Seeking Arguments Against the CBDTPA? 551
ccfpark writes "I am going to Washington D.C. next week to talk to my senator (Bill Nelson of FL) and his technology advisor, Reg Lichty, about the CBDTPA. I am personally against this bill as it has the possibility of labeling me as a criminal for my participation in Open Sorce projects such as Handhelds.Org and Tuxscreen, where we endeavor replace proprietary operating systems on consumer electronics with Linux. If this bill is passed it may lead to outlawing these types of activities because it could circumvent software copy protection in these products. What I need are some good resources for formulating a business and political argument against this bill, so that I can speak to these politicians on their level."
Bogus Laws (Score:2, Interesting)
I am sick of having to read articles about laws that are going to impead or "unalienable rights" whell, they are being alientated.
America needs to stop making laws supporting Big Business, and we need to start supporting the small people, Joe Shmo American.
Re:Bogus Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on whose party your Senator's from.
The first rule in making a political argument is to KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE.
If you're writing to a Republican Congressman, the thrust of your argument against the CBDTPA is that this is a Democrat-sponsored bill to favor a niche industry ($35B revenues) and the liberal elite of Hollywood (who donate disproportionately to Democrats when it's campaign time), while destroying the much more important ($600B revenues) technology industry that drives American innovation economic growth.
If you're writing to a Democratic Congressman, you use the other argument: CBDTPA is merely the latest way Big Business (Hollywood, MPAA, RIAA) is trouncing the rights of the Little Guy consumer (they tried to take his VCR, failed, and now are trying to take away his computer), and the independent creative community (no more independent films or indie bands when you can't do your own digital editing or burn your own CDs.)
Incidentally, both of these arguments are true. CBDTPA is a threat to the technology industry and the independent artist alike.
But your Congressman is very likely to have a political bias towards favoring only of these arguments (nothing wrong with that; it's his job to have a political bias on issues! That's why he got elected over the candidate from the other party!), only one of those arguments is likely to make an impression on him strong enough to influence his vote.
Re:Bogus Laws (Score:3, Funny)
If you're dealing with a Democrat, I'd suggest...dealing with a Republican. Seriously, you're not going to find a Democrat who'd rather let you decide what to do with your personal property than pass a bill letting him or her decide him- or herself. The response to expect is, "don't worry, we'll take care of it."
With a Republican, revert to quotations from the Constitution, intentions of our forefathers, etc. You don't need to resort to invoking the Almighty, though in certain states that won't cost you points.
Re:Bogus Laws (Score:2)
Re:Bogus Laws (Score:2, Informative)
The DMCA makes that activity illegal. Customs would seize foreign shipments in the name of the DMCA, as they are already doing with some things (see the
Re:Bogus Laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, that's not it!
If I hadn't have read it myself, I would believe it in this day and age.
Also, just a general comment...
People shouldn't mix up Politics/Government and Economics. Capitalism and Democracy are separate. Just because we are capitalist, doesn't mean that corporations should run the government. That would NOT be Democracy, that would be an Oligarchy. The people, the common man all with an equal vote(not more votes for those with more money) is a Democracy, NOT communism.
Re:Bogus Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
You miss the point completely. When big business has free reign, consumer choice is taken away. When consumer choice is taken away, that is communism. Oh, but wait, since someone, somewhere is making buck off it, it must be good for the economy, right? WRONG!
Re:Bogus Laws (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it isn't. When the workers, or an entity representing the workers, owns the means of production, that my friend is communism. Nothing more or less than that. It happens that in most of the regimes where this has been attempted, it's the state that has "represented" the workers, and the state has thought it most efficient to effectively abolish choice and competition. But there's no reason why it has to be that way.
If a monopoly is in private hands, and is unaccountable to "the people" except through proactive law passing, then it's not communist. It sucks, it sucks lemons, but it's capitalist. Unfortunately, a factor of capitalism few people understand is that businesses always aim to grow, and sometimes there's nowhere to grow but in marketshare. In a pure capitalist system, monopolies are inevitable, not sudden changes to communism.
Americans might find it easier to understand the world and what is happening to them if they take their blinkers off, and recognise that words like "communism", "liberal", "democracy", etc, are not insults, they actually mean something. And they definitely mean something more than simply "Anything we dislike we bundle under this one word."
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bogus Laws (Score:3, Interesting)
Having said that, I do believe that Anti-trust is necessary. Microsoft probably is a prime example of what it should stop. btw, my favorite monopolies are AT&T before the breakup and the USPost office.
Proper approach (Score:2, Funny)
Seems to be the approach that works best.
Digital Consumer has the arguments will summed up. (Score:5, Informative)
Also, Rep. Rick Boucher's Copyright Address [techlawjournal.com] will probably help you formulate a good argument.
Good Luck!!
Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
1.3 So what's the problem?
The problem is that copyright protections have become too strong. For the past 200 years, legislation and court decisions preserved a careful balance between the need to protect the rights of creators and the need to protect the rights of citizens. Sometimes those rights come into conflict, for example when a reviewer wants to quote a passage from a novel or when a TV fan wants to record a show in order to watch it later. In the case of such conflicts, citizens were often given reasonable flexibility to use legally purchased content in a convenient manner.
However, that balance has been dramatically shifted by recent copyright laws. Today, citizens have practically no legal rights to use content that they own. We simply want to restore the fair and reasonable balance that served us for two centuries.
But isn't there a fundamental difference in today's technology and so-called "fair use?" If a reviewer quotes part of a book, only a small portion of that book is duplicated and make freely available. If a home viewer tapes a show on a VCR, the most he can do is run a few copies off for friends. But with digital content and the Internet, a home computer user can share a perfect copy of any content with potentially millions of other people, with minimal time and effort. Doesn't that pose an immediate danger to copyright holders? How do you propose we stem illegal distribution of copyrighted material, other than mandating that copy-thwarting be built into any device that can read the original work?
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:2)
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
But with digital content and the Internet, a home computer user can share a perfect copy of any content with potentially millions of other people, with minimal time and effort. Doesn't that pose an immediate danger to copyright holders?
We ALREADY HAVE LAWS TO DEAL WITH THIS! We don't need any new ones!! If I make a digital copy of a copyrighted work, and post it on the Internet, I've broken ALREADY EXISTING LAWS! Just because I may choose to "tape" programs on my TiVO, or on my PC, doesn't mean I've surrendered "fair use". Even if I burn them on CD, as long as they are for my personal use (like a VCR tape is), then there's no problem. The quality of the reproduction, and the speed at which it can be distributed, are different in the digital world, but that doesn't mean we need new laws. Breaking copyright is breaking copyright, plain and simple...Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:2, Interesting)
>The quality of the reproduction, and the speed at which it can be distributed, are different in the digital world, but that doesn't mean we need new laws
As long as we're playing devil's advocate...
