Slashdot Log In
More Details on the CBDTPA
Posted by
michael
on Fri Mar 22, 2002 06:59 PM
from the only-the-beginning dept.
from the only-the-beginning dept.
Gemini and many others wrote in with still more info regarding CBDTPA, formerly the SSSCA. Wired has a story. Cryptome has transcribed the text. The Senate Judiciary Committee has a web-form where you can submit comments (although directly contacting your representatives may be better). IMHO, the best thing people can do is explain to less-knowledgeable folks exactly what is at stake. When ABC News (Disney) and Fox News (News Corporation) discuss this, they're not going to be spending much time talking about the downside. Update: 03/23 00:55 GMT by M : EFF has an alert with a sample letter to Congress and background on the issue.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Fascinating that... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fascinating that... (Score:2)
Re:Fascinating that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Murdoch is very consistent in his politics, he is a selfservative. He serves his own interests to the absolute exclusion of all else.
Murdoch has supported left and right wing governments, for a price. The price being carte blanche to do whatever his self interest demands. He has consistently demanded that anti-trust laws be dismantled as far as they apply to him. He has been campaigning against the EU for years out of fear that it would not submit to his regulatory demands.
Murdoch is not against regulation of course, only those that don't serve his interests.
I don't know why people have such difficulty believing that conservatives who praise the persuit of self-interest believe in what they preach. Their self interest, not yours, their tax cut, their corporate welfare, their regulations.
Re:Fascinating that... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all about the money. Never forget that. These companies (Disney, News Corp., and the other media companies) are in business to make lots of money, and this will let them do that. They're going to be throwing lots of cash around to try to push this through. We don't have that much cash, so our only chance is to make Congress fear for its political life if this passes.
Political ideology has no bearing on this. It's going to be a test of wills. We've been waiting for a showdown with the entertainment industry. Well, here it is. It's going to be hard, and it's going to get nasty, so it's time to roll up our sleeves and get to work.
Parent
Re:Fascinating that... (Score:3, Funny)
Government's job to spur Broadband interest??? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's lying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hollings is lying.
Parent
Re:Government's job to spur Broadband interest??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hollings knows that his bill is desperately unpopular and is looking for a disguise. I suspect that by now the US public knows that a bill labelled 'bill to do good things for old people' is most likely a bill to rob them of their social security, half their pensions and medicaid.
The key points to keep repeating are
The biggest argument against the Hollings Campaign Contributors Interests Protection Act (HCCIPA) is that it is largely addressing a problem that is being addressed successfully in the courts.
Napster's original business model based on promoting piracy was dismantled in short order by the courts. Morpheus and the other commercial piracy rings have been forced to bundling scumware with the product to make a buck. Morpheus' current business model appears to be based on redirecting referals to Amazon's affiliate program.
The RIAA and MPAA are overreaching here. Instead of asking for a rational extention of the DMCA to address piracy networks they are making a naked grab for their self interest.
Parent
Rational Extention of DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill is the logical extention of the DMCA. Encrypted formats were trade secrets, and had NO LEGAL protection at all, until the DMCA was used as we knew it would be. The goal of the exclusive franchise created by copyright is to increase what's available to the public domain. The DMCA severly restricts what gets out to the public domain, as readers of "protected" formats won't work when the copyright expires (crutently 75 years). Unfortunately for the entertainment industry, these formats are not as popular as unecumberd formats, so they have introduced this bill to MANDATE their formats. This will eliminate the public domain altogether as it will eliminate user control of the devices used to create and distribute digital media. In the future, there will be nothing but digial publication, therefore there will be no publishing exept by approved and authorized software. It will outlaw free software. If you don't think that non free software restricts what you say, you need to re examine your non free EULA. Right now, I don't care if Microsoft decides that I can not ever use their software again (as they can by their EULA). If this bill passes, that will mean that I can't publish.
The only rational extention of the DMCA if for the supreme court to strike it down as a clear violation of free speech.
