Fact is, Windows is priced at a pretty competitive amount with its competition: XP Home: $99 OS X: $129
Fact is, OS X isn't WinXP's competition. If you had bothered to follow the case that is supposed to be the topic at hand, you'd know that: A) the "relevant market" is x86 PCs; and B) the greatest price pressure on any recent version of Windows comes from the previous iteration. WinXP's "competition" is WinME.
No one can say that the software that runs your hardware, that browses the Web, that provides your networking, etc., isn't worth $100 unless you're an outrageous cheapskate.
Invalid argument. The $99 price is for an upgrade. In order to qualify for it, you already have to have software that runs your hardware, that browses the Web, that provides your networking, etc. Is it your position that only an outrageous cheapskate wouldn't pay $200 to acquire these things for the first time? Show me how upgrading from WinME to WinXP is obviously worth $100 to all but the outrageous cheapskates among us.
PS - Does anyone know if the OS X price quoted is an upgrade? Just curious.
...they are defering the judgement to the current ongoing appeals court process...
But the case is already back in the District Court, i.e., the appeals process is over.
Maybe I'm missing something (which tends to happen). I was under the impression that if SCOTUS did this, the findings of fact stand. Are you saying that once the District Court issues a new penalty, MS will be able to contest elements of the original ruling again?
It's been my experience that if a user is so much a novice that they're tripping over their own feet in Windows, then you can swith them to KDE and they'll be no worse off.
That said, I completely sympathize about the games.
Seriously, how out of reach is it to get a techie into office?
I hate giving a non-answer, but it really depends on your stances on dozens of issues, how outgoing you are, stuff like that. Also, I suspect that the current political climate wouldn't support a candidate who is too critical of the government, particularly in the president's home state.
I've thought about running for office, too, but this a bad time to be pushing a liberatarian message.
I wanted to know whether using non-compliant computer hardware will send me to jail for a longer period of time than if I ran over a pregnant woman, while drunk.
The SSSCA has a couple of paragraphs (108) which effectively says, "Violating the SSSCA carries the same penalties as the DMCA."
The ratio of plebians to representatives is too high.
It's likely to get continually worse. If we keep adding reps, there will too many for them to communicate effectively with each other (some say we've already reached that point).
This is my first draft. It's also my first attempt at writing to Congress, so constructive criticism is welcome. (Flames to/dev/null.)
The Honorable Senator [Full Name] [Street Address] Washington, DC 20510
October 7, 2001
Senator [Last Name]:
As a voting constituent, I wish to express to you my concern over a draft piece of legislation entitled, "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" (SSSCA), sponsored by Senators Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and Ted Stevens (R-AK). I urge you to oppose this legislation for the reasons listed below.
As a professional software developer, it is part of my job to keep abreast of events which impact the Infomation Technology (IT) sector of the economy. Over the last few years, I have developed a particular interest in the ways technology intersects with law, which is how I came to hear of the SSSCA. After reading the text of this draft legislation, it is my opinion that the SSSCA suffers from several flaws. It fails to consider the limitations of copyright; places the already-ailing IT sector under Draconian governmental oversight; hampers U.S. competitiveness in foreign markets; and addresses a problem which has already been solved.
Overview The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act was written "To provide for private sector development of workable security system standards and a certification protocol that could be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations, and for other purposes" (SSSCA draft). Title I -- Security Systems Standards -- would mandate government-approved copy-prevention technology in virtually every electronic device made available within the United States, and is the focus of this letter. Title II -- Internet Security Initiatives -- would allow the government to create financial incentives to promote improved computer and Internet security. While I consider the goals of Title II laudable, I still have to question whether "There is little financial incentive for private companies to enhance the security of the Internet . .." (SSSCA draft, 201(7)).
The SSSCA is Constitutionally Infirm The Judiciary has repeatedly held that the right to control one's copyrighted works is not absolute. Three important limitations on copyright are the fair use doctrine, the first sale doctrine, and the fact that all copyrighted works must eventually enter the public domain. The SSSCA effectively eliminates all three.
