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

[amdskip]

up

 

[capybara]

this bill would make it illegal to
1,. build or use on any network (incl the www) a home built computer, or an older computer built without
their security device
2.use open source software (unix, linux, perl, cgi)
3. trade mp3s
first we defeat this bill by faxing our representatives
(saying "this bill has no chance" doesnt make it so)
then we defeat Sen. Hollings at the next election by contributing to his opponents.
ITS THE AMERICAN WAY.

 

[bulldawg]

<< then we defeat Sen. Hollings at the next election by contributing to his opponents >>



Even if he was not a sponser for this bill, the idiot needs to go!

 

[ultimatebob]

I'm not even going waste my time to protest this one. It stands no chance of passing in it's current form, and would be overturned in court before a single device with federal copy-protection hit the shelves. Not to mention that the bill so vegue in it's wording, that it's almost impossible to make any clear finding of law from it.

 

[toant103]

this bill is wacked

 

[AnthraX101]

This bill of course should be defeated, however there is a lot of misinformation being spread about this bill. Knowledge is power, so arm yourself.



<< he bill will 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, >>



Actualy, there is a clause in this bill to permit that. Section 3.e permits this explicitly.



<< make it illegal to reverse-engineer software >>



This is not addressed by the bill. The only portion that could posibly be construed to mean this is a prohibition on removal of copy protection. (Sec. 6)



<< severely inhibit open source software >>



There is nothing that would affect open source software except Sec. 3.d.2, which reads:



<< any software portion of such standards is based on open source code. >>



Which would promote the spread of open source software.



<< Not to mention them seizing home built comps and prohibiting the bulding of comps at home.... Ill have a glock fo them when they take my baby away! >>



Nothing would affect this. You simply could not sell a device produced after this bills adoption without these restrictions outside of your state. Your current machene would be completely legal to own, have, and sell. BTW: Kudos for someone else who understands the point of the second amendment!



<< The Wired article mentions fines of 5 years in prison and $500,000 fine, or $25,000 fine per offense. >>



Those are not fines under this bill. This bill only calls for the folowing (Title 17, Chapter 12, Section 1203 of the US Code):



<< At any time before final judgment is entered, a complaining party may elect to recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of section 1201 in the sum of not less than $200 or more than $2,500 per act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service, as the court considers just. >>





<< I recall under a previous "fair use" settelment the recording/entertainment industry was given a share in the profits of all blank recordable media ie.audio/video tape, blank cd's and blank dvd recording media. So these industry parasites have been collecting this revenue for years. So now that isn't enough?? And if they get this new legislation will they forfeit the past gratuity they've been collecting?? >>



You are corect that that has been happening, and no, they will not give it up.

Please, protetst this bill, but don't do it under a guise of misinformation and misdirection.

Armani

 

[apoppin]

The bill makes no sense whatsoever . . . much like the idiot who sponsored it.

It seem the recording and film industry is getting desperate in their greed.

 

[KthxBye]

If thsi thing looks like it's going to pass, I'm going make a stockpile of "illegal" computer products. A new black market. Hooray!

 

[konichiwa]

<< Does this mean I'm going to be arrested by the jack booted Gestapo pigs in the middle of the night just because I build my own computers? >>

ROFL! Was I the only one who found myself laughing outloud at that?

 

[Vic]

<< In a fascist state laws are numerous and ambiguous enough to guarantee that the police will have an excuse to arrest you should they ever want to. Punishment is not decided by guilty vs. innocent, but whether or not you have the power to defend yourself. >>


Stolen for sig.

Unfortuantely, we already live in that country and it's time that we stood up and said "Enough is Enough."

/edit: AnthraX101, you are correct on many points. The new Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA) is very much toned-down from the original SSSCA. However, the original goal of the bill's authors still remains: a "security device" or some sort of "bug" would be placed in everyones' computers across the entire US, and it would be illegal to ever remove or tamper with that "bug." This "bug," under the guise of protecting copyright law, would most likely allow for all the activities on your computer to be monitored (if not right away, then certainly over time). Once things like this get in motion, they only get worse. Abuses take place, enforcement is difficult to nearly impossible so punishments increase, and the scope of powers allowed to the government always increases. Starting small with a long-term goal in mind is nothing new for our government. This bill must NOT pass. Under the guise of protecting the unconstitutional copyrights(1) of a few content providing corporations, the 4th amendment rights and the property rights of all American citizens would be infringed.

(1) The Constitution provided for 15 year copyrights with another 15 year extension if the original author was still alive. Disney recently got Congress to extend copyrights to 95 years (up from 75, as Mickey is 74 this year). The fact that Walt Disney, the original creator of Mickey, has been dead for almost 36 years seems to be lost amid the campaign contributions.

