defend your right to build + use a home-built computer

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hoihtah

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2001
5,183
0
76
if they can't even effectively ban file sharing... aka w@r3z,
how are they going to stop people from doing this... even if the law passes?
 

Mikelh

Senior member
Dec 9, 2000
212
0
0
According to this quote:



<< The entertainment industry desperately wants this bill, a version of which Disney and News Corp. endorsed as far back as last summer. But the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks snarled Congress' usual schedule, and only now has Capitol Hill's attention returned to online piracy. >>



It would be best to spend time writing to the liberal media who wants to regulate your lawful actions.

And you thought conservatives were bad? LOL

Michael
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
I read the bill and somebody please tell me where it says building a home PC will be illegal? I dont see it.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,935
568
126


<< I read the bill and somebody please tell me where it says building a home PC will be illegal? I dont see it. >>

It doesn't. The DIY market is a multi-billion dollar industry around which numerous companies have built their business or a substantial portion of it. It ain't going anywhere. If this bill posed any meaningful threat to the DIY market, you'd sure as hell see many more names "endorsing" this petition than just several people who are deeply invested in lucrative bandwidth-intensive enterprises and ventures they might have to give up if illegal file-sharing and content theft became more difficult and enforceable.

I'm wondering how it is that this thread has received 'priority' placement even though it is obvious that most of the things people have claimed the bill will do aren't true. It requires MOD intervention to get that kind of priority thread placement, doesn't it?

A little dishonest and biased politics right here on AT, it would seem. Anyone see the list of Endorsements?

Excite.com, Redpoint Venture Capital, Apache Project and Collab.net, Mayfield Partners Venture Capital, Draper, Fisher, Jurvetson Venture Capital, Alexa Internet, Internet Archive, and Thinking Machines, SonicBlue (makes MP3 devices), Foundation Capital, eMusic (an MP3 download service), Zaplet Inc., PlanetOut, Achieva.com, Sigma Storage.

This is not a list of public interest groups, privacy and 1st amendment advocates, or civil libertarians. Its a veritable "Who's Who" of people that profit handsomely from illegal file-sharing and content theft! No wonder they're opposed to it!
 

StrangeRanger

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,316
0
0
You know what i gotta wonder about ole Fritz here...is who is sucking his &^%$ so hard to make him wanna pass all this stuff? I mean, what does a damn guy from backhole, SC care about all this? What is he getting out of this deal? A-holes like this really piss me off. He's wasting more time and money on this crap. Someone needs to b!tch slap him and smarten him up in a hurry. Or they need to dig a little into his background and see what his angle really is on this subject matter.
j
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,935
568
126


<< You know what i gotta wonder about ole Fritz here...is who is sucking his &^%$ so hard to make him wanna pass all this stuff? I mean, what does a damn guy from backhole, SC care about all this? >>

Theft of copyrighted, patented, or trademarked property is something that everyone should be concerned about, the constitution provides for the protection of people's ideas and work. The protection of copyrights, patents, and trademarks is at the heart of our free enterprise system. It creates an incentive to invest and take risks, without worrying that someone will come along and profit from work or ideas that are not their own. Countless life-saving and quality-of-life improving drugs, medical devices, and therapies, would have never been invented or developed if someone could just come along and steal your work out from under you.

Tell me this, if your employer gave your paycheck to someone else at the end of the week, would you continue to go to work?

But, I guess a man is 'honorable' only if he attempts to protect those parts of the constitution you personally like or are benefiting from, while his motives are 'suspect' and worthy of 'distrust' when he attempts to uphold those parts of the constitution you don't personally agree with because doing so will benefit someone else. Its all so clear to me now...
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Hey tscenter, you have a wonderful point and I'm quite sure that everyone is very happy that you're so polite about it and don't go pointing fingers at everyone you disagree with and call them all pirates...
rolleye.gif

