Send Congress Your Comments On DRM Legislation

stry_cat writes "The people who want to control what you can and cannot copy have got Congress to consider requiring every computer sold to include special circuits that limit what files you can copy. The Senate Judiciary Committee is soliciting public comments on this legislation."

Why is a Call to Arms not on Front Page

[haplo21112]

Why is it that a issue this huge to our community is buried in the YRO section and not showing on the front page?

This is a big issue and our chance to speak up...
look what we did for w3c and RAND....

Re:Why is a Call to Arms not on Front Page

[dimator]

Dude, it's not like it matters anyway. This type of crap always appears to me to be a PR move more than anything else. The general public is not lining law makers' pockets with cash, lobbyists are.

Re:Why is a Call to Arms not on Front Page

[GreyWolf3000]

You are way too cynical. In the US, free speech has gotten so exclusive to those who can pay for the microphones to broadcast that individual constituents have lost the ability to really express how they feel. Polls are awkwardly worded to target a specific response, votes are virtually guaranteed for incumbents no matter what (it's always been that way), and the sense of political efficacy in the national government has sharply declined in the last 30 years.

Lawmakers know this. Perhaps this is a way for them to listen to the other side of the story? After all, a /. story a few weeks ago indicated several reps speaking out and proposing legislation against DRM and the DMCA. Do not be so quick to judge and say "America is ruled by corporate swine and $$$." I admit, there is a lot of clear and evident corruption in the government. However, they are "damned if they do, damned if they don't." When they "help us,' we claim that they are really just making a P.R. move, and when not "helping us" they are giving in to corporate interests that aim to lock down or computers.

Re:Why is a Call to Arms not on Front Page

[Apreche]

It could be a pr move more than anything else. But if it was a pr move wouldn't it be, well, more public? I mean if you do something only because you want it to make you look good you generally try to publicize it. This is just a form on a standard government web site. Nothing special. I think it probably isn't a pr move because the congresmmen want to limit the amount of spam and stupid submissions they recieve.
Because the congresspeople didn't make a big deal otu of it shows that they hope they are only going to recieve a few good comments rather than thousands and thousands of

DRM 5|_|x0rz!!!!111

Could be pr, but it doesn't look like it to me.

Re:Why is a Call to Arms not on Front Page

[Silent_E]

It is true that Lobbyists spend a lot more than private citizens getting the attention of Congresspeople, but Lobbyists don't get an inordinate amount of votes. EVERY CITIZEN 18 years and older of the U.S. can vote, and Congresspeople pay a lot of attention to their constituencies. If you post on the website and cc a letter to your representatives, it can make a difference. Particularly if you can organize others to do so as well.

Here's what I submitted

[Gonzo_Warrior]

What is at stake for content creators, providers, and users? Let me answer that by turning it around: what is at stake is the very *existence* of the intellectual "marketplace" for creative content.

There are already numerous laws protecting intellectual property. OK... the laws are frequently outdated, and law *is* slow to adapt to rapid technological advances, but it is illegal to engage in software (or movie, CD, etc.) "piracy." If I purchase an audio CD, and make a single copy for archival purposes, or "rip" a track to play on my computer, this activity is protected under the "fair use" doctrine (note that I didn't suggest doing this with a DVD: it's already illegal to exercise my right of fair use with DVDs, thank-you very much!). If I e-mail copies of the CD - or even a single track - to my friends and co-workers (or make it available for distribution through the use of peer-to-peer (P2P) software, like Gnutella, or Kazaa), that is illegal. Period. This is analogous to the rights (and restrictions) which exist for other, more traditional media (e.g., books, videotapes, etc.).