Murdering someone is already a crime, why do we need laws to ban assault rifles?
(I know, but for the sake of argument)
Because of the speed and efficiency with which you can mow down ten or twenty people?
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:3, Insightful)
Assault rifle legislation was enacted also as a protection for law enforcement. Police officers put their lives on the line on a daily basis. Having officers out-gunned by criminals is a real problem. The only thing that copyright infringement affects is how many Bentleys/Ferraris Hillary Rosen buys on a given day. It's pretty clear to me that we have to be much more careful with controling weapons than controlling computers' copying ability.
Incidently, other proposals for disabling computers might be much more useful. As more important services are moved onto the web, limiting a computers ability to attack another computer could be handled at the machine level. I wonder how many people on
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes down to it, it's not the government's perogative to stop people from engaging in perfectly legitimate legal activities just because those activities can be used to commit crimes. Punish the criminals once they commit the crimes. Don't punish the law-abiding citizen who just wants to enjoy his or her hobby.
The upshot of all this is that it is not my responsibility to sacrifice rights just to make the jobs of law-enforcement personnel or copyright holders easier.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Another case for research and knowing your audience. When you meet with a Representative or Senator, research his or her voting record. Choose your analogies to match your audience.
For instance, this analogy - "CBDTPA on my computer is like a law requiring mandatory trigger locks on guns!"
If the Congressman/woman is a "strong supporter of Second Amendment Rights to self-defence", that's a good analogy to use. Your politician sees trigger locks as an unnecessary government intrusion on the rights of law-abiding gun owners (that criminals will ignore anyways), and will likely realize that CBDTPA is a simliarly-heavy-handed intrusion on the rights of law-abiding computer users, that criminals will also ignore.
But if your Congressman/woman has gone on record sponsoring a bill for trigger locks because "trigger locks make homes safer for kids", it's not a good analogy to use. This politician sincerely believes that trigger locks prevent crime and make the world a better place -- and your bringing up of the analogy will only undermine your argument. All you'll do is make them think "Gee, if we needed trigger locks to make guns safer, we must need CPDTPA to make computers safer too!"
It doesn't matter what you think trigger locks are good or bad -- it matters that you know what they think of trigger locks before you bring it up. Otherwise, you could just be (ahem :) shooting yourself in the foot.
Bonus points if you do research on bills and issues your Congressman/woman has actually sponsored or taken serious interest in, and can figure out a valid analogy that makes CBDTPA look like the opposite of what they want to do with their political career.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:5, Informative)
I think this came out in a lower post. The law CAN be effective in cracking down on the mass distribution of pirate digital material. Napster is dead. The fact that there are other services more or less emulating napster (e.g. gnutell, kazaa) simply refelcts that the industry concerns havn't been litigating strenuously enough. If they wanted to, they could shut down both of these services. Admittedly freenet would be a little more difficult, but the ease of use theshold there is high enough that it probably won't ever get enough of a following to really hurt profits.
And now I'm going to get ranty...
Beyond that: the far more salient point is that there's no credible research suggesting that people are purchasing less music, books, or movies as a result of digitalization! Surprise surprise, people will still pay for reliable access to quality content. If you want to have a nice evening with friends, do you hit up bloackbuster for a DVD, or spend 8 hours trying to download some crappy divix rip of the same movie?
Likewise, if there were a service that allowed me to pay a reasonable monthly subscription and get reliable access to the music I wanted, I would be all over it. The truth is that the entertainment business has failed to innovate and has dropped the ball when it comes to responding to changing consumer desires. Now they're looking to the government to bail them out. What will be the public cost of creating these security measures let alone enforcing them? This is not something I want my tax dollars being spent on!
Actually, to back out of rant-mode, that's another good point: who pays for the development and enforement mandated by this legislation. Forget for a second that whatever they come up with will probably be emminantly crackable, how much will it cost taxpayers? How much will it cost business to implement? Has anyone done any numbers on this? What are the penalties looking like? What would the added overhead to the criminal justice system be?
A purely fiscal argument might be a strong one to make.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:4, Interesting)
Excellent question. I applaud you for asking it.
Perhaps you're starting with the wrong question. May I propose a few of my own?
Why should we assume that the "infinite perfect copies" nature of digital publishing poses any danger at all to copyright holders? Has this been proven, or are we just assuming it must be so?
Even if there is a proven danger to copyright holders, what incentive do we have to protect copyright holders? Has it been proven that protection of copyright holders is a net benefit to the country as a whole? Our Founding Fathers thought so (to the tune of 14 years total) but has it been proven in the context of a digital publishing environment? For the past 200 years or so in this country, we have used copyright law to protect copyright holders, but prior to that we didn't. If times have changed before (and we found the lack of a copyright law was problematic, necessitating the current need for copyright law) why should we presume that times will never change again, and we find the support of a copyright law becoming problematic, necessitating the removal of copyright protections?
Current copyright law protects copyright for upwards of 150 years. That's almost as long as copyright law has existed in this country. Have we really become so wise that we can see the future as well as we can see the past?
Or perhaps you just need a good absurd question to drive the point home...
If I can demonstrate the duplication of copyrighted digital material using (oh , let's say) a bread making machine, will this legislation require the manufacturer to recall all bread making machines and install the appropriate DRM software into the device?
Why yes, it really could get to that point.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah! An interesting point. Let's explore it.
copyright historical timeline [arl.org]
New technology does necessitate the advent of new rules. Easy reproduction of printed material in the 1700's, and the abuse of that power, caused the first copyright laws to be enacted (statute of Anne [edge.net]). It is quite important to note that nearly all copyright laws, starting with this one, intend to protect the author of the work, not the producer of the work.
At the time, the author of a book contracted with a printer to print the book. Today's entertainment industry in the US has turned that on its head: the artist is nearly forced to give up entirely their copy rights to their work in order to get someone to publish it.
Today, the power now rests with those who control the distribution rather than with those who create the product. The proposed legislation wrests even more control from the creator, handing it over to the distributors.
