Slashdot Mirror
FCC Commissioner Wants To Push For DRM
RareButSeriousSideEffects writes "Techdirt reports that 'Newest Commissioner Deborah Tate has apparently announced that while she knows its outside the FCC's authority, she's a huge fan of copy protection and hopes to use her new position as a "bully pulpit" on the topic.'"
Well, I guess it's her prerogative and privilege to use the bully pulpit to endorse, embrace, and encourage DRM, but it makes me nervous when the government and its actors role play about technology and how it should be meted out. Their original responsibility (at least the FCC's) is to fairly and equitably maintain the distribution of the commodity that is radio spectra.
It's troubling when someone with no apparent business background and understanding of technology to the depth necessary to grasp what DRM has done and will do gets a bully pulpit this high and this visible. I don't know one of the referenced articles is accurate in describing how Ms. Tate love for DRM really is a result of:
but, "love of country music" seems anemic justification and mostly a non sequitur in justifying something of magnitude DRM.Sometimes government just doesn't seem very representative any more, and sometimes it just doesn't seem just.
But it should be up to the companies themselves whether to use it or not. Having a government-defined standard is also a good idea and adds to the competitiveness of the DRM provider marketplace.
We insist.
Thank you.
Shouldn't the FCC focus on bigger issues like boobs indiscriminately appearing on the Super Bowl. Or how about shock jocks saying naughty words on the radio. Geez, stay focused FCC!!
http://religiousfreaks.com/Just so long as you remember this:
she knows its outside the FCC's authority
In other words, have any hobby you like. Just don't confuse your hobby with your job.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Deb can preach the myriad benefits of DRM from her 'bully pulpit' as much as she likes...the fact is that the FCC has no authority on this matter, so her preaching won't go beyond establishing her personal views on the issue. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals made the limits of the FCC on this issue quite clear when they struck down the Broadcast Flag (PDF warning).
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
When all is said and done, it is the market that will ultimately decide whether DRM is a "good" idea.
If, for example, the record companies leave the installed base of CD players unable to play the latest and greatest CD they are pimping, it will not sell.
Yes, I know it is not so simple, but really - think of it this way - if the next gen of DVD players is too cumbersome to use because of DRM, the whole platform will fail. Think of DiVX, the old rental DVD scheme that Circuit City and other sold for a time. You might have a hard time finding it today.
DRM is a noose around the neck of anyone who believes in freedom. In a free market, DRM is acceptable as long as the laws aren't preferential for those who create content over those who buy content.
I'm a firm anti-copyright believer, I see no reason for copyright anymore now that information is so readily available (high supply, low demand, zero price). DRM is merely an attempt at the media distribution cartels to try to strangehold the market of the various media.
The FCC is no longer useful. I don't believe it is even Constitutional. Technology has completely replaced EVERYTHING that the FCC is mandated to regulate, but because of the regulations, we can't let technology grow to meet the needs of the hundreds of millions of citizens in the U.S.
If we want to be at the forefront of technology, it is time to disband the FCC and let companies find ways to take advantage of all the bandwidth being wasted on analog TV, radio, HAM, CB, and other ancient/antiquated technologies. Re-read the Constitution, see that the FCC is merely a pawn of the media cartels, and dump it along with every outdated law that they provided input on.
I don't need them, and I fail to see a need to continue to pay for them.
If they want to noose my data, I just want an equal opportunity with my noose.
How can you be a huge fan of DRM? I guess she's never bought a "CD*" only to find it wouldn't play on her CD player. * "Disc does not comply with CD specifications and may not play on some players due to DRM implementation" /actual text printed on Sony "music disc" I got as a gift. Was able to listen on the multi-format DVD player in my home entertainment system. Unfortunately I mostly listen to music at work, where I can't play this disc...
include $sig;
1;
What again is that organisation about? So far, I didn't really see what benefit they offer anyway.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I just sent an email to Commissioner Tate:
Dear Commissioner Tate,
I have read that you are in favor of DRM. I do not like having my freedom to tinker with technology and enjoy media I have purchased hampered by government intervention and paternalism.
Please let DRM succeed or die on its own merits -- on market forces alone.
From a concerned citizen who both authors and enjoys media.
I've just gotten a job with the Department of Motor Vehicles, and while I know it's normally outside the DMV's jurisdiction, I'm a big fan of the death penalty for grouse hunters, hockey players, and Girl Scouts, and will use all my resources my new job to bully others into furthering my agenda.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
This is just another example of why the FCC needs to be pulled back. It has been obvious for quite some time that they have too much power.
At least she recognizes it's outside the FCC's authority. Maybe she should stick to doing her job instead of being the puppet of lobbiest groups.
Steve -- http://tail-f.net/
DRMs are hackable. Even if the FCC can find a good DRM, someone will eventually crack it. If they want true copy protection, find something new, invest some money. But it's time for the three-way between the FCC, MPAA, and RIAA to break up. The people are sick of the overpriced fines and insane amount of jail time for such a bogus crime. Copying material hurts few people unless massly distributed which most people don't do. It should become a misdemeanor and enforced locally. FCC and FBI, time to start some new governing. We can't live in a society focused on reeping the benefits off the poor who can't afford your expensive media rights and copyright violation repercussions.
Give me a productive error over a boring, mundane and unproductive fact any day. ~Anon
It's an interesting exercise in encryption, for one. For another, it allows media outlets to protect their content as they see fit. If they don't want you to be watching something more than once, that's up to them. It allows the consumer to differentiate between media outlets that are consumer-friendly and consumer-hostile.
