Senate Judiciary Committee Copyright Page 20
leviramsey writes: "The Senate Judiciary Committee has posted a website dealing with Copyright law, especially with respect to the Internet. Hearing transcripts are posted, as are relevant laws. A comment form is provided. They do not want anonymous comments, so that they may publish them later."
Re:Maybe Congress Could Do More of This (Score:1)
How can we reach these people? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's simple to us. We know closed source means untrusted programs having control of our computers. We know that means stolen data and lost privacy (e.g. spyware). But all copy protection must be closed source. Why? Because computers can't distinguish between reading a file to view and reading a file to copy/steal/share it. So only certain programs can be allowed to view the file. You cannot be permitted to change these programs, because then you can make copies of the content. You cannot be permitted to understand these programs, because then you can make replacements of the viewing program, and thus make copies of protected content.
Therefore, Copy protection = untrusted software on my computer.
It's NOT about the Fair Use doctrine. It's about who controls your computer.
So how the heck am I supposed to explain this to my senator? Or to the average constiuent of my senator?
Re:How can we reach these people? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How can we reach these people? (Score:3, Informative)
You can't solve social problems using technological solutions.
You mentioned that anti-copying software must be closed-source. Yet S.2048 (CBDTPA) specifically requires any anti-copying software be open source. (3)(d)(2) Of course, I'm still opposed to the bill (mostly because a simple hard drive could be considered a "digital media device" under the bill. But the closed-source argument won't help in this case.
Doesn't matter. (Score:1)
I was surpised to see open source mentioned specifically, but in any case that open source is only referring to the security system. So for instance, you could have an open source security system that only allows closed source programs endorsed by the creator to access content. I'm not convinced that's even possible, and I'm curious what would happen if a bill that was simply impossible to implement became law.
In any event, the problem isn't this specific law, as there is no way this thing is going to even be considered by the House or the President. The problem is that while this bill won't procede simply because Dems proposed it and Reps hate Dems, maybe someone will make a compromise version or Democrats could totally sweep the House next election and pass whatever they want.
By the time they do that, we'll need to have gotten our act together and be able to oppose it a lot more forcefully then we're opposing this.
Haiku. (Score:2)
Now on to the good part...
I was reading through the comments, and I was amazed at just how many there were. I cut an dpasted the text into Word and it came out to about 112 pages, courier, 10pt font... all that done in less than a week!
Just for fun, I hit the "Auto Summarize" button to see what it would come up with, and I was pleasantly suprised. On the very lowest setting, the entire 112 page mega post turned into a tiny fascinating Haiku-like poem. I reproduce it for you here:
Re:Haiku. (Score:1)
Not transcripts-- submitted statements (Score:2, Informative)
Sometimes these statements are read at the hearing, but sometimes they are just entered in the record and the congressperson or expert witness says little or expounds on the points in the statement.
After statements, there's a question & answer period. That's when the good stuff usually happens & it's only reflected in the transcripts.
The latest Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committee hearings on the CBDTPA (sih-bid-tihp-ah?) & related issues have not been posted to GPO Access [gpo.gov] yet.
Judiciary (Leahy): "Competition, Innovation, and Public Policy in the Digital Age: Is the Marketplace Working to Protect Digital Creative Works?" held 3/14/2002 [senate.gov], Commerce (Hollings): "Protecting Content in a Digital Age--Promoting Broadband and the Digital Television Transition" held 2/28/2002 [senate.gov].
Earlier hearings do have transcripts posted, though. Compare "Online Entertainment: Coming Soon to a Digital Device Near You" submitted statements [senate.gov] vs. transcript [gpo.gov]
The q&a in the transcript looks like it's either written communication from before the hearing or a heavily edited version of what was said. I have the audio from Hollings hearing, so when the transcript comes out, I'll check its accuracy.
the link to the statements for that particular hearing from the Judiciary page is wrong, but mine is right. I've let them know
No reference to CBDTPA (Score:4, Insightful)
It's odd that there's no reference on their page to the CBDTPA that's been introduced (S.2048) [loc.gov]. I realize it isn't in their committee (it's now in the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee), but it is still relevant to what they're requesting comments on.
If you're going to comment on the CBDTPA, I strongly suggest you actually read the text. Whining about how it will kill fair use, for example, won't win you any points, since the bill requires that any security measures respect the limits on the copyright owner, including fair use, and explicitly requires that people be able to make recordings for personal home use. You might reasonably object that such a goal is incompatible with all of the other requirements that such a system would have, but don't claim that they haven't considered the consumer at all in this.