What prevents me from engaging in such intellectual property theft is my moral conviction that it is wrong: creators and owners of intellectual property have the right to be fairly compensated for their labors (I work in an academic institution: I've had works published, so I know a *little* about this!). Requiring the use of "coercive" digital rights management hardware, and emasculating the "fair use" doctrine, is a little like trying to legislate morality, and as we *all* know, you can't do that. (Well... actually, you *can*, but it will do as much good as when the Arkansas State Legislature decreed (back in the 20's? 30's?) that the value of "pi" should be 3: it just ain't so, and no amount of legal gobbledygook will alter that fact! And there's always my favorite: the Prohibition!) Let me put it another way: how many of us drive cars capable of attaining speeds in excess of the highest posted speed limit in the country? What do you think the effect would be if the Congress were to pass legislation that banned the manufacture and importation (or even possession) of such vehicles? After the howls of protest died down, what do you think would happen to car sales in this country?

So... to get back to where I started: what is at stake for the users is their ability to exercise their rights: the right to use a creative work in accordance with existing intellectual property law and the "fair use" doctrine. What is at stake for the creators and providers is the existence of a viable market for their creative works: if we can't enjoy what we've bought and paid for, then we will stop buying it and paying for it. And if we aren't buying it, then neither the creators nor distributors of these creative works will be selling it. At the stroke of a pen - yours - the technological revolution will have come to an end - for us. The solution is *not* to stifle creativity, or disincentivize innovation, but to foster a sense of responsibility in the users, and to encourage the creators and distributors to develop innovative business models and to embrace change (sorry 'bout that... it *was* a little "preachy," but you get the idea - I hope!).

Remember: Apple (TM) didn't get to where they are today ("growing" from 80% of the desktop computer market to less than 10% today) except by the efforts of *many* lawyers jealously protecting every last shred of Apple's intellectual property - until they became a niche player. That's not what the Congress is trying to do here, is it???

_____________
Apple is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.

Auto generator

[mfos.org]

#!/usr/bin/perl

print "Dear estemeed congress person\n"
print "Here is how I feel about DRM"
while (1)
{
print "NO! ";
}
print "\nThank you for your consideration.\n"

Re:Auto generator

[dpilot]

Your code looks unconstitutional to me. To fix it, all you need to do is change "while(1)" to "while(Eternity-1)" and it will be just fine.

Re:Auto generator

[koh]

If this really perl code ? And I heard perl was so much harder to read... ;)

Re:Auto generator

[91degrees]

It is valid perl code. Perl has a very clear easy to read subset. The problem is if you're going to sue that it's no better than any other language.

Really powerful lines look vaguely like this

$filters ~= /(\d+)=(\w)/;

Re:Auto generator

[socalmtb]

Why not change it to:

#!/usr/bin/perl

while(1) {
open(MAIL, "|/usr/lib/sendmail -i -t");
print MAIL "Dear esteemed congress creature\n";
print MAIL "Here is how I feel about DRM\n";
while(x = 100) {
print MAIL "NO!\n";
}
close MAIL;
}

It's a trap!

[teamhasnoi]

They are trying to bust you pirates! If you aren't a pirate, why would DRM matter? Only the pirates will comment on this!

Incidentally, this should be on the front page...

Re:It's a trap!

["Zow"]

Well, I have to take issue with whoever modded this as a troll -- flamebait maybe, but not a troll.

That said, I take issue with being called a pirate. I am staunchly against the illegal copying of copyrighted material. I do however believe in fair use. I just finished re-ripping my entire CD collection to ogg format (I previously had it in mp3 format). Why? I think ogg is a more efficient format and I have no desire to infringe on Freehausenfritter's (or whatever their name is) patent. In the process I found that I've lost a few of my CDs since I ripped them to mp3. Not sold, not gave away, just lost. So now I'm going to go out and buy new copies. That means more money in the RIAA's pocket. If I hadn't meticulously gone through my collection to rip it, I probably wouldn't have noticed a few missing from the hundreds I've acquired over the years. So that's fair use, and I think the record companies would have a hard time arguing that fair use hurts their sales.

The other reason that DRM matters I think is summed up well by the guy that posted from CMU -- I don't think I could say it better, so I'll just defer to them.