Now we can branch this line of thought into a few different directions:
This content could not exist without the new digital technology that they say threatens it so soundly. It is exactly because copies are so easy to make and distribute that Hollywood has their panties in a bunch about piracy. Piracy is a blip. They are more worried about losing control of the channel, losing control of the audience, losing control of distribution. Instead of clinging to their buggy-whip distribution mechanisms, they should remake themselves into more modern companies utilizing the new technologies. If this were the cretaceous age, Congress would be trying to outlaw mammals because they posed a threat to the existing life forms. These companies must evolve or get out of the way for the next generation.
I mostly wrote this as I thought it through, but I am now even more opposed to the theory and practice of this legislation than ever before. I certainly will vote against any supporter of this bill (or anyone they endorse) in upcoming elections.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:2)
Murdering someone is already a crime, why do we need laws to ban assault rifles?
(I know, but for the sake of argument)
Because of the speed and efficiency with which you can mow down ten or twenty people?
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:3, Funny)
Because they have no other legitimate use. Contrast this with knives and piano strings, which also can be used to kill, but also have plenty of non-murderous applications.
This is precisely what makes the NRA's arguments so rediculous: they seriously state that one needs a 50-round semi-automatic
This would take a lot of the stuffing out of the 2nd-amendment lobby, unless you really buy that "home defense" stuff. Poopycock! I mean, it's been shown that a gun in your home is more likely to kill you or a family member than an intruder. Moreover, if people really do legitimately need guns in this day and age, there's something much more fundimentally wrong with the society we're living in. Something, I might add, that is best solved with other tools than guns.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:3, Insightful)
In the context of an agrarian revolution, this makes a lot of sense. In the context of a modern urbanized society, it does not. Simply banning guns, of course, is not an answer to the problem: you have to look at how to get rid of the guns that are out there, then disarming many of the police, etc etc etc.
It's a long process with an idealistic goal, but doesn't it make sense to live peacefully?
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate for the Industry (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's grounds to debunk the illusion people have that owning a weapon makes them safe.
Look. In other countries with similar population densities (e.g. Japan, the UK) you have no firearms, and still civil liberties on par with the US in almost many respects. At the same time you have a single digit number of hand gun deaths a year.
In the US, you have well over 10,000 deaths by handgun and about 10x that many assults, meaning somoene was only shot at or wounded. I refuse to believe that this level of destruction of human life is "the price of liberty".
And it's not that we're that much more or less violent than other cultures, it's simpy that it's really easy for people to get lethal weapons in this country. The barrier for purchase is so low, it's almost assumed that you need a gun: "you gotta have steel just to feel relaxation."
That's no way to live, people. They have just as many bar fights and street gangs in the UK as we do here. The only salient difference is that they battle with fists, bats, clubs and knives. The result is a far greater preservation of human life.
EEF (Score:3, Informative)
Also: (Score:5, Informative)
Finally, ask each of these people if they could recommend other contacts as well. Networking, you know...
And do let us know how it goes. I'd be curious, as I'm sure others would be.
Small Business (Score:3, Interesting)
This would be quite a hit to several industries (set-top boxes, portable music players, all forms of software, etc), and with some high percentage (I don't recall right now) of the economy being fueled by small business, it would be a sizable hit to the economy as a whole I would wager.
Don't have.... (Score:2)
Save your plane fare.
No... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really want to formulate "a business and political argument" you should hire a lawyer or ask a law expert. Maybe ask for funding here.
Re:No... (Score:2)
$0.02
Choking Innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
Arguments to use (Score:5, Insightful)
2) The law targets all digital devices. (Does this mean that the locks in hotel doors have to have officially approved DRM technology since they are networked?)
3) This would KILL hobbiest efforts (I learned by building computers).
4) Open source is problematic
5) Hollywood is free to invent their own technology.
6) Hollywood is important to the county, but the computer industry is more imporant.
Re:Arguments to use (Score:3, Informative)
I have read the bill and can find no reference to "all digital devices" but I do for "digital media that uses the protection". All I can find are devices that can read the media that is being protected. If you want to avoid this problem, develop a system that has no capability to read the media that is protected. Not impossible. Create an entire open source system that avoids reading commercial media.
This would KILL hobbiest efforts (I learned by building computers)
Sounds like the bill has an exemption for personal use. i.e., hobbiest use:
(1) LIMITATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS. -- In achieving the goal of promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible, the encoding rules shall take into account the limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright owners, including the fair use doctrine
(2) PERSONAL USE COPIES. -- No person may apply a security measure that uses a standard security technology to prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-premium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in section 122 (j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a cables system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such title).
If you are going to argue against the bill, argue with some clarity or you will be dismissed by the jerks in Congress.
Step 1, throw all digital appliances out (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 1, consumers must throw out all existing digital appliances. Includes microwaves with digital clocks, watches, thermostats, TVs, stereos, and cars (yes, the whole car).
Step 2, businesses must throw out all existing digital infrastructure, such as cable, phone, DSL, radio, satellite. And all the digital appliances listed in step 1.
Step 3, businesses must build a new digital infrastructure, such as cable, phone, DSL, radio, and satellite, that has copy protection built in.
Step 4, the government decides what the full CBDTPA rules are, and authorizes U.S. Customs and the FBI to search out and sieze non-CBDTPA compliant devices.
Step 5, businesses manufacture and sell CBDTPA compliant devices. After spending a few years adding features, working out compatibility issues, and scaling production.
Step 6, consumers may now buy CBDTPA compliant devices.
The bill is really asking for quadrillions of dollars to be spent, JUST IN THE U.S., to create a subscription-only media distribution system.
An alternative? The taxes collected upon blank media should be used toward copyright enforcement.
No one, upon no one, is putting forth the real costs of doing this.
If the TV companies are whining about how consumers won't buy digital TVs now, think about how much the consumers will be whining when they have to stop using all the appliances they already own, and buy new appliances to replace them.
Quick points (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly, point out that computer games, which are one of the most copied things of all time, are a flourishing industry whose revenue is a large fraction of the film industry's despite all the copying that goes on.
From a business standpoint, it's a money pit. (Score:4, Insightful)
So long as a single non-compliant piece of equipment exists that lets you record a screen or the output of a speaker, circumventing hardware protection is trivial.
Rather than repeating what I've already typed up a couple of times, my thinking about what's really going to have to happen is here [livejournal.com].
