Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Fritz's Hit List 280

Posted by michael from the first-they-came-for-the-aibos dept.
wwwssabbsdotcom was one of several to submit news stories about Ed Felten's latest venture: Fritz's Hit List, a list of electronic devices with some sort of digital storage and processing capabilities sufficient to qualify them "digital media devices" under Sen. Hollings' CBDTPA bill.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fritz's Hit List More

Fritz's Hit List

Comments Filter:

  • I'll support anything that gets rid of Billy Bass (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @04:55PM (#4369686)
    Today on Fritz's Hit List: Big Mouth Billy Bass.

    That's right, your favorite wall-hanging, singing, dancing, animatronic fish qualifies for regulation as a "digital media device" under the Hollings CBDTPA. If the CBDTPA passes, any new Billy Bass will have to incorporate government-approved copy protection technology.

    Fight piracy -- regulate singing fish novelties!

    I thought the CDBPABST was supposed to be a bad law. How can anything that aims to regulate the proliferation of Singing Billy Bass be evil?

    I love you, Fritz Hollings!

    • First they first came for the Billy Bass and I didn't speak up because I hated Billy Bass.

      Then they came for the Spam and I didn't speak up because I hated Spam.

      They came for the browser mods that pop up ads depending on my site visits, and I didn't speak up because I hated Gator.

      Then they came for my TiVo, and they had to pry it out of my cold, dead hand.

      [With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemoller]

      Actually, I think this hit list is totally stupid. Half the things on that list wouldn't fall under the law.

    • They aren't being banned, they're just going to have copy protection technology built in. Which means they will be more expensive. Which means instead of getting some socks, a drill, some books and a Billy Bass for Christmas, you're just going to get a Billy Bass.
      -aiabx

  • oh shit... (Score:5, Funny)

    by RebelTycoon ( 584591 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @04:55PM (#4369692) Homepage
    Fritz Hit List #8

    Those voice-boxes for throat-cancer patients that enable them to speak with a deep voice will now need to protected with government approved anti-copright protection.

    Fight Piracy = Regulate deep throating devices!
  • This is getting out of hand. When will it end? When we get forced back into the analog age again? I hope they realize that they're putting the United States 'behind the times' technologically speaking in the name of 'piracy prevention'. When's the last time you pirated MP3s or ISOs on a toy?

    • Re:Out of Hand. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Coplan ( 13643 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @04:59PM (#4369729) Homepage Journal
      I'm sure there's a Slashdot article around here somewhere about hacking your "Billy Bass" to record and playback MP3s. You should try it. The sound quality is incredible.
    • Just so long as you don't get the FBI on your tail. [userfriendly.org]

    • Re:Out of Hand. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fishbowl ( 7759 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:19PM (#4369879)
      "When will it end?"

      When people in general begin to become aware of the encroachment of tyranny, and when it becomes unbearable enough to sacrifice comfort in pursuit of liberty.

      Not before then.
      • I am still waiting for those commercials run recently about "aren't you glad you have freedom" to come true.

        1. Hiding in a basement to have a religious service.

        2. Getting arrested for newspapers in your car.

        etc.

        • Re:Out of Hand. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Kwikymart ( 90332 )
          I have seen some of those on the American stations we get here in Canada. Are they funded by the government or are they funded by a public interest group? If they are funded by the government, can you say "nineteen eighty-four"? That would be too double-speak for me.

          • Campaign for Freedom (Score:3, Informative)

            by ces ( 119879 )
            The advertisements are part of a series called "Campaign for Freedom", they are funded by the The Advertising Council [adcouncil.org].

            The ads are a continuation of the Ad Council's September 11th [adcouncil.org] PSAs.

            From the Ad Council's September 11th [adcouncil.org] page:
            On September 11th, America was shattered by acts of terrorism. Our nation, our citizens, and the belief system upon which our country was founded were shaken.

            The Ad Council returned to its wartime footing, developing messages that would help Americans remain strong throughout the war on terrorism, just as it had during World War II. Public service messages to help the country respond and recover from the attacks were also developed. The first PSA began running just 10 days after the attacks.

            Early PSAs like "I am an American [adcouncil.org]" celebrated the country's extraordinary diversity and reminded people of the values that make America so unique. Other early PSAs included Laura Bush encouraging parents to talk to their kids, and others emphasizing tolerance and the importance of going on with our lives by "Living Brave [adcouncil.org]."