In the mean time, I am going to hand write my representative. Want to guese which letter will have a greater effect, this one or that one? Hmmm, it might be time to use some old fashion press to influence the local comunity. In the future, an inflamatory handbill might not pass the "protection" program in my copy machine. See where things can go?
Parent
True laws need true reasons (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, the Honorable Senator Hollings' law will have a preamble, too: "We the Lawmakers of the United States, in Order to form a more profitable Media Industry..."
Parent
not broadband - multimedia players. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The movie industry as a collective has had great interest in recent years in selling multimedia machine- basically a highly specialized computer with copy restrictions built in. In a capitalist economy, such a produce would compete against older forms of media and traditional general-purpose desktop computers. All things being equal, the computer market is large enough to support their special machines alongside regular computers. However, it turns out that not all things are equal. When their products were tried in the marketplace, they failed miserably (the DivX machine is the most well known example). Most consumers refused outright to purchase hardware that they labeled as erestrictedf and the few who did purchase these media machines found that the restrictions they contained gave the machines extra technical difficulties and were more difficult to use in general.
Despite their failure in the marketplace, the movie industry seems to still want to sell their movies on similar machines. Having failed in a free market, this legislation would force consumers to buy general purpose computers that have been twisted into essentially being their multimedia players (making them no longer general-purpose. I have read about proposed hardware protections, and there is no way to implement them without limiting how they connect to other computers and without breaking many existing software tools.) Not only are they cheating the consumer out of a truly general purpose computer, they are forcing the computer hardware industry to pay the tab for producing hardware for the movie industry to sell their special protected files for"
Parent
Re:Government's job to spur Broadband interest??? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that Sen. Hollings meant that Disney are afraid to provide large quantities of digital content due to the so called lack of copyright protection.
IMHO what Disney means (for me Sen Hollings is a puppet) is that they are not ready for the new economy and the new digital era. I think that Disney should learn how to adapt itself to new technologies (just like most of us have to do) instead of trying to change the technology and make US citizens pay for its lazyness.
CBDTPA is a legal freak, just like DMCA, and shows that the representative system (also know as democracy by US dear president), the way it is organized today, is flawfull and cannot be supported anymore.
Orwell would be proud!!!! (Score:3)
Lets be absolutely fair, this bill is about one thing only, total control over the production and distribution of digital media. If anyone non-technical cares to listen, they may be reminded why Hollywood exists.
Hollywood was founded to escape from tight control and enforcemnt of various key patents on the production and display of movie pictures (a lot owned by our friend Edison). This was based around New York, so the guys who wanted to make pictures did so as far away as possible (but with better weather), so they went to the west coast.
Why do I bring this up, well perhaps Hollywood itself should be reminded that tight IP isn't good for business. One of the most productive cinema industries in the world is "Bollywood", in India. Their products are smaller scale but are widely pirated. However, they still seem very profitable.
I say to give the industry a choice. They can have perfect protection of IP. Then they should have copyright lasting five years only. After which the stuff can sent via HDTV or broadband and nobody need to give a damn about protection.
Fox, ABC, NBC (Score:2)
That is, unless they can relate it to the plot of a movie their production studios currently have in wide release. Then it will be the lead story!
Read our Oscar Predictions! [lostbrain.com]
tcd004
Advantages (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Advantages (Score:5, Funny)
"see bee-dee tee pee-...uh, A."
Parent
Re:Advantages (Score:3, Funny)
I kid you not, when I saw that, the first and only thing I thought of was Twiki [tripod.com].
Re:Advantages (Score:3, Funny)
Take note: SSSCA, CBDTPA.
Ahh, you see! Fight back!
Re:Advantages (Score:4, Funny)
System
Helping
Innovative
Technologies
Lead
America
Worldwide
Parent
Re:Advantages (Score:3, Funny)
C.B.D.T.P.A (Score:3, Funny)
Websites? (Score:4, Interesting)
"The definition will cover just about anything that runs on your computer -- except maybe the clock,"
As seen in the recent Google fiasco, they could possibly bend this to even including websites.
