Sneaking DRM Amendments Through the Back Door 597
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Exerpt (Score:2)
Merely creating a fake watermark or digital signature would not be illegal, but "trafficking" in it or redistributing the file would.
AFAICT, the bill wouldn't make it illegal to defeat DRM for your own personal use. It also wouldn't mandate special DRM hardware in your computer.
You forget something (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Of course it doesn't say that! (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the point of watermarks in fighting piracy? You cannot use watermarks to track pirates unless you put individual watermarks on each media, and in that case the pirates will vertainly strip the watermark off. The only possible use I see is that the RIAA/MPAA can set up automatic sniffer bots, looking for files with their watermarks on Kazaa and other file sharing systems. They certainly don't need it to legally establish a certain work as their property, simply looking at or or listening to that will do the trick.
So... once all sanctioned media are properly watermarked, it will be a small step to DRM in our hardware. Illegal copies won't play. Oh, your DVD player will still play the holiday movies you made i.e. your own material, but what about taping shows from TV? You may one day find your VCR or DVD player refusing to record some TV shows or movies. You may find that your own recordings receive a "local" watermark that your equipment recognised, but your computer will not accept, and neither will the neighbors player.
That is what DRM potentially means. Farfetched? Far beyond the scope if this bill? Perhaps, but a complacent attitude by us the voters and comsumers will mean that the rights and possibilities we enjoy today, are eroded away a bill at a time. You can bet there'd be an outcry if DRM was to be implemented overnight, and the proponents of DRM know that full well. They will attempt to bring their ideas of DRM about, step by step, in vaguely or broadly worded bills, packaged together with a bunch of other laws perhaps.
My final piece of advice for when you make a judgement about any proposed bill or law: never assume that the lawmakers have our best intentions at heart. Always assume new laws, rules, and bills will be used to the furthest possible extend they will stretch, not just to the extend most people would deem reasonable. Demand narrowly defined laws.
Re:Exerpt (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't we already have the DMCA to take care of that?
Watermark? Share and share alike? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Keys, equipment, SSDP... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sneaky Sneaky (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sneaky Sneaky (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean its not??
~slak
Re:Sneaky Sneaky (Score:2)
"Eventually"? Oh, you must be an optimist. Because it seems to me that our collective tit is already in the wringer, and the crank just keeps getting turned.
~Philly
Re:Sneaky Sneaky (Score:2)
That's easy. Because its the only easy way to actually get stuff passed. By re-election time, if all you can do is say about how you sat in Congress and talked grand, but never got anything passed, moneyed interests and voters will support someone who is more willing to get stuff done, even if it means getting their hands dirty.
Remember, most interests really don't care for Democracy. They'd much rather just get their own way, at any means required. Democracy was put in place to hamper those efforts, and because of that, democracy tends to piss a lot of people off.
Re:Sneaky Sneaky (Score:2, Interesting)
Hello, welcome to Earth. The entertainment industry has had a stranglehold on the market since its inception. Now the RIAA and MPAA are flexing their muscle in markets they don't primarily belong to, as in the IT industry. They are lobbying congress to pass laws to prop up their dying monopolies. This act in itself is an afront to democracy and the principles our country was founded on. I say we brand them as terrorists! After all, we all know the headlines and subsequent support that'd pull for us.
Too Late (Score:2)
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
Eventually? From where I sit, it seems like that's already happened. The
US needs to do something about who and how much can be contributed to
campaigns.
Whatever happened to campaign finance reform?
Re:Sneaky Sneaky (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a serious, serious problem. Microsoft is trying to make all non-Microsoft software illegal! We need a plan of action, and not just a phonecalling campaign to legislators, although that is important. We should face facts: eventually Microsoft will purchase legislation that will put it in the position of being the only legal provider of software and certifier of hardware in the US. The "Free System" PC-compatible hardware platform we've all grown accustomed to, capable of running virtually any software from our choice of supplier, is going to be contraband and illegal to own, make, or sell. You can and should make your views known to your congressmen, but Microsoft speaks their language ($$$$$$) better than we ever can. (Microsoft has a lot of fricking influence with Washington if they can get the U.S. Ambassador to Peru to make a sales call on the Peruvian government, as he recently did!)
