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

[ProviaFan]

I have a feeling that tcsenter must be Mrs. Rosen (isn't she the president of the RIAA or something?) or somebody of similar position in one of the companies that is pushing this bill. And that he/she attacks David McOwen, makes me wonder. Really, from all the facts that I've seen, Mr. McOwen didn't do anything wrong; he had permission to install the screensaver, and he installed it. What's wrong with that?

 

[ProviaFan]

<< 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. >>


Maybe you think you've won the argument already, but your excessive name calling is making me start to ignore you. Maybe you'd get us to listen better if you left out the insults, which appear to make up about 75% of your posts.

 

[WilsonTung]

This thread is becoming a pointless flame war. It's obvious that half the people here did not read the bill and it's also obvious that tcsenter is not helping with his/her demeaning name calling.

Mods, lock this thread and let it fall

 

[Wedesdo]

<< Mods, lock this thread and let it fall >>

How about just shutting tcsenter up for a week or so?

 

[tcsenter]

<< How about just shutting tcsenter up for a week or so? >>

Ah, I'm sure a few people, those deliberately spreading false and misleading information about this bill, would love that. It's tough to peddle lies and disinformation when someone is right there to debunk them.

<< And that he/she attacks David McOwen, makes me wonder. Really, from all the facts that I've seen, Mr. McOwen didn't do anything wrong; he had permission to install the screensaver, and he installed it. >>

If Mr. McOwen hadn't done anything wrong, he would have plead not guilty and went to trial. He didn't do that. The issue was never whether McOwen had done anything wrong. The issue was the disproportionate nature of the penalties.

And I didn't "attack" Mr. McOwen, I responded to his. Before I ever personally addressed Mr. McOwen, he directed this comment to me: "TcSenter - It's all about control. You want that, go to Cuba."

McOwen then attempts to use whatever sympathy he became accustomed to receiving due to his 'ordeal' as the basis to offer-up himself like some sort of 'righteous-victim-defender' of America's freedoms from the "terrorists" within (his words, not mine). I only told Mr. McOwen to get over himself, he is no "victim". McOwen can never be a righteous 'defender' of anything as long as he is willing to promote lies and misinformation of the likes told by Declan McCullagh.

The thing about lies and inaccurate information; just because you are not the source of it, doesn't mean you bear no responsibility for disseminating it. The old excuse that goes something like "I didn't make it up, someone else did, I am just their messenger" doesn't wash with me.

<< it's also obvious that tcsenter is not helping with his/her demeaning name calling. >>

About that...

I've done nothing more than to accurately and objectively point-out that most of the claims being made about this bill were false, and some people felt it necessary to attack me in response to my honesty. I've called liars what they are - liars.

PSYWVic, who cannot deal with me like a man on the forum so he has resorted to PM'ing insults, wrote: "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."

Only after having those types of comments aimed at me have I responded in kind. So, if you think I'm 'demeaning' simply because I'm dishing-back what I received, that's too bad, pal.

But, let us now forget all of that. I have an exercise we can all play to prove that I'm wrong. See, I have a little theory that goes like this: anyone opposed to this legislation and is dishonest enough to lie and misrepresent it is doing so because they are benefitting from illegal file-sharing and copyright infringement. Of course, these persons are NEVER honest enough to come right out and admit they are stealing copyrighted works, and THAT is the reason they oppose any attempt to stem copyright infringement and illegal file sharing. That would be a morally indefensible position.

Instead of being honest, they use a red-herring argument to APPEAR as if their opposition to this legislation is 'moral' and 'just', not because it threatens to curtail their illegal file sharing and content theft. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

So, I will give them an opportunity to PROVE they are not opposed to this legislation for no other reason than because they fear it might curtail their illegal file sharing and content theft. How? By putting up or shutting up.

If they don't like the language of S. 2048 because it is 'too vague' or 'ambiguous', they can use this forum to propose a BETTER ALTERNATIVE to the Hollings' bill, to clarify those vaguaries and ambiguities, be part of the solution, instead of criticizing and disparaging the solutions proposed by others. Maybe a better alternative can be forwarded to their Senator and receive consideration.

Ok, all you critics have the floor to propose a better way of curtailing illegal file-sharing and copyright infringement (the silence will be defeaning because we know they DON'T want to curtail illegal file-sharing and copyright infringement...and why do you think that is?).