 

[Martin]

maybe THIS bill won't pass, but others after it will, and eventualy, its goals will be achieved.


Btw, Intel, unlike what many think, is not really on our side. Both Intel, MS & co and Hollywood want copyright protection built in, the fight is over how to do it. If this bill passes, Hollywood would dictate how intel builds its chips and intel doesnt like that.

 

[DanFungus]

signed it....stupid laws. who needs em

 

[tm37]

<< (1) The Constitution provided for 15 year copyrights with another 15 year extension if the original author was still alive. Disney recently got Congress to extend copyrights to 95 years (up from 75, as Mickey is 74 this year). The fact that Disney, the original creator of Mickey, has been dead for almost 36 years seems to be lost amid the campaign contributions. >>



I have NO PROBLEM with extending conprightrights FOREVER! If some person or company creates something they should have the right to control how it is distributed until they decide they no longer want that right. This goes for music, software and all intellectual property.

However on this bill I am opposed to ANY GOVERNMENT REQUIRED monitoring device on any consumer product.

If a company wants to add this "feature" I will find a competitor that does not. What this bill seems to be doing is going after people BEFORE they commit a crime OR making it illegal to have the Ability to commit a crime. Why not make it so We can't buy cars with a top speed over 75 MPH? When ever a government agency is gaining power through searching without reason the line has to be drawn.

If Intel wants to add some compyprotection scheme to their processors then I will buy something else. WHen ever a company does something like this we have choices where as whith the government we have NO CHOICE! The same goes with microsoft, There are other choices out there. BUT IF the GOVERNMENT IS restricting the choice of the comsumer to prevent something that MAY happen then I believe we have lost a huge amount of FREEDOM.

 

[Zorba]

Signed.



<< Ill have a glock fo them when they take my baby away! >>



I must agree with you there.

 

[DaiShan]

didn't that idiot hollings proclaim himself a master of the internet or something like that (sounds like he spends too much time around gore to me) What does hollings say the intent of this bill is? I read the bill language online about a week ago, and could not find an exact section for legislative intent... imo this is only serving big business.

 

[Vic]

<< I have NO PROBLEM with extending conprightrights FOREVER! If some person or company creates something they should have the right to control how it is distributed until they decide they no longer want that right. This goes for music, software and all intellectual property. >>


What you may be missing here is than no invention is truly original. For example, Edison did not actually invent the electric lightbulb, he was just the first one to get the concept to work reliably. Virtually all inventions and original works are actually improvements on previous works. "A better mousetrap," as they say. By making copyrights and patents forever, you slow innovation, because no one (except the corporation or trust which owns the original copyright) will ever be allowed to improve upon previous inventions and works. The original concept was that copyright and patent holders would be allowed to profit from their invention during their lifetimes, then the work would go back to the public domain, so that further innovation could take place.

 

[tm37]

<< What you may be missing here is than no invention is truly original. For example, Edison did not actually invent the electric lightbulb, he was just the first one to get the concept to work reliably. Virtually all inventions and original works are actually improvements on previous works. "A better mousetrap," as they say. By making copyrights and patents forever, you slow innovation, because no one (except the corporation or trust which owns the original copyright) will ever be allowed to improve upon previous inventions and works. The original concept was that copyright and patent holders would be allowed to profit from their invention during their lifetimes, then the work would go back to the public domain, so that further innovation could take place. >>



You miss the point here- sorry.

Lets say I invent a stapler. Patent laws do NOT prevent you from creating a new stapler mearly a stapler that works like mine. Look at razor scooters, they took an old design and made it better. Then everyone copied the braking system they designed. Open Sourcing the world is a BAD idea. You have to protect those who create. and while there is no TRUE creation many conpanyies create things that will remain profitible for many many years, Take your Mickey Mouse exaple. Why should anyone Besides the walt disney company be permitted to make a dime of Mickey Mouse? They shouldn't ever Unless Disney releases it to be used. Perhaps if a company didn't USE a patient then I could see an automatic release into the world, same with copywrites BUT If the company continues to make a pruduct to the public they should NEVER LOSE that right to control how that product is distributed.

 

[ProviaFan]

I had typed up a letter about the SSSCA to send, and I guess it's time to reword it and get it out in the mail box ASAP.

 

[tcsenter]

I see they're pulling out all the scare tactics in order to whip-up indignant opposition to this bill. This is actually rather standard in politics; someone attempts to whip-up enough alarmist anger and fear against a bill by misrepresenting, distorting, even lying about its contents and what effect it would have.

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

There is nothing - not one word - in the Hollings' bill that would make it more difficult, let alone prohibit, assembling and using your own 'home-built' computer.