-"Zow"

Re:It's a trap!

[teamhasnoi]

My point was irony, but that is usually lost on moderators.

I am interested in your decision to buy new CDs. If you had actually lost them (not sold or gave them away), could you have just grabbed them from a p2p?

I make the assumption that you could have lost them under the couch and haven't looked there yet. If you lose something, you don't give up ownership - you've just lost the ability to use the original. Fair Use dictates that you should be able to use your backup (mp3) or space shift it (ogg from p2p).

Or does it?

Re:It's a trap!

["Zow"]

I actually still have the old mp3's that I ripped from the originals, so that's suiting me just fine until I get new copies. I like having the original CDs around for a few reasons:

1. The ability to recode to a different format (going from one lossy format to another just doesn't work): I used to have a bunch of my songs on MiniDisc for portability before mp3 hit the scene, so some of my favorite music has been on MiniDisc, mp3, and now ogg.
2. I do ocasionally go back to the CD for the liner notes.
3. The ability to ride my moral high horse. There, I admitted it. I'm not going to stand on the proverbial street corner (/.) and preach to the heathen masses :-), but I just think it's the right thing for me to do. Besides, I also believe in fair use (although, as another poster observed, you'll find disagreements over what constitutes fair use), and I think my philosophy makes me a more credible advocate for that cause.

As for what happened to my CDs? The last place I remember having them was the car, which my wife normally drives. Knowing her, my CDs were taking up space that she wanted for her Garth Brooks CDs, so she pitched them (deliberately or on accident). Or maybe they got ripped off. I don't know.

What's more, if I can find them used at the local record store, I'll probably get them that way, which contridicts my earilier statement that the record companies would see more money from me, at least directly. That's because I also believe in the doctorine of first sale, which allows for the resale of original copies of copyrighted works, and falls squarely into fair use. It could be argued that by reducing the number of used copies by one, I'm forcing someone else to purchase a new one. I'm not convinced of that though. What I do know is that I'll usually get hooked on an artist after picking up a couple of their CDs used and then buy everything new they put out. Furthermore, I'd probably be more interested in buying new CDs if I knew the artist actually made money off of them, but in a world where a record can go gold and still leave the artist oweing the record company money, I'll save the couple bucks going used and then go see their concert (which is where artists make all their money).

I'll never claim not to be a hypocrite, unless it's to be hypocritical.

-"Zow"

Re:It's a trap!

[extrasolar]

"I am staunchly against the illegal copying of copyrighted material. I do however believe in fair use."

So am I. But what use is "fair use" if we get to make up the rules on what fair use is?

Seriously, Napster ruined the party. With more people who actually live by your beliefs, we'd not have to worry about this crap.

A few million bad apples really ruined the dozen good ones. I think calling the whole situation "not fair" is quite a bit one-sided, IMHO.

Re:It's a trap!

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

I hear a few bad apples are misusing their free speech rights. You know, passing out hate speech pamphlets, inciting riots, etc. It's a shame the government had to take away everyone's free speech.

Re:It's a trap!

[extrasolar]

You really need to get out more, you know that? To take what you said seriously would require simply not being aware of whats going on around you.

Re:It's a trap!

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

To post what you just posted here would require simply not being able to put ideas together logically at all.

Re:It's a trap!

[teamhasnoi]

To read what you both are saying would assume that I am at work and am wasting time.

Re:It's a trap!

[teamhasnoi]

Like I said - irony lost. But that's ok. And I still think this story should be on the front page. :P

Re:It's a trap!

[littlerubberfeet]

Granted.....BUT. According to what I have heard about the DRM, it limits my ability to copy what I NEED to. Like the rather overpriced, but worth it RadioHead CD that I dont want damaged by airline security....Or that song that I made myself on a synthesizer and burned...Or the 856 dollar copy of Lightwave 7.0 that I have to backup and use when I travel.

