SSSCA Introduced in Senate 802
Peter BG Shoemaker writes: "Wired is reporting that Hollings has officially submitted his newly renamed SSSCA, carrying the moniker Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA). It carries all the provisions we've been worrying about...there is a new battlefield folks..." Newsbytes has another story. Reuters has a story about News Corporation and Disney lobbying in support of the bill. I haven't seen the exact text of the bill as introduced; it will probably be in Thomas tomorrow. Update: 03/22 00:12 GMT by M : Declan McCullagh has collected several documents pertaining to the SSSCA, errr, CBDTPA. He's got a faxed copy of the bill (barely legible; read it on Thomas tomorrow), plus statements from Hollings (read it!), the MPAA, the RIAA, and several lobbying groups for the tech industry, who seem less enthralled about it.
Gentlemen... start your faxes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Find your Senate, find his/her fax number and start sending your letters!
the constitution? what constitution. (Score:1, Insightful)
Shouldn't have to say it, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gentlemen... start your faxes! (Score:1, Insightful)
Crazy thought: How about waiting for the text of the law and reading it before criticizing! Sure it sounds kind of strange, but wouldn't it be more effective to fax your senator knowing what the law actually says?
Sorry, I don't know what I'm thinking. Forget it. Hail the mob!!
Might as well outlaw the game of baseball (Score:4, Insightful)
Hollings said that "any device that can legitimately play, copy, or electronically transmit one or more categories of media also can be misused for illegal copyright infringement, unless special protection technologies are incorporated."
We'll just have to tell Congress that "any device that can legitimately hit a baseball can be misused for illegal murder. How do you think MLB would react if the state legislatures tried to outlaw the game of baseball?"
One bright spot for free software advocates: Any software that implements the standards must be "based on open source code." Hardware copy-protection schemes can remain proprietary.
I'd assume that a rational judge would consider "open source" to mean what the community thinks it means [opensource.org]. So unless the standards require hardware (which Silicon Valley will vehemently object to), the GNU/Linux system may still be able to decode SSS^H^H^H CBDTPA encoded material.
problems with politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention all the money going through. I honestly don't know why these politicians aren't sued for bribery. It isn't a coincidence that Hollins supports this after all the cash Disney gave him. Same thing with Bush and Microsoft (and the DoJ essentially settling for 10 cents).
What about home movies??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hollings surely doesn't know the answer. Hollywood doesn't know the answer.
Re:Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
Two reasons why it sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
They are pulling out all the stops with the name Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act:
Keep your head (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article...
It does say the final "encoding rules" should take into account fair-use rights, such as making backup copies or reproducing short excerpts from books, songs, or movies. Copies of TV broadcasts made for one-time personal use at home are also permitted.
In other words, if you write congress and rant that they are "outlawing fair use" or something like that, the letter will go straight into the trash because they believe they ARE taking care of them.
If you want to oppose this law (and I think that would be a good idea), the argument needs to be based on economics (making consumer products more expensive), inconvenience (does this in practical terms make it much more difficult to exercise fair use rights), or privacy (will you have to register a music purchase in order to get a digital copy)?
I'm speculating right now, because we won't really know what it says until we can read the actual law.
The bottom line is that arguments that it's your right to steal copyrighted material will play right into their hands as proof that this law is needed. I think it behooves everyone to realize that laws are generally written to solve problems, and the problem here is copyright theft. The argument against it needs to be that this solution creates more problems than it solves.
I think people should also remember that something like this WILL solve the problem of copyright theft, and not try to convince yourself that it won't. Will it possibly not stop certain people from making illegal digital copies? Of course not -- but that's not the point. The music industry doesn't care about Joe L33t making copies, it cares about the mass market making copies. It only has to be "good enough" to be effective.
Re:Gentlemen... start your faxes! (Score:4, Insightful)
How about you read the SlashDot posting and the linked article? You'll see things like this:
The bill, called the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), prohibits the sale of any kind of electronic device -- unless that device includes copy-protection standards to be set by the federal government.
And this:
Once known as the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act, the CBDTPA says that all "digital media devices" sold in the United States or shipped across state lines must include copy protection mechanisms to be defined by the Federal Communications Commission.
That's what we were afraid of! While reading the bill when the text is posted is not a bad idea, I also think we're still safe criticizing it.
Hong Kong (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds me of how the solution to a puzzle in 7th Guest read... The solution was, "There is no possible way."
