Sneaking DRM Amendments Through the Back Door

SiChemist writes: "Senator Joseph Biden has revised the 'Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002' to make it a felony to bypass certain DRM technologies. The bill has very broad senate support and is expected to pass overwhelmingly. Call your congresscritter! ZDNET story is here."

Exerpt

[slakdrgn (531347)]

"It is possible, for example, that the bill allows criminal prosecutions as well as private suits against anyone who uses a black Magic Marker to disable copy protection features built into some recent music CDs," Baker says. "At $25,000 a CD, that could be a very expensive experiment."

Quick! Throw away all your markers!!

seriously tho, this is getting insane, soon you'll be forced to watermark your work, but inorder to watermark it you will be charged x amount of dollars, what would this do to the opensource community, expecially since opensource doesn't incorporate drm and I seriously doubt that it will be easy to come up with a standard to incorporate drm into linux without it being hacked to shreds.. We need to contact our senate, tell them this is a big no-no, and this really cound hurt innovation!!

~slak

Watermark? Share and share alike?

[Interrobang (245315)]

Forced watermarking could be a very bad idea for all of us who produce music/movies/literature in our basements (or reasonable hand-drawn facsimiles). Where am I, a piker who puts together stuff with a PC and freeware, going to get expensive watermarking equipment?

Likewise, what would be the impact on those of us who don't live in the US, but might want to export our created media there (I have a lot of US friends and I like to share)?

What about independent record labels etc. within the US who don't particularly mind people sharing their music? I seem to remember one of the original Dead Kennedys [alternativetentacles.com] albums came on one side of a cassette tape, with an inscription in the liner notes something like "Home-recorded cassettes are killing the music industry. Go and do your part."

Even though one poster had the valid point that this bill seems to be aimed at direct copyright infringement, where the MP/RIAA and friends are concerned, the definition of "copyright infringement" seems to be "any media transaction where we don't take a cut." We (here in Canada) already have levies on blank media (yeah, the equivalent to the MP/RIAA gets paid for every CD-ROM backup I make) -- what more could they want? Our first-born children? Our souls?

Re:Watermark? Share and share alike?

[spitzak (4019)]

About time people, even here, started to realize that the RIAA and MPAA's goal is to make recording devices illegal. This will be done by introducing a new format that no home user can record. The best method would be to device a mechanical system so that it is totally impractical to manufacture disks in quantities less than the tens of thousands. More likely there would be an unbreakable 1-way hash (probably computer-generated and embedded in a tamper-proof chip in the RIAA's basement so nobody knows the key) that you have to pass your data through in order for it to be playable, and just the manufacture of unlicensed recording devices would be illegal. All players would only decode this hash, players that played data that had not been passed through the hash would be illegal.

Of course this will do nothing to stop "piracy" (or at least the real piracy that is for money) since those people will easily be able to steal or manufacture a recording device and produce 10,000 disks. The hash also does not stop them because they are only interested in duplicating disks that have the already-hashed data.

What it will do is make it impossible for anybody to produce any kind of entertainment without buying a license from the MPAA/RIAA and submitting their data to be encoded. Thus all competition is eliminated.

By the time everybody realizes this they will be able to say "well, that's too bad, but it's just the price we have to pay to stop those horrible pirates".

Copies Are Legal In Canada

[Myriad (89793)]

We (here in Canada) already have levies on blank media (yeah, the equivalent to the MP/RIAA gets paid for every CD-ROM backup I make) -- what more could they want? Our first-born children? Our souls?

While I agree that the levy is ridiculous - virtually all of us buy blank CD's for data, etc. - there is a point to remember:

In Canada it is legal to make copies of CD's you own (of course). But it's also legal to make copies of someone else's CD's - provided you make the copy. Ie, I can borrow a friend's CD and burn a copy for my own use. I cannot burn a CD and give it to a friend - that would be distributing a copied disc.

So long as the disc is for personal use (no public presentations, radio, etc) you are legally free to make a copy of whatever you want. Just be the one who pushes that Burn button.

You forget something

[JaredOfEuropa (526365)]

In order for these watermarks to have any effect, they need to convince or force hardmare manufacturers to make their hardware play only watermarked, approved media. They know this, and they are already actively trying to get the hardware manufacturers to do this. Without the requirement of a watermark to be present, i could simply strip the existing watermark out and play/redistribute as usual. I'm not creating a fake watermark and thus I am not breaking this law.