What's making this happen is a truly evil confluence of interests. The hardware industry is hurting because Free Systems have gotten so good there's rarely a need to replace them. Microsoft sees its tyrannical grip on the software industry begining to loosen a bit, under pressure from a variety of sources including Open Software. Free Systems, particularly in combination with Open Software, give users/consumers much more power than Big Business (the *AAs) are used to handling. And of course we have our greedy, corrupt legislators willing to take their money in exchange for passing whatever legislation they want. They result: all existing hardware will become contraband, and will have to be replaced with new, Microsoft-certified hardware, that will run only Microsoft-certified software (of which as much as possible will be sold by Microsoft), and which will include mandatory DRM. Don't like it? Prefer that nice 1.5 GHz Athlon box with Linux or FreeBSD installed? OK, you're now a criminal. I call that despotism. There's no better word for it. Some provisions need to be made so Free Systems and Open Software will survive, even if they have to go underground.
When, in the course of Human Events...
Seinfeld (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Phone Number: (Score:5, Informative)
sheesh (Score:2, Redundant)
what, does FOX not exist on his planet?
Re:sheesh (Score:2, Funny)
What I find scary, is people are actually DOWNLOADING episodes of Seinfeld ;)
What he really meant (Score:5, Insightful)
"Every episode of "Seinfeld" is now available to download free (from commercials) to anyone with access to the Internet."
Alternate title: (Score:5, Funny)
Forcing Digital Rights Management Up Your Backdoor
Re:Alternate title: (Score:3, Funny)
It's not what you think. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:5, Insightful)
Those bastards!
Tom Cruise steps in and says (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:2)
Ultimately, though, there's still the problem of stuff you already have a fair use for. As I pointed out in my post, the law doesn't apply for merely forging the watermark -- it applies only when you distribute something. But, if so, then what's going to happen is that (in terms of file sharing of mp3s) it's only increased the penalties for an already-illegal activity in a roundabout way. A big question is: why?
Personally, I think that none of these people have a clue about technology and so don't understand at all the implications of various laws and proposed laws. I do, however, think that the entertainment industry lobby knows what they're doing, and they are doing everything they can to eliminate fair-use and anything else -- even if very consumer-unfriendly -- to try to protect their profits. Eventually, I think, it's going to come back and haunt them. Right now, it's pretty much only we techno-geeks and early-adopters that are using the kinds of technology that are impacted in a very consumer-unfriendly manners by the things that these companies are pushing. But, as this moves into everyone's living rooms and cars and offices and wherever, people are going to discover that their hands are tied in ways that they will find absolutely unacceptable. Imagine: "I'm sorry, you can't record that episode of 'Seinfeld'". This is the analogy, and people will get really pissed-off. So, in a sense, although I'm quite annoyed, I have a strong sense that all this stuff will be rolled-back in a few years and the companies that are behind it will be punished by the consumer. It will be satisfying when it happens.
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:3, Interesting)
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. (Score:2, Troll)
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.
And I see no reason to believe that that example is correct. The purpose of a watermark is to "verify that a phonorecord, a copy of a computer program, a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or documentation or packaging is not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright." 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.
Just more FUD from zdnet.
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:2)
The question is: Who determines the format for the watermark and how is it licensed? If the RIAA determines it (ala a "Son of SDMI" format), expect the licensing price to be very high. High enough that independents will encounter serious financial hurdles. So the hypothetical garage band won't be breaking the law by applying the watermark to their music, but by trying to circumvent having to pay the RIAA a ton of cash just so they (the garage band) can distribute their own music. (Ok, technically they'll be breaking the law by distributing the music with the cracked watermark code.)
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:2)
Who determines the format for the watermark and how is it licensed?
Nowhere does it say that the watermark must be licensed. It only says that it must be "genuine". I would assume genuine would be interpreted as "not counterfeit or otherwise infringing of any copyright." If you own the copyright, then the watermark is genuine.
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:5, Insightful)
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].
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:2)
I think it should be illegal to forge a digital watermark.. but only if digital watermark writers are available to anyone and everyone for a reasonable price (which obviously would make this legislative move a moot point in the anti-piracy game as anyone could write a digital watermark to their pirated Britney Spears MP3s) or players should not require a digital watermark to access the data.
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:2)
You should stamp it with your OWN raised seal if you want to verify its authenticity for anyone looking at it.
I see no reason not to believe that you could stamp it with your own raised seal which is compatible with the players you want to use.