            A short time later, the Ad Council announced its "Campaign for Freedom [adcouncil.org]," an initiative developed on behalf of the entire advertising industry. This important campaign was designed to inform, involve, and inspire Americans to participate in activities that will strengthen our nation and help support the war on terrorism.

            From the Ad Council's "Campaign for Freedom [adcouncil.org]" page:
            Developed following the tragedies of September 11th, the Ad Council's Campaign for Freedom is an unprecedented volunteer effort from the advertising industry. The initiative is designed to assist Americans during the war on terrorism through the development of timely and relevant PSAs. This first round of PSAs has been created to celebrate our nation's freedom and remind Americans about the importance of freedom and the need to protect it for future generations. According to research, Americans are looking for messages that will inform, involve and inspire them during the war on terrorism. This inspirational campaign is advertising's gift to America. All of the ads conclude with the powerful tagline, "Freedom. Appreciate it. Cherish it. Protect it."

        • The tv ad with the kid in the Library is already true.

        • I'm still waiting for requirements to have IDs to travel between states, with a subsequent "Ministry of Truth"-ish editing of a certain movie scene [imdb.com] involving pickup trucks and Montana.

      • Re:Out of Hand. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Blue Stone ( 582566 )
        (I always forget the details, but never the point, so don't ask me where or when, exactly.)

        There was some small civilization in the Pacific, I think. It acquired, unfortunately for them, a foreign dictatorship, which decided it would rule over it.

        The people weren't much fussed, and carried on their lives.

        The dictatorship, decided it didn't like their subjects' sounds and banned the people's music.
        The people weren't much fussed, accepted the ban and carried on with their lives.

        The dictatorship, decided it didn't like their religious ceremonies, and banned them.
        The people weren't much fussed, accepted the ban and carried on with their lives.

        The dictatorship banned their traditional ways of fishing, and all other aspects of their culture; and the people accepted it and carried on.

        The dictatorship banned the people's favourite home-brew, and there was a revolution, and they rid themselves of their dictators.

        No word of a lie, this actually happened.

        The moral of this story?

        Don't underestimate people's tolerance for abuse (or their compacency.) It might be a long while, and a lot of freedom lost, before the general public gets up off it's arse.

        Respectfully.
    • "When will it end? When we get forced back into the analog age again?"

      Nope [slashdot.org] further
  • I didn't realize that some Barbies could be outlawed as a result of this legislation. NOw that I think about it, there's a lot of things that could potentially be outlawed. My phone, for example, as it has a recorder built in.

    Though, I admit, I have no problems with them banning anything Barbie.

    • Re:Eye Opener (Score:2, Funny)

      by jw32767 ( 58363 )
      When they came for Talking Barbies, I was quiet because I owned only GI Joes.

      When they came for the singing trout, I was quiet because I hated singing trout.

      When they came for the answering machines, I was quiet because I had a cell phone.

      When they came for the AIBOs, there was no one left to speak...

  • Regulation of Robot Pets (Score:5, Funny)

    by jasonditz ( 597385 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @04:58PM (#4369721) Homepage
    Makes sense, if not in this light.

    After all, imported robot pets are finding employment without green cards and taking rewarding pet jobs away from more expensive to maintain domestic alternatives.

    You laugh now, but when that little robotic R2-D2 takes your waitressing job because he's willing to work for less than minimum wage, you'll change your tunes!
    • but waitresses already make less than minimum wage!!
    • Of course the robots would work for charge at night, but honestly, how many people do you see feeling comfortable giving food orders to a robot, and not a person, when the robot wont have any visible means of relaying understanding of your order.

      Not to mention that voice recognition is still not perfect.

      Or of course, some places rely on their waitresses for enviorment, like hooters.
      • when the robot wont have any visible means of relaying understanding of your order.

        So it will be just like going to that 24 hour taco joint on State and Main?

      • Yeah, I hate vending machines too.

        -- this is not a .sig
      • So it would be like trying to order from the drive-through at the typical fast food joint. You order two bacon double cheeseburgers, two jumbo fries, and two large cokes and you end up with some random combination of items from the menu.

  • Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aero6dof ( 415422 ) <aero6dof@yahoo.com> on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @04:59PM (#4369734) Homepage
    It's too bad that more of the public is clueless on measures such as this. Maybe if we portray the CBDTPA as an Government mandated tax for the entertainment industry on many common electronic goods. The DRM hardware cost is borne by anyone who uses computer or consumer electronics, but all it really protects is the entertainment industry. Contrast that to many other government regulations, which impose costs on businesses, but generally to help protect the public.
    • Sounds like the Stamp Act of 1765 I was referring to here [slashdot.org].
    • I'm not sure that would be enough to motivate the public.

