:
So now I can't record my guitar to my computer? No more computer karaoke? /endquote

Your arguements are not helping.

Re:But I like my microphone!

[banuk]

sorry, you're 'talking' on a digital medium and that's been outlawed.... send your giant fine to the MPAA

Re:But I like my microphone!

[spongebue]

From the summary:

If it makes its way from Capitol Hill to the Oval Office and becomes law, the measure will outlaw the manufacture or sale of electronic devices that convert analog video signals into digital video signals, effective one year from its enactment.

Since this is for video only, I think your microphone will be ok... I suppose it's possible that some webcams may be affected, but I don't know a whole lot about that technology.

Re:But I like my microphone!

[name773]

from the summary it seems this thing only applies to video, thank goodness

Re:But I like my microphone!

[Zerathdune]

no link to the actual bill, (anyone?) but the article says it would oulaw the manufacture of devices that convert analogue to digital, not the actual act of converting analouge to digital. so yes, you could still do that, but if you lose that mic, you're fucked. again, no link to the actual bill, so we can't be sure exactly what it would entail.

Re:But I like my microphone!

[interiot]

Digital cameras? Scanners? Fax machines?

Re:But I like my microphone!

[fossa]

Webcams, camcorders (DV and other digital kind), TV cards, digital still cams with video capabitity, digital still cam + VHS player with pause feature (ok, that would be a bit tedious) can all be used to convert analog video by filming the screen. And obviously they convert the analog world into digital, if that's covered. Or what about analog camcorder -> capture card -> computer editing. How could anyone wish to ban that?

If this law does what the summary says it does, this is insane.

Re:But I like my microphone!

[Lord Kano]

So does that mean that the devices to used encode MPEG video used to author DVDs will be illegal?

Hollywood may have just fucked themselves.

LK

Re:But I like my microphone!

[CrankyOG]

"video", it said "video"

Re:But I like my microphone!

[carl0ski]

VHS players are analogue devices
they project images off the magnetic strip.
they ouput to analogue RCA composite or coaxial cables.

DVD player is digital to analogue convertor

Stand alone DVD recorders
are in the croshair
they take input from analogue device such as a VCR or even the output of a DVD player

if this passes
1 it will be difficult for me to find a device that allows convertion a 8mm format films or VHS family video recordings to a digitised format.


MPAA the world isnt so addicted to you that your movies are the only use for these products.

Re:But I like my microphone!

[zegron]

Good point.. I don't really think it will make it into law though.

Re:But I like my microphone!

[masdog]

So that Dazzle Analog-to-Digital converter that I used to use to get stuff from my video camera onto my computer would be illegal??

Re:But I like my microphone!

[iainl]

Yes. Along with any other mechanism that would achieve the same result.

The bill really is that zealous.

Re:But I like my microphone!

[Fordiman]

Not exactly. If you were to buy one after this law goes into effect, it would be 'fixed'. It will then only record those things the MPAA deems acceptable for you to record.

Re:But I like my microphone!

[meringuoid]

So does that mean that the devices to used encode MPEG video used to author DVDs will be illegal? Hollywood may have just fucked themselves.

No, no, no.

Hollywood, the MPAA members, the RIAA members, and other large corporate interests will be licenced to own and operate this technology. Nobody else will. That way, they can digitise their content and we can't use the analogue hole to copy it.

Better yet, we can't digitise our own content. Remember, a system in which anyone can set up and compete with the established companies is unfair and un-american and helps terrorists and it's called COMMUNISM. The American Way involves a government-backed monopoly or cartel controlling all the means of production. Remember how that was what the whole Cold War was all about?

Re:But I like my microphone!

[CRiMSON]

Reading comprehension it's just not for grade school anymore!

Re:But I like my microphone!

[Jerrry]

This law, if passed, would result in everyone going out and buying the soon-to-be-banned equipment in the one-year grace period.

This will be just like the assault weapon ban in California where people who otherwise would never have bought one went out and did so just because of the impending ban. The end result in that case was far more assault weapons in circulation as a direct result of the ban than ever would have been otherwise.

If this law passes, Hollywood is shooting themselves in the foot in more ways than one.

Re:But I like my microphone!

[Kirth]

So now I can't record my guitar to my computer? No more computer karaoke?

That's the idea. You haven't signed with a recording company, so why should you be able to make your own recordings? You might even threaten the profit of the recording industry with you self-made recordings.

Re:But I like my microphone!

[Lord Kano]

Remember how that was what the whole Cold War was all about?

I guess those 20 million bodies buried in the forest outside of Minsk weren't a good enough reason to oppose communism.

LK

Forced Obsolescence Act of 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

Better start digitizing your old camcorder films now.

In a few years it'll be illegal, and your original tapes will degrade over the years until they're unplayable. Same presumably goes for old audio recordings you made with your friends when you were growing up.

Congressman Sensenbrenner at least is out there to protect us. Who knows what would happen if those embarrassing tapes were allowed to last forever?

Re:Forced Obsolescence Act of 2005

[XFilesFMDS1013]

Who knows what would happen if those embarrassing tapes were allowed to last forever?

Future generations would know of Paris Hilton's sexual exploits? Hmmm...better destroy those tapes now, and save the eyes of future generations.

MPAA Amnesty Program

[themadplasterer]

If this legislation is passed the MPAA Amnesty program will be offering one free movie for every PC tuner card, ADVC converter & mini DV surrendered. Unfortunately the movie will be: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299930/

Re:MPAA Amnesty Program

[eclectro]

one free movie for every PC tuner card, ADVC converter & mini DV surrendered. Unfortunately the movie will be: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299930/

Or whatever movie tiltle they have a warehouse full of that they were about ready to illegally dump in the ocean.

Re:MPAA Amnesty Program

[name773]

re your nick: do you know how to do plaster work, and is it hard to pick up?

i like your use of the word surrendered, and also how these are sometimes called copy protection schemes

Re:MPAA Amnesty Program

[themadplasterer]

No, I don't know how to do plastering. I'm actually a bartender

All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[Verteiron]

That's a lot of stuff. For a start, my father-in-law loves his digital camcorder. As a journalist I'm sure he'll be thrilled with this new "freedom of choice".

Geez.. all digital still and video cameras, my old Hauppage WinTV-PCI card... Let's see, all HDTV and LCD monitors...

Somehow I don't see this one going through without a fight from hardware manufacturers. And since they have more money than Hollywood, they'll probably win. I hope.

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[JoeBorn]

Well the article was a little misleading, it won't really outlaw all analog to digital conversion, it will just make it so that the hardware manufacturers have to recognize a signal in the analog stream that dictates what can and can't be done with the stream. In effect this will likely make those devices useless since no media will allow recording, just like virtually no DVDs allow copying today. Yes, you can expect the INDEPENDENT hardware manufacturers to fight this, but there aren't very many of them around anymore. Sony has studios, Apple is the 7th largest music retailer in the US with ITMS, and TiVo is already largely beholden to the content providers. Microsoft is aggressively courting Hollywood to adopt its DRM and codec standards, so it's not clear they'll fight it. It really is scary:

http://www.neurostechnology.com/press/freedom.asp

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[damiam]

Someone mod parent up. It's the only sensible comment in this entire discussion.

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[AaronW]

This has the potential to wreck havoc with consumers. Say I'm trying to tape my kid's birthday party and a DVD is playing in the background. Or I'm trying to tape something and someone blares music at the same time with the signal. What will happen? Will my video camera refuse to record because an analog signal is embedded in the DVD soundtrack? I think this is a very bad idea that will anger a lot of consumers. It will do little, if anything, to curb copyright infringement. For people that record movies in theaters it will just mean that they'll use older equipment or find some other way around it. Also, a lot of those movies come out of foreign countries which have no such restrictions.

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[zaguar]

Actually, it is a boon for the Hardware manufacturers. It means that consumers will have to go out and buy all of this new stuff for compatibility.

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, so now you can mount a device on your car that produces the same signal - and prevent the police from photographing your car as you run the red light. Prevent the survelience cameras from recording you robbing the Quicky-Mart. Show up ni New York for the Today show, and when Al Roker is talking to folks on the street, you can black our his video/audio. So much stuff is direct to digital, there's all kinds of mischief you will be able to perform - because the law requires it!

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[elgaard]

But look at the "bright" side.

As long as they keep playing Eminem CDs at Abu Grahib we will see no more of those disgusting home videos.

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[16K Ram Pack]

Maybe instead you'll see Chinese companies making lesser named devices with protection that just happen to have a copy protection option built in. One that can be overridden with little more than a remote hack that someone posts on the internet.

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[yo303]

You are absolutely right. In reality there will be many embedded signals, and if you go to the very end of the act, Table W lists what the hardware is supposed to do if it sees or does not see the signals. The devices must even detect "tampered" signals, that are inconsistent.

As an example, in scenario 2 we see what all devices must do if only the VEIL signal is found.

(Step 1) CGMS-A State Detected -- Not present
(Step 2) RCI State Detected -- Not present
(redistribution control bit to be detected with CGMS-A)
(Step 3) VEIL Detected -- YES
Rights Assertion Description -- INCONSISTENT STATE: Rights are being asserted so the CGMS-A was probably tampered and/or the RCI was probably stripped
Technical Content Protection Response -- VIEW ONLY - Protect as Copy Protected Content

The last encoding technique, VEIL (Video Encoded Invisible Light) is particularly interesting as it was originally developed as a way to transmit information to a series of Batman toys. Now it is supposed to be a DRM watermark technology. Hmmm.... The EFF has weighed in on this too.

It is already illegal to do the things that this technology supposedly is designed to prevent. Does the MPAA really need to be protected by the government, at our expense, like this?

MPAA - the unfreedom fighters.

yo.

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[Fordiman]

Hey, question: Does it outlaw signal filters? *smirk*

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[Fordiman]

Let me clarify what I mean:

You need several side-bands to the TV bands (on NTSC RCA, it's actually five bands: R, G, B, Left, and Right), as well as VEIL on the TV bands.

So, put in a pass filter to mask out the extra bands, then add noise to the signal at the same signal strength as a detected VEIL signal.

Broken.

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[Fordiman]

OR filter out the orignal CGMS-A and RCI, then add them in manually to "Redistributable"

*yawn*

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[Harrakis]

When I think back to college i used to use A-D converts to convert inputs to TTL logic. So i guess i need DRM my resistance reading to keep anything else from reading... Before the act: (Input) A -[TTL A->D] - WXYZ (Output) After the act: (Input) A -[TTL A->D w/ DRM] - BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV (Output) - [DRM DATA -> TTL] - WXYZ

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[Shotgun]

It's even worse than you say.

In order to transmit this signal without disturbing the 'quality' of the latest Hollywood dreck, the signal will have to be in a band that is not detectable by humans. That is, you will not be able to hear or see the signal.

But the hardware will have to detect the signal (else it's useless), so the signal will have to have a very clear and standardized format. It will also have to be very stable to avoid confusing the detecting equipment. That is, the signal will have to be easy to pick out.

A true pirate will simply set up his own injection equipment to throw some random noise in the mix, or some filtering equipment to pull the signal out altogether. With an analogue signal it'll be a trivial task that any ham operator could do in his sleep with less that $100 worth of equipment.

Damn. Why doesn't Conyers get a technical advisor. And he doesn't need one familiar with the laws of the United States. He needs one that knows something about the laws of phyics?

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that having a copyright DVD playing in the background of a home movie will stop the home movie from recording because the TV will cut out any part of the sound spectrum that humans aren't supposed to hear, this prevents disturbances such as this and those that annoy animals or other species that can hear parts of the spectrum we cannot, etc.

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[Anonymous Coward]

OR filter out the orignal CGMS-A and RCI, then add them in manually to "Redistributable"

*yawn*

And then you'd be breaking this law. If you were to sell this device in the USA, you'd be put in prison for no more than 5 years.

Yawn.

Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion?

[Fordiman]

Sell? Fuck you, make your own.

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time to close the dupe hole.

Will this affect Tivo?

[Jim in Buffalo]

Is this going to affect services like Tivo?

What's the bill's title?

[Short Circuit]

There's no EFF action alert yet, and I can't find the bill's title to send a fax.

Re:What's the bill's title?

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital Transition Content Security Act (DTCSA) or HR 4569

Re:but of course;

[Anonymous Coward]

You might think you're smarter than googlebot, unfortunatley slash's authors are smarter than you.

Your link is rel=nofollow, so google won't follow it. Plus, unless you get modded to at least 4 or so, google wouldn't even read your post anyway.

Not this rubbish again!

[Toaste]

Legislating away the "analog hole" has always been a wet dream for content owners. Until the consortium for the DRMed video interface previously mentioned on slashdot manages to screw us permanently, the signal will always be available, and this is just another attempt to jump the gun. Problem is, how are we supposed to edit video without a capture card?

Re:Not this rubbish again!

[YrWrstNtmr]

Problem is, how are we supposed to edit video without a capture card?

You're not supposed to 'edit' video. You're supposed to consume(pay for) what they give you, and like it.

Produce you OWN video? Ha! That's only for the big studios. Home movies? Who even watches those, anyway?
No, citizen. Sit down, shut up, and take what they give you.

What about PVRs?

[Hamster Lover]

Their sole job is to convert from analog to digital. Equally, what about devices like DVD recorders, transferring home movies to DVD, LP to CD, etc.

Seems the "analog hole" is about to get ripped a new one.

Re:What about PVRs?

[Frit Mock]

Let them close the analog hole and there is more pressure to crack down DRM ... and if DRM is crack down people have perfect copies, not just copies in lesser quality when exploiting the analog hole ... they are pushing their lovley idea of total control over content closer to a final failure, nothing else.

Real Simple

[cdrguru]

Today, there is a significant amount of money associated with the production and distribution of movies and video programs.

There are those that believe any such money is based on an obsolete business model and feel it is their right to perform actions which reduce the amount of money that is derived from production and distribution of movies and video programs.

Well, one of the two sides is going to win. One has a lot more money and a vested interest in continuing the flow of money. The other side wants stuff for free and has nothing constructive to add that might offer an alternative for the people depending on this production and distribution for their income today.

Remember the like from Risky Business: don't f..k with a man's livelihood.

Re:Real Simple

[Mr2001]

The other side wants stuff for free and has nothing constructive to add that might offer an alternative for the people depending on this production and distribution for their income today.

Wrong. Here's an alternative: if your job is to perform a service, expect to get paid like someone who performs a service.

You don't see mechanics fixing a car and then trying to collect money every time the owner starts it up. You don't see barbers cutting hair and suing their customers when they show their new haircut to others. You don't see physicists lobbying for laws that would make it illegal to use, say, the theory of relativity without paying hefty fees.

So why should a musician, an author, or a movie producer expect to be treated differently? There are two kinds of jobs in this world: manufacturing jobs and service jobs. If you produce a physical object, you can sell it and forego any claim of ownership over it once it's sold. If you apply a skill, you can get paid for your time instead. Nothing else is sustainable.

Re:Real Simple

[JoeBorn]

I don't fully agree, again take the Sony Betamax case that legalized the VCR. The content creators fought the VCR, and ultimately lost, but you can't argue that Hollywood's revenues were reduced by the creation of the VCR. In fact it created a whole new revenue stream for them in the the form of rental movies. It's not clear at all that outlawing PVRs or capture cards would hurt Hollywood's revenues. This is about control. They fear technology, innovation and change and they fight it at every turn. Remember they fought the mp3 player too, and look what a boon the iPod turned out to be for them.

This is about power and control.

Re:Real Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright, you pay the artists what they're being payed now and I'll enjoy the music with you.

Re:Real Simple

[jonwil]

The ironic thing about the betamax case was that the same Sony that fought Universal over betamax and won an important precedent for fair use is now trying to get laws passed that undo that very precedent.

Re:Real Simple

[Microlith]

Your entire argument is completely ridiculous.

The simple fact is that musicians, authors, and movie producers create something that is physically intangiable. Both a mechanic and a hair stylist charge for their labor. And physics consists of the natural world, which exists beyond them.

What's you're essentially saying is that there is no value in a work itself, only the labor. And sure, you can go ahead and do this. It's called a work for hire.

This is generally how movies and music are made. The only difference is the cost is abstracted from the musicians and producers by companies who foot the bill.

I see all the time people bitching on Slashdot that they'd NEVER go see a movie, buy a music CD, or buy a TV show on DVD if not for being able to download it first. Then there are the freeloaders who never buy at all. Since those two combined consist of the majority of P2P filesharers, the method you describe would pretty much result in a near total stop in the number of works being produced.

I'd like to see if the existing fanbase for a show like Firefly could foot the per-episode production cost. Somehow I doubt it, without paying many times what they do now.

Re:Real Simple

[pallmall1]

...the method you describe would pretty much result in a near total stop in the number of works being produced.