Call your Senators (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither office even knew the bill had been presented to the Senate.
This isn't on everyone's radar yet. We need to make sure it *gets* on their radar, though. Call them. Bug them. Make them realize just how unpopular voting for this will make them. (But, as I'm sure others will say, don't be rabid about it...just firm.)
Re:Call your Senators (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Best time to make a statement? (Score:4, Funny)
This isn't on everyone's radar yet.
That may not be the case. I called one of my senators a few months ago to discuss a bill on the day of the vote and the people in his office had no idea what I was talking about. I beleive the exact comment was "He usually tells us his position at some point, I think." I'm hoping that i just got the new person and this won't happen again.
Just to make sure though I've decided on a plan. I plan to begin with e-mail, and then a letter, and then a phone call, and then flowers (nobody really sends flowers any more). Then I'm going to move in next-door to him and play the text of the bill on my stereo really loudly all night long. Then I plan to move into his house and talk nonstop about the bill all the time. Then, finally, just when his daughter is set to marry me, I'll tell him that all he has to do to get me to go away is to vote against it. I'm hoping he'll accept.
Then I'll probably marry his daughter anyway...
Parent
More background (Score:2, Informative)
Re:More background (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_aler t.html
Talk about counter innovative (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Talk about counter innovative (Score:3, Funny)
isn't that the way it is already?
Collateral damage (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an interesting point. The one thing I keep thinking of, while I code away at a lab notebook for the TB consortium, is how this would kill off non-commercial software projects because the technology's cost is "not cost prohibitive," instead of free. I realize that this would end upgrades to the beowulf cluster upstairs that protein folding, protein interaction, sequence alignment, etc. is being done on. This may end the lab notebook because it runs on software that could "reproduce copyright material." This may end most of the low cost Bioinformatics software projects around the country.
Although it's probably possible to make the standards work with the technology in use, I doubt that the industry leaders involved will let that heppen.
Bioinfomatics has nothing to do with Hollywood, the record industry, or Napsterization; but it will get killed so that the Dizzy corp can make another million on taking peoples' rights away.
I'm rather pissed-off about that...
The bill number is S 2048 (Score:4, Informative)
PLEASE Call your Senators (Score:5, Insightful)
CALL YOUR SENATORS. Handwritten letters are nice too, but what really matters is calling. You will get answered by a congressional staffer. Say the following:
"Hi, my name is _____ and I live in _______ in your district. I am calling to register my opposition to Senate Bill 2048. Thank you".
That's it. Unless you include a large check, they don't care WHY you oppose it really, but they DO care they you can vote for or against them.
Think about it this way: they can't spend the money, except on getting re-elected. Therefore, your vote costs a certain amount. If you call them and tell them the way you wish them to vote, they know that if they don't vote that way, they've lost a vote regardless of how much they spend. AND if you called, that means a lot of people probably think the same way, but weren't motivated enough to pick up the phone.
It's quick, simple, and took me all of 5 minutes, including looking up the phone number. DO IT.
What the fuck are you Americans doing down there? (Score:3, Insightful)
How can so many of you sit on your fat fucking asses and let this happen? I can't do anything about this because I don't live in the USA... but it doesn't matter because sooner or later you'll wind up exporting your stupid fucking laws to my country via treaty or something like that. My own government and people will look to you as an example, and I weep for the leadership you've abandoned.
You're really starting to scare the shit out of me down there, you Yanks. What happened to the land of free? How could you have sold out your precious freedom to big business and corporations? How could we have let you?
The America told in stories, the America talked about in your beautiful constitution is now dead to the world.
You're too big to take on now. I weep for what this world will become.
Objective reporting... (Score:4, Informative)
That's odd. Fox News did an article [foxnews.com] bashing the SSSCA. Not that I like Fox News that much, but like MSNBC, they aren't going to skew their story to what their company feels. That would just piss off readers.