Fair use is a compromise between a copyright holder's monopoly upon works, and the First Amendment rights of those who purchase copyrighted works. A prime example of fair use is the right to incorporate portions of an existing copyrighted work into another (such as one might do when using portions of a photograph to create a collage). However, if "No person may . . . make available to the public any copyrighted material . . . where the security measure associated with a certified security technology has been removed or altered" (SSSCA draft, 103(a)(2)), and digital images have incorporated a security technology which does not permit sampling, then purchasers of copyrighted works will have lost that right of fair use. Moreover, if a consumer attempted to exercise this fair use right, or attempted to regain this fair use right by "remov[ing] or alter[ing] any certified security technology in an interactive digital device" (SSSCA draft, 103(a)(1)), 108(2) would cause such exercise of rights to be viewed as a criminal offense. While 103(b) forbids the use of security measures to deny consumers the fair use right of time-shifting, it fails to preserve other fair uses, including sampling (as described above), space-shifting (see RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc. 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999)), and archival (creating a backup for use in the event of loss of the original), among others. The existence of a single fair use right does not mean this proposed legislation preserves fair use.
The Doctrine of First Sale holds that once a copyright holder has sold a copyrighted work, he or she cannot (absent a contract) prevent the resale of that work. The SSSCA provides no mechanism by which consumers are permitted to resell copyrighted works which they have purchased. As with fair use, it would be trivial for a copyright holder to create a security measure which forbids transfer of ownership, and consumers must either abandon their right to resell their property, or risk criminal prosecution and civil liability.
Finally, the Constitution requires that the term of copyright be "for limited times" (Const., Article I Section 8 Clause 8). If, on the other hand, "It is unlawful to . . . offer to the public . . . any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies . .." (SSSCA draft, 101(a)), and "An interactive computer service [must] store and transmit with integrity any security measure associated with certified security technologies" (SSSCA draft, 102), it will become impossible for copyrighted works to enter the public domain. Again, anyone attempting to move such a formerly copyrighted work into the public domain would run afoul of 108.
The SSSCA is Harmful to the IT Sector By mandating that "any interactive digital device [must] include and utilize certified security technologies," the SSSCA effectively proposes that the IT industry be drafted into service as an intellectual property policing agency, and that any failure on its part is subject to both civil and criminal penalties. Faced with this possibility, many existing and potential IT workers would prefer to avoid liability by finding a "safer" line of work. Given that "This Nation faces a shortage of trained, qualified information technology workers" (SSSCA draft, 201(4)) already, anything which will further dampen the number of IT workers will necessarily harm the industry.
The SSSCA proposes that the ones responsible for creating and implementing copy control measures should be those who present the copyrighted material to the end-user. That is, the manufacturers of televisions, VCRs, CD players, computers, etc., should be the ones to research, develop, and implement security system standards. The IT sector would incur heavy cost, and receive no benefit from this arrangement. A fairer approach would be to place the costs and burden of copyright enforcement upon those who actually hold the copyrights, as they have the most to gain.
Additionally, the SSSCA imposes enormous costs upon IT corporations whose products must interact with the established infrastructure of non-compliant devices. To speak from personal experience, I know that one of the most difficult tasks in software development is to get two incompatible pieces of software to interact. Mandating these controls will force software developers to either give up interoperability with existing products (thus hurting sales), or expend an enormous effort to make new products compatible with old ones (thus increasing costs). It's a no-win scenario for IT.
Finally, the SSSCA would likely squelch one of the most effective forms of software development: Open Source. Open Source development works on the theory that if everyone has access to the source code -- the "blueprints" -- of a program, that program will be able to evolve more rapdily than if only the employees of a single company have access to those blueprints. The most widely used Web server and e-mail server are both examples of Open Source programs. Their widespread use and well-known reliability within the industry are a direct result of being Open Source products. A number of corporations, including IBM, sell some or all of their products as Open Source. Because the blueprints are available to everyone, though, anyone can modify them. The fact that it would be so easy to delete the security measures from any Open Source program would likely result in their use being outlawed. Any company depending on Open Source today would find itself forced to abandon those products; many would be unable to stay in business.
