BusinessWeek on Open Source and Copy Protection 214
prostoalex writes "An article starting with the words "Forget about Bill Gates, folks. The biggest enemy of free software may be Senator Ernest F. Hollings" historically had a little chance of being published in a recognized business publication. In this case, though, Business Week (no registration) runs a detailed but straightforward explanation of how the new copyright bills could threaten free software and open source movements."
Senator Hollings (Score:1, Redundant)
Excuse me but (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me but (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA may not be the whole world, but it is a decent sized chunk of open source development. Sure you won't miss us?
The law won't keep a geek from running linux. The tiny little DRM chip soldered to the motherboard will do that job.
And, most importantly, the EU is full of copynazi's too. Generally, they adopt laws about 5 years after we do. So you'll get about half a decade more freedom than we do, use it well.
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2, Informative)
This is not correct. While there is a movement now to strengthen the companies rights at the whole copyright issue, the European tradition is to protect much more customer rights than in the US.
Examples:
Re:Excuse me but (Score:5, Funny)
Who's card is it?
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2)
Too bad it's a copyright issue.
Don't take this as an insult, please. As far as I'm concerned, we're on the same team playing against the politicians and corporocrats. We don't need to be fighting among ourselves.
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2)
This is not correct
Actually it is. I suggest you read the EUCA. The US passed the DMCA in 1998. The EUCA mandates that EU member countries implement DMCA type laws by 2003. Five years, right on schedual. You only have a few months before the shit hits the fan.
The privacy proctection laws are much stronger than in the US.
I have to admit you have us there. Instead we have idiots proposing laws protecting anti-privacy. Your privacy proctection laws aren't going to do you one bit of good against copyright-abuse laws though.
-
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2)
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2)
In the end, it's not how special you are so much as how special your actions are. It's what you do that separates you from the rest of the pack. Just because you did better in school and on your SATs than your friend doesn't mean that you're going to go and make more money than him.
If I sit around the house all day in my underwear eating doritos, how special am I? If I come up with a great idea for a new invention, then decide not to take a risk and implement it, how special am I?
That said, I need to go do something special.
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2)
I'm not lying.
I'm not trolling.
And, if I had any control over the bullshit, I'd spare your country, even if I couldn't spare my own (who knows, I might emigrate).
If being rude and obnoxious drives home the point that this is something serious, then it's effort well spent.
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2)
Not just the DVD drive either, but the hard drive, CPU, etc. PDA's, VCR's, home theatre hardware, maybe speakers. Certainly walkmen, mp3 players. Monitors too. I imagine networking gear, at least at the consumer end of things, will fall under this also. So that cool 802.11 access point, it will be hobbled also.
Now, here come the politics. The US has a history of bullying other countries. Worse, it's usually not something that I could justify (like bullying dictators out of power, or forcing foreign goverments to clean up corruption). Usually, it's more along the lines of forcing the Ukraine to comply with US cd-r policy. So I'm not sure just how safe you are in another country, or for how long. Remember, the US itself stayed out of WWII for the longest time, by lying to itself that it was only happening elsewhere. Injustice, however, is infectious.
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2)
Second, I am a US citizen, and I find your tone insulting. This wasn't an invitation to bash my nation, or to rub salt in open wounds. Did you ever bother to consider that some people who read your garbage might have lost loved ones?
Third, I don't believe we've ever done anything to deserve 9/11. It's worse than insulting to suggest that. Criminal doesn't begin to describe it.
So fuck off. Criticism I can take, but your insults border on provocation.
Re:Excuse me but (Score:3, Insightful)
I never quite got how this discussion ended in 9/11, but anyway.. I don't believe anyone deserves murder. Nobody. But the way I see it, the attacks against the US at 9/11 was understandable. Don't get me wrong; understandable, but not acceptable. A friend of mine wrote a text about this, wich reflects my views as well.. please take a look at it here [trivini.com]
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2)
Therefore in order that binLaden doesn't attack the US again, America must look strong, and maintain Iraqi sanctions at all costs, killing Iraqi children. People die, dude it's just the way the world works, that's why elections are such a big deal.
Re:Excuse me but (this is totally off subject) (Score:2)
The lifting of sanctions would allow importing of dangerous materials so the US cannot lift them. One of the first guys Saddam would sell weapons to is binLaden.
This makes it necessary for the US to maintain sanctions against Iraq despite the fact that Iraqi children are dying. I don't have a problem admitting that I am indirectly murdering thousands of Iraqi children to safeguard myself from binLaden getting nukes. I don't have to live in a dream world or invent a convoluted excuse that Saddam is killing them, if I wanted to lie to myself I would have taken the blue pill.
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2)
The original wording of the SSSCA would have applied not only to all computers, but to calulators, digital watches, microwave ovens, and tinkertoys. [rutgers.edu]
The more recent language of the CBDTPA appears to narrow the restrictions to just devices that display "media" - sound and/or video - and probably also anything connected to the internet. I can't imagine any functional computer could avoid these restrictions.
US and the EU
The US and the EU are the current battlefields, but don't imagine for a second that this isn't a global war. I'm not sure what became of it, but the US recently threatened Ukraine with 100% tarriffs if they did not comply - the economic equivalent of war. What prompted this drastic threat? The US wanted the Ukraine to pass a law forcing CD manufacturers to put serial numbers on all blank CDs. Why? Blank CD's *might* be used by EVIL PIRATES.
One part of the proposed law makes it illegal to connect a non-crippled computer to the internet. Don't be supprized if this is used to justify cutting the internet connections of any non-compliant country - in addition to economic warfare.
-
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2)
Don't bet on it. Remember DeCSS? Adobe Ebooks? You can bet that the protectionist forces in the US will go after any company that tries to sell non-compliant hardware in another country. I imagine the argument would go something like this:
"It's illegal for a company to offer for sale a device which doesn't have the DRM circuitry. Since company X is doing business in the US, they are subject to US law, and since the law doesn't say 'offer for sale in the US', then they're subject to sanctions under the law."
Don't underestimate the insular and protectionist forces in power in the US. Just ask Canadian lumber companies and (now) farmers how far they're willing to go to protect US interests. (hint: they'll blatantly break an international treaty they pushed for.)
