how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2002-03-27 08:00:27: Sen. Fritz Hollings' (D-SC) controversial "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" (CBDTPA) could have far-reaching effects. ..
|
  hitachi369Embrace Your RightsPremium
join:2001-10-03
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:4
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Who Cares Illegal or not I will use my mp3 player and divx player. It will just mean that I cant use a Microsoft or other monopolies player.
--
My website
Classes Home page | |
| |  MospawWhat, too soon?Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
Mile High
kudos:1
All Things Macintosh
Automotive
Rants, Raves, and ..
| Re: Who Cares Actually, no. Current devices are "grandfathered" in. But devices produced after the law becomes effective would be required to have the anti-copying circuitry. And not just MP3 and DIVX players, but ANY electronic device. Cell phones, digital watches, and even remote controls could theoretically be impacted.
This is special-interest legislation at its absolute worst. I sincerely hope that Sen. Hollings career goes on the "Fritz" because of this. It's obvious who he's in bed with.
--
Couldn't you use a little Zaffix today?
-- | |
| | | | | Re: Who Cares I doubt it will pass to begin with. The hardware technology industry will likely fight this tooth and nail as it will kill their business. In the end it might just be a lobbying war between the entertainment people and the hardware people. If they really pass this then look at how many of the new computers and components will actually be bought. Nice to see the music and movie industries looking out for our economy. end sarcasm
As for me I will be perfectly happy sticking with my current NON-INVASIVE platform. A good technology is a good technology no matter how old it is and mp3 technology is pretty good. Sure something better might come along, but that doesn't kill the value of the old. Look at cassette tapes and recorders. Essentially the same technology lasted over 30 years with only a few modifications. Tape is still good...just not as perfect as digital and doesn't last as long. I know audio professionals who still swear by their old multi track tape recorders and DAT master decks. So let them kill advances in technology in the name of retaining control. We'll see which country will be the next to take the mantle of superpower after we are crushed by our own greed.
--
When do I get my freakin' third star?!?!? | |
|
|  dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | Actually, mp3 is today. Thats all well and good. But any advancements on mp3 will be hindered and you will not be able to find such open hardware.
It is a big deal. This can not happen. Sure we will find ways arround it. But do you want to be on the other side of the law for no good reason?
I'm ready to march. I WILL be there. But first, Ill write my 2 sents
--
dnoyeB"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
The government is pricing our rights our of our reach. | |
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by hitachi369:
Illegal or not I will use my mp3 player and divx player. It will just mean that I cant use a Microsoft or other monopolies player.
No, it means that unless you want to *freeze in time* --- ALL FUTURE DEVICES THAT RECORD OR CAN BE RECORDED --- will be effected. Everything from a Digital PVR, to Satelite Radio, HDTV, Digital Cable, Portable MP3 players, DivX, DVD players/recorders, CD-RW players/recorders, Hard drives, DBS Satellite, Camcorders, Radio, you name it, EVERYTHING.
You want to freeze in time with your current software and computer and Mp3 player and Home Entertainment gear now --- for the rest of your life? If not, then this pathetic law will affect you, and you should care. | |
| | |  mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal
|  Re: Who Cares
You want to freeze in time with your current software and computer and Mp3 player and Home Entertainment gear now --- for the rest of your life? If not, then this pathetic law will affect you, and you should care.
He's correct. You should care. If this bill had been passed back in the 60s, we'd all still be using 8 tracks to listen to our tunes and the record companies would be crying impoverishment moreso than they claim to be now.
[text was edited by author 2002-03-27 17:07:22]
| |
|
bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY Reviews:
 ·Verizon VoiceWing
·Verizon FiOS
·VOIPo
| Just Another Piece of Lame Legislation this is just another politician who has no idea about technology, probably hounded by lobbyists from the recording industry.
Copy protection (or lack of) in the technological 21st century has got the entire entertainment industry frantically running around trying to stop illegal copying and distribution of their material. Unfortunately the technology to copy is far ahead of the technology to protect copywrited material.