The SSSCA is Harmful to U.S. Competition in Foreign Markets Working under the SSSCA, electronics manufacturers within the United States will be seriously disadvantaged when competing in foreign markets. Foreign corporations which do business outside the U.S. will not be required to implement the technologies mandated by the SSSCA. U.S. corporations wishing to enter those markets, though, will be forced to make one of two unprofitable choices. Their first option is to produce two versions of each product: one which implements the mandated technologies, which is sold in the U.S.; and one which does not, which is sold in other countries. This option is rather costly, and would raise the prices of their products needlessly. Their second option is to implement the mandated technologies in all of their products, and sell those products everywhere. This will hurt their sales, as foreign customers, given the choice, will take the product which places fewer restrictions upon them. Further, the cost of implementing the mandated controls will not be borne by their competitors, making their product either more expensive, or less profitable.
The SSSCA Favors Hypothetical Government Solutions Over Existing Market-Produced Ones The SSSCA claims to support "certifying as many conforming technologies as possible to develop a competitive and innovative marketplace" (SSSCA draft, 104(a)), but in reality anticipates a single-vendor solution by creating an exemption to antitrust laws (SSSCA draft, 107). In threatening to create a goverment-approved monopoly, the SSSCA ignores the fact that several competing and rapidly improving security technologies already exist. It also mistakes who is best suited to implement these technologies.
Copyright holders have done an excellent job of protecting their works in the past, and continue to do so today. When consumers began to use VCRs to copy movies illegally, the movie industry responded by contracting Macrovision to develop and implement a technology to combat the threat, which it now employs to great success. More recently, the movie industry pre-empted the threat of rampant DVD copying by requiring copy prevention to built into the hardware of DVD players.
In the case of audio works, the music industry has implemented copy prevention techniques into digital audio cassettes and CDs, and is considering a move to DVD-Audio, which would afford it the same protections that the movie industry enjoys.
I wish to particularly point out the CD copy prevention which is just beginning to appear on the market. This technology prevents computers from copying audio tracks, without hampering the ability of traditional CD players to play these disks. This technology was developed in direct response to Napster, which has been accused of contributory copyright infringement. Rather than propose a technological response; wait thirty days for the Secretary of Commerce to bless it; wait another ninety days for this blessing to be published; and wait a further year for it to be implemented by electronics manufacturers (SSSCA draft, 104(c)), the music industry took it upon itself to craft a remedy to their liking, and did so without needing to coordinate with either the government or corporations outside their industry.
Conclusion The SSSCA ignores the rights of consumers and unfairly tips the balance of copyright in favor of copyright holders. It imposes severe economic, design, and legal burdens upon the IT industry to support security technologies, relieving copyright holders of any need to affirmatively protect their own works. It ignores the fact that most devices implementing this technology are now or soon will be commodity products, making them unattractive to foreign consumers who will still have a choice. It ignores existing solutions developed by copyright holders and in use today, and instead replaces them with an unspecified, unproven technology that copyright holders have a say in designing, but take no responibility for any potential failures thereof. Given all this, it is not surprising that the principal author of the SSSCA is Walt Disney Corporation, a media conglomorate which holds some of the oldest copyrights in the nation, and which can only benefit from this legislation.
For all of these reasons, I ask that you vigorously oppose the SSSCA.
How could we best get over the point that the... SSSCA... benefit[s] nobody...?
I apologize for horribly hacking up your post, but I've been thinking about this (in the way I present it above), and have an idea or two.
I intend to spend a goodly portion of the weekend writing a letter to my Senators pointing out the various flaws in the SSSCA (we all know them, so I won't rehash them here). I think the trump-card in dealing with this is to play up the free-market angle. In particular, I'm going to point out that mandating copy-protection is unnecessary because the folks at the RIAA have already found a way to accomplish this goal (the various anti-rip technologies). Obviously, the market is quite happily adapting to the "threat" posed by Napster and its progeny, and so government intervention isn't needed.