But that doesn't justify the content industries efforts to put bugs (excuse me, "security devices") in my computer, which is my property, in order to monitor my activities while using my property. Here in America, we have laws, and the highest of those laws says that people have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This CBDTPA bill, which you seem to be so fanatically in favor of, would take away that right from me. It would take away from all us our right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. It would force all of us, everytime I use our property, to prove that we aren't stealing someone else's property. That is BS.
You want to get pirates, go get 'em. You want to stick it to the criminals, have at it.
But the vast majority of us here are innocent, and we just want to use our property, our computers, paid for with our own hard-earned money, as we see fit. If some of us abuse their property then go after them, but leave the rest of us law-abiding computer users alone.
As for your bug-in-everyone's-computer (excuse me, "security device"), and your fascist bill, why don't you stick it where the sun don't shine.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,935
568
126


<< But that doesn't justify the content industries efforts to put bugs (excuse me, "security devices") in my computer, which is my property, in order to monitor my activities while using my property. Here in America, we have laws, and the highest of those laws says that people have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. >>

A minor correction. There is no law that says anyone is innocent until proven guilty, nor can those words or any permuation of the phrase be found in the constitution. It is a principle of our legal system, a legal doctrine if you will, but it is not a law.

Under the Holling's bill, there is no "bug" that will be put in your computer by mandate which will "monitor" your activities. What the bill describes is conceptually and effectively identical to Macrovision (implemented in hardware, firmware, or software) being a required feature of every VCR and DVD player sold in the US. Macrovision doesn't 'monitor', 'log', or 'report' your activities in any way, shape, or form, nor can it.

<< This CBDTPA bill, which you seem to be so fanatically in favor of, would take away that right from me. >>

Translation: I save a bundle stealing content and capitalizing from the labor of others without paying for it. This Hollings bill threatens to put a big damper on that.

On Edit: Just because I will not stand-by and allow brazen lies and misrepresentations be told about the content or effect of this bill, doesn't necessarily mean I'm a 'big supporter' of it. To defend the truth doesn't mean you are 'taking sides'.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,935
568
126


<< What the bill describes is conceptually and effectively identical to Macrovision (implemented in hardware, firmware, or software) being a required feature of every VCR and DVD player sold in the US. Macrovision doesn't 'monitor', 'log', or 'report' your activities in any way, shape, or form, nor can it. >>

Also, as we all know, if you REALLY want to get rid of your Macrovision, it can be done. Its just that doing so is a bit more technically challenging than the average member of the mass public is either capable of doing, or willing to learn how to do.

WRT unauthorized or illegal copying of content, it means the difference between wholesale unrestricted copying that is readily done by anyone and everyone because there ARE no copy protection measures, and only that which is done by a much smaller segment of the population who are savvy enough to skirt copy protection measures. The difference is huge and unacceptable losses vs. small and acceptable losses.

Companies understand they will not stop all copying and piracy, nor do they entertain any delusions that they ever can or will stop all of it. Microsoft is and has been WELL aware that OEM and DSP versions of their products are being sold through 'unauthorized' channels, or in ways that stretch distribution and licensing agreement terms, yet they do little to stop it because the 'loss' of revenue due to would-be retail product purchasers buying OEM versions is not unacceptable to them.

However, there is a level at which these 'losses' can become unacceptable. When that happens, a company will take appropriate action.

Currently, we have a situation where anyone with half a brain can copy content without paying for it. I installed a CD-RW drive for a former co-worker of mine and he wanted me to show him how to burn his own Audio CDs, including where to get .MP3's off the internet. I was running short of time, so I told him I would come back one day next week and show him what he wanted.

He emailed me three days later to inform me that he had already burned a few Audio CD's and that I needn't make another trip. This is a guy who needs help installing and using his programs, but he figured-out how to make his own Audio CD's using MP3's from the internet.

How? His 13 year-old daughter, who only uses the computer to chat and is so computer 'savvy' that she manages to download about 20 viruses and trojans every time she is on the internet, showed him where to download MP3s. From there, he fired-up the help files in Nero, followed the instructions and he was burning his own CD 20 minutes later.

