Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Digital Content Security Act

Posted by samzenpus on from the laws-make-everything-better dept.

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."

80 of 473 comments (clear)

  1. You are violating the act by arrrrg · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:You are violating the act by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

    2. Re:You are violating the act by Tmack · · Score: 2, Funny
      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

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    3. Re:You are violating the act by Stripe7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

  2. Backed by John Conyers by ReformedExCon · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:Backed by John Conyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      >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.

    2. Re:Backed by John Conyers by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Backed by John Conyers by Penguinshit · · Score: 3, Informative


      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...

    4. Re:Backed by John Conyers by MasterPi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RMS for President!

      --
      ( I
    5. Re:Backed by John Conyers by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?

    6. Re:Backed by John Conyers by Carmody · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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?

      --
      God is real unless declared integer
    7. Re:Backed by John Conyers by weston · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Tweet, tweet.
    8. Re:Backed by John Conyers by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Backed by John Conyers by Fordiman · · Score: 5, Funny

      "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.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    10. Re:Backed by John Conyers by elgaard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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).

    11. Re:Backed by John Conyers by MBraynard · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

    12. Re:Backed by John Conyers by eraserewind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  3. Remember people by Saven+Marek · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Remember people by zwilliams07 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Remember people by jasonditz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Remember people by cujo_1111 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    4. Re:Remember people by jasonditz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Remember people by chriswaclawik · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      A guy walks into a bar... well, I forgot the joke, but the punchline is that he's an alcoholic.
    6. Re:Remember people by xTantrum · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.
      --
      $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
    7. Re:Remember people by ZoTo · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Remember people by Lazarian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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?

    9. Re:Remember people by skribe · · Score: 3, Informative

      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
    10. Re:Remember people by cranos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Remember people by cranos · · Score: 2

      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.

    12. Re:Remember people by EdHockery · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, you can allways come to Holland.

      --
      "Each man has his price Bob, and yours was pretty low...", Roger Waters, Amused To Death.
  4. Digital Rights Massacre by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Digital Rights Massacre by pete6677 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Digital Rights Massacre by supabeast! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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?

  5. Ready to move to Canada yet? by CokeBear · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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

    --
    Reality has a liberal bias
    1. Re:Ready to move to Canada yet? by TigerNut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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".

      --

      Less is more.

    2. Re:Ready to move to Canada yet? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  6. The senate can leave this present under the tree.. by theheff · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  7. But I like my microphone! by masgrada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:But I like my microphone! by icecow · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      Your arguements are not helping.

      --
      Stop invalid scientific research. Ask your local scientists to feed their lab rats with a phytoestrogen-free chow.
    2. Re:But I like my microphone! by fossa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  8. MPAA Amnesty Program by themadplasterer · · Score: 3, Funny

    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/

  9. All analog-to-digital video conversion? by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
    1. Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion? by JoeBorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      If you're going through hell, keep going -Winston Churchill
    2. Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion? by AaronW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    3. Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion? by yo303 · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

  10. Will this affect Tivo? by Jim+in+Buffalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this going to affect services like Tivo?

    --
    This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
  11. What's the bill's title? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  12. Not this rubbish again! by Toaste · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  13. What about PVRs? by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  14. Write your congress person by JoeBorn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    --
    If you're going through hell, keep going -Winston Churchill
  15. Ahem... by rscoggin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  16. Something Missing by Thunderstruck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
    1. Re:Something Missing by JoeBorn · · Score: 2, Informative

      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
    2. Re:Something Missing by Zerathdune · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the storm.
    3. Re:Something Missing by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      "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).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  17. DCSA == SSSCA == CBDTPA? by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    is this the third incarnation of the cbdtpa / sssca?

    --
    "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
  18. The Act by ElNonoMasa · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    1. Re:The Act by queenb**ch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      --
      HDGary secures my bank :/
  19. Before you buy an XBOX this Christmas ... by argoff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... 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

  20. Tin hats for purchase here by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    That is all.

  21. Re:Real Simple by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  22. This outlaws ADC hardware as well by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    1. Re:This outlaws ADC hardware as well by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  23. Damn the MPAA is scary. by radiotyler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    hi mom!
  24. Gee... by setirw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    This message printed on 100% post-consumer recycled electrons.
  25. Bravo! by slashbob22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Proof by very large bribes. QED.
  26. Re:Can anyone post a link? by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  27. How come nobody gets it? by Afecks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  28. Wow! by Lazarian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  29. More ignorance than malice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  30. This law will be a failure for so many reasons by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.
  31. In other news... by stlhawkeye · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
  32. Any bill can pass by Jetson · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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....

    1. Re:Any bill can pass by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Informative
      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...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  33. What about LCD monitors? by corsec67 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  34. What did Tacitus say about dumb laws. . ? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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

  35. Bah - April Fools isn't in December. by FredThompson · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  36. Thanks for turning my TV into HAL, John! by some+damn+guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  37. Getting it passed probably isn't their intent by jesterzog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

  38. Conyers appearing on Jeck Lessenberry CALL-IN SHOW by More+Trouble · · Score: 2, Informative
    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