Tech Industry To Hollywood: Slow Down, Camper 255
negativethirsty wrote to us with a story here at Wired, most of the tech industry heads sent a letter to the motion picture studios, with a nod towards the US Senate. Basically, the tech industry does not want SSSCA to be pased, and want to work out a "technically feasible, cost effective solution" for protecting entertainment delivered in digital form.
obviously... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Synergy" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is "ganging up on the consumers".
If these two factions ever come to an agreement, fair use as we know it is dead (even more than it is already!).
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Read the article (Score:5, Interesting)
It also says "America's largest and most powerful tech firms have agreed on one point: Keep Congress far away from digital content standards."
This is not "ganging up on the consumers", it's "ganging up" on congress to make them stay out of this. Sure, they're brown-nosing media companies ("look, we want to protect your copyrights just as much as you do") but the important message is that they want to decide for themselves how to do it. And if there isn't any legislation in place, some other people (Linux developers, say) can do things their way and ditch DRM altogether if they want.
So it's good.
I think.
Not terribly bad, anyway, the way you make it sound.
Re:Read the article (Score:2)
But the result, for users, is the same whether it arises from government-bad mandate, or business-good voluntary cartel-like association.
Think about outcomes. Think about effects. That's my point.
It's really silly to be cheering that they don't want Congress to be involved in the serious effort of fleecing the users!
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:Read the article (Score:2)
Re:Read the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:Read the article (Score:2)
Re:Read the article (Score:3, Insightful)
What would happen, I concede though, would be that it would be the end of getting *nix workstations for commodity PC prices, since the commodity PCs would be the crippled ones.
One ray of hope: I note that Apple does not appear to be part of this--which could mean that they don't buy into mandatory DRM in personal computers. Unfortunately, it could also mean that they back the SSSCA.
Re:Read the article (Score:2)
Note there will always be an underground, always some illegal sub-rosa work-around for a very few people who are dedicated hobbyists.
But the outcome will be 99.99% of the population is locked into the cartel system. Too many peolpe seem to think that if there is 0.01% difference, well, that'll be them and who cares about the rest? The problem is that it's going to be very lonely and risky place to be.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:Read the article (Score:4, Insightful)
Like Germany, where macrovision is illegal.
Re:Read the article (Score:2)
Re:Read the article (Score:2)
Re:Read the article (Score:2)
So, in other words, this is a big deal. JMHO.
Why (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why (Score:2)
Re:Why (Score:2)
Again with this strange interpretation. Look, all that this letter is against is sec 104, the 12 month time limit to come to a consensus. Nothing else. They're pro the goals of the SSSCA, just anti having the wrong (read: not benefiting us) standard enforced.
I'd take a wild guess that NCR doesn't care, because they're not going to be part of setting any of the important (music, video) standards, and conversely that Carly reckons that HP is well placed to decide those very standards, so is happy for the clock to start running.
Hate To Be A Naysayer ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hate To Be A Naysayer ... (Score:2)
Those who have presses.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, the speech made clear to me that we are arriving at the most revisionist moment in history since writing was restricted to the priesthood. That's right, that speech at the Grammys was the most culturally backward moment in 3500 years. Sure, that sounds extreme, but consider this; in the year 3000, do you really believe that digital rights management is going to be a cornerstone of culture? And do you honestly think they'll be able to look backwards at 2001 and say "Thank god they stopped that Napster or we wouldn't have survived!" We are actually being asked to cripple the foundations of the technological future so that a small band of carnies i mean executives can keep their jobs holding the keys to the gilded cage where they keep Lars Ulrich.
No, pull the band-aid. Hard. Steal all the music you can and see what happens. It'll hurt for a minute, and then you'll see how much better everything is. All technology is theft; theft of power from above. Ever heard of Prometheus? It's trickery to get the power of the gods. So we found a powerful new fire and Rosen and Valenti are doing their best to say in booming voices "Put that back! Only the priesthood may hold an uncovered flame! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Re:Those who have presses.... (Score:2)
Hell of a piece of advertizing on the issue. (How much would an equivalent comercial have cost on the Grammy's? No, not a comercial interruption - but having someone on stage read your commercial for Acme combination Roachkiller - dessert topping)
They fed this to millions of viewers who probably don't know much about the issues yet. I wanna know exactly what they said.
P.S.
I just asked my mother about it(she doesn't know much about computers). She didn't pay much attention, but she said it sounded stupid to her. She also sounded annoyed that they spent "about 15 minutes" on it. This might be a good sign, maybe they shot themselves in the foot by pissing off viewers and sounding like idiots.
-
Re:Those who have presses.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to say, I was thrilled when I finished reading it. In addition to pissing off viewers by interupting the Grammys, I can't imagine them accepting and sympathizing with over-the-top statements like "No question the most insidious virus in our midst is the illegal downloading of music on the Net". And how many people are going to be moved to tears by "That very special connection between the fan and the artist is an historically important partnership".
Then I love the next sentence - "In recent years, industry consolidation
But my favorite parts are where he actually promotes filesharing:
"file-sharing and ripping of music files is pervasive" and "millions of students and other computer users" - Everybody is doing it, don't be left out!
"from easily accessible Web sites" - It's so easy! Why aren't you doing it?!
"In just a couple of days they have downloaded nearly 6,000 songs. That's three kids, folks." Damn! You mean I can get 6,000 song for free in 2 days?! If a couple of kids can do it, so can I! "Honey! Start up AOL! I wanna get 6,000 songs in 2 days!"
Somehow I don't think that "our fans - that would be you - " are quite ready "to embrace this life and death issue". Whew, for a minute there I was worried that his speach might have been an effective piece of propaganda. It wasn't. They may believe their own crap, they may be able to buy politians, the consumers may have no clue, but they aren't about to win grass-roots support from the audience.
P.S.
I'd really like to know what kind of pipe they gave those three students backstage.
-
This is NOT in support of SSSCA (Score:5, Informative)
The letter does not directly state support for passing the law - in fact it says "We have found these voluntary multi-industry standards setting efforts to be optimally effective in reaching workable market solutions." - implying that they think legislation is either unecessary or "sub-optimal". The wired article also picks up on this - somebody change the story text!.
I very much doubt big hardware vendors would be in favor of the kind of copy protection SSSCA seems to demand - it would be very onerous to have government imposed standards here, it could create a huge black/grey market in imported "free" hardware.
This appear to be them "showing support for the fight", not supporting "the weapon".