Laws aimed at preventing illegal copying are useless and are just introduced as desperation measures until the recording industry can come up with real copy protection. | |
| |  palmer_j_rCongenital OptimistPremium
join:2000-06-08
Chicago, IL | Re: Just Another Piece of Lame Legislation said by bgraham:
this is just another politician who has no idea about technology, probably hounded by lobbyists from the recording industry.
Laws aimed at preventing illegal copying are useless and are just introduced as desperation measures until the recording industry can come up with real copy protection.
and if I can add to bgraham's comments, the media always loves to hype it up for us gullible public. Nothing like a juicy story to add to their vaults of subscriber money. I was hoodwinked once or twice until I read the actual text of the bill. Read it first, then look at how the media adds extra details and fails to state that there's a big loophole:
(2) PERSONAL USE COPIES- No person may apply a security measure that uses a standard security technology to prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-premium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in section 122(j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a cable system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such title).
------------------------------------------
--
-----
Joey
jpenterprisescomputing.com
-activities director for shady pines our moto: Live Today, You might die tomorrow  | |
| | |  Polaris5All Hail, The Vulture From Van Nuys
join:2002-03-26
old RIA of A | Re: Just Another Piece of Lame Legislation This post provides an interesting citation, but the provision falls way short, for 4 reasons:
1.) The language is legislative mumbo-jumbo. What is a "lawful use" anyway? Does that mean a consumer can record any program they want, on any device they choose? Or will the copyright holder make those determinations? "Broadcast flags" suggest that control will lie entirely with the holder.
2.) The CBDTPA is not the end all, be all of copy control/restriction legislation. Analogizing to the DMCA, NOTHING stops Congress from revisiting the issue at a later date, to pass legislation that takes away, or limits the consumer's right to copy video transmissions. For example, Congress could limit consumers to the right to copy analog transmissions on VCR, while prohibiting copies of HDTV transmissions on Tivo, without violating the language of that provision.
3.) This provision entirely ignores copyrighted audio products. Making a copy (such as a mix) of one's purchased music, is, or should be, entirely legal. The oversight appears to reflect the true purpose of the legislation, to assail 'file sharing,' rather than "promote high quality digital content leading to the consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products." There's plenty of content and an efficient distribution system. But it's not locked up.
4.) What we have here is a bill. This provision could be left out of its House counterpart, removed or altered in a Mark-up, or changed at a Committee reconciliation. With all those lobbyists and all that cash, you can count on it! | |
|
| | Free Speach in danger This is not about copy protection it is about free speech.
This is about your ability to create content and publish it. If this law goes into effect you will not be able to mass publish anything without giving a studio or a label or a some other company a cut.
This law would make The studios and labels into the only source of information. They could buy low and sell high on the backs of both the artists and the public.
It is double bad if your speech happens to be computer programs. You will not even be able to give these kinds of speech away.
I would be happy to go without digital music, and movies on the internet. I am not happy to go without FREE SPEECH. | |
| |  tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Free Speach in danger I agree. The entire debate, copyright law, DMCA, and now the travesty of CBDTPA is all about the established content companies attempting to use technical and legal means to protect their monopoly over the distribution channel. The Internet is actually a boon to artists since they can directly interact directly with their fans.
It things continue in this direction each of us will have to pay fees for every scrap of information we use, copyright never expires so common heritage stops flowing to the public domain and it will be impossible to self publish.