So let it stop! I don't want to wake up tomorrow and find out that my freedoms have been given away for a song. If the big content companies can't live with technological freedom, then it's time for them (or at least their old business model) to pass into history.

And the artists? F*ck the corporate-tit-sucking artists. They are the biggest bunch of hypocrites around. "Freedom of speech!" and "artistic freedom," they continually scream. But when it comes to a buck, it's "F*ck you, pay me," without regards to the rights of anyone else. It's time to call it like it is, that these "artists" are just as ignoble and self-serving as most of the things they criticise.

If the recording/motion picture industry and their canned "artists" can't handle the digital heat, they should get out of the digital kitchen and go back to their horses and buggies without forcing me to go with them.

Content protection through legislated technology squashes opportunities for new forms of art while stifling personal freedoms, free exchange of ideas, technological innovation, and free thought. No true artist would support this.

Re:Real Simple

[Mr2001]

The simple fact is that musicians, authors, and movie producers create something that is physically intangiable.

"Create"? I don't know about that.

Consider an MP3 file, for example. The file is a sequence of numbers, and when you feed it into an MP3 player, you hear a song. No one actually put that song into the sequence of numbers, though. You'd hear exactly the same song whenever you fed that sequence of numbers into an MP3 player, even if the original artist had never been born.

A more appropriate term would be "discover". That is, a musician who produces an MP3 file has discovered a particular sequence of numbers that represents a song he likes, just as a physicist who produces a theory has discovered a set of statements that explain and predict natural events with the degree of accuracy he wants.

A musician applies his skill to discern the good sequences from the bad ones, and to alter the sequence of a song that's almost-right, changing it into one that's just-right. (He actually manipulates it in another form and then converts it to MP3, but that's irrelevant.) And that skill is what's scarce, not the sequence of numbers or the song itself. Therefore, that's what we should be rewarding. Any trained monkey can make copies of a file, but only a musician can discover the songs we want to hear.

What's you're essentially saying is that there is no value in a work itself, only the labor. And sure, you can go ahead and do this. It's called a work for hire.

That's not what I'm saying at all. There's value in a copy of a song, just like there's value in a stylish haircut. The fact is, though, that a song itself is not a scarce resource: we're never going to run out of copies of "Hit Me Baby One More Time". It's inappropriate to force the song into an economic model that's based on the idea that resources are scarce.

I'd like to see if the existing fanbase for a show like Firefly could foot the per-episode production cost. Somehow I doubt it, without paying many times what they do now.

If there aren't enough interested fans to cover the show's production costs, then the show never should've been made in the first place. (Boy, am I gonna get slammed by the mods for saying that!)

Write your congress person

[JoeBorn]

There is no bigger threat to technical innovation than this bill presents
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

There is a great imbalance in the corporate interested regarding fair use rights, and citizens need to make up the difference if we're going to keep this kind of legislation at bay, see below for our take on why digital rights have been steadily eroding recently.
http://www.neurosaudio.com/press/freedom.asp

Ahem...

[rscoggin]

Why does this require legislation? Forgive me if that sounded stupid, but I honestly don't understand why there needs to be LAWS in place for this sort of thing.

Re:Ahem...

[shawnmchorse]

It's pretty simple. If consumers are offered a choice between Product A which lets them do what they want and Product B which carries the MPAA seal of approval and actively prevents them from doing what they want, then it's a very simple choice for the consumer. Provided that they are informed about this topic that is, which granted may not happen until after they get Product B set up at home and suddenly discover that it actually won't let them do certain things. It's also a simple choice for the hardware manufacturer, as they're likely going to go with the model that will sell better unless the MPAA pays them off. With this legislation though, they would avoid all that by making it actually ILLEGAL to produce Product A in the first place.

Re:Ahem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the US. Where if you can't make money through your crappy product, you can always make the competitors products illegal.

Re:Ahem...

[Anonymous Coward]

If people had a choice no consumer with a mind for technology would buy it willingly, that's capitalism at work. However, if governments make laws like this one forcing people to use crippled technology they have effectively found a way to circumvent that capitalism, which renders the whole system completely useless if you ask a cynic like me.

I am not looking forward to when the government of Canada follows suite, it takes the very rare resource of good people to keep the government straight, and the ample resource of bad people with money to corrupt it all over again.

Re:Ahem...

[Gravis Zero]

This can't be happening... no! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! My sweet sweet Product A, how will I live without you. That's right everyone, they killed, no MURDERED Product A. The next thing you know, it's gonna be a genocide of all products containing 'A'. There goes... AJAX! They are going to murder AJAX! Oh the humanity!

Something Missing

[Thunderstruck]

Something must be missing in the inflamatory language of this article. Wouldn't this outlaw the digital to analog convertor for my television? You know, the one that the federal government is going to subsidize for me when we switch to digital television in 2009?

Someone has to be misreading this act.

Re:Something Missing

[JoeBorn]

It wouldn't outlaw analog to digital conversion, it would force all manufacturers to recognize signals embedded in the analog stream, so that content providers could disallow recording for example. It would basically reverse the famous Sony betamax case that legalized the VCR and other recording devices.

Re:Something Missing

[name773]

that's ok; they don't want you taking an analog stream and recording it digitally

Re:Something Missing

[Zerathdune]

digital to analouge is fine according to this bill, just not analouge to digital. if you outlaw the former, we go back to VHS tapes, or silent films. you have to convert a digital audio signal to analouge just to play it.

Re:Something Missing

[rgoldste]

The converters you speak of convert digital TV signals to analog signals for use in older TVs, but the bill would ban converting analog signals into digital. TV signal coverters are thus not presently covered by the bill.

Now, the **AA would love banning digital to analog conversions, too. Right now, you can take a digital video signal and output from your TV to your VCR via analog jacks to record the TV show. That's what the Supreme Court authorized in the Betamax case. The entertainment industry would give their left kidney (metaphorically speaking) to have Congress overrule Betamax by statute. Given the Supreme Court's deference to Congress--especially when it comes to copyright--I don't think the Court would make a big fuss about it, either.

I think this is the more insiduous and dangerous possibility: that the bill will morph into a more virulent form that overrules Betamax. The TV converters that Congress mandated aren't a big concern; Congress can put some language in the new bill that devices expressly authorized by Congress to convert signals are legal. This bill should be closely watched.

Re:Something Missing

[arminw]

... it would force all manufacturers to recognize signals embedded in the analog stream,....

It is very difficult to put any kind of a signal into an analog stream that cannot be filtered out with relatively simple circuitry that almost anybody who can operate a soldering iron can build. The MacroVision analog "protection", for example, can be stripped out with a simple re-sychronization circuit for example. If this stupid bill becomes law, there will be many places on the web where simple instructions can be had how to negate this analog signal. Analog signals as a whole do not lend themselves very well to the "protection racket" in the same way that digital signals do.

Re:Something Missing

[TapeCutter]

"the **AA would love banning digital to analog conversions, too.

That could cause some problems. It would take some increadibly responsive (and expensive) speakers just to output digital audio. Basically the speakers would need the ability to produce square waves in the air with sufficient frequency to recreate the sound (say 44kHz).

Re:Something Missing

[Valafar]

I've been thinking about this topic quite a bit (the erosion of rights by media or "content" creators) and it occurs to me that there is a new form of civil disobedience that "we" as a technology industry could enact:

As an industry, we are the gatekeepers of technology. We know how the bits work; It's a specialized knowledge. So why do "we" fall to pressure from other industries? What I imagine is a scenario in which Media companies are dictating laws and congress is passing them and "we" refuse to develop the technology. There's probably a slim to zero chance it would work, but it would be a sight to see.

Media Companies: "All new devices are going to have (insert draconian DRM here)".
Technology People: "Really? Who's going to develop this technology?"
Media Companies: "You are."
Tech People: "Oh? Why would we do that? You can pass all the laws you want, if we don't twiddle the bits for you, you're shit out of luck."

That's the basic idea anyway.

Of course, this reasoning has some serious flaws as you can't get technology people to agree on the color of shite, and this would require everyone who is involved with technology to agree...

How extra much do you pay for blank CDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how much of that money goes to the Canadian equivalent of the MPAA?

Asinine

[RageEX]

So my O2 is now illegal? I can't convert my old analogue video tapes to MPEG? Can't convert LPs to MP3? F' that! I don't see any big good trends happening in this country. I should go out and get my passport so when the time comes to jump ship I'll be ready.

At least not DirectTivo

[xswl0931]

My Direct TV Tivo records the binary stream as-is (it's already mpeg2 encoded). So no analog step.

I for one...

[dcapel]

See a big increase in DVRs and tv tuners come 11 months from now if it passed (including myself).

DCSA == SSSCA == CBDTPA?

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

is this the third incarnation of the cbdtpa / sssca?

No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mind throwing in some analog to digital converters along with that next shipment of prescription drugs?

I'm leaving the country

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what country this is I'm living in. My deceased grandparents wouldn't recognize it. Really, my wife is from another country, and I'm seriously considering leaving. With George Bush in command, and a group on capital hill that can't tell a byte from a bite on their ass, things have taken a horrible turn for the worse.

When I was a kid, I was brainwashed at school into thinking we were a free nation. And congress could pass no law that would protect us from outselves, or otherwise impede our pursuit of happiness. In my country, you had to commit a crime before you could be penalized. Legislation governed penalties, not preventative measures. Everyone had the right to commit crimes, but then were subject to measures of justice. Thought crime however has become a reality.

This country stinks of religion and money. No matter how much I want, I can't fix it. We have a broken political system that prevents me and 50% of our country from demanding the president be removed.

Call me when its fixed. I'll be in the future, in Europe, where freedom is actually far greater than what we have in the US.

Re:I'm leaving the country

[name773]

"Call me when its fixed. I'll be in the future, in Europe, where freedom is actually far greater than what we have in the US."

lol

Re:I'm leaving the country

[Anonymous Coward]

please go right ahead and leave the country! I'll buy you the ticket if you promise to stay away!
Oh, BTW, 50% of the country doesn't want Bush removed, just 25% of the extremist hippie loser liberals!
idkwhere u get your info, but plz go to europe with the rest of the socialist hippies.

Re:I'm leaving the country

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you buy me a ticket? :O I'm not parent poster, but... really?

Re:I'm leaving the country

[Anonymous Coward]

iswear to God if you signed an agreement to be exiled from the USA i would buy you a ticket out of here. culture shock might help you, so you realize how good you have it. being a soldier in the US army and seeing the things in iraq have sure helped me out with understanding the logic behind our system of government. unfortunately extremely ignorant ppl like you will not understand while you're in your little bubble.

Re:I'm leaving the country

[Anonymous Coward]

did you know jefferson shot a man on the lawn of the whitehouse for treason? did you know lincoln exiled a legislator of the US to canada for being an "agitator" during the civil war. (agitator meaning war protestor)
The fewer of your kind in this country the better.

The Act

[ElNonoMasa]

http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/HR-4569-DTCS A-Analog-Hole.pdf

Re:The Act

[queenb**ch]

First off, all that means is we get something new to hack. Those that will be pirates will continue to pirate. All this is going to do is really pi$$ people off when the go to watch their movie and the stupid thing won't play. I've already stopped buying music because of the RIAA.

I urge all of you to join in boycotting the RIAA and MPAA.

RIAA Radar is here - http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ This site will tell you if a band is a member.

I'm unable to find a site that lists the MPAA members, however, there is a partial list on the MPAA's own site that includes Buena Vista Pictures Distribution (A Disney Company), Sony (big surprise there), Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer or MGM, Paramount, 20th Century-Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.

I'd like to suggest that for the companies that have other products that you boycott the entire product line. For example, don't buy that Sony Televison set. Don't go the Universal Studios theme park. You get the idea...

If they do the same kind of ridiculous copy protection with movies, I'll be boycotting them too. Frankly, I'd urge all of you to hit them where it hurts the worst. STOP BUYING THEIR STUPID PRODUCTS!!! If their crap quit selling, perhaps they'd get the message. You cannot continually pi$$ on your customer base and expect to remain profitable. Best Case - it works and they go out of business and all their music becomes public domain. Worst Case - it works and they remove their heads from their butts.

2 cents,

Queen B

Re:The Act

[The Queen]

While I applaud your sentiment, your message would do more good if you set up a picket line outside of a Best Buy in an area that is heavily-populated with soccer moms. I know I used to beg my mom to buy me the most awful albums and videos, I must blame myself, my childish fancies and the influence of peer pressure for contributing to the history of this mess. :-)

There are certainly alternatives to mainstream entertainment, which most of us geeks know about and can easily find, that the population at large is either too ignorant or too lazy to patronize.

Before you buy an XBOX this Christmas ...

[argoff]

... please understand that their vision of the future of computing and the information age is very different from our vision of the future of computing and the information age. When they arrested those people for illegal copying and DMCA mod chip violations - hard prision time for simple copying is the rule of the game.

While I like video games as much as the next guy, I think it is very imporant for people to understand that online freedoms are more important than entertainment. And hard time is for people like mudders and thiefs who steal real property, not for those who make coppies of pretend properties such as "copyrights".

IMHO, people should really question the copyright system. If they take it to it's logical conclusion .... this is where it leads ... for everyone.

essay: Straight Talk About Copyrights http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/11/25/1329 258

Re:Before you buy an XBOX this Christmas ...

[Xanni]

MUDding is a crime now? Does this include MMORPGs?

Single Handly Destroying Media PC

[layer3switch]

I wonder what Microsoft and TiVo will say about this idiotic legislature. Besides, aren't all cable signal "analog" to begin with? So by definition, all digital cable boxes will be outlawed? After all, digital cable boxes are nothing more than RT box, a dumb down "PC".

What makes me tick about this law is that this method of "content protection" isn't to protect content, but to protect "interest" of those who provides content. Meaning, to protect copyright contents which gets to be distributed, lets get rid of ALL "RECORD" buttons since we all know ALL RECORD buttons are to steal their precious "content".

Tin hats for purchase here

[blair1q]

If they're broadcasting their data through my head, I have every right to digitize it.

That is all.

pass another law...pass a thousand

[Danathar]

The people who are technically stealing content off of the net will continue to so no matter how many laws there are. Just as it's technically illegal to buy a region free DVD player you'll still be able to buy equipment (from the far east) that will copy analog content.

It's enforcement that's the issue.

Once jack booted FBI/DOJ/ATF/FCC whatever start breaking down people's front doors to their houses THEN I'll be impressed.

Go ahead...pass another law. It only helps chinese/korean manufacturers who will take up the slack.

I have a proposition!

[Namronorman]

Oh come on, seriously. Looking at this makes me want to puke! Perhaps a requirement for becoming someone who dictates legislation.... you should have to go to grammar school and not write something that looks like one big sentence!

Why do I feel like they write this in a way to make it near impossible to read?

Dickhead who Lobbies: *lies*
Congress: *listens to lies*
DWL: *presents legislation*
Congress: *Doesn't understand, bases judgement on lies written by the marketing/legal department
DWL: *laughs at the expense of the american people*
Congess: *just wasted John Doe's vote*

I propose we all move to Switzerland, try to get refugee status or something, then open up an international business! Who the fuck's with me?

I don't think....

[Derpascension]

I really don't think the average person in America know what is going on. I'd say about half the country is fairly smart and the other half...well a bunch of religious conservative freaks that are no smarter than monkey poo (another story, another debate).

Public Knowledge holds that the prohibitions would require redesign of a whole range of legal consumer devices, including DVD recorders, personal video recorders and camcorders that have video inputs. Moreover, the proposal would restrict lawful uses of analog content.

Uh. this would prolly change a lot more than that. Ok so imagine a world with out cd burning or dvd burning. Think about all the technology, the programs, the music, the movies, the overall ideas that have been transferred through cds and dvds. Just the shear knowledge of the world has been because of this technology that allows us to burn anything and everything. Take that away and we got nothing. They better think long and hard about what they plan to do cause it is not just about pirating. This is something that humanity should fight over. This is our future.

Personal note: Everyone in the music industry, everyone in the movie industry all need to get paid what cops get paid. I don't want to see a damn actor get paid $10 million on a fuckin movie. I work for the gaming industy. I get 46k a year and I worked on one of the top selling games this year. We only get a bonus if the game does well. If it doesn't then that means we didn't make the game right. Art and entertainment is for the public to enjoy. Yes, ofcourse you have to make a living but there is a point of making a living and getting greedy. I don't expect people to just buy my game. I hopefully have created something good enough that people will play it and like it or atleast make some sort of impact on someone. Sadly to say I am sure moving the people in the movie industry and music industry down to 45k will never happen.

Re:I don't think....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you (someone who seems to have some sense) have to sink to sterotyping those 'religious nutjobs' as stupid? What does religion have to do with how much attention people pay to government and congres?