That is kind of the situation we are in. There is no way to truely impliment unhackable hardware and software. The more money/time you spend into designing the protection, the more resources they are wasting. On a very basic level this is impossible, no matter how rich of a corp. you are.
If this really does come to pass, people will be buying anti-anti-copyprotection black boxes along with the usual cable tv black boxes at fleamarkets.
Really, the question is how much will this damage the industry before people chuck this non-protection concept?
Re:Canada (Score:2, Insightful)
This "will never pass" we once said, "it's blatently in violation of the first amendment"!
What did it get us? DMCA
Don't underestimate the power of the corporation-funded democracy of America.
That's what we all said about DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this bill will not pass. It will not. I bet you five dollars.
Four years ago, when we were in this position with regard to the DMCA, Slashdot regulars were saying the same thing.
They lost their bets.
Please send your five dollars to the EFF [eff.org] instead.
--Damian Yerrick, card-carrying member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
I wish Rep. Boucher was there (Score:3, Insightful)
We can remember him as the person sending the letter to the RIAA [dotcomscoop.com] questioning their practice of labelling copy protected CD's as normal CD's, and drafting up tech friendly legislation.
in those terms, the debate is already lost (Score:3, Insightful)
With reporting like that, how can there even be a rational discussion? I mean, no law-abiding citizen could be opposed to "stopping thievery", right?
Since companies like Disney are succeeding in recasting the debate in a form in which the any use of their content that they don't approve of is called "thievery" and "piracy", the debate is already lost.
The real thiefs, of course, are companies like Disney, which have built business empires on reusing public-domain content while at the same time increasingly violating fair use and public domain provisions of copyright, and even paying off legislators to give them special privileges.
Re:What about home movies??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should you be allowed to create and share content on your own?
You do not matter to these people.
You are not a person, merely a source of income.
They care as much for you and your home movies as they care for the feelings of the dead cow they ate for lunch.
You are a walking cash machine to Hollywood, and it is Holling's job is to extract as much of it as possible for his corporate masters.
But don't worry. Soon you'll be over 18 and won't matter to them even that much since you're not in the right demographic.
Re:Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because devices sold in Canada will have the DRM features (for reasons of economies of scale) does not mean the media in Canada will be required (or allowed) to use them.
We may not be able to buy DRM-free devices in Canada and smuggle them back into the USA, but we may be able to buy DRM-free content in Canada and smuggle it back! Let's hope, at least.
(wouldn't that be a laugh, if Disney DVD sales tanked in the USA and spiked in Canada after passage of this bill -- but Eisner still wouldn't catch that clue -- too subtle [which reminds me of a Black Adder line...])
Re:handwritten? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Might as well outlaw the game of baseball (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe our new slogan should be,
"Software doesn't steal digital content, people steal digital content."
Re:Software needs to be impleted via open source (Score:3, Insightful)
There are only two ways of 'protecting' something:
But both work quite well if you do them in hardware, because you need to modify the hardware to break number one or analyse the hardware (ICs) to get its encryption key in order to break number two. And both are quite difficult obstacles which are out of reach for 99% of all people.
Re:Might as well outlaw the game of baseball (Score:3, Insightful)
can this possibly be good for anybody? (Score:2, Insightful)
I quote Marc Rotenburg in saying:
There are a couple things that I feel are noteworthy about this article... I'm sure others too will have something to say about them, but I have not seen these things touched upon in this discussion yet...
For one thing, how exactly does Hollings come up with his "billions of dollars a year" figure with regard to yearly losses to piracy on the Internet? In other words, does he (or do his statisticians) assume that for every song traded on the Internet, a real purchase would have been made in its place, or does he somehow compensate for the fact that some people are far more willing to download a single song than buy the entire album that contains it? This is quite seriously not a flame; I really am interested in the reasoning behind this.
Perhaps a bit more to the point, I wonder how this legislation is going to help anybody at all, even the content industry that is so energetically pushing it? While I am against piracy on principle, I am thoroughly unconvinced that half of the music piracy that goes on over the Internet could possibly be translated into real sales if the means to such piracy were eliminated. Further, for me the ability to download songs on Audiogalaxy has if anything increased the number of CDs I buy over any given time period. Again, I am against piracy on principle - but I now would never purchase a CD without first being able to download a couple of songs from it just to make sure I like it okay. Granted, for many this is not the case, and there are people who listen entirely to illegally downloaded music rather than supporting the artists who create it. But one has to wonder what the proportions between these two different music sharing philosophies is an what the overall effect of music sharing on the Internet really comes out to be.