When it is THAT easy, when everyone can do it, everyone will do it. Macrovision hasn't stopped anyone who was really determined to disable or by-pass it, nor do I suspect whatever anti-piracy or copy protection measures that might be developed and implemented under the Hollings' Bill will stop anyone who is really determined to disable or by-pass it. It just won't be the sort of thing that everyone can do, and therefore not everyone will be doing it, as they are today.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
TcSenter - It's all about control. You want that, go to Cuba.

People didn't believe at first that I was facing 120 years in prison and $815,000 over a free screensaver distributed computing program in Georgia either. Freedom and America is under a whole lot more attack than just from hidden outside terrorists, there are plenty of inside Terrorists in plain view.

David McOwen

Here is the truth as published by Declan McCullagh today;

Just in case folks haven't figured out how sweeping the Hollings-Feinstein
bill, aka CBDTPA is, well, keep reading.

The CBDTPA says that if I were to write and sell this BASIC program...

10 INPUT A$
20 PRINT A$

...after the regulations take effect, I would be guilty of a federal
felony. That's up to five years in prison and up to a $500,000 fine.
Distributing my two-line application without charging for it, either via
handing out floppies or by posting it on a website would be at least a
civil offense and, depending on the circumstances, a crime as well.

It's no joke. CBDTPA regulates "any hardware or software that reproduces
copyrighted works in digital form." My program above does that, especially
if my BASIC interpreter permits arbitrarily long strings.

The business end of the CBDTPA says that "a manufacturer, importer, or
seller" of such software cannot "sell, or offer for sale, in interstate
commerce, or cause to be transported in, or in a manner affecting,
interstate commerce" their code unless it "includes and utilizes standard
security technologies that adhere to the security system standards adopted
under section 3."

The FCC gets to invent those. But I can't see how my two-line program is
going to incorporate such standards. If I'm using C, must I "#include
<sys/copycheck.h>?" In Perl, will I "use Parse::DRMVerify?" If so, who at
the FCC will ensure that these modules are available for the languages I'm
using? (It is true that folks at the FCC are smarter than the folks in
Congress, though that is not saying much. FCC staff will try to make the
standards workable. But the CBDTPA gives them -- and the public -- precious
little wiggle room.)

By design, programming languages are terribly flexible. The only way to
prevent software from removing do-not-copy bits from digital content would
be for Congress to ban the programmable PC. And replace it, perhaps, with
WebTV television-top boxes.

In case you're curious, the felony penalties kick in when you try to sell
your post-ban BASIC program -- not to mention any commercial software --
and perhaps even if you're a free software developer hoping to gain
reputation capital from your code.

They say that violators "shall be fined not more than $500,000 or
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and
shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10
years, or both, for any subsequent offense."
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1204.html)

Yes, this is silly. No, it is probably (I hope) not what senators Hollings
and Feinstein and their colleagues intended. Yet it is what the text of the
bill says. And this is after the good senators had seven months of
correspodnence from computer scientists and industry representatives
worried about the scope of the legislation after it was widely circulated
in August 2001.

Don't believe me? Read it for yourself:

Text of CBDTPA:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/

Politech archive on the CBDTPA:
http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=cbdtpa

-Declan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Politech dinner in SF on 4/16: http://www.politechbot.com/events/cfp2002/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136


<< A minor correction. There is no law that says anyone is innocent until proven guilty, nor can those words or any permuation of the phrase be found in the constitution. It is a principle of our legal system, a legal doctrine if you will, but it is not a law. >>


It is a legal precedent based upon 200+ years of legal decisions made from interpretation of the Constitution. And judging from your tone and attitude, I see that it is something you would rather see done away with it. That tells me all I need to know about you.