How clever of Michael to bash Fox... (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47296,00.html [foxnews.com]
Come on Michael. You can do better.
Reading this correctly? (Score:3, Interesting)
This reading doesn't seem to agree with the Senator's introductory statements of yesterday. Seems that Disney has decided we're all along for the ride whether we like it or not. Good way to put the competition out of business too.
Remember when the words "competition" and "free enterprise" actually meant something?
The New Boob Tube (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no, they're tyring to legislate Linux out of existance! They're going to take away my MP3s!
Well, yeah... But those are just side effects of the real intent of this bill: Turning the Internet into the next big broadcast media - making the internet another dollar generating machine for Big Content, locking out the little guys, forcing the old paradigm into the new media.
All arguments regarding fair use are moot - if you read Hollings' speech, it's clear that he believes fair use will be protected. I don't see how that will work in practice though. Say I pay for and download a Simpson's episode with DRM, and I want to do a screen grab to make a picture of the Simpson's family to hang on my wall. Is that fair use? Well, I paid for the image, and many thousands like it (the video stream), so probably yes. Will DRM allow a screen grab? If it won't, then they've violated fair use (I think, IANAL), but if it will then what's going to stop me from grabbing every frame in succession and piecing them back together later? Are they planning on degrading the quality of all these works with some kind of watermark to prevent copying? We already know that doesn't work.
Moving on... Will we gain access to their entire archives? Probably not. More likely, we'll be told to "tune in" to a URL on Sunday night at 9PM to catch the latest episode. You'll be allowed to keep a copy for your own use, but you won't be able to remove the commercials because you won't have access to edit the file.
If we do get access to the archives, which version will it be? The "first run" versions, or the ones they trim down for later reruns?
I use the net for entertainment because it's so far outside the candy-coated crap that TV spews. I have broadband because it's useful to me for gaming and for my work. I already have my MP3 collection built to a comfortable level, and the latest batch of hit singles isn't really enticing me to buy OR download. So basically, I'm the antithesis of a good consumer and nothing is going to change that - other than The Simpsons and Friends, they can keep their copyrighted drivel. Yes, keep it. Keep it off our net.
..................
A couple additional points, harvested from the previous discussion:
1) Big Content has never tried to go after the individuals, even though they have said they would do so if left with no other recourse. Doesn't their refusal to go after people who are actually doing the pirating (vs. attacking businesses whose otherwise legitimate tools enable it) constitute some sort of admission that the works are public domain? Like the rules that stipulate that if you don't defend your trademark, you lose it. Same for copyright, or is it different? If it's the same for copyright, then anything that's ever been traded P2P is now public domain and Big Content will just have to suck it up.
2) You'll obviously have to identify yourself to pay for downloadable content, which is absolutely unprecedented. The only content consumers who are currently violated (in the most personal sense of the word) in this way are those who sign up for the privilege of participating in The Ratings. What's to stop them from using my personal information for marketing or whatever? There are huge privacy concerns that no one in congress is addressing.
3) Final word on the matter... One poster (and I'm sorry for the lack of attribution on all of these points, but the comments are still available with the other story) mentioned that this bill will likely die due to senate politics. Seems that Copyright is NOT the commerce committee's ballpark, and the guy in charge isn't too happy about this bill.
Re:The New Boob Tube (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not what I've understood so far - you'll be allowed to make a copy with the purpose of time-shifting and you'll be allowed to watch it once. After all, with modern technology they are finally able to achieve the long standing dream of making you pay for each and every single time you watch or listen to something. And they are right, that is the best way to make the most money.
This whole debacle has made me realize how glad I am to not care in the least about any of their content - otherwise it looks like they'd have me by the balls.
I called my senator... (Score:5, Informative)
1) Look up their website here [senate.gov]
2) Go to their web page and get their local office phone number.,
3) Call number.
4) Simply tell the person, "Hi, I am (your name), from (your city), (your state) and I would like to register my opposition to SB 2048".