This is not to say it will be technically impossible, the systems will be vulnerable to circumvention. No, it will be like Prohibition in the 1930's. Everyone will be breaking the law, because the technology will be outlawed it will be a boon for organized crime to deliver illegal devices and everyone will be looking over their shoulder for the Copycops. I don’t think this is the Internet future most of us anticipated. | |
| | | | let's not forget...... ...about businesses.
those companies using work software written by their own programmers using open source.
if it can only be used on the machine it's written on and cannot be shared (Via a server) wouldn't each workstation using said LEGALLY created software be counted as a single offense against the company?
as it's worded now it would be. to put this into perspective, the company you work for creates an accounting software for the company... say it's an accounting firm.
because it's written in open source (to be easily changed and modified at a later time if/when needed) each computer in the accounting firm with that software is held accountable for a fine.
that means that we can no longer write our own software for home use and business costs are going to shoot very high (and your job as a programmer will no longer be needed)
long term thoughts?
programmers will all be scrambling for jobs at programming firms rather than working freelance taking huge cuts in their salaries, the market will be flooded with highly technical people with no market for them, programming companies can lower what they're willing to pay their employees and thus we have a mini "programmer recession"
this may seem a bit cynnical I agree, but in the long term isn't that what happened in Michigan when Ford started moving plants to Mexico? what happens when thousands of people are laid-off (read: fired) add that to our already unstable stock market and you then have......
I don't think it's too far fetched to think about that.
and you may also think that companies won't worry about it since it's all in-house, well how about crushing your competitor by finding that they use open source programs, reporting them to whoever, and then that company fining the smaller company into the ground.
so we make it EASIER for companies (that fill the political types pockets) to form illegal monopolies.... is it just me here or does anyone else have the same worries/thoughts? | |
|
 WildGodGod Is DeadPremium
join:2002-01-30
NYC | Let this senator know he wont be in office long!!! If this senator wants to get in bed with the RIAA then we should let him know he wont have his job much longer. This stinks of "Big Brother". Lets all get togeth here and let him know we wont stand for it.
Email him, have friends and family email him. I think we should come up with a generic letter to send this senator so that way more ppl will email him.
We have to do something. We are the voters in this country not the RIAA.
Email him:
»hollings.senate.gov/webform.html
--
AOL DSL SUCKS | |
| |  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | A Letter for Fritz Hollings The CBDTPA has got to be the worst piece of
anti-consumer, pro-special interest legislation I
have ever seen come out of the Senate. This act will
in no way benefit consumers; the only things it will
do is to further the corporate greed of the movie and
music industries. Consumer Broadband and Digital Television
Promotion, my foot! That name is pure Orwellian double-
speak. It will kill the economy as we know it, especially
the high tech industries (if you think it's bad now, just
wait and see what happens if the CBDTPA passes!), foster
a black market the likes of which hasn't been seen since
the Prohibition of the 1930's, and make criminals out of
nearly everyone who uses a computer. When you come up for
re-election, Mr. Hollings, the voters will remember this.
I hope they put an end to your career in the Senate and
vote you out of office.
--
"Kayura or Badamon, whichever you are, you should know that I will never give up this battle. By the will of the Ancient, I shall succeed!" - Shuten (Anubis) from the Ronin Warriors. | |
| | | | | Re: A Letter for Fritz Hollings off topic, love the quote, glad I'm not the only Anime lover out here. I'll give you a music-video link if you want, the princess mononnoke video is there too... | |
|
 93254336Weapons Of MasturbationPremium
join:2001-10-20
kudos:1 |  A few observations...
2. Any data stream that is ultimately converted into the analog domain (e.g. music) can easily be redigitized. If done correctly, the perceived quality of the copy will be indistinguishable from the original, even though the resampled data stream isn't a bit-for-bit copy. Needless to say, the resampled copy won't be copy-protected.
3. The notion that companies such as Disney and News Corp. will be bankrupted without mandatory universal copy protection schemes is as absurd as the wife of Enron's ex-CEO Kenneth Lay claiming poverty in TV interviews. I can faintly hear the world's smallest synthesized violin playing from my computer's speakers...
If these companies truly are interested in promoting "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television," perhaps they should spend less time and money on Congressional lobbyists and more effort producing "compelling content" rather than drivel.
4. It certainly will be amusing to watch a Battle Royale between Disney and News Corp, etc. versus Microsoft and Intel. Now THAT'S entertainment...