In other words . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is NOT in support of SSSCA (Score:2)
Then why don't they say so? This letter is a big old fudge that sort of implies that they think SSSCA is kinda unnecessary, but they couldn't even agree on just coming out and saying that.
If this watery, prevaricational letter represents their idea of a decisive consensus, then it actually goes a long way to justifying Holling's insane bill. SSSCA Sec 104 says that if industry can't agree on standards within 12 months, government will step in and sort it out.
And I think that's the only thing they're against. I believe that you're fundamentally wrong in saying that they're against mandatory copy protection per se, just that they don't want it dictated to them. That's all they're saying. If you're reading anything else into their letter, I think it's wishful thinking on your part. I wish that it weren't, but this letter is too late and far too little.
Re:This is NOT in support of SSSCA (Score:2)
Re:This is NOT in support of SSSCA (Score:2)
Ok, that's the last straw. We need to change the English language.
While I understand you mean free-speach hardware (french libre), you can't help but be clobbered over the head with the interpetation "free-beer hardware" (french graits).
My first thought was to import and use "libre", but it feels awkward in english. We could use "liberty". It means extending a noun into an adjective, but has the bonus of sounding patriotic, and patriotism is all the rage these days.
-
Missing a "NOT" there I think. (Score:3, Insightful)
IOW, the lesser of the two evils: still the possibility of all kinds of stupid draconian controls, but at least chosen by the industry, and not legally mandated.
Re:Missing a "NOT" there I think. (Score:2)
Well, the industry has every right to decide "we'll put our stuff online, but you have to obtain and enable X to download and/or play it". If that requirement keeps too much of the market away, well that's too damn bad for the industry -- which is what they are trying to avoid by socializing their costs with the SS SCA.
Re:Missing a "NOT" there I think. (Score:2)
DMCA is still a problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
The DMCA [cornell.edu] means any programmer who can write a trivial encryption routine to "protect" (restrict) content can act as a legislator by making certain actions regarding that content illegal.
When a programmer can outlaw exercise of fair use rights to a piece of content - fair use rights become meaningless.
Isn't that an illegal delegation of power from Congress to those that write content "protection" (restriction) code? I think so.
Of course we can avoid their content - but that puts Linux [linux.com] at a disadvantage (people will cry "It can't play movies - unless you go to a bunch of criminal hackers and use (un-American) illegal software").
It is better than the SSSCA [petitiononline.com], which would at best seriously mess with Linux and at worst make it difficult or even illegal to run at all.
Well, I'm the customer and I won't buy it (Score:4, Insightful)
If storage manufacturers are actively heading in a direction I don't want then they will not get a penny of my money. I currently actively avoid SDMI limited hardware and encourage others to do the same. e.g. The secure multi media cards and MP3 players that support them.
*I'm* the customer, not the RIAA.
Re:Well, I'm the customer and I won't buy it (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as no one buys the crippled SONY portable music players, and they buy other, SDMI free players, people will reject these new devices and parts en masse, and the law will be made to look an ass again.
Re:Well, I'm the customer and I won't buy it (Score:2)
Re:Well, I'm the customer and I won't buy it (Score:2)
But you knew that.
Re:Well, I'm the customer and I won't buy it (Score:2)
And its exactly this attitude and action which will create a huge market opportunity for some non us person or entity to manufacture and distribute parts and finished products that are free of these absurd encumberments.
This is very true, look at stand alone DvD players, how many models have a method for disabling Region coding ? I have bought several over the last couple of years and all of them have had some way to do it. The reason these companies do it is because they sell the same product in many regions and they need an easy way to change the codes, which reduces manufactering costs. I also suspect for many companies they consider this a selling point as well.
What I see happening if the SSSCA passes, we will see hardware produced overseas being built with DRM, but there will be a backdoor for disabling it, so they can turn it on for units sold in the US and turn it off for everyone else. It may even happen that they put in a "Universal" mode, which will allow you to both use the protected content, while not preventing you from exercising your fair use rights, as many DvD players have a region free setting. Of course it is also likely this information will be "Leaked" and either the method for doing so will be published on the net or some clever hacker will write the six lines of C code required to change the setting.
Re:Well, I'm the customer and I won't buy it (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the standard libertarian argument - the consumer / market leads the way. I would agree, if I felt the average consumer / market was concerned enough with the issues in question. The problem is, most users don't care about principles, simply whether it does what they want, and isn't prohibitively expensive. The makers of such devices will make money if they sell something that a lot of people want to buy, whether or not it matches some smaller group's set of principles.
Currently, pretty much every car driver pollutes the air considerably, me included. Even the ones who are ostensibly "green". Same goes for existing societies - I find I have to subsidise (through taxes) various measures that I disagree with fundamentally. I vote for some representative who agrees with my principles, as is my democratic right, but it has no further reaching effect. Why? Because my principles are not echoed by a substantial proportion of the rest of the population.
Ultimately, the population is only as interested in an issue such as this - prohibition on copying - as they are affected by it. Otherwise, it depends how the media portrays it. Think DMCA, think The Geneva Convention, think The Universal Convention on Human Rights. The US media targetted the DMCA issue at the public by suggesting that "hackers" would benefit if it wasn't in place. The Patriot Act was introduced to wide public acclaim because the media suggested "Terrorists" would benefit if it wasn't in place. The Geneva convention is flaunted in Guantanamo Bay, and the US public lets it past because the media doesn't highlight it.
If the general public - the majority of voters - are not negatively affected by the SSSCA, then it takes too much effort for them to take interest, and too much effort on the media's part to educate them. If I'm not going to copy digital content creatively, then I don't care if someone who does it illegally is prohibited from doing that technically. If I don't understand the technical reasons why someone could do it legally, then I won't want to spend time learning how, or why. It simply will be outside my sphere of interest.
To paraphrase a Civil War soldier, They will win, because they can't abide the way we live, yet we don't care how they live[1]. Until it becomes an issue of general relevance, the voting public won't care, and their liberties will be further eroded until they have a mode of thought equivalent to "newspeak", with only the single state department/media line to go along with.
[1] if someone knows who said that, and when, please reply!
Re:Well, I'm the customer and I won't buy it (Score:2, Interesting)
When Hillary Rosen says that she had a bad year what she means is not that the RIAA lost money far from it. What she means is that they are no longer growing. CD sales are back to the levels they were at in 1998 which is less than last year to be sure but, in a sagging economy, no big supprise.