So, people might pirate things, but I could have pirated any f the above stated items. Why didn't I? Because the RadioHead CD was overpriced, but well worth it for the sound quality. I BOUGHT lightwave instead of using a dongle emulator because the program is so good, and I value the tech support, etc.

So people pirate. So let the corporations stop it by making it worth it for people to buy, rather then steal their products.

Here are my comments...

[Tom7]

This article should really be on the main page. Getting a few thousand rather than a few dozen to submit their comments would really help. (Of course, having well thought-out and presented comments is the most important!)

I'm a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA. As a computer researcher I know that it is vital to have access to general-purpose, open computers. Mandatory Digital Rights Management technology in computers would make it unacceptably difficult to study and improve upon computer systems.

In addition, I'm also worried that DRM technology would raise the barriers to entry with regard to amateur content creation. As it stands, it is easy for anyone to create their own pictures or music or stories or movies, encode them in standard formats, and share them with people -- this has led to a rich and flourishing landscape of amateur content on the internet. Implicit in the Digital Rights Management proposals that I have seen is the idea that content is created only by the large corporations that make up the entertainment industry. By requiring content creators to license patents or programs, meet difficult requirements, or use proprietary formats, the amateur is locked out of effectively distributing his work. Infringing on the ability for amateurs to create and share their own works is a tragedy beyond any other consequence of DRM. After all, the purpose of copyright as stated in the constitution is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts!"

Please don't stifle technology innovation, and the vast and wonderful potential for our consumers to become content creators themselves, all just to protect business models of the last century. Leave the burden on these businesses to prosecute copyright infringers, or to otherwise develop content delivery systems that are are profitable AND friendly to consumers.

Summarize the arguments you've already heard.

[Lendrick]

Seriously. If you don't have anything new to add to the comments, just write up something summarizing the problems you've already seen. In doing that, you let congress know that you as a consumer actually care about your fair use rights.

The comments on this legislation so far are overwhelmingly negative. Let's keep it that way, by letting them know that normal individuals absolutely do not want to be subject to mandatory DRM.

Oh, and I'll echo something that was said above: Editors, why the hell isn't this up on the front page where more people can see it? This is a chance for us sedentary slashdotters to make an impression without getting up off of our butts and going to the post office. We should take advantage of that.

P.S. I already submitted my comment. Have you submitted yours?

My comment to the commitee

[dacarr]

Just like I posted it, here it is. - As a voter and a citizen of the United States of America, I think it is time to make a comment to congress regarding the recent proposal of a chip to be placed in new computers to control what can (not) be copied. In short, this is a very bad idea. I honestly see this chip as proposed by DRM proponents as something Congress could use to control what we could move around on our computers. Basically, it would be an embedded dongle. The problem here is that these proposals are being foisted around by people who don't understand technology, and unlike the V-chip, would shake the foundations of the computing world, requiring major redesigns in every aspect of computing. I also see this as something of a violation of our rights as granted in the first and fourth amendments to the US Constitution. It is Congress passing legislation that controls what is stated by the people, which per the first is wrong, and it would also have Congress assuming that everybody in the US is committing a crime. This brings up another tenet of the constitution: was not one of the principles this country was founded upon being that all people (criminals included) were innocent until proven guilty by the courts? We've stepped away from that because of media distortion, however this brings the ideal that the government assumes we must all be stopped from committing these crimes. The third reason I am against this is due to the waste. Plain and simple, such a device will not work. Whereas in the physical realms, one must exert tremendous effort and/or money to work around something put in place as to block them from doing something (let's say a tax lien being a problem that prevents somebody from taking a loan out, for instance), in the "cyber" realm, as it were, one can easily crack through the chip. It is not foolproof, nor will it be, and it will be worked around. In short, please do not waste your time on something that cannot be enforced.