...in TNG, they decided to make aliens look alien and thus the Klingons "got ridges"...
Since being a Trekkie is all about nit-picking, I'd like to point out that Klingons first got their ridges in Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979?). Otherwise, your theory works for me.
[Campaign finance reform] is a violation of first ammendment rights...
In 1999 (I think) the Supreme Court heard a case about a state law setting campaign contribution limits. Those opposing the law claimed it violated the first amendment. The Court's decision contained a sentence that summed it up nicely: "Money is property; it is not speech."
Surely this will just hurt the industries that are arguing for these restrictions. Research students... figure[] out the in-efficiencies in previous encryption methods.
Corporations are no longer concerned with efficiency. Or rather, they've realized that criminal prosecution is more efficient than innovation. After all, innovation through research can cost millions--or even billions--of dollars. For a fraction of the cost, though, they can throw any sort of crap together into a product, convince Congress to pass a few key laws, and then let the government foot the bill for prosecuting anyone who points out any deficiencies in the products.
Sure. I was just pointing out that interest isn't the only source of income for a credit card company (just the largest). A lot of people probably don't know about the merchant fees (though this audience isn't typical).
[Merchant fees] is the reason why some merchants do not support credit cards.
It's also partly why Discover is less-widely accepted than its competitors (they make up the cost of Cash Back Bonuses [TM] by gouging merchants).
I never got a price cut because I paid cash.
I always got the impression that merchants were contractually obligated to charge the same amount regardless of whether the customer chose paper or plastic.;-) As you said, either the cash-payers pay more, or the merchant swallows the cost.
[perhaps] those fees are minimal and can be declared as business expenses...
I read once (too young to remember, sorry) that credit card interest was originally tax-deductable, to encourage people to use plastic. Just a little trivia I picked up.
Why should I have social security taken from work I do on the side when I will never see a dime from social security...
You seem to be overlooking the word "social". It's not a savings account, it's a support system for those who are already retired. Depending on who you ask, you're supposed to pay into it to either (A) reduce the level of poverty among the elderly; or (B) encourage the elderly to retire so that more job openings are made available to the young (the latter was the reason it was first created during the Depression, when unemployment reached record levels; the former is the typical argument for keeping it around today).
This means that the credit card company never ever earned any dime from me.... If everyone did this, no credit card company could stay in business for a long time.
Not so. Credit card companies take a percentage of every transaction from the merchant. To be sure, their profits would be smaller, but there's no guarantee they couldn't stay afloat.
There are some things that can't be GPLed because of copyright or licensing issues...
Not so. Because of various acquisitions over the years, Caldera owns all the copyrights, and is the one who holds all the licenses. Whether or not to use the GPL is entirely Caldera's decision to make.
...does that mean: HP-UX, AIX etc. also open source?
Nope. Licensing is not retroactive. The proprietary versions are still subject to their original license (i.e., they'll need Caldera's permission if they want to GPL their Unix-derived code), but any future derivations will be GPLed.
If you really wanted to write free code, you'd release it without any copyright: ie, public domain.
You can't actually do this (in the U.S., anyway). When you create something, copyright automatically applies (for life + 70). Just because you say "Take it, I don't want it", doesn't mean the government abides that wish. I wouldn't mention this, but it really opens up the potential for liability for buggy code. You're much better off distributing under a license that expressly denies any warranty.
Slashdot Mirror
Fact is, Windows is priced at a pretty competitive amount with its competition:
XP Home: $99
OS X: $129
Fact is, OS X isn't WinXP's competition. If you had bothered to follow the case that is supposed to be the topic at hand, you'd know that: A) the "relevant market" is x86 PCs; and B) the greatest price pressure on any recent version of Windows comes from the previous iteration. WinXP's "competition" is WinME.