      People gladly pay:
      12 different taxes for telecommunications
      7 different taxes for gasoline
      4 different taxes on cigarettes
      4 more on alcohol

      Contrast that to many other government regulations, which impose costs on businesses, but generally to help protect the public.
      All of the above taxes are regulation fees or fees paid for "public" services.

      I apologize for the cynicism of this post, but honestly the telecommunications and software/hardware industry will figure out a way to word the tax to sound like it is protecting the public.
    • Oh, so the public can be up in arms like we are about our current taxes? Oh, wait a minute...

      If you can't afford to buy these electronics, then it doesn't really affect you, kind of like the luxury tax, or how income tax doesn't affect 30% of the US population, because they have nothing to pay.

      Finally, when 49% of the Senate actually believes that LOWERING taxes HURTS the economy, and the public believes THEM, what makes you think people have the smarts to rebel against something like this?

  • But piracy is a problem. (Score:5, Funny)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:02PM (#4369761) Journal
    I looked at the RIAA's web site, and listened to all the soundbites from Jack Valenti, Sen. Hollings and Hilary Rosen, and I agree.

    "Piracy is theft"

    Downloading a song from the internet is every bit as bad as stealing a CD from a shop. I didn't realise this. I was stealing music all this time

    Now then, if I had come across several CDs that I didn't own, and I knew who their owner was, I would take some efforts to return them.

    Now, I have several gigabytes of stolen mp3s. I think I should return them to their rightful owner. To whom do I email them?
    • If piracy is theft, why is the RIAA not prosecuting file sharers for posession of stolen property? All they need is proof a major trader holds 60GB of MP3's that he does not hold the rights for. Is it because nothing was stolen?
      • It's because you can't prove that he or she didn't also own the originals - unless you do a fishing expedition - and no d.a. is going to approve a fishing expedition without some evidence.

        And no, this is NOT a troll

        And yes, SOMETIMES piracy is a problem. But not in this case. Overpriced products (they just paid another $70M for price-fixing - again!!!!!) are the problem here.

    • Email them to the RIAA, of course. I'm sure they'll be glad to make room in their mailbox, and then get the songs to the people they were "stolen" from.

  • new item (Score:2, Funny)

    by squarefish ( 561836 )
    I wonder if this [wildsyde.com] would make the list?

  • Digital Answering Machine. (Score:5, Funny)

    by clevelandguru ( 612010 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:03PM (#4369770)
    Machine: You had 3 messages. 1 Message deleted automatically since it has copyrighted material.
    User: Oh no, Grandma again left a message with her radio on in the background.

    • I wish that was just "funny" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drew_kime ( 303965 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:27PM (#4369918) Journal
      > Machine: You had 3 messages. 1 Message deleted automatically since it has copyrighted material.

      User: Oh no, Grandma again left a message with her radio on in the background.
      But isn't this exactly what they seek to do? If general purpose computing devices were ever sufficiently locked down, someone would come up with a hack to add a hard drive to digital answering machines and start copying. Why do you think the language of the CPDTPA is so broad? They're trying damn hard to make sure their bought and paid for legislation isn't obsoleted by the next generation of technology.

  • The scary thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phorm ( 591458 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:04PM (#4369777) Journal
    Is that when you consider the amount of idiotic lawsuits over laws that can be broadly interpreted... that some of these common devices might very well indeed end up under fire

    Politicians seem to spend a lot of time patching up too-broad laws that don't meet their expectations, and an equal amount of time making silly new too-broad laws.
  • You can take my music, and you can hack my computer, but leave my Big Mouth Billy Bass out of this!
  • That's right, your favorite wall-hanging, singing, dancing, animatronic fish qualifies for regulation as a "digital media device" under the Hollings CBDTPA. If the CBDTPA passes, any new Billy Bass will have to incorporate government-approved copy protection technology.

    Well this just goes to prove that there's a bright side to every dark law.
  • Maybe this will make consumers more aware of all the silly crap this allows.

    Maybe, but I doubt it.

    Take me to the river, put me in the water....thanks for getting that stuck in my head!

    *growl*

  • Devil's advocate (Score:3, Funny)

    by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:13PM (#4369841) Homepage Journal
    Ok, so many of these items seem ridiculous when you consider them to be potential "digital piracy" devices. But what if the CBDPBPDBPPTA (whatever) does pass?