What they are trying to do with the SSSCA is circumvent the market by putting into place legal requirements for us (the consumers) to adopt technologies that we have rejected, or at least embraced only slightly, (the RIAA controlled download sites) thus far. If this law passes then the control technology and the pay-services that they wish to mandate can go into effect because they will be the only legal ways to do it. And then they can keep their plush offices.
This will never work... (Score:2, Insightful)
Because there will be numerous (Asian) Producers
offering copy-free-versions....players, disks, etc.....
It did not work for DVDs, it did not work for
game consoles, it will not work for CDs and other
devices.....
It will be illegal to buy from asia (Score:4, Insightful)
Sharing music can take away my right to own firearms? It's a felony now and <sarcasm>felons are all dangerous criminals who shouldn't have guns</sarcasm>. In 15 states, a felony conviction removes your right to vote forever. LOSING THE VOTE:The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States [hrw.org]
As for someone else's arguement that "I won't buy it"- great, me too. The two of us can spend some serious time trying to keep today's computers running for the rest of our lives because laws make us unwilling to buy new equipment. It will be easy as pie to market ourselves on resume's in a decade. "Still able to operate equipment from the 00's" Windows BlahX experience? nah, I don't have a machine that can run that. Apache 6.03 experience? No, but I've got 10 years experience with version 2.0
I'm trying to find a group that will tell politicans not to abuse me. EFF [eff.org] seems interested in doing that but they move at a snails pace. YourCongress.com [yourcongress.com] seems to be interested in getting the people's voice to the politicans but the editors seem more interested in being funny then talking about issues. What groups do people use/belong to/know about that are active in fighting for geek rights?
New fair use laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Citizens of the US please start writing to your congressmen (M/F). We need to stand up for our rights immediately.
Pretty soon you won't be allowed to own cars, because they make it possible to kill people or escape from the scene of a crime.
The problem here is that not enough people believe/realise that they are adversly affected by this.
No SSSCA - This doesn't mean no SSSCA comformant h (Score:4, Insightful)
We're still screwed...
600 word letter? I'd love to still the exact text of what they wrote. Anyone seen a copy?
D.
Re:No SSSCA - This doesn't mean no SSSCA comforman (Score:2)
Uh, didn't you see the link [216.110.42.179] at the start of the wired article?
Exactly, and when you read the letter itself, you'll see that in spades. The only objection is to having a standard mandated (sec 104, they have 12 months to decide on one or the government steps in). All that means is that each signatory is scared that this will mean that their standard doesn't get used, so they miss out on all those lovely anti-trust exempt mandatory license fees ad infinitum.
They're 100% pro SSSCA, just anti the clause that might lead to government making a bone headed choice about which scheme(s) to go with. I mean, we are talking serious money here, this isn't something that they want left to inbred idiotic incumbent political animals.
Re:No SSSCA - This doesn't mean no SSSCA comforman (Score:2)
Two monopilies living in just one wired world (Score:2, Insightful)
To hell with you mr small artist,to make it big these days you must sighn up with label x or label y
A closed system is a better system for all and provides a nice illusion of competition.Is it just me or is any one else getting realy realy tired of companies treating there custemers like criminals and trying to lock them into a system they do not want to have in place.What ever happened to the custemer is king.
What the music industry and the hardware industry want is a windows type senario where users are locked in to buying there products, there is off course severly limited competition and people do offcorse have the right Not to use there hardware but then they must sacrifice the right to listen to or view the music which these copyright horders own and that just happens to be a great big chunk
of whats being released and old songs who's copyright they have bought up.This whole senario
is a disgrace and goes against the whole idea of
competiton and does not in any way serv the consumer.
Solution (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Solution (Score:3, Funny)
>
>Hardware Cost: One 556 timer IC, two resistors, two capacitors, one switch and one buzzer.
Circumvention cost: One soldering iron. Another capacitor. Another resistor. And life in prison.
When electronics are outlawed, only outlaws will build electronics.
Two years ago, I would have put a smiley on that.
If you're reading this, you're probably concerned. Explain to your representative that SSSCA is a Bad Thing because a nation without technology people is a nation doomed to fail. Block out the means of getting "interested" in technology and you cut down on the number of future innovators.
Just because Jack Valenti thinks your kids should be watching movies instead of playing with electronics doesn't mean that it's a good thing for your kid's educational prospects.
The concept seems flawed (Score:2, Insightful)
At the most stupid, this would mean that it would become illegal to produce a device capable of presenting a normal monitor-out signal to show a movie, on the grounds that this signal could conceivably be used to produce high quality digital copies.
In the US it's apparently already against the law to write a normal computer program to decode a recording that you own legally, but outlawing CPUs and video cards seems even more ambitious and even more foolish. There is no practical means of stopping a hobbyist consumer doing what he likes with his own property and sharing his knowledge with others, nor would it be in the public interest to do so.
Why just entertainment (Score:2, Interesting)
Why restrict it to just protecting "entertainment" content? If digital rights management is to be introduced then should every file creator and copyright owner, not just entertainment corporations, not have the right to set the "digital rights"? While, personally, I do not like the idea of mandatory "rights management", if it is to be forced on us should we not campaign for a system which everyone can use to their advantage?
For example, self erasing emails were discussed on Slashdot a short while ago. A properly implemented digital rights management system could enable this by the originator setting a mandatory expiry date and setting the "no archive, no cut 'n' paste, no print" permissions on the email. Or a document sent (electronically) to a company could have "rights" set so that it could be viewed within the recipient company, but not forwarded outside that company.
Windows itself is a Circumvention Device(tm) (Score:2)
For example, self erasing emails were discussed on Slashdot a short while ago. A properly implemented digital rights management system could enable this by the originator setting a mandatory expiry date and setting the "no archive, no cut 'n' paste, no print" permissions on the email.
The makers of that system forgot about one thing: Windows itself is already a circumvention device. Just press Print Screen, start MS Paint, import the clipboard, and then save, OCR, or print the document. Does this mean that users of e-mail DRM can sue Microsoft under 17 USC 1201? Can they sue OCR software vendors?
Re:Why just entertainment (Score:2)
We can only hope that !USA will "fix" this (Score:2)
They can easily get into a very stupid position. They have to step back and think, not scream and shout.
I won't buy their stuff, but most people will. People don't care about these things, they care about the price for alcohol, who won the super ball and if the girl will put out...
Grammy's Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
It made me want to stop buying music althogether.