Are you really so hate filled that you have to spout anti-religious comments in a discussion that has little to do with religion? Grow up.

Re:I don't think....

[Anonymous Coward]

"well a bunch of religious conservative freaks that are no smarter than monkey poo "

--thanks for the broad generalization. Just because were religious conservatives doesn't mean we are not knowledgeble. I just love how everytime ID comes up the typical slashdotter goes on a mindless ramble of how stupid anyone with deep religious convictions is (another story, another debate)

while i acknowledge some people might be brighter than others,intellect being subjective. The main problem is getting the populace to realize how important it is. Most people don't know what analog means. Instead we have to explain it to them in a different way like they won't have their tivo no more or that the companies are trying to force upgrades on them

Re:I don't think....

[Derpascension]

Like I said that is another debate. I will spout anti-religious remarks because that is what is taking control and ruining America. This is my break down on why I mentioned it. This is on the whole of America in general.

You got main cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Las Vegas, San Fransico, etc. that are filled with people from all over the world. People who are in these places have a since of actual understanding of humanity. They realize that there is more to society than religion. They usually are broader minded people who live in big cities and experience other people who have been all over the world and can give a different perspective. Now when you get into the middle area of America, it tends to be conservative christians who do not really accept anything but what they think is right. The whole mindset of abortion is wrong, gays cant marry, evolution is nonsense is polluting our society. They are the ones that get all upset when a nipple flash shows on screen but dont get upset at all the violence that is on tv. The religious right are the ones who elected the asshole that is in office today. This asshole who controls a lot of things. This simple minded people who live in america elected this guy to run office. I got a question for you. Do you think in this day and age that a scientist would ever be elected to office? How about a person who isn't religious? These religious nutjobs are the ones that are holding everything back. Religion in general is holding people back.

Religion is for the weak minded and the simple minded. The more educated you are, the more likely to question things around you, instead of believing in something blindly. Whatever happened to believing in yourself? I don't need a "higher" power to believe that I can do something. When people pray, that someone will get healed or it is god's will to save them, that makes me mad. How about trying to thank the doctors and modern medicine for that. Religion plays a big factor on how screwed up our country is and other countries around the world. I dont know but there is a lot of people in our congress that is pretty damn religious. http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html/

Here is the thing. I blame the simple minded conservative religious people that live in little town middle America for a lot of all the retarded yet powerful morons that run this country. These powerful morons would pass a bill like getting rid of all devices that burn our creativity and well humanity to disc or any other form of media. So yes you can say I am a little mad.

This is long, and it could be debated further. I don't want to type any more.

Re:I don't think....

[Anonymous Coward]

Apocalyptic doomsday cults with nuclear weapons scare me. So yeah, until you deluded assclowns take your fairy tales out of the classrooms and out of the voting booths of my country, I'm going to fight you every step of the way. It's called a survival instinct.

Re:I don't think....

[Anonymous Coward]

People who are in these places have a since of actual understanding of humanity

I'm guessing you put Los Angeles in that list by accident.

Wouldn't that just destroy the film industry?

[Dracil]

Unless all their A/V equipment is now digital, at some point, they're going to have to convert their own analog film into digital form. It would also mean that old films could no longer be turned into DVDs if they haven't been done so already.

Re:Wouldn't that just destroy the film industry?

[surprise_audit]

You're forgetting that the studios are writing the legislation. They'll simply write in exceptions for their own equipment. To give it a *slight* illusion of legality, it'll be worded so that in theory anyone could buy the equipment, but in practice it would cost far too much in dollars and time to buy licensing to own and operate it.

The Foxes are Gassing the Chicken Coop

[Anonymous Coward]

The RAMDAC on the video card that converts digital signals into analoge for the monitor, that's gone. I guess LCD's will be the only legal thing we can have since cathode ray tube tech will be outlawed.

FM, XM, and AM Radio players? Outlawed.

VCR's, DVD players? Outlawed.

MRI's, X-rays, Digital camera's? All outlawed.

Then there's the fact I can build a DAC on a breadboard and hook it into my computer...

Stupid bill? The foxes have gassed the chicken coop.

Re:The Foxes are Gassing the Chicken Coop

[name773]

you've got it the other way 'round. they want to stop you from digitally recording an analog video stream.

This outlaws ADC hardware as well

[Russ Nelson]

This stupid-ass law would also outlaw all high-speed analog to digital convertors as well. GNU Radio has demonstrated HDTV reception off broadcast radio using such hardware. Why are we allowing our legislators to even consider laws which regulate computers to protect media? The computer industry is WAY larger than the media industry. Hell, computer games alone have greater revenue than movies.
-russ

Re:This outlaws ADC hardware as well

[StikyPad]

The problem is that some companies, such as Sony, have their hands in both cookie jars. Film companies are prohibited from owning movie theaters since the 1948 Paramount Pictures Antitrust Case. I think we need the same limitations on media companies owning both the content/production and the display devices.

Re:This outlaws ADC hardware as well

[tonsofpcs]

It also seems like it will ban many pieces of video production equipment—including Time Base Correctors, Frame Synchronizers, many digital video production recorders (with analog inputs), and the film scanners that are used by the MPAA members to edit and recapture their films for DVD distribution.

Cameras/camcorders too?

[darkjedi521]

Does this mean that the only video or image capture devices that will be legal will be 35mm still, VHS/VHS-C/etc, Super-8 for video? The 50's called, they want their home movie tech back.

Re:Ready to move to Canada yet? don't bother...

[denis-The-menace]

Sorry CokeBear but it's time that you come out of your hibernation.
Companies know that we Canadians don't complain much.

ATI knows that. When the Broadcast Flag was about to come out I asked them if we Canadians would have a Broadcast-Flag-free HD AIW card. ATI said they would only pump out ONE version of the card eventhough there was no such law requiring it in Canada!

US GOING BACKWARDS, WHILE ASIA GOING FORWARD

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me when I tell you that if this law is realized, asian companies will continue producing these analog to digital devices. The US will technologically keep moving backwards while other countries are leading in technology sectors such as Robotics, Genetic Engineering and lots more.

Our aging law makers don't care about technology or computers. They don't even know how to use a computer. So how can they make very important decisions such as this that involve technology? They are doing a huge mistake and the US will suffer from it.

Can anyone post a link?

[Creedo]

I looked though the bills on Thomas, and I couldn't find it. Can anyone substantiate this bill? I want a reference for when I call up and threaten^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlobby my Congresscritters. And Sensenbrenner's Private Property Rights Protection Act looked so good...

Re:Can anyone post a link?

[Sheetrock]

It is HR4569. THOMAS appears a little slow at the moment, but it is available elsewhere on Google I think.

John Conyers indicated he will discuss this further on his blog later as well, as the issue was brought up by some angry people under one of his posts (I think as a result of a Daily Kos article on the matter). Comment #80 on this page appears to be the start of the comments on the matter, and it might be worth hovering around the blog in days to come to see if he gives the opportunity for people to (calmly and rationally) express their thoughts on the matter.

BTW: his comment in the thread above (Comment #96) gives more details about why he signed on. I don't think it even begins to consider the spirit of Fair Use or the rights of the average consumer, but then I don't get the impression that Congress thinks we're worth a damn beyond our votes and purchasing power.

So what's a good firewire TV/video-in device?

[ldd23]

I've been meaning to pick up a TV/video-in device, and looks like it's a good time to get one before the manufacturers have to cripple them to sell them here. Anybody got a suggestion for a brand or model?

Re:So what's a good firewire TV/video-in device?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just about anything from Canopus. The 110 or the 300 are excellent.

Absolutely incredible

[strikethree]

I am in shock over how sweeping this legislation is. I am almost speechless over it. No analog video to digital video conversion devices can be sold... This is going to wipe out entire industries and put many companies, such as Hauppage, out of business.

How will we record home movies? How will we record a trip to Yosemite? This simply can not be true as it was written up in the linked article!

If it is not as wide ranging as the article suggests, it will be ineffective since camcorders will still be able to record movies in movie theaters and such.

Wow. un-fucking-believable.

strike

Cannon, JVC, Panasonic and Sony'll Be Pissed

[nick_davison]

If it makes its way from Capitol Hill to the Oval Office and becomes law, the measure will outlaw the manufacture or sale of electronic devices that convert analog video signals into digital video signals, effective one year from its enactment.

They all have a very lucrative market converting analog video signals (photons) in to digital video signals (MPEG4 etc.) in their video camera market.

What? Stupid laws sometimes get stupidly broad definitions?

And, before it's argued that the DRM encryption can't be embedded in to photons and thus cameras don't have to support it: How long do you really think it'll take for some nerd to figure out how to make a little colored light filter, pulsed laser emitter, or whatever it might be that ends up doing just that?

At which point, I'd pay money to see the nerd community hang these things in every major popular movie location (skyline of NYC, streets of LA, etc.) and then sue to have all copies of the MPAA's latest movies destroyed as their recording converted this analog watermark to digital (for processing in AVID, release on DVD, etc.) without respecting it. I wonder if losing the reels of every movie shot on location, having to replace every digital camera bought after the changeover, etc. would cost enough to make them regret this one? Do we get to sue them for the usual $250,000 per instance bull? Across a 2,500 theater release, that would close down most studios right there.

Re:Cannon, JVC, Panasonic and Sony'll Be Pissed

[name773]

i think they mean non-light type analogue signals. broadcast/composite/etc.

at least i should hope so.

Time to horde

[kyoko21]

Time to horde all that overstock of ATI's All-in-Wonder cards. Analong-to-digital, here I come!

Re:Time to horde

[Mycroft_VIII]

One minor problem with that. AIW's 'honor' macrovision by total screwing up the picture if it's detected (ever see what 'scrambled' analog cable channel looks like still scrambled?).
      Though with the right driver versions you can get a patch for the earlier (radeon AIW's up to 9200 iirc) AIW's that bypass this as the drivers are where the 'honoring' is done.
      Unfortunately my first AIW is a 9600 and the one I just got is an 800xt so no joy for me there. (I got the 800xt AIW as it was on sale as cheap as a plain x850 pro).

Mycroft

Damn the MPAA is scary.

[radiotyler]

I'm serious. Who else can lobby to get an ENTIRE FAMILY of computer hardware made illegal? It's not a matter of "how people are going to get around the law" but more "why were they able to make that law"? If you're a content owner, you have an absolute right to defend your own proprety. YOU do. The government has no responsibility to come along behind you and clean up and protect it for you, that's insane. It's alreay illegal to duplicate copyrighted works without permission from the owner, so honestly, how is this benefical? If anyone was still in need of a wakeup call, this is the one you were waiting for.

This issue seems more and more like it should fall into the "if you can't beat them, join them" category. You've known for YEARS that people were copying movie content via VCR's and music via tape decks. There wasn't a mad cram for legislation to codemn "analog to analog devices" that would make duplication of content any easier. This just reeks of technophobia - they aren't sure how they're going to make money with shows floating on the web. (remember Spaceballs? "Merchandising, merchandising, merchandising. Spacballs the flamethrower!")

Maybe it's time to start focusing some of that lobby money and MPAA kickbacks into either finding a way to preserve your own digital rights, or maybe finding a better way to pay for your content distribution on the internet so you can reap some rewards for owning that bit of cinema / software / music. It sounds like a better plan to me.

Re:Damn the MPAA is scary.

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel compelled to point out the obvious: most people don't know enough to care and don't want to know enough to care because it's depressing. As long as people have that attitude there won't be many people standing against the RIAA/MPAA when it comes time to trample people's rights.

I wonder what effect an ad campaign might have on this though, if people inadvertently learned the truth while watching TV maybe more would come out of the woodwork. I've always wanted to see the EFF start televising their warnings, if anyone can put together a convincing argument it's them.

Re:Damn the MPAA is scary.

[sbyrnes00]

I would disagree that people don't care because it's depressing. If you look at the RIM/NTP case, the minute you threaten to take away something that they have made part of their lifestyle everyone takes notice. It needs to move beyond the technical jargon into the realm of pop culture though, for it to even make sense to most people.

Re:Damn the MPAA is scary.

[MichaelSmith]

Who else can lobby to get an ENTIRE FAMILY of computer hardware made illegal?

Is it going to be illegal for me to build a comparator? How about two comparitors in parallel? Can I build op-amp circuits, but not if the gain is high enough to make them "digital"? How about PIR motion detectors. They have a digital output (one bit). Will they have to encode DRM information about the type of lights it is allowed to control?

I am sure that you USAians are going to have a lot of fun confusing judges in the courts with this one.

Re:Damn the MPAA is scary.

[dangitman]

remember Spaceballs?

This line should be said in the croaky, dying voice of an old sage like Obi-Wan or Yoda, as advice to a plucky young Jedi who doesn't realize how little he knows, and will later regret not learning more from the old sage. For years, the Jedi will ponder "what is this mystical Spaceballs that he spoke of" and it will eat him up inside, until his younger sister reveals the truth about Dark Helmet.

Paid for by the MPAA

[Delta2.0]

If you look at James Sensenbrenner Jr.'s campagian finances, you'll get a really good idea of why in something like this could be introduced.

The DTCSA bought and paid for by the MPAA

Re:Paid for by the MPAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Why dont you start something at pledgebank.com? If 3560 people all pledge to donate $10 you can outbid the MPAA.

Legalized bribery of politicians.... Now THATS freedom!

Re:Paid for by the MPAA

[wgc21]

Wow I like that, we need to turn that slogan into a flash banner and display it on every website we can.. and taxicab and bus... ect.(just kidding about the cabs and busses)

A boon for the outdated VCR repair man???

[bcarl314]

From what I can tell, this specifically bans analog -> digital converters. No where do I see mention of the opposite (digital->analog). So, in theory, I can still have my DVD player (digital) hooked up to my VCR (analog) to record all my movies, right? If so, I'm going to go and get to know my local VCR repair man right now. Something tells me I'll be needing his services very soon.

Oh, and I think I'm going to go out any buy a few VCR tapes while I'm at it. Those will be a hot commodity!

How can anyone call this progress? Forcing people into a media format (digital) may actually force people to go backwards!

Hey

[thesnarky1]

Lets not all move to Canada... just remember, this is America. Get your voice heard and call your congressman/woman! Plan B, move to Canada.

Hack the System

[Anonymous Coward]

If this makes it through, we need to force it to include audio conversion as well. RIAA + MPAA will make it clear this is about thuggery.

Gee...

[setirw]

Why not outlaw camcorders as well? Although there's a negligible loss of quality, they can effectively convert analogue signals eminating from my monitor into a slightly imperfect digital replica... For that matter, why not outlaw the human eye and its corresponding visual cortex? How about the limbic system of the brain, so that we can't store memorable images from movies? Seriously though, I think a far more effective way to restrict the capture of analogue signals is to implement a protection scheme WITHIN the capturing device's circuitry. If a certain waveform (yes, a fuzzy match would be allowed) is present in the signal, the capture device refuses to run. All capture card makers would have to abide to this rule or face sanctions.

Re:Gee...

[tonsofpcs]

It is called Macrovision.

Re:Gee...

[Derling Whirvish]

It's called a "video stabilizer."

Re:Gee...

[tonsofpcs]

Actually, it is called a "Time Base Corrector" or a "Frame Synchronizer"—the former stabalizing and rebuilding sync for every line, the latter doing such on a field-by-field or frame-by-frame basis. Both of these are used in production environments and would be apparently outlawed by this.

Bravo!

[slashbob22]

In Soviet America Analog Holes You!

Unfortunately, it seems that the Americans have been easy targets as of late. Many other nations are struggling with similar issues. I in no way condone piracy, however a default deny policy works much better in networks then it does in media laws. Banning the use of such converters may only prop up the ailing media distribution chains for a short while. These models will need to change in the near future to remain relevant. Hell WILL freeze over before I submit my home movies to Sony to convert to digital for me and charge 1000x the value of the product - for all I know it will be placed on a Blu-Ray Disc that is not readable on my PC.

Holy, holy, holy...

[HermanAB]

'tis the season, I s'pose...

Just Boycott MPAA/RIAA

[dammy]

The only effective way of informing MPAA or RIAA that your not happy is by your wallet. Stop going to the movies and rent it from Netflixs or buy a used DVD. Encourage others to do the same. Until the Hollywood execs understand they have gone too far, you can expect more crap coming into law.

Same thing with RIAA, stop buying CDs/DVDs new and either buy them via download or via used CD/DVD shops. These clowns are in it for a life and death struggle of their nasty industry. One of us has to be on top, and I rather it not be them.

Dammy

Re:Just Boycott MPAA/RIAA

[geminidomino]

rent it from Netflixs or buy a used DVD

That doesn't work. While the netflix rental or used DVD don't *directly* put money into MPAA pockets, the simple fact is that by renting/buying the DVDs AT ALL, there is an established value for them. If no one buys a DVD used, the used shops will stop paying for it. If everyone keeps renting Kong from Netflix, Netflix will buy more copies.