<< Translation: I save a bundle stealing content and capitalizing from the labor of others without paying for it. This Hollings bill threatens to put a big damper on that. >>


Translation: you're a pompous jerk who can't win an argument without making accusations. I said I don't pirate and I don't.
To me, this bill has nothing to do with pirates and pirating. As I see it, computers are a valuable tool that are under attack from a worthless industry that puts out mostly crappy music and POS movies that wants to take control of our property and force us to be guilty until we prove our innocence. To me, this bill is about an industry that failed to control itself and failed to keep up with the times and the latest technology, and is now running to the government for protection from its own stupidity. But that's nothing new. These industries were certain that audio cassettes and VCR's would ruin their business (even though the opposite was true), and now they are crying wolf again.
There is nothing in this bill that says it will be anything like macrovision. From what I saw, this "security device" is never properly defined. That being a fact, I think this "security device" will be more like carnivore. After all, giving government the opportunity to make it as they see fit, why would they not? Do you also propose that government set taxes as it sees fit?
rolleye.gif
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
after reading the bill a few more times and reading other peoples comments i had a very disturbing thought.

Drugs were made illegal because anybody can grow pot and sell it, which the government can not tax or profit from. Since the government can not control it they made it illegal.

who is to say 10 years from now the same can be said about home PC's? Think of all the tax revenu that is lost because of piracy. Since the government cant control priracy will there be a war on PC's?

something serious to think about.
 

clarkmo

Platinum Member
Oct 27, 2000
2,615
2
81
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds:



<< (1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products.
(2) Owners of digital programming and content are increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize and respond to content security measures designed to prevent theft.
(3) Because digital content can be copied quickly, easily, and without degradation, digital programming and content owners face an exponentially increasing piracy threat in a digital age.(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" technology. Much of this activity is illegal, but demonstrates consumers's desire to access digital content
>>




So, there is little HQ digital content due to copying concerns yet millions are already downloading, albeit at slightly lesser but more than acceptable quailty. Nice to see them contradict themselves in their opening statement.




<< (a) PRIVATE SECTOR EFFORTS. --
(1) IN GENERAL. -- The Federal Communications Commission, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall make a determination, not more than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, as to whether --
(A) representatives of digital media device manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners have reach agreement on security system standards for use in digital media devices and encoding rules; and
(B) the standards and encoding rules conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e).
(2) REPORT TO THE COMMERCE AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEES, -- Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House of Representatives Committee on Commerce, and the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary as to whether --
(A) substantial progress has been made toward the development of security system standards and encoding rules that will conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e);
(B) private sector negotiations are continuing in good faith;
(C) there is a reasonable expectation that final agreement will be reached within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(D) if it is unlikely that such a final agreement will be reached by the end of that year, the deadline should be extended.
>>


It appears that all the players will have some say as to what copyright protection will be implemented. This could be in disagreement forever.


<< (c) ENCODING RULES. --
(1) LIMITATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS. -- In achieving the goal of promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible, the encoding rules shall take into account the limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright owners, including the fair use doctrine.
(2) PERSONAL USE COPIES. -- No person may apply a security measure that uses a standard security technology to prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-premium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in section 122 (j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a cables system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such title).
>>


So doom9 and vcdhelp will survive because making backups is the premise they operate under.


<< SEC. 5.PROHIBITION ON SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF NONCONFORMING DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES.
(a) IN GENERAL. -- A manufacturer, importer, or seller of digital media devices may not --
(1) sell, or offer for sale, in interstate commerce, or
(2) cause to be transported in, or in a manner affecting, interstate commerce,
a digital medial device unless the device includes and utilizes standard security technologies that adhere to the security system standards adopted under section 3.
(b) EXCEPTION. -- Subsection (a) does not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or transportation of a digital media device that was legally manufactured or imported, and sold to the consumer, prior to the effective date of regulations adopted under section 3 and not subsequently modified in violation of section 6(a).
>>


So basically, once the new standards are in place, new hardware and software will be mfr'd and we can go to the same websites for help in making backup copies, ad infinitum, I assume.


<< SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY TECHNOLOGY; VIOLATION OF ENCODING RULES.
(a) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY TECHNOLOGY. -- No person may --
(1) knowingly remove or alter any standard security technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in interstate commerce, or
(2) knowingly transmit or make available to the public any copyrighted material where the security measure associated with a standard security technology has been removed or altered, without the authority of the copyright owner.
(b) COMPLIANCE WITH ENCODING RULES. -- No person may knowingly apply to a copyrighted work, that has been distributed to the public, a security measure that uses a standard security technology in violation of the encoding rules adopted under section 3.
>>


But since we are making backup copies that include the copyright protection, this is not an issue, yes?


<< SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL. The provisions of section 1203 and 1204 of title 17, United States Code, shall apply to any violation of this Act as if --
(1) a violation of section 5 or 6(a)(1) of this Act were a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; and
(2) a violation of section 4 or section 6(a)(2) of this act were a violation of section 102 of that title.
(b) STATUTORY DAMAGES. -- A court may award damages for such violation of section 6(b) of not less than $200 and not more than $2,500, as the court considers just.
>>


It seems like rules much like this are already in place.

Am I misreading this whole thing?
Cuba bans computers.
I don't think this is where we are headed but it is an interesting parallel.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,935
568
126


<< It is a legal precedent based upon 200+ years of legal decisions made from interpretation of the Constitution. And judging from your tone and attitude, I see that it is something you would rather see done away with it. That tells me all I need to know about you. >>

No, it is not a legal "precedent", that's something entirely different. Go away now junior, you're bothering me.

<< Translation: you're a pompous jerk who can't win an argument without making accusations. I said I don't pirate and I don't. >>

No, I only make accusations AFTER I win my arguments. You've made a rather good emotionally based diatribe, like some gun nuts who predicted that we would all be in Nazi concentration camps only a few years after the Brady Bill, the death of the Bill of Rights and America was at hand, and other prophecies of the paranoid. Try sprinkling some facts and truth in your argument instead of your knee-jerking gloom and doom reaction to someone's law that will put a damper in your illegal file sharing.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,935
568
126


<< People didn't believe at first that I was facing 120 years in prison and $815,000 over a free screensaver distributed computing program in Georgia either. Freedom and America is under a whole lot more attack than just from hidden outside terrorists, there are plenty of inside Terrorists in plain view. >>

Ah yes, the guy who gets caught breaking the law and then cries about taking his punishment. There's an old saying, my mischevious friend: if you can't do the time....

While I agree the maximum punishment was a little harsh for the crime, absurd in fact, you never had the 'freedom' to do anything with property that was NOT yours, except that which you were authorized to do. Just because you got caught doing something wrong, and the penalties for your behavior were harsh, doesn't mean your 'freedoms' were 'under attack' and it certainly doesn't make you a "victim". You never had such freedom to begin with. Get over yourself, you'll find no more sympathy from me than I had for that other idiot Mitnick and others like him. Can't take the heat? Stay out of the kitchen.

Again, anyone even bother to LOOK at the endorsements?

Redpoint Venture Capital, Apache Project and Collab.net, Mayfield Partners Venture Capital, Draper, Fisher, Jurvetson Venture Capital, Alexa Internet, Internet Archive, and Thinking Machines, SonicBlue (makes MP3 devices), Foundation Capital, eMusic (an MP3 download service), Zaplet Inc., PlanetOut, Achieva.com, Sigma Storage.

This is not a list of privacy or 1st amendment advocates, public interest groups, or civil libertarians. It is a list of VENTURE CAPITALISTS who stand to lose a fair amount of money.
 

clarkmo

Platinum Member
Oct 27, 2000
2,615
2
81


<< Thus, our common notion that criminal defendants are "innocent until proven guilty" is a fallacy. It would be more accurate to say that "the fact that a person has been charged with a crime does not necessarily entail that the person is guilty of the crime."

Indeed, the original meaning of the construction "innocent until proven guilty" is that the burden of proof in criminal cases rests with the government, as the following citation from Black's Law Dictionary illustrates:
Presumption of innocence.
A hallowed principle of criminal law to the effect that the government has the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant has no burden to prove his innocence. It arises at the first stage of the criminal process but it is not a true presumption because the defendant is not required to come forward with proof of his innocence once evidence of guilt is introduced to avoid a directed verdict of guilty.
Presumption of innocence succinctly conveys the principle that no person may be convicted of a crime unless the government carries the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but it does not mean that no significance at all may be attached to the indictment. U.S. v. Friday, D.C.Mich., 404 F.Supp. 1343, 1346.