    Can't you imagine the Slashdot headlines?

    Store audio files with Barbie
    from the we're-very-desperate-now dept.
    Digital Music Lover writes: "Now that the CPTBPTPBTPBA has passed, mainstream digital music recording has come to a complete halt. Music lovers now have to pay every time they want to listen to a recording on their Fritz/Palladium enabled PC's, and they can't record that music for later use. However, some clever hackers in Germany figured out a way around this problem. They modified a 'Barbie talking cash register' with some custom DSP chips and an Ethernet interface. Now instead of ringing up the price of a loaf of bread, Barbie plays the latest Metallica recording instead!

    It is my hope and prayer that we never get to this point. But if the Pigopolists do prevail, I can definitely see the hacker community desperately trying to store digital music any way they can.

    • Re:Devil's advocate (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:31PM (#4369945)
      The funny thing is, hackers in Germany could give a shit, because they will still be able to buy DRM-free hardware and software. People seem to forget this applies to US citezems and US manufactured goods only. I can still buy some Japanese, German, Chinese, etc. hardware/software that will be totaly free of this crap. The funny thing is by introducing this kind of stuff, the US could be closing themselves off from the global economy, especially in the hitech sectors. This could cause the US economy to continue to slide.

    • Re:Devil's advocate (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Azog ( 20907 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @06:20PM (#4370272) Homepage
      Well, I don't think we'd ever quite reach the point of modifying a toy cash register.

      There would be lots of interesting market effects if this law passes though. For instance, if the law passes there will be a short grace period to allow non-compliant hardware to be sold through the supply chains.

      So, I expect that there would be a rush to stock up the last generation of uncrippled hardware. I personally would try to buy at least a dozen of the biggest hard drives I could get my hands on, and a few fast computers to plug them into.

      Also, there would be a black market for uncrippled hardware smuggled in from free countries to the US. Imagine buying hard drives and motherboards made in China out of the back of a car under a bridge somewhere...

      I expect there would also be some sort of "pro" hardware without the crippling locks. It would either be a lot more expensive or you would need a "media production license" to buy it. But some of it would leak into the regular market anyway.

      But anyway, I'm not too worried about digital music storage. Four 120 GB drives would make a RAID-5 big enough for me to rip and store another two thousand CDs together with the ~2000 I already have on-line. I'd keep enough spare hard drives in storage to replace the ones I'm using as they fail over a decade or two. Even if they are obsolete, they will still work and be big enough.

      By then the law will have been found unconstitutional, or I'll have moved to a free country, or both.

  • Sen Hollings Words (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tino_sup ( 460223 )
    Read this closely. These are the fundamental assumptions made by Hollings -

    At the same time, millions of law abiding consumers find little reason to spend discretionary dollars on consumer electronics products whose value depends on their ability to receive, display and copy high quality digital content like popular movies, music, and video games. Accordingly, only early adopters have purchased high definition television sets or broadband Internet access, as these products remain priced too high for the average consumer. The facts are clear in this regard. Only two million Americans have purchased HDTV sets. As for broadband, rural and underserved areas aside, there is not an availability problem. There is a demand problem. Roughly 85% of Americans are offered broadband in the marketplace but only 10-12% have signed up. The fact is that most Americans are averse to paying $50 a month for faster access to email, or $2000 for a fancy HDTV set that plays analog movies. But if more high-quality content were available, consumer interest would likely increase.

    Where are they getting these figures?

    • Fritz Said it would be like this:
      At the same time, millions of law abiding consumers find little reason to spend discretionary dollars on consumer electronics products whose value depends on their ability to receive, display and copy high quality digital content like popular movies, music, and video games.
      From my comments to the Judiciary Committee:
      I have never heard anyone say, "I'd get broadband if only there were high quality content from Hollywood available." No, what I hear is, "I'd get DSL or a cable modem if it was available in my area," or "I'd get DSL or a cable modem if it didn't cost a fortune."
      • > I have never heard anyone say, "I'd get broadband if only there were high quality content from Hollywood available." No, what I hear is, "I'd get DSL or a cable modem if it was available in my area," or "I'd get DSL or a cable modem if it didn't cost a fortune."

        Which is close, but not quite. I heard a lot of "I'd get DSL or a cable modem if there were more MP3z and DiVXz available on P2P networks."

        Napster - yes, used as a tool for copyright infringment - was broadband's only real killer app. When RIAA/MPAA killed it, they killed the demand for DSL.