There are no shortcuts in a boycott. Either do it, or don't, as you will. But don't beleive that you can have your cake and eat it too by renting/buying used.

Re:Just Boycott MPAA/RIAA

[Mycroft_VIII]

As others have pointed out before you not only have to boycott, but be vocal about it. Elswise the *AA's and such will just say "revenues are down, it must be piracy, quick lets buy more laws to enforce our income".
    We could wind up with such idiot things as a 'priracy re-imbursment' tax on all blank media or this 'we get screw with computers we suspect of illeagle sharing' law they suggested a while back. Or something even worse.

Mycroft

Re:Just Boycott MPAA/RIAA

[dammy]

It's true that MPAA will get some $ out of Netflix, but if you consider the revenue lost from theaters from a boycott, the revenue lost from sales to individuals, how much does Netflix have to purchase to equal that lost revenue? How much preasure from the independent theater owners will be placed on MPAA since it's their bottom line being decimated? How long can MPAA afford to lose theaters when they start folding?

500,000 copies bought by Netflix does not equal a good run in the theaters nor individual sales. Especially since Netflix will be the driver's seat on demanding a discount from MPAA members for such a huge purchase.

Dammy

Illegal?

[agent_no.82]

Isn't this illegal/unconstitutional? I thought fair use allowed me to make backups.

Re:Illegal?

[pomo monster]

Oh, we're still caring about illegal and unconstitutional behavior?

Its a *Proposal*

[nighty5]

I don't live in America.

But instead of whinging about it on a geek news forum site, why not write to your local Govt body and *teach* them what damange this type of brand bill will do?

I mean, if almost nobody in your Govt read that Patriot Act that seemed to did damage to your free liberties, what chance have you got?

Hardware recording?

[kennygraham]

Possibly dumb question: Isn't recording and stuff done by the PVR software and not the tuner card? If so, what would keep people from using a conforming tuner card and non-conforming software from a less insane country?

going to turn everyone into non-media users

[kalislashdot]

All the MPAA and RIAA is doing, is making more people turn away from TV and movies and music. For example I am already turned off of music. I am supposed to by a CD, well I listen to most of my music in the car, so the CD is in the car, getting wreaked and melted, etc. No thanks. Since I paid for a "license" to the CD if it gets reacked I should be able to get it replaced for a small fee, like $2, but no I have to buy a whole new one.

I like movies a lot, but I own only a few DVDs. Why do I want to see the same movie over and over again, unless it is Office Space, that never gets old. TV has me really bummed for all the commerical...and I got to pay out the ass for cable with 60 channels of crap and only 3 channels I actually watch, and those are TiVo'ed. Wihtout TiVo I would probally never watch TV.

So really all they are doing is turning a next generation into non-media people. In the long run they will be losing money.

I don't see any reason why I cannot pay a monthly fee and be able to watch anything at anytime. I pay Netflix about $20 a month for the last 7 years for something close to this. They carry everything. Now i just need a Netflix that really uses the Net and simply streams Movies, TV, etc to me. And since most good TV shows end up on DVD anyways, no need for TV anymore. No need for Cable/Satelite either. High speed Internet and DVD on demand service, if it is the right price.

Gotta love neocons

[TheNoxx]

Let me get this straight, big business has somehow modified the way we percieve property rights into an unholy amalgamation of lies and scams by buying off politicians, who are busy sending people off to die for their politicking in the middle of a god forsaken desert.

I tell ya, this country just gets more fucking brilliant by the minute. So, let me get this straight, the army can spend my fucking tax dollars on wiping out a school in the middle east, but I can't mod an x-box and sell it? Because it's under DMCA, I don't really own something I bought and paid for? But it's cool, my blood and sweat goes to pay for some private mercenary company parading around Iraq and shooting whoever the fuck they feel like. No, fuck this, this gets closer and closer to the goddamn last straw for me.

Would someone fucking explain to me why people I know are getting shot at for this sonofabitch Bush and his richboy consorts who are getting spoon fed by the corporations to help them rob us blind of our wallets and rights?

"Oh, but Mr. Noxx, these guys are protecting us from terrorists!"
No, the "terrorists" are the ones who figured out Bush & Company were in it to rip them off and rape their land while bombing the shit out of their country and stood the fuck up. God dammit I'm pissed.

Re:Gotta love neocons

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that is what we get for allowing special interest groups, PACs, and corporations bribe, I mean, lobby Congress. Until people call to push out lobbyists out of government once and for all, this shit will only continue.

Re:Gotta love neocons

[Lehk228]

the DMCA was signed by clinton so shove your partisan bullshit up your ass.

Re:Gotta love neocons

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask Clausewitz.

How come nobody gets it?

[Afecks]

This has little to do with piracy and everything to do with making consumers pay multiple times for the same product.

That's why movies are released first to film and then to DVD. It's not because it takes time to produce the DVD. Though it does take a little effort to slap together some menus and cut scenes but that's not why. In fact the piracy scene has been able to get several "DVD screeners" while the movie is in theaters. These big budget movies are hoping for an Oscar so they send letter-box DVD versions to the academy for consideration and in the process some pirates get their hands on them. So it's obviously possible to release on DVD and film concurrently. It'll just never happen because they want people to see it in theaters and buy the DVD. Not one or the other.

This is just one example...it's not why they want to protect digital media though..for that you've got to delve into the mind of the typical MPAA though process..

"Oh your DVD got scratched? Well you better buy a new copy. What? You want to make back ups?! PIRATE!!!"

Do you honestly think embedding protection into digital media is going to stop pirates? No, it's going to stop John Q. Public from protecting his investment. Pirates could care less because if they can't copy it freely they'll bypass the protection, if they can't get a digital copy, they'll film it with a camera. All this analog hole and DRM non-sense is just corporate double speak for "we want more money!".

The MPAA needs to stop using piracy as an excuse to screw over the paying customers. Of course that will never happen because then everyone might actually figure out what's what.

Re:How come nobody gets it?

[skubeedooo]

This has little to do with piracy and everything to do with making consumers pay multiple times for the same product. That's why movies are released first to film and then to DVD.

Plus the cinema creates much better marketing than otherwise available.

Re:How come nobody gets it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, it's going to stop John Q. Public from protecting his investment."

I doubt it; majority of John Q. Public doesn't even back up their personal files. These are unique, if lost gone forever, can't buy another copy files and aren't backed up! Do you really think that many people would backup their dvd's if they could? How many people seriously backup cd's? (except those who say they do here, I've never met a single person who did so, yet it's cheap and easy).

Wow!

[Lazarian]

Really! Freaking WOW! Banning -all- devices that can encode video? Say goodbye to editing your home movies on anything other than off a firewire or USB camcorder. I'm trying to imagine the kind of world a movie studio or record industry exec dreams of... The banning of -all- computers except for corporate use, and the public would only be permitted to own terminals that dealt with only static images and text - no audio. WiFi covering the world, faithfully reporting every show you watch and song you hear on any device you are allowed to own, automatically debiting your bank account for each track or show. Charge extra if you want to watch stuff without ads. I never would have imagined such an assault on every aspect of a persons freedoms in regards to entertainment. Personally I don't really think it's about lost revenues in the industries - that's just the excuse they wave around, filesharers stealing the food out of the mouths of the poor execs children. It's as if there is an undercurrent of wanting to excercise absolute control over every aspect of what you're allowed to watch and hear, and only if you pay your dues would you be permitted to partake in the privelege of anything other than sound clips and infomercials. They might as well go for broke. Ban all storage media. You can pay to have some archive store your personal files.

More ignorance than malice.

[Anonymous Coward]

His response is fair, and seems to indicate that he simply doesn't understand the technology involved. In particular, he fails to understand the financial magnitude of the change he's requesting (huge), the degree to which it would impose on ordinary citizens and small businesses in the process of their own content creation and hobbies (large), and the degree to which it or any technological measure would actually curb piracy (small to zero--DRM has a terrible track record in this respect, and there are a large number of A-D coverters in existence). He may also be overlooking the ulterior motives of those asking for this protection, who may simply wish to keep the cabal of content gatekeepers as small as possible.

Perhaps, rather than berating him, we can assist the Congressman to better understand the technical problems with his proposal.

In other news

[obeythefist]

China and Taiwan continue to flagrantly ignore the US laws that govern them and produce illegal devices that allow playback and recording of media from analog sources.

When was the last time anyone bought a DVD player that was made in the USA anyway?
And how exactly does the US think they'll enforce this law onto the rest of the world?

It just means that as a consumer I need to be more careful to ensure I buy "open" devices instead of devices engineered for the US market (the most restrictive market outside of islamic fundamentalist nations, I believe, where lipstick and audio cassettes are illegal).

Re:In other news

[mikek3332002]

China gets a boom to its economy.

Re:In other news

[sethstorm]

China and Taiwan continue to flagrantly ignore the US laws that govern them and produce illegal devices that allow playback and recording of media from analog sources.
...and they'll stop right at US Customs.


When was the last time anyone bought a DVD player that was made in the USA anyway?
And how exactly does the US think they'll enforce this law onto the rest of the world?

When was the last time *any* electronics were made outside of Asia, if not in the USA? If anything, I'd not mind to have a US/Europe built machine - at least there's build quality, instead of a product that dies over and over. I'll take quality over price anytime.

Time Warner

[sega01]

Better sell all your stock in Time Warner, they'll go bankrupt pretty soon with this.

This is the last bastion before they themselve

[crovira]

realize that they have slit their own throats.

They can't outlaw A/D conversion. Its just more efficient.

Hell, they couldn't run their industry without it. All of the production labs use it, for god sake.

NONE of their own blockbuster movies could be done without it. None of their shows could be done without it. None of their audio content could be done wthout it. None of the independents, the people who they suck the life out of could get any content produced without it.

They can't outlaw D/A conversion for the same fucking reason.

And podcasters just laugh at them.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they lie about you, then they fight you, then you win.

This is the last gasp of the broadcasters as they watch their business model fall to the podcasters.

Let them win on their turf. We don't want it anyway.

There are much more interesting pastures to graze.

This law will be a failure for so many reasons

[The Master Control P]

Where to start?

1. To begin with, the analog hole can not be closed because the brain's audio and video inputs are analog. Therefore, I can point my lovingly cared for pre-drm camera at the screen, record every frame, then reassemble them.
2. This bill only affects the USA. Overseas manufacturers *can* tell Congress to shove it, and *will* when they see the profit to be had.
3. Any attempt to enforce it will cause a consumer revolt. When someone can't use their Sony DVD-RW to record thier home movies any more, can't use a digital camcorder, and can't do any of a myriad other convenient things this bill will break, they will revolt.
4. The new DRM was just released. ETA of hack: 3... 2... 1... hacked.

This is move made by an organization that is desperate to avoid losing control. They are evil people, who think only of themselves and what they want at the expense of hundreds of millions of others. In many ways, they are like terrorists. While defenders of freedom must stop them at every turn, they only have to succeed once with a crime like this to hurt everyone. Like terrorists, they can only survive as long as most people support them or don't care. Before the Internet, this was easy as they controlled every means of getting information out. With the Internet, people who see them for what they are will speak out uncontrollably and they will be destroyed once and for all.

The end is coming for them. They know it. And because they both powerful and evil, they will hurt many many people before they are brought to economic justice. I will celebrate the day the MPAA and RIAA are dissolved when their last member goes bankrupt for the rest of my life.

Re:This law will be a failure for so many reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

I can point my lovingly cared for pre-drm camera at the screen, record every frame, then reassemble them

Well, DRM measures are being put in at the media / playback device / display level, to produce flickering light levels supposedly invisible to humans but that screw with cameras. So you would need a workaround for that too.

Re:This law will be a failure for so many reasons

[The Master Control P]

Mount camera, use oscilloscope to find light intensity over time, integrate to arrive at proper multi-second exposure time that nullifies flickering.

The MPAA just doesn't get this one simple fact: I can see it, therefore photons are travelling across the room, therefore they can be recorded. End of story.

Re:This law will be a failure for so many reasons

[toddestan]

To begin with, the analog hole can not be closed because the brain's audio and video inputs are analog. Therefore, I can point my lovingly cared for pre-drm camera at the screen, record every frame, then reassemble them.

I wonder if your old analog camera was to capture the watermarks in the film along with the rest of the information, would a newer TV or computer monitor refuse to play back the digital file?

Re:This law will be a failure for so many reasons

[The Master Control P]

A watermark can't be visible to the viewer, which severely limits how many bits they can play with to create the watermark. Try this: Open Photoshop or the GIMP, create an image as wide as your screen's resolution, and make a gradient from black to a pure color running across it. See how much you can posterize it before you can see vertical bars. Green becomes visible to me around 200 colors, red and blue at 120-150. That means they can't change more than 1 or *maybe* 2 bits per color in RGB, which gives 3 to 5 bpp of watermark (realistically - your eye is very good at picking green apart, only getting 1 bit there). Try blending increasing numbers of 8 and 32-color static frames together and see when they get close to flat gray.

Buy the movie that many times, record each DVD the same way (placing the pictures taken with the digital camera into ~/set1/, ~/set2/, ~/set3/ ...), then use a script in an image manipulation program to create ~/set_average. The watermark is now static, effectively removed. No watermark, no refused playback.

Lemme see if I am gettin this straight..

[synonymous]

If the words are accurate, it would seem as if the government is just trying to eliminate so called analog. "the measure will outlaw the manufacture or sale of electronic devices that convert analog video signals into digital video signals" I guess if you can keep the signal digital all the way through, I see no problem other than the separating of the ties of so called analog-digital. It really seems that the message transmitted is just another pretention of working for the vote and not really something thought out at all. Some argue if life begins at conception or birth or heartbeat or whatever, I for one think sperm and eggs are alive. Some think that events and other the like are "analog", an escapee of a gridrealm. I for one live in a world where everything is digital. Everything occupies a place and at a time. Didn't no one else watch Stephen Hawking videos first thing after being born?? I mean,, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Oops, wrong planet. Sorry analog peoples of digital governments.. Message to selves, Troubled Blue Planet- Long way to go, short time to get there.

immoral and abusive

[carl0ski]

i dont get it?
analogue is a long supersceded product
analogue tranmission is to be eliminated from australia by 2008

Digital transmission is what they should be protecting
recording digital transmission to a digital format should be enforced


all this stupid regulation is going to do is make history useless
how is anyone supposed to convert VHS tapes to Digital in 2-5years?
my family VHS recordings are not going to cause a lost sale in to the movie industry
The carl0ski family trip with past grandparents.


this regulation is derogatory and an abuse of power


30 years from now Video Cassette is found of historical significance
what i do with this what is it?
can't convert it since the blanket ban assumes all copying is illegal
not many people would own a VHS player
nothing left to do but leave it rot in its current plastic casing


do any of you think you'll still have a record player in the next 10years?

stopping something of historical significance from being reproduced in an appropriate format is
immoral and unethical

my family video recordings are as far as i'm considered are of historical significance.

What the #&%(

[Mr. Freeman]

I wasn't aware that the bill would make it illegal to convert analog to digital.
I read the bill and I probably missed that part in the roundabout wording that they use.

But it did say that any device removing the VEIL anti-copy signal from an analog signal would also violate the law. The VEIL signal will of course be optional so the owner of the work will still have control over their "intellectual property".

Also, any device simply ignoring the signal would be illegal as well. This is what I really don't agree with. Why should hardware manufacturers be required to obey signals that they never designed their hardware for.

If I buy a DVD recorder then damn it, I want it to record stuff to DVDs. It's up to ME to obey the law, not a computer chip.

Digital Rights Massacre-3 Strikes, you're out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Strike one: All the old hardware out there.

Strike two: All the upcoming hardware.

Strike three: According to Slashdot, all content sux.

So why are we worried again?

How will production switchers operate?

[tonsofpcs]

If they ban all video ADCs, how will smaller-scale video production switchers operate?

In other news...

[stlhawkeye]

...the content lobby has more money than you. Details at 11:00.

Re:In other news...

[eraserewind]

You know that is a joke, but it's also true, and not just in the USA. When did Liberal Democracy end? I missed the announcement.

The U.S. government is for sale.

[Futurepower(R)]

U.S. lawmakers have become arrogant and corrupt. Laws no longer need to be logical. Laws no longer need to serve everyone. Laws no longer need to be carefully constructed.

Now, U.S. lawmakers make laws that support their own ignorant prejudices, or support those who contribute money.

MythTV

[sbyrnes00]

They are going to have to pry my MythTV from my cold, dead fingers.