The result would be that older unwatermarked media you legally own, music produced by garage bands, and other legal but unwatermarked materials, will not play on a newer player that has DRM. This law makes it a felony to place fake or forged watermarks on such media, even if your sole intent is to allow the media to be played on newer DRM-enabled players.

This bill is a step towards forced DRM, and as such we should oppose it. The next step will be to require new hardware to support DRM.

Sneaky Sneaky

[Zephy (539060)]

Why Do they feel it's necessary to sneak in legislation? Surely you're bypassing due debate and democracy? Eventually you're going to get a government almost wholly controlled by these huge corporations with big pockets who just want to protect their own interests.

Re:Sneaky Sneaky

[slakdrgn (531347)]

Why Do they feel it's necessary to sneak in legislation? Surely you're bypassing due debate and democracy? Eventually you're going to get a government almost wholly controlled by these huge corporations with big pockets who just want to protect their own interests.

You mean its not??

~slak

Seinfeld

[bcrowell (177657)]

Biden said, "Every episode of "Seinfeld" is now available to download free to anyone with access to the Internet."
...and to anyone with a TV antenna.

Obligatory Phone Number:

[staggerlee (124551)]

the switchboard at the Capitol is [phone], and they should be able to route you to any MoC from there, House or Senate.

Alternate title:

[indole (177514)]

Forcing Digital Rights Management Up Your Backdoor

Re:Alternate title:

[Richard_at_work (517087)]

I guess they`re finally plugging the analogue hole...........

It's not what you think.

[kmellis (442405)]

From the ZDNet article:

"Merely creating a fake watermark or digital signature would not be illegal, but 'trafficking' in it or redistributing the file would. In addition to criminal penalties, the bill permits a company whose watermark or digital signature was used to sue for damages 'of not less than $2,500 or not more than $25,000, as the court considers appropriate.'"

That's not circumventing DRM for things you already have fair use on. It's circumventing DRM and then distrubuting pirated material. That's pretty straightforward and even if it perhaps is draconian, it's still only punishing something that's already illegal and that you shouldn't be doing.

Re:It's not what you think.

[evilempireinc (592230)]

But what about the methods? Would they restrict you from distributing a program that could add watermarks to your own music collection? This could be construed as 'trafficking' in which case there is a problem here.

Re:It's not what you think.

[Just Another Perl Ha (7483)]

It's not just distribution but intent to distribute. For all we know, if you have a copy of a movie (of which you have legal purchased) sitting on your hard drive... the MPAA is convinced that you intend to distribute it.

Those bastards!

Tom Cruise steps in and says

[Our Man In Redmond (63094)]

"Our Man In Redmond, you are under arrest for the future piracy of a copy of 'Dude, Where's My Car.'"

Re:It's not what you think.

[Jason Levine (196982)]

The article gives the example of a garage band wanting to distribute their music via MP3 and having to fake a watermark to make it playable on certain MP3 players.

Suppose the RIAA actually got their act together with SDMI and forced hardware manufacturers to only allow SDMI-licensed material on their MP3 players (probably via more legislation knowing how the RIAA works). Now Garage Band #5 wants to distribute their songs, but they know they won't be able to be played if they aren't SDMI-licensed. Of course, doing this would cost a lot of $$$ (more than they can afford) but would be included in any standard record industry contract. So GB#5 now has three options:

1. Sign up with a major record label. Upside: Their MP3s can be played. Downside: They are now basically slaves to the RIAA.

2. "Fake" the licensing and distribute the MP3s on their own. Upside: Their MP3s can be played and they don't owe the RIAA money/songs. Downside: They can be arrested for illegally distributing their own music!

3. Forget about making music, split up the band, and do something else. Upside: They don't owe the RIAA anything and they stay out of jail. Downside: Another independent band squished by the RIAA.

If this passes, eventually it might be used by the RIAA (and other similar companies) to squash competition and independents.

Re:It's not what you think.

[NoMoreNicksLeft (516230)]

Basically, if it does this, it should also require that "official" watermarks be available free-of-charge for any content-creator who asks for one.

That would be nice, even acceptable to me. The RIAA/MPAA would never stand for it though, when people downloaded official free-of-charge watermarks, and applied them to Seinfeld episodes.

You see, for it to work, things have to be restricted.

Re:It's not what you think.

[spitzak (4019)]

"Official watermarks" would not work, since it would be equivalent to removing the watermark to let it play (because you could easily add the official one afterwards). It should be obvious from this bill that they intend future players to not play data without a watermark.

As I have said several times here, it is their intention to make garage bands and all other forms of independent entertainment illegal. They are using "piracy" as an excuse, they know better than any SlashDot poster that "piracy" is costing them nothing, but it works to get their goals passed through congress.