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2)
You may doubt it, but it's true. Do a google search for Bro-Tech, a company who's Canadian subsidiary sold water purifiers to Cuba; the principals were arrested in Philidelphia, and jailed.
The only way is to ban the products that are imported. This might will raise conserns in WTO, and could lead to counter bans from other countries.
Man! How naieve are you? Have you NO idea of how little respect the US has for other countries? I even said: "Just ask Canadian lumber companies and (now) farmers how far they're willing to go to protect US interests.
THE US SIMPLY DOESN'T CARE about treaties.
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2)
It's not economical for hardware vendors to maintain seperate fabs one for DRM and one without DRM, so they'll all have DRM. Hardware only makes a few percent profit, Microsoft makes thousands of percent.
Re:Excuse me but (Score:1)
But the US is trying to force it down the throats of the world through WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), WTO (World Trade Organization), etc. and the EU is already considering something similar, and besides, how many countries produce CPUs except the US?
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with this, and most of the development of Linux probably takes place outside of the US. But most of the 'big' computer companys are American. And without support from them, Linux will have a hard time getting the support (ie. money) it deserves. Sure it'll still be used, but if there is no commercial backing it may go the way of Amiga or BeOS.
The best thing that can happen now is already beginning, Linux is becoming popular all across the Earth. And the more this happens, the less it'll be vulnerable to silly laws in one country.
what geek is going to stop using Linux on his home boxen because of some dumb law?
We have Linux in our workplace. That's what I'd be more worried about. There's no way it would be allowed to stay, if it became illegal.
I live in the UK, and looking at the recent history of our government regarding the computer industry - I'm not holding by breath.
Re:Excuse me but (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, imagine this. Linus Torvalds and all the other US open-source hackers have to leave the country when (if, hopefully) the CBDTPA passes. They can no longer travel between any two countries if they would normally stop in the US, for fear of being taken in for copyright infringement, which is now a felony. They get fined thousands of dollars *apiece* for aiding and abetting copyright infringers. Kernel.org, sourceforge.net, freshmeat.net, and others have to move their servers overseas, along with the people who maintain them, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Besides, what geek is going to stop using Linux on his home boxen because of some dumb law?
If copyright protection is embedded in the hardware such that post-CBDTPA computers can't boot from untrusted, unsigned bootloaders (as it must be for this copyright protection to be more than corporate masturbation), Linux geeks are stuck with three choices:
1) Circumvent the protection. Not every geek has a chip fab running in his basement, so attacking this from the hardware side is kind of out. If someone circumvents it in software, the US flexes its extraterritorial influence, gets the software's distribution stopped, and gets the geek arrested.
2) Run pre-CBDTPA hardware with Linux. A couple years down the road, their old hardware results in them not being able to ogle all those OMG HOT HOT MPEG7 shots of Kirsten Dunst in Spider-Man II. Most geeks have no willpower whatsoever. Put 2 and 2 together.
3) Suck it up and use Windows. This results in all the geeks not being able to post about how 1337 they are on Slashdot. In addition, it renders the computer almost completely useless for anything beyond the capabilities of a TV or radio, because that's what Hollywood really wants; a new tube through which they can spoonfeed us bubblegum pop and blockbusters starring bubblegum pop "artists."
The future is now, and the USA is much more powerful than it should be. Scared yet?
-- Just another AC waiting to turn 18 and skip the country.
Re:Excuse me but (Score:3, Insightful)
There are jails inside the US, and the FBI is good at strongarming others to forget for a bit that they are soverign nations.
Free software: Its out of the bag (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free software: Its out of the bag (Score:2)
That's what the problem is. It's already illegal to break copyright law. This is just making it technically impossible to even attempt to break copyright law. It's a law making it illegal to break other laws, even though it outlaws a LOT more that that.
Re:Free software: Its out of the bag (Score:2)
This doesn't matter. The bill in question will outlaw software that CAN make illicit copies. So any program that merely copies a file (including cp and cat) will become illegal. The DOS "copy" command will also have to be deleted. They'll all have to be replaced by programs that examing the data, determine (how?) whether it contains anything that is copyrighted, and if so, refuse to copy it.
Also, if there is a programming language installed on your computer, it can be used to to write ("reverse engineer") a plain copy program. So programming languages will have to be considered illegal, since they encourage programmers to break the law.
As some people have said, what is being attempted is to make general-purpose computers illegal.
There is a lot of precedence for this sort of legal overkill. Several years ago, there were a number of funny news reports of the town in Oregon that outlawed sex. It was in the guise of a bill that was intended to outlaw sex shows and the like. The way it was written, it outlawed all sex "within view of any place public or private". The lawmakers really were that clueless.
(I haven't heard whether anyone was ever arrested and charged with violating this law by having sex within their own bedroom. Presumably all it would take would be for a married couple to have a child. That would be pretty good proof of illegal activity, unless they could show that they had only had sex outside the town.
Umm.. yeah... (Score:2)
Let's see how happy you are when you're facing 10 to 20 for possession of devices designed to circumvent copyright protection (i.e. anything not sanctioned by Hollywood). The solution is not to attempt to work around these laws. They'll just keep tightening them and throwing offenders in jail. Our government doesn't seem to have any aversion to imprisoning a large percentage of its population, as the drug war has amply demonstrated. As long as the rich and powerful get to stay that way, they'll do whatever it takes. Most people are too stupid, ignorant, or apathetic to take any action against these kinds of actions by the government. They just believe what they're told.
Don't mod if you think it's karma whore (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't mod if you think it's karma whore (Score:2)
Communism! (Score:2, Insightful)
/me relaxes in Europe
Re:Communism! (Score:3, Insightful)
Free software is about as democratic as your going to get in society. Else you have a oppressive government and their owners deciding what rights the common citizen has.
Re:Communism! (Score:2)
Creative Commons [slashdot.org] points to the sprectum between the extreams.
The common wealth is neither communist or capitalistic, but simple value in which we all share and benefit from. There is no king of the hill game going on but rather a wealth spread thruout the land and secure because of it.
Why anyone would want to distort this can only lead one to recognize a king of the hill game player. Or someone who raises themself up by putting others down.