And finally, having the freedom to make bad decisions is a very fundamental freedom.
DRM doesn't prevent piracy. It just takes our rights.
Which is easier:
A) Buying a copy of a song on iTunes with a mediocre bitrate, many limits, and incompatible with most players, or
B) Downloading a copy in an extremely high bitrate, in a format that many players use?
DRM drives people to piracy, it doesn't prevent it. Songs I buy in iTunes can't be played, for example, when I plug my iPod in my Xbox 360. MP3s can. Burning it to CD and ripping is lossy, and the bitrate is so-so. If I buy the song, shouldn't I be entitled to a copy I can play on many devices?
People download MP3's because their versatile, not free.
was bought to you by the letters f,a,s,c,i,s and m.
Where does big business command you to go today?
This is a link to a story on a blog that consists of a link to a story on another blog that doesn't cite any sources. This is an interesting way to create a news story, but I can't figure out how to tag it. "metablogging" came to mind, but that doesn't really seem to sum it up very well. Can anybody think of something better?
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
I hope they figure out some really effective way to implement DRM, so long as it doesn't exclude the option of having NON-DRM content. As long as I can install and use Linux and go online without having to prove I'm using a "DRM compliant" OS, I'm not particularly worried. If they finally get DRM to work, it will drive people to alternatives that don't use DRM. Sounds good to me.
Every time I hear more stories about DRM I keep thinking of the Star Wars line about tightening grip = more people escaping and that more general one about blood and turnips. People are reluctant to spend money and if these content providers really do succeed in cutting off all freeloaders they will find their audience and "buzz" shrinking. Which might be fine with them, and I agree they should be able to charge for it if they want to, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay for it.
What we need is a website with Napster like popularity and only free music and movies available. For music the same system could also identify scheduled live performances and locations. Then things can really take off. Actually, it sort of sounds like something Google would be good at - Google Maps + Free Music interface + information on live performances. Not too much money in it though, at least not for Google.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
That's completely different from federally-mandated DRM, which gives us no choice in what we buy, and forces upon us the business whims of the content cartels. That is not a characteristic of a free market, nor of a liberal democracy. I understand the need of the business to protect itself from people whose illegal activities threaten their botton line. I seriously do completely understand that. But I do not think that enacting federal laws that impact all customers negatively in the effort to mitigate the behavior of a minority of customers is asinine.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
This commissioner is a political appointee. Seriously, where do they grow you people?
Great! Now maybe we can make even more money by having the FCC regulate random sounds we hear in public spaces, our thoughts or even our posts!
P.S. If you just read the above post, it is pending protection by DRM in the near future. So, in order to avoid a lawsuit, please send your 2 cents right away.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Deb can preach the myriad benefits of DRM from her 'bully pulpit' as much as she likes...the fact is that the FCC has no authority on this matter
Shhhh! Keep saying that, and the RIAA is going to ask for a refund on its new purchase.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Publicly admitting an intention to abuse a relatively high-ranking public position to further a personal agenda should be ground for dismissal.
Imagine if the head of the Electoral Commission announced that he "was a fan" of a particular political movement, and was going to try to use his "bully pulpit" to promote it. That would be utterly intolerable.
I think that, although less serious, this is an equivalent situation - a public official announcing an intention to promote a corporate movement, possibly even hinting at using her department's sway with private companies to further her agenda. Even if it was something less controversial than DRM, it would still be completely out of order.
If it's "outside [their] authority", how can we expect anything to come out of this? Plus there are other "minor" issues to think about, such as infringing on certain "other" rights that people are assumed not to think about or care about (seemingly).
The FCC periodically appears to do bad things. The best solution I've found is to write Congress and protest the FCC's BUDGET. Congress won't address individual issues, or FCC decisions. However, Congress controls the FCC budget. I and others have made complaints to Congress, in that the FCC has too large a budget, as their people have time/resources to do bad things, and a LARGE budget reduction is in order. Furthermore, the monies from the reduction can be redirected elsewhere. Congress has been previously persuaded by this type or argument. Therefore, if Ms. Tate is so over-paid and under-worked that she can be on a "Bully Pulpit" for DRM, then the FCC's budget is in serious need of reduction! I know, that Congress little regards it's constituants, but, constituant supported reasons to reduce agency budgets and use the money else where appears to resonate.
Technology has completely replaced EVERYTHING that the FCC is mandated to regulate
Uh... huh? How has technology replaced, say, monitoring content on public broadcasts?(1) How has technology eliminated the need to regulate the radio spectrum so devices dont stomp all over each other? How has technology ensured that every manufacturer will somehow produce devices which accept interference?
HAM and CB are both still useful technologies. Look no further than your favorite natural disaster to see HAMs at work helping organize efforts when all your high-tech technological solutions have broken down. They ARE pushing to force a change to all-digital TV, but there are still a whole lot of analog TV's out there. You propose forcing the entire population to go out and buy new sets to fit with your idiotic view of how the spectrum should be used. Don't you think THAT would be benefitting the manufacturers of TVs more than anyone else?