Here's what I wrote

[yerricde]

I included a better method of "Consumer Broadband ... Promotion" in my comment:

The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, introduced as a bill by Sen. Fritz Hollings, is a bad idea. It would let Hollywood, admittedly a large industry, dictate terms to Silicon Valley, an even larger industry, and it would stifle innovation. It would infringe on the freedoms that make America America. And it wouldn't even work as promised.

The CBDTPA would be horrendously expensive to implement. Watch as an Internet router becomes five times because it has to use so much processing power to determine whether or not a packet violates a copyright that it can't perform its core function: routing packets. Watch as a twenty dollar pocket calculator needs a ten dollar copyright protection chip because its memory can hold numbers that happen to represent the sequence of notes in a copyrighted musical work. Watch as the open-source computer operating systems used by hundreds of tax-paying businesses become illegal because they cannot interact with trade-secret protocols established by the consortium that the CBDTPA creates.

Even neglecting the financial cost, the CBDTPA would still stifle innovation in technology. Electrical and computer engineering students would have trouble in their experiments for fear of creating a "digital media device" subject to the restrictions. The related "broadcast flag" bill would give Hollywood motion picture studios a veto power over any innovation in audiovisual technology. In addition, Microsoft Corporation holds patents on processes essential to implementing the security standards described in the CBDTPA; thus, the CBDTPA would give Microsoft a statutory monopoly on computer operating systems, and experience with American markets shows that monopolies rarely innovate faster than a briskly competitive free market.

The CBDTPA would either demolish fair use or be completely ineffectual. There is no way for a device to reliably distinguish a infringement on the exclusive rights of a copyright holder (17 USC 106 and ch. 5) from a permitted fair use (17 USC 107). Imagine taking a camcorder, pointing it at your child who is taking her first steps, and having the camcorder shut off when the child walks past the television that is showing copyrighted programming. Please read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html to see a story of what could happen in a post-CBDTPA world.

The CBDTPA would have a negative effect on freedom of speech. Currently, copyrighted works are not created solely by Hollywood; But under some interpretations of the CBDTPA, the barrier to publishing even the simplest work of literature, art, or music would rise drastically, possibly out of the reach of any amateur. If you were passionate about your art, would you want the government to lock you out of being able to share it with your fellow Americans? Way "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" (heavy sarcasm)!

The bill might not even be constitutional. The security systems mandated by the CBDTPA have been called "policeware" (see http://www.stoppoliceware.org/), and requiring all digital media devices to carry policeware could easily violate the Third Amendment and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The interference with free speech in some cases may conflict with the First Amendment.

Worst of all, the CBDTPA would not even live up to its name: it would not promote consumer broadband Internet access. The chief reason that I have heard about why more people don't have broadband is _not_ the unavailability of Hollywood feature films but rather 1. the cost, and 2. the limitation to a point-to-point service (making it useless to travelers). The right way to promote consumer broadband would be to open up the currently closed "last mile" of copper to the home to competitors. To do this, Congress should regulate how much the incumbent telephone and cable monopolies can charge for access.

I, along with thousands of members of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the over 100,000 people who have signed the anti-CBDTPA petition (see http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi? SSSCA), oppose the CBDTPA and the "broadcast flag" legislation and urge Congress to reject them. If Hollywood studios don't want to offer its movies through channels that they consider "insecure", then let the studios build their own "secure" infrastructure. Congress, please help preserve American freedoms by voting "NO" to the CBDTPA.

Sincerely,
Damian Yerrick

From my comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

...

But there is something you may not have considered. What the movie and record industries are asking you to do is to prevent one individual from sending information (copyrighted data) to another individual. A reasonable request, but this is currently not technically possible--hence their demand for mandatory DRM. But consider the situation in countries like the People's Republic of China--the government wants to prevent one individual from sending information (that is critical of their corrupt government) to another individual. But the very same technological abilities that prevent movie studios from stopping American movie and music pirates also prevent the Chinese government from stopping criticism of the government by Chinese citizens. If you mandate the elimination of these technological abilities in American products, the Chinese will be able import the same technologies for use in their own country.