One of them had me spell my name, and the other asked me what SB 2048 was. In case you forget, it's the CBDTPA (Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act).
When Copyright Expires (Score:5, Insightful)
As an amateur historian, I realize that in the longer term it is hard enough to find materials after the normal process of time. The digital revolution has made this much worse (for example a recent /. story mentioned that England could not retrieve census information that had been recorded c.1980 from obscure 14" optical storage disks). The use of encryption and DRM is going to make this situation much, much worse.
The problem is that DRM does not expire when the copyright expires (assuming congress will eventually allow copyrights to expire, and does not keep extending them forever :-) The copyright balance requires that the work goes into the public domain once the copyright has expired. The only way that will happen with a DRM scheme is if the copyright holders are still around, and have some type of motivation to make it public.
This is a difficult problem, with no easy solution. A minimal solution is to require that all copyright holders make their product available when it enters the public domain, but this won't help if the organization is no longer in business. Given this view, I don't know if DRM should be legal under copyrights. If DRM is legal, the only workable solution is to go back to the old method of copyrights (pre-1976) where you actually have to register for copyright protection. If you want to copyright something that is only "published" with DRM controls, an archival copy of the original unprotected version must be registered with the copyright authority (presumably Library of Congress, who will need new funding for this responsibility). This method has another real advantage, which is that it ensures that the copyright holder can be identified. The restoration industry has a big problem with "abandoned" works that are still technically under copyright, but they have no contactable owners.
This is a long term problem, and typically people don't worry about the long term (companies have trouble thinking past the end of the quarter!). But the issue of archiving and availability is extremely important. It goes right to the heart of what copyrights are supposed to do: "promote the progress of Science and useful Arts". Widespread use of DRM will make today's tragedies small potatoes (such as movies from the 1910-40's that should be in the public domain, which are instead literally rotting away without any care by the actual copyright holders).
Feel free to use some of these arguments in the letters to your congressmen!
DeCSS has a legit. purpose when copyright expires (Score:5, Interesting)
The supporters of this bill are also working to see that stuff doesn't ever elevate to the public domain.
But I wonder: Wouldn't it just take ONE copyright holder who's previously locked a DVD with CSS to say "AS OF NOW, My movie is now in the public domain" to totally legitimize DeCSS? It would no longer pass the "solely to circumvent protection of copyrighted works" test.
On this view, copyright expiration and/or the potential for voluntary relicensing may legitimize every single anti-DRM tool.
Has this been discussed before?
W
Parent
My letter (Score:4, Interesting)
To the "honorable" Senator from New York,
My name is Kenneth Witherow. I am a computer consultant and writer from the town of Livonia, NY. I am writing regarding a recently proposed legislative bill, S 2048 the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA). I strongly urge you to vote against this bill.
The main premise of the bill is to create encryption systems to protect digital content but despite the good intentions, it will cause great harm to independent content creators, computer programmers, electronic hobbyists and others. It seeks to force digital mechanisms such as computers to restrict the access to various media content used in conjunction with it. In this pursuit, it restricts a person's ability to make copies for personal use as allowed under both law and rulings from the Supreme Court.
Content producers claim that they cannot distribute the works via a digital medium for fear that the content will be illegally copied. The government should not have the power to sustain a business in the modern age because it's old methods are not any longer viable. Digital content is extremely inexpensive to reproduce and the reason why forays into this area fail is because the content producers refuse to lower their pricing to suit the new market. Why is it that a compact disc costs $18 while a tape, which is more expensive to produce, costs a mere $12? The content industry claims that the sky is falling with the introduction of every new advance in their field. Television would be the end of radio, VCRs the end of the movie business, MP3s the end of music distribution. Why is it that an independent band can generate revenues selling their music for a modest price on the internet but huge record labels cannot? The obvious answer is the music cartel, RIAA, knows it's business model is outdated and refuses to change because that would eliminate it's power. If this bill is passed, independent artists will not be able to create and distribute works due to the requirements of CBDTPA and the barriers to entry for non-wealthy creators. The MPAA and other institutions are in similar situations.