Or just wait for the HD to die, it's been spinning non-stop for 2 years and I don't know how much more it can take.

money talks

[drfireman]

Noboody's forcing MPAA members to even release their movies. If they wanted, they could produce them and then burn them. Or they could release them only to a select few people who are willing to have their brains removed after the viewing, as a copy protection measure. Luckily, they're continuing to release movies as usual, and just using their massive capital to compel various legislative bodies to eliminate a few more of our basic freedoms. It could be worse.

Whatever level of restriction the MPAA is eventually successful in imposing, we can make the following observation. There are two kinds of people: those who love the MPAA's products so much that they are happy to sacrifice their own freedom and that of future generations in order to have access to it; and those who do not. I'm personally getting close to the point where no conceivable movie, even if it answered every question I have about the universe in 90 minutes, would be so important to see that I would be willing to contribute to this organization. But I'm not there yet -- I do buy the occasional DVD, so I guess I'm partly to blame for this mess. I don't think enough people feel similarly to make much of a difference, and since I live in the US, I guess the path of least resistance (legally speaking) will be to buy the DVDs I want, live by the laws paid for by the MPAA, and funded by my neighbors, who for the most part are so desperate to see the latest cynically produced, factory generated vacuous drivel that they can't be bothered to worry about where their money is going.

Jonah swallowed a whale.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Someone mod parent up. It's the only sensible comment in this entire discussion."

Not quite. It forgets that a lot of "independent" hardware manufacturers are "overseas", and many are giants in themselves. Thompson is a french company. Siemens is German. Phillips is Netherlands. A LOT of hardware is made IN CHINA (home of "information wants to be free"...for sale) by chinese companies. The list that the poster quoted is a miniscule number of hardware manufacturers in a GLOBAL market. The entire content industry is positively tiny by comparison.

Sounds like a typical _unpassed_ law....

[ShyGuy91284]

This almost definitely won't get passed in it's current form if the article summary was right (I didn't read the article itself). There are always laws like this that would effect something or other that aren't really logical for the typical consumer (like this that would make an entire type of common computer peripheral illegal that almost none use for illegal uses other then commercial chopping). Not really newsworthy. There's like one of these a month on slashdot. When something is near being passed and put into law, then I'll be interested.

Re:Sounds like a typical _unpassed_ law....

[wet-socks]

When something is near being passed and put into law, then I'll be interested

By then it'll be too late, if it isn't already...

Death of Copyright?

[MrNougat]

So I was thinking about copyright, and this is as good a place as any to spew it.

Let's say I have a piece of copywritten material, like a DVD movie, which I have purchased legally. I watch this movie, then I lend the physical DVD disc to my friend, so he can watch it at his house. When he's done, he gives it back, and I lend it to a second friend, who also watches it at his house.

End result: three people have watched the movie, and this is legal.

Now, what if I make two copies of the movie, and give one each to my friends. They take these copies, and I my original, and we all watch the movie in our separate homes at the same time.

End result: three people have watched the movie, and this is illegal.

It seems to me that when a copyrighted work is purchased one time, it is legal for multiple people to enjoy the copyrighted work consecutively, but it is illegal for multiple people to enjoy the copyrighted work concurrently. The only thing copyright is doing is lengthening the amount of time it takes for a copyrighted work to gain a larger audience, and the notariety that goes with that, and then the additional revenue that goes along with notariety.

Side note - I have never heard anyone complain about all the copyrighted porn that's being downloaded, and I guarantee that there's more of that than there is music or Hollywood movies. (Just .. just trust me on that.) I imagine that's because the porn industry makes a product that the consumer public will continue to pay for regardless of how much is available for free. The mainstream movie and recording industries should take their cues from this. As has been said a million times before, make a product that people are willing to pay for, and they will pay for it. So long as your target audience (for music and movies) is teenagers, and you continue to produce the crap they want, they're going to keep downloading it free. Make something good that mature adults want, and they will, on the whole, pay for it.

Digital Rights Massacre-Eye C Yu

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wait for voters to stop paying attention to what's really important, and one can slip any crazy law by. "

The problem with this argument is the *assumption* that voters are the only one's watching the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem isn't eyes, but enough voices, and ears.

Any bill can pass

[Jetson]

We should be glad that it is so ridiculous that it has no chance of passing

All it takes is for someone to attach it to an omnibus funding bill, as happened this week with the bill to open the Arctic Wildlife Reserve to the oil companies by sticking it into an arms appropriation bill at the last second. Someone basically said "the military uses imported oil, so drilling in the arctic could be considered a military neccessity!" In this case, of course the vote was overwhelmingly in favour of allowing big business to polute the arctic in search of what is estimated to be about a 16-month supply of oil.

I don't know why you guys (Americans) don't make this kind of legislative foolishness illegal. It's usually used for pork-barreling by attaching an obvious waste of money (in the form of directed bids for expensive purchases) to a bill that, oh, maybe funds school lunches or something. If the politicians don't vote in favour of the pork-barrel then they get a big "he voted against school lunches" attack in the next election. I'm sure it will happen one way or another with this "analog hole" proposal. Someone will find a way to roll it into a bigger block of regulations that nobody will have the guts to vote down....

Re:Any bill can pass

[Greyfox]

But they did vote that spending bill down. That really surprised me. Seems like it's raining reason in Washington this week. I really hope that there's some political backlash against Ted Stevens for introducing the language in the first place. For those of you who missed it, he's the guy who threw a temper tantrum when they tried to unfund his pork-barrel bridge to nowhere in Alaska in order to fund Katrina relief. He's also the guy who refused to swear in the oil executives when they were testifying before his committee.

Yeah, it seems like all the worst legislation as far back as I can remember has been introduced via riders like this. I'd love to see the practise done away with, but it'd take a massive petition drive to pull it off and I doubt most Americans care that much about the practise, if they even know it exists. It never ceases to amaze me how little people I talk to seem to know about our political process...

Re:Any bill can pass

[melstav]

I don't know why you guys (Americans) don't make this kind of legislative foolishness illegal.

The problem is that our Legislature is the body that would have to make it illegal.

Re:Any bill can pass

[drooling-dog]

I don't know why you guys (Americans) don't make this kind of legislative foolishness illegal. It's usually used for pork-barreling...

You just answered your own question, there...

Re:Any bill can pass

[Eli Gottlieb]

It's a good question, why have we never changed the rules so that only germane riders could be attached? Oh, wait, how would that pass? The politicians want their pork so they never allow a germane rider requirement to pass!

Pork is tref! Pork is tref!

Re:Any bill can pass

[quantum bit]

Yeah, it seems like all the worst legislation as far back as I can remember has been introduced via riders like this. I'd love to see the practise done away with, but it'd take a massive petition drive to pull it off...

Or a president with enough backbone to veto anything (and I mean ANYTHING) with extra crap attached to it. Yeah, they could still use the 2/3 override for anything that's really well supported, but it would at least send a message to Congress to cut it out.

Of course since everyone in DC is a shill for their policial party that will never happen.

Re:Any bill can pass

[Erik Noren]

"...take a massive petition drive to pull it off and I doubt most Americans care that much about the practise, if they even know it exists."

So we MAKE them aware in ways they can understand.

In areas where voter turnout was huge in the last election due to the "gay marriage" issues (which seems oddly absent from topics of news since) we tell people the "Government can legalize gay marriages whenever they want by slipping it in with the budget measures for civil war recreationists!"

In Texas, we tell them the "Government can force them to open their electric grid to help stabilize the other grids and will raise their electric prices to boot by attaching it to hair-spray and shoulder pad subsidies."

Or tell soccer mom that the "Government can push taxes on cars and gas any time they want by slipping in legislation that gives school's money for sports and activities."

If you speak their langauge, they'll understand. Make them understand!

Re:Any bill can pass

[Fishstick]

he's the guy who threw a temper tantrum when they tried to unfund his pork-barrel bridge to nowhere in Alaska in order to fund Katrina relief. He's also the guy who refused to swear in the oil executives when they were testifying before his committee.

Yep, Daily Show made a point to show all this guy's best moments the other night. What a nutjob.

Re:Any bill can pass

[AK Marc]

He's also the guy who refused to swear in the oil executives when they were testifying before his committee.

I never got this one, not why he did it, and not why anyone cares. It is illegal to lie to Congress. Whether they are sworn in or not, the lies would be just as illegal, so why would it matter?

For those of you who missed it, he's the guy who threw a temper tantrum when they tried to unfund his pork-barrel bridge to nowhere in Alaska in order to fund Katrina relief.

Huh? There was nothing about "Katrina relief" in the unfunding of the bridges. It is not a zero sum game. They can fully fund Katrina relief and the two bridges to nowhere (actually not nowhere, one is to Ben Stevens - the son - property that will make it worth much more, and the other goes to Don Young's friends' property, so the bridges are payback to friends and family, not pork for the state). It is simply a matter of borrowing more money to pay for everything they want, and since the Republicans don't seem to mind the borrow-and-spend economics that will spiral the economy to collapse, they'd have no problem finding the money for both. And the money was still given to Alaska, who can spend it on the bridges, so they may still be funded, though not directly by name with earmarked funds from Congress.

The part of funding that I find absurd is that $100B to fight a war on the other side of the world based on lies against a country that was never a threat to the US was easy, but an extra $5B for Katrina relief is hard to find. Remember, this is the US, welfare is for the rich only.

I really hope that there's some political backlash against Ted Stevens for introducing the language in the first place.

He is a spoiled brat. He was the most powerful senator for a while, when he was chair of the Appropriations Committee. But now, he doesn't have as much power, and nothing pisses someone off more than a demotion. He's become a whiny little 3 year old. And if you think it is bad, try living in the state he represents.

Re:Any bill can pass

[AeroIllini]

I don't know why you guys (Americans) don't make this kind of legislative foolishness illegal.

You know, you're right. I'm going to head out and write my senator right now about how we need a law saying you can't attach bills to other bills just to get them passed.

Unfortunately, no one in the senate would ever vote for such a crazy idea. We better attach it to the Save The Children Act of 2005 to get it passed.

Re:Any bill can pass

[AeroIllini]

It never ceases to amaze me how little people I talk to seem to know about our political process...

"Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made."
  - Otto von Bismark

Re:Any bill can pass

[Anonymous Coward]

Amending a bill requires a vote too. You can not actually 'sneak in' a change to a bill. The notion that a congressman can do so is a myth that they perpetuate, so that you don't hold your Senator responsible for an amendment made by a member of the other party. However, they would actually have to READ THE FUCKING BILLS and AMENDMENTS to do stop crap like this, which they don't do. That is because they're too busy getting other things done to pay attention to things like the laws they're passing.

As for the notion that you should 'make it illegal' to attach amendments...
You'd need a constitutional amendment for this to have any force. Even then, you'd need to make *ALL* amending of laws banned. Which is fine, but it does slow down the rate at which things happen. If someone finds so much as a typo, the whole bill would have to be scrapped and resubmitted under such a system. ANything else would be subjective.

What about LCD monitors?

[corsec67]

Since Analog VGA is, well, analog, then would all LCD monitors that have an input other than DVI be outlawed?

They do take an analog signal, and digitize it.

What about LCD TVs that take something other than DVI / HDMI in?

I am pretty sure that the signal coming in from the sattelite isn't (purely) digital, so somewhere the video has to be converted to a digital form.

And, at a basic level, even computers aren't fully digital. There is a rising edge of the clock, it isn't instantaneous. Does that mean that a certain slope of rising or falling edge makes a signal "analog"?

I would like to see the debate on that in congress.

What did Tacitus say about dumb laws. . ?

[Fantastic Lad]

Just a bunch of excuses to put you in jail and thus threaten you into obedience. This is why the proposal exists. Though, I suspect it'll remain a proposal.

As the New Fascism steadily materializes into reality, even when Shirow-style Orcs with machine guns stalk the streets, television and movie content aren't going to vanish. Heck no! Look around you. Look at the intensity of the posts just in this article; The unanimous outcry, (on Slashdot??) is evidence of something. . .

--You can start up fake wars which starve, burn and shred thousands of little kids, you can steal entire elections, and you can poison everybody with bad medicine and bad food, and the populace will take it all without much more than a whimper. But if you try to take away their picture shows. . ? Man, watch out!

The opiate of the masses is only truly beyond necessity when societal control has been utterly locked into place; when all the gates have fallen and most everyone has been safely processed into tasty meat products.

So don't worry about your little television picture shows. They'll be around for a while yet. Heck, if you try to turn them off, the most surprising people will expend great effort in trying to sign you up again for free. No joke! Just try canceling your cable and watch what happens. It's truly amazing.

So this legislation is just a small twist on a much longer road. A dumb distraction. One way or another, you will be force-fed media unless you very actively close your ears and eyes.

-FL

Re:What did Tacitus say about dumb laws. . ?

[leomekenkamp]

But if you try to take away their picture shows. . ? Man, watch out!

Bingo! We have a winner. "Ad populum panem et circenses.". Just give the proletariate masses food and play, and you can be as corrupt as you like when you are in power.

It has been this way in the Roman Empire, just like it is right here right now. People just no not seem to care enough for things besides their own limited selfish lives, unless something very very bad happens.

Re:What did Tacitus say about dumb laws. . ?

[Tim C]

You can start up fake wars which starve, burn and shred thousands of little kids, you can steal entire elections, and you can poison everybody with bad medicine and bad food, and the populace will take it all without much more than a whimper. But if you try to take away their picture shows. . ? Man, watch out!

None of those things affect very many people here. We're mostly well educated, comfortably well off people far from any front lines, eating reasonably good food, taking reasonably good medicine on those few ocassions we need it.

Entertainment though, now that we *do* need. Not as in "we can't survive without it", but as in "life would be that bit less rich, that bit less worthwhile without it".

Heck, if you try to turn them off, the most surprising people will expend great effort in trying to sign you up again for free

That's not "but you must have your entertainment drip feed!", that's "you don't have cable? Please, spend your money with us! Please!". I have Sky satellite TV. I get one or two mailshots each week from NTL, trying to convince me to switch to their service. They don't want to make sure I get my TV, they just want my money.

Re:What did Tacitus say about dumb laws. . ?

[Xeth]

You can start up fake wars which starve, burn and shred thousands of little kids, you can steal entire elections, and you can poison everybody with bad medicine and bad food, and the populace will take it all without much more than a whimper.

Yeah, totally. I mean, everyone's been totally cool with George Bush and Iraq, right? I sure haven't heard any complaints...

Re:What did Tacitus say about dumb laws. . ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Entertainment though, now that we *do* need. Not as in "we can't survive without it", but as in "life would be that bit less rich, that bit less worthwhile without it".

No it wouldn't. Diversions would prevent people from helping each other, being considerate to each other, and paying attention to what's going on, which would make life much more rich. They wouldn't be busy fucking each other over just so they could lead a cozy life and enjoy their entertainment in peace.

Can't stop...

[flynns]

Until the consortium for the DRMed video interface previously mentioned on slashdot manages to screw us permanently, the signal will always be available...

Dude. You can't stop the signal. You know that.

Soon they will ban...

[Karaman]

...book reading! I am sorry but usa is definitely going after 1984 scenario!

Legislation is the final refuge

[typical]

To be sure, as I have said above, piracy is not the whole problem - industry practices are part of the problem as well, but it is part of the problem. So what should we do about it?

I am inclined to oppose legislation unless we are absolutely certain that there is no technical solution that can come to the fore, or the market can simply be reshaped (for example, musicians getting tips or movies being sold in *extremely* large files -- so large that transfer of them is prohibitive). Or maybe competition finally driving ISPs to not allow unlimited data transfer any more, making P2P subsidized by lighter users less feasible.

The only reason to introduce legislation is to preserve the content distribution industry. While there is some cost to turmoil in the content distribution industry, I would point out that generally, if technology obsoletes an industry (such as the horse and carriage being obsoleted by the car), it's just not very feasible to try to extend the lifetime of the industry through legislation.

Traditionally, the expense of music production came in the distribution phase. The moneymaking step thus was attached to distribution, which led to music being produced based on funds provided by a music distributor (who thus assumed some financial risk). Getting the word out about good music was very hard, and so huge advertising budgets were worthwhile.

Today, we have very good systems for finding new music or movies that we like (and those systems get better by the day). IMDB, mp3.com, MovieLens, and so forth. This means that the marketing service that is tied into distribution is rapidly losing value. What about the distribution services? Well, it turns out that not only is distribution getting a lot easier and cheaper (via electronic distribution), but there is no initial cost to press a huge run and ship them to retail stores. That kind of eliminates much of the economic role of the music distributor as a necessary element in music production. Naturally, these industries are going to do what they can to protect themselves -- this is hardly cold and unfeeling, as Sally Smith, the record marketing directory for Acme Audio, wants to keep being able to buy Christmas toys for her kids. Ultimately, however, I'm not convinced that traditional distributors are still necessary for music production and consumption to occur.