Arguments against the CBDTPA (Score:2)
Specifically, you might start with the EFF's action alert (http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020322_eff_
Some business/political issues (Score:2, Interesting)
* More stress on the legal system (courts, jails, police) to monitor the major and minor infractions of this. Would we rather have our cops trying to catch violent criminals, or going after independent coders? Of course, there's the monetary outlays that would accompany this as well. Where are you going to get the cash? Cut other programs? Raise taxes? Neither of these is going to be popular with voters, especially not for something like this issue.
* Unenforcability in general. It's easy to show that encryption's easily crackable (relatively speaking), and that people will find their ways around so-called copyright protection schemes. How are you going to be sure that your particular protection schemes work? Are you going to require updates as soon as someone cracks the existing ones?
* Issues with tech companies: how are you going to inspect their hardware or software, the inner workings of which are supposed to be secret? None of them are going to be very happy about that, and their money and support are going to go to politicians who oppose the bill. Sure, they don't want their stuff pirated, but they probably don't want people poking around the insides of it even more.
For the record, I don't copy CDs, movies, software, etc. (except for fair use, e.g. making a tape of a CD I own for my own personal use), and I'm opposed to piracy. (More reasons I support OSS.) However, I don't think this bill, or measures like it, are the right ways to go about trying to proctect the rights of copyright holders. It'll do more to hurt than help.
Re:Some business/political issues (Score:2)
General direction... (Score:2)
Be sure that what you are saying makes sense to a politician. I'm reminded of Contact, which had Jodie Foster as the "good" scientist, and some other guy as the "bad" scientist. My take on the movie was that the "bad" scientist was actually the more effective one, because he spoke the language of those in power and knew how to manipulate them to accomplish the goals of science. Jodie Foster's character didn't do much for science except by chance, because she couldn't make those who held the purse strings understand her. The movie had a happy ending because fo two or three deus ex machinas; in real life that won't happen.
In short, don't even open your mouth to this guy unless you speak his language. Otherwise, you will poison the well for those that come after you:
"Oh, great, not another Napster-loving Linux using technology freak..."
Now that I've finished stating the obvious, I'll get back to work...
Crime vs. Tools (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell them it won't work (Score:2)
"Digital files can be copied. Nothing anyone can say or do can change that. If you have a bucket of bits, you can easily create an identical bucket of bits and give it to me. You still have the bits, and now I have the bits too."
If you can get your senator to understand the above (i.e. that the bill is futile, anyway), and to understand that mandating features in software stifles innovation and violates the rights of the programmer, you have a chance of getting them to vote in a sane manner.
My letter may be of some value (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were in the face of a pol on this issue, I would argue as follows:
1. You will infuriate your constituents who have become accustomed to controlling their own music, movies, and PCs (and they will vote against you)
2. You will destroy large numbers of job-creating businesses that work with free and open-source software (and people connected with same will vote against you)
3. You will destroy our liberty, and this is ipso facto a bad thing (and people will vote against you to preserve said liberty)
In related thoughts: I think the folks we should learn from are the pro-choice and gun lobbies. They're not pro-abortion, they're abortion rights advocates; they're not pro-gun, they are defending the right to keep and bear arms. Cast the debate in terms of rights, and then turn out the protesters, and you'll have a lot of success - in liberal and conservative states alike.
And, EFF et al.: it's time to broaden the coalition radically. Send that alarmist direct mail! It works. "Hollywood wants to take away YOUR PC!" Buy mailing lists from right-wing and left-wing groups alike - guns, smokers, abortion, gay rights, you name it. Everyone who sends $ to a group wanting to defend its rights should get an angry, alarmist EFF mailer - that will get the members and the cash necessary for the full-court press we will need to KILL HOLLYWOOD'S BILLS DEAD. Fight fire with fire.
Advice (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Advice (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Advice (Score:2)
However, it seems that it was not a show stopper!
Re:Advice (Score:2, Funny)
It's Bill Gates - always in the plural. God knows why - one of them should've been enough...
Re:Advice (Score:2, Interesting)
His Contact Information:
Bill Nelson, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202-224-5274 Fax: 202-228-2183
Re:Advice (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. Holy good gravy. Okay, I have to admit: I have not yet written my congresspeople. I've been putting it off. I didn't realize how bad this was; compared to the unimaginable damage this is going to do to this country, the trouble it'll cause for free software is a drop in the bucket. I'm gonna calm down a little bit, and then I'm gonna write a letter that explains this all so my representatives can understand it, and then I'm gonna copy it out by hand (being careful to write neatly) and send it to them, today. And then I'm gonna start writing to the newspapers. (I'll post my letters as replies to this comment, just so's you'll know I'm not bullshitting.) Please, please do the same. Tell your friends and your parents and the people you work with; adjust your story optimistically so that they'll believe you. No one will believe you if you tell the truth.
Cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Passing this bill would be kind of like passing a bill making all shirts required to have airbags installed, so the automobile industry doesn't have to. Even if you buy into this as a "solution" for a "problem" that isn't being addressed (which is not, in fact, the case), it doesn't make sense.
"CBDTPA" ?? (Score:2)
~LoudMusic
Re:"CBDTPA" ?? (Score:3, Interesting)
And I don't need to have broadband access "promoted" to me, thank you very much. I'm a technojunkie at heart; I can think of a bunch of things that a broadband connection would be useful for, none of which involve music or movies. ("apt-get upgrade" that doesn't take all day, for instance.) But I can't afford it right now. Not long ago, I was out of work for 5 months; I'm damn lucky my family and I aren't homeless right now. We don't have money to spare for anything more than a modem dialup. And I'm not the only one in this fix; did Senator Hollings forget that we're suffering from the effects of recession right now? (Besides, even if I could afford it, I still can't get it; our home is too far from the switch for DSL to work, and we have an oddball cable company (not AT&T Digital, like most of Denver) that doesn't offer cable modem service. Satellite isn't really an option because we'd have to carry something like $500K in liability insurance to put up a dish at our apartment complex, and we don't really have a good sky angle for a dish anyway.)
As for digital television, I have yet to see a good reason to drop $1000+ (which I don't have anyway; see above) on a digital-capable set. They say it's going to be required by 2006, but I'm not so sure they'll be ready for that switchover in time.
A better term for the CBDTPA that I've seen recently is the "Anti-Mammal Dinosaur Protection Act." Sums it up nicely, I think.
Eric
Not a popular comment but... (Score:2)
Re:Not a popular comment but... (Score:2)
It will be ILLEGAL for companies to create products that don't have copy protection built in. It will be ILLEGAL for you to circumvent those copy protections. It will be ILLEGAL for *you* to write code that doesn't have similar copy protections, unless you keep it locked away and don't even show it to your friends.
