Congress Plans DMCA Sequel: The SSSCA 935
Declan McCullagh writes: "If you thought the DMCA was a nightmare, wait 'til you find out what Congress is planning this fall. The sequel is called the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act," and it requires PCs and consumer electronic devices to support "certified security technologies" to be approved by the Commerce Department. Backers of the SSSCA include Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.), who heads the powerful Senate Commerce committee, and, reportedly, Disney. Wired News has a report, and I've placed the SSSCA draft text (new! more criminal penalties!) online here. D'ya think that maybe Congress doesn't like OSS very much?" This is only a draft, not even introduced as a bill yet, but it sends chills down my spine - this is the big one. If passed, it would require all personal computers to have digital rights management built in, under penalty of law.
My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez (Score:2, Interesting)
San Antonio, TX 78250
September 8, 2001
The Honorable Representative Charlie A. Gonzalez
327 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Honorable Representative Charlie A. Gonzalez,
It has come to my attention that Rep. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) will introduce a bill titled the The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act which will make it impossible for me to use the Linux computer operating system on equipment covered by the Act. I regard my right to use Linux to be as inviolate as my right to write you this letter. Indeed, I am using Linux for that purpose right now. I'm a Democrat, but if you do not vote against this bill I will vote for your opponent when your term is up.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Bruns
Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez (Score:2, Informative)
My Letter to Senator McCain (Score:5, Informative)
Dear Mr. McCain,
I am a resident of Arizona, and a computer user. I recently read about an act scheduled to be introduced to the Senate entitled the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" [216.110.42.179], sponsored by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina) and Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Under this act, it would be a civil offense to create or sell any kind of computer equipment that "does not include and utilize certified security technologies" approved by the federal government. I politely request, as a citizen of Arizona, that you vote against this Act for the reasons in this letter.
I see this as a violation of a basic freedom to create, use, or sell anything I want to (including, of course, computer equipment) without government interference.
It is of course necessary to deny the right to create and sell certain things, such as drugs; these things can be harmful and should not be sold.
That however, does not apply to computer equipment; there is no way I can harm anyone with my own computer equipment. But this Act denies me the right to create and sell computer equipment without federally approved security technologies.
The primary purpose for this regulation is the protection of content provided by large media corporations that have lobbied for this Act. Lobbyists from the music and record industry have, and will continue to lobby congress in the hopes of further regulation for consumers and corporations to protect their content.
In a computer system certified by the federal government, their content would be protected from misuse by consumers. It is an ideal situation for the music and record industry, then, that all computers in legal use would be certified.
This helps that particular industry, but hurts another. In the computer industry, if this Act is passed, it would be illegal to create and sell anything not certified by the federal government to specifically protect the content of these corporations.
I would like to create and sell computer equipment that does not "utilize certified security technologies", and I should have the legal right to. I do have that right under the current laws.
The products of the recording industry should not be protected by laws that regulate other industries, and deny my right to sell my own computer equipment without federal approval.
I implore you, Senator McCain, to vote against the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act when it comes before the Senate.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(my name here)
Re:My Letter to Senator McCain (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope it makes a difference, but his main platform is in supporing laws that allow employees of Time-Warner/Fox/Disney/Viacom to have the "last say" in the mass media, 60 days prior to any election.
He is actively the MOST hostile member of the Senate, to the 1st Amendment.
But, it's good that you do this. After all, the sinners are the one who MOST need education.
All rights not specifically listed are (Score:2)
Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are thinking WHAT THE FUCK after you read the article, then yes, I think you are reading it correctly.
So one of two things will happen. Let's use Red Hat as an example:
1. Red Hat will refuse to incorporate this copy protection code, will be sued, and will be branded in the media as existing solely for the purpose of copyright infringment; and end users will suffer the same fate - your ISP will be required by law to report the location of anyone downloading a Linux distribution or accessing their network using a computer running Linux.
2. The other possiblity is that Red Hat will be bullied into compliance, incorporating this code and these standards into their OS whether they like it or not.
It WILL happen. The first "Linux is a circumvention device" trial is coming - within 2 years, I bet, and the way they are going to play it will be "why don't the hackers just add our copyright protection code to their OS? Because they only use that OS for PIRACY. Otherwise they would just use Windows" (Copyright Code Compliant, of course.)
Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez (Score:4, Interesting)
>protection code, will be sued
It's worse than that. The officers of the company will be threatened with criminal prosecution, federal fines and jail time.
My biggest problem with DMCA has always been
that it moves civil matters into the criminal
realm. There might be case law somewhere that
amounts to an achilles heel for the DMCA on the
basis that copyright is a civil matter and should have civil remedies. But, America is
a police state now. Maybe we need more ugly laws
to be passed like this, so that more people will realize they live in a police state. Seems that today it's quite possible to live in blissful ignorance of this fact. US law is ultimately enforced by the most technologically advanced military force that the world has ever known.
>Because they only use that OS for PIRACY.
It's our own fault that if by then there aren't
a few heavy players who would rally against that argument. If big companies with a stake in Linux
or anything else sit on their hands during this,
the WE DESERVE to be "forced to run windows" or
even to have computers outlawed.
Except for the fact that life would be wretched for the forseeable future, I'd really enjoy seeing things get far, far worse so that people would be motivated to put an end to the oppression. But as long as they're well fed, doped up, busy, and think they have something to lose, they'll never take up arms against the lawful authority. There's already a science built around the strategy of determining how far a government can push a populace before they realize they can't take it anymore. USA is nowhere near that point, but the fall of currency would be a good start. Bring on the $360.00/bbl oil! Let's have more abject poverty! (The more poverty the people enjoy, the less taxes the government has to build their war machine to use against their own people. The weaker the war machine gets, the better chances the people have against it.)
The war for independence was also against the most technologically sophisticated armed force that the world had ever seen. And you can see the same phenomenon in the war between the states.
We are generally to well taken care of to consider aggression against the lawful authority. We also aren't yet willing to give up our lives, limbs, senses, and minds, because things haven't gotten bad enough yet, we think we have more to lose than that. I do think that many Americans have lost some faith in the democratic process in recent years. Even those who had steadfastly believed it was an infallible institution had a wakeup call last November when even Bush supporters got upset about Florida. If something big like social security fails, the myth that the USA is financially solvent may start to unravel for a lot of folks. If the consumer debt (which dwarfs the national debt) suddenly can't be paid (let's say, 40% unemployment) financial institutions would start to fail. These are the types of incidents that would be stepping stones to urban skirmish, if not outright civil war or revolution. It's hard to see copy control getting people's backs up enough to engender change.