        Alas, that's not something any telco exec dares say, especially in front of the Judiciary Committee. Consequently, Rosen/Valenti are the only ones who get to speak.

      • Fritz said it was going to rain today too -- oops, wrong Fritz. [g]

        But seriously -- I think they're making the numbers up -- if not from whole cloth, then based on *possibility* -- there are X-many internet users at Y-many locations, therefore there should be X*Y total DSL and cable subscribers -- but of course there aren't, becase as you say availability is not as universal as they'd have us believe. (Frex, here, as the crow flies just 30 miles from Los Angeles -- and neither DSL nor cable is likely to come along in my lifetime.) So they have to come up with some excuse that makes the content providers look like THE driving force.

        Maybe what they're really thinking of is "If it sweats, Fred will show it to you". ;)

    • Where are they getting these figures?

      Out of his ass, apparently. I don't know what life is like in Fritz's district, but around here there definitely is an availability problem. Out of a dozen close coworkers, about 3 of us have broadband available to us. And this is in Metropolitan Chicago, not BFE.

    • Re:Sen Hollings Words (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kris2112 ( 136712 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:43PM (#4370044)
      Um... Has it ever occurred to Hollings, et. al. that the reason Americans are averse to paying $2000 for an HDTV set might be that most Americans don't want to pay $2000 for any TV set?

      If this passes, and HDTV sales don't pick up, what's next? Passing a law that makes it mandatory for every American to buy at least one $2000 HDTV set?

      What? You mean it's already happened? [slashdot.org] Arrgh!!!

    • "There is a demand problem."

      So now what? You have to legislate demand? That sounds like something out of the 1930s Soviet 5-year plans. It doesn't matter if it is a good product or you don't need it, you have to buy it because the law requires a certain level of demand.

      You cannot legislate demand (not in a free society, anyways).

      I know that they are trying to spin it so that "if content were available, people would buy the complementary goods", however, the goods/services are not necessarily complementary. I can rent high-quality videos from the local video store. And I can make full use of the internet without ever watching video streams or downloading videos. I don't need broadband to watch Hollywood movies.

      There is no strong correlation between broadband subscriptions and consumption of Hollywood content.

  • What good is this? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by catfood ( 40112 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:17PM (#4369866) Homepage

    Felten's list gives the impression that it's the crazy interpretations of CBDTPA we have to fear.

    But the real problem is that CBDTPA is a crazy bill to begin with. You can't fix something like this by giving back the singing fish. If every single one of Felten's examples were exempted from the bill, what's left would be no less outrageous.


    • I think that's the intent... the Hit List is not going to end at some point where they could say "okay, if all of these devices were excluded from the bill, it would be a sensible piece of legislation".

      The List demonstrates that the CBDTPA is so fundamentally flawed, so broad to the point of absurdity that NO AMOUNT of exception clauses could be added that would limit its enforcement to its intended purpose.

  • It fits... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cervantes ( 612861 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:21PM (#4369892) Journal
    Hmm... US government puts out bill to require anything digital to have copy protection on it... cost for digital equipment goes up.

    Last month, US government drives legislation to force all TVs' to have digital tuners installed, including all TVs' manufactured in the US, and all being shipped via the US. Cost for TVs' and consumer electronics goes up.

    US government also tables legislation requiring all television networks to convert to digital within 5 years. All existing TVs' and VCRs' will be obsolete. Cost to consumers goes up.

    Result: In 5 years, all televisions and VCRs are digital, copy-protected, and controlled. Government gets to dole out the new "digital" channels to whomever meets their standards.... or should that be 'ideals'?

    Earlier in the year (and the year before, and the year before) the US government threatens to put stricter regulations on the Internet, including what you can do, what you can read, and where you can read it. Stocks of net-filtering software go up, ad banners start to reduce fees paid because of declining revenue, free-speech sites and those not funded by a corporation start going away.

    Earlier this year, US government tries to force libraries to filter the websites available on their public computers. US government also successfully forces schools to filter content. Those who do the filtering? Corporations who use their own judgement to determine if a site should be filtered or not.

    DMCA serves as pretense to shut down P2P networks, mp3/warez websites, Instant Messangers with file sharing capabilities (it's coming, just you watch) etc.

    "THE WAR ON TERRORISM" (tm) serves as pretense to search anyone, anywhere, even from outside the country.

    US government arrests people that it invites into the country (the two russian credit card hackers and the FBI) or those that haven't even done anything to the US (Skylarov ((SP?)))