This issue has nothing to do with what some companies will or won't sell you. It defines (in very draconian terms) precisely what ALL companies will be able to manufcature and sell you in the US, and precisely what you will legally be allowed to do with those products. It also tighly restricts what you are allowed to create.
So when the WTO comes up with something similar (or even if they don't!) and US market share drives foreign companies to make the same machines, who exactly are you going to buy this hackable equipment from? The answer is going to be either your neighborhood drug/stolen car parts dealer, or no one at all.
Re:Not a popular comment but... (Score:2)
From the bill:
(3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that --
(A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;
(B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or
(C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).
Im not saying the bill is golden but the misrepresentation of what is inside it is really weaking the arguments. I would still be free to use BSD to write the Great American Copyrighted Novel without being forced to use DRM.
If you don't want to use products with DRM in them, don't support the companies that use it.
Re:Not a popular comment but... (Score:4, Insightful)
It will be illegal to write software to bypass the built-in DRM.
There may be a market for devices that can be hacked, but it will be a black market. And, as the Randroids are fond of pointing out, the government *can* hold a gun to your head.
Re:Not a terribly informed comment either. . . (Score:2)
Re:Not a terribly informed comment either. . . (Score:2)
I read this to mean that you could not modify the item and offer it for sale. Government speak is confusing. Are you reading it to mean that if you buy something, you cannot modify it?
Ok you want some of my arguments, (Score:2)
See my posts & others [slashdot.org]
Artificial Price Floors? (Score:2, Insightful)
This may bring broadband services sooner, but then who would be able to afford them? This will ultimately and irreparably harm the consumer if passed.
One last thought--fair use may not be a right, but it should be understood that consumers expect to have ownership of the products they purchase, not just the right to listen or watch on somebody else's terms. This expectation should be headed and legislation should be put in place to address it, as it seems to be the popular will of the people.
How i would approuch it (Score:2)
I'd explain how consumers dont want this, I'd explain how technology doesnt want this, and I'd explain democracy.
How about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
I mean, how about the playstation 1 for instance -- that had a "hardware" copy protection to only play "legitimate" disks. What happened? Someone hacked it, then you could get mod chips for $10 to solder on the board.
In the letters I wrote to Congress... (Score:5, Insightful)
play to his emotions (Score:5, Informative)
Find out more about this technical advisor. Has he/she always been 'with' the senator or did he/she come from a corporate background? Use this information to help frame your argument. For example, if the advisor has always worked for the government/senator then he/she is probably inclined to be more of the 'socially conscious' type. Using this as an aide, make the argument that this is not good policy - it is a ploy by the 'Disney' corporate culture to push off onto society the potentially high monetary and political costs of copy-protection. (I personally hate the idea of copy protection, but it is within the rights of the companies to employ this, as long as it is clearly labeled on CDs, etc. They don't want to do this because customers hate it. For this reason, they are seeking protection behind the law.)
If the advisor and senator are somewhat more conservative - coming from a corporate background, make the argument that it is the obligation of the industry to satisfy the will of the market - not the government's obligation to alter the market for the industry. Also mention the chip industry's opposition to the idea - and the increased costs consumers will have to shoulder. It could be argued that innovation will be hindered. Would you purchase a new system if you knew a copy-protection chip were installed in it? I wouldn't.
Finally, Florida - if I remember correctly - is still one of the states fighting M$. In this case, make it a point to bring up the subject of open-source software and how this legislation could seriously harm its development. When writing my Senators and Congressman (California, unfortunately), I made it a point to bring up the fact that my one-man-shop must run open-source software because of the cost associated with M$ products. This legislation could force me to adopt M$ platforms, decreasing my income and making it harder for me to do business.
Hope this helps.
The Future of Ideas (Score:2)
I'll bring it up again. "The Future of Ideas" by Lawrence Lessig argues well against many of our current network-controlling systems, including copyright, patents, and in your case, physical-layer/node control. If you read this book, you'll be able to easily prepare a non-partisan argument that if the CBDTPA was passed, it would seriously hurt innovation.
The CBDTPA would slice the throat of the digital commons and neutrality of network layers Lessig argues for. Innovation thrives on digital commons and neutral network layers. Eliminating the neutrality of digital devices brings us well back on the way to an AT&T-like controlled network, where you need to ask AT&T's permission to do anything.
As John Gilmore puts it:
The best argument I've heard (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget any sort of whiny "it's my right to steal music" arguments. I think the best argument is this:
It's the entertainment industry's problem, not the tech industry's.
Keep repeating until they are enlightened. It's not fair to saddle tech companies, consumers and everyone else EXCEPT the entertainment industry with added expenses and inconvenience. If the entertainment industry wants copyright enforced, then let them use the laws that are already on the books. Let them sue the pirates. In other words, let them enforce it with their own money, not our money.
Bottom line, there is no need for this law, because copyright violations are ALREADY ILLEGAL. Let the entertainment industry figure out how to enforce it.
ccfpark goes to Washington (Score:2)
I found an acronym to remember the sssca2 by (Score:4, Funny)
Congress Breaks Democracy, Takes Peoples America.
Some arguments (Score:2)
- There is already quality content on the Internet. The simple fact that it isn't owned by the MPAA member companies is no reason to overlook that fact;
- The lack of broadband adoption has arguably much more to due with the "last-mile" and associated problems than with issues of content. How many people who do have DSL, for instance, had to wait in excess of a month for installation because of some Baby Bell dragging its feet to stifle competition, only to then have their provider go under and have to repeat the whole process?
- no evidence is being put forth by anyone that adopting protection measures will stimulate the broadband market
2) The technical requirements enumerated in the bill are vague and/or contradictory:- in light of research into these types of systems (particularly watermarking, but others as well), it's doubtful whether "resistant to attack" and "readily implemented" are compatible, much less when combined with the requirement that the tech be "not cost prohibitive";
3) The FTC has already taken punitive/regulatory measures against the RIAA for anti-competitive practices (like the MAP pricing scheme); Congress should be extremely wary of consolidating further the already arguably monopolistic market influence of the RIAA and MPAA.4) Regardless of the bill's provision that software implementations of the standard be implemented in "open source" software, Microsoft, a company already being sued by the same government for anti-competetive business practices, should not have their monopoly power further bolstered by requiring technology for which MS has a patent and for which no reasonable expectation can exist as to even reasonable terms, much less RF licensing, being available for the technology.