No one can say that the software that runs your hardware, that browses the Web, that provides your networking, etc., isn't worth $100 unless you're an outrageous cheapskate.
Invalid argument. The $99 price is for an upgrade. In order to qualify for it, you already have to have software that runs your hardware, that browses the Web, that provides your networking, etc. Is it your position that only an outrageous cheapskate wouldn't pay $200 to acquire these things for the first time? Show me how upgrading from WinME to WinXP is obviously worth $100 to all but the outrageous cheapskates among us.
PS - Does anyone know if the OS X price quoted is an upgrade? Just curious.
But the case is already back in the District Court, i.e., the appeals process is over.
Maybe I'm missing something (which tends to happen). I was under the impression that if SCOTUS did this, the findings of fact stand. Are you saying that once the District Court issues a new penalty, MS will be able to contest elements of the original ruling again?
[My fiancee] has enough trouble with Windows...
It's been my experience that if a user is so much a novice that they're tripping over their own feet in Windows, then you can swith them to KDE and they'll be no worse off.
That said, I completely sympathize about the games.
The whole supply chain grew because of [Y2k], and had to collapse when demand fell to lower than normal levels.
Indeed. I've never seen so many consultants warming the bench as I have this year.
Seriously, how out of reach is it to get a techie into office?
I hate giving a non-answer, but it really depends on your stances on dozens of issues, how outgoing you are, stuff like that. Also, I suspect that the current political climate wouldn't support a candidate who is too critical of the government, particularly in the president's home state.
I've thought about running for office, too, but this a bad time to be pushing a liberatarian message.
I wanted to know whether using non-compliant computer hardware will send me to jail for a longer period of time than if I ran over a pregnant woman, while drunk.
The SSSCA has a couple of paragraphs (108) which effectively says, "Violating the SSSCA carries the same penalties as the DMCA."
It took me a little longer than five minutes, but here's my first attempt at a real letter.
The ratio of plebians to representatives is too high.
It's likely to get continually worse. If we keep adding reps, there will too many for them to communicate effectively with each other (some say we've already reached that point).
This is my first draft. It's also my first attempt at writing to Congress, so constructive criticism is welcome. (Flames to /dev/null.)
The Honorable Senator [Full Name]
[Street Address]
Washington, DC 20510
October 7, 2001
Senator [Last Name]:
As a voting constituent, I wish to express to you my concern over a draft piece of legislation entitled, "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" (SSSCA), sponsored by Senators Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and Ted Stevens (R-AK). I urge you to oppose this legislation for the reasons listed below.
As a professional software developer, it is part of my job to keep abreast of events which impact the Infomation Technology (IT) sector of the economy. Over the last few years, I have developed a particular interest in the ways technology intersects with law, which is how I came to hear of the SSSCA. After reading the text of this draft legislation, it is my opinion that the SSSCA suffers from several flaws. It fails to consider the limitations of copyright; places the already-ailing IT sector under Draconian governmental oversight; hampers U.S. competitiveness in foreign markets; and addresses a problem which has already been solved.
Overview ." (SSSCA draft, 201(7)).
The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act was written "To provide for private sector development of workable security system standards and a certification protocol that could be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations, and for other purposes" (SSSCA draft). Title I -- Security Systems Standards -- would mandate government-approved copy-prevention technology in virtually every electronic device made available within the United States, and is the focus of this letter. Title II -- Internet Security Initiatives -- would allow the government to create financial incentives to promote improved computer and Internet security. While I consider the goals of Title II laudable, I still have to question whether "There is little financial incentive for private companies to enhance the security of the Internet . .
The SSSCA is Constitutionally Infirm
The Judiciary has repeatedly held that the right to control one's copyrighted works is not absolute. Three important limitations on copyright are the fair use doctrine, the first sale doctrine, and the fact that all copyrighted works must eventually enter the public domain. The SSSCA effectively eliminates all three.