5. My prediction: the CBDTPA will never be enacted but will most likely short-circuit Sen Hollings' future political career.
- Dan | |
| | | Our Government in Action???? | |
| | mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal | Re: Our Government in Action???? The U.S. government is the best that money can buy. Just ask Enron. Or Disney. Or the RIAA. Or -essentially- any megacorporation currently attempting to take advantage of 911 to further their financial
self-interests. Sorta makes you proud to be an American. I know I am. /end sarcasm.
--
All your computer are belong to us. -Hillary & the RIAA | |
|
| | If you dislike this as I do... Go here and read a little about it, and then sign the petition: Stop Policeware.com | |
| | | |  Re: If you dislike this as I do...
--
When do I get my freakin' third star?!?!? | |
|
mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal | Gimme Fritz for a Hunderd Grand, Alex!
- Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - (202) 224-6121
- Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) - (202) 224-3004
- Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) - (202) 224-3934
- Senator John Breaux (D-LA) - (202) 224-4623
- Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) - (202) 224-5274
- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - (202) 224-3841
- Capitol switchboard -- call YOUR Senator! - (202) 224-312
A little while ago I read a list of the politicians Enron bought off and how much they each received in soft money, respectively. There was a good mixture of both parties, but the Grand Oil Party got bigger payoffs than the Dems which were -apparently- deep discounted. I wonder how much the RIAA & the entertainment industry paid the above mentioned (and I use the term loosely) leaders to sponsor the CBDTPA garbage?
--
All your computer are belong to us. -Hillary & the RIAA | |
| | | | | mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal | Re: Actually, it was $215,284said by Polaris:
Then, you'll enjoy this!
»www.opensecrets.org/industries/r···torder=U
Hey, that was a great link. Thanks.
--
All your computer are belong to us. -Hillary & the RIAA | |
|
| | | Re: Gimme Fritz for a Hunderd Grand, Alex! said by mags2:
A little while ago I read a list of the politicians Enron bought off and how much they each received in soft money, respectively. There was a good mixture of both parties, but the Grand Oil Party got bigger payoffs than the Dems which were -apparently- deep discounted.
Hopefully the new Campaign Reform Bill will help make some changes once it's rolled. Not a perfect solution, but better than what we have now.
--
When do I get my freakin' third star?!?!? | |
| | | mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal
| Re: Gimme Fritz for a Hunderd Grand, Alex! said by SRFireside:
Hopefully the new Campaign eform Bill will help make some changes once it's rolled. Not a perfect solution, but better than what we have now.
I haven't really gotten a chance to read & judge for myself whether it's a step in the right direction or not. Not really holding my breath, either. For all the hemming & hawing that went on with this particular bill, I do not realistically see the feds passing laws to curtail their campaign coffers from special interests anytime soon.
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?
-T.Jefferson
[text was edited by author 2002-03-28 11:52:35] | |
| | | mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal | said by SRFireside:
Hopefully the new Campaign Reform Bill will help make some changes once it's rolled. Not a perfect solution, but better than what we have now.
Just from what I understand the McCain-Feingold bill will curtail some dramatic abuses in the system: the use of unlimited "soft money" that is not supposed to support federal candidates but which has been used to do so, and tighter control of campaign advertising that tries to masquerade as independent "issue adverting." The other major provision of the bill, even as it reduces soft money and discouraged sham "issue advertising," McCain-Feingold doubles the size of "hard money" contributions, those that directly fund a candidate.
Here's the irony in that: Recall that record-breaking, headline-making $100 million that George W. Bush raised in the 2000 primary season? It was all hard money, raised mostly in $1,000 denominations, the maximum then allowed by law. Even as McCain-Feingold reduces the influence of soft money, it doubles the amount of hard money that donors can give. Soft money makes up one-third of the money in federal politics, while hard money accounts for most of the other two-thirds. So, if we cut soft money but all hard-money donors double their gifts, we'll end up with four thirds, or a third more money in federal politics than before. This is progress?