5) The government has a notoriously poor track record at successfully mandating technological solutions -- why don't we have a national ground radar system to prevent runway incursions in airports, for instance?
That's just an "off the top of my head" list. Hopefully others can add significantly persuasive additional arguments.
Re:Some arguments (Score:2)
Definitely hammer on this. Point out that most people who don't have broadband would get it if
It was available in their area
It was reasonably priced
The telcos/cable companies actually provided it when ordered
Also point out that this will slow the economy. Fewer purchases of tech, new computers, etc... Also point out the relative contributions of the entertainment and tech industries to the economy.
Here's one that's slightly dangerous... Ask him what Hollywood's reaction would be to any Congressional attempt to regulate their industry. Then ask him why he (and Hollywood) believe it's OK to do the same thing to a different industry.
Nelson's Reply to My Letter (Score:2)
My reply from Senator Bill Nelson of Florida [tripod.com]
It might help you. (If you download it, it will be more legible, but oversized. I had trouble with the scanner.)
It will make the US less competitive ... (Score:2)
In the long run higher paid US jobs will go overseas
Language... (Score:2)
My first suggestion would be to visit your English 101 teacher.
Because I'm not a criminal.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Be sure to look into EFF's CBDTPA page! (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/
Things you should ask for (Score:4, Insightful)
added, since they are entirely reasonable, and
hence likely to "poison" the bill. >:K
1. It must be possible for ordinary end-users
who record and produce audiovisual works on
consumer-grade equipment (garage bands,
amateur film-makers and animators, etc.) to
mark
mandated by the security standard, so their
content can be viewed on all compliant media
devices that require such watermarks.
(otherwise, the bill is essentially asking for
"digital prior restraint" by whoever dispenses
the watermarks, which would surely be found
un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court).
2. Similarly, it must be possible for ordinary
end-users to mark the works they create with
any of the copying control settings defined
by the standard, so they can exercise the
full range of control over how their works
are copied and used.
(i.e. it should not be any more difficult or
expensive for ordinary end-users to mark their
works with digital copyright info than it would
be for RIAA or MPAA members. Otherwise, the U.S.
wouldn't be complying with their Berne Treaty
obligations to automatically grant and uphold
copyright without formal action by the author.)
3. Any software or hardware technologies which
are mandated by the standard must be freely
available, without any patent, licensing, or
royalty requirements, to ensure that it is
possible for open-source "freeware" digital
media tools to comply with the standard.
(In particular, since Microsoft Corporation has
basic patents covering
system with embedded digital-rights management,
the U.S. Government must revoke or buy those
patents before mandating all operating systems
software have this function. Otherwise, they
would be simply handing Microsoft exclusive
control of the entire software industry!)
This is ugly (Score:5, Insightful)
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistribute illegally.
I.E. He doesn't want you to be able to play your CD and record the analog output through the use of stereo jack cables etc.
(15) As solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
I.E He wants laws that will FORCE hardware makers to cripple ALL electronic components that might be used to convert and/or copy digital signals into unprotected analog signals. This would mean that you would be FORCED to pay for crippled equipment because that is all that would be available.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
He is referring to the rampant theft of intellectual property like mp3s etc.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" technology. Much of this activity is illegal, but demonstrates consumers's desire to access digital content.
He is referring to consumers who are exercising their right of fair use but then abusing that legal right by sharing the files with others.
Notice the use of the word "consumers" and not citizens. His interests clearly are for the corporations and not for the average American.
(18) Piracy poses a substantial economic threat to America's content industries.
Ditto with the corporate interest thing.
(19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
He repeats himself. He really wants to screw with our hardware.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate consumer expectations reading use of digital content in the home.
Yeah, as long as we don't expect to exercise our fair use rights.
(21) Secure technological protections should enable owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use that content in a legal manner.
This bill would be changing the definition of "a legal manner", so your current expectations are irrelevant.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
Again, the "legitimate home use of digital content" will no longer include fair use. You will have to pay for content that is streamed to your home each time you listen or view it.
It goes on and on but I think everyone gets the idea. Pass the Vaseline and bend over.
The golden rule (Score:2)
Just remember that in politics, the pen is mightier than the sword. Especially when you use that pen to sign a big fat check.
the bill will have all the wrong consequences (Score:2)
It is the straw that will break the camel's back! (Score:2)
What My Senator and Representative Had to Say (Score:5, Informative)
Dear *****:
Thank you for contacting me regarding S.2048, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, being introduced by Senators Hollings and Stevens.
I certainly understand your concerns regarding copyright issues. The U. S.
has traditionally been a strong supporter of copyright holders. As you know, the development and expansion of the Internet has created questions in some people's minds as to how to deal with copyright issues of all kinds. I believe that we can find a way to balance appropriately electronic commerce with copyright
protection issues. Currently, the measure has been referred to the Senate Commerce Committee, of which I am a member. Please be assured that I
will keep your concerns in mind when the Senate considers this bill.
Again, I appreciate your taking the time to contact me. It was good to hear from you.
Most respectfully,
Max Cleland
United States Senator
________________________________________
Dear Mr. ******:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding technology mandates. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
I do not support legislation of this type for the following reasons:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) gave copyright owners the tools to stop purveyors of "piracy tools" that circumvent copyright protection technology, but it explicitly declined to specify which technologies should be used, clarifying instead that there can be no mandate for manufacturers to respond to particular technologies.
Draft legislation supported by some companies would repudiate the DMCA's carefully struck balance by requiring the Commerce Department to
"certify" specific copy protection technologies and outlawing all interactive digital devices (computers, digital TVs, cell phones, etc.) that do not include the certified technologies. The flaws in the discussion draft of the bill indicate the difficulties in government technology mandates for copyright protection:
* Retards innovation by freezing today's technology in place. By picking specific technologies to mandate in every device, federal mandates virtually guarantee the inclusion of outdated technology in future digital technology products.
* Government picks winners and losers. Even if the entertainment and technology industries agreed on a common approach, the government would
still be picking specific copyright protection products to be included in every computer, cell phone, personal video recorder or other electronic
device.
* Multiple mandates mean extreme performance degradation. Scanning every datastream for numerous certified "digital watermarks" would
significantly slow down computers, even where no protected content is involved. Audio/video capabilities would be unworkable on cell phones, PDAs and other portable devices.