Fair use is a compromise between a copyright holder's monopoly upon works, and the First Amendment rights of those who purchase copyrighted works. A prime example of fair use is the right to incorporate portions of an existing copyrighted work into another (such as one might do when using portions of a photograph to create a collage). However, if "No person may . . . make available to the public any copyrighted material . . . where the security measure associated with a certified security technology has been removed or altered" (SSSCA draft, 103(a)(2)), and digital images have incorporated a security technology which does not permit sampling, then purchasers of copyrighted works will have lost that right of fair use. Moreover, if a consumer attempted to exercise this fair use right, or attempted to regain this fair use right by "remov[ing] or alter[ing] any certified security technology in an interactive digital device" (SSSCA draft, 103(a)(1)), 108(2) would cause such exercise of rights to be viewed as a criminal offense. While 103(b) forbids the use of security measures to deny consumers the fair use right of time-shifting, it fails to preserve other fair uses, including sampling (as described above), space-shifting (see RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc. 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999)), and archival (creating a backup for use in the event of loss of the original), among others. The existence of a single fair use right does not mean this proposed legislation preserves fair use.
The Doctrine of First Sale holds that once a copyright holder has sold a copyrighted work, he or she cannot (absent a contract) prevent the resale of that work. The SSSCA provides no mechanism by which consumers are permitted to resell copyrighted works which they have purchased. As with fair use, it would be trivial for a copyright holder to create a security measure which forbids transfer of ownership, and consumers must either abandon their right to resell their property, or risk criminal prosecution and civil liability.
Finally, the Constitution requires that the term of copyright be "for limited times" (Const., Article I Section 8 Clause 8). If, on the other hand, "It is unlawful to . . . offer to the public . . . any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies . . ." (SSSCA draft, 101(a)), and "An interactive computer service [must] store and transmit with integrity any security measure associated with certified security technologies" (SSSCA draft, 102), it will become impossible for copyrighted works to enter the public domain. Again, anyone attempting to move such a formerly copyrighted work into the public domain would run afoul of 108.
The SSSCA is Harmful to the IT Sector
By mandating that "any interactive digital device [must] include and utilize certified security technologies," the SSSCA effectively proposes that the IT industry be drafted into service as an intellectual property policing agency, and that any failure on its part is subject to both civil and criminal penalties. Faced with this possibility, many existing and potential IT workers would prefer to avoid liability by finding a "safer" line of work. Given that "This Nation faces a shortage of trained, qualified information technology workers" (SSSCA draft, 201(4)) already, anything which will further dampen the number of IT workers will necessarily harm the industry.
The SSSCA proposes that the ones responsible for creating and implementing copy control measures should be those who present the copyrighted material to the end-user. That is, the manufacturers of televisions, VCRs, CD players, computers, etc., should be the ones to research, develop, and implement security system standards. The IT sector would incur heavy cost, and receive no benefit from this arrangement. A fairer approach would be to place the costs and burden of copyright enforcement upon those who actually hold the copyrights, as they have the most to gain.
Additionally, the SSSCA imposes enormous costs upon IT corporations whose products must interact with the established infrastructure of non-compliant devices. To speak from personal experience, I know that one of the most difficult tasks in software development is to get two incompatible pieces of software to interact. Mandating these controls will force software developers to either give up interoperability with existing products (thus hurting sales), or expend an enormous effort to make new products compatible with old ones (thus increasing costs). It's a no-win scenario for IT.
Finally, the SSSCA would likely squelch one of the most effective forms of software development: Open Source. Open Source development works on the theory that if everyone has access to the source code -- the "blueprints" -- of a program, that program will be able to evolve more rapdily than if only the employees of a single company have access to those blueprints. The most widely used Web server and e-mail server are both examples of Open Source programs. Their widespread use and well-known reliability within the industry are a direct result of being Open Source products. A number of corporations, including IBM, sell some or all of their products as Open Source. Because the blueprints are available to everyone, though, anyone can modify them. The fact that it would be so easy to delete the security measures from any Open Source program would likely result in their use being outlawed. Any company depending on Open Source today would find itself forced to abandon those products; many would be unable to stay in business.