© Copyright 1998 by George W. Maschke. All rights reserved. This essay may be freely duplicated and distributed provided it is unaltered and this copyright notice remains attached.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
>>


Hence, innocent until proven guilty.
 

Wingnut

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
1,538
0
0
I love this sh!t!!!!

They are trying to put and end to file sharing but at the same time, trying to promote broadband!!!

Yeeeeeeeahhhhrrrrrrrright! Whatever! :p

Can someone show me what portion of this bill would prohibit homebuilts? I'm just lazy!

Anyway...signed and Mr. Nelson will also be receiving a letter and losing a vote!:|





 

Wingnut

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
1,538
0
0
BTW, if you all don't understand by now that these fascist pigs' only job is to make businesses money then you're living in the 50's.

Give it time...more and more of your personal freedoms will be in the hands of big business unless something drastic is done...and I am all for DRASTIC! ;)
 

clarkmo

Platinum Member
Oct 27, 2000
2,615
2
81


<< Can someone show me what portion of this bill would prohibit homebuilts? I'm just lazy! >>


Read my earlier post Section 5. Some people have interpreted it that way. This all appears to be much ado bout nothing.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,935
568
126


<< BTW, if you all don't understand by now that these fascist pigs' only job is to make businesses money then you're living in the 50's. >>

BTW, look at who is endorsing the petition opposing this legislation:

Redpoint Venture Capital, Apache Project and Collab.net, Mayfield Partners Venture Capital, Draper, Fisher, Jurvetson Venture Capital, Alexa Internet, Internet Archive, and Thinking Machines, SonicBlue (makes MP3 devices), Foundation Capital, eMusic (an MP3 download service), Zaplet Inc., PlanetOut, Achieva.com, Sigma Storage.

For the extreme dullard who need explanation, does this look to you like a list of privacy or 1st amendment advocates, public interest groups, or civil libertarians? Not at all. It is a list of VENTURE CAPITALISTS (those are corporations if you can't figure it out) who stand to lose a fair amount of money.
 

Wingnut

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
1,538
0
0
Thanks Clarkmo! :)

Well, sounds like comp manufacturers and/or hardware/software mfr's
will implement some kind of security measures anyway so I still don't understand
why that would take away my right as a P/C hobbyist to build my own.

Think these idiots think of our (the consumer's) security? Nope, just the big industry's! :disgust:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136


<<

<< BTW, if you all don't understand by now that these fascist pigs' only job is to make businesses money then you're living in the 50's. >>

BTW, look at who is endorsing the petition opposing this legislation:

Redpoint Venture Capital, Apache Project and Collab.net, Mayfield Partners Venture Capital, Draper, Fisher, Jurvetson Venture Capital, Alexa Internet, Internet Archive, and Thinking Machines, SonicBlue (makes MP3 devices), Foundation Capital, eMusic (an MP3 download service), Zaplet Inc., PlanetOut, Achieva.com, Sigma Storage.

For the extreme dullard who need explanation, does this look to you like a list of privacy or 1st amendment advocates, public interest groups, or civil libertarians? Not at all. It is a list of VENTURE CAPITALISTS (those are corporations if you can't figure it out) who stand to lose a fair amount of money.
>>


tscenter, what kind of BS do you think you are speading?
Yes, that particular webpage has been endorsed by corporations and venture capitalists, they do not try to hide that. But do you (an "extreme dullard" yourself, it appears) actually need to be told that organizations like the ACLU and the LP are against the CBDTPA?? Rest assured, they are.
Do you think people here are stupid enough to believe that what is going on is a fight between the little guy and all the big corps in the world? You should know better. Disney is our enemy here (except for AOL, all the other major players in the RIAA/MPAA are either overseas or too small to be listed in the Fortune500). Lowly Disney, about half of the size of Intel, thinks that they can take over the whole world...