* Government (and lobbyists) as gatekeeper over new technologies. New products that didn't work with the certified copyright protection technologies would be unlawful until the government approved new copy protection. Approval would have to be gained over the lobbying of
companies, NGOs or any others who wanted to stall the new technology.
* Consumer backlash. Unworkable copyright mandates would cause new IT and consumer electronics products to fail in the market and cause consumers to blame technology companies and policymakers.
* Reduced global competitiveness. IT and electronics products produced for the US market with lower performance, higher prices and burdensome restrictions would be noncompetitive in international markets where such mandates did not apply.
* Unintended consequences. Mandates would potentially impact digital products whose uses are unrelated to the entertainment industry, such
as measuring and testing equipment that incidentally fall under the Act, thereby needlessly increasing the cost to the consumer.
Please feel free to visit my website at www.house.gov/isakson for more
information on issues that may be of importance to you, as well as to sign up for my monthly email update. Thank you again for contacting me, and I hope you will not hesitate to call on me in the future if I can be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
Member of Congress
a few points you may want to consider... (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, PCs and computers in general are much, much, much bigger than hollywood. I don't care much for movies streamed to me on my computers if hollywood can't figure out a way to do so with a framework that has worked for everyone else. It doesn't reduce the value of computers for me. As for watching movies I can rent a tape/DVD and watch it on dedicated hardware that already has copy protection. I don't want my computer to be turned into yet another DVD-player/TV combo. I already have that. Btw, computers and the internet weren't put together after years of research for me to turn a $2500 worth of equipment (not including software prices, connection fees etc.) to a 'toaster' like device that replaces a walk to the movie rental store, a VCR and a tv. Movies are already 'streamed' to my home thru cable. What is the value added for me, the consumer to limit the use of the hardware I have paid for? Hollywood has their hardware. Millions are spent on TVs and DVD players by consumers. They have made the rules and I have subscribed to the rules of their game. I have a VCR, a DVD player and several TVs in my home -- all manufactured to the specification of hollywood. Why can't they spend more R&D dollars and create enough value in those existing 'hollywood' hardware? It's obvious that they just want to 'choke the airsupply' of any technology that poses a threat to their stronghold. If hollywood wants to play the computer 'game' -- more specifically, the PC game it can't expect to have the rules changed for them.
Sure computers could be used to pirate. Knives can be used to kill. Hammers can be used to smash heads. Crowbars can be used to break in. Maybe we ought to start selling blunt knives, plastic hammers and well, outright ban for the Crowbar. Therefore, this bill doesn't protect the consumer or add any value whatsoever for the consumer. Sorry i rambled a little but i'm really infuriated at the short sightedness of various elected brianiacs effectively to amputate a technology much much bigger than movies and music for the sake of protecting hollywood (while there's abundence of 'hollywood hardware' that could be enhanced if hollywood was truly concerned about providing consumers more value.)
How does this hurt the small time producer? (Score:2)
A bill like this one will hurt my friend. First, he will probably have to go through all kinds of hoops to get his movie "protected" so that he can release it. Also, the equipment he uses will no longer be "consumer" equipment and thus will not be commodiy and thus will be sold at a much higher price... or even unavailable without specific agreements. This could be used to ban small mom&pop shops from the industry. Second, it will serve limit what can or cannot be shown on broadband. Most likely only a few broad band players will be in the market, and rather than risk lawsuit they will only allow "proven", aka "RIAA" companies to distribute movies. Thus, the entire boradband distribution channel could just dry up, once again, leaving the RIAA with the keys to the distribution market.
This here bill is just big movie pork! (Score:2, Interesting)
This here is government protectionism at its very worst. It is protecting big, very wealthy business from small, hard working small film shops.
Revenue Stream (Score:2, Interesting)
it makes every computer illegal (Score:2)
Keep it positive (Score:2)
Unless you're walking in there with 10 large in your pocket for a campaign contribution, or your dad's an old Harvard buddy or something, it's unlikely you'll be given more than a scant few minutes to make your point. "Gosh, I'd love to hear more about this, but I'm a very busy person, so if you'll just leave this information on my desk..." Therefore, it's important that you make your point quickly and forcefully, with minimum of topic distraction. If he asks about something else, respond to it, but do everything you can to keep the focus on what you want to talk about.
To me, your biggest selling points should be Freedom to Innovate (go ahead, steal an MS phrase), and the taking away of consumer's fair use rights. Bring up the fact that VCR's and tape decks, once decried as evil by the MPAA and RIAA, are now multi-billion dollar businesses for them. Point out that, time and again, consumers have rewarded companies (with their business) that give them new technologies.
what not to say.. (Score:3, Funny)
Broken Promises (Score:3, Insightful)
I recently wrote to my Congressman, and the point that I tried to stress was that Hollywood has already broken its promises on this score. To help get the DMCA passed, they said that the lack of digital copyright protections were preventing them from distributing content on-line. Once that was passed, they said, they'd be able to start the on-line revolution. Instead, they absolutely refused to do anything on line and only used the DMCA to shut down potential competitors. Today we have no idea whether legitimate on-line distribution channels would suffer from excessive piracy because there haven't been enough legitimate on-line distribution channels to find out. Before Hollywood demands more protections, they should have to follow through on their previous promises and see whether or not piracy is really a problem in the face of legitimate sources of on-line content.
Just tell them this: (Score:5, Insightful)
Example: Let's suppose that you want to videotape your daughter at her wedding dancing with her new husband to their favorite song.
If machines exist that can do this, then machines exist that can record sounds such as the music in the background which is on a CD and copyrighted. If you can record the video and edit it, then you can split the sound from the picture. If you can copy this sound, then you can copy copyrighted content.
Example: Let's suppose you're reading an book on your laptop as your baby crawls around the floor. Your baby then stands up and starts taking his first steps. He walks in front of the laptop with the copyrigted e-book on it. Should you be able to grab your video camera and record him walking around?
If you have an e-book and you can videotape it, then you can either distribute video stills or use OCR to convert it into text. Either way, if you allow people to be able to take pictures of e-books on a computer, then those e-books can be copied. The only way to stop this is to make machines that can't record when they're pointed at a screen displaying copyrighted content.
Example: Let's suppose that you're walking around in Times Square with all of the big video screens all around you. Many of them will be displaying copyrighted content. Should you be able to videotape all of the sights in Times Square even though you're copying copyrighted content?
If so, then you can use a camera to copy copyrighted video.
These examples are of people living in a world of content that's constantly coming out of things they own while those people are trying to make their own stuff. If you allow people to make their own content, the same machines and technologies that they will use for themselves can be used to copy copyrighted materials. There is no way to separate these two things.