I don't like the approach that this Conyers gentleman is aiming for. He's saying "well, if you don't like it, give me a better solution, and in the meantime, we're going to create this crummy law."

Frankly, the local live jazz groups don't need the RIAA to function. They're doing just fine. I'm not sure why I need to subsidize the RIAA's continued existence with my tax dollars and in increased prices for various electronic goods and in reduced functionality.

Re:Legislation is the final refuge

[Anonymous Coward]

I just have to respond to this:

I am inclined to oppose legislation unless we are absolutely certain that there is no technical solution that can come to the fore, or the market can simply be reshaped (for example, musicians getting tips or movies being sold in *extremely* large files -- so large that transfer of them is prohibitive).

So you're saying they should use technology (making piracy prohibitively impractical) to solve the problem?

All it takes is one geek to reencode the file to a more reasonable size (with acceptable quality) to kill that plan. It's a stop-gap solution at best. Hell, when the CD came out, nobody thought we'd be trading the content on a global basis a few short years later... to think this would work is very short sighted at best.

Or maybe competition finally driving ISPs to not allow unlimited data transfer any more, making P2P subsidized by lighter users less feasible.

Merely a side effect. What about those with a dedicated line of some sort (T1 or whatever)? You can't just limit everyone's bandwidth. Web servers etc require lots of available bandwidth. Plus, many users of "home-user" DSL/cable connections utilize their bandwidth for perfectly legal purposes (games, trading *legal* files, etc). Again, another short-sighted stop-gap solution.

The only reason to introduce legislation is to preserve the content distribution industry.

Now on this (and most of the rest of your post) I can agree. The content industry is faced with new technology, and they are pushing for laws to protect their outdated business model. But just like the various cases in the past (cassette tapes, VHS/BetaMax etc) the solution is NOT a technical one, nor does the problem require legislation. What does it require?

Offer me something for my money, and I'll gladly buy it. Notice how DVD sales aren't hurting a bit; many people I know have re-bought movies on DVD that they currently own on VHS. Why? Video quality is better, sure, but not so much that it warrants a new purchase. It's the extra content. The producers made an effort to make the DVD worth purchasing, by finding, producing, and releasing content not found elsewhere.

The music industry however has no such equivelant. They tried to unleash the SACD and DVD-Audio on us, to no avail; there wasn't anything extra to offer us (CD quality is better than most human ears can perceive, so higher resolution or sample rate makes no difference to us humans). The fact is, the record labels are a small part of the whole process, and until now this fact wasn't obvious. Now we realise the facts: the label puts forth some money to produce the album, and then expects royalties forever...

Ugh, I could go on all day... but I won't...

*smacks forehead*

[SpittingAngels]

Yeah, this is really gonna work out well considering that the vast majority of pirating and illegal duplication takes place outside of USA.

What about a Duplicate Slashdot Posts Security Act

[jafac]

nuff said?

Conyer is trying to Con-Yer...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is he "thinking"? Will it be illegal to use digital cell phones? Will it be illegal to use VoIP? Technically, anything that does not **instantaneously** transfer any communication from one end to another, however far, is "recording" that communication till it is delivered.

Politicians are better of doing other things (like getting "sucked" up to by interns) than passing four lettered things (e.g. "laws").

Outlaw Paper!

[serutan]

What if print publishers decided to switch to all-electronic DRM'ed content, and bribed the legislature to outlaw paper? That way you couldn view content only on authorized devices, subject to fees and licenses on a per-view basis and complete control over usage. That's pretty much what the entertainment industry wants to do. Can't police analog signals? Then police the digital world and close the gateway between analog and digital, the so-called "analog hole."

If this concept becomes a law we'd better get busy digitizing existing analog material before the old equipment wears out. At some point all of human history not already recorded digitally will in effect cease to exist.

Wikipedia article

[jacoplane]

I've created a stub, please help to expand: Digital Transition Content Security Act.

Bah - April Fools isn't in December.

[FredThompson]

C'mon, people, do you really think "Hollywood" has more power than the electronics industry? Pffff.

This is just conyers acting like a kook to "earn" his pay from the lobbyists.

"Hollywood", like any other content creator, wouldn't have much of anything to worry about if their content was desired by the public.

Re:Bah - April Fools isn't in December.

[Castar]

The problem isn't the power they have, it's the fact that Hollywood cares, and the electronics industry doesn't... Or doesn't as much. They can make nearly as much money selling people DRMed devices as non, and it's great for them when there are legally-forced upgrades. It's a bit short-sighted, since things like the PC industry wouldn't have even arisen if laws like this had been in place. But of course very few businesses like to bet on the long term when they can profit in the short term.

Thanks for turning my TV into HAL, John!

[some damn guy]

The gulibility and/or insincerity of Congress- and Mr. Conyers- on this is pretty alarming (hey kind of like iraq! Close the analog hole John! Your consituents will be greeting you with flowers, thanking you for saving their favorite programs!) At least George Bush is throwing my freedoms in the trash so he can fail to protect me from terrorists. Mr. Conyers & Co. are throwing them in the trash so that ABC can fail to prevent bittorrents of Deperate Housewives.
 
There is one simple reason why this is a bad idea: this legislation will not prevent a single act of piracy. This whole act is based upon a fantasy that only the media industry, blinded by self-interest, honestly believes. The fact is you won't close the analog hole until the day you DRM light. Any single act of 'astronomically' expensive piracy is not preventable. With millions and millions of people coming to own TVs and computers in the developing world and none of them able to afford a library of $13 cds and $18 dvds, the resources devoted to organized piracy will be enourmous. This legislation will stop 0% of this and these bootlegs will make their way onto the internet all the same.
 
Even if organized piracy stopped tomorrow, it only takes one person to defeat this silly protection scheme and make the whole thing moot. This will happen regardless of whether there are ludicrous laws that restrict what questions a person can ask or what they are allowed to learn about a product they bought and paid for.
 
Yes, the recording industry has a right to say how their content is used, and when they start making electronic devices they can make them however they fucking want to. But if the prospect of telling an entire industry how they can and can not design their products doesn't send a chill down Mr. Conyer's spine- products that until now where things that people actually wanted- well then Mr. Conyers you have no respect for free markets.
 
Mr Conyers needs to know that it isn't the goverment that isn't changing fast enough, it's the media industry. The world that industry grew up in is GONE and taking away American freedoms isn't going to change that. We might as well pass a law to make the earth rotate the other way because Jack Valenti doen't like the way the water swirls when he flushes the toilet.
 
Not enough people going to movies (for reasons other than them sucking)? Maybe update the technology used to show them- it hasn't changed much in DECADES, even though consumer electronics, which this bill would hobble, are making leaps every single year. Which side would you want making the rules?
 
The fact of the matter is that, while unstoppable, piracy is usually a little bit inconvenient. Instead of making it more of a hassle for legitimate users, try making it LESS of one. Charge a resonable price too, U2's latest album isn't a priceless work of art for gods sake. If you do this, people will give you their money, and if they don't they probably just don't have any, so stop pretending like it's some big loss. That's really what iTunes did: $.99 & no 2 hour wait on Kazaa => $$$$$.
 
Anyway, dream on- action like that would cost money- or worse yet, would require an admission that they aren't quite sure what to do in this new era. Better buy another law instead!
 
  Congress is just feeding these people's delusions. They won't change until they absolutely have to. Why haven't they figured this out?
 
Well anyway, thanks John! I'll make sure I remember this when you've turned my TV into fucking HAL 9000- oh and on election day too.

Re:Thanks for turning my TV into HAL, John!

[eric76]

well then Mr. Conyers you have no respect for free markets

He has plenty of respect for free markets.

That's why they are up for sale to the highest bidder.

Average Joe effected....Geek NOT effected

[sadler121]

Your average joe is not going to take a soldering iron to his/her DVR, and that is what this piece of legeslation is aimed at. Geeks will always be able to get around DRM because WE ARE GEEKS, we know how it works, we know how to get around. Averge Joe on the other hand could care less.

As long as DRM is implimented by humans, it will always be cracked, however, only by a small percentage of the population.

Re:Average Joe effected....Geek NOT effected

[surprise_audit]

If I'm reading this right, you wouldn't need to take a soldering iron to your DVR. Digital-to-analogue seems to be OK, right?? It's converting back to digital that's the issue, so the cable going *into* the DVR could be fitted with an inline filter. Your nice, shiny new DVR with "don't re-record" technology won't see the "don't re-record" flag or signal, so it'll happily record anything.

Or maybe I've missed the point...

Re:Average Joe effected....Geek NOT effected

[JoeBorn]

Parent hits the nail right on the head, which is exactly why this is a bad idea even for those whose sole mission is to stop piracy. You only can stop ordinary folks from making copies, which are more often than not paying customers that just want to exert some simple fair use rights. This is about the average mom that wants to put finding nemo on an iPod without having to scour the internet to figure out how to do it. Everyone here knows how to decrypt a dvd, if you want to seed something on BT, that's how you'll do it, not by using the analog hole.
 
  Again, this is not about piracy, its either about control or ignorance of technology. I'm encouraged by Conyers blog response above in my hope that it's the latter in his case. It is our job to help legislators understand this. I hate to continue to beat this dead horse, but with the current lobbying imbalance, it's up to geeks to make sure that the voice of fair use rights is heard in congress.

Re:Average Joe effected....Geek NOT effected

[arminw]

.....As long as DRM is implimented by humans, it will always be cracked, however, only by a small percentage of the population.....

Yes, but it only takes ONE geek to remove the DRM and then it can be and WILL be made available to any Joe who can click a mouse, regardless of how many laws are passed and the army of lawyers hired by **AA's of this world. Once the horse is out of the barn, all the locks on the latter will not get it back in. The Internet is not controlled by any one government and its laws.

The Disney's of this world will have to get used to this brave new digital reality, just as the horse and buggy makers eventually adapted to the automobile. In the past these content providers figured out over time how to make money from the CD, VCR and DVD technologies. I am confident that in 10 or 15 years from now, DRM will be a nightmare that went away after they have figured out how to make the of money from the new ways of distributing their wares. People ARE willing to pay for content that is convenient, not over-priced and allows them to watch and listen wherever, whenever and on whatever gadget that happens to be in vogue at any given time. The Ipod and Itunes is plenty of proof of that.

Getting it passed probably isn't their intent

[jesterzog]

This will ensure that the bill fails. We should be glad that it is so ridiculous that it has no chance of passing, rather than only being semi-crazy like the DMCA.

Considering it seems so unlikely on the surface, it makes me concerned that getting the bill passed isn't the actual point.

After all, it wouldn't be the first time that members of an industry have proposed something "ludicrously ridiculous" so that law-makers might be convinced that it's entirely rational and reasonable to meet half way... at either "ludicrous" or "ridiculous".

The only poor artists are studid artists, ie MJ

[cheekyboy]

Only Michael JAckson is a stupid MOFO looser who is sort of rich and poor at the same time.
The people made him rich, not the govt, so stop pedling to the govt for mafia style protection.

But it all doesnt matter, usa will have a civil war, all hell will break loose, the fed will die, all amendments will be deleted.
And a common Federation of States will be formed with each truly independant, with ZERO income tax as pre 1930s ( thank woodrow for that, temparary tax my ass you lieing MOFO )
All those old fart congres lieing scum bag corrupt filth will be imprisonned till they die, which wont be long.

Thank god only the USA passes laws like this

[Anonymous Coward]

And for once, thank god that most of the production of electronics for computers happens outside of the USA as the production lines in China, Taiwan and other countries can continue to develop useful technology while just shipping "crippled" products to the USA.

Well, at least that's what I'm hoping for.

Soon you too can add a free range video card to your souvanier pack when you go on holidays overseas!

Re:Clueless

[symbolic]

When it comes to working and contractual conditions, they are squeezed by the content industry. When it comes to piracy, they are being squeezed by illegal file sharing. Collectively, this squeeze has led to a lower standard of living for artists and lower profile workers in the content industry.

He doesn't seem to understand the reasons behind the alleged squeeze. Shoring up the content industry will do NOTHING to resolve the squeeze that artists most definitely feel from that side of the fence. On the other side, if the material being produced by the artist is good, I believe that people will want to buy it- they just don't want to shove more money into the pockets of *AA in order to do it. Doing so will perpetuate the same crap that has been going on for decades. In a sense, consumers are in a bit of a bind themselves. (Even so, this doesn't justify the willful violation of copyright with respect to material that belongs to *AA).

Another Macrovision

[Sirpete]

To me this sounds just like Macrovision extended to digital recording devices. Not relly news. Actually most recording DVD-players have it already, so don't expect the industry to fight it for you anymore. All it really means to me that I really do not want to buy new tech anymore.

Sorry, no HDTV nor Digital TV (cripple tv) for me.

Not just analog to digital, looks like A/A as well

[Mycroft_VIII]

Actually if I read that thing right (reminds me of some HORRID code) it looks like it's not 'no analog to digital conversion' but rather it prohibits analog-digital and analog to analog that doesn't obey whatever encoded 'rules' (no copy, copy once, copy many but still copyrighted) and it must not do anything to the encoded 'rules' themselves, except pass them on (I think it allows changing copy once to no copy) and it MUST do that.
    Not shure but it probably puts the same restrictions on digital to digital.
    It also makes a bunch of distinctions between pay per view and subscription and premium subscription and so on.
        I found a link to it at http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr4569

Mycroft

SECURITY??

[DenDave]

What does this have to do with SECURITY ???? Are we gonna protect the USA from Osama the notorious movie pirate???

Don't blame Hollywood

[smokin_juan]

Truth is, Hollywood doesn't have much to do with the DMCA laws. Same for the RIAA. Sure, they go along with the act because as they say, any publicity is good publicity. If you really want to know the source of these laws look towards the hardware manufacturers and the cabal of smarmy engineers behind them.
Phase 1: The hardware mfrs know that if a DMCA scare is circulated in the press the public will swarm the market to buy the latest technology void of impending DMCA hardware restrictions. It moves product.
Phase 2: When (if) DMCA is incorporated into electronic products it will increase the cost of those products. Price, being a derivative of cost, will be affected in the positive direction.

I'd like to tell you my source, but if I did I couldn't bring you these rumors in the future.

Re:Don't blame Hollywood

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth is that the DMCA didn't mandate any restrictions hardware devices needed to have Mr Troll.

mandatory purchase

[Anonymous Coward]

Next they will lobby that everyone is mandatory to buy at least one cd and dvd a month as payments because the entire nation is simply automatically guilty.(penalty of not buying your cd or dvd will be loss of everything you own or ever will own) A majority of the US population has been using digital media devices, and since virtually every house hold in the united states has these, everyone is just by default guilty and no more proof is required! It's that simple! Your all guilty by default!!! Hmm.. wait, this sounds too much like Christianity.. Can anyone say digital dark ages?!

scanners?

[deckert_za]

A scanner is also effectively converting analog video signals (albeit not moving pictures) into digital signals. News at 11: "And in an unprecedented development today, eBay saw pricing of second hand scanners skyrocket..." -deckert

Fucking Government Pirates - String Em UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only fucking Piracy goin on is
the Piracy of the US Government and Constitution And Riches away from the people.
It all started with cracking the motherfuckin ballot box!
Freedom is DEAD! Soon you will be too!

Stupid motherfuckers!

Ensuring some get their due, but dissing others...

[Anonymous Coward]

...typical of government, innit?

So what if the artists are properly compensated for this law? Does the US actually realise how many people it will actually retroactively put out of work?

While Hauppage and likewise may have other lines so that the companies might still float, consider the individual workers who run the production and testing lines, not to mention their immediate supervisors. Like the artists, they, too, are earning an HONEST living. By illegalizing such technology, you effectively shut down this line, and in effect INDIRECTLY PUT ALL THESE PEOPLE OUT OF WORK.

Sure, they can be reassigned. But which Company these days ever wants to keep surplus? They're all still in economic crisis survival mode even when it is supposedly loooooong over... lean and mean is the word, unnecessaries get kicked...

And remember, once you have people out of work, they become poor. And when they become poor in a world where innovation and entreprenurship is closely scrutinized to look for any signs of sueable copying... you've just added to the ranks of the pirates you're trying to catch.

Artists may deserve their money, but those that produce the tools through which artists display their creativity deserve equal credit.

viva la revolution

[ebooborg]

"..Its time for our comrades in the USA to revolt against the evil oppresors!..Viva la revolution!!..."

ask a quantum physicist

[cyberbian]

is the UNIVERSE digital? or analog? this bill, ore perhaps the description of the intent of the bill ostensibly outlaws many things we take for granted... on the bright side, it doesn't seem to say digital to digital conversion is a bad thing :D it seems to me that (see rule #1) is becoming a better and better idea all the time. you are NOT a beautiful and unique snowflake

So how will I convert my copy of the REAL Star War

[koelpien]

So how will I convert my copy of the REAL Star Wars film (only available on VHS) to DVD?