Hollywood needs to change their business model (Score:4, Informative)
THE VCR SCARE. In 1982, Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, famously proclaimed that the videocassette recorder was as threatening to the movies as the Boston Strangler was to a woman walking alone. Twenty years later, video rentals account for 46% of studio revenues, vs. the 24% collected at the box office.
Sounds like history is repeating itself and the MPAA hasn't learnt anything from the past. The MPAA needs to stop being stubburn about changing their business model and start adopting new technologies rather than fighting them off. People like George Lucas have the right idea, as I hear he makes most of his profits off the merchandise.
Re:Hollywood needs to change their business model (Score:2)
Re:Hollywood needs to change their business model (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, take the first Harry Potter movie. It has made US$965 million worldwide, but look at how fast the movie has sold on DVD in the UK and the huge pre-orders for the movie here in the USA; that could add US$170 million or more to the total box office receipts for the movie. Indeed, many movies are making their money back just from home video sales.
Besides, the problem with the RIAA is their stupidity in pricing CD's out of the reach of many consumers (US$18 per album-length disc) on a cartel-like basis. If they price is more reasonably (like US$10 per album length disc) the incentive to pirate the music drops dramatically, as anyone who understands basic microeconomics knows.
Thats exactly the issue. (Score:2)
Hollywood knows about the revenue stream. They also know that digital data can be copied and stread (faster than tapes) and they are taking steps to assert their control.
History is repeating itself but Hollywood's one step ahead this time. They couldn't kill the VCR. Now they squeeze it for every cent that they can while installing copy protection. New VCR's made for the U.S. market all include copy protection built in that messes with the signal from other VCR's or DVD's that are connected to them. Thus necessitating that you patch the VCR through the DVD and into your TV.
Hollywood figures that they got lucky when it came to VCR's but whyt risk it? Jack really needs that 347th ferrari. And let's not forget the "implicit contract" [slashdot.org] that we all signed to do whatever the greedy bastards tell us to.
Merchandise? (Score:2)
Do　They? (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, Valenti's rantings aside, they have a killer business model - no matter how nazi-ish their percieved business practices are, people still flock to the theatre to see whatever crap they decide to spoon down our throats.
(think Matrix, LOTR, Crouching Tiger et alia, Star Wars, and so on...)
I mean, COME ON!?!? This is perhaps the one place on earth where people actually are aware of what is happening with this industry and yet every other story lately seems to be about how we should all flock to the next MPAA/Time-Warner-AOL-Disney-CocaCola/Scientology/
If you don't support what they are doing, Don't Go:
Don't go to the theater. Don't rent the DVD. Don't buy the Harry Potter Happy Meal. Don't buy the T-Shirt...
If you can't do that much, then you are showing that this tiny minority has absolutely no hope of making the slightest impact on how Hollywood operates.
Why don't we all just officially give up on this topic?
We're the only ones who claim to care and we don't seem to care enough to change our habits.
Whatever...
Jim in Tokyo
Re:Do　They? (Score:2)
Re:Hollywood needs to change their business model (Score:2)
Nothing to worry about in ten years. (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps Hollings thinks he can stop such a machine? Hmmmm.......T3????
Yes MS fate is sealed!!!!!
Re:Nothing to worry about in ten years. (Score:3, Funny)
(If english is not your first language, I apologize for the following:)
What in the high holy fuck are you trying to say?
Re:Nothing to worry about in ten years. (Score:2)
stood
-----
u
what eye said funny boy,
or uh maybe you didn't
and probably also trust that the administration of the US government didn't know the so called terrorists would use planes as missles into buildings is a perfect excuse.
And hey, it only cost 30 billion.....
An interesting perspective coming from BusinessWee (Score:4, Interesting)
Two things struck me:
1. Linux has enough mind share and has been adapted by enough businesses to solve real business problems that a threat to Linux is a threat to many businesses, which is why a mag like BusinessWeek is interested.
2. Did you notice the way they referred to Hollywood? Hollywood will this, Hollywood wants that. Sounds very much like a dark force and I think that's the effect it will have on readers, especially those who wonder what in hell Hollywood is doing in the middle of what ought to be governmental functions.
Re:An interesting perspective coming from Business (Score:2)
Re:An interesting perspective coming from Business (Score:2)
Because those who would be providing the air for free wouldn't advertise in business magazines as much as those those who distribute air for cash.
Re:An interesting perspective coming from Business (Score:2)
This is one issue that doesn't seem to fall into the normal party stereotypes. It seems that Democrats are actually the ones driving these bills.
Who'd a thunk it?
Very Impressive. (Score:2)
The article did a great job linking to other articles in the text, one of them explaining how region coding DVDs forces regular customers to become criminals in order to watch the movies they've bought. A pleasant breath of fresh air from a more mainstream niche media player.
When will they learn... (Score:2, Interesting)
Another mainstream advocate on "our" side... (Score:3, Interesting)
Naughton is also the author of A Brief History of the Future [amazon.co.uk], which is an excellent read.
Re:Another mainstream advocate on "our" side... (Score:3, Interesting)
Given a $600bn turnover (even without MS's contribution which must be considerable), the industry should be able to fight this if it becomes serious.
Re:Another mainstream advocate on "our" side... (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from Intel, I haven't heard any comments from other computer industry companies.
Besides Apple and possibly Gateway, I think we can expect the continued silence of the PC industry. The reality of this unfortunate situation is that the PC manufacturers have nothing to loose. They will make a ton of money selling Non-DRM systems to those in the know and then after the law comes into effect, they will make more money selling DRM systems to those people who don't understand. The OEM's do very little real R&D beyond testing components for compatibilty, it is the component makers who bear the responsibility and cost developing DRM components. By keeping thier mouths shut, they never have to explain to anyone why they sided with priates and terrorists.
Re:Another mainstream advocate on "our" side... (Score:2)
He makes the good point that mandatory "digital rights management" built into hardware would be an end to general purpose computing. The machines we have, which can currently do anything and can be built however we please, would have legal restrictions placed on their design and operation. It would be an offence to own a machine that did not have these restrictions, which places computers in the same league as guns or fighter aircraft. All because business dollars for political campaigns talk louder than the interests of regular people.
Not Surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
"Copyright 2002 , by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved"
Following the available link to their main page... and a bit further, we arrive here [mcgraw-hill.com] . I seriously doubt there are any of us who haven't come accross a McGraw-Hill textbook at some point in time during our "career".