And even if this law really would help the RIAA and MPAA that much, is this really a worthwhile goal? Granted, the ability of money to speak may be the Democratic Way, but I still feel there is something wrong when an entire industry seeks to dis-empower its customers through a legal mechanism for the sole purpose of increasing profits.
Of course, there are other issues to this law; what, for example, will be the effect on computer hardware makers and sellers if this beast really goes into effect? How will this effect those who wish to play MP3s and OGGs on their computers and in their cars? I suppose we will have to wait until we can get ahold of a full copy of the legislation before we can say much intelligent about such specifics.
For my part, I would hate to see this go into effect. I don't want digital media to suddenly become a whole lot less useful to me...
-Niten
Re:My question about licensing data.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think this is correct. With music CDs, at least, you aren't buying a license to anything. You just buy a medium with information on it. Your reproduction and dissemination of the information is constrained by copyright law, but is not constrained by a license.
For software there may be a license involved as well, which supposedly grants you the right to do things like install the software on your hard drive, use the software, etc. But just playing the disc like some sort of wacked-out audio CD doesn't require a license, for example.
I agree with you that the content industry wants to have it both ways; I just disagree with you on how far from reality they really are :)
Re:Shouldn't have to say it, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Million Geek March (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, what else could possibly raise the mainstream's attention in regards to "protecting our online rights in order to protect our civil rights"?
Re:Keep your head (Score:3, Insightful)
Worse yet, it's clear that this legislation is a paid for by the studios and labels. It's legislating maximized profits for an industry that is already reporting record profits. If copy protection were reasonable, effective, and even possible, why aren't the content holders and information technology industry using it? They certainly have the money to develop it.
Finally, this will NOT stop copyright violations. Any copy protection scheme can be circumvented, and once one person does it, the means will propogate widely. And a recording of the analog output of a digital source, once compressed to MP3 format, is indistinguishable from an all-digital copy. This law will do nothing to stop file sharing.
Make these points in your correspondance with your lawmakers. Be short, concise, and convincing. Open and close with grace and respect. Don't threaten them with your vote... they'll know where you stand and can predict where your vote will go.
Re:Educate your senators, but by postal mail... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just my $0.02 and speculation. Does anyone know if this is accurate?
Interesting note (Score:2, Insightful)
On of my (many) concerns with this legislation has been that an adopted standard would be unimplementable in an open-source OS. This seems to address that. Hmm.
TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it will help pirates make more money (Score:4, Insightful)
Pirates will be in demand, people will pay them money to install mod chips on PCs, and people will buy CD collections from pirates, and other illegal software. This will simply make a black market, dont be surprised if the mafia and organized crime gets involved and people start dying over it.
Re:Might as well outlaw science and engineering (Score:3, Insightful)
Any computer that can do unrestricted computations can be used to break encryption and be used to copy this forbidden data. [...] A computer that can't break encryption surely won't be much use to study DNA or to calculate spacecraft trajectories.
That's not really the issue. The ability of a computer to "break" encryption isn't really relevant. In fact, plenty of useful computers exist that can't break, for example, the AES (i.e. all computers).
The issue isn't that general calculations will be impossible, the issue is that the interfaces to various pieces of hardware will be restricted in ways that will make experimentation and innovation very difficult. The issue is that all this secured hardware will cost a lot more money, meaning fewer people will buy computers and the pace of innovation will slow further. The issue is that this secure hardware will require the collaboration of secured software, which will destroy open source software and will put a serious damper on the ability of small software companies to compete. The issue is that the government validation of all this secure hardware and software will create a huge new beuracracy and further impede the industry. The issue is that strong copy protection threatens to give content producers a perpetual, non-limited monopoly over their content, destroying fair use and eliminating the public domain.
The issue is that they're doing all of this damage to a whole industry and to the rights of the public in order to protect a small industry that is stagnant, unable to face the new reality and rife with corruption.
How much $ did the TV industry give your senator? (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing I found interesting in that page is that Hillary Clinton is #4 in the $ amount for senators in all cycles with $601,345; >90% of that was in 2000 alone. Damn, she works fast... And to further screw those of us in New York like myself planning on writing both senators, Schumer wasn't far behind with $519,935 total; and he was #1 in 2002 with about $95K. Somehow I doubt they'll listen to my opinions on the matter...