 

[clarkmo]

Hey, I would never openly say that I have ever engaged in illegal file trading. I just don't think this bill is all it's cracked up to be. If all the players ever agree on a standard, that's a big if, then it would be implemented if passed. The wording is such typical porklitical gobbledygook, designed to please as many campaign contributors as possible, that it's only negative effect appears to be that software and hardware mfr's will have to incorporate a ,probably never to be agreed on, copyright protection scheme. The only other flaw that I can see is that in software, they may be silly enough to require you to be the copyright holder to open a Word doc in WordPerfect or some such thing. But, I really don't see the pc industry ever allowing that. Even if the law passes.
Blade 2 anyone?

Oh, and this is just a test. Y'all svck that disagrees with me.

 

[stevef]

i think this is rediculous! we need to take action

 

[db]

I don't think this proposal goes far enough to prevent the loss of rightful earnings for the copywrite owners. We need something along these lines:


All devices shall be enabled to prevent the unauthorized use or partial use of any copywrited work or trademark.

A device is any man-made thing.

All devices shall maintain active 24/7/365 contact with Internet to receive firmware updates of permissions and restrictions.

Device security shall not be defeated or circumvented. Aiding or abetting the defeat or circumvention of a device
is prohibited. Discussion by two or more people pertaining to any way to defeat or circumvent protection comes under the
umbrella of "Peer-to-peer" and therefore is under jurisdiction of this act and therefore prohibited. Criticism by
anyone opposed to this legislation indicates that they are benefiting from illegal file-sharing and copyright infringement,
and come under jurisdiction of this act.

Device triggers include but are not limited to:

-Detection of the copywrite, trademark or protective watermark symbol;
-Use in succession of three or more words directly from a copywrited work;
-Any song or portion of a protected song. Portion shall mean any two notes adjacent to one another.
-Any image or partial image of a protected graphic work. Partial shall mean any two pixels adjacent to one another.





j/k

 

[Vic]

This Link is a repost, but I thought it had some good opinions in it. While I don't always agree with the author (and I know he is unpopular here), I thought that it was quite good.

As for tscenter: you posted above

<< 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'. >>

and yet you have gone to every thread about the CBDTPA here on this BBS and posted your copy-and-paste BS. You have yet to explain to me how this bill would provide any benefit besides (in your words) enforcing existing fair-use laws. If that's all it does, then the bill is unnecessary. Based on the fact that 99% of posters here (and everywhere else) think otherwise, that this bill will end up being very intrusive in many different ways, that the ACLU is against this bill (which I have already posted and you conveniently ignored), well... it comes down to two things for you.
1. You are not in favor of this bill (from quote above) but just run around posting in favor of it everywhere you can. That makes you, by very definition, the "insult" that I PM'ed you: a troll. Someone who posts things they don't believe in just so they can sit back and watch the flame wars fly. Because I believe that is what you are, after this post you're on my ignore list. Don't expect me to respond to any more of your posts.
2. Or you are a liar, which is quite likely. Considering that you said that the Right to Innocent until Proven Guilty is not a law, and the fact that I am not a lawyer, I had to check in on that. I called a couple of lawyers, and Whadayaknow? it is considered a law. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The highest law of the land, as I said originally. As far as your accusations that I am being paranoid, I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of posters here who know that our rights in this country actually are being eroded, and I also know that many are starting to question just how good of a thing that is.

Long story short, pirating is bad, but it will always be around unfortunately. Two days before this "security device" goes into effect, the hack for it will already be out. Trying to stop pirating by punishing innocent people, like the way this bill would most certainly do, is worse. Keep your hands off my computer, thank you very much.

 

[tcsenter]

<< and yet you have gone to every thread about the CBDTPA here on this BBS and posted your copy-and-paste BS. You have yet to explain to me how this bill would provide any benefit besides (in your words) enforcing existing fair-use laws. >>

Again, for the dullard, defending the truth is not 'taking sides'. Its a down-right shame that everything has become so politicized, with the derelicts in Washington leading the way and setting the example, that it has clouded so many people's thinking and judgement, to such an extent that whenever a person merely defends the truth, he is accused of supporting one side or opposing another. Defending the truth isn't about supporting one side or opposing another.

Was I supposed to lie about this Bill like other's have? Was I supposed to make ridiculous claims like "This Bill will make it illegal to urinate without a member of the government holding your dick?" Is that what I'm supposed to do? If I'm opposed to this Bill, then that means I'm supposed to allow people to lie about it, so long as those lies favor the position I've taken? Tough sh-t, pal. I don't tow the line for you or anyone else.

I am not here to be an advocate for this Bill, I am here to be an advocate for the truth, by dispelling and rebutting many blatantly false and misleading things some people were alleging about this Bill. Does that mean I support the Bill? Again, apparently, you can't read:

"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'"

Do you understand what it means to defend the truth?