--
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy? -T.Jefferson | |
| | | | | | Re: Gimme Fritz for a Hunderd Grand, Alex! That hard money limit that was raised applies only to individual donations. I don't think corporations in of themselves can benefit from that. Only the fat cats IN the company. There was much debate regarding individual contribution limits and many conservatives call it unconstitutional ("If I want to give my own money away to a politician I support I should give whatever I want" being the credo). I suppose they had to make that compromise. I haven't seen anywhere on the bill that states corporations or organizations have higher limits on hard money contributions. I don't see where big business and their massive lobbying are getting a better deal here.
--
When do I get my freakin' third star?!?!? | |
|
| | | Bill Nelson? He's outta here! | |
| | | mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal | Speaking of Reforms
»www.progressive.org/April%202002···402.html
--
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy? -T.Jefferson | |
|
|  TxRoadDawgWe're Gonna Ride Forever
join:2001-08-17
Warner Robins, GA | Some Facts
Once upon a time the Mpaa went to court in California claiming the release of the DeCSS dvd "encryption" stripper program was going to be the death of DVD's, in the real world dvd disk and player sales has continually risen.
Fact, despite all the doomsday claims of piracy movies continually gross in the hundreds of milions each year, musicains still sell millions of cd's. I have NEVER heard of either a record or film company going bankrupt from piracy. I would have loved to have heard that asshole from metalica, Lars Ulrich, say EXACTLY how much royalty money each song traded on napster was worth to the BAND versus his RECORD COMPANY.
My advice folks, call your senators and congressmen, let em know what a mistake this bill really is. As much as we all have cursed MS, intel, the oems with non stard hardware we couldnt upgrade, and all the other parts of the dark side of the tech industry, we cant just rely on them to fight this battle for us. its OUR entertainment, its OUR right to be entertained how we chose to be. I see no benefit to ANY consumer forced to puchase 3,4,5 or more versions of the same song to listen to it in a stereo, a computer cd drive, a mp3 walkman, or other media players that our out there.
--
some may call me an outlaw, they just don't understand... | |
| | | | Re: Some Facts said by TxRoadDawg:
Once upon a time the Mpaa CLAIMED vcr's were going to destroy the financial profit for the movie industry
They also went to court, and got the Ninth Circuit to declare the VCR illegal. We got it back by a 5-4 decision at the Supreme Court level. None of the 5 is left. Of the 4, one is chief justice of the Supreme Court. Hunker down and prepare for the Digital Dark Ages.
quote:
My advice folks, call your senators and congressmen, let em know what a mistake this bill really is.
They KNOW people don't like it. They don't care. | |
|
 BrendanWarr Guitar is here
join:2000-07-14
Littleton, CO |  Uhoh
--
"Too many Underlings. Spawn more Overlords."
*Pleased In Colorado* | |
|  ArchAngel21xWaiting For iPhone 5Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE
·Internet Nebraska
| Explain to me I like to copy music. Not to give away though. I like to make compilations CDs of my favorite songs, and I like to turn tracks into MP3s, turning my computer into a digital jukebox. As I understand this new law, I won't be able to do either anymore....is that right?
--
Arch Angel - "Death is irrelevant"
[text was edited by author 2002-03-27 21:43:25] | |
| | | | | | | Re: Explain to me let's not forget those us that are DJ's that create our own base lines, and other effects using our computers (mainly those of us using turn-tables and otherwise.
ever tried humming to the guy that presses vinyl for you? doesn't work so well... but under this rule he couldn't press me vinyl that I created on my computer either.... AAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! | |
|
| | thunderstruck Do what I am doing-I have writen a letter to the DNC asking that he be evicted from the party, since he is obviously a republican nd not a dem. Letter goes out tomorrow. | |
| | Polaris5All Hail, The Vulture From Van Nuys
join:2002-03-26
old RIA of A
| Re: thunderstruck  That's a riot. It wasn't just Fritz, but instead 5(!) Democratic Senators that co-sponsored the legislation. That's a lot of letters to the DNC. Guess Democrats love the cash just as much as their counterparts across the aisle.