Re:Keep your head (Score:5, Insightful)
All the weeping and wailing the industry does about "millions of illegal copies" and "no way to prevent it" flies in the face of the basic fact that this stuff is de facto legal, since the copyright holders have shown no interest in bringing charges against any of those millions of people who are breaking the law on a daily basis. Nowhere else does the law work like this. "All across the country, people are driving too fast, because not a single person has ever gotten a ticket. Ever. We must need special devices in all the cars that prevent them from exceeding the speed limit." When you write your congressfolk, remember to point out that thus far, the industry has shown no interest in even trying to use the laws already on the books to protect their copyrighted materials, and that this is an attempt to push the cost of enforcement off onto another industry, where it will be more expensive, less effective, and more of a pain in the ass for those all-important "consumers." Other industries do this right -- the credit card companies already eat an estimated billion dollars a year [firn.edu] in losses from fraud (in the US); they pursue the more flagrant cases, do what they can to make it difficult for fraud to occur, and do fairly well for themselves overall. What they don't do is go whining to congress about how possession of card readers should be made a felony.
Options (Score:2, Insightful)
From Senator Ernest F. Hollings' Letter to President George W. Bush:
"...comsumers desire high-quality digital contenton on the Internet, and it is not being provided in any widespread, legal fashion."
Of course if the content creation industries and their representatives first reaction was to negotiate a solution rather than sue sue sue, we might have legal solutions rather than illegal solutions with no single liable entity.
Of course, I am of the belief that if the content creators provided a REASONABLE system to aquire content by purchase over the Internet, we would see a decline in online piracy. After all, why would I want to gamble that the other Napster/Morpheous/Gnutella user might cut me off in the middle of a download when I can be assured of getting what I want.
Suddenly I am reminded of those 10-10-220 commercials. 'A buck? What can I buy with a buck?' Well, how about that song you have stuck in your head?
Re:Hong Kong (Score:3, Insightful)
Won't work. Someone will hack the decryption and build their own decoder. (Likely in software) Violation of DMCA, so what? They'll release it anonymously and open source.
Won't work. Someone will rip a TV apart and figure out how to make the black box dance.
Won't work. Someone will stick a freakin VIDEO RECORDER in optimum conditions in front of the TV, rip it, and release it. It's a home movie as far as the video recorder is concerned.
Ditto all the above for encrypted speaker signals and microphones.
Will the average person do this? Of course not. BUT IT ONLY TAKES ONE PERSON. There will ALWAYS be one person.
If you hide it, we will find it. If you guard it, we will free it. If you hoard it, we will spread it.
The global distribution and copying of information is now essentially costless. Deal with it. Welcome to the twenty-first fucking century.
Re:Why is it legal to buy guns but you cant buy (Score:2, Insightful)
I just like punching holes in paper at a very efficient speed.
As far as self defense goes there is absolutely no substitute for a nice
Ultimately you can't pick and choose which rights you like and ignore the rest. Either the bill of rights stands as a whole or we might as well not bother having a Constitution.
Re:It's ALL a waste of time (Score:3, Insightful)
Theres two groups in this country. The group which wants informations to be free, which is against patents, and intellectual property, then you have the group which wants information to be owned.
Both sides can make money, its proven, Redhat and AOL make as much money as Microsoft and Disney,
You can make money selling the services and hardware, or you can make money trying to sell the code.
Problem is, anyone can make code, anyone can produce and distribute it, and we can do it better than record companies, we dont need them anymore
We still need Sony to make our CD players, AOL for our internet connection, Musicians for making the music
We dont need Microsoft and RIAA.
This WAR isnt about laziness, its about technology, technology is making the record industry obsolete, and its changing the software industry to a service industry. Instead of the RIAA adapting, they want to control, they are like Microsoft, trying to keep their monopoly.
Oil Companies use oil not because oil is the only form of energy or the best, its used because the Oil Industry, The Enrons, they have monopoly to maintain and while we can get free energy from stuff like Water, Air, Sunlight, which can power a car for 12 or more hours, (thats more than enough power to last for days) instead we are still paying a fortune for gas, cars are still using gas, the energy in our house while it could be self generated, people still are using oil,
Face it, oil isnt needed anymore, perhaps there was a time when oil was the only thing there but when theres alternatives that benifit the masses, we should follow these technologies.
Napster and File Sharing benifits the masses, the majority of people in the world want it, what happened to democracy?