Anyway, quit spreading your FUD. It's boring, and most of the posters here are ignoring you. I mean, c'mon, you don't even think that Americans have the right to be innocent until proven guilty... who do you think is going to listen to you when you are so obviously against the rights and freedoms that are the American way? On top of that, you're lying. The privacy or 1st amendment advocates, public interest groups, or civil libertarians are all against this bill. I got off the phone earlier today with my LP rep, and the Libertarian Party is firmly against this bill, but they haven't taken action yet because they think it will die a quick death in the Senate. An ACLU rep told me the same thing yesterday.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,935
568
126


<< tscenter, what kind of BS do you think you are speading? >>

It cannot possibly be any more inaccurate or deeper than the crap you're spreading, Mr. "its a law, no its a precedent, no its...its something, but I have no clue what it is." lol!

<< Yes, that particular webpage has been endorsed by corporations and venture capitalists, they do not try to hide that. But do you (an "extreme dullard" yourself, it appears) actually need to be told that organizations like the ACLU and the LP are against the CBDTPA?? Rest assured, they are. >>

Really? Where are their endorsements? I don't see the ACLU on that list, all I see are people who profit handsomely from illegal file-sharing. Could you point me to where the ACLU opposes S. 2048?

<< Do you think people here are stupid enough to believe that what is going on is a fight between the little guy and all the big corps in the world? You should know better. Disney is our enemy here (except for AOL, all the other major players in the RIAA/MPAA are either overseas or too small to be listed in the Fortune500). Lowly Disney, about half of the size of Intel, thinks that they can take over the whole world... >>

Uh, take your Lithium, or whatever they give paranoid-schizophrenics. Have you looked in your closet or under your bed lately? Micky or Donald might be hiding there...waiting for the right moment to enslave you. BOO!

<< Anyway, quit spreading your FUD. It's boring, and most of the posters here are ignoring you. >>

haha, here's a clue, pal. They're not 'ignoring' me, they're wisely declining to say something completely stupid and indefensible, which I will only be too glad to point out to them. But, apparently you're one of those who doesn't care how stupid he sounds or makes himself look. To which I can only say, good, I enjoy making you look stupid.

So, let's recap, shall we?

It was claimed this bill would by some mysterious feat prevent people from building their own computers at home (i.e. home-built). I've proven it does no such thing.

It was claimed this bill would "make it illegal to tape a TV show to watch it later, make a copy of a CD you own to listen to it in your car or at the gym, make it illegal to reverse-engineer software, and severely inhibit open source software..." I've proven it not only DOESN'T do any of these things, the bill EXPRESSELY FORBIDS the development of a security system that would "prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use".

Moreover, the Bill expressely retains all current "fair use" doctrines that allow someone to make a "favorite mix" music CD or to make a backup copy of a music CD for their personal use, provided they lawfully owned or obtained the original copyrighted work. That is what the "fair use" doctrine is all about:

"(1) LIMITATIONS ON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS - In achieving the goal of promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible, the encoding rules shall take into account the limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright owners, including the fair use doctrine."

It was claimed this bill would make it illegal to "use open source software (unix, linux, perl, cgi)". I've proven it does no such thing, not to mention the very idea is completely absurd.

It was claimed the bill would make it illegal to "trade mp3s". DUH! It is ALREADY a copyright infringement to trade MP3's of copyrighted music to which you are not entitled a fair use exception for personal use. Did you not pay ANY attention to why Napster and MP3.COM got slammed dunked in court? This bill doesn't change a thing WRT trading MP3s.

Goodness knows what else has been alleged to be done by this bill; your first born must be bathed in goat's blood, any music industry executive is entitled to have your wife for one night if he so desires, and other equally preposterous claims.

<< On top of that, you're lying. The privacy or 1st amendment advocates, public interest groups, or civil libertarians are all against this bill. I got off the phone earlier today with my LP rep >>

LMAO! The Libertarian Party is a POLITICAL PARTY you dolt, not a public interest or advocacy group. So, if I'm lying, put up or shut up: Where is the signature or statement of all these public interest and civil liberty groups like the ACLU? Not one of those Whacky Nut-Job Libertarian Redneck Skoal-chewing Tax-Protesting Constitution Parties, a REAL and CREDIBLE public interest or privacy group like the ACLU.