I was never an avid music consumer before Napster/mp3s. I would buy one album a year if even that. Then when Napster came along, and I was able to listen to different music and figure out what *I* liked, I have bought dozens of albums. I don't know where the Recording Industry, Movie Industry, and Tech Industry think they're going these days. Why is it that they feel like they have to establish this higher moral stance (when actually it's based on profits, not morality) to preserve a copyright system that clearly doesn't work anymore, and needs to be redesigned?
This is what I see happening if this bill gets passed:
-A wide and growing division of artists from the mainstream, where the Net finally becomes a mainstream place to purchase music or a secondary "rogue" recording industry develops that is more sympathetic to consumers rights and wants.
Now, I know I don't have all the answers. But all I can say is that Recording Industry, MPAA, and Tech Companies had better wake up and decide whether they like making money off their "precious" consumers.
Re:Grammy's Speech (Score:2)
I don't watch music events like this, it makes me sick to my stomach to see the mainstream crap inflating their own egos.
Re:Grammy's Speech (Score:3, Informative)
The speech was made Michael Greene, President and CEO of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, and the transcript is available here [aol.com].
Content wise, there was precious little: copying music is evil; 3.6 billion songs are illegally downloaded each month; download from legal sites so artists get paid (a quarter of a penny per song [slashdot.org], apparently).
Re:Grammy's Speech (Score:2)
Re:Grammy's Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly , me too. But I sneakingly suspect they don't care how many Autechre, Boards of Canada, Handsome Family, Chicks on Speed and Fennesz disks I buy at my favorite specialty shop... their metric is how quickly the dump bins empty at the megamart.
Are you getting this people? When they talk about the music industry, they mean big companies with mainstream artists. They don't care about piracy so much as alternate advertising and distribution routes. Basically, they want to make competition illegal.
G
One other note ... (Score:2)
Its just so much BS
Many of the nominees here tonight, especially the new, less-established artists, are in immediate danger of being marginalized out of our business.
If I am correct, artists make very little from the music and more on goods and promotional campaigns. Looks like he means "the record industry is loosing money" Funny how he never mentioned that since nabster took a dirt nap, record sales are down 8%.
And then he comes back to
That will ensure that our artists reach even higher and, deservedly, get paid for their inspired work.
No
As stated before
Re:Grammy's Speech (Score:4, Interesting)
"Who gives a fuck about a goddamn Grammy?"
- Public Enemy, Terminator X to the Edge of Panic, 1988
"Caught, now in court 'cuz I stole a beat, this is a samplin' sport [ ... ] ?"
- Public Enemy, "Caught, can I get a witness?" [publicenemy.com], 1988.
("Caught" was specifically about RIAA lawsuits and the sampling controversy of the early 90s. Way to go, RIAA, your policies on sampling nearly killed rap and early electronica/techno in its tracks. How much of your revenue stream do you owe to those genres now? And how much do you get from gouging people who still try to sample?)
Side note to Chuck D - if you ever this, working the guitar riff from KMFDM's "Godlike" into "She Watch Channel Zero" was one of the weirdest, and coolest, things I've ever heard. Loved it.
> This is what I see happening if this bill gets passed:
>
> -Widespread civil disobeience to the degree that somehow, sometime, they finally take notice.
"Chillin' in my crib, cold video-dubbin',
FBI warnin', huh, don't mean nothin',
They call that shit a crime, yo, that shit's a joke
Hit 'record' on my dope remote."
- Ice-T, ca. 1990.
>- A wide and growing division of artists from the mainstream, where the Net finally becomes a mainstream place to purchase music or a secondary "rogue" recording industry develops that is more sympathetic to consumers rights and wants. I'm not a huge rap fan, but I have to admit they've known about RIAA and MPAA from Day One.
Agreed on both your outcomes. Is it any wonder why Chuck D kicks the ass of RIAA every chance he gets to testify?
Re:Grammy's Speech (Score:2)
"Many of the nominees here tonight... are in immediate danger of being marginalized out of our business."
Looking at the winners: U2, Alicia Keys, James Taylor, Christina Aguilera, Lil' Kim, Mya, Pink, Eric Clapton, Janet Jackson, Sade Harry Connick, Jr., Lenny Kravitz, Linkin Park, Jeff Beck, Coldplay, Usher, Destiny's Child, Gladys Knight, Missy Elliott, Outkast, Eve, Gwen Stefani, Dolly Parton, etc. I don't see any that will either be going broke any time soon (apart from poor management, not result of file-sharing) or will be "marginalized out of our business" by the business itself. Where are New Kids on the Block, Vanilla Ice, Hammer, etc? They died long before Napster.
Re:Grammy's Speech (Score:2)
Man, I was in another room and that steady flow of shit last night caught my ear like when your nose catches a sewer treatment plant, I was wondering if /. would pick up on it. Don't you just love the language:
And then check out this Mickey Mouse Math, I don't even understand their point:
And can't you imagine him saying: And if we gave them faster connections, they would've downloaded even more songs, and this "problem" would be even worst.
And check out the kicker:
I'm surprised they didn't use the word "terrorist" anyplace. I guess the speech was written before Sept.11.
Basically it seems like they are softening up Congress so that their "legal Web site" will be the only place and only way to download music, enforced by constitutional amendment.
Amazing. Normally I wouldn't give a toss what those clowns say, but since the DMCA I've learned to listen and read carefully. (And we all better learn to WRITE carefully too....to our congressfolks and anybody who gets taxpayer dollars).
Hypothetical analogy (Score:3, Funny)
The death toll is, so far, 23 victims, and 36 wounded.
We would like you to ask Ed, Bud and Chuck about their experiences, but unfortunately two of them died in the accidents; Ed made it to a Mexican brothel, but we haven't heard about him ever since.
Now, multiply that by the thousands of teenagers that get driving licenses before they get to college. This is not a problem that can be solved in short order. It's going to require education and discipline.
Above all, it's going to require that we increase the insurance fees for teenagers by a couple thousands per cent.
We ask you to support our cause by buying our compulsory insurance for houses with teenagers within three blocks of the residence area, and by keeping your irresponsible children away from the vehicles. This experiment of ours has clearly shown what happens in everyday America.
Excuse me, you have a question? Of course we believe these represented typical conditions of teenage driving. What do you mean by that? Security!