The only people who are anti napster are CEOs, and elite musicians who have no talent like britney spears and others.
Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold it. A "demand" problem is not the concern of Congress. If the products are priced too high, and there is little demand, then it is up to the businesses to reduce the price.
This is wanton "profit by legislation," just like the auto insurance laws. How long before it will be illegal not to own one of these products? Oh yeah, and for all the "slippery slope" trolls: look what's happened to the copyright laws themselves over the past 100 years.
Roughly 85% of Americans are offered broadband in the marketplace but only 10-12% have signed up. The fact is that most Americans are averse to paying $50 a month for faster access to email, or $2000 for a fancy HDTV set that plays analog movies.
Right. Because they can't afford it. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that all these huge companies are RAISING PRICES WHILE THEY FIRE THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE BUYING THEIR #%&@$$^_)(*@$% PRODUCTS!! WHAT ABOUT THAT, SENATOR??
Oh, we should let the market decide there, right? So it's ok for some mumbling, inept, incompetent corporate middle-manager to destroy someone's career, (and indirectly take their home, and security, and money, and investments, and health insurance, and references, and quite possibly their family and children) whenever they feel like it, but the employee must hand over their money whenever marketing rings the bell?
Well, in the case of the overpriced broadband and HDTV products, the market has decided, and Content Inc. lost. Deal.
But if more high-quality content were available, consumer interest wou! ld l ikely increase.
Let's see some evidence of that first. Let's see some content, any content offered by any large corporation besides Super Bowl commercials. Wait, there is one example. Cartoon Network offers web-based versions of some of their programs. They now have 80 million subscribers and are stomping the living crap out of every cable channel they compete with and are scaring the living crap out of the networks too. Hmmmm.....
The movie studios, and the rest of the copyright industries
Copyright industries? So, they manufacture copyrights? That is a fascinating and very descriptive term.
are tremendously excited about the possibility of providing their products to consumers over the Internet and the digital airwaves, provided they can be assured that those products' copyrights are not infringed in the process.
Sure, as long as they can re-engineer the entire high-tech industry (which manufactures actual products, by the way) before doing so. It wasn't always this way. First they had to lose a Supreme Court case back in the 70s-80s to "allow" the public access to VCRs.
Although marketplace negotiations have not provided such an assurance, a solution is at hand. Leaders in the consumer electronics, information technology, and content industries are some of America's best and brightest. They can solve this problem.
So what do we need this legislation for?
the private sector needs a nudge
A nudge? A letter is a nudge. This bill is a #%&@$^)(*@$ avalanche.
consumers desire high-quality digital content on the Internet, and it is not being provided in any widespread, legal fashion.
Because the Copyright Industries (heh) won't allow it. How about solving that problem? Why is this the "consumer's" fault. (I hate that word).
mandate to ensure its swift and universal adoption.
You meant nudge, right, Senator?
Congress mandated that all television receivers include the capability to tune all channels (UHF and VHF) allocated to the television broadcast service.
..while this bill requires all computers to tune to the *one* channel allowed by the Copyright Industries.
would not be permitted to thwart legitimate consumer copying of programming in the home
Like Macrovision does?
- for time shifting purposes, for example.
How are they going to know the difference? This law mandates it's own uselessness.
We have listened to their arguments delivered in dozens of meetings with my staff,
..and ignored them.
and the bill we introduce today does nothing of the sort.
Called it.
Sigh... it sounds like Macrovision for computers. This will slow down the "Napsterization" of the Copyright Industries (heh) for about six hours. I'm saddened that Diane Feinstein was a co-sponsor of this. She seemed to be quite critical of the bill only a few months ago. Which leaves Californians with only one potential representative on this matter: Barbara Boxer. (ugh)
The House will probably not pass this legislation, but letters to Senators, Congressmen, *and* the President would probably be a good thing(tm). If this becomes law, computers and software as an industry are going to be damaged and the Internet will become the exclusive domain of the Copyright Industries.
This goes to show the Cluetrain was right:
"Big Business sees the consumer as a gullet who's primary function is to swallow products and crap cash."
The slogan for this bill?
"Get back on the couch."
No crap... (Score:2, Insightful)
No crap they're "tremendously excited". Why should the sell us a whole movie, when they can sell it to us one viewing at a time! I can see the MPAA and RIAA drooling all over themselves at this very minute!
I'm afraid we're going to have to do it this way. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's ALL a waste of time (Score:2, Insightful)
Patents are not evil, and people for OSS could be for patents as well.