The US is not the world (yet). (Score:2)
Share and Enjoy (Score:2)
If there are any South Carolina Slashdotters, organizing a movement to get Hollings removed in the next election (Or a recall vote if the state allows it) would be a good thing. Not that I've ever met anyone on the Internet who has claimed to be from South Carolina. The state seems to be one of those Internet black holes like Mississippi...
Re:The US is not the world (yet). (Score:2)
I wonder however, if the same thing could happen as it did with dimity. You make some computers in canade, ship'm to the US, and get arrested as soon as you set foot on US soil??
Think of what this would do to open source! I make a little program, and the first version doesnt have all the stipulated security measures, go to the US on holiday, and get arrested?!
Though you fraze it a bit strongly, i do agree, a facist goverment... *sigh*
Re:The US is not the world (yet). (Score:2, Interesting)
The bill covers importing them into the US. Exporting them for Canada probably would just result in harrisment, unless Canada co-operated.
But how about Canada or Mexico as an "onshore" data haven. If your company has inductrial secrets the US gov't might want, would you like to forced to using an NSA approved crypt?
Why not stay inside the trade zone and outside the data zone? Of cource Canada got rather wimpy about stading up to the US these days,and Mexico won't, so it will probably go North America wide - what about Argentina - NAFTA grows.
Re:The US is not the world (yet). (Score:5, Funny)
Just what everyone wants, I'm sure: Demand remains high, supply is cut dramatically, prices soar, youths mug people or hold up liquor stores to raise the cash, all the jackals move in to the black-market cash-opportunity they see gathering, and pretty soon gangs are slaughtering each other on the streets over non-Compliant hard drives. Customs officials sieze 400 gigs of Class A disk space (est. street value: $500,000).
The Government then runs Public Service announcements: "PIRACY KILLS" "MP3: JUST SAY NO" "WINNERS DON'T USE NONCOMPLIANT HARDWARE DEVICES" "FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS COPY MOVIES". They also offer tax rebates and other cash benefits [salon.com] to television shows and movies who include significantly pro-Digital Rights Management plotlines in their work.
In the summer movie, "Gone at 60kb/s", Nick Cage has to pirate an unprecedented number of other summer movies in one night in order to save his brother's life; in the more thoughtful "TCP/IP Traffic", Michael Douglas finds himself sucked into the seedy world of P2P after his teenage daughter is involved in a DVD-related incident, the story expertly interwoven with that of Open Source programmers working across the border, trying to stay true to their goals despite their lack of Compliance, trying to maintain their idealism in the face of a lead programmer who secretly is working for a reverse-engineering cartel.
New search-and-seizure laws are drafted to fight the War On Piracy, in order to Clean Up Our Streets And Save Our Children From Evil. All laptop computers are spot-checked at airports and potential employees are asked to undergo a hard-drive scan to ensure they are not "using".
Caffiene mints, copyleft t-shirts, and any item bearing a penguin logo are banned [emdef.org] from COMDEX and any other gathering of software developers under Cracking House laws [aclu.org]. These things are sure signs [usdoj.gov] of illegal activity.
Far-fetched? Facetious? A little of both. But the general principles have been shown to hold true in the past, repeatedly.
Whee!
Re:The US is not the world (yet). (Score:2)
I think it's rather more a case of globalization: the US is becoming worldly. There are many examples in Europe and Asia where personal privacy takes a back seat to police/government "needs."
And the further aspect is that globalization is being driven by multinational corporations. Trade barriers, government policies, cultural norms: these aren't being knocked about because the common citizen wants to see them destroyed -- they're being abused because it benefits big business.
I hate to come off sounding like a paranoid, but most businesses aren't out there to help you or me. They're there to make a buck, and they'll do that by whatever means possible.
Which, apparently, includes trampling your constitutional rights.
Shame the government sees fit to go along with it. Guess that's what happens when politicians are bought, not elected...
Prohibition? (Score:2)
Prohibition was proposed and passed. It turned the US into the Mafia riddled soup of corruption it is today!
Took 12 years before that particular law was fixed.
This is a nessesary measure (Score:5, Funny)
What? You think, you should be allowed to do what you want, with the stuff that you own? Get real - this is the 21st century - you can't just do stuff, because you want to. What's next? You don't want to pay for using your computer? What are you? Some kind of communist?
(Yes - that was sarcasm)
Do any of the Libertarians out there understand? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Do any of the Libertarians out there understand (Score:2, Insightful)
Libertarians seem to think that by reducing gov't influence in daily life that things will somehow work out for the better. Hmm. Stupid! Sorry, but the fact is that corporations would have even more control and we would live in a capitalist dictatorship!
Corporations are creatures of the State. If government didn't explicitly permit limited liability, it couldn't exist (who's going to agree that they don't have the right to sue the owners, just because the 'corporation' went bankrupt? ...but that's how it is now, because the State backs it up). Without government, businesses would actually have to serve customers to stay in business, instead of using government force (paid for by taxes stolen in part from those same customers) to extort money, as many do now.
Re:Do any of the Libertarians out there understand (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the basic precepts of the libertarian philosphy is adherance to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is all there, in plain English, for anyone to read. The tenth amendment is the trump card here, it basically tells the federal government to go screw itself; it isn't allowed to do much of anything.
So if the federal government can't do anything, this is left as in issue for the states. Pushing one bill through Congress is one thing, pushing the same bill through 50 states is something else entirely. For instance - if South Carolina decides that all computers must have some sort of digital rights system built in, OSS people, computer manufacturers, etc. will not work in South Carolina. They will lose the revenue of those industries. Due to free trade within the states, they can relocate to another state, and still sell their product. South Carolia loses those industries, another state picks them up. Competition is the key here.
Let the states fight it out, and we all win. It is easier for individuals and small interests to act at a state level, and the effects of crazy laws such as this one would be minimized. Many state constitutions are very restrictive, also, and that is yet another benefit. When it becomes more difficult for the government to enact arbitrary laws such as this, there will be less arbitrary laws.
clearly they don't (Score:2)
> Pushing one bill through Congress is one thing,
> It is easier for individuals and small interests> pushing the same bill through 50 states is
> something else entirely.
> to act at a state level, and the effects of
> crazy laws such as this one would be minimized.
With all the Libertarians that seem to have infiltrated Slashdot recently (along with the Microsoft supporters -- what, are they bussing them in these days?), I suspect I will get modded down, but ...
You're right about the conceptual differences between pushing a law at the Federal level vs. at the State level, but that's an argument for a strong Federal government (and some good campaign finance laws). It's usually the crazy (or one-issue fanatical) individuals who try to get something passed. It is easier to get a state law passed over some crazy thing than it is to get a Federal law passed. For example, laws requiring biblical creation, Jim Crowe laws, laws trying to legislate pi, etc. -- I think there's a web site on this. Of course, it doesn't preclude crazy laws happening on the Federal level; it's just not as frequent.