I'm certainly not saying this isn't a good article... it is... one of the best I've read on the topic so far, but it is also interesting to note we are watching major industries trading body blows with the press as their gloves. Rest assured, if the industries didn't have anything to loose from such legislation, we sure wouldn't be reading articles like this.
So hollywood wants to control the world (Score:2, Informative)
The first business to pop up will be graymarket chips that break the encryption. The algorythoms used for encryption will be either reverse engineered overseas, or will be walked right out the back door of some hollywood firm or hardware manufacturer by a disgrunted employee or director.
The second thing is what is already happenening now, pirated flicks hit the streets overseas in DVD format well ahead of when the hit the stores in the US.
It just sends chills down my spine thinking if these laws get passed, because they won't stop any piracy, they will just kill open source. And that is NON CONSTITUTIONAL. Please, write your senators and congressman and President Bush.
B Week still does not get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The first clue that Black has none is her assertion that "consumer groups, plus makers of PCs and electronics gear" were the first to sound the alarm. That may have been her first notice, but others have been thinking about such things and publishing it for much longer, like this man, back in 1983 [fsf.org]. The whole free software movement is a reaction to OTHER PEOPLE REMOVING YOUR CONTROL OF YOUR COMPUTER AND MEANS OF PUBLICATION, the reasons for it and the evil things required to accomplish that goal. [fsf.org]
Jane then goes right back to things that must be nearer and dearer to her heart, Hollywood profits. She's swallowed the lie, hook and sinker, that this is about entertainment and a eighty billion dollar consumer electronics market.
Though confused and rambling, Jane manages to be smug and insulting. Check this out:
Embedding copyright-protection mechanisms into new PCs and other digital devices would mean inserting pieces of software code that are hidden, or locked down, and couldn't be altered. That would amount to nothing less than an assault on the open-source religion, which advocates sharing, collaboration, and free access to code.
That's all I can stand folks, let me set this ninny straight.
It's about freedom, stupid. I don't care if I can watch a movie on my computer. I don't care that a set top box runs propriatory software. What I do care about is some idiot telling me that I have to have a program installed on all of my computers that effectivly makes OTHER PEOPLE ROOT. THAT GIVES OTHER PEOPLE CONTROL OF MY COMPUTER AND MEANS OF PUBLICATION.
Don't get confused. Telecomunications companies, entertianment companies and your federal government are afraid of freedom. That's why someone else controls the wires that go into your house. It's why a 69 channel TV tunner will only pick up 4 or five stations owned by three or four companies. Hollings stuff, however, has the potential to control ALL forms of publication and must be stopped.
A supposed friend that trivializes your issue and get's it all screwed up is not a good advocate. Thanks for looking into it Jane, but keep digging. There's truth at the end of your quest, but you will have to stay away from entertainment pimps, their attorneys and other people only interested in extracting money from you.
Re:B Week still does not get it. (Score:2)
Wow. Have you considered writing a letter to Business Week stating all of this?
Letter to Business Week (Score:2)
See the above peer rated post. It has a better chance of being read than one of hundreds of pieces of paper shoveled through the mail. I'll bet Jane sees it, and hope that it helps. I'm a little embarassed of calling her a "ninny" for insulting my "religion" but, oh well, such is publication.
Further reflection demands this clarification:
Sharing, openeness and collaboration are good, natural and to be encouraged. They are necessary conditions for their goal: freedom and control. Without knowledge of the workings of your computer, you have no control. Without a community of honest programers sharing code you can have no practical knowledge of those workings. You will either build everything yourself and lose the advantages of peer review, or you can find a reasonable community of users to join. The four simple software freedoms are designed to give users knowledge and control of what their computers are doing. Senator Hollings bills, the DCMA, and other bad laws are diametrically opposed to this goal as they are designed to give control to unknown third parties.
I'm not sure that yours is a good response (Score:2)
Thus, I'd like you to take that into consideration next time, and if other folks would moderate your post into oblivion right now, that might be the best thing that could happen to it. Sorry.
Re:I'm not sure that yours is a good response (Score:2)
Asking other people to moderate that post into oblivion is not 'a good response'. I agree with you that we may need to make friends with people who don't understand exactly what we're fighting for, but not at the expense of those people who do.
The poster understood that;
Thanks for looking into it Jane, but keep digging. There's truth at the end of your quest, but you will have to stay away from entertainment pimps, their attorneys and other people only interested in extracting money from you.
I appreciate you responding with your point of view, and your personal involvement makes it important, but asking others to silence other voices is NOT right, or appreciated...
Call it a slashdot misfeature (Score:2)
Thanks
Bruce
OK, I got angy but I have yet to see it better put (Score:2)
No appologies needed, Mr. Perens, I'm happy to have your input. Indeed, you have helped form my thoughts on such matters.
We do need to explain the issue and we do need brave people like Jane. I'm embarrased to have called her a ninny and admit I was angry when did it. I fear that equating software freedom to embeded consumer devices and watching movies trivializes the issue and makes it less important to the very people we need to influence.
The core issue is simple: with free software, the user understands and controls the computer they own. All other software encroches on this ownership and control to one extent or another. Jane, a journalist, understands the importance of free speech and she should understand the implications of government mandated software on all tools of publication.
The readers of Business Week should also care about the implications of Holling's work. Free speech and privacy have very real practical effects on business. Without free speech, there can be no real journalism. It's hard to make plans without an accurate view of the world. It's also hard to do business without privacy. Business men, more than others care that third parties may monitor their communications and other information that would put them at a competitive disadvantage.
I have not seen others voicing these concerns on this thread. Hopefully, someone will do so more politely and forecfully.
I commend your efforts to educate the world. It is obvious that Jane learned much from you. It is also obvious, howerver, that our enemies are loud, missleading and painting themselves as victims as they encroach on our rights.
My message is simple and I will repeat it as clearly as I can in the face of numbing details. DRM is un-American. In real life, I'm just a simple but more polite.
I wonder if Jane might speak up for herself. Are you out there? My appologies for rudeness, arrogance and what not.
-Twitter, one of 500,000+ slashdotters reading and commenting this little article.