Blaming Republicans plays right into the sponsors' hands. Support for the CBDTPA is all about campaign contributions, and the RIAA and MPAA don't see any difference between one party or the other. They like incumbents. Incumbents care about getting re-elected. Voters (or lack of participation from them) get them re-elected. It's simple and fun. 
[text was edited by author 2002-03-28 03:46:37] | |
|
sdd75
join:2001-10-14
Maryville, TN | unenforcible This reminds me of some state law banning oral sex. It's unenforcible, because such a large percentage of people are producing so much unpatented code that is spread via a de-centralized system, the resources necessary would be almost infinate. Just like you would have to have a police officer for just about every house built to keep every husband and wife from having oral sex.
BTW, that is an actual Tennessee state law. Hehe. In Lenoir City, "When you pull up to a stop sign you must fire a gun out the window to warn horse carriages that you are coming." I wonder if I'd get pulled over for that. See »www.dumblaws.com/states/ and enjoy. | |
| | | | Re: unenforcible The problem is they are trying to take it out at its source: The hardware. Imagine all hard drives set to block out mp3's. Imagine all CDR and CD-RW drives spitting out your CD's because they are hard wired to do so. Take it even a step further and imagine no audio line IN on your sound card. We can even go further than that by imagining televisions with no video out, DVD and VCR players that encrypt anything going out that doesn't connect to a device that decrypts it.
In order for them to really make this work they have to get rid of ALL recordable formats and how they work. Next thing you know we will be paying rent on CD's and DVD's we already bought. I seriously doubt this sort of thing can ever get passed.
--
When do I get my freakin' third star?!?!? | |
|
| | My thoughts Well I am opposed to it, I do not think I can add much more than what has been said here.
I do know Mexico is just a days drive from here, I am sure some mexican businesses would love to sell me pre-ban computer hardware, Of course US customs would never allow me to bring it back across but I would simply take a lesson from the dope smugglers and find a unique way of hiding it in my vehicle.
This of course leads to hard disk sniffing dogs and CEA (computer enforcement agency) and the new taxes to pay for them.
There are worse problems in this country that need to be dealt with before worrying wether or not the copy of "The Matrix" on my hard drive is legal or not. | |
| | | Polaris5All Hail, The Vulture From Van Nuys
join:2002-03-26
old RIA of A | Well, if that makes you sick... You'll be glad to know that Barbara Boxer, another Northern California politician with a proud, prominent liberal record routinely ranks as one of the highest recipients of campaign contributions from the industries represented by the MPAA and the RIAA.
And to think, she started out on the Marin County Board of Supervisors, right in Silicon Valley's backyard.
BTW, the Fourth Amendment only protects you from unreasonable search and seizure--you know, coming into your house without a search warrant.
But if you're charged with criminal violation of the DMCA or the CBDTPA, courts will only be too happy to supply a warrant to the police. And the Supreme Court's been routinely eroding citizens' zone of privacy for the last 20+ years. Even better, when you log on to the Internet, you're deemed to be "in public" even if you're sitting in your living room.
Yeah, don't count on the Supreme Court to overturn a passed CBDTPA on 4th Amendment grounds. The people are on their own on this one . | |
|
lukaro8
join:2000-12-06
Jacksonville, FL | Come on now... With a little rewriting the law could work... It would make it a lot harder to pirate music and movies but thats is exactly what they want.
A simple rule to follow on this is.
1. Don't allow recording from one recordable medium to another, unless it is for portibale use only. Meaning you could rip your cd's to your hard drive then burn out a copy on cdr or to an mp3 player but you couldn't record it to another hard drive. No you couldn't rip from a cdr to your hard drive or transfer files off a mp3 player back to your hard drive.
2. Digital media files couldn't be transferd across networks unless they had (for lack of a better term now) a digital watermark stateing that they could be.