Because Microsoft has recently patented the system of Digital Rights Management, the adoption of the CBDTPA would ensure that the Microsoft monopoly will continue well into the future. As a user and developer of an alternate operating system, Linux, Microsoft would prevent us from using DRM to comply with the CBDTPA and it would be illegal for Linux to continue without it. This bill stifles software development and ensures that a monopoly will be further seated in it's power, ensuring that it will hurt consumers even more.
In 1998, another bill, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was signed into law. This law greatly restricts my fair use rights, especially because I use an operating system without a licensed DVD player available for it. One of the most damaging portions of the DMCA is that it makes illegal what made the PC possible in the first place - it outlaws reverse engineering. When the DMCA is combined with products sold under the CBDTPA, it is quite obvious that the result is content which is not available in a usable means, not copyable and illegal to retrieve via engineering methods. This ensures that content will never effectively enter into the public domain after it's copyright expires which is a gross violation of the Constitution's decree "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". These two bills, not to mention the continual extension of copyright, ensure that the first two portions of this charge are violated. Restriction of engineering and software creation does not promote science. Inability to access works in a non-creator provided method does not allow exclusivity to last for a limited time.
You also recently voted for the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill which means that you personally think money has a corrupting influence in politics. It is well worth noting that the entertainment industry was your fifth highest ranking donator so I am sure their money may influence your decision since you've stated it does. I never voted for you, nor will I ever vote for you, but if you vote for this legislation, my simple vote against you will turn into a local campaign against you assuming your Campaign Finance Reform "fix" doesn't ban me from speaking against you before the election as it currently does. Again, I strongly urge you to vote against S 2048.
stole an idea from a previous story.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I liked the idea, from the story about Christian Scientists, of us "small guys" running ads on Google. So I put up a "recall Senator Hollings" ad which ran on any search of "South Carolina" -- but that was pulled after 600 impressions. I've revised it now to warn of the loss of fair use and expired copyrights, and it appears on any search including the words Hollings, SSSCA, or CBDTPA. It links to the EFF alert. I could only put $250 into this, so the ad will probably disappear after a week or so.
I hope others might consider "extending" my ad with ads of their own, especially if you can think of some smart keywords that might make the ad more relevant as people are searching. Or donate directly to the EFF. Or put your weight behind digitalconsumer.org [digitalconsumer.org] (they've got some big names helping them out, so we're not alone here).
Renting a bus... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think we should probably emphasize this fact to the legislature. Passage of this bill in its current form would basically destroy IT here in this country. Since I work for a multi-national corporation it would be particularly interesting to see how that would work. Just think of the efforts required to change every file server and mail server in the US...
Check out the comments... (Score:4, Informative)
Tatics for AK, HI, LA, SC, & CA? (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, I do plan to let the Honorable Sen. Boxer (D-CA) know how I feel about this...
Also, I don't recall seeing a good list posted of what to do and what to avoid when contacting government, so here is the EFF's list of Dos & Don'ts [eff.org]. Read it. Know it. Live it.
-MKD
BSA Opposed to it (Score:3, Informative)
The most interesting thing I find about all this is the Business Software Alliance is opposed to this bill [politechbot.com]. For those who don't know, the BSA is the alliance of companices like Microsoft and Adobe that audit random companys, extorting money from them for failed license compliance. Basiclly, if the BSA is opposed that must mean MS is opposed as well. I am curious why they are not more vocal about this issue? And perhaps we will see some more favorable press towards it on MSNBC? Interesting indeed.
I am _NOT_ a consumer..... (Score:3, Informative)
This is complete HORSESHIT to say that I cannot do what I want with the computer I Paid for.
This is called corruption.
-----------
corruption
n 1: lack of integrity or honesty; esp susceptibility to bribery; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain.
HELLO commerce committee, you are corrupt and terrible people and should have NO PLACE ON EARTH TO REPRESENT ANYONE.