What OSS people are for is the free exchange of community property. That is, projects developed by many should be free for many. OSS advocates will not [and should not] say that privately developed ideas, techniques, algorithms, etc should be community property.
As to your "anyone can code", while yes anyone can "code" or "hack", not everyone can seriously put a product worth using together. Being able to hack out a couple lines of code is useful, but being able to document, clarify and support your software is something else that most OSS zealots are not willing todo.
Not every person who can run GCC will make an OS that will replace Windows. So as to the general notion "we don't need MSFT", why yes we do for serveral reasons
1. For the time being Linux sucks. Its far too diverse for people to pick and use properly. Lots of people have no clue what an OS is, let alone Linux, let alone the distinction between Debian, Suse, Mandrake and Redhat Linux.
2. MSFT Windows provides something that Linux gurus can look up to in terms of usability. Sure we know that Windows has its share of bugs and downfalls. When it comes to user interfaces and ease of use though windows wins hands down.
Overall I'd say your post shows a lack of understanding of the issues at hand. OSS and patents for instance are not the same issue. OSS is the opposite of a trade secret. You can for example, copyright OSS software [OSS does not mean GPL]. A trade secret [or closed sourced] system on other hand is what OSS types are trying to denounce.
As to patents, there is merit in patents as there is in copyrights. Being able to secure your rights to something you researched and developed is the keystone to a money-based society. While patents have been abused totally the approach is not without merit.
Try to put this in perspective. If all ideas were free and all programs for any task were free [including specialized software for say controlling a FABS] who would want to write code? I mean you wouldn't do it for a living obviously. There is only so much money to be had for tech support. I mean how many people install RH linux and *never* pay for tech support?
That and this "pay for tech support" type model encourages bad documentation and coding. e.g. hard to use programs require more help.
Personally I would buy [had I a job] software for the brand name seal of approval type bit. I mean I would buy a copy of Word just because I would get some feeling that its quality code I am buying a copy of [or license to use, whatever].
Its like buying a car. Anyone could build their own, or get one from a third party, but lots of people buy "Fords" for the sole reason there is a sort of trust behind the name. They can think that they are buying something with a track record.
Overall, I think people should be encouraged to follow the OSS method but not to fear or loath patents/copyrights just because they don't follow a hippy view of the world. Also the GPL bandwagon should be abolished as well. Its far too dangerous and from what many have observed too easy to breach.
Tom
Points for a Letter (Score:5, Insightful)
2. This legislation will create nearly insurmountable challenges and cause serious harm to the computer hardware industry for the benefit of the copyright control industry which is only one-tenth the size.
3. This legislation eliminates the need for the copyright control industry to create partnerships with the hardware industry to achieve their goals, thus robbing the economy of that growth as well.
4. Do not insult your congresscritter. Do not accuse them of taking bribes or being stupid. Do not accuse them of being bought off. They may be any or all of these things, but don't accuse them of it.
5. Tell them you support them, think their ideas and ideals are worthwhile, and voted for them in the last election because of this. (If you do not and don't feel comfortable lying, don't say anything about how you voted or who you support)
5. Your vote in the next election rides primarily on this particular issue - larger than any individual candidate's ideas or ideals.
6. The copyright control industry has refused to use the legislation already in existance to prosecute copyright infringers - only those who would provide the means. How serious can the problem be if they do not even make cursory attempts bring actual offenders to justice?
7. Stay calm and very courteous. Write your letter, leave it for two hours or more, then look over it again.
8. The issues of audio cassettes and VCRs, both of which were supposedly going to kill the industry - have not. This is certainly an equivalent over-reaction
9. The legislation assumes that you and the congresscritter are criminals already, and cannot hold yourself in check without some sort of technical provisions. Feel free to say how the legislation insults the congresscritter.
10. The software industry has been dealing with this problem since its inception, but has not required legislation forcing another industry to change their business, why is the copyright control industry different?
11. If your congresscritter is Democrat:
This legislation unfairly impacts the less fortunate who are not able to afford the new DRM equipped devices and may in future be unable to access content.
12. If your congresscritter is Republican:
This legislation will work as an unfair tax on hardware makers who will have to research and develop this technology. This will wind up most affecting those who make the majority of computer hardware purchases - the successful American businessman.