If you don't regulate the spectrum, all that will happen is companies will build devices to stomp all over each others' devices. If you don't regulate the spectrum, there will be nothing stopping someone using the same frequencies as air traffic controllers. Disbanding the FCC has got to be one of the most idiotic ideas I've ever read on slashdot. Restructure it, sure. Fire everyone working there, fine. Try to remove the corruption, absolutely. But to suggest we don't need any regulation of the radio spectrum is absolutely ludicrous.
(1) - not that I believe their monitoring is right, but it's what they do, and technology sure hasn't changed that in any way.
The FCC actually runs itself more like a private corporation than a government entity; or rather, it has some of the worst of both worlds, it seems to be almost entirely profit-driven, but retains all the inefficiencies and bureaucratia common to a large and basically unaccountable government operation.
If you look at the proposals and rulemaking that they spend the most time on, it's perfectly clear that they spend their time on whatever is going to get them the most revenue. When it comes to auctioning off some radio spectrum to the highest bidder, I'll bet the Commissioner has a red phone on her nightstand just to clear up any 11th hour problems as they're pushing things through. But try to get something relatively simple done (like the relatively uncontroversial changes to Amateur Radio) and you'd better be teaching your kids about it, because you may not live that long.
Somewhere, something went very wrong inside that organization, their mission changed from being the electronic and radio equivalent of the Parks Service, to a division of Internal Revenue.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If there is a single DRM system, who decides who is "in it" and who is "out of it"? You cannot simply allow anyone to write software (eg. media player software) for DRM content because as soon as someone obtains access to the raw data (necessary for playback of music/video, in the absence of DRM-compatible hardware) they can just write that raw data to a non-DRM file, and all of a sudden the DRM isn't very useful because everyone can convert their files to unrestricted formats with this software.
You might say "okay, well, what if there is DRM-compatible hardware?"
In the case of DRM-compatible hardware (aka "Trusted Computing" hardware) you have the same problem. Who are you going to allow to create this hardware? If you allow anyone to do it, they can create hardware that circumvents the DRM system, resulting in media converted to unrestricted formats, or even users finding out the encryption keys embedded in the other DRM hardware.
Eventually you get into a situation where you can't let just anyone make hardware that is compatible with the DRM hardware, and you can't let just anyone write software that is compatible with your DRM system, or else the DRM system is broken. The side-effects of this scenario are extremely beneficial to established hardware and software companies, but make it practically impossible for new companies to create software or hardware that works with the DRM group of hardware and software. The result is a complete monopoly for established companies.
Yeah, that's right, no pr0n on TV. They never are on the side of the consumer.
sudo mod me up
First, let me declare how overwhelmingly disappointed I was when I checked the calendar and realized that it was not, in fact, April Fool's Day. I'd frankly prefer slashdot becoming the Portal of Ponies! to seeing this in the news.
:-\
1) Frankly, any political official has made the choice to be a political official. At that point, one should accept that there are compromises - like neutrality. Yes, I know she is not a judge (just as I am not a lawyer) - and yes, I know that it's not the FCC's decision. Still, how secure would you feel if the President of the US said something like, "actually, I'm a huge fan of burning witches at the stake, and am looking forward to using my platform as a 'bully pulprit' on the topic"? To put it another way, and try to express my emotions as purely as they're coming on - italicized for strong language - this isn't her goddamn job, I didn't ask for her goddamn opinion, and shouldn't she be "using" her "position" as something other than a fucking bully pulprit? Hey, Debbie, how about, you know, doing the job that you were appointed to do, to serve the people - not "lead" the people, not "encourage" the "direction" the "people" will "take" - not get involved in corporate goddamn matters - but rather, commission the federal airwaves so I can watch the ballgame on ABC without Joe McHam broadcasting his own drunken play-by-play?
2) These seems like a transparent "deal-making" sort of statement. Allow me to elaborate - considering that the major networks are already involved with the FCC over the whole "naughty words" thing, what's stopping them from reaching a deal like H.R. 2911 (you know, the Tipper Bill - 'Prenatal' (sic) Advisory - aka the bill which caused me to - yes - sympathize with Bushitlerlol in the 2000 election (a vote for Red is a vote for Not-Blue - sure I was rooting for Nader, but anyway, I digress)) - aka, "well Mr. Government, Ms. Debbie - we don't want no legal setbacks... so how about we settle this here matter out of court... we'll all line up and force DRM on the customers if you agree to, uh, lighten up on the S word when it's sweeps week"? My hypothesis: Absolutely nothing, and that is what in fact will happen. So much for the "free market" that some fake-Libitarian +5 Insightful Idiot posted a few posts up from here.
This woman is twice as idiotic as Harriet Miers, and yet who really gets outraged over this? Where's the media uproar over this nonpolitical, opinionated statement from someone being paid with my tax dollars? Oh, yeah, Bush said something silly, that's more important. Certainly hasn't happened before, certainly isn't going to happen again.
Ugh.
Anyway. I kinda wandered off the main line and turned my guarenteed karma-whore into a post that pissed off the Republicans, the Democrats, and is probably -1 Redundant to the Independant Frontier Electronique Freedom Fighters (all two or three of them still bothering to post online these days, heh). So go ahead, mod me...
~~-- -1, Flamebait
The FCC is not a "government division," it is an office within the executive branch. I am not surprised at the largely misinformed and presumptuous nature of the Slashdot readership. Myself included I suppose.
This is at the edge of what I am capable of grasping. You might want to explain your position--I know I'm not the only Slashdotter that is stunned.
The hive mind mentality is so hard to break away from. All the little slashbots lined up in a row. Try thinking independanty sometime... it is really refreshing.