<< Based on the fact that 99% of posters here (and everywhere else) think otherwise, that this bill will end up being very intrusive in many different ways, that the ACLU is against this bill (which I have already posted and you conveniently ignored), well... it comes down to two things for you. >>

99% of posters (and everywhere else) oppose the Bill because they have been fed lies and have been lead to believe this Bill does things it does not do, like making it illegal to build your own computer. They aren't "opposed" to the Bill, they are "opposed" to what liars have told them about the Bill. Politics at its finest.

And you have NOT provided an ounce of evidence of the ACLU's position. What you call 'evidence' doesn't rise to the level of a dung heap. Just because you claim "the ACLU is against this" doesn't mean its true. We're all supposed to take your word for it? Who the f-ck are you? You're nobody - a big fat ZERO. Again, put up or shut up.

On edit: Oh, and THANK YOU for proving me correct about my theory. You have not even attempted to offer a better alternative to the Hollings' Bill, your idea of how to curtail illegal file sharing and wholesale copyright infringement. Why? Is it perhaps because you're not opposed to the Hollings' Bill because you think it is a bad solution, but because you don't WANT to see illegal file sharing and wholesale copyright infringement curtailed at all? And why might that be, Mr. "I don't pirate"? LMAO. Who do you think you're fooling? Stop insulting everyone's intelligence, you're making a fool out of yourself.

 

[ProviaFan]

It appears that tcsenter is not open-minded, unlike he says, so it would make no sense for me to go to a great length to make a solution, since he would nitpick and find supposed "problems" with it anyway. But one last thing before I shut up and sit back and watch the flamefest...how can you argue that this is not about government control. Maybe that isn't the whole issue, after all, but there is no way to say that this bill does not concern government control in at least some aspect.

 

[docmanhattan]

Good Article

worth the time to read.

 

[Vic]

Thanks for the link, docmanhattan. Very informative to see what this would potentially do to the Open Source community.

tscenter's unending ad hominem that anyone who is against this piece of draconian legislation must somehow be a pirate aside, it is interesting to note the quite real and devastating implications that the CBDTPA could have on the tech industry, one of the largest industries in America (and much, much larger than the content industry). With MS continually threatening to leave the OS market (which they certainly could do) and facing the prospect that Open Source OS'es (like Linux) could be made illegal under the CBDTPA, the damage to the PC industry could be extreme. Add to that the real prospect that the vast majority of other countries have no intention of passing any similar legislation (especially Russia and China, where the real pirating takes place), and America could very easily lose its foothold as the world's technology leader.
I'm not joking, nor being paranoid, nor attempting to spread FUD (unlike others here). The implications involved in attempting to stop all piracy in the way that the CBDTPA would attempt to do are quite extreme. For example, writing a simple word document would be an easy way to pirate copyrighted content. Mp3's could simply be renamed or have their file extensions changed. A "Do Not Copy" bit in every piece of work would completely disable consumers' fair use rights, regardless of what this bill says. The only method that could really work would be for each and every single file on every user's HDD's to be continually scanned for the potential of copyright violation. That is an invasion of privacy that I find hard to see how anyone could ever approve of or condone.

tscenter has arrogantly asked for alternatives to this legislation, as though none others are possible. First, he suffers from the delusion that it is possible to counter all theft and crime in this world. If that is the case, I'm sure that department stores would love to hear from him, but they might shy away when they find out that his solution would be to strip-search and body-cavity check each and every shopper as they both enter and leave the premises (which I think is the perfect analogy for what this bill would do).
The alternative is the obvious, and it requires no new legislation. Theft and pirating are already illegal, and the unauthorized and unlawful distribution of copyrighted material already carries substantial penalties. We do not require law-abiding Americans to take weekly UA tests for potential drug offenses, instead we punish people who are found to be actually guilty of violating the law. I did not mind when the government went after the major pirating groups a few months ago, I felt that the right action was being taken. I would not mind if abused file-swapping services were taken down, as long as it was done legally. I also feel that ISP's share a responsibilty in stopping pirating, as long as they only observe which copyrighted files that a user is actually sharing, and do not illegally probe the private (and unshared) parts of users' HDDs.
In the meantime, the content industries need to realize that vast majority of the users involved in "pirating" of music and content are not necessarily criminals, but fans. Yes, the flagrant violators are a problem, and I am not condoning that, but by-and-large these casual file-swappers are people who do not actually feel that they are doing anything wrong. They hear about a particular new song, grab it off a file-swapping service, and if they like it, hopefully they go buy the album. In a way, it's represents an excellent marketing tool much like the radio, and the content industry shares considerable blame for not properly exploiting the wonderful new market that the internet created for them (as they most certainly did not create the internet). It is partially because of their absence that this problem has expanded in the way that it has.
I hope that this helps explain to people my position on this matter, and that posters here can reply back with a minimum of flames, insults, and ad hominem.