My take on S. 2048... (Score:4, Insightful)
Broadband Internet service is by no means required or an inalienable right. I do not feel it is my government's responsibility to meddle in the business affairs of broadband providers insofar as adoption of the technology is concerned. I also believe that there are many reasons why adoption of broadband has not occurred as rapidly as some would have hoped, the lack of high quality digital content being dubious at best.
If such technologies exist (and I do not believe that they do) to create a digital environment that allows all possibilities of fair use and at the same time prevent unauthorized use, adoption of the technology can be assisted by the parties that benefit from the technology by subsidizing the purchase price. A $200 rebate on computers with this technology would be much less subversive (and offensive) than mandating that all computers must utilize the technology.
Huh?
True, but I do not believe technological solutions can be developed that allow for fair use of digital content at the same time that the content is protected against unauthorized use.
There must be a reason why there are competing business interests surrounding deployment of this technology. Further research should be done to understand the competing position rather than simply passing this bill to undermine it.
My response to this is the same as my response to Item (1).
Several companies (CBS, HBO, etc.) are already broadcasting content via HDTV. If these companies are unconcerned about the lack of security afforded their content via the transmission protocol, I fail to see why a change to a secure transmission protocol is predicated. It is my belief that the reason there are so few HDTV broadcasts is because there are so few TVs capable of playing HDTV content. As HDTV becomes more common, so will HDTV broadcasts.
It's also difficult for me to understand why HDTV benefits comsumers. If HDTV truly does benefit consumers, they would buy HDTV sets. The fact that consumers opt for lesser expensive TV sets leads me to believe that the average consumer is satisfied with the quality of their broadcasts. Change may be good, but change for the sake of change isn't.
This is completely false. Encryption can be built into any transmission protocol be it via radio waves, Internet connections, cable, or satellite, regardless of an open or closed nature. The competitive advantage of cable and satellite providers is in the advent of new technology since the standard became common. In order to enable old technology devices (televisions) to use the new technology, additional hardware (set top boxes) is required. The same could be done by traditional signal broadcasts if companies chose to develop such technology. There's a reason they haven't developed the technology; no one believes the benefit of the technology outweighs the cost to develop it. If ABC believed that the benefits outweighed the costs and started broadcasting their signal in an encrypted format that could only be decrypted by purchasing one of their set top boxes, they would have done so by now.
So if cable and satellite networks already have encryption technologies and over-the-air broadcasts do not (by choice), why must the decision to encrypt or not be forced onto the Internet?
I don't think a solution is technologically feasible in order to ensure fair use. If the technology could be developed, I still don't think government intervention would be necessary to ensure adoption. Adoption could be gained simply by having desirable content made available only in an encrypted format. If, rather than subscribing to NetFlix, I could watch the latest videos on a pay-per-service basis, but only if I purchased special hardware that enabled me to view the videos, I would buy the hardware if doing so was cost-effective and to my benefit. If it's not cost-effective or to my benefit, there's no need for the technology to be developed, much less forced by the government.
In most cases, content originates in analog form.
Content will always be converted to analog in the "last mile" between the viewing device and my eyeballs. Though the quality would be dubious, there is no way short of creating a fascist technological state to prevent me from using a digital video camera aimed at my viewing device to capture "protected" content and converting it into a format most convenient for my own use. Certainly, keeping the content encrypted up to the point of being displayed on the viewing device may make unauthorized use more difficult, but it will also make fair use more difficult (or impossible). Considering this, I think it is in the consumer's best interest to not pursue this technology.
See (12).
But if the technology exists to prevent piracy, couldn't this significant piracy be prevented by the owners of the digital content choosing to protect their assets? Is my government responsible for covering the asses of entertainment companies because entertainment companies do not wish to protect their assets without preventing fair use? I don't believe so.