But on topic all DRM is a protection method, a system of permissions. A purveyor of goods has every right to sell merchandise in the way he or she sees fit, if they see fit to restrict their offerings so be it, the market will respond in kind. It really isnt that hard to wrap your head around.
Should restaurants and bars be allowed to decide if they want to allow smoking, and how much of the establishment would be smoke free?
why or why not--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
So, she's a big fan of, and wants to push DRM, eh?
I guess iBIQUITY is not gonna be too pleased...
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Dear Madame,
The FCC was originally set up to regulate the Radio airwaves. Then you took it upon yourselves to regulate the TV broadcast spectrum. Following that, you decided that censoring programs was within your mandate as well. (Lets ignore all the 1st amendment issues right now).
Now you have decided to enter the fray on the side of DRM. Either pro or Con, this should be a completely business decision. There is nothing that needs regulating via the FCC with regards to DRM.
I respectfully request that you and your fellow commissioners keep your noses out of this. The majority of us are quite sick and tired of the FCC trying to expand your mandate coverage. It is and has not been welcome.
Sincerely,
The government is the real danger of DRM... any kind of Digital Rights Management will be easily circumvented. Sometimes it is only a matter of days before hobbiests are able to break DRM on a product.
The danger comes from when the government starts arresting people who post DRM circumventing software on their website... or mandates that DRM must be built into hardware (it is very easy for hobbiests to distribute software to the people, but not hardware)... Or prohibits public libraries from circumventing protection.
If companies want to use DRM, so be it. That should not be where we focus our attention... because DRM is a joke. We need to stop the government from enforcing DRM at all costs!
I think she should be kept in office precisely for her ill-advised comment. Anyone who makes such an assertion is better than their replacement-- who will likely have the same opinion but not be foolish as to state it. Heck, she just gave opponents of DRM ammunition to lobby against any bullying she does, and she's forewarned them of her agenda.
When in doubt, keep the noisy idiot over the cunning schemer.
A.
Too bad I used up my mod points yesterday. I'd have liked to give this post more visibility.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
During the industrial revolution, the southern states tried to isolate themselves from change by fencing themselves off from the rest of the union. Today, industries are trying to isolate themselves from the changes of the information age with DRM.
The difference was that back then there was a clearly divided north and south. Today we are all mixed in together. Then the government was on the side of the industrial interests over the plantation interests. Today the government is on the side of the media interests and not on the side of the Interent. Back then it was about controlling people with coercion (slavery), today it is about controlling people with information. Back then there were racial divides, today it is more of a proprietary divide.
While technology and history is on our side, it is going to be one hell of a battle and all hell is about to break loose.
...but look at Somalia
Oh right, *Somalia*. Yes, they've certainly taken the lead and we should follow their shining example in all things.
They did side with the consumer, when they fined Janet Jackson for exposing her crusty 50 year old boob on public tv.
I for one am for DRM, even though it can be sticky in some situations. People used to at least rent movies to copy them, but now, zero money is going to the movie producers for pirated movies. It's gotten to a point where downloading a song or movie from the internet illegally has become so widely accepted socially that DRM may be necessary. I just download stuff due to the convenience. But when half the people download movies and convert them to DVD, it doesn't sound very convenient...
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
New in the country? Looking for a good tutorial on how our government works, but not enough days to burn walking around the capital and digging up the dirt? Here's a quick guide to the underpinnings of our system:
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0
CRONYISM. Study it, discuss it, live it, learn it. We don't hire competent people, we hire OUR FRIENDS and any other greedy lamprey that has attached themselves to us and looks good in a suit.
So remember this folks. If you decide to immigrate here, bring friends and a good looking suit.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
and hopes to use her new position as a "bully pulpit" on the topic.
I walked TFA and TFA's TFA looking for the exact quote, but the TFA's parent seems to say the exact opposite.
If she really said this, I am prepared to express outrage to anyone who will listen, but would like to make sure this is what it is purported to be. Does anyone have more information on this?
analog TV, radio, HAM, CB, and other ancient/antiquated technologies
You have no idea how much the airwaves actually are used by mission critical systems, do you? Wireless is the future, not the past. Analog TV is still in full force in many areas where cable still isn't available (including my childhood home). HAM and CB are far from antiquated and are still used in full force. I'm sorry if you don't use them. HAM's pay for licenses which goes to the FCC and CB's are low power transmitters operating on a very small frequency range.
The point is there needs to be designated ranges, otherwise you will have Joe Ham who will stick his 1KW transmitter too close to the operating range of something important - say the transponder of a cell tower (900 MHz) and disrupt cell service. For example. There needs to be regulated bandwidths.
You have it all wrong anyways - they are actually generating money for the government. About 1 penny of your taxes goes to fund them, but then they turn around and generate multi-billion dollars of revenue. reference. Their budget for 2006 is $304M, all but $4.8M comes from regulatory fees. And they generate $26.8B for uncle Sam through auctioning off freed up frequencies.