I think it should be illegal to forge a digital watermark.. but only if digital watermark writers are available to anyone and everyone for a reasonable price (which obviously would make this legislative move a moot point in the anti-piracy game as anyone could write a digital watermark to their pirated Britney Spears MP3s) or players should not require a digital watermark to access the data.
I don't think the government should get into legislating private businesses in such ways. If you don't like the player, don't buy it.
I guess you make a good point though that this technology would be pretty much useless for stopping piracy. Similar to the way that CSS is useless for stopping DVD piracy.
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:2)
You have two ways to go here.
- The watermark is cheap and easy to get. Upside, the garage band can release their music. Downside, pirates can do the same.
- The watermark is expensive and hard to get. Upside, pirates can't easily watermark their warez. Downside, neither can the garage band.
Now explain to me why the RIAA should have this kind of complete control over what does and doesn't get released? (and if you don't think the RIAA will get their way with whatever actual mechanism is used to control watermarks, you haven't been paying attention).Re:It's not what you think. (Score:2)
So in the end, I guess my problem with this is more about the mentality behind it. If people are creating forgeries en mass, that's already illegal -- so what is the purpose of this law? I can't help but feel it isn't the one stated.
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:2)
However, as the bill stands (unless I am very much mistaken), if you create your own mp3 files, say, you will only have three options:
Not include a watermark (in other words, your file will probably not be playable on DRM compliant equipment), or
Pay lots of money to get your own watermark, or
Use a 'fake' watermark.
This bill seeks to eliminate the last option, thus essentially handing a monopoly on artistic production to the big players.
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:2)
Given how many people have been stung by 'copy protected' CD's, you may not know until you get the thing home. Will the store be willing to refund you because your new mp3 (or wma or whatever) player won't play your home made files ?
Also, if the CBDTPA goes through, DRM will be forced into every device anyway, so you may not even have the option of buying non-DRM equipment.
Re:It's not what you think. (Score:2)
Oh, yes, it is. If I want to produce content that can play on a device that only plays content under DRM, I have to sign it with whatever signatures that DRM device expects. And if those devices are made according to the specs of a small consortium of large manufacturers that only let their own content be played on those devices (or charges steep fees to independent producers), I can't distribute my own content to play on those devices.
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.
If it were already covered by copyright law, then they wouldn't need this legislation. No, this is a set of new rights for things that are currently probably still permissible.
And it's deliberate: a few, powerful, big companies with lots of money and lots of influence think they can monopolize the market. In fact, for CDs and DVDs, that kind of worked--for a while. This new effort won't really work in the long run either, but it could be painful in the short run. And it could be painful for the stockholders in those big companies that don't have a better business plan than to screw their customers.
The usual gang of idiots... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Also note... (Score:2)
Making a conclusion based on a 2/3 majority of a sample size of 3 is pretty stupid. By that logic, since 1 of 1 presidents involved with the Enron scandal are Republican, voting rightist is an even worse idea.
Let's look at reality, as encompassed by more than just this one article, and realize the truth: Corporate Whoring is a bi-partisan initiative.
Consumer Support? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Consumer Support? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Counterfeiting sucks. (Score:2, Insightful)
I would think that the distributers should be punished in the case of counterfeiting and not the consumers. Indeed! many times the customer does not even realize they have a non-legit copy of a product.
This happened to me when I first began buying soundtracks to anime. When counterfeiters have their products desguised to look exactly like the legit copy, it becomes tough for a consumer to know better. Why should they be punished for trying to listen to what they have?
Re:Counterfeiting sucks. (Score:2)
If you accept the argument that copyright material is licensed in this case, possession of material without the copyright holder's permission is illegal and could be considered akin to "possession of stolen property".
I know that applying property law to copyright issues is a stretch, but possession of stolen property, even innocently, is a crime. This simply brings copyright law in line with property law.
I do think, however, that due to the ease with which copies may be illicitly distributed, more of the burden should be placed on the distributer and not the consumer in such cases.
American Lunacy (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:American Lunacy (Score:2, Informative)
and Here [eurorights.org] for uk info
Re:American Lunacy (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
For example: FRIENDS brought to you by Coca-Cola
Tell me now, is this idea funny or terrifyingly close to reality?
Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads? (Score:2)
reruns breaking show-as-as model (Score:2)
Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads? (Score:2)
On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I have real hope for the revolution of the average consumer, that people simply won't watch ad-saturated shows or buy over-DRMed media.
On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, I feel real despair at the coming victory of the corporatists.