Re:Civil disobedience (Score:2)
Step 2: burn oregano at your window
Step 3: repeat step 2 a few times
The police will soon think she's an idiot. Plus, depending on your local laws, you can sue her for barratry. Of course, technically that would be barratry.
typical politicking (Score:5, Insightful)
Make no mistake: they are not. Technological protections infringe fair use rights, they prevent the material from falling into the public domain when copyright terms run out, and they greatly increase the cost of entry into publishing. Rather than debating whether technological restrictions should be backed up by criminal law, we should be debating whether works published with technological restrictions should enjoy copyright protections at all.
I think companies should be free to use technological protections for their creations, but they should then not also enjoy legal and copyright protections because they have precluded the uses that were traditionally envisioned for published materials. It's the same with patents: either you publish and get patent protection, or you keep it a secret and don't get patent protection.
Forthought (Score:3, Insightful)
I have seen standards (especially open/free ones) flourish and grow beyond any expectations.
These standards offer clear benifits and improvements to commonly used items.
I have also seen the makers of isolated products fall to bankruptcy due to incompatability and cost.
This is a pattern that has been in place as long as I can remember. If I can use a product easily and it benifits my life without breaking my wallet it will succeed and flourish.
If I cannot play a movie I purchased on my new DVD player because it has no copyprotection features on the DVD then I will be pissed off.
If I cannot play the movie because I have an old DVD player I will be pissed off.
It's the standard of DVD (such as it is) that is making it possible to survive. The extra footage and quality make it worth a bit more as far as investment, but to keep it going you need people that are not being irritated every other year having to re-purchase movies or replace an "old" DVD player.
That would kill any product line no matter what special bells and whistles it offers.
Standards are what make innovation work as a business model.
I could make a million improvements on an item but if they are not standardized in some way, to work with as many people as possible, without nulifying the benifits, they will fail to catch on and make money.
Even hollywood realizes this need for standards set up for success.
"Hollywood executives fret that without strong copy protection in widespread use, digital versions of movies will be pirated as readily as MP3 audio files once were with Napster."
They do not want hundreds of incompatable copy protection methods in place, they want a unified standard of protection that will be used by all.
"widespread use" requires widspread acceptance.
This applies to standards for both sides of the Copy Protection VS. Consumer Rights debate.
Change is good but random change is chaos.
Re:Forthought (Score:2)
But the best standards are those arrived at by consensus, not fiat. That's the only objection this letter makes; they simply don't want the government to impose standards after 12 months if industry can't agree on them.
I see nothing that implies that they are against standard per se, and (despite what they say) I'm sure that each signatory would be delighted to have their standards made mandatory, with all the lovely licensing revenue that would generate.
But none of them are happy thinking that it might be the other guy's standard that gets used. They're rather do their deals in their own time and behind closed doors than to see the clock start running as soon as the SSSCA gets passed.
Re:Forthought (Score:2)
No, what they want is the ability to unilaterally dictate the nature of the standard, rather than accepting the standard which arises spontaneously out of the give-and-take of all interested parties (consumers, manufacturers, and publishers).
Hollyweird can put its stuff online tomorrow in a form which can only be accessed by jumping through any hoops it cares to require. However, if their hoops are unacceptable to their customers (too expensive, too annoying, too hard to implement on their computer and OS of choice), they won't make money. The only legitimate response to this is: "Too bad -- so sad". Hollyweird's response is to get Cash-and-Carry Hollings to make the hoops mandatory so that customers won't have the option of rejecting them.
It's ok... (Score:2)
Big computer corps won't like the SSSCA (Score:5, Insightful)
I called our IP Law group about this law when it first surfaced on my radar, because a lot of the things we do when bringing up a new system would have to change. I was pleased to find out that the HQ people were already up to speed on this.
What would have to change? Like for instance on first power-on the BIOS isn't done and on-board devices aren't fully supported... Well if the SSSCA passes and our very first power-on doesn't have support for their DRM (since there's no exception in the draft SSSCA for systems development or debug) all of us engineers are now guilty of federal felonies. I'm sorry, but I'll change careers and/or countries before I take a job that requires me to break the law.
All of us engineers and programmers know also that hardware diagnostics frequently turn off all onboard devices except for one at a time to attempt to isolate bad devices... guess what? Won't be able to do that anymore. That means diagnostics are less effective, which means more customer downtime and higher customer support costs. Any computer company that cares about their customers will not look forward to that.
And of course, if Sen Hollings adds an exemption for systems development folks the question becomes "Who constitutes a legitimate developer?" The 14-year old down the street probably doesn't, but I know folks who have a home lab that rivals what some hardware OEMs have. And all those college students developing computers for their EE classes then become problematic too. (Since both of these groups, college students with access to
Who knows where this will end? (sigh)
Re:Big computer corps won't like the SSSCA (Score:2)
Easy. Anyone who works for a company that pays the correct amount of "campaign contributions".
I'm not being flippant. Industry and government interact via lobbyists at $1000 a seat lunches. Being able to buy access to government ears shows that you're a fully fledged patriotic member of the free market economy. I honestly believe that the EFF would be well served by brib- sorry - lobbying a few politicians directly, rather than focussing on legal fights or encouraging individuals to "write their Congressman".
Re:Big computer corps won't like the SSSCA (Score:3, Insightful)
Listen to Joe's Garage (Score:2)
Go get a copy of Joe's Garage by Frank Zappa. It's on an independent label, so you can have a clean conscience. It is a good fable to what is going on.
The goal of any government is to make everything illegal. That way, the government can do anything they want, without that annoying due process stuff.
Of course, they usually get their way, because everyone rationalizes it like this: They couldn't possibly punish every transgression, so only the Bad People have anything to fear. The trouble is that once this is established, who exactly are the Bad People are a matter of caprice and fashion.
Re:Two approaches to law (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone is brought up in front of a jury for driving a taxi without a bale of hay, or for selling film on a Sunday (still illegal in several southern states), a jury of lay people can understand the irrelevance of the charge and use their common sense instead of cheap pettifoggery of the prosecutor.
If however you are charged with "illegal circumvention of a SSSCA mandated DRM device in the course of vicarious copyright infringement", the jury is going to find themselves slammed with jargon and manipulated by the state to ignore their common sense.
Unfortunately "a jury of your peers" doesn't mean "a jury of professional software and hardware developers".
Pointless in either shape... (Score:2)
Before napster you could already steal CDs or go to the library, borrow them, copy/burn them and return them. Make a product that is worth the price you charge (and stop treating your talent like indentured servents) and people will prefer to buy the high quality original over the (no matter how close to undetectably) inferior stolen version.