It confuses (but does not surprise) me that the FCC has turned into what it is today. 25 years ago, the FCC was there to allow an equal opportunity for all voices to be heard. They promoted diversified holdings of news publications and broadcasting stations. Most of this media is now concentrated in the hands of 7 or so major companies. Who would have though that having a multitude of voices heard would mean the revealing of scandal, criticism of the government, and questioning of special interests. If the FCC is so concerned with keeping the airwaves clean for the populous, they could start by revoking Pat Robertson's non-profit status for the Christian Broadcasting Network. The personal views of an individual shouldn't influence the job they are trusted and expected to perform. If they have a conflict of interest, they should resign. DRM is a fact, and its future will be determined by the companies who implement it and the users who will accept it. In the mean time, our friends at the FCC should realize that citizens don't pay taxes with the intention of it being used for them to shoot-the-$hit about DRM.
"Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Commissioner Deborah Tate has apparently announced that while she knows its outside the FCC's authority, she's a huge fan of copy protection and hopes to use her new position as a "bully pulpit" on the topic.'"
Her views are her views, however why did she have to say this while punched on the clock?
It's as if I was in court said something the Jury shouldn't have heard, was objected to, and withdrawing my statement knowing full well that I just tainted the jury and that no matter what the judge tells them, they will in no doubt, keep what I said in mind.
The sheep will hear it, accept what the government said although it's beyond their scope, and eventually grant that power. someone has to right? We don't have a Federal Digital Rights Management Commission as of yet.
This is just an introductory tactic to eventually gain power and regulate DRM officially for of course... copyright reasons; Exactly what the FCC was hired to do right? I forget these days. Enlighten me.
...is that she'll be looking for a high-paying job with one of the big media houses when she leaves the FCC, and with the shilling she's doing she expects to find one rather quickly.
My sig is too lon
I don't mean a brain, that's a no-brainer.
As the 'Newest Commissioner', does Deborah Tate even have a "bully pulpit"?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I just sent a professional - but also nasty gram over to her @
:)
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/tate/mail.html
Feel free to do the same
The protection of DRM by the goverment (From FCC regulation or DMCA type laws) is at odds with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
This clause lets the government assign exclusive rights of a work for a limited amount of time (to encourage science and art).
Currently, No DRM has an expiration or time limits of any kind, so by protecting or mandating DRM, the government is in effect allowing exclusive rights of a work and unlimited amount of time ( with no regard to the effect of this on art and science ).
"The market will decide what succeeds or fails" is a silly tautology, "the market" is just a personification of such decisions after the fact.
"The market will decide what is good" is false; the market makes dumb, short-sighted decisions all the time. The market doesn't care about "good" the market cares about "profitable", in the very short term.
"The market" is just the collective decisions of lots of people, deciding things for various reasons, presumably including the FCC commisioners endorsement of an idea. So implying it doesn't matter if the FCC commisioner steps outside her authority to push a particular idea because "The market will decide", is crazy. The market is deciding; Government officials using their offices to push something, and others calling them on it is part of that process.
DRM will succeed if it is profitable for device/content creators in the very short term. If the next gen of DVD players is the only way to watch movies for even a short period, people will take it's cumbersomeness as unavoidable and we'll be stuck with it forever.
Dear Mr. Thomas,
I am entitled to my opinion, and you are entitled to yours. Being in a public office does not preclude that.
You are also entitled to vehemently disagree with me, but I can say with certainty that you are not sending letters to anti-DRM organizations asking them to "Please let DRM succeed or die on its own merits -- on market forces alone." and until you do, I will ignore your opinion. Hypocrisy has a way of turning people off to your cause.
Sincerely,
Deb
Under the bounds of the licensing agreement you agreed to when you made the purchase. Same as a EULA for any software program you purchase nowadays. The similarities are actually quite striking.
The US government will not be happy until it seals itself off from the rest of the world. In the backs of their minds they probably realize that the more insane they get the less chance they'll have for getting other countries to bend to their will and adopt their policies. Much of the news I see related to this type of thing seems to be an attempt by various agencies to alienate and isolate the US. I would imagine that when the US begins producing everything locally, and has their own isolated internet because no one wants to deal with them anymore, they'll shut their borders and we'll never hear from them again.
I'm not sure if this mentality is born of some diseased consciousness that believes its the only way for them to be safe, or what is causing it. They remind me of that crazy relative everyone has... they don't seem so bad at first, but everytime they talk you realize just how far gone they are.
of this is that this could make DVR's, DVD-R's, VCR's (what's that?) and what not illegal if she should ever get this confused as part of her job.
Imagine coming home and wanting to relax and watch a movie you recorded only to be greeted by a message: "You are in copyright violation of bla bla show, please delete it."
Worse, they could make it so you have to pay twice. Once for cable or sat and again if you want to buy(record) the show.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
It's time to get organized on this one. The only way the FCC will get the message is massive, grass roots action that says:
"We the people do not want DRM."
And this needs to be promoted with more vigor than Firefox, Ubuntu and your favorite web CMS. We all need to get on this now.
-- $G
It's referencing a Techdirt rumor article, which in turn only cites a random blogger who appears to have made the claim without any attribution at all. My BS detector is going off big-time. It *is* /. though: should I have that fixed?
Frankly I'd prefer such a public admission over keeping this kind of intent a secret. That's the very definition of a "hidden agenda" and--as long as they're considering abusing their power anyway--I think if anything we should instead mandate the disclosure of any such potential conflicts of public interest.
Now, the abuse of power itself should be grounds for dismissal, but we'd be left with hardly any government at all, and how could we possibly cope then?
And nothing else is done. Get that righteous indignation off your chest and go about your business.
Meanwhile, in the corridors of power, the party line remains intact. "Corporations know what is best for the consumer. It's in their best interest." And the other party line, "Anyone against DRM only wants to steal copyrighted material."