There's probably a complicated reason why this is, but it's probably because average person isn't really concerned about the government at all. They generally care more about the sports scores than they do about who's running the country. When they do care, it's in a "sports-type" mentality: who won the game, who won the Oscar for best actor, who's now president? That's probably why most people can name 10 sports figures, but would be hard pressed to name their state senators or representatives.
So I disagree that a weaker Federal government in favor of state governments is the answer. A stronger Federal government (along with some new campaign finance laws) is a safer bet that leaving things up to the dubious judgement of the states.
P.S., Atlas Shrugged sucked! :-)
Re:clearly they don't (Score:2)
Food for thought - gun control laws. If the federal government had as many restrictions on the first amendment as they do the second, we would have had a revolution by now. The fourth is disappearing, as is the fifth. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, whatever, all people in the US should be able to see that we don't even follow our own laws.
But you're right. People do care more about sports scores. I avoid local TV news, because the top story generally has something to do with the home sports team. Followed by a teaser about which food or drug will now kill you, or save you. Anyone else want to leave this planet?
Re:Do any of the Libertarians out there understand (Score:2)
UCITA in the states [cpsr.org]
Re:Do any of the Libertarians out there understand (Score:2)
Re:Do any of the Libertarians out there understand (Score:2)
How? Without the DMCA passed and enforced by the government, Adobe could not abduct and imprison Sklyarov. Nor could the MPAA prevent you from watching your own DVDs on your own computer, nor could the media cartels dictate how computer systems are designed. All these violations happened (or may happen) because government abused its power, and you want to give it more? I really don't understand this.
Armchair Bitching (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Hollings going to be reelected in November? For those living in South Carolina, write him, saying that you will not reelect him if the law passes. A delegation should also go to Congress and show them how digital rights management, especially SDMI, is a pain in the ass (even if you're using Windows and approved software).
I'm just sick and tired of everyone here being complacent and not doing anything useful to put a stop to stuff like this.
Re:Armchair Bitching (Score:3, Interesting)
making us aware of it would help out alot.
i mean, anyone here of this before it was posted?
What are we supposed to do? (Score:2)
Re:What are we supposed to do? (Score:2)
Re:What are we supposed to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney is supporting a law in the US that would give the government unprecedented powers to interfere with the way we use our personal computers.
If Disney gets its way, you will not be able to buy a computer in the US unless its software has been approved by the government, and it will be a crime to connect a computer to the internet if it is running unapproved software. The definition of 'approved software' will be determined by companies with a commercial interest in restricting the usefulness of home computers for education and entertainment.
It is likely that if the US adopts this law, it will begin to put pressure on other countries to do the same (as has happened with patents, copyright extension and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). The best way to prevent this intrusion by the US government into our lives is to let Disney know that it is losing customers because of its support for this law.
Re:What are we supposed to do? (Score:3, Funny)
Write Disnay and say you will boycott all their products. Also write them and say that if this law passes, you will dedicate your time to undermine Disney profits.
You will set up picket lines at the local movie theatre.
You will call your cable provider and unsubscribe to all Disney channels.
You will submit reader letters and articles to the print press.
You will call the IRS as a whistleblower, claiming that Disney is committing tax fraud.
You will harrass Disney executuves by starting fake rumors about sex scandals, tax fraud, securities fraud.
Keep it up, and they may admit that the constitution has some merits after all.
Re:What are we supposed to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Advertising doesn't affect everyone, but it doesn't need to. It helps create product awareness though. Damned right it does. That is COMPLETELY different than a boycott.
Boycotts, unless done in mass, are COMPLETELY ineffective. I think you are entirely wrong that "[changing] a few people's minds [will] start hurting a company's profits."
...
"Hey Daddy, I wanna go see the new Disney movie!!"
"I'm sorry honey we are boycotting Disney"
"What's that?"
"That means Disney is bad, and to punish them we aren't going to see their movie."
"Oh, okay, well in that case nevermind. I completely understand your reasons and am willing to sacrafice something I enjoy to make them pay."
Just TRY convincing the average consumer and their kids that they should have to abstain from something they enjoy to punish Disney. Go ahead, try it. Cause, guess what, if they don't do it, NO ONE IN THE WORLD WILL NOTICE. And I guarantee that the average consumer doesn't give a fuck about your boycott. You think Disney is really worried about the geeks boycotting their films? Hah!
...
Even more hilarious is thus:
Everytime ANYONE does anything bad all you geeks cry out "boycott!". But none of you ever actually do it. Statistically, I'm guessing 0.5% of you actually boycott. Maybe less. And I'm betting only 1% of people are "geeks", maybe less. Well, that's about 50,000 people in an international market of billions boycotting. Even if I'm off by two powers of ten, it's still only a few million people (a few tenths of a percent of a billion). Run scared Disney, we've got you by the balls now.
Justin Dubs
I'd start with... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Armchair Bitching (Score:5, Insightful)
hear dead people talking to her.
I am sick and tired of idiots being elected to office and deciding that there is this need for extremely harsh legislation.
I am very very frightened about the fact that whatever that group of software giants is called (the one w/MS and Adobe, etc) has such influence over government.
We elected these idiots to protect *us* not them!
Re:Armchair Bitching (Score:4, Funny)
We elected these idiots to protect *us* not them!
I beg to diff. That group of software giants paid millions of perfectly good dollars to buy legislation to protect them!
A letter to modify and send (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure the SSSCA sounds like it only defends against rampant pirating of movies and other copyrighted material--but the slope is a very, very slippery one. The recording and movie industries are very paranoid about how their products are being used (without regard to their increasing--*not* decreasing--profits). Do you have the right to listen to your music however you'd like? Fair use tenets say yes (and you can even make a backup copy), but already technology is on the shelves that doesn't allow you to play the CD on your computer or high-end stereo systems and modern car CD players.
The question you should be asking yourself is whether you are on the Hill for your constituents--the consumers, whose rights are being infringed, or the corporations on this issue. Fair Use doctrines are being ignored by laws such as the DMCA and this draft of the SSSCA, and thought this will first impact the digerati who copy all their music to their computer for easy access, it will rapidly effect the average American who can no longer watch a movie with calling in to get permission from the studio (This happened with DivX, which failed miserably on the open market), or play their CDs at all in their car stereos.