Good law pass it ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Take this merge it with the DCMA, and another bill or two the greedy politicians and RIAA and MPAA would like to see law. Start lokcking up EVERYONE that breaks this law on felony charges.
Hell youll have an entire generation of America in Jail within 5 years, The digital black market will erupt and I will become a VERY rich man, nice to live so close to Canada and be able to move stuff without customs worries
Seriouslly, the more these morons ind nazi wannabe's like Ashcroft crackdown the better, the pendulum swings both ways, it doesnt take a Revolution here for it to do just that, look at the 60's and the 70's after a decade and a half of morons like McCarthy.
I could see this as the single largest enfocment failure since prohibition. Bring it on
Digiatl Capone.......lol...
Re:Good law pass it ! (Score:2)
Passing these laws will only highlight how common minor transgressions against copyright are.
I also believe you will find a surge in Independent artists, filmmakers and the like willing to have their stuff distributed. With the rise of the DV filmmakers, the tech world will begin to take a significant chunk of money from MPRAA/RIAA types. Let capitalism do its thing and let the markets decide which is successful - media that leads to lawbreaking or media that gives you the power to use and dispose of your property in any fashion you desire so long as you do not financially or physcially harm another individual.
Re: nazi wannabe's like Ashcroft? (Score:2, Informative)
Fritz Hollings is a Democrat. The Republicans are not the ones pushing this lame ass SSSCA.
Ashcroft is trying to make sure you are not killed by terrorists. That doesn't make him a nazi.
Hollings is trying to make sure you have no rights as a consumer.
Hollings also voted to take away your right to free speech by voting for the Campaign Finance Reform bill. If you don't like SSSCA, and want to run a political ad on TV against Fritz Hollings, you are about to lose the right to do so within 60 days of an election. Because you represent a dirty "Special Interest", and any money that you would want to spend on a campaign ad is considered "Soft Money". So your voice will be silenced during the 60 days that most people begin to pay attention to a political race.
Your only hope is that Bush will veto it. But he might not, because that would make him look partisan, and against reform.
So ultimately bad laws like SSSCA will pass and you have no right to air political ads when it matters most.
Blame the Democrats for this one.
Senate Hearings ON SSSCA TODAY and some links.. (Score:3, Informative)
Panel I
Mr. Michael D. Eisner, Chairman and CEO, The Walt Disney Company, 500 S. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521
Mr. Peter Chernin, President and Chief Operating Officer, News Corporation, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036
Mr. Leslie L. Vadasz, Executive Vice President, Intel Corporation, 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, CA 95052
Panel II
Mr. Andreas Bechtolsheim, General Manager/Vice President of the Gigabit Systems Business Unit, Cisco Systems Inc., 250 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134
Mr. James E. Meyer, Special Advisor to the Chairman and formerly Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Thomson Multimedia, 10330 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290
Mr. Robert Perry, Vice President, Marketing, Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc., 9351 Jeronimo Road, Irvine, CA 92618
Mr. Jack Valenti, President and CEO, The Motion Picture Association of America, 15503 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, CA 91436
Online petition against SSSCA [petitiononline.com]
The Draft of the SSSCA [cryptome.org]
Re:Senate Hearings ON SSSCA TODAY and some links.. (Score:2)
It's ok, really (Score:3)
/sarchasm
What I find interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
If these ludicrous copyright measures actually go into effect, and all of our movies and cd's are made proprietary and married to special hardware, what will happen to the companies who have been making bank off of CD-RW component and disc sales? Will Roxio have to recode Toast or Easy CD Creator to not copy any commercially pressed CD?
Personally I'll be wiling to bet that even if this DOES get passed, we won't see a fervent enforcement. 3/4 of the cops out there are swapping music i bet. It'll be like getting a speeding ticket, and also be as common (and EXPECTED) as speeding. Not that that means its OK if it DOES pass, it'll be a seriously blow to individual rights, but I don't think they'll put anybody in prison for it.
Re:What I find interesting (Score:2)
Re:What I find interesting (Score:2)
Re:What I find interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you make the same apologies for the DMCA, and were then surprised at Dmitri?
Other way round? (Score:5, Funny)
For example, a movie would not be allowed to show computers in a negative light, nor to glorify 'hacking'. And there would be a statutory upper limit on how entertaining films could be, because otherwise people might spend too much time at cinemas and too little time at home playing computer games.
We have allowed the irresponsible 'film industry' to damage our profits for too long. If they can't sort it out, government should step in.
Re:Other way round? (Score:2)
I like the idea of harassing Hollywood with bills that resemble those they seek to impose on others. The proble you're going to run into is finding a congressman or senator to sponsor the bill.
Hollywood spend alot of money keeping Dashle, Clinton, Waters, Hollings, and Kennedy their pocket.
Good news, bad news, really bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
This is both, but the bad news wins, I think.
The good news is that this sort of thing is very likely to derail the SSSCA. When large, politically respectable (i.e. campaign-contributing) companies tell Congress that they can handle the problem themselves, and that legislation will harm the industry, Congress will listen. A concerted effort from tech giants can stop SSSCA in its tracks.
The bad news is that what the tech corps are promising to do won't happen. Sure, they can design hardware with DRM built in, and they can establish standards and even bring some amount of pressure to bear on companies that build non-compliant hardware, but there will always be a market for non-compliant hardware because that's what consumers want, and they're the real masters of capitalism. As long as that market exists, companies will try to sell to it, and they'll succeed handsomely. By way of example, how many tiny, unknown asian companies made it in a big way in the DVD player market precisely because they were willing to defy the standards (and even break their legally-enforceable license agreements) to make region-free players? Low prices, cool features and suddenly the likes of Sampo and Apex are outselling JVC and Pioneer.
As long as there's no legal enforcement, it's actually in the interest of hardware manufacturers to cut corners and leave loopholes that allow the end user to work around the DRM.
So, the bad news is that after the tech companies succeed in stalling Congress for a few years, the likes of the RIAA and MPAA will come thundering back in, saying "See! They promised to stop this and they failed!" and Congress will nod sagely and pass the SSSCA.
The really bad news is that this action by the tech companies legitimizes the goal. IBM (my employer, BTW, although I don't speak for them, #include <disclaimer>) and the others are basically supporting the content distributors' point of view that this is a problem that should be fixed.
I guess what we can hope for is that by the time Congress realizes that industry self-regulation has failed, the rest of the world has realized that the correct solution is not to hamstring the technology and the technologists so that the old business model can continue to succeed, but instead to find new business models. Unfortunately, I doubt that the members of the RIAA, in particular, will ever realize this, because all of the obvious new business models make them unnecessary.