Sad but true...

[Chriscypher]

When A-D converters become criminal, only criminals will have A-D converters.

CCDs

[stud9920]

outlaw the manufacture or sale of electronic devices that convert analog video signals into digital video signals,

Great, so they will ban CCDs, or any digital camera device for that matter, as well as VHS to DVD converters, or even DVRs (yeah baby, as long as broadcast TV is analog, recording it on other places then analog tape is video A/D convertion).

We're all safe

[CastrTroy]

I think we're all safe, because i'm not aware of any device that transforms an analog video signal into a digital video "signal". I think you could convert it to a digital stream of bytes, but as far as producing a digital signal, you'd be hard pressed to find one. I don't see how this does much good for hollywood. They use these devices every day when making movies. I guess they'll be no more digital devices for movies anymore. And how does this even stop DVD, which goes from digital to digital. I wish congress would just try to learn something about the technology before outlawing it.

The *AA set such good examples.

[Seta]

If something like this passes I wonder who else will try to profit on such ideas.

"In other news, the FDA is changing their name to the FDAA, and is sueing over 2,000,000 americans for creating 'McDonalds Like' cheeseburgers and shakes. A shocked McDonalds representative was quoted as saying 'We can't believe the wide scale of this operation, and hope that with the combined efforts of the FDAA and the McDonalds corporation, we can stop this blatent copyright infringement and bring these crooks to justice!'. More at 11."

And in related news...

[wintermute740]

The MPAA has claimed that eyes violate this legislation. They are asking that everyone turn their in immediately and settle out of court for $40,000, or risk more costly prosecution.

RTFB

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to be clear, this bill wouldn't outlaw video capture equipment. Rather, it would require that capture equipment implement things like the broadcast flag. Not that this would be a good thing, but sheesh people, if you're going to whine at least know what you're whining about!

The Silver Lining?

[gearmonger]

Well, there is an upside to all this DRM. If it all happens the way the content owners like, it may push more Americans to do things that don't involve movies and music, like going to the park, playing sports, making their own music and movies (really trivial to do nowadays), which could have positive effects like reduced obesity, increased creativity, more social interaction...

Gosh, now that I think about it, maybe this is a good idea. ;-)

non-jumpless switches

[TheGreatOrangePeel]

Uh. Unless I've missed somthing, wouldn't this make using non-jumpless swtiches in A LOT of devices, illegal? Here's hoping I don't have to turn on any computers with an AT power supply!

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

bills like this is essentially saying that artists (and their record companies) are first class citizens and that I am a second class citizen.

You Don't Understand How it Works

[Greyfox]

Congressmen have staffers. In order for you to actually get the actual Congressman's attention, you have to give him a huge amount of money. That gets you his personal cell phone number. All other communications are intercepted by staffers and boring ones full of technical details are particularly likely to make a staffer fall to sleep before he can summarize it into "Some guy doesn't want you to vote on this bill" to the Congressman.

Make a huge donation to the guy, though, and you have his cell phone number. So you can call him up and ask him if he'd like to do lunch and golf at your exclusive country club while you pitch your argument to him. Well you don't actually TELL him you'll be pitching an argument from him. You'll just briefly mention sometime between the prime rib and the 18th hole that you'd really like to do something about that bothersome digital-to-analog conversion issue that the DMCA doesn't cover. And, my friends, is how a bill becomes a law.

Please God Nooo!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do not encourage americans to move to Canada after they have screwed up their own country so badly they can't even bear to live there themselves. Do you really want them influencing us in the same direction any more than they already are?

GNU Radio is the way out

[darrint]

A lot of good could be done by "us" (whatever that means) getting behind a promoting Gnu Radio. Gnu Radio turns the whole DAC/ADC issue into a freedom of speech issue, muscling a constitutional issue over the law, and buying "us" time to make software defeat the technical mechanisms.

I've written about it on my weblog.

By promoting Gnu Radio "we" get to highlight the neccesity of freedom of communication, the benefits it could bring in disasters, etc. It would be a welcome distraction from the usual piracy debates.

Is Pro Audio exempt???

[echomancer]

This is reminiscent of the SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) DRM embedded in consumer devices that transmit digital audio for home use (think MiniDisc, DVD PLayers, DAT, etc). This prevents someone from recording the digital content from these devices onto other digital devices/mediums.

Now in the context of the professional audio/studio world. we have the ability to disable this feature, or our devices don't have it whatsoever. Whatever determinted that SCMS had to be implemented made a provision for professional audio gear.

I run a 24 track digital project recording studio. EVERY piece of equipment I use to record translates audio from analogue into digital. There had better be an exemption...

Hey Conyers! What about our bigger problems?

[Proudrooster]

Wow... digital to analog conversion at the top of the national agenda. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we have bigger problems? Here is a small list in case you need to pull your head out of your arse and get busy.

Oil Prices

Natural Gas Prices

Citizes without health care

The loss of the American Middle Class

The war in Iraq and against Islamic radicals

The giant national debt, which is now mostly owned by China

Cleaning up the South before the next hurricane season

Alternative Fuel Research

Pourous Borders

Executive abuse by King George Bush

Lobbyists hijacking our leaders... oh wait, now this legistlation makes sense.

actually, fair use isn't a right.

[afeinberg]

Fair Use is a defense against civil and/or criminal liability for copyright infringement. Not a right.

Re:actually, fair use isn't a right.

[Harik]

Thank you for providing in a short pair of sentances a powerful example of exactly WHY the Bill of Rights was such a bad idea.

The fear was that anything not included wouldn't be considered a right, despite the best efforts to the contrary. Has there EVER been a case decided on Ammendment 9 or 10 grounds?

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Sounds to me like this is yet another abuse of the commerce clause. You could make a case that restrictions on what someone can do with a VCR could be passed by the states, but it's NOT a federal power. And while some form of copyright and patent protection is required by the constitution, it's NOT spelled out that it has to be the current form.

Re:actually, fair use isn't a right.

[afeinberg]

I'm sorry, but you completely misunderstood what I'm saying.

Fair Use has NEVER been considered a "right" as in the Bill of Rights. The concept of Fair Use originated as a defense against civil and criminal charges of copyright infringement.

As for your invocation of Amendments IX and X, you're way off base. Congress has the explicit power to make laws regarding Copyright, even stupid ones like the DTCSA. There is no question of enumerated versus implied powers here, nor state versus federal.

I'll say it again: The concept of Fair Use originated in Common Law as a defense against charges of infringement. You do not have a RIGHT to Fair Use. You do, however, have the right to defend yourself against lawsuits using the DEFENSE of Fair Use.

There is a difference. Learn it, and you'll understand copyright law.

Nothing new here

[Luscious868]

We got these stories once a month on Slashdot. Let members of the House and Senate (independently of one another) introduce whatever stupid DRM related bills they feel like introducing. As long as it doesn't pass both houses of Congress (and the vast majority of bills that are introduced are never passed by a single House of Congress, let alone both the House and the Senate ... heck most bills fail to make it out of committee) then we've got nothing to worry about. This is simply a few members of the House earning their bi-annual campaign contributions from the MPAA. Expect to see more bills of this nature introduced in the House in the coming months. 2006 is a fund raising .. err ... election year after all..

Conyers appearing on Jeck Lessenberry CALL-IN SHOW

[More Trouble]

This is just conyers acting like a kook to "earn" his pay from the lobbyists.

It is fortuitous that Conyers will appear live at 1pm today on the Jack Lessenberry show on Michigan Public Radio. Maybe he should get to answer questions about DTCSA?

:w

Devo

[White Yeti]

As I read your post, the lyrics sprang to mind: "Freedom of choice is what you got, Freedom from choice is what you want."

Maybe it's all tied up with our growing "nanny" culture. (Probably a decent Liberal Arts thesis subject.)

Conyers on LIVE public radio call-in show TODAY

[More Trouble]

I suggest you all give him a call. I already wrote him, as he is MY rep. I voted for him, since I wasn't going to vote for the other asshole. The recent redistricting in Michigan eliminated the seat of a politician who I didn't find repugnant, and now I'm stuck with this guy!

Re:Conyers on LIVE public radio call-in show TODAY

[wgc21]

Me too, I find I'm stuck with him, I sent an email protesting this only to get the reply back saying your email has been sent to the honarable John Conyers... On the other hand its nice to know that my vote against him actually has some meaning...

So, this bill effectively promises:

[Anonymous Coward]

This bill effectively promises to do the following:
1. Remove Linux/MythTV from the PVR market since nobody will be able to release specs without some sort of non-disclosure contract given the DRM requirements.
2. Add a more flexible varient of the Broadcast flag to all devices that deal with video so that "Copyright Owners" can control how the content is viewed; aka remove the consumer's fair use rights. They may even be able to use the system to prevent skipping commercials.

As it appears from skimming the 35-page bill (http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/HR-4569-DTC SA-Analog-Hole.pdf)
TV-tuners and HD upscalers and such will not become illegal, they just must ensure the integrity of the embedded DRM, and follow the rules established by that system.

Thus, this bill will probably only effect two types of people:
1. Those who rely on fair use to record Pay-Per-View shows that they don't have time to watch as scheduled, or given the greedy media companies, anything else that they decide to limit (aka everything).
2. Users of open-source software. Thus, Microsoft will win given there closed-source Windows Media Center and the funds to acquire specs and write drivers.

In either case, big wealthy companies like Time Warner, Fox, and Microsoft win while mere users who want to watch HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies on their Linux/BSD/Hurd/etc box will be locked out.

What I want vs what RIAA/MPAA wants

[k12linux]

Me: Purchase music/video on CD/DVD or online once and play anytime and anywhere I feel like on anything I own which is capable of playing them.

RI/MPAA: Pay per view/listen preferably, pay per device as a close 2nd, pay per cheap easily damaged plastic disk which can not be copied if they have to.

Me: Copy to any media/device which is convinient for my own use or my family's use.

RI/MPAA: Copy NOWHERE. If forced, allow limited copies to devices they control and can disable if desired.

Me: The ability to set up a PC that stores all my CDs and DVDs to disk and allows me to play anything I own anywhere in my house on demand.

RI/MPAA: Install rootkits and hidden device drivers to control how/where/when I play things I've paid for.

It appears our needs are incompatible. The more the record and movie industries try to force their wants over mine the more I'm likely to simply avoid their products and turn to independant producers.

Re:What I want vs what RIAA/MPAA wants

[sesshomaru]

I'd just like to add:

Me: I want to buy music or movies from independent producers.

RI/MPAA: We want to drive all independent producers out of business, or if we can't do that, force them to work for us.

So much for my home video setup

[NixLuver]

For years I've used a very high quality analog video camera and a capture card to make DVDs of our family videos. So when my cap card dies, I won't be able to replace it. Thus I'll have to replace the camera, too, and all of the sundry equipment that goes with it. *sigh*.

The more that I think about it... Riddle me this, Batman. Is the 'signal' that the CCD in a digital camera recieves *analog*?

Why is this a big deal?

[the computer guy nex]

This industry is creating a product, they should have the choice on how it is distributed.

If you don't like the method, don't buy it. In a capitalist society you vote with your wallet, so make your vote.

Hollywood's film industry

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to say, Gary, Indiana's film industry? Or Hollywood's dry cleaning industry?

Either "Hollywood" or "the film industry" is OK but "Hollywood's film industry" sounds dumb.

So just how in the fuck...

[Anonymous Coward]

...are you supposed to watch programs when it's convenient for you??! Jesus K-Riste!!!! Stupid fucking mouth breathing assholes! I'd love to see someone wipe these assholes off the face of the earth. OK, with that out of the way...

What is the point of creating programming in the first place? Movies? TV? Music? Is it meant to entertain or simply to just rake in profit? I think that's where things have gone wrong. In the past it used to be that there was a balance. The programming was definitely meant to entertain and the profits were a bit of a side effect. That's the way it should have stayed. But with the focus heavily on the profit aspect, the entertainment industry has been co-opted by greedy criminals who amount to nothing more than racketeers.

I can understand things like advertisments to pay for TV shows. But there is no law saying I have to WATCH them or pay attention to them. Yet. I can understand wanting people to buy music on CD rather than stealing it from P2P and never buying the disc at all. I can understand preventing people from going into a movie theater with a camcorder and recording a new release to distribute via P2P. These things all make sense. What doesn't make sense is this desperation by an industry who refuses to adapt to new technology and the ensuing new business models that come with it.

They act as if before digital no one was trading cassette tapes. No one was sneaking into movie theaters (possible with home movie cameras!). No one was leaving the room to get a snack during the commercial break. No one was siphoning off cable from their neighbors. They act as if when digital came on the scene, everyone started pirating in such a way that it hurt their industries. FUCKING BULLSHIT you stupid turds!!! I'd love to punch Jack Valenti in the face and tell him what a knob goblin he is. I'd love to bean Hillary Rosen over the head with a sack of walnuts and point out that no matter how much money she thinks the anti-copying technology will save the music industry she's still a two-bit whore. Same goes for the new person at the MPAA and anyone else who thinks that business comes before the consumer.

If the entertainment industry would actually embrace technology and accept that a certain amount of theft is always going to be present, we could be so much farther along today. We wouldn't have to deal with half-assed technology like DirecTV's "mix channels". Instead we could have PVRs that just recorded every channel simultatenously for two weeks back and watch whatever we want, whenever we want. If the stupid business affiliations didn't have as much meaning, licensing wouldn't be an issue and we could have vast libraries of music, movies and television available to ALL providers to give the consumer REAL choice. We wouldn't have stupid things like XM radio and Sirius. We'd have our own personal "stations" built around our own digital media collections housed at home and available over the internet through portable devices. And we WOULDN'T have the compatibility shuffle with different formats and media since all companies would simply choose the best DRM-free codec for the job and store as portable data that can be used anywhere. So people copy and share? Big deal. They're still going to buy what they want if they can't find it online or if they just HAVE to have it now.

All this legal and business wrangling is preventing technology from moving forward. And all the money being put forth to "secure" so-called "intellectual property" was put into producing a much larger selection of quality content, profits would naturally go up. The only reason things aren't selling well right now is that everything is abject crap for the masses (the same masses who are going to steal it online because they don't have any real appreciation for the arts). I'd buy into an online music service if they provided access to any artist I was interested in using a non-DRMed format that could be easily shifted from device to device. I don't want to have t

Re:So just how in the fuck...

[enigma.obscura]

Yes, the point of business is profit, like it or not. Don't kid yourself for a split-second that any business has other aims or goals. Profit has never been a "side effect" and never will. And business will go to whatever (extreme) measures they feel are necessary to protect and grow their investment. Do you think people in that industry work 40-hour weeks for your benefit, for your enjoyment? Ha. So naive it hurts.

Re:So just how in the fuck...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what the fuck is the point of human existence? To buy and sell? I don't think so. The real point is to improve the human race and extend out into the rest of the known universe. If you're not on that train, you might as well kill yourself. I think I'm going to build a nuke with comet and twine tonight so that we can do a little cleansing of the useless waste.

Re:Plugging the 'analog hole'

[Anonymous Coward]

I always knew that everyone in government was into plugging the old 'analog hole'... I'm just glad they finally had the guts to come out and say it.

U.S. Government is Predominantly Christian

[SigProc]

Name a president that wasn't Christian.

The vast majority of members of congress are Christian: http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html

85% of the total population of the United States is Christian: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_christian.ht ml


Yeah, Christianity should be put on the endangered-religions list, ASAP.

Re:U.S. Government is Predominantly Christian

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want us to count the ones who say they're Christian in word but act entirely the opposite in deed?

Re:U.S. Government is Predominantly Christian

[Dylan Zimmerman]

Technically, George Washington seems to have been a Deist, not necessarily a Christian. Really, the first six presidents were Deist, as were four later ones. Most of the "founding fathers" were also Deists. Thomas Paine, the man who advocated independence from Britain in his tract Common Sense, also wrote something a good deal longer. The Age Of Reason. In it, he seems to support Deism rather strongly, stating

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

What does this mean?

It means that Christians now have more power in this nation than they had when it was founded, and yet all of these nimrods are complaining about being overly persecuted. It'd be nice if all of these people screaming that they're being censored would pick up a history book once in a while, but "Why take time to do the research when saying it is so much faster?"

Re:U.S. Government is Predominantly Christian

[Dylan Zimmerman]

Gee. If we're counting that way, then very few of the evangelicals are Christians, as they're the ones screaming bloody murder at an order to remove a sculpture of the ten commandments from a courthouse. I seem to remember somebody mentioning something about "the other cheek" and how we should "turn" it. Who was that, again?

Re:U.S. Government is Predominantly Christian

[jcr]

It means that Christians now have more power in this nation than they had when it was founded, and yet all of these nimrods are complaining about being overly persecuted.