On Sunday, I don't read slashdot. :)
...scratching its corporate head wondering why... (Score:2)
Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads? (Score:2)
Re:How long until TV shows ARE purely ads? (Score:2)
Biden irony, it takes one to know one (Score:5, Informative)
Will there be a "campaign speech" exception in his Senate bill? The irony amazes me. What a twerp.
Re:Biden irony, it takes one to know one (Score:2, Interesting)
me
Interesting link... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Biden irony, stealing speech from Neil Kinnock (Score:2)
You know what to do folks... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.berkshire.net/~ifas/activist/index1.
DRM advocates: the same silly analogies again (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
I wish I could append a little smiley there, but in this climate, there's little to smile about...
Re:DRM advocates: the same silly analogies again (Score:4, Funny)
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.........
Even their Poster-Boy is against these revisions (Score:2)
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.
I can't see this going anywhere if one of the biggest potential beneficiaries is against the amended legislation (certainly pirated Microsoft software is being used as a key example by proponents).
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?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Redundant Law (Score:4, Insightful)
just delaying the inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:just delaying the inevitable (Score:2)
If anything, these guys should be under as much scrutiny as Rep Trafficant was for his own bribe taking.
I have a little more faith now... (Score:5, Funny)
And thanks to kuiken [mailto] for the leads...
rights? (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's keep in mind that this is likely a bill passed in the heat of 9/11. They Who Know Best (TM) are still battening down the hatches, and continually trying to "securitize" this country.
Perhaps we need to remind or congresscritters and our president that the lack of freedom and high security are not a good mix.
Definitely call (Score:2)
For time-critical issues, an email or phone call might be the only way to go.
Re:Definitely call (Score:2)
This comes from someone who has regular contact with Hill staff.
I do agree that mail is slow as hell these days. I don't even mail originals anymore, but pdf them and email them to the appropriate staffer.
Suffering for another ones lacking business model (Score:3, Funny)
Could the bill be doomed??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's start voting the idiots out of office (Score:2, Insightful)
I think its time for the Slashdot effect to be used as a political club. The only way to really stop this stuff or slow it down is to start voting these RIAA/MPAA puppets in Congress out of office.
Of course, nothing would a stronger response than an organized effort to vote in blocks. Basically, let them know that if they attempt to push this crap on us, we will respond at the polls.
Problem of education ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Problem of education ... (Score:3, Interesting)
That time is not here yet, and passage of this legislation gives you a potent weapon against that ever coming to pass- it impedes adoption of that kind of player, by raising the legitimate issue of penalties for playing your own content.
It goes from "Yeah, you could buy that, but it won't play CDs" to (literally) "Yeah, you could buy that, but getting it to play CDs is a felony that will get you five years in prison, and good luck getting a job as a convicted felon!"
This is an opportunity, not an obstacle, because the fact is that DRM media players are NOT widely adopted. Across the board, this serves as a polarizing mechanism. How appealing is it to upgrade to Windows XP (DRM Edition) when any 'get my mp3s to play' hacking or tweaking could legally land you in prison for five years as a felon? How 'must-have' is that upgrade when (for the first time) it demands you sit still and don't touch anything for fear of committing FEDERAL CRIMES? How appealing would a portable media player be that not only won't play your unDRMed CDs, but if you dare try to fool it you risk five years imprisonment in federal prison?
These arguments against DRM things are not relevant right now. But they could be! And it'd be better to have them available, than to have everything transition (with much pushing from the content industry) over to DRM and THEN have the punishments legislated. This is a political favor and should be treated as such.
Give them their penalties- and then kill any hope of DRM ever succeeding, with 'sure, if you want to spend five years in federal prison for playing your own CD' sound bites. And save the slashdotting of legislators for when the content industry tries (it will) to make unDRMed content itself illegal- because that is absurd, and way more easily fought.
And, if the 'five years in prison' legislation does pass, then it completely sabotages any further attempt by the content industry to legislate away non-DRM stuff. Doing that in a vacuum may be possible. Doing that when 'amateurs', legit users of non-DRM stuff, face prison, is political suicide. Bad enough to make your CD collection legally unusable, but making it a Federal crime to use it? Forget it.
Then, the DRM people can try to sell their DRM products in a market that also includes (by law!) free and unencumbered products, further hobbled by the 'five years in the federal pen' reality.