minor editing for spelling

 

[clarkmo]

From docmanhattan's link:


<< Should the private sector fail to get its act together, the government (in the form of the Federal Communications Commission) will jump in and set the standards instead. >>


I guess the guy didn't read the bill. Has anyone. I cut and pasted in a previous post but for the lazy

<< (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

So now the FCC will not jump in, they are not given the power to do so, they will extend the deadline only!!
READ! It broadens the mind.


<< There is a token nod toward fair use, saying that security systems must not interfere with fair use rights. The penalties for noncompliance with this section, though, are very small - far smaller than those for selling a noncompliant device or stripping protective codes. It does not look like it is meant to be taken seriously. >>


You guys are going to have to read my previous post - a direct cut and paste from the bill- FAIR USE IS FULLY PROTECTED!! And because it is fully protected your ability to run linux will not be impaired beyond the system's ability to read and write code protected material and since that code protection is OPEN SOURCE it can be easily included for free in your distros. And since you can make a backup copy of anything you own How Can They Stop You From Downloading MP3's? Oh, I suppose the code could include whether or not it was backed up by you, an XP hash, perhaps but you saw how long that worked.
So, in brief, read the bill and form your own opinion. Don't just take someone else's opinion and agree with it. Bill Anyone else who offers an opinion not derived from their reading of the bill is hereby precluded from this discussion.
hysteria Owns joo.

 

[tcsenter]

<< how can you argue that this is not about government control. Maybe that isn't the whole issue, after all, but there is no way to say that this bill does not concern government control in at least some aspect. >>

Nobody is arguing this won't involve government control. There is government control, and then there is government control. Do you feel that your liberties are threatened when the government passes legislation to stop polluters and regulate industrial discharges? Maybe you think that corporations are better left the "honor system" where we all just 'trust' they will not pollute because they know its wrong? lol!

Do you feel that your liberties are threatened when government passes legislation criminalizing fraud, larceny, and theft? Do you feel your liberties are threatened when the government passes legislation requiring automobile manufacturers to adhere to minimum safety standards? Do you feel your liberties are threatened when government passes legislation regulating the public use of potentially dangerous chemicals? Are these things not also about "government control"?

<< tscenter has arrogantly asked for alternatives to this legislation, as though none others are possible. >>

Why would I ask for alternatives if I presumed no others are possible? Your statement is a paradox. Strike one.

<< First, he suffers from the delusion that it is possible to counter all theft and crime in this world. >>

Are you not even TRYING to be credible here? Good grief I've seen 5 year-olds who can formulate more credible and well-founded arguments than you. Here's an excerpt from the my post dated "Tuesday March 26, 2002 5:44 AM":

"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."

lol! You're such an idiot that you don't even know I stated the exact opposite of your contention several posts ago. So...why don't you explain where you were given the impression that I believe "it is possible to counter all theft and crime in this world" when I EXPRESSELY stated otherwise? Of course, you cannot support this statement, it is nothing more than your own brand of ad hominem. Strike two.

Would you like to try for a third?

<< The alternative is the obvious, and it requires no new legislation. >>

Of course! That might actually make illegal file sharing and copyright infringement more difficult and enforceable.

 

[tcsenter]

<< So now the FCC will not jump in, they are not given the power to do so, they will extend the deadline only!! >>

Actually, the FCC is given that authority under the Bill:

Sec. 3(c) NEGATIVE DETERMINATION- If the Commission makes a determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on security system standards and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has not been reached, then the Commission --

(1) in consultation with representatives described in subsection (a)(1)(A) and the Register of Copyrights, shall initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on which the determination is made, to adopt security system standards and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e); and

(2) shall publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, not later than 1 year after initiating the rulemaking, that will take effect 1 year after its publication.

I don't trust any of these alarmist websites to accurately transcribe the text of the Bill, so I go to the Library of Congress: Full Text of S. 2048

 

[irrigating]

The bill makes absurd assumptions. It will die.



<< (1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products. >>



Holding us hostage to the established content industry will only help stagnate demand. Give me high quality digital content that is worth my dollar, and I'll glady pay for it. So will lots of others.