    You know, I saw a sig that said "Canada: It's like being in the loft above a really great party". I don't know about you, but I'm starting to think that not all the noise from the party downstairs is good.

    And, on a different note, as IANAL (sorry, everytime I see that I read I-anal. I just can't write it with a straight face), what happens if I come down to visit with my Sony minidisc player? Do I get arrested for having non-conforming hardware? Technically, this could extend to anything with a memory, including a watch, a car, a phone.... sound worrisome?

    You know, I started this post out noting increased costs... then I got to noting the decreased liberties... then I started thinking "Yanno? If I were slightly more paranoid, I'd almost think that the US government is trying to discourage free speech and push internet and technology access up to the higher tax brackets, where they have more control, while removing these tools for freedom from the 'unwashed masses'. But that would be a bad thought, and I'm double-plus good!"

    And, if you think I'm kidding, take any of the paragraphs up above and look in slashdot archives... they all came from here.

    "If you don't think, you're letting the terrorists win!"

  • Missing from the list... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr. Transparent ( 77005 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:30PM (#4369937) Homepage Journal
    Those greeting cards that let you record a personal greeting to be played back to the recipient when they open the card.

    "Sorry mom, I wanted to get you a personalized greeting card but the DRM chip added $25 to the cost of the card."
    • Those greeting cards that let you record a personal greeting to be played back to the recipient when they open the card.

      Funny thing about those cards - the storage and playback was so clear that we used to red box with them. The microphone sucked, so you had to wire it directly into your sound card to record the tones, but after that you could disconnect the mic leads, put it in an altoids box, and go to town.

      Now just imagine if we had recorded 30 seconds of the latest Britney Spears song. We could have really caused some trouble!
  • Pity poor greeting card companies [sendhearts.com]. Their five dollar recordable birthday cards are gonna get a lot more expensive. That means your red box [phonelosers.org] budget will go up as well.

    Of course, Hallmark's cost/profit margins are probably higher than the RIAA's.. how much does a $2.99 greeting card cost to manufacture?

    W

  • Seems like a reasonable summary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alizard ( 107678 ) <alizard&ecis,com> on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:50PM (#4370094) Homepage
    This is why I describe CBDTPA and the rest of the Hollywood regulation package for computers and the consumer electronic industry as a threat to our jobs and to the economy.

    All this means is that software and hardware development move out of the US, and what we get will be the dumbed down versions that companies think people will buy in the US despite the added expense and reduced functionality incorporating DRM will mean. However, this isn't a big deal because in a post-CBDTPA economy, those of us who stick around will be too busy looking for work to buy toys... and new computers and too broke to afford them.

    Why are the vendors still playing "deer in the headlights" about this? Do they figure it's cheaper to move out of the US than fight?

    Why hasn't a real PAC been put together by the high-tech rank and file to save our jobs? (hint: GeekPAC is a joke, a "political organization" that can't put together a decent website together isn't going to rise up and take Congress back)

    Note that the industries affected are 10x the size of Hollywood in terms of income. So why is the tail wagging the dog?

    • Why don't you help GeekPAC out together a decent web site?
      All the PAC in the world won't work if you, I, and a lot of other people don't do anything to help.
      People can change this crap, peple like you need to educate people anf help these orginizations.
      If you can't make time for this, then is it really a priority?
      • Because I've talked with one of the alleged leaders and come to the conclusion that they can't be educated, that they believe that making political waves is about "presenting the issues" in a reasonable way to our elected officials. That method is useless on any issue that has a constituency that's donating money to buy law pointing the other way.

        What have they produced in the last several months after they announced?

        Not a damn thing other than bad Web design, and nobody with a clue as far as I know is associated with them.

        DOESN'T THAT TELL YOU ANYTHING?

        I'm willing to put time and money into a group with any reasonable chance of success.

        GeekPAC ain't it.

        When one sees a group who announces plans to start a PAC who has already raised significant money before announcing, states that they're planning a mass action + lobbying effort like AARP or the NRA, and says that as their first public action, they're putting a fax server up in DC to get our point across to legislators, I'll probably be there, and if anybody has gotten to that point, please contact me immediately.

        Also note that if anyone is in the position to pass the hat among a few high-tech corporate leaders and get the kind of startup capital this takes (think of this as a high-tech startup specializing in political action) and is wondering what to do next... my e-mail can be found easily. I've already done some research and I've run across people who know more than I do about this... but they don't work for free.