This wouldn't end piracy, there is noway to ever do that. It would however help stop the soccermom types from trading over the net. And it would for the most part mean that the average Joe would actually need the original copy of a cd or dvd to make a copy of it. Thus protecting fair rights use and makeing it no harder to pirate then the days of tapes and lp's. As I said it could still be done but would kill of I'd say most of the activity's.
I like to get as much free stuff as I can, who doesn't. But come on a free lunch doesn't last forever. The buffet has to close some time. I for one would just go back to the way I was before. Buying 1-2 cd's every 6 months maybe 1 or two movies a year, and all of em bought used. I don't support the greedy RIAA anymore then I need to.
Lukaro
--
"Some times its better to be silent and let people take you for a fool, then it is to open your mouth and prove it." | |
| | | | Re: Come on now... Sorry, but those are implausible edicts.
1. What happens when your hard drive crashes or you are upgrading to a new one? Then all of those mp3's you have made will have to be redone because you don't have the ability to back them up on a disk and reload them. If you have a large CD collection like I do you would NOT like that at all. It took me weeks to get all of my favorite songs in my CD collection onto my computer.
2. That sort of restriction is just plain unconstitutional. I am a musician. What about music that I create? If I don't have this watermark then I cannot share my music under this proposal. The only option is to GET the watermark, which I bet would cost money if they did that. Why do I have to pay to share my own creation?
While your proposition is technically possible (when the hardware is set with those kinds of restrictions) they are just as bad as anything else being proposed. The fact of the matter is you cannot restrict file sharing without restricting perfectly legal uses. I think the whole idea is a bad way to fix what the industry sees as a threat to their profits.
--
When do I get my freakin' third star?!?!? | |
| | Polaris5All Hail, The Vulture From Van Nuys
join:2002-03-26
old RIA of A | said by lukaro:
Thus protecting fair use rights (sic) and makeing it no harder to pirate then the days of tapes and lp's. As I said it could still be done but would kill of I'd say most of the activity's.
No! Let me explain a little more about what everyone's friends at the RIAA are doing.
1.) They seek to control ANY copying (NO mixes, copies from tape or LP to CD, or back-ups, unless they approve). They have targeted the issue and refer to it as the "analog hole," a stereo's ability to send an analog signal to a computer, which can then be recorded with computer software.
Here's what the CBDTPA could do:
a.) Cripple software that allows users to copy music from tapes and LP's through updates removing that functionality.
b.) Force hardware (including computer, audio, and video) manufacturers to design products without jacks that 'might' allow physical links between such equipment and computers.
c.) Remove 'recording' (hardware and software) capabilities from any type of device you seek to own.
The Recording Industry has always hated the consumer's existing right to make even taped copies of radio broadcasts, LP's, tapes or CD's. If they can take those rights away in the process, they will.
...And I didn't even discuss the MPAA's "broadcast flag"! Let's just say, hope you don't like Tivo...:D | |
|
 tcp1Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA
·Verizon FiOS
| WRITE NOW. YOU DON'T REALIZE HOW SERIOUS THIS IS.
You'd like that to be true, but I'm afraid in this day and age, you'll find yourself dead wrong. The pendulum has swung WAY FAR to one direction. It's time to start it on it's reverse course..
PLEASE notify your representatives NOW and OFTEN. Take a few seconds out of your busy schedule and do it, NOW! Follow these steps (they'd take an hour at the MOST) and you can rest assured that YOU did what you could to stop this, if it passes or not..