Re:It's not what you think.

[gilroy (155262)]

Blockquoth the poster:

If the copy is not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright, as in, you own the copyright, then the watermark is genuine, and you havne't broken the law.

Assuming, of course, that you can even generate a watermark. But maybe the only legal watermarks will have to come from "approved" sources, and that the price to get one may be high. (We'll leave aside the issue of whether I should have to do anything special to display those digital pictures I snapped or to play that song I wrote and recorded...)

Note that we wouldn't need a new law to restrict the vendors of watermarks down to one or a handful of companies. If the DRM hardware or software requires a particular format, and if that format is protected by Big Company's copyright or -- more likely -- patent, then BigCo has a de facto monopoly on that media type. If hacking, faking, or reverse-engineering watermarks is made massively illegal, then that monopoly is cemented in place. And no law had to be passed specifically naming BigCo as the gateway through which creativity must pass.

Re:It's not what you think.

[smnolde (209197)]

Requiring the watermark sounds more like the Stamp Act of 1765 which "[u]nder the Stamp Act, all printed materials are taxed, including; newspapers, pamphlets, bills, legal documents, licenses, almanacs, dice and playing cards." Sounds familiar, eh? Each of the items above were required to carry a seal....

All this stuff sounds more and more like a repeat of the American Revolution when a letter to Kinge George III was written in protest to the Stamp Act and others in which the Acts violated the colonists' civil rights.

Again, this all sounds like somebody wants control and have the little people pay the price. I'm not for it. I don't go to movies and I don't buy CDs. Any form of entertainment which relegates me to a simple consumer will not and has not receive any of my money.

BTW - the steps leading to the American Revolution can be found here [historyplace.com].

The usual gang of idiots...

[gilroy (155262)]

Good to see our regular Rogues Gallery of senators. Blockquoth the ZDnet article:

Its sponsors include key Democrats and Republicans, including Senate Commerce chairman

Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the top GOPer on the Judiciary committee.

Consumer Support?

[Tall Rob Mc (579885)]

While it's unclear what Biden hopes to accomplish with his new bill, it is clear that it's forward-looking: Consumers soon will be offered more and more hardware devices that rely on electronic watermarks, digital signatures, or other cryptographic means to thwart piracy and improve security.

Just because consumers will be offered more and more copy-protection enabled hardware, this does not mean that consumers will buy more and more copy-protection enabled hardware. Why am I going to buy a new MP3 player that will only allow me to play mp3s with watermarks when my current 20 gig iPod will be sufficient enough for me to listen to music until it mechanically fails (which could be in 40 years)?

Re:Consumer Support?

[Just Another Perl Ha (7483)]

The biggest problem here is the mere use of the term consumer. I'd getting sick and tired of Congress Inc. forgetting that we are citizens first and consumers much later on down the list.

Re:Consumer Support?

[Chris Burke (6130)]

It's not like they're going to have the new DRM player in the store with a big sign saying "New player! Restricts your rights like never before! Enjoy new levels of slavery to big media!" They'll just quietly slip it in, like they're trying to do with broken CDs. More likely they'll stick it in with whatever technological upgrade comes next. I don't remember any DVD kiosks with big signs saying "High quality pictures! Extra features! Encrypted region encoding to enforce our artificial market segmentation!", do you?

I'm not so cynical that I think that not enough people to make this fail would care if they knew exactly what was happening. The problem is education, and that's the last thing the media companies want in their consumers. So it becomes our problem, and what I do worry about is that there isn't enough of us around to say "hey, don't buy that, it's a restrictive piece of crap".

Re:This will even out....

[Chris Burke (6130)]

I really, really you're right.

I guess the difference is going to be how much they are able to make it like the VHS -> DVD transition, instead of the working CD -> broken CD transition. Most people don't realize they're missing anything with DVDs. If they can somehow get mom to not -expect- it to play her old mp3's, but still want it anyway, then they can still win.

American Lunacy

[h4mmer5tein (589994)]

I'm from the UK, so we have a little distance and perspective on things from overhere. Unfortuantely no amount of distance or perspective can put a shine on this....
My biggest worry is that our own government is going to decide that this is a "good thing" and start drafting its own versions of these laws. I'd like to think that big business doesnt have quit the same grip on politics here as it does in the US, but I'm afraid I may be just kidding myself.
Do any other UK /.'ers know anything about the legal issues in the UK, or even Europe. How are the Entertainment Industry behemoths behaving over here? Are they using the US as a proving ground or to set a precedent?