        Volunteerism and idealism won't get us out of this mess... unless organized by competent experts... and that kind of expertise one has to pay for at the market rates. If we aren't willing to pay for freedom, we don't deserve it and we won't have it.

        If you want to waste your time with GeekPAC, go for it. Just don't bother the rest of us about it when you discover that you have indeed wasted your time.

        Meaningful political action isn't about grabbing a few pages in online tech news sites and posing in front of cameras to make A DRAMATIC ANNOUNCEMENT, it's having an effect.

        The very name GeekPAC should have told you that this group either was designed by people who never had any intent of having a real political effect or have no clue about what it takes.

        My discussion says. . . no clue.

  • Contribution List for Fritz Hollings (Score:5, Informative)

    by DaytonCIM ( 100144 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:54PM (#4370125) Homepage Journal
    Reported contributions list
    Top 3 Industries (PACs and Individuals):
    1 Lawyers/Law Firms $1,463,550
    2 Communications & Electronics $698,958
    PAC Contributors:
    Walt Disney Co $6,000
    AOL Time Warner $5,083
    National Assn of Broadcasters $5,000
    Comcast Corp $2,500
    Motion Picture Assn of America $3,000
    ASCAP $1,000
    Cablevision Systems $1,000
    Charter Communications $1,000
    Sony Pictures Entertainment $1,000
    Universal Studios $1,000
    Viacom Inc $2,000
    3 Financial & Investment $404,349

    Additional PAC contributions here [opensecrets.org].

    Personal Finances are here [opensecrets.org].

    Others who sit on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee [opensecrets.org].

    If you think he's bad, check out Boxer [opensecrets.org].

  • very telling (Score:4, Funny)

    by glwtta ( 532858 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @05:58PM (#4370148) Homepage
    notice how almost every message moderated above 3 in this thread is "Funny" - that probably says something... I'm too lazy to figure out what, though.

  • Great illustration of their stupidity! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by theLOUDroom ( 556455 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @06:00PM (#4370161)
    As an EE student, I have to say that I love this idea! If this bill ever passed, it would make my job VERY hard. Just consider the following example:

    Sure it may be easy to compute fourier transforms (or whatever) in realtime for a 44KHz singal, checking for some sort of watermark, but what about high bitrate systems? A 96KHz 24bit 6 channel stream of audio amounts to 13.8 Mbits/sec of data. A computer to check all that data in for copyright infringement in realtime is going to be pretty expensive. What if all I'm asking is a digital delay box for that data? All I'd nomrally need inside the box is some RAM and something to read and write to that RAM. Now that all of a sudden, I need to do real computation on that data the cost of my device would skyrocket. It might suddenly become cheaper to get 1ms of delay, by using 100' of wire than by doing it in the digital domain!

    What about Digital Storage Oscilloscopes? Does a 1GHz DSO have to check all that data (A ton of data, even if it doesn't caputre at that rate continuously) before letting me download it to a PC? I could easily hook that oscilloscope up to the output of a protected device and caputure the signal.

    What about FPGAs? Are they goiung to be regulated devices? Right now one could co nnect one to the coax SPDIF out on their DVD Player and program it to run an FIR filter to remove the watermark. It would be pretty much impossible to make it so that I couldn't program it to filter a watermark and still have it be a useful device.

    Last week, I had a pretty interesting discussion with on eof the professors for a DSP course I'm taking, just talking about all the stupid thing that hollywood was tried to get pused through. They actually tried to get a law passed so that your audio device would not copy music if it contained a certain frequency! Not even a combination of frequerncies, but one single frequency! A single distorted guitar, would probably be enough to set that off!

    Hopefully certain companies (TI for instance makes audio ICs, and DSP chips, but doesn't own a record label.) understand how much this law would increase their costs and get it killed, fast.

  • DNA polymerase? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dspeyer ( 531333 ) <(dspeyer) (at) (wam.umd.edu)> on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @06:08PM (#4370203) Homepage Journal
    I don't have the energy to scan through the full text of the CBPDTA, so I may be wrong, but doesn't DNA store data in a digital format (base four is still digital)? Doesn't that make any naturally occurring enzyme (none of which have DRM) a violation? DNA Polymerase is already a suspect in numerous patent violations, and Monsanto has lost millions of dollars due to this criminal enzyme's interfearance with their business model.

    Even so, they can have my DNA Polymerase when they extract it from my cold, dead fingers (and arms, blood, liver, etc.)