Once these things are recorded, they will be stored in slightly different formats than the original, so you won't even be able to tell what's copyrighted and what isn't just by comparing files. The industry will be forced to control and inspect all data that goes through any network.
So, the only way to control copyright with technology is to make it illegal for anyone to create anything in any way including using computers, cameras, and microphones.
I wonder how the copyright industry itself will continue to make their content since they will need to have tools for recording that aren't hobbled by the laws they want to inflict on everyone else. I don't think they realize that if they make it illegal to have a machine that can send copies of DVDs over the Internet, they won't be allowed to have computers to send their DVDs over the Internet. After all, they don't own ALL of the copyrighted movies in the world, so if their servers can send MY content over the Internet without my consent, they'll have to be illegal.
Basically, they need to have total control. They have forever to keep trying to get this total control. They will be happy with baby steps because every time they get baby steps laws passed that control things a bit more, they have moved the line of what's acceptable. Since copying cannot be stopped without total control, they can come back and ask for more measures every time the partial measures fail until they have total control.
And, interestingly enough, they will also clamp down on the ability of anyone else to create their own content to compete with the copyright industries, but I am sure that this loss of creative potential is a regrettable but unforseen consequence of the necessity of protecting their IP.
Except for one thing. Will clamping down on all of the kinds of recording and editing machines that people can use to record their own music and movies advance the arts, or hinder them?
I feel that if you have an opportunity where you can use technology to allow everyone to make and distribute art cheaply, you will advance the arts more than a world where the creation and distribution channels are artificially narrowed to serve a few corporate interests. If everyone has the chance to create and to share then arts will be advanced more than if things are controlled by a few.
Since the only way to control copyright is to shut off the creative paths that would have been available to billions to keep thousands employed, I say these kinds of laws protect copyright at the expense of freedom. Since the only reason copyright exists is to advance the arts, and since a law like this will stifle the arts, a law like this cannot be constitutional.
Not only will a law like this stifle:
Here are a few things... (Score:3)
As a result large companies will have to charge more and take longer thus "having a chilling effect" on the IT industry and small businesses/startups may never get off the ground due to the ensuing fees and legal costs.
Even if this hideous thing is done (killing the tech industry entirely) it will have no effect on the Chinese, Koreans, Canadians and everyone else not covered by the law who are free to produce illegal copies and ship em back to the U.S. for sale.
Fundamentally the act of making "unauthorized copies" is already illegal and this added layer with its costs and destructive repurcussions will not affect that so why not juet turn to enforcing the violations as are already being done?
That or getting a business model that isn't mired in a dependence upon people's inability to use technology?
Or just charge a fair price? The fact of the matter is that Disney can supply better content than a ripped DivX so why don't they just do that.?
Anyway my $0.02
Irvu.
Let's reduce copyright duration. (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom? (Score:3)
Not only does such a system hamper new technological development, it hampers development of new content. By allowing corporations to control the handling of all media, it will be easier for these corporations to decide what is seen, heard, read, etc.. It will be easier for these companies to ignore new artists as it finds ways to dig up and resell old content over and over again. These companies will find ways to direct people to their most profitable content via the control software, while finding creative ways to lock other artists out of their systems by making it inconvenient, if not impossible, to access any media that circumvents the system.
When the government restricts the way computers handle information, it also restricts the flow and dissemination of information, and thus restricts the freedom of expression, something specifically prohibited by our constitution.
The CBDTPA is blatant tyranny; an obvious sign of class warfare in American, the haves are attempting to control the lives of the have-nots as much as possible, and then to squeeze every last drop of money as possible from the have-nots. Of course, the haves never need to fear these kind of restrictions on their freedoms, because they have money, lawyers, and if all else fails, passports.
CBDTPA bad for national defense, bad for Florida (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the unintended side effects of the CBDTPA that has not been explored
is the negative impact on many ongoing high-tech DoD programs vital for national
defense.
In these days, especially, no politician will want to be perceived as obstructing
the "war on terrorism" to benefit Hollywood and Disney.
In general, one part of the argument you should develop is that CBDTPA will
increase complexity and costs of all programmable COTS hardware and associated
software. It should be an easy task to point out the benefit of using
low-cost COTS solutions to the national defense. This SEI [cmu.edu]
Monograph discusses various laws and regulations that encourage or mandate
use of COTS technology in DoD programs. Note that the term "COTS" refers
to open source as well as proprietary software, and is meant only to exclude
custom, one-off type software.
As far as the negative effect of the CBDTPA on open source software, and
the resulting impact on national defense, you need only do some research
on the wide use of open source solutions in ongoing DoD programs and operations
to prove your point. Here is a link to a presentation [vita.com]
(pdf) prepared by MITRE that discusses general use of open source software
by the military. A couple of specific programs I would point to: Linux
is a supported platform for the OneSAF [onesaf.org] testbed, and is
practice is the platform of choice for ModSAF [modsaf.org]. These
are especially important because much of the development for these packages
is centered in the Modeling and Simulation industry concentrated around the
Florida I-4 high-tech corridor (especially in Orlando).
Which brings me to a second argument that is likely to carry weight with
a politician: the CBDTPA is bad for business (especially local business).
Here I would emphasize the detrimental effect of the CBDTPA on
the efforts of the High Tech Corridor [floridahightech.com]
Council. I would recommend that you contact CEOs of hardware and
software companies located throughout Florida, and suggest that you are willing
to lobby the senator on their behalf against the CBDTPA. It will take
a lot of weight to counter Disney, but you may get more support than you
imagine. One very pro-linux Florida software company that I am familar
with is I.D.E.A.L. Corp [idealcorp.com],
you should contact their CEO and start to network outwards from there.
Re:Asking Slashdot? (Score:2)
Re:Asking Slashdot? (Score:2)
Re:Political/Business Argument (Score:2)
All professional computer programmers start out as student and hobbyist programmers. If individuals cannot learn and share code in safety, the chilling effect on the academic and hobbyist community will be tremendous.
The scope of this legislation is so broad, that any programmer could face criminal prosecution for writing software that moves bits or stores bits on an unprotected OS, i.e. any open source OS. For example, Linux and existing hardware will be grandfathered in under the new law, but if I submit even a trivial bugfix patch to cp, I'm a criminal.
Of course that's another danger- bugfixes for open source software become illegal leaving security holes unpatched. Take that one to Tom Ridge.