In essence, Film and Music lobbiests are asking you to destroy the best tool for guaranteeing free speech in the midst of tyranny, all so they can save a little bit of money.

Check out the sidebar!

[greenhide]

It contains documents written up by various industry organizations, including the MPAA.

One particularly interesting quote (from the CONTENT PROTECTION STATUS REPORT II):

There has been no progress toward establishing a dialog with
the Information Technology industry aimed at developing
technological means to stem the avalanche of movie theft on
so-called "file-sharing" peer-to-peer networks. Neither an April
12 studio CEO letter nor a May 16 follow-up letter to nine
technology company CEOs requesting a high-level working
group have received a response.

Good.

Also, I love how they use the word "avalanche". First of all, these movies are something on the order of 400-500 MBs in size. So there can't be all that many people downloading them--who wants to wait that long? At that point you may as well rent the darn thing! Secondly, even if the file sizes were small, the population of file swappers is tiny, miniscule in comparison to the vast number of people who purchase or rent the movies. Hollywood is easily, easily spending more on legal fees and lobbying than they are losing from file-swapping forms of copyright infringement.

Without question their greatest enemy is the black market, where cheap, illegal copies of movies are being made. And why aren't they targeting VCR manufacturers, who actually create tape copiers that ignore copywrite protections?

Like it'll make the difference

[__aafkqj3628]

Wow, the government asking for our comments. When was the last time anything came out of that?

It may get some people putting time into that and the other 99% will send messages that are short, to the point and inflamatory.

"Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

[NotInTheBox]

If the point is to 'filter' data over the internet, how in hell would it be posible to make a DRM that could filter out copyrighted material out of shh-like incrypted/compressed data lines?

The only way they would be able to do so is by outlawing encryption (and any kind of privat communication) and any kind of unlicenced (criminal) creativity (ban on programing, writing, etc).

Basicly the only kind of goverments that want this to happen are shortshighted dictatorships.

Please remember this:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

More over: This is the same problem as with the war on terrorisme: the only way to 'win' is if the goverments crushes anyone that has a hope for a beter world, a beter world then this.

A freedom fighter and a terrorist are the same, only one was lucky enough that he won, the other one lost.

The difference between a hero, a villan, or an idiot is the public.

And no, it's not good enough if the people may choose who their dictator will be: that is not a reasonable choice.

The future will not be democratic.

You can also take action at EFF's site

[X86Daddy]

EFF's Action Center [eff.org] also has a couple of Fax-your-rep forms about this issue, urging them to support the two recently mentioned acts:
Support the Digital Choice and Freedom Act! [eff.org]
[eff.org]
Support the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act!

Oh, and I agree with all the other posts; this does belong on the front page.

Comments I provided

[NumberSyx]

Let me say up front, any sort of Digital Rights Management (DRM) system is a bad idea. It will by its very nature restrict the rights and freedoms enjoyed by generations of Americans for no other purpose than to increase the profits of the Entertainment Industry at the expense of consumers and the much larger Tech Industry.

In order for ant sort of Digital Rights Management system to be acceptable, the following list MUST be implemented;

1. Fair Use as it existed prior to 1998 must be protected. Circumvention must be allowed for personal use, interoperability, reverse engineering and research both public and private.

2. DRM must not interfere with anyones right to make and distribute their own content. Content providers should be allowed to distribute their content without DRM protection and consumers should be able to use unprotected content without restriction. If a content provider wishes to protect their work with DRM, any required digital certificates will be free and easy to obtain.

3. DRM must be an open and public specification with no licensing fees attached.

4. All DRM systems must protect the rights of the consumer. DRM systems must protect the privacy of the user and can not interfere with free speech, free expression, freedom of the press or any other freedom provided by the constitution.

5. The burden of Enforcement must be on the content provider, not on the consumer or the provider of the DRM system. The burden of enforcement must also not be with any government body beyond what is provided for by current law.

6. DRM must not interfere with any other use of the system.