Re:American Lunacy

[Loki_1929 (550940)]

"I'm from the UK, so we have a little distance and perspective on things from overhere."

Don't be so sure, as your government is doing allot of the same stuff. [theregister.co.uk] Unfortunately, we're all in the same boat as our rights and privilages are being stipped away by the handfull either by people [usdoj.gov] trying to bring about a 1984-style [amazon.com] society, or by politicians whose pockets are lined with cash [opensecrets.org] by the same people they're supposed to be protecting us from.

How long until TV shows ARE purely ads?

[Nomad7674 (453223)]

With all of these fears about our being able to view a show without the ads that pay for it, I have to wonder how long it will be until some advertiser simply completely funds a show with omnipresent product placement. Under this kind of structure, the advertiser needs not worry about the show being displayed anywhere without the money-generating ads, because they are imbedded into the show.

For example: FRIENDS brought to you by Coca-Cola

1. Openning shot of the whole cast chatting in a new Soda Bar, having rejected Central Perk
2. Joey is no longer a Soap Star, but now a spokesman for Coca-Cola and part of the plot each week are the shenanigans surrounding the commercial shoot he is involved with
3. Racheal is managing a new line of fashion clothes with the Coco-Cola logo on them
4. Monica runs a restaurant which makes a point each week or pointing out that they only sell genuine Coca-Cola products
5. Ross is involved with an archeological dig, having left paleontology behind, which proves the ancient Incas lived to over 100 years old because of the home-made cola they brewed and drank every day
6. Chandler makes witty, sarcastic references about other soft-drink companies, without every actually mentioning their names.

Tell me now, is this idea funny or terrifyingly close to reality?

Biden irony, it takes one to know one

[splorf (569185)]

Biden is the guy whose presidential campaign in 80's crashed and burned because he was caught plagiarizing a speech originally given by some politician from the UK. Now he's trying to crack down on unauthorized copying of music and software.

Will there be a "campaign speech" exception in his Senate bill? The irony amazes me. What a twerp.

Interesting link...

[zerosignal (222614)]

http://www.nutsandboltsguide.com/plagiarism.html [nutsandboltsguide.com]

"The last straw, however, came when it turned out that twenty years earlier Biden had received a failing grade in a law school course for plagiarizing a legal article (he'd given a single footnote while lifting five full pages from the article). Biden said he'd been unaware of the appropriate standards for legal briefs, but the public was unimpressed. His campaign collapsed and he withdrew from the race."

You know what to do folks...

[Dutchmaan (442553)]

WRITE... YOUR... CONGRESSMAN!!!

http://www.berkshire.net/~ifas/activist/index1.h tm l

DRM advocates: the same silly analogies again

[JaredOfEuropa (526365)]

In the article, litigator Megan Gray compares forging watermarks to forging logos on T-shirts:

Gray believes that forging a digital watermark or signature should be just as unlawful as forging a physical watermark or signature. "It's like taking a T-shirt that you've put a design on and then attaching a Disney hologram or the NBA championship hologram, distributing it, and giving people the impression that it's an authorized apparel item from the NBA or Disney," Gray says. "That's a deceptive practice that we have a long history of banning."

They are putting a nice spin on the reasons people would try and circumvent DRM: note how they again portray such people as thieves, and they suggest that the reason they want DRM is to prevent theft. They have other motivations as well, of course.

Why would I circumvent DRM? To steal? Maybe not, and let's take the T-shirt analogy further... suppose I buy some Disney T-shirt in the US, but Disney does not want me to wear the T-shirt in Europe. (Perhaps they've recruited the fashion police to check, or the God of Corporations will smite me with lightning if I do wear the T-shirt). Yet, I want to wear it so I fake a European Disney label and sew it in the T-shirt in place of the US one.

Clearly a crime worthy of a stiff penalty and a jail term

Re:DRM advocates: the same silly analogies again

[Dr. Awktagon (233360)]

Why would I circumvent DRM? To steal? Maybe not, and let's take the T-shirt analogy further..

Yes, let's...

The new DRM T-Shirt has a small hologram on the corner. If this hologram is not present, the T-Shirt heats to a temperature of 160 degrees and the user is forced to take it off or suffer 2nd/3rd degree burns.

Obviously, this is a great way to keep the conterfeits off the street and out of the closets. So the TIAA (T-shirt Industry Ass. of America) pays for a few congressmen's whores, and we have a new law passed that ALL T-Shirts must be made of DRM cloth (the company that holds the HeatShield(tm) patent is incidentally quite pleased).