The SSSCA is Harmful to U.S. Competition in Foreign Markets
Working under the SSSCA, electronics manufacturers within the United States will be seriously disadvantaged when competing in foreign markets. Foreign corporations which do business outside the U.S. will not be required to implement the technologies mandated by the SSSCA. U.S. corporations wishing to enter those markets, though, will be forced to make one of two unprofitable choices. Their first option is to produce two versions of each product: one which implements the mandated technologies, which is sold in the U.S.; and one which does not, which is sold in other countries. This option is rather costly, and would raise the prices of their products needlessly. Their second option is to implement the mandated technologies in all of their products, and sell those products everywhere. This will hurt their sales, as foreign customers, given the choice, will take the product which places fewer restrictions upon them. Further, the cost of implementing the mandated controls will not be borne by their competitors, making their product either more expensive, or less profitable.
The SSSCA Favors Hypothetical Government Solutions Over Existing Market-Produced Ones
The SSSCA claims to support "certifying as many conforming technologies as possible to develop a competitive and innovative marketplace" (SSSCA draft, 104(a)), but in reality anticipates a single-vendor solution by creating an exemption to antitrust laws (SSSCA draft, 107). In threatening to create a goverment-approved monopoly, the SSSCA ignores the fact that several competing and rapidly improving security technologies already exist. It also mistakes who is best suited to implement these technologies.
Copyright holders have done an excellent job of protecting their works in the past, and continue to do so today. When consumers began to use VCRs to copy movies illegally, the movie industry responded by contracting Macrovision to develop and implement a technology to combat the threat, which it now employs to great success. More recently, the movie industry pre-empted the threat of rampant DVD copying by requiring copy prevention to built into the hardware of DVD players.
In the case of audio works, the music industry has implemented copy prevention techniques into digital audio cassettes and CDs, and is considering a move to DVD-Audio, which would afford it the same protections that the movie industry enjoys.
I wish to particularly point out the CD copy prevention which is just beginning to appear on the market. This technology prevents computers from copying audio tracks, without hampering the ability of traditional CD players to play these disks. This technology was developed in direct response to Napster, which has been accused of contributory copyright infringement. Rather than propose a technological response; wait thirty days for the Secretary of Commerce to bless it; wait another ninety days for this blessing to be published; and wait a further year for it to be implemented by electronics manufacturers (SSSCA draft, 104(c)), the music industry took it upon itself to craft a remedy to their liking, and did so without needing to coordinate with either the government or corporations outside their industry.
Conclusion
The SSSCA ignores the rights of consumers and unfairly tips the balance of copyright in favor of copyright holders. It imposes severe economic, design, and legal burdens upon the IT industry to support security technologies, relieving copyright holders of any need to affirmatively protect their own works. It ignores the fact that most devices implementing this technology are now or soon will be commodity products, making them unattractive to foreign consumers who will still have a choice. It ignores existing solutions developed by copyright holders and in use today, and instead replaces them with an unspecified, unproven technology that copyright holders have a say in designing, but take no responibility for any potential failures thereof. Given all this, it is not surprising that the principal author of the SSSCA is Walt Disney Corporation, a media conglomorate which holds some of the oldest copyrights in the nation, and which can only benefit from this legislation.
For all of these reasons, I ask that you vigorously oppose the SSSCA.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Address]
[City, State ZIP]
How could we best get over the point that the... SSSCA... benefit[s] nobody...?
I apologize for horribly hacking up your post, but I've been thinking about this (in the way I present it above), and have an idea or two.
I intend to spend a goodly portion of the weekend writing a letter to my Senators pointing out the various flaws in the SSSCA (we all know them, so I won't rehash them here). I think the trump-card in dealing with this is to play up the free-market angle. In particular, I'm going to point out that mandating copy-protection is unnecessary because the folks at the RIAA have already found a way to accomplish this goal (the various anti-rip technologies). Obviously, the market is quite happily adapting to the "threat" posed by Napster and its progeny, and so government intervention isn't needed.