And what exactly are *you* doing to change that opinion? Nothing.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Shouldn't a person in her position be agnostic about these things? She obviously has an agenda or two, and this SHOULD conflict with her intended role with the FCC.
Obviosuly, most people here are going to disagree with what she is saying as it does not seem well thought out.
However many people seem quick to say that an FCC commisioner has no place to be speaking out on this topic when the FCC cannot legally mandate anything.
I think that view is incorrect. I think it's a really good idea for the chief of the FCC to speak out for things they think are important that are somewhat related, as DRM and things like the broadcasr flag are. After all, what if here message were that we needed to end the DRM fiasco that is wasting companies millions and harming consumers? The FCC would still have no right to mandate that position, but it would be good to let that preference be known and try to drive the positon into the minds of others.
Frankly I am really glad to know EXACTLY where the current FCC head stands on this issue, so that I can take active precautions (writing my senators, supporting the EFF, writing product manufacturers) against undue influence from those quarters.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What else can we find out of scope to work on while we completeley ignore the telco problems at hard ( AT&T should have never been allowed to be purcahsed, don't get be started on the bellsouth aqusition ). The american people are about to get shafted. as if they already weren't!
Humm... dubya appoints another well meaning but totally unqualified hack. If I support family vlaues can I haev a cushy goberment job tu.
They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
A true Roseanne Rosannadana moment:
She thought she was talking about "Digital Radio Markets"
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
In this case, I totally agree with the FCC Commissioner.
Everyone should get DRM set up as soon as possible.
It stops the people who buy on iTunes from creating mash-ups of the songs they purchased, and it prevents "just anyone" from selling their music on the accepted marketplace. (the iTunes Music Store) ... those are the features of DRM that the music industry is truly interested in, despite their claims about it "preventing piracy".
I don't have a problem with DRM, I buy tones of music online legally using Itunes. What I have a problem with is the government being more concerned about inititaives that help corperations than they are about things like public saftey, education, and healthcare. Why does the government waste time and money endorsing and legislating DRM and other crap when they could be acctually be helping the PEOPLE they were ellected to represent. Let corporations use all the DRM they want, customers will either accept it or stop buying there crap, but don't waste taxpayer money trying to force feed us DRM.
How about firing her for abusing her position of public trust? She's not busy enough regulating porn, stopping municipal WiFi, dropping barriers to media monopolies, breaking up the Internet into multiple telco fiefdom "tiers"...
I want a cushy Federal gig where I can blow off my work to use it as a bully pulpit for ponies!
--
make install -not war
Funny thing is, they're the ones with more liberties.
Is it the people or the corporations?
After following the links, I can find no quotes from her speech. As mentioned in a previous post, she may have been talking about something other than digital restrictions management. Until I see quotes of the speech, this is nothing but hearsay.
A) Buying a copy of a song on iTunes with a mediocre bitrate, many limits, and incompatible with most players, or
iPods are "most players". For the rest, most use WMA instead of AAC, so you can get the songs you want from Wal-Mart or Napster or some other store.
DRM drives people to piracy, it doesn't prevent it.
Depends on how much of a pain it is, and if the media in question is your only option for purchase. i.e. if you don't like 128 bit AAC and want to play songs on your iRiver, you can buy a physical cd or a track from a different online store. If you want to buy one of the Batman movies on DVD, you are stuck with whatever Time Warner offers you.
As background, there are 5 Commissioners, 1 of which is designated as the Chairperson by the President and only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party.
If she actually does follow through on pushing for DRM, it means at least 4 other people + Pres. Bush (actually, whichever people he has advising him on the matter) don't care if she spouts off.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Dear Mr. Thomas,
You are telling me the EFF isn't proposing legislation?
You're lying. And you're a hypocrite, who right now quite obviously realizes that he shouldn't have said something so patently ridiculous.
Deb
PS, you're excuse sucked. Let's see if the next one holds any water
Never trust a person that listens to country music. Hell, avoid talking to them if at all possible.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Anyone with me on this? We need to start up a US equivalent of the Swedish Pirate Party. Our platform:
DRM is illegal
Rein in patents
Reduce copyright terms
Restore fair use
Restore internet provider competition
We on Slashdot complain about anti-consumer legislation and ideas, but the only way to do fix it is through political power.
"but now, zero money is going to the movie producers for pirated movies."
Ah yes, not like the old days where movie producers were paid for pirated movies. Yes, those were the days.
(is your first name goober, floyd, or otis?)
it's outside her authority. so she should shut up and sit down now. better yet. let's get someone in the position who doesn't have a prior agenda.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
Might be tough... we have to find people who like Country Music first.
it's always a fine result when politically driven beaurocrats decide what's best for us.
there should be at least 5 incompatable standards for DRM, so the consumer can choose how they get maximumly screwed out of what they bought.
This marks the first time that I can recall where an appointed official who's job is to regulate the public's airwaves in the public's interest has openly said that they are not interested in doing what is best for the public, but a narrow constituency in the media companies.
There is no sane argument that DRMed content is good for the public at large, seeing as DRM infringes on rights enshrined in the Constitution itself. In fact, the only constitutional DRM is that where you, the owner of the computer/media box/etc. hold the private key.
This person should resign immediately and so should the idiot who appointed her to the position.
So where is the evidence that TV broadcasts and people videoing TV shows ever ruined the media giants?