No one complains, except for a bunch of geeks that probably steal everything anyway (I hear some of them downloaded their operating systems without paying anybody a dime, what thieves!). A few small T-shirt makers also complain about the extra burden to their business and go out of business. Congress talks about how great this law is for "free" markets. Richard Stallman writes an essay from his undisclosed location (by this time, free software has long been outlawed).

The day after the law is passed, a 7-year old girl playing with her mom's sewing kit discovers that any HeatShield T-shirt can be turned off (that's "circumvented" to you lawyers out there) by sewing a piece of silk to the spot the hologram goes on.

She tells her parents, who say "that's nice dear, did you drink all your Coke(tm)?". Then she posts the story on her weblog and IM's her friends.

Somehow the story makes it to /. and the word gets out. Geeks everywhere laugh and the lawsuits start flying. Sweatshirts (T-shirts require the special cloth, remember) are printed with the words "sew a piece of silk here" and an arrow pointing to the hologram location.

T-Shirt counterfeiters in China who discovered the trick long ago chuckle to themselves: "actually you can do it with the right piece of tape, cheaper than silk".

At 5:56 AM exactly two days after the story hits the FBI breaks down the girl's front door. Luckily, the FBI had a full log of the girl's IM conversations (she had mentioned that she thought something was "the bomb", which triggered the 7-day automatic logging period). And luckily again, due to recent anti-terrorism legislation, the FBI didn't need to waste time with a judge.

The parents are charged with several counts of "hacking" (max. 20 years), several counts of "failing to prevent textile theft" (max. life), and several counts of "electronic fraud" (max. 10 years). The girl is placed in a juvenile prison. Her computer is seized. Slashdot and other websites are forced to sensor the posts and take down the articles.

The T-shirt lobbies for tougher legislation, siting this example. Pockets are lined, the law passes.........

Redundant Law

[Washizu (220337)]

If it is illegal to circumvent DRM technologies, then what are the DRM techs there for in the first place? To prevent accidental copyright infringement?

just delaying the inevitable

[g4dget (579145)]

This whole approach to DRM and software will collapse under its own weight. Nothing will talk to anything else, consumers will be frustrated, and there will be endless lawsuits about monopolies (don't believe for a moment that IBM or Sony are going to hand this to Microsoft for free).

Think about it this way: each consumer has some amount they are willing to pay for entertainment per month--the pie doesn't get any larger. Companies that have lower costs, lower prices, and satisfy consumers more will get that entertainment dollar. Do you really think complex DRM schemes are going to lead to usable and inexpensive devices and content?

What's going to win out in the long run is either no DRM at all or devices that anybody can author to; there won't be any need to imitate Microsoft's or anybody else's signatures. That, or people will just go back to small, live performances. In any case, the big media companies pushing for this are going to lose out. They had a golden era with vinyl and CDs, where they could mass-produce cheaply but consumers couldn't replicate, and there was no alternative or competition. That's over now.

Nevertheless, while it just delays the inevitable, it is disappointing that politicians don't get this. And it is particularly disappointing that some politicians are so much in the pocket of vested interests that they try to push through such legislation without much debate.

I have a little more faith now...

[h4mmer5tein (589994)]

....thanks to Sony [newscientist.com].
And thanks to kuiken [mailto] for the leads...

Suffering for another ones lacking business model

[Neuronerd (594981)]

Isnt that whats all about? Migrate to europe ... our politicians are at least slower :-)

Could the bill be doomed???

[Pig Hogger (10379)]

But Microsoft indicated on Friday that it had problems with Biden's revisions. Those issues, from our perspective, highlight the reason why we support the legislation as it was originally written, said spokesman Jon Murchinson.
(Microsoft doesn't support the new, improved version of the bill which used only to cover physical counterfeiting)

If Big Bill has problems with this bill, maybe there is some hope left????

Problem of education ...

[too_bad (595984)]

This again has the same reasons as many other outrageous
copy-right laws that are being danced around. People simply
dont understand the technological details, and blind anologies
are made for the common public.

Take for instance:
> Gray believes that forging a digital watermark or signature
> should be just as unlawful as forging a physical watermark
> or signature. "It's like taking a T-shirt that you've put a
> design on and then attaching a Disney hologram or the NBA
> championship hologram, distributing it, and giving people
> the impression that it's an authorized apparel item from the
> NBA or Disney," Gray says. "That's a deceptive practice that
> we have a long history of banning."