Millions of Americans drive faster than the speed limit every day. The demonstrates drivers' desire to go fast. Would the appropriate solution be to mandate that all cars must have a device that disallows going faster than the spped limit, or would the appropriate solution be to increase the speed limit? My answer to this is: neither. In the case of both speeding and protecting digital assets, no government action is necessary. If the entertainment industry desires protected digital content, they should protect their content. No government mandate need be required.
There are economic threats to the consumer if this bill is passed, including the necessity of purchasing new computer hardware in order to view content they otherwise have a legal right to.
America's content industries have the resources to fend for themselves with regards to protecting their own content.
See (12).
I'd like to see legitimate consumer "expectations" spelled out, and I would like to see law make it a punishable offense to prevent any of these consumer "expectations" from being allowed. With "fair use" explicit and an inalienable right, moving forward on protecting digital assets is reasonable.
See (20).
See (20).
And most importantly, I can't reiterate this enough, legitimate use of digital content should be mandated.
SEC. 3. ADOPTION OF SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS AND ENCODING RULES.
(a) PRIVATE SECTOR EFFORTS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--The Federal Communications Commission, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall make a determination, not more than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, as to whether--
(A) representatives of digital media device manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners have reached agreement on security system standards for use in digital media devices and encoding rules; and
(B) the standards and encoding rules conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e).
(2) Report to the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.--Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House of Representatives Committee on Commerce, and the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary as to whether--
(A) substantial progress has been made toward the development of security system standards and encoding rules that will conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e);
(B) private sector negotiations are continuing in good faith;
(C) there is a reasonable expectation that final agreement will be reached within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(D) if it is unlikely that such a final agreement will be reached by the end of that year, the deadline should be extended.
(b) AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION.--If the Commission makes a determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on security system standards and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has been reached, then the Commission shall--
(1) initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on which the determination is made, to adopt those standards and encoding rules; and
(2) publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, not later than 180 days after initiating the rulemaking, that will take effect 1 year after its publication.
(c) NEGATIVE DETERMINATION.--If the Commission makes a determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on security system standards and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has not been reached, then the Commission--
(1) in consultation with representatives described in subsection (a)(1)(A) and the Register of Copyrights, shall initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on which the determination is made, to adopt security system standards and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e); and
(2) shall publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, not later than 1 year after initiating the rulemaking, that will take effect 1 year after its publication.
So if the industry can't determine what is best for their consumers, the government will. Because the government is an expert with regards to what is best for consumers. It takes gall to think that the government could provide swifter and more equitable results than industry negotiations.
Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of encoding the content in the first place? Or would it force all security to be performed entirely by hardware?
And somehow, requiring "fair use" of content was left out of this section... go figure.
There it is in black and white. Fair use must be protected. Now if only fair uses were specific and itemized.
Having read the rest of the bill, there's nothing that I find particularly problematical. Devices controlling digital assets will be mandated and it will be illegal to transport devices that don't have the digital rights control across state lines. It will also be illegal to modify the security system. Those are the least of my concerns if the above material isn't ironed out and addressed.
Attention technical workers! Attention! (Score:3, Funny)
We appreciate your past efforts to bring the PC and Internet into the mainstream. The benefits to the economies of the world over the past 15 years has been phenomenal. However, now that this task is completed, your services are no longer required. Please put your computer hardware on ebay and find new professions.
Some 500,000,000 mainstream users are online today. We must bring their offline world IP laws into the online world. This is necessary for their protection.
A couple million technically inclined people stealing music, movies and software is no big deal. However, 500 million (and soon billions) of people stealing information is the equivalence of Marxism.
So you should welcome this new law. This law will end warez forever. It will stop foreign countries who don't enforce IP laws from benefiting from the hard work of persons in the developed countries.
And finally let's not forget our friends in Hollywood [theonion.com]. The end of the mass theft of music means better music in the long term.
We thank you for your hard work to create a sophisticated useable information distribution system, as well as easy to use terminals to access that information system. Your input in the legislation of these devices and their medium is not desired. Please let the professionals in Washington handle it from here.