Start here by writing your representatives. REMEMBER! Be polite, mature, concise, and logical! Do NOT be obscene or belligerant!!:
»www.congress.org
Next, notify the "honorable" Mr. Hollings. Be polite, because the Senators' clerks have the right to DISCARD threatening, obscene, or any other material they deem "irrelevant." Mr. Hollings will never see it. Again, do NOT be immature! Be polite, concise, and logical:
»hollings.senate.gov/webform.html
After that, sign the Oppose the SSSCA (CBDTPA) petition and get this issue noticed more and more:
»www.petitiononline.com/SSSCA/pet···ign.html
FINALLY.. The Senate is asking for PUBLIC COMMENTS on this issue!! DO IT NOW! Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch have a web form:
»judiciary.senate.gov/special/inp···mments=1
The EFF has a sample letter available here:
»www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_···ert.html
And, if you can, DONATE TO THE EFF! Consider it buying your "share" in a powerful "corporation" that can work for OUR interests.
»www.eff.org/perl/join
(P.S. I am NOT affiliated with the EFF.)
Thanks... Now please, TAKE ACTION! | |
| | | | Re: WRITE NOW. YOU DON'T REALIZE HOW SERIOUS THIS IS. Hollings isn't the one you should be writing to. It should be your local representative or senator. Those are the people who are more inclined to listen to you as they represent you. Hollings already made his choice and will likely not change his mind no matter how civil and lucid your comments are. Everything else suggested is all good.
--
When do I get my freakin' third star?!?!? | |
| | | tcp1Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA | Re: WRITE NOW. YOU DON'T REALIZE HOW SERIOUS THIS IS. True, but letting him know our dissatisfaction can't hurt. Maybe he'll think twice (or at least 1.5 times) before introducing something like this again, if it doesn't make it the first time.. | |
|
| | 21st century eugenics (this is a re-post of my comments on an earlier thread.)
This bill is "eugenics for digital media."
Back in the 1960's, the attitude that overpopulation was Earth's biggest problem was quite prevalent. One proposed solution was to add contraceptive agents to the water supply, effectively sterilizing the entire population. Then, anyone who wanted to get pregnant would petition those in charge for the antidote. This way, those in charge could control population growth by only releasing so many doses of antidote.
Of course you can see the problems with this scheme. Not everyone uses the public water supply. Everyone's system would react to the contraceptive agents in different (and sometimes undesirable) ways. People dislike being manipulated against their will. Other antidotes could be produced without the consent of those in charge.
And here's the best part: those in charge could decide not just HOW MANY can reproduce, but also WHO is allowed to reproduce. The undesirable elements can be engineered out of society. (Anybody see the movie Gattaca?)
Flash-forward to 2002. All digital media (the public water supply) will be encrypted (the contraceptive agent). All media players (people's bodies) will honor the encryption and will prevent unauthorized copying (reproduction) and playback of unencrypted media.
Here's the best part: those in charge can choose NOT to license the encryption scheme to producers of undesirable media, like: sexually explicit video; music with profane lyrics; digital books whose content is uncomplimentary to those in power; etc.
The big unanswered question: who gets to decide what I can read, listen to, think, feel? The only acceptable answer is "me." Not government, not the church, not you. Me.
The experts (Stalin, Hitler, The Ayatollah, The Taliban) agree: censorship works. For a while, anyway. | |
| | | | Re: 21st century eugenics And here's the best part: those in charge could decide not just HOW MANY can reproduce, but also WHO is allowed to reproduce. The undesirable elements can be engineered out of society. (Anybody see the movie Gattaca?)
____________________________________________________
actually I'm of the belief that some people should be sterilized (I say this in jest only) | |
|
warhead
join:2002-03-30
Jersey City, NJ | Politicians running a protection racket This is a blatant case of politicians running a protection racket with total disregard for the Constitution or any unintended consequences of their actions.
The media moguls have decided it's cheaper to buy legislation than it is to create their own solution to their problem. It's as if I, as a photography publisher could make it illegal for anyone to print or take photos unless they were in my publication. And then I get to choose whose paper I use, which film I like photographers to use, cameras, etc.
Funny that on the day this bill was announced with it's new George Orwell newspeak name, some media mogul gave the DNC $7 million in "soft money".
Hollings and anyone else who supports this bill should be removed from office on corruption charges. | |
|
| |
|
·