I sent in my comments by e-mail; as others have reported, I got it back with a link for re-submitting it using their Web site, which I did. I didn't get any acknowledgement, nor has it been posted to the Web site yet. As at least one comment was posted the day it was written (based on a comment that included the day's date), I'm not sure what's going on. Maybe it was too long, but I didn't get a rejection, either. I don't think it was of lower quality than the comments that I've read so far (and certainly better than some). I updated what I said to reference the CBDTPA instead of the SSSCA and resubmitted it (indicating it was a resubmission), but I still haven't heard anything, and nothing's been added to their Web site since yesterday.
As a side note, they should split up the user comments into a separate page for each day; the current page is over 600K for one week's worth of comments (March 18-March 25, with nothing posted on March 23). For anyone checking to see new comments, it'd save a whole lot of bandwidth and time.
Re:No reference to CBDTPA (Score:1)
It seems pretty weird to have a hearing about an issue, but no legislation officially introduced (though we can gather Eisner & co had seen the draft), then have the leg. go directly to the main body. Allows speakers to say whatever they want without needing to stick to the intent/result of the pending leg., but the leg. can be tweaked at the last minute to suit public perception. Maybe it's a common occurance, though?
The senate reconvenes April 8th, but the only thing on the agenda is the energy bill. Who knows when this will come up for debate???
Re:No reference to CBDTPA (Score:1)
It was read into the record, then referred to committee. See Bill Summary & Status [loc.gov].
There were 25 other bills and two resolutions introduced that same day, see the Daily Digest [loc.gov]. All were referred to the appropriate committees (Page S2260) [loc.gov] except for one resolution, S. Res 231, which was considered and agreed to (Page S2261) [loc.gov]. You can get to those from the Daily Digest link, then go to Pages S2260-S2261 [loc.gov], which then has some of those "temp" URLs, but once you're there you can use "next document" and "previous document" to get less ephemeral links (although the temp links I get are the same as yours, so they are at least somewhat persistent).
Re:No reference to CBDTPA (Score:1)
This reminds me that trying to follow the various versions of the PATRIOT act was a nightmare. How are you supposed to write to a Member of Congress if you don't know what to call the legislation? Some twist on CBDTPA will be introduced into the House soon, then each body will amend them willy-nilly & it might go to conference committee. What is someone to think if you write complaining about a particular section that's been amended to the point (in the version of the bill they believe will come to a vote) that your argument is nonsensical?
Here's my comment (Score:2)
I am a software developer with 18 years of professional experience, and another 10 years of programming/development as a hobby before my professional career.
I find the current trend of Copyright law disturbing. The Constitution calls for copyright to be for a "limited time". Since when is 95 years a limited time. Nothing created since I was born is likely to enter the public domain in
my lifetime.
From my lay point of view -- I am not an IP lawyer -- the recent hearings seemed almost orchestrated by the RIAA and MPAA, with the only dissenting voice silenced and ridiculed. Interestingly enough, this dissent came from an executive at Intel, one of the more innovative companies in the US.
The media companies allege billions of dollars in losses due to "piracy". Have they provided any non-anecdotal evidence to back up this claim? The amount of money they claim to have lost is staggering. Have they noted this so-called loss on any SEC filings?
Also, the CBDTPA findings claim that the lack of high quality digital content is hindering the adoption of consumer broadband. I find this to be laughable. 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".
Next, the when Congress seeks to impose restrictions on the kind of products that the media companies produce, they (rightly, in my opinion) claim the protection of the First Amendment. Yet now, they would seek to deny the same protection to others? I certainly hope that Congress points this out them, the next time such restrictions on movies or recordings are proposed.
Furthermore, this proposed legislation violates fair-use rights as upheld by the Supreme Court. Why can't I buy a CD and then copy it to my MP3 player? Or are we moving to a complete "pay-per-use", where I have to pay some record company whenever I hear some music anywhere?
Note further, that the industry tried once before to get a pay-per-use type of model for movies at home. It was called DivX, and it failed in the marketplace. The movie industry is now trying to achieve through legislation what it failed to do in the free market.
The economic impact on the technology sector of the country would be great. May I suggest that the Committee examine the relative contributions to the economy of the technology sector as compared to that of the entertainment sector?
Last, and certainly not least, this legislation is insulting to every citizen. It implies that we are all criminals. Or does the Senate no longer believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?
I am not merely a consumer or a taxpayer. I am a *CITIZEN* of the United States of America, and I belive that the Congress needs to uphold my rights
and those of my fellow citizens over the needs of a corporation.
I thank the Committee for its time, and hope that they do the right thing for the citizens of the United States.