Re:OK, I got angy but I have yet to see it better (Score:2)
Thanks
Bruce
bollocks, Bruce (Score:2)
Twitter's critique is right on and there is no reason not to lead a rational individual to a more correct understanding of just what's at stake here, particularly one engaged in the noble devoirs of the fourth estate. The mealy-mouthed caterwhauling with which you chide twitter is just what brings us to this pass, eh? It *is* the principle of the thing, Bruce, not the position of it.
Re:bollocks, Bruce (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:bollocks, Bruce (Score:2)
A close reading of the article presents an ideological conflict. This is good, but the terms of the conflict and the nature of the belligerents is mischaracterized. On one side powerful, moneyed interests defend their perfectly legal copyright interests, the foundation of their business model. On the other, *junkies* and *ideologues* demand access, apparently motivated by nothing more than intellectual hubris or the desire for *cheap software*. This mischaracterization of our position does much more harm than good. Frankly, those we seek to influence will not be swayed by the strength of our development methodologies, certainly not by our perverse desire to *see the code*. The economic argument doesn't carry water either; we are just chiselers who can't be bothered to pay for the techno we rock out to while we're hacking on-line banking sites. They can be swayed by an appeal to the preservation of our essential freedoms in the information age. The threat is apparent to us because we are closer to the technology, it is our civic duty to make the threat known to a wider public.
We are not junkies, zealots, communists or wizards. We're citizens who happen to have done a bit of reading and have seen the smoke on the horizon. I myself am a poet and rhetor who knows a bit about targeting discourse. I am here to tell you that this is an ideological fight and we lose when we pretend its not; we've already been co-opted. We need to ensure that our position is seen for what it is: a defense of individual liberty, personal responsibility and civic duty. It is past time for America's tremendously vital and important IT industries and those applying the fruits of its industry to abandon business models built on ignorance and fear, to abandon leveraging profits with the weight of apathy and indolence.
Background reading. (Score:2)
The cameras [slashdot.org] and microphones [slashdot.org] are on. Your correspondence will be violated by your government [slashdot.org], as will your phone calls [slashdot.org] without judicial supervision. Your XP EULA gives Microsoft rights to search all of your documents. [slashdot.org] Recent legislation gives the governemnt unprecedented ability to collect computer records [slashdot.org], most damningly they lay claim to all computer records collected by the above mentioned spyware.
Senator Holling's bill, obsensibly to "protect" music and movie publishers, is the final piece of the above puzzle. It gives government the ability to make good on their claims correspondence and information that might otherwise get away from them. It is the ring that binds all of the above and places control firmly in the hands of those who create and approve of the "security" software.
In a fourth amendment framework, you will NOT be secure in your home and personal effects. The government is able to search said effects WITHOUT reasonable cause presented before witnesses in a court of law.
Under such a coercive environment people will obviously NOT be able to say what they think and free speech is lost. Senator Holling's bill has the potential to further that goal by installing censor ware on all digital devices. Why not? Protect music today, public decency and order tomorrow. A little optical character recognition software is all it would take to apply this to photocopiers and other devices in the future. All other rights are lost when the first amendment is thus destroyed.
You can't do this kind of thing to an educated population, so propaganda is pouring forth to reduce privacy expectations of an increasingly ignorant population. Particularly sinister is the notion that somehow digital comunications are insecure and will be monitored. Beyond that, knowledge itself is under attack. What better place to censor things than the local library [slashdot.org]? Publishers hate libraries too these days [marylaine.com]. According to the last article, sharing information without paying is a violation of copyright, even reading the book out loud. If you have enough money to buy your own books, you are still out of luck as copyrith law [ucla.edu] treatens your ability to use your books when and how you please. What, you think publishers will continue the vastly expensive practice of printing on paper? The MPAA has shown them the way to pay per play and shifting formats will insure that you won't be able to access the work later anyway even if you are a very clever lawbreaker. Is that dumb enough for you? I don't need to prove the well known continued decline of national test performance or the lessing expectations of privacy that have been foist on us by the regulated public shcools. It's working!
Whew! That's a lot of reading, but you have to admit that it encompasses much more than pop music, "Plannet of the Apes" and other disposable entertainments. The pieces of the puzzle are all there. We can see where it's going and what's driving it without understanding programing concepts. Just imagine your paper books, TV, and pencil behaved as your DVDs, digiCam and word processor do. Then imagine it getting much worse.
When it all get's too much for you, just comfort yourself with the somewhat archaic, and disregarded text of the Bill of Rights [nara.gov]. You don't think I'm sitting here at three AM becuse I don't have anything better to do, do you? I'm doing this because I love my country. OK, I am insane and I can't think of anything better to do.
bottom line for them too (Score:2)
They do, howerver, care about their own freedom. I know at least one business man who is not very happy about what computer records the federal government can demand since septemeber 11th. When it comes down to competitive advantage and secrecy, businesses clammer for their own freedom to use encryption. Do you know anyone who trusts secrets to a M$ OS? Business will work to at least make exceptions to this goofey law for their "business systems" opposed to "consumer devices" It will be in everyone's best interest to show that will not work.
A christmas carol (Score:2)
Fa la la la la la la la la
Engage in DMCA maulings
Fa la la la la la la la la
Go to EFF fundraiser
Fa la la la la la la la la
Zap Valenti with a taser
Fa la la la la la la la la
Let 'Em Have the VCRs and DVD Players (Score:2)
Now, on the other hand, screw with my computer? Force me to buy hardware that has been "Hollywood" approved? Sun, IBM, HPQ, and Intel will *all* buy into the "Hollywood" approved hardware? I don't think so. These companies serve a much larger market than just the end-user consumer. That will start the revolution.
P.S. - To Jack and Hilary: When you get your "Hollywood" hardware, your protected DVDs, and your protected CDs, watch what happens to your market share. The public is not going to buy new hardware to play your "anti-pirate" movies and music. Basic economics: the cost of entry will be too high.
How to make it cheap and universal :( (Score:2)
A solution to that upgrade treadmill is if DRM winds up being handled by a little settop box, call it a DRM Decoder. ALL your consumer electronics (including your computer) would perforce plug into it, and you buy an updated chip (or download a patch similar to a BIOS update) every couple years as the DRM is updated to catch up with last year's hacks. This would make the economics palatable to average folk, especially if it's primarily wireless so they don't have a mess of cables all over the house. (Gad, imagine the potential for 3rd-party snooping!)