They have the same amount of power that they always did, no more, no less. They can vote, they can run for office, they can sit on juries. So can anyone else.

-jcr

Re:U.S. Government is Predominantly Christian

[dangitman]

Do you want us to count the ones who say they're Christian in word but act entirely the opposite in deed?

Why wouldn't they be Christian? No Christian is free of sin. So you can be evil and still be a Christian. Jesus will forgive you. That's why he died.

Re:U.S. Government is Predominantly Christian

[Dylan Zimmerman]

I was using "Christians" in the group sense, like most people use "liberals". You're correct, that's the wrong way to do it. How about this:

More people in power are "Christian" now than when the nation was founded. There are more "Christian" interest groups than I can count, and they have an enormous amount of lobbying power. Here are a few examples.

• Kansas just changed the definition of "science" to fit the theocratic pseudoscience that they're wanting to push at their children.
• My own state just proved that they're more willing to vote alongside the KKK than they are to let gays have civil rights.
• The president of my country actually used the "God told me to" excuse to justify his invasion of Iraq.
• Let's not forget the classic example of Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of a foreign head of state. Why is he not being tried right now?

And here's a fun quote: "Interesting observation of the Radical Right, Judge Roy Moore commits peaceful civil disobedience by refusing to remove the Ten Commandments Monument from the Court. He is considered a Hero. Mayor Gavin Newsom commits peaceful civil disobedience by issuing same-sex marriage licenses. He is considered an Anarchist."

Those are just the ones I can list off the top of my head in a minute.

Further, some Christians do indeed have more power now than they did when the nation was founded. Try blacks and women. Originally, they could do none of the things you described, and the justification for this inequity was based on interpretations of the Bible. They were considered property, for crying out loud.

Isn't this a bit moot?

[Anonymous Coward]

With digital broadcasts and P2P being an all digital (DVD to AVI or MOV; CD to MP3 or AAC) enterprise, this seems a bit silly. I don't know anyone that actually rips the analog signal to get the content from media. This bill seems pointless. Of course, so does most of what comes out of D.C. these days.

My job requires analog to digital video

[SloppyElvis]

This is a nightmare. I work for a company that produces EEG systems, and we *need* to capture video of the patients and store it with our examination data. This is a diagnostic tool that physicians rely upon to characterize epileptic seizures. It is essential to treating these terrible episodes effectively.

How a bill that outlaws converting analog signal to digital media can seriously be considered is beyond my comprehension. Are camcorders going to be made illegal? Our application requires high quality video captured during low light or infrared conditions that must be visuallized and stored in near real time.

What about closed-circuit surveillance systems?

This money-for-policy exchange has got to stop. Interestingly, James Sensenbrenner is my mother's representative. I think he needs a letter from a constituent...

Start A Business

[Anonymous Coward]

If I read the proposed bill right businesses would be exempt under the "professional" clauses. Just go to your local town tall pay 39.00 to put your name on the books and buy all the shit you want to......

Dumb...

[frank_adrian314159]

Processors are becoming fast enough that you can simply plug an A-D card into your system and let the software do the rest. Or are we going to outlaw A-D conversion cards, too? There would be a lot of unhappy electronics folks out there if he proposed that.

I guess that...

[Lithgon]

We are to see an entire new congress next election.

Well, now I'm totally screwed.

[atomic_toaster]

...the measure will outlaw the manufacture or sale of electronic devices that convert analog video signals into digital video signals, effective one year from its enactment.

I run a small video production company. Everything is entirely above-board; we use only media that we own the copyright to or that we have secured permission from the copyright holders to use. We do a lot of video transfer from analog to digital formats, because a lot of clients now want their old videos re-circulated in DVD format or video for the web.

As an individual as well as a small business owner, I pay my taxes and I respect the terms of copyright. Why am I, as a law-abiding citizen, being penalized?

There are a lot of totally legitimate, law-abiding, non-copyright-infringing ways to use analog-to-digital technology. Hell, the entire video industry uses this technology on a regular basis. You know all of those older television series' that have been put on DVD and sold as boxed sets? Those were all originally on analog media. Same with all pre-digital movies. That's pretty much all of the video work that's been done in the last 100 years, minus the last five years or so. Oh, and most of the video work that's done these days, if it's not shot on digital in the first place, is converted to digital in order to be edited. The RIAA/MPAA, who I am sure lobbied for this, is really shooting itself in the foot here, because suddenly the technology that allows them to make and distribute movies/TV shows in any kind of digital format will be ILLEGAL. This is the same group of people who embraced digital technology because it's smaller, cheaper, and more efficient.

This is possibly the stupidest idea that I have ever heard. Way to shoot yourselves in the feet, people. It's back to the stone age of video production for all of us, now, unless we have George Lucas' budget.

Re:Well, now I'm totally screwed.

[Locke2005]

It's back to the stone age of video production for all of us, now, unless we have George Lucas' budget. Which is exactly the point. Do you think the big studios that make up the MPAA actually want competition from independents? Absolultely not. In fact, movies like The Blair Witch Project scared them silly. When just anybody can create content, the days of the big corporate content monopolies are numbered. Sure, 99.9% of the stuff the independents put out is crap, but since there are thousands of independents, inevitably some of them are going to produce better movies than the $100 million formulaic written-by-committe product placement extravaganzas put out by the MPAA. The MPAA looks back longingly at the past where only a few big studios could afford video production equipment.

But wait, there is a legal hole!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but there is a legal hole in the bill. The director of the patent office must make within 4 months of the passing of the act. This creates two big things for us to do:

1. Convince this director not include any open formats.
2. Use the APA to sue for judicial review of the agency rules.

So... this is not the end of the story. We still have avenues to approach this issue! Just don't forget to submit comments when the proposed rule is made available on regulations.gov

Death of democracy

[Tony]

Molly Ivans seems to think democracy died in Texas, in 2002. There are signs it died ealier.

plain stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

adj.

      1. often analog Of, relating to, or being a device in which data are represented by continuously variable, measurable, physical quantities, such as length, width, voltage, or pressure.
      2. often analog Computer Science. Of or relating to an analog computer.
This legislation would make it virtually impossible to convert anything that occured in the 20th century into anything that would stand the test of time.
No more saving your old VHS home movies, 8mm, etc. No more DJ's making "mix" CD's as there would be no way to convert the mix from turn tables to a digital format, all traditional microphone would be rendered obsolete, anything that is not a digital video camera would be unable to be transfered to a digital medium makeing them useless.
Also forget about having a video out on your laptop for presentation.

When you think of all the "by definition" analog devices this legislation would kill any art from being created by the little guy would never make it to the masses with out acess to thousands of dollars

Are they serious?

[DreadPiratePizz]

I know a lot of formats are purely digital now, but I regularly shoot analouge betacam and digitize it for greenscreen and other effects. Are you telling me this breaks, I won't be able to buy another because it will be illegal? That's insane. There are definately more uses for a D/A converter that are legit, than there are shady. I think most pirates would try to keep the digital signal intact, so as to maintain as high a quality as possible. Who are they trying to stop?!

are they outlawing A to D conversion?

[Anonymous Coward]

correct me if i'm wrong, but there is no way for an A/D converter to tell the difference between a "video signal" and any other kind of signal.

the electrons don't come with names on them.

this is absolutely insane. everyday, the same crap.
new law this, new law that.
we'll monitor your calls without a warrant, throw you in jail for "copyright infringement", build a database that records the movement of every car in the country, show up at your door when you check out a communist book for a research paper, and on and on and on...

and the best part is, it's all for your own good!

FUCK THAT

these people need to be held accountable for the shit they pull. they aren't above or better than anyone else. just because you got a title, don't mean shit, mr. congress asshole.

that bonehead bill outlaws computers on its face

[swschrad]

so maybe al qaida was right, we HAVE to go back to 700 AD. it will become US federal law, not just the breath of the imam...

time for /. island?

[tzaero]

I say we pool our resources and build /. island...it could be a self-supporting geek-built island (using 70% post-consumer recyclables) so we wouldn't have to worry about prior owners, & we could move it during hurricane season. there'd be wireless broadband everywhere, and we could still allow analog-to-digital conversion with recording capability. also, medical marijuana could be used for pretty much everything, and we'd grow it using stem cells. our primary imports would be starbucks and red bull. cubicles will be banned. for defensive reasons, all residents will be required to dress like pirates, because who's gonna attack Pirate Island, huh?

Re:Any bill can pass (this one almost did)

[Jetson]

But they did vote that spending bill down.

Congress approved it by a margin of about 3:1. The Senate overturned it following a filibuster. The Senate Republicans thought it would be smooth sailing because nobody would want to stand in the way of Hurricane Katrina relief funding and "protect our troops" money. They were wrong. You'll hear *all* about it in the 2007 federal election campaign....

of congress, the media companies and you....

[proudhawk]

I am wondering what is up with those "congress critters".
don't they realize that some of us are relegated to the
analog world without any choice?

My case in point: I cannot read in the normal fashion (I am blind)
and thus I depend on text-to-speech conversion (ultimate result:
digital to analog conversion). This is pretty much true for my
audio equipment as well (and the new digital only stuff would
be priced well out of my reach anyway)

now, enough about me. here's the problem I see (sic):
the media companies are wanting congress to mind their
"bread and butter" with these new laws, but whats its
really going to do is to kill their business model off.
They (the media companies) *think* they are doing the
smart thing right now. I wonder how its going to be
before they realize they've cut their own throat?

Question: If this happens, what's the worst...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a simple question. If this legislation went through, what's the worst that could happen?

How could it be abused?

People do bad things. Companies do bad things, on a bigger scale. Big companies do bad things on very large scales.

In a perfect world, this law might be great. But that's not where we live and the potential abuses appear to be numerous and ugly.

This is my basis for a good law, legislation, or whatever the new rule could be, and I think the pro arguments avoid this point.

Other devices would be affected...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the measure will outlaw the manufacture or sale of electronic devices that convert analog video signals into digital video signals."

Since LCD technology requires a digital signal, this would effective outlaw any LCD monitor or projector that accepts an analog video signal (the signal is converted to digital within these devices). Also affected would be projection TVs that utilize LCD technology. Although I don't agree with this law proposal, if the wording is that broad and generalized, it will affect much more than devices designed for conversion and recording.

Dufus

[tacokill]

""Hollywood", like any other content creator, wouldn't have much of anything to worry about if their content was desired by the public."

Uhh, not to be a jerk here but I think that's why this law is being considered in the first place. Because their stuff is desired. If ppl REALLY didn't want the programs, then piracy would go to zero.

Bring it

[egarland]

If these morons want a war with thier customers, I say lets go! I'm betting we'll win since all their money and power comes from us.

Those idiots are up to their crap again

[jrmcferren]

DRM on audio CDs, no problem download my music anyway; Content scrambling on DVDs, fine can be bypassed; DRM on broadcasts, I think the movie industry is still pissed from 1984. A law is not needed as analog copy protection exists and works on all video devices by default (except beta). It is macrovision, this technology was around for a long time. Macrovision has not been used in broadcasts as it is expensive to license and could be bypassed easily. Piracy will continue and will get even worse. This will not be as bad IF it did not have restrictions on time shifting. Better yet use technology (and an appropiate US Law) to enforce an unenforced UK law that mandates that all TV recordins must be erased within 28 days and signal it supersonically in the audio portion with the time and date broadcast and time and date it must be erased (if longer than 28, less than 28 days will be considered a transmission error). If an expired file is played the DVR (or PC) will reject if being input or delete if stored.

Re:Any bill can pass (this one almost did)

[Armadni General]

It'll be 2006. Midterm elections are next November.

And then, in 2008, we'll have another presidential campaign.

What the hell is it that you think is in 2007?

Rah Rah!

[Fantastic Lad]

Yeah, totally. I mean, everyone's been totally cool with George Bush and Iraq, right? I sure haven't heard any complaints...

The majority certainly were when they had a chance to stop him. Do you remember the Rah Rah posts on Slashdot back in the beginning of the Iraq war? --The visions of Command & Conquer dancing before their eyes? Nearly everybody fell for the con hook, line and sinker. So yes, while there were whimpers and noises and grumblings from some people, the bulk of the populace, rather than pull psycho-Bush from office and lock him up in an asylum, went along with the plan.

By contrast, there were no Rah Rah posts on this story about taking away our precious TV. And that was my point.

-FL

Well now. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

None of those things affect very many people here. We're mostly well educated, comfortably well off people far from any front lines, eating reasonably good food, taking reasonably good medicine on those few ocassions we need it.

Entertainment though, now that we *do* need. Not as in "we can't survive without it", but as in "life would be that bit less rich, that bit less worthwhile without it".

Well educated? I'd say, 'Selectively Educated'. Most Americans don't have a clue about how their country really works or why they are 'comfortably well off'. As for reasonably good food. . . The last time I walked through a grocery store, I figured that about 5% of the goods on the shelves were things I'd be willing to eat. The rest appeared designed to make people fat, tired, slow and dim-witted. Wheat, Soy, Sugar, grocery store meats and many of the additives in foods are BAD for you. Few, however, are educated well enough to recognize this, and so they continue to limit their abilities by eating crap which makes them slow and permanently fuzzy around the edges. --And ripe for all manner of illnesses, including the common cold. --I've only had one cold in nearly 5 years, and that was only because I was on a road trip and went without enough sleep for about a month while eating regular muggle food.

As for 'needing entertainment'. I agree! Except I choose to find my happiness in living rooms filled with friends sharing their lives, playing musical instruments or writing/drawing/painting together. Television is a cheep and disgusting imitation of the real thing.

That's not "but you must have your entertainment drip feed!", that's "you don't have cable? Please, spend your money with us! Please!". I have Sky satellite TV. I get one or two mailshots each week from NTL, trying to convince me to switch to their service. They don't want to make sure I get my TV, they just want my money.

Same difference. --Nobody is going to tell you that they want you mind-drugged. Even the low-end operators aren't aware of why they do what they do. But it is no accident that television happens to have the specific effects it does.

In any case, I'm not just talking about cable companies trying to make you buy their services. I'm talking about people showing up at your door bearing free televisions. About cable companies coming to cut the cable, but leaving the set mysteriously still hooked up with fifty channels now piping to your living room free of charge. --Or people constantly entering your life trying to get you to watch their favorite shows. This stuff happens all the time. The social pressure to have a television installed in your home is enormous, and it takes a constant effort to prevent yourself from being plugged back in. But it doesn't sound like you've made the effort. You should try it for a year just to see how the 'matrix' tries to keep you plugged in.

-FL

Workaround

[Thomas Shaddack]

Get a GNU Radio board. Connect baseband video to its input. Load its FPGA with a MPEG encoder from opencores.org, or with another codec of choice.

As long as we have ADCs and FPGAs, we are free. If they don't want to give us freedom, we have to take it by force.

I love the smell of rosin in the morning!

Workaround

[Thomas Shaddack]

Your average Joe will ask the nearest EE student to chip his PVR. The market price of the geeks is bound to rise.

Re:Any bill can pass (this one almost did)

[wgc21]

Surprised me too, I just registered on the Conyers blog, probably should of earlier since I'm in his congrssional district here in Michigan. I find a lot of follow Michigan voters hang out there, The ones like me who actually have a say in wether this turkey gets reelected. I think we should take the battle to the front... and start a discussion there.

is light analog or digital?

[multicsfan]

If this outlaws all analog to digital conversions, does this also outlow all digital cameras, webcams, video cameras as they take in an analog signal (light) and convert it to digital?

ONE COPY IN THE CLEAR = GAME OVER

[EZTakes]

Digital content is nothing more than a collection of 1s and 0s. You can copy 1s and 0s any number of times without degradation. And with the Internet, these copies can be made very fast and sent anywhere in the world. If you plug 99.999999% of analog and digital "holes," that is not good enough to stop piracy. It probably won't even slow it down.

• ONE COPY IN THE CLEAR = GAME OVER

The bill under discussion is a pointless effort with regard to piracy. It will, however, inconvenience legitimate users, encourage people to break the law, and probably stiffle innovation. Give people what they want in a consumable form and at a reasoanble price and you can beat the pirates.

What was it that Shakespeare said?

[tkrotchko]

...The lady doth protest too much, methinks...

No matter how much he wants to spin this, it is pro-industry. Copyright holder for the most part *are* the RIAA and MPAA members.

So while he talks about balancing the rights of artists, this bill does *nothing* for those rights. Instead it takes away fair-use rights from the consumer in the name of the artist, all the while giving new power to the record and movie companies.

So in the end, he's just as bad as Sonny Bono when it comes to the "rights" of the artists, because it further puts the RIAA/MPAA into the position of gatekeeper for all media with both the artist and consumer paying a tax for access to each other.