If this is riding in after the recent "Code Red" attack as a solution against future problems, perhaps the answer lies in better regulation of security testing by developers (such as Microsoft, whose servers were the only ones effected by Code Red), rather than the consumer's home system, which didn't even participate in this attack.
http://www.senate.gov/~hollings/webform.html (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Armchair Bitching (Score:2)
Re:Armchair Bitching (Score:3, Informative)
Taking bets... NDA? Fees? (Score:2)
Emigration (Score:2, Redundant)
If I were American, I'd be thinking about emigration at this point.
Traditionally we Canadians love needling Americans like a younger sibling needles their big sibling, but in all honesty, anyone who wants to settle down north of the 49th will be welcomed with open arms.
After all, it's not the first time [library.ubc.ca].
Re:Emigration (Score:2)
What would it take to organize such a movement? I'm not really the "organizing" type so I havent a clue.
:Michael
Re:Emigration (Score:2)
Re:Emigration (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell. Handbasket.
Re:Emigration - See ya soon (Score:2)
The balance is shifting and you, our fine neighbors to the north, seem to be more protective of personal liberties than the much touted US of A. You even have a rational universal medical plan.
I'm afraid that it's becoming (to put it in standardized test form) freedom is to America as innovation is to Microsoft. It's a sad and frightening prospect.
My country (US) is no longer representative of the *peoples* interests. Is this what generations of Americans have fought and died for, so that corporate profit-making interests could be placed above the interests of the people? (Actually, considering the Viet Nam and Gulf wars, I guess that is true... *sigh*.)
If this continues, I will have to consider moving somewhere else and officially giving up my citizenship. I may one day have to say: "As a result of the non-representative nature of my former government (US), I'm proud to be a Canadian."
On a practical note, could someone fill me (us) in on the immigration requirements for Canada? I just want to be prepared. It's time to start looking around for a new home.
Maybe we should do an ask Slashdot for people to make an argument for the desirablity of their country in terms of freedom, living conditions, etc.
Hey Bob, could I stay at your place for a month or two while I get established and learn to say 'aboot'? I don't take up much room, I'm quiet, and I clean up after myself. I could even chip in for bandwidth.
America, love it or leave it? Bu-bye.
(Although this should say: 'Corporate States of America, love them or leave them.)
Re:Emigration (Score:2)
Chances are that things won't get hard enough in the US to prompt people into moving up here.
Don't despair though, things are looking up for our economy. As long as our current federal government and the west coast provincial ones keep moving to the economic right we should be in better shape in about a decade. Just make sure that Brian Tobin doesn't become the next PM. (Seriously, I'd rather we had Chretien for the next decade).
Re:Give me a break. (Score:2)
So, in summary, Canada is NOT A HAVEN from this stupidity. All politicians are for sale, American or Canadian.
Fine. You can just give up, like the coward you are. I, on the other hand, will put some effort into fighting the CPDCI [eff.org]. You know, effort? Such as writing to my MP, the Ministries involved, the PM, the opposition leaders? I haven't heard the fat lady yet.
In conclusion, fuck you, and have a nice day.
"Once more unto the breach, my friends." (Score:5, Insightful)
It also creates new federal felonies, punishable by five years in prison and fines of up to $500,000. Anyone who distributes copyrighted material with "security measures" disabled or has a network-attached computer that disables copy protection is covered.
Hollings' draft bill, which Wired News obtained on Friday, represents the next round of the ongoing legal tussle between content holders and their opponents, including librarians, programmers and open-source advocates.
I guess that the time has come where the computer world will divide into above ground and an underground groupings.
If you can't sell a computer that's not security equipped, we who want to control our own technology will be like the people in a cyberpunk novel or in the Matrix, who have to cobble together their own technology apart from the mainstream.
Open Source and Free Spftware communities may come together on this too; I can't see a small group of developers providing the same glossy presentations to Congress describing their security that Windows and its associated companies would.
It's not a law yet, but it shows the way the law is going.
And if the law is going this way we have to consider the question reform or revolution; [adequacy.org] are we going to allow the vrey concept of computing to be taken over by a small corporate elite if it will allow computing and the Internet to extend to places where it hasn't reached before?
Or, do we have to act as free people do under repression - keeping our very names and acts truly secret, building computers and writing in basements instead of at bright stores?
Re:"Once more unto the breach, my friends." (Score:4, Insightful)
But seriously, I bet 90% of people out there would not care if they heard of this bill. They'd go "I'm not a music pirate; I can go through a little extra hassle if I get to pay less for my music CD" or something similar. We need to give them something that'll make them care, maybe some piece of software that refuses to work if digital rights management is being used on their systems. In any case, something must be done, and now.
Re:"Once more unto the breach, my friends." (Score:3, Interesting)
...so basically, if you hack your own box, you're breaking the law.
Screw that! Its my box, and no one is going to say how I can use it. I'll have to import all my components from Hong Kong, which means more trips to Canada and Mexico.
(sigh) Maybe I should just move to the Cayman.
Re:"Once more unto the breach, my friends." (Score:2, Insightful)
To answer your question....NO! The way I read the Wired article, the act will require businesses to "embed" the copy-protection devices in their products. Also, if you own a "networked computer" that has the copy-protection disabled, then you are committing a felony....punishable by 5 years in prison and a half million in fines. As was stated earlier about the vagueness of this bill, their wording of "networked computer" means even if you don't have the machine hooked to the internet, but have it networked to a second computer, you're still liable.
Plus, an "interactive digital device is defined as any hardware or software capable of "storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving or copying information in digital form." This bill will completely eliminate the ability to enjoy your fair use rights granted under previous laws! My friends, even Russia doesn't limit their citizens' freedoms like this....
Rant and Rave about this at Enigmous [enigmous.com]
Re:"Once more unto the breach, my friends." (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I forsee a rather large Internet underground if that happens... and things could get pretty ugly.
A wise man once said that the Tree of Liberty is watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike. Somehow I get the feeling that Tree is feeling pretty parched about now.... and the tall, redheaded Virginian who said those words two-plus centuries ago would say it needs watering. Perhaps this time we only have to kill careers, not the induhviduals that carry them on...
The choice, I think, is up to those who would be tyrants. They had best realize what they are choosing.
--
The trouble with a political joke is
that he or she will often get elected.
-- James E. Buell
Re:"Once more unto the breach, my friends." (Score:3, Insightful)
I refrained from saying this before, but it's early on a Sunday morning, and I'm just uninhibited enough...
Aside from a few enlightened souls in the judiciary, The American System has proven it does not listen to us (==geeks) when we work within it. It may well be time to consider working outside the system. This does not require bloodshed, or violence of any kind other than the variety committed with a keyboard. But I know one thing for sure. If all the important geeks banded together and said "Monday at noon EDT the Internet goes DOWN for one hour" and followed thru, it would get a whole bunch of people's undivided attention.