<< the bill will make it illegal to tape a TV show to watch it later >>

Wrong, this bill FORBIDS THE APPLICATION OR IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY SECURITY FEATURES THAT WOULD PREVENT PEOPLE FROM MAKING COPIES FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL USE!! Stop lying through your skull or take a few third grade remedial English courses, either one:

"Sec. 3(e)(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)."

The Hollings bill doesn't limit or restrict open source at all. In fact, this bill REQUIRES that any software security measures BE BASED ON OPEN SOURCE CODE:

"Sec. 2(d) SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS -- In achieving the goals of setting open security standards that will provide effective security for copyrighted works, the security system standards shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that -- (2) any software portion of such standards is based on open source code."

Always ask yourself, if a bill is soooo bad, then why must people resort to LIES to get anyone to oppose it???

 

[dude]

One would not know the true meanings of a copyright or trademark until someone takes it from you.

 

[thenewnoise]

signed

 

[Karsten]

Well... I was writing this Fr. when I saw it on Fox News.

My Rant of the Week

 

[WilsonTung]

I don't like this bill because its definition of "digital device" is too vague. According to the text, digital devices are designated as "hardware and software" and have to meet certain security specifications.

With regards to hardware: Building a general purpose microprocessor that detects when an illegal file is in use would be ludicrous (it wouldn't be general purpose anymore) and inflexible. It would also go against 20 years of RISC design philosophy. For the Media Industry to suggest that every level of hardware and software be designed to monitor for abuse is foolish.

In terms of software: no encryption method is entirely secure. DVD security measures were defeated quite quickly IIRC. I think encryption in software can be done effectively enough to discourage most people from trying to break it. Of course, the problem arises when someone does take the time to develop cracking tools and then distributes them all over the web.

Everyone vilifies the media companies for wanting to protect their content. Why shouldn't they want to protect it? Who among us hasn't downloaded free MPEGs or MP3s simply because it was convenient and we didn't have to pay for it? I've always seen the Internet as a free source of information - that's why I think I don't think twice about getting stuff off the web. It's a cultural phenomenon that's not going to go away anytime soon.

A final note - this CBDTA bill, if it passes, is just going to be hard to enforce outside of the United States and the Western world. In places like China, where piracy is rampant (and little or nothing is done to combat it), there will most certainly be companies that will produce hardware and software that isn't compliant. If the US demands that the world conforms to its standards, that's just one more reason for lunatics abroad to declare undying hatred for US Imperialism and arrogance (all the while enjoying our movies and music).

 

[tcsenter]

<< Nowhere would you be able to make yourself a copy of the things you own. Never mind that whole "fair use" clause in existing copyright law, which among other things allows me the purchaser and owner of a copyrighted item be it a CD, book or videotape ? to make multiple copies for my private individual and personal use. [An excerpt from the above linked "My Rant of the Week"] >>

Well, as already clearly disclosed, this is flagrantly bogus. The Hollings' bill DOES NOT change the current law permitting a user to make a copy of lawfully owned content for personal use. I hope your other weekly "rants" aren't as inaccurate as this one.

<< Well guess who has given this honorable man nearly $300,000 in campaign contributions in the past five years? You guessed it Entertainment companies, who have lobbied hard for this bill! Kind puts a whole new meaning on the "By the People, for the people" thing. >>

lol! Were you under the delusion that the U.S. Congress is a body whose sole purpose is to enact legislation for your own personal benefit? Entertainment companies are corporate citizens, their shareholders pay taxes, probably a lot more taxes than you, and those shareholders have rights to access the political system via their collective corporate entity.

Laws are passed all the time that are not intended to be mutually beneficial to all groups. In fact, it could be said that all laws which prohibit and criminalize theft and robbery are 'hurting the investment and restricting the rights' of someone.

 

[Mookow]

<< Everyone vilifies the media companies for wanting to protect their content. Why shouldn't they want to protect it? Who among us hasn't downloaded free MPEGs or MP3s simply because it was convenient and we didn't have to pay for it? I've always seen the Internet as a free source of information - that's why I think I don't think twice about getting stuff off the web. It's a cultural phenomenon that's not going to go away anytime soon. >>



Hmm... I want to play my new CD in my computer using my Klipsch Promedia's, but my new, unscratched CD wont play b/c it's copy-protected. But, hey, I should just go out and get an equivalent set of speakers and a stand alone CD player, rather than think that I should be able to play my CD in any piece of capable equipment that I own, according to the RIAA. FSCK THAT. I bought a good set of speakers for my computer b/c I dont want to have to deal with changing CDs around. I ripped my music to MP3, and all I have to do to play any song is find it in my playlist. That is all. I dont even have to move anything more than my hand. I like that convience. Besides, I'm in college. For one thing, I lack the cash for two decent sound systems at the moment. For another thing, I dont have the space for two sound systems.