TV still exists, Hollywood exists and Disney etc are larger than ever. So there is no need to restrict people left right and center. In fact it's all theory that people who have "pirate" media would have purchased it had they not been able to pirate it. The pirate market is seen at possible growth and revenue when in fact many people pirate it either because they can't afford it or just don't want to spend that amount of money on the media in the first place.
Once upon a time, media companies produced content and released it when they desired. They manufactured "stars" and "hits" and neither rarely occurred outside Big Media's control. And if they did, they were quickly co-opted.
Digital distribution and the internet put an end to all that.
DRM is nothing more than a desperate attempt by these companies to put the genie back in the bottle; to return to the days when they competed only amongst themselves and controlled access to product with an iron fist.
So, the fact that a government functionary would profess favor for a technology whose only real purpose is to stifle creativity and prop up some very entrenched yet increasing obsolescent businesses is a rather amazing demonstration of how pervasive this mindset is.
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Just a small note about something we should be aware of.
As many of you know, the courts struck down the FCC's attempt at the broadcast flag, citing 'no authority' for the FCC over this issue.
However, it is completely possible for congress to pass a law that gives the FCC the authority. Consider: while some law makers may find it career damaging to support a strong DRM law, it would probably be much more palatable to pass a law that vaguely gives the FCC the power to "set anti-copyright infringement guidelines" or somesuch nonsense.
Her comments may be her way of telegraphing to congress and the pro-drm-industry lobbyists that she's on their team and ready to act.
---
In a somewhat related note, can we drop the sexist 'bitch' tag on the article and instead use the much more humorous and gender-neutral tag 'asshat', please?
As long as you can defeat it by holding down the shift key while inserting the CD.
I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
The new FCC commissioner should be proud of speaking out on this issue in a way that is likely to garner more world consensus.
The Peoples Republic of China has long had a difficult time with criminals disclosing state secrets. If more of China's state secrets were protected by strong DRM then such damaging leaks could be prevented.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
One should question any article such as this one that does not quote the person to whom a statement is atributed. This article is strictly hearsy. Without an actual quotation, we cannot know what was said. Even when people are quoted it is frequently out of context.
Of course, we do know she hangs out with a bad crowd - as the statements attributed to her were made a Bar event.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
broke, out of money, sold off the cow, nothing left. They are printing money as fast as they can now, since march when they stopped issuing the relevant M3 supply stats. If people can't see that happen they just ain't looking, and don't want to look. Beyond completely obvious.
They have screwed the pooch on manufacturing, agriculture is very close as well now. What is left as per an "economy"? "Service"? Service what, debt??? here's some more highly productive economy boosters and wealth creators- government electron shufflers,managers, consultants, politicians and bureaucrats. Oh ya, that makes a lot of money-not. Soldiers/cops. Nope, just costs money. Oh wait, how could I forget! In the private sector "IP".
uh huh, yep, "IP"
At the top, they think the entire rest of the planet is going to "support" the USA and keep using hyperinflated printed out of thin air "dollars" by "licensing" IP from the US. Oh , they will--just for a short time UNTIL THEY DON'T NEED TO. Just like they did in manufacturing, struggled by while they took their profits and built industrialised top to bottom solutions-now they really don't need it, the rest of the planet is a large enough market, all they need is raw materials and oil-and we ain't got that any more "spare".
So "IP" is because that is all that is left. They've raped and sold off everything else they can to keep this illusionary "profit" stock market casino going. They don't HAVE anything else. Frikkin smoke and mirrors built on lies and threat of force! They are pointing really big guns at the rest of the planet and demanding that everyone else keep using *our* inflated dollars and pay through the nose for "IP".
It's in all the papers, pretty easy to see what has been going on.
This is why you see dumbasses like this broad at the top levels, that is the gang mentality and alleged business model that is the official position now, so that's who they hire to be overseers on this IP plantation.. If it isn't "entertainmnet" IP it is "software" IP (duh, anyone really wonder why MS gets away with it?) If it isn't software IP they want other folks to "license" stuff like plants that grow in their own nations, because some doofus here managed to check out a gene sequence so they get a "patent" on it or some such notion. And on down the list. At the point of a gun. Ad absurdium. "License" your critical food crops from some rich US corps..oh ya, that makes a heap 0 sense. 'License" your software, as if there aren't anything else except expenswive US for profit software out there. that's gonna fly for a long time. uh huh. I give that a couple years tops before they just go back to ignoring that part.
and so on.
Bad mojo, I give it less than 20 years to implode, the rest of the planet is going to nail the US, and hard. It might even happen a lot sooner, just the economic ramifications when enough of them bingo to the fact that there is no longer much global *need* for the US and they just start ignoring us.
And I live here, and I am not looking forward to it, because it is going to be really really ugly as the collpase accelerates. The best we are going to get out of it is great depression version 2 combined with big brother on tech steroids. that is the *best* scenario I can see happening. At the other end, it might be that nasty global thermonuclear war deal everyone keeps pretending won't ever happen because they "don't believe in it", like some cult "belief".
Run the numbers, anyone can do this,on the planet,there is enough raw materials for a billion or two billion people, and that is only for roughly 50 more years at present-not accelrated-at present rates of consumption. Not enough for 6-8 billion. You can have a boxcar load of "IP" and you aren't going to change that. You aren't going to legislate it away, patent it away, copyright extend it away, DRM it away.