Would the jack-booted thugs come out and round us all up? Maybe, I don't know. But if we got enough involvement (see also whichever Scandinavian king it was wearing a yellow arm band during the German occupation) they couldn't just hold us, because the Internet would be down and we'd have them by the balls.
Power no longer proceeds forth from the barrel of a gun, Chairman Mao. Power proceeds forth from the RJ-45 on the end of a piece of CAT-5. Information is it, and us geeks control it. We have the power. We need to set about using it.
Maybe in a few years, the word "geek" will inspire respect in the hearts of the just, and stark terror in the eyes of those who would keep us from being free.
It is interesting to note the progression of what has commonly been carried in some sort of holster on one's belt... until the 1800's, it was the sword. Then it was the gun. In the 50's, it was the slide rule. Then the beeper. Now it is the cell phone and the handheld computer.
Power, folks. Think carefully. Use wisely. But do NOT, under any circumstances, allow the bastards to get us down. Repeal of the DMCA should be the very first tiny step.
And if anyone should think otherwise, no, I do NOT advocate overthrow of the American government.... I advocate its restoration. It has been overthrown by the twin tyrranies of Big Business (the GOP) and Victimhood (the DNC). The old framework is still there, in the Constitution. It's just being ignored.
--
"Never start a fight.... but always finish it."
-- John Sheridan, quoting his father (Babylon 5 "Severed Dreams", #310)
All I can say is... (Score:4, Funny)
Jim Crow laws (Score:5, Funny)
That's like saying there were very few complaints from whites in the south about Jim Crow laws...
Two words into the draft and . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't this the exact problem with the DMCA, this idea that laws should be more like an umbrella that can cover a great many things than a law that in concise and easily distinguishable from one another?
I am all for laws that protect people and /or companies from any sort of theft but I do not support the DMCA because of how general it is.
Of courseI haven't read the rest of the draft as of yet, flame if need be in re: to things stated later, but those two little words raised my ire something fierce.
I've said this before (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember what the Sony executive once said about taking the "battle for IP rights" to each users home and computer.
Ludicrous, but that won't stop it (Score:5, Insightful)
While that's obvious to us that doesn't mean that the bill won't be ram-rodded through now that the most recent batch of MPAA/RIAA checks have cleared the Senators' banks. The only way to stop this is to raise such a howl that they dare not go forward. If we act now (when the bill is just a draft) we can make it clear to them that we can't even allow them to get past that stage.
I am going to be writing letters to Senators and will be sending letters and emails to press outlets (using the list of a few hundred addresses scraped from "Mr. Smith Writes ..."). This is regardless of what other /.-ers do.
The reason I'm posting this is that I'd like to get a little feedback (some ideas, which is what an open forum like this is great at) concerning the people to whom I should send letters to make the biggest impact. Of course the Senators directly involved, and my own Senators/Reps. Who else?
Re:Ludicrous, but that won't stop it (Score:2)
Re:Ludicrous, but that won't stop it (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way to get this thing ended it to arouse public opinion against it - to get Americans angry enough to override their apathy.
http://www.amfcc.org
Americans for Constitutional Copyright
The Constitution was written to protect us against government AND monopolies. Our legislators need to know that they ARE accountable to the Constitution and the American Citizenry will NOT allow those protections to be ignored - especially not for the sake of Entertainment Companies. Sorry, but I WON'T give up my liberties for the privilege of paying Disney for different uses of the Mouse (who should have been Public Domain in the 1980's.)
EFF is another good group to join.
Re:Ludicrous, but that won't stop it (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not true. If you (I am not a US citizen) keep fighting laws this way, you'll lose. Because the politicians can easily reply "and what's wrong with that?" And, in the eyes of the public, they'll be right.
Suchs laws do not strengthen the position of copyright holders. They enlarge the power of mass media publishers exclusively.
The law will clearly not strengthen the position of computer scientists. Applied strictly (note that I've not read the bill, English is not my native language and I find English legal texts very hard to understand), it would outlaw any OS kernel that does not include usage control in the filesystem layer. This will make innovation in file systems much harder, because if you develop a new system, you cannot legally distribute it to other computer scientists before usage control is implemented.
It will also not strengthen the position of small media publishers, because they won't have any control about which usage control technologies are approved and which are not. This will be controlled by the most influencial companies exclusively, putting smaller publishers into a position where they can either use the available technology (for which they might have to pay license fees), or not protect their works at all.
The law does also not strengthen the position of individuals who publish material, for the same reasons. Individuals who wish to create works of art and science will also have to use technology that will make it harder for them to built upon the works of others, something that has been accepted in scientific publishing for decades.
You have to wonder... (Score:2)
While the DMCA was an annoyance to them, this would be a major pain for it. Surely they could and would buy enough votes to kill this bill?
Re:The enemy of my enemy? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the whole point. They WANT computers to cease to exist, at least, as common things "common" inividuals can afford to have. In the world of this law, computers would be replaced with an appliance "information access" device, that would be much like a DVD player in how little "fair use" you have.
No doubt there will be exceptions allowing the corps, and academia to have computers (which will once again become big huge mainframe things) for their own uses.
In other words, with a stroke of a pen, the IP cartel plans to turn back the clock to 1960.
My GOD this is scary stuff! This is nothing less than the proposal of the creation of the world of Bradbury's "Fareinheight 451" and "Demolition Man" in one BROAD stroke... How long before we stand to sing the "Corporate Hymn" as happened before government-held gladitorial games to placate the ignorant, easily distracted masses (who allow the government to pass laws such as the DMCA and this) as in "Rollerball"?
If they are making a mistake, it is in going for so much so quickly. But, the ease in wich they got the DMCA must have emboldened them.
Important: Canada's DCMA-like proposal deadline (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Important: Canada's DCMA-like proposal deadline (Score:3, Informative)
Communist revolution? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, obviosuly this didnt happen. With the introduction of a descent democratic society in the world, their really wasnt any need for such a thing.
But, WHAT NOW? I dont know about you my friends, but THIS is NOT a democracy. If I was a United States Citizen, and this thing does get through, I would GET THE FUCK out of there.
Or, alternativly.. REVOLT.. If this thing does get through, dont stop with measly protest people.. GET OUT THERE AND FIGHT.. seriously, can you really live in a sociaty based on facism, one which the rich companies CONTROL the government? I KNOW I COULDNT!
THE GEEKS HAVE NOTHING TO LOOSE BUT THEIR CHAINS. THEY HAVE A WORLD TO WIN
GEEKS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!
We need a PAC! (Score:4, Insightful)
I know this is just bitching and moaning on my part, but someone needs to start forming one. We're soo good at forming development teams, but where are the people who can form a PAC?