I would go so far as to say, SUPPORT this and hope it gets through- because we aren't looking for a quick fix, right? It's like judo- the law is mostly unenforcable but political dynamite to be used AGAINST further DRM agendas. You point to it and go, "You can't pass that DRM-mandating law- look at what it would mean!" That's when you fire up the PAC and slashdot the senate phonelines. You use this as a neatly planted spoke in the wheels to stop ANY further movement in the direction of mandated DRM.
Who's writing the DRM software? (Score:3, Insightful)
First do no DRM!
The rights of the many (us) vs the greedy. (Score:4, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Software, CDs and "Counterfeiters" (Score:2)
I think not. If I can't afford to pay for a copy of Windows I won't be buying one from Microsoft regardless of the availability of "counterfeits". If I can't afford, I can't afford. It's the same with CDs - they're way too expensive. I can't pay for what I can't afford. If software and CDs were cheaper, I'd spend far more of my megre disposable on them. But they're not, so I can't.
It's about time that people like this Congressman faced up to the fact that consumers are being ripped off by monopolistic corporates,
Zdnet? (Score:2)
My letter and email to Sen. George Allen. . . (Score:2, Informative)
As one of your supporters, who worked on both your campaign for Governor and Senator, I am appalled to find that you have co-sponsored S.2395, 'Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002'.
Initially, the bill appears to be a legitimate defense of the property rights of the intellectual property community, and if it only went that far, I would support it wholeheartedly: piracy and copyright infringement are serious problems. However, the extent of the bill is so far over-reaching, that the secondary effects of the bill will likely produce a "boomerang effect" in the future.
Why, you may ask, do I think this ? Consider the world in a few years, when Digital Rights Management (DRM) is incorporated into consumer products and operating systems. Microsoft is ALREADY working on this in their "Palladium" initiative, and intends to integrate this technology into consumer Windows in the future.
Now put yourself in the position of a small software company, or of a small band of musicians. The 'Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002' would make it nearly impossible for anyone to publish new software or produce new music for electronic play, unless they had purchased, at high expense, a official digital watermark acceptable to consumer electronics and/or computers.
While this prediction may seem a bit exaggerated, I point out the recent effective death of Internet Radio. . .from too-high licensing fees. The same large organizations who did this back this measure as well.
Great music, great software, and great computers usually start small, and on a shoe-string. Obvious examples are a small college band from Blacksburg that made it big: the Dave Matthews Band. Or a small company that wrote and sold a BASIC language compiler, and grew. . . into Microsoft. Or a couple of guys who started hi-tech in a garage: both Hewlett-Packard and Apple Computer started that way. Or, for that matter, a single grad student, who wrote the core of a major operating system: Linus Torvalds and Linux.
Under the long-term effects of S.2395, none of these would be possible in the future. Senator Allen, S.2395 looks good in the short term, but its' long-term effects on software, computers, and music are no less than devastating. I urge you to both revoke your co-sponsorship of this bill, and to vote against it when and if it comes to the floor of the Senate. . . .
What about first sale? (Score:2)
"the term `illicit authentication feature' means an authentication feature, that [...] (B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the respective copyright owner."
How much you want to bet that this is used to stop people from legally exercising their right to first sale on ebay.
Know Senator Biden better. (Score:2)
You may be interested to know that Senator Biden said on national TV that Osama bin Laden's complaints about U.S. support of violence and repressive regimes was justified. (NOTE: This does NOT say that violence is justified.) A carefully accurate transcript of Senator Biden's remarks is available under the heading Senator Biden says the Saudi government cannot continue in power without U.S. government support [hevanet.com]. (The article takes a long time to load.)
senators' phone numbers (Score:2)
What no laws for..... (Score:2)
Where are the laws to protect our rights to be innovative and creative?
Attention Delaware Voters (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Maybe this is a GOOD thing, iff (Score:2)
Let the ??AA keep their old model. Let them make it as onerous as they want. More power to them, let them make it absolutely obnoxious to use their content. Let them make it illegal to watch it anyway except *precisely* the way they intended.
But just keep the door open to competition, some way for the small guy to "publish."
My original wording was "get published," but that can't be, because the small guy could probably always "get published" so by signing away all rights, and letting the small guy keep rights is part of what this is about.
15 Minutes (Score:5, Funny)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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
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
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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) (Score:5, Interesting)
[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.
Fax Your Congressman for Free (Score:3, Informative)
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.