But this is such a misleading statement. Consider the case where
you buy an expensive MP3 player from microsoft which plays only
digitally water-marked mp3 files. On the offset it may look like
this law is prohibiting me from playing a pirated song. But look
deeply. What its prohibiting is me playing _any_ songs which are
not water-marked by the some governing body. Which means that if
I make my own music (however cacofonic it might be) I will not
be able to play it unless I get it certified from this governing
body.

In light of this, it becomes clear that not only they are stopping
piracy,with this law, they are also giving themself absolute control
over what content can be played by people (even privately) and what
should not. How easy would it be for me to certify my own "music"
(or noise) by these governing bodies? Obviously I have to stand in
line along with the other members of RIAA and pay the prices that they
set. This is extremely dangerous situation, since the misleading phrasing
of the bill makes it impossible for ordinary senetors to understand the
ramifications and hence we could expect a wide spread floor-banging approval.
The very fact that this bill is set for fast track, scares me more
becasuse they precisely didnt want the time for people to let the real
meaning sink in.

Who's writing the DRM software?

[freerangegeek (451133)]

One thought that just came to mind is that someone, somewhere is implimenting this software to create and propagate things like digital watermarks. Maybe it's time we as programmers to an equivalent to the 'hippocratic oath?' Swearing to do no harm by agreeing not to create the kind of nightmare software protections we see coming to be?

First do no DRM!

The rights of the many (us) vs the greedy.

[crovira (10242)]

Given the shakeout occuring in the media abetted by the rapid disappearance of the advertising revenue stream, the content producers are entering an very difficult time.

Seems nobody can get anybody to pony up some cash just to have some bimbo wave her ass with their logo on it.

Radio and television started this by having "free" broadcast funded by people flogging their wares. Ask PBS how they survive and get a real picture of broadcast costs.

The internet and the web compounded this in an orgy of freebies and swag funded by IPOs, investors greed and lack of common sense (Warren Buffett never invested in the bubble because he never saw how these people were going to make any money once the IPO money ran out. He was RIGHT!)

End result, nobody wants to pay for squat.

But producing content (as unsatisfying as the pabulum that's regurgitated by ad-funded media might be,) costs. And nobody wants to pay for squat.

Given the balooning real and accounting practice BS costs of the blockbuster mentality you get studios that wither on the vine after one less than stellar season. The RIAA and MPAA members are victims of the same pressure and resultant paranoia. They have to play it safe while following a trend which is set by the players who aren't playing it as safe. (It keeps the shares of Pepto-Bismol and Tums in the stratosphere.)

Want to know why DRM is such a pain-in-the-ass but the AAs'll sell the economy down the sewer to get it?

Because nobody makes B movies anymore. They go straight to video and don't generate any buzz that would attract viewers and maybe get them to buy the product.) Nobody know how to generate buzz anymore. Ads don't cut it with Tivo or even the remote having perceptible results on the ad ROI.

Wanna know why the publishing industry is turning into a contentless wasteland?

Same friggin reason.

Misapplied greed. (This is above and beyond the USPO "patent buying for corporate black-mail by the unscrupulous [lawyers and other parasites.]")

The Web has the potential to make a meaningful buzz but search engines don't friggin cut it. The web will have to be ORGANIZED, INDEXED and cross-referenced the same way that libraries have been since the Great Library of Alexandria.

The days of "Cowboy Content Creation" are over. Creatrion of web content will have to be via XML with precise industry standard DTDs.

Otherwise you just get lost in the noise.

Re:The rights of the many (us) vs the greedy.

[Silverhammer (13644)]

The Web has the potential to make a meaningful buzz but search engines don't friggin cut it. The web will have to be ORGANIZED, INDEXED and cross-referenced the same way that libraries have been since the Great Library of Alexandria. The days of "Cowboy Content Creation" are over. Creatrion of web content will have to be via XML with precise industry standard DTDs. Otherwise you just get lost in the noise.

That all depends on what you're trying to generate buzz for. If you're one of those same Big Media corporations trying harness the Internet to generate artificial buzz, then you're right.

However, if you're an independent creator who just throws his stuff out there for everyone to enjoy, with no obsessions about profit margins or ROI, then you're wrong. The buzz will happen all on it's own.

A perfect example is Sluggy Freelance [sluggy.com]. It does almost no appreciable advertising -- and certainly less than MegaTokyo [megatokyo.com] or Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] -- yet it is arguably one of the most popular and longest running comics on the Web.

How did it happen? Strictly word of mouth.