We need to put our money where our mouths are. Anyone have any suggestions on how to start a PAC?
Support the EFF!!! - Re:We need a PAC! (Score:5, Insightful)
For those of you looking for a way to oppose laws like this one and the DMCA, do something intelligent with your tax refund - mail it to the EFF. You can do so at http://www.eff.org [eff.org].
Commercial Software has succeeded... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is everyone suddenly so blind to the FACT that without free speech in the first place, there would be no "intellectual property", that "intellectual property" does in fact take a BACK SEAT to free speech and the free flow of information? Why do people suddenly treat the business model based on selling "intellectual property" as if it were as important as national defense by protecting it with laws that erode personal freedom?
Copyright law, from which this concept of IP sprang was a set of laws GRANTED TO ARTISTS by the people of the United States to allow them to earn a living off their creation and encourage them to continue working. Now capitalists have formed business models based on buying and selling those copyrights and suddenly the copyright is more important than the first amendment?? Why is it suddenly more important that we protect the business model of distributors of copyrighted material than it is to protect the freedom that allows the creators of our country to build upon prior knowledge?
I could rant here for an ext. period (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell the conference organizers to meet in Russia from now on as they harbor a more "free" and innovative environment. irony of ironies...
-------------rhad, a poor US college student destined to either leave the fucked up US or go to jail for wanting to be anonymous, speaking out and protesting corporations hellbent on a "fuck the individual" policy, and dreaming of a government that actually cares about the people who made it possible, rather then a plethora of corporate whores who can add money to their demands, as opposed to just a signature.
PS: It distresses me personally as to who is to be found accountable. Apathy is so rampant. No one cares. We have the power, but just dont give a damn... Its terribly depressing.
If you live in South Carolina: (Score:5, Interesting)
Get in touch with other people from Slashdot in South Carolina. Come up with a good day when most of you will be availible.
Go to a local university's website, and look up student groups- look for libertarian, socialist, and computer clubs, email them ome info and say you'd be interested in helping organize a public protest. Ask them to contact people they know would be interested. Tell them the day you want to have the protest.
The protest should be at a government building- courthouse, city hall, it doesnt matter.
Set it to be at noon, so people will be out on the streets, for their lunch hour.
Make signs, prepare a statement for the press, etc.
Call local TV stations and newspapers, telling them you're going to have a protest, and they should come. Trust me, they'll jump at the chance.
Show up and make a big scene, but make sure the message isnt lost.
-J5K
Banning Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Should it apply also to software, the failure of coders to implement "secure media pathways" in the kernel could mean that Linux could not be manufactured in and/or imported into the U.S. .
Theoretically, even if the kernel did contain such protection, any hacker could adjust certain lines of sourcecode to ensure that plaintext versions of copyrighted material could be accessed without much effort-- a loophole that could be plugged by a zealous Commerce Secretary banning "source code" versions.
Although certain grandfathering provisions exist in the bill, we all know that the kernel is not set in stone-- and new versions are released regularly to deal with new hardware, fix bugs, and improve performance. Ten years from now, kernel-2.4.x will likely not run on the latest and greatest hardware...
So, don't think of this as just another DMCA. Think of the bill as a "closed source subsidy act". Think of Jack Valenti and his ilk rooting your box...
Re:Banning Linux - An European view (Score:5, Interesting)
Another remark, this law (and the DMCA too in lesser extent) reminds me of what happened when alcohol was banned in America : the maffia jumped on it and sold suddenly 'illegal' goods to the masses.
As an European, i'll probably violate half of the American IP laws within the next 5 years. I don't think i'll ever go back for a holiday. You guys frighten me. The way companies influence your government through election money is like alowing the worst part of kapitalism to determine the law : the interest of the shareholder supercedes the freedom of the individual.
Like in europe (well at least in Belgium, but in most other countries too), companies funding in elections is limited by law, thus restricting such dangerous evolution.
I don't think you can ever win by fighting the DMCA, the SSSCA and so on ad infinitum.
You have to fight company involvement in government by restricting the funding. That's the only way out, or you'll only loose more and more freedom.
Don't try to stop each bullet, that's impossible, stop the shooter, you'll feel much safer.
PS : Here, elections are paid by the taxpayer. The amount of money involved is many orders of magnitude lower than in America.
In MS trial, Gov't not to design software (Score:5, Informative)
Now it sounds like the Govt wants to create security standards, and all software must be certified to meet this standard.
I smell opportunity... (Score:2)
Seriously, if I lived in the states, I'd be stocking up right now. Or considering a move...
Anyone else see this coming? :-) (Score:2)
Now MS is going to VM's running C#.
All I can say is, it's all so transparent, it's ludicrous. Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
Europe and DMCA - status? (Score:2)
Would anyone know the status of getting the DMCA to europe ? There was some talk about it, but I haven't heard anything lately. That can mean two things... Which is it ?
Stand down! (Score:2)
Hopefully, this is too draconian for even the 'New Improved' U.S. government to pass. Of course, I hoped the same about DMCA.
IF it should pass, consider standing down. Go to work as usual, turn off every machine you're responsable for, and GO HOME. Stay home for a week (you probably need a vacation anyway). Then go back to work and resume operations. If SSSCA still exists in 30 days, shut it all off again and go to Mexico. I'm sure the government there would appreciate a large influx of capital and knowledge. Learning Spanish is a small price to pay for freedom.
Hear hear! (Score:2)
Of course, if this doesn't work, I'll have to look at whether I want to move to Mexico or Canada. Or is there some place better?
With Vincente Fox buddying up to Dubya, he may be willing to make all kinds of concessions to open the border and get amnesty for the illegals now in the US, including passing some of his own draconian laws at the request of American corporations (the request via thier toadies, the government).
It might be better to move to a country that is somewhat at odds philosophically with the US. Or at least has a streak of independence. Canada seems to have exhibited this.
Re:Hear hear! (Score:2)
With Vincente Fox buddying up to Dubya, he may be willing to make all kinds of concessions to open the border and get amnesty for the illegals now in the US, including passing some of his
own draconian laws at the request of American corporations (the request via thier toadies, the government).
That's a good point. It all comes down to who can provide the most benefit to Mexico and it's government. If enough geeks stand down, the choice is between a country and corporations who USED to be a world power vs. a group of people who might help Mexico become a power in it's own right.
If that fails, there's Canada or Europe. The more adventurous might consider parts of the former Soviet Union.
Criminal Penalties (Score:3)
The criminal penalties only apply if the person who modified the devices did so for personal financial gain. Unless you are selling your OSS, developing FREE software isn't subject to criminal penalites.
Statuatory damages (Score:3, Insightful)
Statuatory damages can be assessed no matter what.