Patents are indeed supposed to be about an implementation...
Sorry, no. Copyrights are about implementation; patents are about ideas.
Since being a Trekkie is all about nit-picking, I'd like to point out that Klingons first got their ridges in Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979?). Otherwise, your theory works for me.
According to the laws of science a thing must have mass and take up space in order to exist,...
So, there's no such thing as energy?
[Campaign finance reform] is a violation of first ammendment rights...
In 1999 (I think) the Supreme Court heard a case about a state law setting campaign contribution limits. Those opposing the law claimed it violated the first amendment. The Court's decision contained a sentence that summed it up nicely: "Money is property; it is not speech."
Surely this will just hurt the industries that are arguing for these restrictions. Research students... figure[] out the in-efficiencies in previous encryption methods.
Corporations are no longer concerned with efficiency. Or rather, they've realized that criminal prosecution is more efficient than innovation. After all, innovation through research can cost millions--or even billions--of dollars. For a fraction of the cost, though, they can throw any sort of crap together into a product, convince Congress to pass a few key laws, and then let the government foot the bill for prosecuting anyone who points out any deficiencies in the products.
It's possible those replies are below your comment threshold (ACs, for example). Try briefly setting it to -1 and see if they appear.
E.g., log1000 would be a "little" different than log2. I don't really see your point.
That basically was my point. In "big-O" notation, your only concern is order of magnitude. Little differences are ignored.
FYI:
O(log2(N)) == O(log(N)) == O(ln(N))
Identifying the base is unnecessary.
Get the point?
Sure. I was just pointing out that interest isn't the only source of income for a credit card company (just the largest). A lot of people probably don't know about the merchant fees (though this audience isn't typical).
[Merchant fees] is the reason why some merchants do not support credit cards.
It's also partly why Discover is less-widely accepted than its competitors (they make up the cost of Cash Back Bonuses [TM] by gouging merchants).
I never got a price cut because I paid cash.
I always got the impression that merchants were contractually obligated to charge the same amount regardless of whether the customer chose paper or plastic. ;-) As you said, either the cash-payers pay more, or the merchant swallows the cost.
[perhaps] those fees are minimal and can be declared as business expenses...
I read once (too young to remember, sorry) that credit card interest was originally tax-deductable, to encourage people to use plastic. Just a little trivia I picked up.
Why should I have social security taken from work I do on the side when I will never see a dime from social security...
You seem to be overlooking the word "social". It's not a savings account, it's a support system for those who are already retired. Depending on who you ask, you're supposed to pay into it to either (A) reduce the level of poverty among the elderly; or (B) encourage the elderly to retire so that more job openings are made available to the young (the latter was the reason it was first created during the Depression, when unemployment reached record levels; the former is the typical argument for keeping it around today).
This means that the credit card company never ever earned any dime from me. ... If everyone did this, no credit card company could stay in business for a long time.
Not so. Credit card companies take a percentage of every transaction from the merchant. To be sure, their profits would be smaller, but there's no guarantee they couldn't stay afloat.
Didn't the appeals court make this ruling a week ago?
There are some things that can't be GPLed because of copyright or licensing issues...
Not so. Because of various acquisitions over the years, Caldera owns all the copyrights, and is the one who holds all the licenses. Whether or not to use the GPL is entirely Caldera's decision to make.
Nope. Licensing is not retroactive. The proprietary versions are still subject to their original license (i.e., they'll need Caldera's permission if they want to GPL their Unix-derived code), but any future derivations will be GPLed.
If you really wanted to write free code, you'd release it without any copyright: ie, public domain.
You can't actually do this (in the U.S., anyway). When you create something, copyright automatically applies (for life + 70). Just because you say "Take it, I don't want it", doesn't mean the government abides that wish. I wouldn't mention this, but it really opens up the potential for liability for buggy code. You're much better off distributing under a license that expressly denies any warranty.