If I can think of this solution, I'm sure the DRM advocates can as well. This Is Bad.
Personally, I'll do without DRM-crippled media, thank you very much.
Re:How to make it cheap and universal :( (Score:2)
Point is: they won't. The people who have non-crippled CDs and DVDs will keep them, and not purchase anything new. It still amazes me that the studios and record companies haven't hought this through.
Re:How to make it cheap and universal :( (Score:2)
They won't purchase anything new for now. But if Hollywood plays it right, they'll phase in New and Improved DVD discs in the next few years. They'll require a new player, but hey, they're New and Improved!! Then, as they gradually stop releasing new movies on regular DVD, and you can only buy them in the new format, then people will begin to upgrade. It'll be another transition, just like the VHS to DVD one. If they're really clever, they'll make sure the new players will still play the old discs. This will make the upgrade easier to swallow for most people.
Re:How to make it cheap and universal :( (Score:2)
Yep, those are pretty much the scenarios I envision. First tempting features to get 'em to cough up the $1500 or so for a new system (with at least some backward compatibility), then gradually phasing out materials that will play on older systems. That's exactly how it's been done in the computer hardware/software market (most notably with upgrade-treadmill apps like M$Office); no real reason it wouldn't work in the consumer electronics market.
It's scary how easily consumers are lead by their desire for entertainment, and how that would fit right into the most draconian and far-reaching DRM plans.
note... (Score:5, Insightful)
too many people in america complain that their gov't doesn't work right, maybe they should get off their ass and vote a better one in.
ah, rant done, feel better.
hey, go visit fairvote.org [fairvote.org]
Re:note... (Score:2)
Folks who are confused about what liberty is about often are confused by libertarianism, and the dogmatic Rand-ites don't seem to have helped. Go to your local library, and check out and read The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. The book is around 200 years old, and still as current as the day it was written.
Bastiat points out that this business of private interests misusing government power plunder others is nothing new. This is a big part of the reason that libertarians detest powerful government: it's not just the Hitlers and Maos who misuse government power, it's also the welfare junkies and the MPAAs and Ma Bell and the big tobacco companies and other recipients of corporate welfare and on and on and on...
Re:note... (Score:3, Insightful)
before the libertarians mouth off, please not that this is private industry pushing hollings for this law.
While I am less inclined than yourself to speak for all libertarians, I am intrigued by how close you come to the nub of the issue without actually getting it. I don't assume that private industry is good and gov't is bad... after all, they both have humans in them (and we know how they can be ;-) ). The reason I prefer private solutions in general is that private entities have a much harder time coercing people than gov't ones do. They undoubtably want to coerce just as much as the humans in gov't do, they just have a much harder time. Your next statement illustrates that... what they are proposing to force on others could never be accomplished without the apparatus of gov't coercion.
bad gov't typically gets bought by "free enterprise" when people don't pay any fucking attention to their gov't.
I don't think there is "bad gov't" insofar as that would seem to imply the existence of a good one somewhere, and there's been no evidence of that. The problem here is the ability to coerce that's built into gov't. We allow the gov't to force people into doing things even though we would never allow any private individuals that same ability. Now I'm not debating in this post whether that is a good thing or not, I'm just pointing out that it is a fact. And, whenever we give the gov't new powers, we also increase the scope and strength of that ability to coerce. That's why I have a problem with immediately assuming there has to be a "gov't solution" to every problem that comes up. It's not that I think private entites are saints, it's just that the private devils are inherently weaker than gov't ones.
maybe they should get off their ass and vote a better one in.
...after all, the fact that it has never solved anything before doesn't mean it won't this time. Anyway, voting isn't our only option. We can also try to get interested folks to pay "fucking attention" to attempts at gov't coercion that are beyond even your ability to rationalize away. That what the BusinessWeek article, and this thread, are all about. Your attacks against your imagined views of libertarians are just a distraction from that goal.
Re:note... (Score:2)
Government coercion is a sufficient but not a necessary requirement. Cabals and monopolies can exert coercive force on a market with no help from the government at all. Just look at the licensing shenanigans that Microsoft uses on OEMs.
Even if the CBDTPA or some variant never gets passed, we can still be screwed. You are unlikely to find anyone manufacturing non-crippled hardware if MS stipulates that Windows may only be licensed to run on systems with DRM ciruitry.
Re:note... (Score:2)
The influence affects not only what the politicians do, but who the politicians are. We still vote, but the system decides who the candidates are.
Cryptnotic
The question is (Score:2)
Tech laws suck, but... (Score:2)
The rulings against Napster hasn't put a dent in file-sharing. No legal actions ever will, especially now with completely decentralized services, like LimeWire, which are open-sourced and who's development can never be stopped, due to it being open-sourced.
The ruling against DeCSS hasn't put a dent in its distribution or use.
Quite frankly, courts or government's don't have the power to regulate the internet. For one thing, there's jurisdiction issues: simply distribute from Russia, for example. For another, they can't necessarily hold anyone accountable for developing such (say Open-DVD players or file-sharing) software, because people can collaborate and contribute anonymously, from public computers, using a "handle".
Of course, this is a threat to open (that is, non-anonymous) development of OSS of FS, but big deal. If developers are really that eager for recognition, they can move to a country with no prohibitions on the software and openly develop there.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against these laws. In fact, its a good reason to advocate not passing these laws: because they just don't work.
Here's your solution hollywood. (Score:2)
Since people might copy those files they download
online, don't make anything available online. Yes, that could be a viable market in the future, but since you're so worried about piracy, simply don't use it.
Don't allow any manufacturers to create a drive that can read your next incarnation of the DVD. Yes, a lot of people have computers, and a lot of people will want to use those computers, and their lack of ability to watch movies on that medium might result in fewer sales for you, but that's a risk you have to take.