I think the corporate-driven hyperconsumerism of the last few decades has perverted our fundamental notions of just how the free market is supposed to work. The Internet is simply restoring the universality and equality that we used to enjoy in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, when anyone could buy an old printing press and call themselves a newspaper.

However, the trade-off is that we're now facing some devastating economic contraction. The dot.com bust, the slump in the media and advertising industries, the current financial scandals... they're all just symptoms of a larger problem: as the artificiality of hyperconsumerism is increasingly exposed and rejected, many modern corporations are discovering that they have no real reason to exist. They don't fulfill any real human needs. Their only products are novelty and convenience. Without a captive and ignorant audience, they're doomed.

Attention Delaware Voters

[RailGunner (554645)]

Joe Biden is up for re-election this November. Send him a message by voting for his Republican opponent. Throw his ass out of office. He's a career politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's been there 3 decades. DO THE RIGHT THING! FIRE HIM!

C'mon - someone in Delaware register DefeatJoeBiden.org or something and DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS JACKASS... And - idiotic DRM bills shouldn't be the only reason to toss him out of office... see for yourself.

http://www.issues2002.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm

15 Minutes

[borgasm (547139)]

Quoting from a report in Biden's website:

...an individual can download a full-length feature movie in less than 15 minutes....

I'd really like to know where to get that kind of bandwidth, and how much it would be per month.

700MB / 15 min = 46.67MB / min = 777k/sec

Please God...hook me up to that pipe.

Here's what you do.

[DaveWood (101146)]

I just did it; it's pretty easy. You can do it before lunch in about 5 minutes.

You go to this web page:

http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

Search through the page using the "find" function in your browser for your state abbreviation and find your two senators.

If you have trouble getting their names, they're also listed by state on this page, but without phone numbers:

http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state. cf m

You call each of them. Calling senators and even house members is generally very easy; they usually know not to make potential voters wait on hold, they're very polite, and they are supposed to take notes and tally the opinions of callers throughout the day. This isn't as important to a senator as money, but if, say, 20,000 people (a tiny fraction of the /. readership) attempted to call about an issue on a single day, they would take serious notice.

Keep it polite, friendly, and under 5 minutes. If you can make your point in under 60 seconds, bonus points. Remember, you're just talking to an intern manning the phone, not a participant in a conspiracy. They might even be curious about what you have to say.

"Hello, I'm a voter from the Senator's home state of XX. I'd like to express my opinion on some pending legislation." And then they say go ahead, and you say, "I believe that the extravagant protections we are considering affording copyright holders are bad for our society and bad for our economy. I strong support the repeal of the DMCA, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and today, I'm calling to inform you of my intention not to vote for anyone who supports S.2395, the Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002. Existing protections for copyright holders already go too far, and this bill would make it worse. Unnecessarily restricting fair use, free speech and free expression to protect the interests of media companies is morally wrong, and will make it harder to protect intellectual property in the long run."

You could get into a habit of doing this. Calling your representatives about an issue should be a normal part of your routine, like paying your bills or cleaning your house. The more people do it, the better things get for everyone.

Re:Here's what you do.

[seaan (184422)]

Yes, contacting them by phone is easy, but I do have one suggestion. Instead of giving them a 5 minute speech on the phone, simply tell them that you are opposed to it. Than offer to let them know the reasons, and ask them the best way to do that.

During both of my phone calls they asked me to fax my reasons instead. It makes sense, because your carefully selected words have a better chance to get through that way. The person you contact on the phone is going to make notes, but don't count on an exact rendition of your elegant arguments. Most likely the senator will get some kind of mass summary of all calls, but important points you may have made will be lost. If you really want arguments heard (as opposed to your simple opposition), you have a much better chance with fax or email.

Here's my letter (1st draft)

[Irvu (248207)]

Dear Senator X,
[it's going to both a version will go my Rep as well]
I am writing to you today in regards to Senator Howard Berman's proposed Digital Rights Restriction provisions. These provisions have been included as amendments to bill number S2395. As a Software Developer and a citizen I oppose these provisions wholeheartedly as they will only serve to stifle competition and restrict legitimate research not prevent any unauthorized copying of copyrighted software, music or movies.

The stated goal of these provisions is to prevent the unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials. To that end, they make it a felony to produce a fake watermark or "digital signature" in order to fool watermarking technologies. They impose stiff criminal and civil sentences on the act and make distribution or intention to distribute these watermarks an offence in their own right. While this may seem reasonable on the surface I assure you that it is not.