Re:problems with politics (Score:2, Insightful)
It may sound pedantic, but a real Republican who sticks to his/her fundamental principles of Constitutionally limited government and free markets would never consider voting for this piece of garbage. That someone who calls himself a Republican (Ted Stevens [Alaska]) is part of the group who introduced it demonstrates just how intellectually corrupt things have become. This bill is against countless sections of their party platform [rnc.org]. It disgusts me to even be considered on the same "aisle" as this bastard.
Be nice if you complain (Score:3, Insightful)
Voice your opinions about why you think it's bad, not what others say. If you think it might lock OSS out of PCs, say so. If you think it might make a black market, say so. etc, etc. Try not to go off on tangents without tying them back in to your original topic (SSSCA or whatever it's called these days) and using it to furthur your argument.
Also, KISS. Your rep gets lots of mail and doesn't have time to read 10 page rants. Keep it concise, and offer to provide more info should they be interested (put it on a webpage that they can visit at their leisure so they don't even have to contact you for it). Make sure you don't alienate the peopel who are trying to help you!
--MonMotha
Re:Why do you idiots waste your time? (Score:3, Insightful)
Last election, all I heard about was social security. I could care less about social security, I've been told all my life it probably won't be there when I retire, so I've resigned myself to that fate. It's also some forty plus years in my future, so it's not something I think too heavily about.
So, where's the issues I'm concerned about?
I barely heard anything mentioned last election about any issues I particularly cared about. Copyright and the War on Drugs (two issues that seem to be very important with my age group) weren't even mentioned at all.
And they wonder why we don't vote.
Re:Keep your head (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody likes this solution, though; it's similar to the situation with software copying in that both the producers and the infringers prefer that there be easily-circumvented "solutions" in place (that stop casual copying while allowing enough copying to prevent competing products from getting a foothold.) The studios are probably also terrified that trying to push something this straightforward would cause the masses to really _look_ at the bargain they're getting from copyright, and decide they don't really give a shit about the record industry's profit margin.
I like the concept of free software and indy music, though, and I'd prefer that it be difficult to infringe the copyrights of people who claim to want their content to be stiflingly controlled. Take them at their word, and let their content die from lack of attention. Conversely, I went cold turkey off file-sharing software and deleted all my illegal MP3s a few months back, and I found myself buying a handful (just a handful) of CDs to replace some of my favorite songs. If I'm gonna get proprietary content, though, I'd rather suffer for it, so that I can keep in mind why free content is so important.
Agreed. They're not going to do it themselves, though, because they make more money this way; if indy music really gets a foothold, of course, then they can "discover" the internet, charge a tenth of what they do now, and crow about how they've embraced the internet revolution. They'll lose some revenue (which is why they're trying to buy the SSSCA), but they'll still be rich, rich as Nazis. Sickening, ain't it?
Re:It's ALL a waste of time (Score:3, Insightful)
Musicians can provide a service, a subscription service for a small fee from which all their fans will subscribe to for say, a dollar a month.
Every month the musician releases a new song, the musician makes a dollar a song instead of a dollar a CD, the musician makes ALOT more money without record companies.
You dont get it, we still need musicians to make the music,
its a service, say you want water, sure water could be free, but someone has to open the gates to let the water flow through your pipes. What I'm saying is, once the gates are opened, anyone can access the water, but if theres a toll on the gate, a group of people who want water will pay.
Basically, only fans should pay, everyone else should just wait until the music is paid for and download it. Theres no one forcing Musicians to make music, which means they can charge a fee to make the music itself instead of charging for the CD.
Consumers drive the market, start a boycott! (Score:2, Insightful)
movies that are lobbying to get this bill passed.
20th Century FOX is actully against this so I am
a FOX fan now, big time!
Boycott Disney!
Content control must be time-limited! (Score:3, Insightful)
The content owners are all over the requirements regarding limiting of copying. They make noises about respecting fair use (we know they're lying, but let that go for the moment).
But, I haven't heard ANY proposal that deals with the Constitutional requirement that copyright is for a LIMITED time, and therefore any scheme for automatic digital rights enforcement MUST have an automatic expiration - there must be a way to disable the protection when the copyright expires.
This expiration mechanism must be built in at the same level as the copy-protection mechanism, because BOTH of them are required by the Constitution.
What do you think the chances are that a mandated content control scheme will simultaneously prevent copying, allow fair-use copying, allow unlimited copying when the copyright expires, and be uncrackable? And if it can't do all those things at once, guess which ones will be dropped as infeasible.