You have no right to control an entire industry just because you're concerned that your outdated business strategy might fail as a result. And be careful. You're stepping on a lot of toes here. You might end up alienating a significant percentage of your market, far in excess of the perceived damage that piracy might cause. I for one have almost completely stopped watching movies. It used to be I'd go to the theatre at least once a week, and I'd rent movies several times a week, I had cable, I bought tapes. Not anymore. I canceled cable, I never watch TV at all anymore. I saw episode 2 last thursday. I will probably not see another movie until december. I've chosen a new form of entertainment and it doesn't involve you in any way. Mostly I do this because I want to avoid addicting myself to a medium that someday might be restricted for me. That way, when you finally let the hammer drop, it won't make a bit of difference to me.
But getting inside my computer WILL make a difference to me, especially if I don't ever watch your crappy movies. There are a whole lot of people that will accept substandard, inconvienent, expensive ways to watch their movies, in the name of preventing piracy. But once you reach into someone's computing experience outside of movies, you're going to piss people off. And you will not benefit from it.
-Restil
Just what are we paying for? (Score:2, Interesting)
If you ask an industry exec (and I've spoken to several), they'll tell you that they're selling _physical_product_ , and that's how they market: "own it on DVD today!"
But in reality, what you "own" -- the plastic and aluminum disc -- is worthless, because it's not good for anything other than transporting information. And you don't own the information that's stored on that disc, you just have a (very limited) right to use it, with the boundaries of that right being dictated by the supplier and entirely non-negotiable.
If consumers really knew what they were paying for, I wonder how they'd feel about not just the price but the whole way they were being double-spoken to? If this were a grocery store, how would they feel if they found out that they were actually paying for the bag not what was inside it, and had to use only certain sanctioned ovens and cooking utensils or else risk legal action?
Of course, industry executives don't want to admit that they're actually selling a right to use. Some of the industry folks I've talked to claim to "not understand the difference," but most just "don't want to confuse consumers." There's a simpler term for what they're doing -- bait-and-switch -- and here I'll cite section 0 of 16 CFR PART 238, compliments of the FTC [ftc.gov] :
Sec. 238.0 Bait advertising defined.
Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers from buying the advertised merchandise, in order to sell something else, usually at a higher price or on a basis more advantageous to the advertiser. The primary aim of a bait advertisement is to obtain leads as to persons interested in buying merchandise of the type so advertised.
Res ipsa loquitur.
So in summary, it sounds like the good Senator wants to pass a law that protects the bait-and-switch tactics of the entertainment industry. I wonder if the general public would see it this way. What do you guys think?
--
Legal, productive dissent (Score:2, Interesting)
[rant] My 'Representative', the 'Honorable' Chet Edwards, D-Texas, wouldn't care what I have to say. He's too busy voting the Party line.[/rant]
Of course, since I'm posting, I think I have an answer: books. Since Xerox machines are here to stay and they're not all that bright, there's no such thing as copy-protection on hardcopy. They haven't even tried it, that I know of. If you want to fight the *AA in a fully legal, productive fashion, stop relying on them for your entertainment (and write your Senators and Representative). Read books instead. One might even go so far as to write them in order to entertain oneself. Go out and goof off with friends. Take a walk. Stop paying Hollywood to do for you what you can do for yourself.
As a caveat, I base this argument partially on personal opinion. I don't see movies all that often. Most of what Hollywood produces is crap. (Too violent, too pointless, too etc.) Don't spend money on the crap. Spend your money carefully, on the movies truly worth seeing. Maybe just see them once, unless its a movie like LOTR which one must see twice to fully appreciate.
I don't buy music either. (The last record I bought was the LOTR soundtrack.) Most of what the RIAA produces and hawks is also crap, IMO. Not all of it, but most of it. Don't spend money on on the crap. Indeed, the musically inclined geek might go so far as to -produce- music. Doing so would likely benefit both the geek in question and the society as a whole. And the DMCA doesn't apply to analog devices like acoustic guitars.
The same can be said of games, which is where the DMCA comes in. There are better ways of entertaining oneself than by spending several hours out of every day playing a game that doesn't expand one's horizons and will just be sequel-ed in a few years anyhow. Granted, I own/play/sometimes enjoy Diablo. Same for SFCII. If I had a copy of DII, I'd be playing it some. But these games don't expand my horizons the way that reading, or writing, a good book would expand them. Again I will say, don't spend your money on them. If you must, spend as little of it as possible. (There are not, after all, enough hours in a day for more than one addictive game).
By refusing to pay for Hollywood's disservices, we impact their top line. The smaller top line means a smaller bottom line. They will pay attention if it gets small enough. We also gain the satisfaction of opposing something evil in a manner which will not bring us afoul of our own consciences. On a side note, there is a time to ignore bad laws. There is a set of Law above and beyond any Congress. Any act of Congress which falls afoul of this Natural Law is really an Illegal legality. Or in other words, no matter what is said, done, or enacted by Hollywood or Washington, we should not allow or tolerate the abrogation of our Rights.
By contacting our elected officials, we work within the system, discouraging the passage of bad laws. There is no law against such behavior. Indeed, adults who have the right to vote have a duty to vote. Contacting your representaves is, in a sense, another form of voting, except that you vote for/against individual bills rather than prospective representatives.
Re:Legal, productive dissent (Score:2)
There are certain colors of ink that will not be picked up by photocopiers; for example, thin text printed in a light (sky) blue color. The text is completely legible in the original, but doesnt show up at all in photocopies.
Ive seen this ink used to fill in answers in teacher-edition workbooks at my towns elementary school: the book pages can be photocopied and handed out to students; the teacher has the answers filled in, but the students do not. This isnt the kind of copy protection youre talking about, however: at my University Ive seen many textbooks that employ this same tactic. Examples or blockquoted equations or other important material will be set off from the flow of the text in light blue ink, ostensibly to make it stand out. However, try photocopying the page and you end up with the most important material uncopied. Sometimes this can be thwarted by turning up the darkness setting, sometimes not.
The real message (Score:3, Insightful)
What all of this translates to is that Hollings and Hollywood believe that capturing an extra 10% (or so) profit for Hollywood is more important than every single person in the world's right to buy/manufacture and program a general purpose computing device as they see fit.
In other words, Hollings values your right to use Linux at less than $0.25 a year.
Since we may assume that DRM will add to the cost of hardware and software (especially if the MS patent is upheld), Hollings suggests that we should pay to have our rights trampled.