  • On the lighter side, this sort of thing will make life harder on the consumer... right? Well, the way I see it, I'll never be out of a job. I'll be answering stupid questions all hours of the day, fixing some sort of DRM problems. Hey man, Windows is good for that, so why not (insert devilish bill in congress)?

  • Give me a real argument against the CDBTPA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zspdude ( 531908 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @06:25PM (#4370305) Homepage
    It strikes me that most of the arguments against the CDBTPA I see posted on /. are purely logistical in nature. They run along the lines of, "If this is passed, such and such(billy bass) would be illegal, now wouldn't that be stupid." or, "If you implement this in devices, it will have these bad consequences(can't film kids in front of coke machine, etc)."

    I've yet to see a really good argument that attacks the basis for the CDBTPA, rather than just saying why it won't work. And yet I get the impression that even if it was implemented in a non-intrusive, practical manner, ./ers still wouldn't like it.

    So why not argue against the ideals behind the bill? Rather than just saying it's a bad bill?

    Or, if the actual ideas behind the the CDBTPA are sound, why not try to find a good way to implement it?

  • Maybe we should stress the parallels... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @07:27PM (#4370590) Homepage Journal
    between digital media devices and guns.

    After all, guns have decent, law abiding uses like hunting, self defense, target shooting, collectables, and such.

    Clearly digital media devices also have many law abiding uses.

    Guns also have illegal uses, and let's face it, those illegal uses are FAR worse than any illegal uses of digital media devices. At least abuse of digital devices doesn't kill.

    Therefore, if Fritz is to get his way, there is a clear parallel to place 'access restraint' devices in every marketed gun. Enlist the NRA to help fight our battle.

    I know this is silly. But I'm not sure I know what's wrong with the reasoning, at least until I get to the prior paragraph.

    In a much more meaningful sense...

    I work in the electronics field. My employer has had rounds of layoffs in the past year, as have others. Our state has been badly hurt. IMHO the stuff Hollings is trying to push through will hurt the tech industry, badly. One of my Senators (Leahy) has been in Hollywood's pocket in the past. He needs to understand that this will hurt our state if this nonsense gets put into law.

    I wish I knew what was the most effective way to communicate. In the past, I guess the phone has gotten the most specific response, even better than a letter delivered directly to his office in town.
    • I already suggested getting the NRA involved in some prior thread (another article) and got flamed six ways from Sunday. But the point is, you're right, it's not just about electronics, it's about the legal uses of ANYTHING. If you start restricting ANYTHING solely on the basis of *potential* illegal uses, where do you draw the line??

      Think of a parallel bill applied, say, to cars. What if you were not allowed to use your car unless you got a permit for a *specific destination*?? Because after all, unregulated and unrestricted automobile use could lead to you being the getaway driver for a bank heist! Or worse, you might go to a disapproved political meeting and discuss overthrowing the gov't who imposed such regulations.

      If you think this sounds ridiculous, remember something very like this (restricting use of certain items like cars and typewriters -- yes, typewriters) was gov't policy in some Iron Curtain states.

    • As a funny aside, when I came back later and reskimmed your post, I somehow read this line "After all, guns have decent, law abiding uses like hunting, self defense, target shooting, collectables, and such" as "...self defense, shooting tax collectors, and such." Hmmm!!

  • The Offending Parts of the bill, re: Fritz (Score:4, Informative)

    by Vancouverite ( 227795 ) <brendt@hess.motosport@com> on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @08:02PM (#4370713)
    The actual part of the bill that is being attacked here is down in the definitions:

    (3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that --

    (A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;

    (B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or

    (C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).

    As I highlighted, B is the offending line. Consider - those buttons that are sewn into stuffed animals that play music when pressed? Those match the definition in (B).

    But this is not the only technical offender. A digital camera can easily be in violation (see part (A) of the definition, then take a picture of a billboard). More significantly, the Internet itself is probably a definition (C) product - certainly, a modem, LAN card, or disk drive is (load a document, or display a web site).

    Unfortunately, this definition is, at heart, flawed - way too broad, and way too inclusive.

  • How to Pronounce CBDTPA (Score:3, Funny)

    by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2002 @10:35PM (#4371323)
    1) inhale

    2) stick tongue out

    3) close lips lightly over tongue

    4) exhale

  • The text of the CBDTPA [politechbot.com] defines a digital media device as follows:

    (3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that --

    (A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;

    (B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or

    (C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).

    Now how do you get from this to Barbie? She's not making copyrighted works audible, other than her own recorded voice!

    And why has no one pointed out that the bill fails to say anything about what the security standards are required to do?

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close