Re:Good news, bad news, really bad news (Score:2)
There is no way, absolutely no way, that this will prevent people from copying movies. If people have to point a personal camcorder at a monitor, they will. Once in an unprotected form, the computer won't be able to tell if that the file was once copyrighted except possibly by watermarking. Even then it just takes one guy in china to use out of country equipment to rip it.
The only problem I see with this whole stuff is the Microsoft DRM patents.
what does this do to independent musicians? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hollings is Senile (Score:2)
====================
Hollings Blames Bush Administration for 9/11 Attacks
Apparently frustrated over his inability to gain any political traction on the Enron scandal, Democratic Party loose cannon Sen. Fritz Hollings charged Wednesday that the Bush administration's economic policies actually helped Osama bin Laden finance the Sept. 11 attacks that resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 Americans.
"In came the [Bush] administration with who? [Economic adviser] Larry Lindsey," Hollings told a Washington, D.C., press conference in somewhat slurred speech.
"Larry Lindsey was the $50,000-a-year consultant for Enron who was running around saying it was unconstitutional to try to close down these things [offshore tax shelters]. And so they immediately, this time last year, closed down the Larry Summers effort. And you had 9/11."
Summers was the Clinton administration treasury secretary who Hollings said wanted to close down offshore tax havens.
In fact, the FBI found that offshore tax havens had nothing to do with bin Laden's ability to finance the attacks, reported Fox News Channel, which made Hollings' outburst its lead story Wednesday night.
During the same press conference, the South Carolinia Democrat misidentified Attorney General John Ashcroft as "the secretary of energy" and erroneously charged that Army Secretary Thomas White pushed for deregulation that netted him a $100 million profit from an Enron investment.
"But as Army Secretary, White has never advocated deregulation and denies doing any favors for Enron," reported FNC's Carl Cameron.
Responding to Hollings' charges, the White House said, "It has begun to make him look less than serious, someone who should not be taken seriously."
Republicans on the Hill called Hollings' effort to blame Bush economic policies for the 9/11 attacks "pathetic."
In November New York Sen. Hillary Clinton made a similarly outrageous claim, suggesting that the Bush tax cut was to blame for the 9/11 attacks.
"If we hadn't passed the big tax cut last spring, that I believe undermined our fiscal responsibility and our ability to deal with this new threat of terrorism, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in today," Clinton told CNN on the two-month anniversary of the attacks.
Slow Down Cowboy! (Score:5, Funny)
It's been 4 months since you passed 'USA PATRIOT Act'!
If this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to the Majority Leader:
* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
Thank you.
the maybe not so obvious.... (Score:2)
Actually, the worst thing is that this would cost electronics manufatures billions of dollars in hardware engeneering, software engeneering, manufacturing, basically every step. They would have to retool all their products. And that 'savings' gets passed on to the consumer. So, we, the common folk, get the royal cd up the nether regions so that the entertainment industy can make it illigal to copy anything? Yeah....
What the entertainment industry needs to do is quit whining about people who copy. Its been around forever. People will COPY YOU STUFF untill the world comes to an end. All the money they throw at content protection will backfire in their face. people dont CARE if its a perfect digital reproduction as much as they seem to think. What these folks need to do, is embrace technology - in fact, push it ahead.
Want to stop perfect reproductions? Not gonna happen 100%, but heres how to get some lost sales.
-if your going to continue to charge 18bucks a CD, at LEAST put some decent content on it. I know a lot of CDs have a video or 2, but think more like DVD. Id more likely buy a CD at 18 bucks if it had videos, interviews, PDF lyric sheets and guitar tabs, songs allready in MP3 (no bs plz thx), active links to tour dates, discography, bios... well, GIVE me my 18bucks worth, make it so that owning a CD has VALUE over having just the MP3s of the songs. And dont just put your advertising package you send to MTV on the disk (thats pretty much what ive seen in the way of 'extra' content.
-DVD/TV -> HDTV. Well, DUUH. The slow embrace of HDTV because of short sighted bean counters is going to be a thorn in everyones side soon. Why? because an industry is currently selling a bunch of equipment that is actually going to keep this technology away. Why? From a previus article... you cant, or barely can fit a full 2hr movie at full 1080 resolution on a dopuble layer, double sided DVD. Not only that, no DVD players out there in the consumer world can even read data fast enough to do HDTV off a DVD. Adding to the problem, all 'HDTVs' are apparently now defunct, as the 'final version' of the spec is just now being decided/was decided upon. And HDTV in itself could have been the holy grail for these companies... Why? People dont have access to tech to make/rip/distribute 20+gigs of data in an efficient manner. You dont NEED copy protection. If they just stayed ahead of the curve on personaly tech (DVD was about, oh 5 years late), it owuldnt be an issue. As anyone can attest, DIVXs are prolly the largest form of vidoe-media over the net well see in a loooooong time. If they embraced that and looked forward, wed be enjoying beautiful HDTVs, DVD2(or, *gulp* we might have to go back to magnetic tape), and content rich CDs for the last year.
The lesson? The content industry is killing itself, by stifling inovation on new tech, and trying like mad to not embrace the digital world. Embrace...evolve...prosper - simple formula.
But i can see it form their point of view. Do YOU want to be the one to tell everyone who has a DVD player and HDTV now that when HDTV HAS to be out (i think the FCC still has this mandated) youll have to buy NEW stuff to play HDTV content? I sure dont, cus im already an angry consumer.
Holy shit, Joe McCarthy was right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Within the context of entertainment and information media, they want to introduce a centrally-controlled system that dictates how and when individuals access information...an artificial demand system. There will be no free market because there will be no choice. Dissidents will be fined and jailed.
As a side-effect of introducing this system of control, the "entertainment industry" will effectively have control over the flow of information, too, by locking out independent producers of entertainment and information. Thus, the only media you will be able to receive will be "official" media. Again, disidents will be fined and jailed.
When it's all said and done, the SSSCA will turn the American entertainment & news industry (encompassing both mainstream & independents) into a Communist system...backed by the US Government, no less.
The SSSCA is unAmerican, undemocratic, freedom-hating Communism, plain and simple.