$200-$2500 in damages per offense can get very expensive for individuals.
time to buy some 802.11b kit (Score:2, Offtopic)
business wanted Internet2 well it's probably about time WE made it.
Get your 802.11b kit quick while you still can and let's get it going.
Spread that 11mb around and with some aggregating we should be able to make a newtwork where ANYONE can connect, not just 'approved' equipment.
Once we wean ourselves away from their network we'll be back in BBS 37337 utopia again and it will be like 'the September that Never Happened'.
How RIAA/MPAA could make billions: (Score:3, Interesting)
$500k fine for routers, hubs, etc? (Score:2)
Let's see, that's your office telephone/PBX, your office hub, your cable/DSL modem, your ISP's routers, the POP, etc. It includes almost every mainframe and large server for years - the law may require all new computer hardware to include DRM, but how often are million-dollar-plus systems replaced? For that matter, what about all of the legacy mainframes which aren't manufactured today?
Even if the Senator harrumps and says that I should stop being dense because I should know that "computer" refers to "PC-class computer" (even though countless other recent laws have repeatedly driven home the axiom that you should ignore the stated intent of the law and focus on the wording in the law itself), it will criminalize those projects to build beowulf clusters out of discarded PCs, amateur scientist projects which hook up instruments to the net with old PCs, etc.
Pushing us into extremism; thanks a lot (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a big step for me. I'm against piracy on principle, and prefer the convenience of just going out and buying the product rather than futzing around with Napster or it's sucessors. However, with every music CD I buy, or DVD I rent, some portion of the money I'm spending is being used to erode my liberties. To hell with that. I probably should boycott, but I don't feel particularly inclined to make my life uncomfortable and principles are clearly getting thrown out the window on the other side, so what the hell.
Maybe a less profitable music/movie industry would have less money to hire lawyers and congressmen.
Does anybody out there understand computers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is Slashdot Bending Over for Hollywood? (Score:2, Interesting)
Proteus7
This time they've gone too far. (Score:2)
Suddenly "revenge of the nerds" is not a teen comedy anymore, but a social realistic drama.
They are forcing geeks and nerds, what used to be the most peaceful and passive citizens, to become outlaws. We are talking about people who are so loyal to authority that they'd report their own kin to the FBI for removing mattress tags.
It is nothing less than a declaration of war. The result is that a large population will change sides. From being fair use advocates, we will turn into rabid pirates, just for the principle.
This bill fixes some flaws of the DMCA (Score:2)
Under the DMCA, the models of access control could be based on a simple bitflip (Real Networks), ROT13 (some of the more incompetent Adobe Acrobat extension writers), or a 40 bit cipher that, because of design idiocy, was the equivalent of 25 bits of decently designed software (DVD/CSS).
Since these methods will go through the Commerce Department, it may be that the stupider algorithms will be filtered out, and any standardized system will rely on stronger methods.
Although this will mean that stupidity will longer be subsidized, tryranny still will be.
Hold Your Horses (Score:2)
The essential idea I'm getting from this is that this congressman wants to make it very difficult to do certain things with computers and other electronic devices in order to ensure that copyrights are protected. Somehow I don't think this one will quietly get through congress, and all things considered I bet the final draft at least attempts to address many concerns that clearly haven't been. Were it to pass today, the excessive brevity might well be its undoing. Wide sweeping impostions on individual rights without clear justification have never faired very well before the Supreme Court.
As an interesting side note, it occurs to me that this neatly sidesteps one of the issues of DMCA. If all computer equipment are required to implement standard protections then one can no longer argue that having protections present limits a technology to a particular platform. I doubt however that this is the point that Disney is so gung ho in support of.
Rather than get upset with the summary of the draft copy, I'm going to way to a real bill is submitted for consideration. Once it is available to read both by us and other Congressmen, then we can figure out what's wrong with it and how to salvage it to address legitimate copyright holder concerns, if any. After all how much do you think your representatives are going to listen to people ranting about a bil that doesn't yet exist, or blatantly against the copyright protections they obviously favor.
It's good to be aware and want to act, but wait till you know a little more about your enemy before you rush into battle.
Turnabout (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what they're thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
In the paid-off minds of dolts like Fritz Hollings, this bill is no different. He has been told that this will make it impossible to do "bad" things with a computer while still making it possible to do "good" things with a computer. Since he doesn't understand computers, and doesn't much care, it sounds reasonable. Besides, the checks he's getting from Disney must be freaking enormous.
Unfortunately, Congress-critters have long been proposing and passing laws which control things they don't understand. What they will understand is that laws like this are going to kill the American computer (hardware and software) industry. The foreign workers who make up a large portion of the tech workforce (because most Americans are too stupid and lazy to bother with the necessary math) aren't going to come to this country. The relatively few natives who can handle the math and science are going to leave.
If there's a third-world country out there that would like to become a tech powerhouse within 5 years, all they need to do is build a stable power grid, pass strong privacy and sane copyright and patent laws, and allow automatic citizenship to the immediate families of programmers and engineers. Prosperity will follow quickly.
As of right now, I think I'd be on the first boat.
-jon
Re:This is what they're thinking (Score:3, Interesting)
While not trying to burst your bubble, nor am I disagreeing with your points, I do want to point out that Hollings got only US$2,000.00 from Disney. See: this [opensecrets.org] at OpenSecrets.org [opensecrets.org] for a break down of Hollings contributors.
A more interesting page is who did MPAA and RIAA give tons of money to. For that info, click here MPAA [opensecrets.org] or here for RIAA [opensecrets.org].
Personally, I find it hard to beleive that someone would sell out for just US$2,000.00. Perhaps Hollings just needs a rap on the forehead to get him to stop being stupid.
Some thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
1. It effectively outlaws open source operating systems and some applications. Look at it this way: the DMCA says that the *potential* for copyright evasion is against the law. This new idea does the same only in broader scope. It won't matter whether anyone actually writes code that allows Linux users to evade digital security: the mere potential that something along those lines could be written will be sufficient. Ditto for any application that interacts with media streams covered by this new, Draconian copyright 'protection'.
2. The DMCA to some extent and this new proposal to a larger extent means business: boys and girls, let's get one thing straight. Breaking these laws will NOT mean 30 days in the county jail and a fine of a month's wages. These crimes are defined as felonies, which means serious time in the big house and a fine big enough to ensure that the perpetrator never owns a new car or their own home ever again, short of winning a lottery. Also, as a convicted felon there are other, additional penalties which apply after the time has been served. Examples will be made, big time. Trembling in your boots yet?