I suggest that for me (as a Citizen), the value of freely programmable general purpose computers far outweighs the total value of Hollywood's existance.
What is being threatened here is not simply my freedom to enjoy my hobby, but my living (I develop Free software for a living). In my case, Hollings suggests that Hollywood's 'right' to make MORE profit exceeds my right to make a profit at all.
In other words, Hollings' ill consider4ed bill is not only wrong headed from a moral, ethical, and (theoretically) legal standpoint, it's also an assault on Capitalist principals in that it suggests that we destroy several large economic values in order to preserve a single small one.
As to my choice of 10% as an example, I submit that the entire potential economic benefit from free software (consider all of the rather large businesses that are or could escape the Microsoft tax) outweighs even 100% of Hollywood's profits.
For those who are looking for an ideological arguement, this whole thing looks like a back door into 'state capitalism', an economic system where the state owns the means of production. That is more or less what the old Soviet Union was in spite of it's claims to Communism. In this case, it is being achieved by the corporations siezing the state rather than the Soviet approach of the state siezing the corperations. I submit that as bad as the Soviet approach turned out, it was better than the direction we seem to be going (though neither is a particularly good approach to economics).
Missing the point entirely (Score:2)
Re:Missing the point entirely (Score:2)
If they have any qualms about putting out enough information to write an open-source driver for their card, then they will be cracked. Any "secret" in the driver or OS means you are relying on security through obscurity will fail.
In case you don't understand how this works, imagine that the driver interface is like the interface between your remote control and the cable box. Completely disassembling the remote control and reverse engineering it would not let you get any more stations than you already do. And they have no qualms about copying the signals to those reprogrammable remote controls.
So in some ways this is not too bad: Either Linux will be supported, or the system will be cracked. However I don't expect them to be as smart as this and Linux will be outlawed and nothing will be done to stop piracy.
Screw em (Score:2)
They can't arrest everybody.
Time to start resisting.
It's up to you... (Score:2)
Yeah, I know I saw a Sony-distributed movie [sonyclassics.com] recently, but I intend to be more vigilant in the future.
If you really need your corporate media, buy it USED. Half.Com [half.com] is a good place to start. So is Second Spin [secondspin.com] and Powell's [powells.com].
Stop buying new DVDs and CDs. Stop going to movies. Maybe even get rid of your cable service, because the cable companies pay their tribute to the MPAA and the RIAA too. Take the money you would have used on new DVDs, new CDs, movie tickets and cable bills and donate it to the EFF [eff.org].
And for crissake FAX YOUR CONGRESSCRITTER! [digitalconsumer.org] And like Zappa always reminded us, Don't forget to vote [rockthevote.org].
The US economy will suffer. (Score:2)
As someone further down posted, I doubt that other countries will follow the US' example to the letter (although you can be sure that some US governments will try to force this onto some other countries). This would mean the at least a portion of the innovative edge will move outside the US and the US would fall behind because every technology would have to be "approved" by some body in the US. And you can bet that some countries and blocs will make as much PR capital out of this as they can ("US oppression etc"), and it would possibly make the current tension between the EU and the US worse than it is.
The larger corporations would not initially be hurt that much as they could attempt to pass the price rises entailed in developing and implementing DRM-compatible hardware and software on to the consumers, who would more than likely respond by buying less than they had before (The Napster example again, wrongly interpreted by the MPAA and RIAA). As is usual with seemly blind official organisations such as those mentioned above, they would in turn respond by trying to turn the screws even tighter than before claiming that piracy is growing (which it possibly very well could, considering that people who would copy their media would be labeled as criminals and be forced underground -as in the prohibition era in the US). It would, in other words, simply be a vicious circle and would probably, in the end drive the RIAA and MPAA into bankruptcy (Could those be voices saying "I told you so" in the background?) and certainly hurt the US economy.
Another good example would be Microsoft's attempts to raise prices with it's new licencing scheme - It simply drives more companies to seek cheaper alternatives.
Maybe Hollywood should start paying some taxes (Score:2)
Re:Truly Scary Folks (Score:2)
I don't believe in voodoo.
However, it is fun to torture dolls dressed up as politicians. I highly recommend it.
Re:Truly Scary Folks (Score:2)
> This one could change everything. Please, everyone, write (not email)
> your senator! It's easy to find out [senate.gov] who your senator is if
> you don't know already.
Write your representatives in the House too.
> This one is too big to be hacked around. The political process is our
> only hope.
The political process is breaking down here in the US. Who elected the president? Certainly not the other 49 states. It was a big roulette wheel in Florida that determined who won, with the Supreme Court dictating when to stop the wheel. This stupid legislation would have never been proposed if the MPAA and RIAA didn't "own" Hollings.
The presidential election "joke" angered and upset people. It is those same real people of this country, not just the geeks and technical types, who have the power to change this. The Business Week article is good, use it and others to get the word out in a way people can understand it. Send letters to the editor and press releases (yep, anybody can write one, and lots of newspapers and sites would love to have something to put in their next edition), particularly to independent media outlets. Make people understand, and make them mad! Force this as a major issue (both Hollings bill and the more general issue of Congress serving Hollywood, or whoever that bribes them, instead of the people) in the November 2002 elections. Make it abundantly clear to the members of Congress just who it is they are there to serve. Make it equally clear to them that they won't be in Congress much longer if they don't serve the people who elected them.
Abraham Lincoln never said anything about a government "of Hollywood, by Hollywood, for Hollywood and their greed"!
Bells are ringing: Mothra, Mothra!
Every heart is calling: Mothra, Mothra!
Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have gotta pay!
New Kirk calling Mothra, we need you today!
Re:CPU level protection (Score:3, Insightful)
Treated well, and unused until needed, each one should late about 7 or 8 years. Get 10 full computers now, a few thousand cdr's, store them well and they should last until the revolution - or at least your death.
Re:The Gov't Once Again.... (Score:2)
Re:A Possible Solution (Score:2)
This is the only possible scheme that would work.
It would do nothing to stop for-money pirates however, as they could likely get access to or steal an "offical" recording machine.
It would put all independent artists out of business, a point that I'm sure the RIAA is considering, though they won't talk about it.
Re:SLASHDOT IS A CAR CRASH (Score:2)