Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
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.
If you're going through hell, keep going -Winston Churchill
http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/HR-4569-DTCS A-Analog-Hole.pdf
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.
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
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
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.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
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.
Blog
"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.
And I suppose that 10 grand capaign donation from the music industry is a complete coincidence?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
:wq
Most of the good filmmaking has already left the US, and is in Vancouver, Canada now. After all, Stargate is made there!
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.
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!
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.
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...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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?