3. This new law will be of concern to... (calculating) precisely 0.15% of the population, tops. My neighbors are not going to write their congressman; hell, most of them don't even write their mothers. They aren't going to picket, donate, or anything else. They don't care: they will still be able to rent the latest Hollywood blockbuster any time they want to. There just isn't going to be any 'popular groundswell' of support in opposition to this law. Heck, half the time I can't get my boss to agree to make a decision, let alone do it now. How are your powers of persuasion? If you ever wondered how Hitler could have come into power in a democratic pre-WWII Germany, just watch the news. It happened like this. Want an example? One proposal here on Slashdot suggested that we all boycot Disney products. A fine idea, if I weren't already boycotting them for past misdeeds. Nevertheless, let Mr. Eisner put out ONE 'cool' film, say about a plucky chap named Linus who single-handedly and completely innocently takes on a mighty corporation, gets the girl and saves the day for Freedom, Justice, and the American Way, and I will be quite happy to bet next week's paycheck that AT LEAST 90% of the people reading this will sneak at least one plush penguin doll into their collection within a week.
4. Write your congressmen all you like: your letter represents an investment of $0.33 and they just don't give a rat's ass comparing that to $20,000 campaign contributions. To get the attention of Congress you need millions. Do you have millions? I don't. Those that do are the same ones who dictated this BS to the congressmen in the first place. How many of you have written your congressmen related to the DMCA, or about Dmitry. I wrote to all three of mine and got two replies: one said 'thanks for the letter', one said 'sorry -- I don't get involved in specific criminal cases,' and the other one never bothered to even send an automated reply. Like most congressmen, they don't seriously consider themselves threatened to lose office at the next election, so they don't care whether I vote for them or not.
5. Picket, donate to the opposition, boycott Disney -- all good ideas, I suggest that we all do that. Despite the fact that techies are notoriously apolitical and that on a good day you can get maybe a dozen activists onto a picket or demonstration. Ladies and gentlemen, it isn't going to happen in this lifetime, most of us aren't that kind of people. (On the whole, we're 'way too nice.) On the other hand, it doesn't really have to: history records precious few revolutions which were actively or even passively supported by a majority of the population. Did I say 'revolution'? Sorry - I didn't mean it in the 'let's blow things up' sort of way. I meant it as a dramatic change in course, in the manner of people taking back their government. Peace is good. So is love. So is justice. The fact that I have precious few ideas how to do that without blowing things up is (or should be) irrelevant.
6. It would be nice to say, 'who's going to write the code to implement all this -- we should just refuse!' but that's a non-starter, let's not even go there.
7. I'd like to thing that my natural paranoia combined with having drank a liter and a half of Diet Pepsi is just making me all bummed out right now, but it will not surprise me in the least if this thing becomes law this year or next. The immediate effect will be to turn me into a criminal: I will NOT use a closed-source operating system such as Windows, especially if I am told that I must do so. I'm just too cranky for that and I've never been good at following orders (just ask my wife!) I expect that an encrypted underground will spring up and those who want the code will get it, most of everyone else will continue to contribute to Bill's retirement fund. Se la vie.
The real question in my mind is, what's next? I suspect that communications is going to be a hot target before too long: GPS transmitter/receivers in every cell phone, every vehical, etc. so that you can't possibly get lost (even if you should want to.) Money has to be on the list: cash really is untraceable and once computers and communications are regulated and 'secure' there's no real reason to keep it around. A few tech-savvie crooks will get very very rich by ripping transactions one way or another but in terms of a national economy it'll be cheaper than the existing cash economy, so they'll go for it. You and I will pay, repeatedly if possible, for every bit on information we consume and patent and copyrights going the way they are, it won't be long before everything is patented or copyrighted by someone: we'll end up having the fee for "Good morning, dear," taken out of our bank accounts automatically. Well, I guess it beats writing a check.
Re:Surely not (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mass exodus (Score:2)
Re:Rest Of The World (Score:2)
That is the sad part. If they don't follow the U.S. willing down the path of lawyers to "Heck", the U.S. forces them. I am saying this as a citizen of the U.S.
Re:writing to my congressman (Score:2)
You might want to write your senators, too. Kay Bailey Hutchison [senate.gov] [senate.gov] and Phil Gramm. [senate.gov] [senate.gov] Both Republicans, but Gramm and Hollings have a history of getting cozy, and Gramm has already annouced his retirement.
Re:What's The Argument? (Score:2)
If you want to stop all the things covered by 'fair-use', please make them illegal, rather than doing it the roundabout way.
That's what these companies want; they want absolute control. Rather than dicatate who can own what.. why not simply force them to bring up the real issue?
Mod this guy up! Way up! (Score:3, Informative)
Yes! Agreed 100%!
I'm going to be writing my congressmen and senators, and I'm also going to attempt to give the good Sen. Hollings a clue. It may be a futile effort to try to educate him, but it's worth a shot.
If you write your reps, remember to do a few things.
Doing a few other things will also help.
And for anyone who is going to respond saying that nothing will help... If you take your own advice and do nothing, you'll prove yourself absolutely right. Take the time you were going to spend bemoaning this monstrosity here and use it to do something that will matter.
Re:My Letter to Senator Levin (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the spirit of your letter is good, especially the last paragraph. But, IMHO, talking about Finnish students and that lye-nux thing is just going to confuse the fat old guy and whoever he has opening his mail. I think the major arguments boil down to this. (not in order)
1. This legislation would give a cartel of companies unprecedented control over our personal computers. No other consumer goods would be subject to such restrictions.
2. This law presumes that a computer owner is up to no good. It is anti-freedom and anti-American in every sense of the words. Many machines have illegal uses, but the legal uses outweigh them, so they remain available in an unmodified form. Computers should be no different.
3. If all computer hardware and software must conform to these new content control standards, it will severely curtain the availability of free software and low-cost hardware. Some freely-available computer software is used by some of our very largest corporations. Yahoo, for example, extensively uses computer software called "FreeBSD" that was developed collectively by a group of generous hobbyist programmers. [a gross oversimplification, but required I think. -IronChef] Such free software projects will become endangered unless the content control measures are freely available to implement.
4. Related to the above, there will surely be a cost to becoming compliant with these provisions. This cost will be a barrier for new companies who want to get involved in the computer hardware or software market. This will curtail our economic growth. No longer will a genius in a garage be able to write the next great piece of software -- instead, expensive legal issues will tie the innovator's hands. Again, this is anti-American.
5. Lastly and most importantly, the American people will rightly see this as Big Brother nosing into their homes and offices. Years from now, the passing of this law will be seen as a serious blow to our freedom, and those who supported it will be remembered as corporate lackeys rather than representatives of the people of the people. Talk to your constituents, not the companies, and you will understand.
Now I gotta go put all that into a proper letter myself.
This stuff makes me spittin' mad.