These guys at the top know this, they got tame scientists and think tanks give them reports, this is why you see them selling off th
The great irony here is that a lot of blogs were started to try and balance out the "echo chamber" that exists in the corporate US media.
By implementing DRM but also copyrighting, they take something extra that wasn't theirs (a collection of copyright-related laws and use of the courts to enforce them), without the exchange: giving the content to the public domain in 90 years. It's something for nothing, taken from us at our expense, without us having the option to opt out of subsidizing copyright enforcement.
That's what's not to like.
If a content producer doesn't like the quid-pro-quo deal that copyright offers, then they are free to keep their content a secret and not distribute it. Or they're free to negotiate whatever non-disclosure contract (and technical enforcement mechanisms (DRM)) with their customers that they want to. But the flip side is that they shouldn't be granted copyright, shouldn't have Senator Disney trying to create criminal penalties or other special laws governing that contract, etc. They shouldn't be able to fraudulently misrepresent a shadowy "license" transaction -- where the customer doesn't even know he's entering into an implicit contract where the terms are not even disclosed to him -- as a sale of goods.
When the retail transaction of buying a non-DRM paper book, versus "buying"(?) DRMed media, becomes different so that the customers can see what their getting into (e.g. he is asked to sign a contract before walking out of the store), then perhaps DRM will no longer look like fraud or a desperate attempt to avoid market forces.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Not the size of a mini-fridge (though probably hotter than the hubs of Hell at peak output...) and 2kW peak output AT 10m. To be sure, there's more and I suspect there's solid state units in the same size class or smaller. Perhaps it's just that the surplus gear you've seen is larger?
As for the truckers having 1kW rigups, it's not uncommon to see 500w rigs on tractor-trailers, and I suspect that
there's always some idiot putting a 1kW+ lashup on their rig on a periodic basis. The 100w linear's just as bogus
as the 1-2kW one for the band- and Uncle Charlie (as the Childrens' Band crowd call the FCC field agents) are so
overtaxed that they can't be bothered with interference from local TV stations bleeding over into adjacent UHF
stations (The offending tower was all of 3 miles from the FCC's listening post in Dallas...) so what makes you think
they're going to be enforcing power violations in CB's bands? They might be doing it at Hamfests, etc. because
most of the people aren't idiots like they are with CB- there's a whole lot less people inclined to violate and
the people that get caught doing it have loads more to lose.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I support ab initio copy protection for all our nation's precious intellectual property.
Having never seen this woman, I wonder if she has the legs (and other, uh, "attributes") to be a cheerleader? Basically, that's what she is claiming she wants to be and probably all she's qualified for.
I know herding cats is harder then herding turtles, but I'd still rather be a cat then a turtle :P
~= scwizard =~
When a government official tries to extend their own authority, they are way out of line. This stupid cow needs to be dismissed from the taxpayers' payroll, immediately.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I just think she should spend time doing her job and stop hindering competition.
Afterall, the only that has kept the US of American and the West ahead of the World was when the England and then the UK was fortunate enough to stumble across fair free-market trade (albeit initially internally) based on the freedom to make contracts and fair and equal judgement, which then developed into the free-market competitive capitalist economy.
It is competition that brings efficiencies (people trying to getting maximum output for effort input), and it is competition that brings innovation (competiting to provide a 'better' product to your customer).
DRM (Digital Restrictions Management, otherwise sometimes known Digital Rights Management) limits peoples 'Rights' and cut competition, thus severely hurting innovation and likely efficiency over time.
The market has thrived in the past without the need for restrictive controls like excessive patents, and without unduly long copyright coverage times. But now we have these and we are beginning to see a downturn in diversity and innovation whilst the large controlling companies manage to keep hold of their ever increasing profit streams.
Its a pity that competition and innovation and efficiency is slowly being destroyed in the US. Other competitive economies like China and so on are the ones that will be setting the rules in the future if the US carries on down this path.
It's not enough to band together in opposition of something, you need to have a convincing and consistant argument as to why X is bad or harmful. The media cartels already have their response to why anyone wouldn't want DRM - "They want to unlawfully copy and steal content". Those opposed to DRM need some good solid facts about what DRM does to harm creativity and stiffle innovation.
Lots of reasons get thrown about by various opponents of DRM, but there is not one consistent argument that Congress or proponents hear from the "other side". I could say it doesn't stop piracy (where's the proof? weak argument anyway). I could say it's only benefiting the media moguls (may be true, but they'll come back with spin about how that benefits you). I could say that it'll forever bury our culture in obscure technology as the years roll on and we'll lose a sense of who we were (that's not a good reason - you're just a damned hippy who wants everything to be free!).
You can see where I'm going with this. DRM opponents need a consistent line with hard-hitting facts about the detrimental effects of DRM that can't easily be brushed off as simply one's opinion.
When that happens, then the anti-DRM folks will have something to rally around.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
are forced to turn around and charge their customers / general public.
Nope. They can do what they want with them, within reason. Might be used for private networking within a company, for instance, or perhaps for profit. Heaven forbid a company should make a profit.
When a government official tries to extend their own authority, they are way out of line. This stupid cow needs to be dismissed from the taxpayers' payroll, immediately.
As a Mac user and advocate I find this sort of language quite offensive.
If you crawl out of the male-dominated windows world you inhabit for just one second and try joining the Apple community, you'll realise that women use computers and are quite offended by words like 'bitches' used in such a manner.
For shame.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.