Digital Rights Management is becoming a ubiquitous technology. It is already at work in DVD players, many music players such as handheld mp3 players. Microsoft and Intel have announced that it will be embedded at the lowest (Processor) level of their new systems, and the FCC is seriously considering mandating it in the Digital Television and Digital Radio standards. One pair of senators (Fritz Hollings and Ted Stevens) are seeking to make it mandatory in all new technology via the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act.

Because this technology will lie at the core of Microsoft's new operating system it will be necessary to obtain a watermark key in order to run any software on future versions of Windows. As a software developer I would be forced to obtain Microsoft's permission to develop and run software on my, or anyone else's machine. In short, I would need Microsoft's permission to do my job. I cannot imagine any legal tool more anticompetitive than that.

The same is true for Intel and AMD's proposed secure chips. These chips would embed watermarking at the processor level making it necessary to obtain a signature in order to develop any hardware or software for the AMD or Intel platforms. This would stifle the hardware vendor competition that has made computer hardware a 300 billion dollar a year industry, brought the prices of computers down, and fueled the recent economic boom.

Let me be clear that I do not oppose the principle of watermarking in any way. As a security technology it is useful and I feel that Intel and Microsoft should have the right to include it in their systems if they wish. However I feel that such technology should be open to examination and the general public should have a choice about which technologies they do and do not adopt.

It was Microsoft's ability to examine the CP/M operating system that allowed them to produce the first version of DOS, and Intel's ability to examine IBM's PC designs that allowed them to enter the PC market that they dominate today. Such open competition is beneficial to the economy.

This is also the case for movies, music and electronic books. By prohibiting other users from producing watermarks you are allowing groups such as the MPAA, RIAA, and others to control the DVD, and Digital Television distribution channels. In, effect, granting them monopoly control over who can and cannot produce movies and music in this country. Again this competition would stifle, not only innovation but the economic gains to be had from the 30 billion dollar a year music and movie industries.

Lastly, these provisions will also stifle useful research. Digital watermarking technologies and Digital signatures underlie many security systems in use today ranging from defense to private industry. Research on these systems involves attempts to break into them in order to test their strength. Scientific Peer-review of this research depends upon the ability of these researchers to share their findings and to test each other's results. This work allows those individuals to produce better, more secure systems to the benefit of our National Security and Economic infrastructures. These provisions would make that work illegal. This would seriously impair both our Economic and National Security.

These provisions are unnecessary because, as senators Berman, Hollings, and Stevens well knows making unauthorized copies of "Sinefield" or any other copyrighted work is illegal. These acts are already punishable by law. We also have a justice department capable of carrying out such investigations and prosecutions. Indeed, these provisions will not make the act of piracy any "more" illegal. They will only stifle economic competitions and industrial research.

In the end, even if these provisions are passed they will not prevent piracy. They will only permit a small subset of the business community to unfairly control the economic and cultural landscape of this country. This group will be in a position to decide who can develop software, who can distribute music, who can distribute movies, and who can conduct security research. In such an environment of inflated prices, the incentive to piracy will be far greater, and the likelihood of any real security weaknesses being identified will be far less.

Thank you for your time.
Irvu.

What he really meant

[Salsaman (141471)]

You have to learn to read between the lines. Undoubtedly what he really meant was:

"Every episode of "Seinfeld" is now available to download free (from commercials) to anyone with access to the Internet."

Re:Even their Poster-Boy is against these revision

[danheskett (178529)]

I wonder if this is because 1) Microsoft is actually concerned about individual rights; 2) they see the 'pirating' of content as an important application/revenue stream for their software and hardware platforms; or 3) they're holding out for something even more heavy-handed?

No, its just plain old profit motive.

MS sells software to people who use computers. The more you use your computer, and to the greater extent you utilize it, the more MS software you are likely to purchase, and the more time at MS sites you are likely to spend.

MS knows that its sales are driven by digital media and digital music/video. People buy the new machines/new software from them and hardware vendors to make CD-Rs, to watch videos, to do digital photography, etc.

That's the whole point. If people must follow the exact strict rules set forth by nazi-esque content publishers, the value of a PC will diminish greatly, along with MS's sales.

This is about MS protecting its sales. MS has never been for legally mandatory DRM schemes. They know that it will reduce the utility of PC and the integrated software, and therefore cause their sales to fall seriously.

Fax Your Congressman for Free

[Alien54 (180860)]

Congressmen and Senators really pay attention to faxes and phone vs email

Numbers USA [numbersusa.com] has a free service for faxing them. Yep you got to register, but this makes sense so that you don't have spam bots abusing the service.