Coming soon to the 21st. Century (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress is DESTROYING our free market by passing
draconian laws in support of corporate interests and giving out corporate wellfare. This type of thing will stifle innovation, and give big corporations an excuse NOT to find new business models. When the SSSCA fails to make the RIAA and MPAA as much money as they hoped, they'll just lobby for another stupid law even worse than that. Pretty soon you'll have congress passing laws that give them the power to force you to buy a new computer/dvd player/whatever whenever they arbitrarily feel like it, in order to "save the entertainment industry."
This will either lead to the following.
1. People comply, and eventually spend so much
of their money on new lisences, fees, etc. imposed
by congress to benefit megacorps that it forces
the average US family into poverty. No longer
able to afford any more, the entire US economy
will collapse, and the USA will become a
third world country with 99% of the population
so poor they can barely afford food and shelter
and 1% of the population extremely rich.
I'd hope that American people would have another
revoltion before that happens, though.
2. People are disobedient, and they start buying
Asian equipment on the black market, set up rogue
ISPs, etc. Money will get funelled out of the
US economy, and into the Southeast Asian economy.
American companies will start to lose a lot of
money, at a very fast rate. Throwing those in
jail who are caught will not help. Enforcement
will be bribed by some people to ignore the
fact they are circumventing the SSSCA and its kin.
Corruption will get worse. Eventually, The entire US tech industry and entertainment industry will collapse, and the US will be put into
a secondary status, a former shell of the superpower it once was.
If similar laws are forced upon all of our
our trading "allies" in the Western world,
the same effects might be seen there. Or if
they don't pass these laws, they just won't
trade with the US anymore, seeing as how
everything now has DRM that is not needed
or wanted there.
Either way, it will enable Southeast Asian companies to totally dominate the market.
China will quickly become the economic and military
powerhouse of the World, leaving the USA in its
dust if these types of laws are continued to
be allowed to pass. Why I say military as well,
is because if the US economy gets destroyed, we
probably won't be able to afford our military any
more.
The alternative is to let a pure, free market
dominate. If companies can't find new business
models, they will go out of business. Tough. However, people will have choices. Companies
will make money by working hard on making their
products worth paying for. This is how the
US Economy became the #1 economy in the world.
Now politicians who are corporate whores are
ruining this free market. It will ruin our
Economy in the long run.
But I guess that is to be expected. History
pretty much shows that once corruption is so
wide spread in a government like it is today,
that you know you're probably on the way down.
Why does 'Hollywood' always want to LIMIT copy's (Score:2, Insightful)
The BIG question I have can Hollywood prove this claim? I read that at the hights of Napster the CD sales INCREASED! So this would prove that MP3 increase sales, so they sould encourige MP3 copy etc. But thats scary for big company's to think a la 'open source' (something for free can be worth something)
I also would like to see how the cost for creating a CD is. I would expect that the prices come down since the introduction, but they are stil as high! I think a very small % is for the original artist, the rest for a Hollywood company. Why not thing some kind of system that enables the consumer to download what he wants and that he pays what HE thinks what worth!
the market won't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, others have stated that different ways of doing things will put the RIAA/MPAA out of business, e.g., more and more bands selling their cds directly using the internet as cheap advertisement. Let's wise up a bit, shall we? If this becomes a popular way of doing business - cutting the RIAA out of the picture altogether - do you really think the powers that be will stand aside and let this model edge them out of the market? Hell no, they'll once again buy the laws needed to make the sale of music cds via the internet, or without RIAA approval, or both, a crime.
As ridiculous as this sounds the loons that run the music business (and now the movie business) have shown themselves to be quite capable of backing Orwellian laws and buying the support required to pass them. They'll do anything to retain their power even if that means imprisoning anyone who defies them, using the U.S. government as their tool.
What's more than a bit ironic here is that if a new technology comes along that eliminates my business and my job, I don't get to go crying to Congress to set up a protection racket for me. I have to learn new skills for a new job at a new business - that's called 'capitalism'. The RIAA, however, if presented with a market that makes their way of doing things obsolete, simply buys the legislation required to outlaw the technology that threatens their favored status. Now that's fair, American style!
Max
Write your congressional representatives (link) (Score:2)
http://congress.org/congressorg/issuesaction/lette rs/ [congress.org]
Luckily, one of my Senators is on the Commerce committee. I urge you to write now.
"Industry solutions" (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a cave-in to the entertainment industry. The reply could have read something like "The computer industry is a major engine of economic growth in the United States. Interfering with its freedom to innovate purely to help a small number of entertainment companies maintain their monopolies is harmful to the nation." But that's not what the computer ndustry representatives said.
That's what the promoters of the SSSCA really wanted. That legislation isn't going anywhere, but introducing it has intimidated the computer industry into doing what the RIAA and MPAA want - putting in hardware copy protection.
They do this for money! (Score:2, Interesting)
Many posts here argue along the lines that "people buy computer gear for entertainment, the entertainment industry will only produce stuff for gear that has DRM, ergo companies who produce DRM hardware will sell more hardware than those that don't". Well they got one bit right. It is all about money, and I don't doubt that if the hardware people thought they could make more money by selling DRM gear, they would.
But they don't think that. They think the reverse. There are several good reasons for this:
The hardware companies aren't stupid. They know which side their bread is buttered on. They will oppose DRM all the way. Not for altruistic reasons, but for the very same reasons the entertainment industry wants DRM - they will make more money without it.
Re:Go Microsoft! (Score:3, Insightful)
But from the letter to the MPAA I didn't get any sense that MS, or Intel, or any other major computer manufacturer was actually going to work against anti-consumer DRM, just that they didn't want Congress involved. In fact, if DRM happens without Congress it might be much worse. Congress at least makes a pretense of getting public input and conducting halfway fair and open hearings and publishes their policies freely in many cases. You can bet that if industry (think oligopoly) does this on their own, the public will have no say, get stuck with a less secure (for users) security, and lose any chance for Fair Use and/or DRM-expiration when current media copyright expires (which we all suspect it may never actually do again).
When I hear the phrase "digital rights management" why do I get the feeling the only people who will have any digital rights left to manage are major corporations? Either way, unless consumers get informed and actually stand firm, we all stand to get fooked pretty badly on this one. I have friends who get downright vituperative about a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn baby, but bring up copyright-related freedom issues and even if they do comprehend the issue they couldn't care less. That's the real problem we're facing here: no one understands how this affects them, and even if they do they aren't willing to act differently to prevent it.
But could that possibly succeed? (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason Hollywood is so caught up in this is that they know that any technical solution they devise will fail without the law backing it up. But the industry won't stand for such a law, as we see with this letter.