For example, give me the Napster experience( for me it wasn't the free music, it was the ability to immurse oneself instantly and find forgotten or unknown music).
Let broadband internet service providers work this into a resonable charge, and I'll work it into my budget.

 

[Vic]

Ah, tscenter, I asked for a minimum of insults and for more intelligent debate and all I got was chopped-up quoting (which left out the important parts, on purpose I am sure) and insults. Ah well.
For example, when I said that no new legislation is required, I also said that is because what is required is the more dilligent enforcement of existing laws and stricter punishments for violators. I said that clearly. You completed overlooked that and said that I wanted to make enforcement more difficult, when in fact I said the exact opposite. Twisting my words and using insults does not win you arguments, it just makes you look like an a$$. If you wish to debate with me, quote my posts in context before you play juvenille games like one-two-three-you're out.

clarkmo, you said

<< You guys are going to have to read my previous post - a direct cut and paste from the bill- FAIR USE IS FULLY PROTECTED!! And because it is fully protected your ability to run linux will not be impaired beyond the system's ability to read and write code protected material and since that code protection is OPEN SOURCE it can be easily included for free in your distros. And since you can make a backup copy of anything you own How Can They Stop You From Downloading MP3's? >>


Asides from the obvious privacy issues, my biggest objection to this bill is how it will impact Fair Use. Yes, I understand that there is language in the bill to protect Fair Use, but I have difficulty believing it, basically for exactly the reason you pointed out right there. If this bill can't stop you, under Fair Use, from (for example) making mp3's from your CD's, then what does it do to stop piracy? Obviously, nothing. But then you run into the obvious hitch: mp3's are not secure and therefore would not in compliance with this bill. Therefore, they would not be allowed. Therefore, Fair Use rights are impacted and infringed.
And this brings us full circle to the whole purpose of this bill. It is not about piracy, believe it or not. If it was about piracy, the purpose of the bill would be to allocate spending for the increased enforcement of existing copyright laws, as I have proposed (and been conveniently overlooked) and which I would fully support. This bill is about control. While stating that Fair Use rights are protected, it is completely overlooked that most applications of Fair Use lack the security to be in compliance with the larger provisions of this bill, therefore they would not be allowed. IMHO, the larger purpose of this bill is not to stop piracy, but to force everyone with a large legal music collection (such as myself) to have to purchase their entire music collection all over again if they wish to use digital formats.

 

[dmcowen674]

Thank you PSYWVic.

Too bad that other guy just doesn't move to Cuba where he obviously would be more at home.

 

[clarkmo]

<< While stating that Fair Use rights are protected, it is completely overlooked that most applications of Fair Use lack the security to be in compliance with the larger provisions of this bill, therefore they would not be allowed. IMHO, the larger purpose of this bill is not to stop piracy, but to force everyone with a large legal music collection (such as myself) to have to purchase their entire music collection all over again if they wish to use digital formats. >>


One law cannot negate another law if that laws provisions are protected within the new law. The inclusion of Fair Use is probably what got the bill to this point. In the legislative process it is not uncommon for a bill to come out of committee stripped completely of it's impact.
Beyond your sense of what Hollywood, et al. would like to see the bill do, what provisions lead you to this conclusion? It would appear that everyone with an interest from msoft to hp to torvalds to the mpaa will have a say as to what standards are implemented if the bill passed, which appears to be unlikely anyway. I suppose if it did pass rhe fight would move to standards and Fair Use seems to have a solid foothold here. Thanks for that link tcsenter. A better source for the bill, I'm sure. Also a pdf link from that source .Link

 

[Jeff7]

Got this from here:

Hollings said that "any device that can legitimately play, copy or electronically transmit one or more categories of media also can be misused for illegal copyright infringement, unless special protection technologies are incorporated."

Lets see what other devices that would include. VCR's, digital cameras, scanners, copy machines, carbon paper, film cameras, radios with tape recorders, fax machines.......
this is nuts. It would be nice if more people were smart enough to vote other smart people to office, instead of people who say, "Sure I'll do horrible things. But I'll cut taxes and smile a lot!" - "YAY!!!! We'll vote for you!"

 

[dmcowen674]

Exactly Jeff7

Below is a letter from a very concerned Small Business owner and she should be concerned.

Dave McOwen

PS - Interesting, you sure don't see the real names of the guys touting the bill here do you?


March 28, 2002

To: Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina
U.S. Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.


Dear Senator Hollings:

Allow me to introduce myself: I am a private self employed video editor and producer. I do not work for the large entertainment industry's production houses by choice. My clients range from small to medium sized business needing local and regional commercials to educational and corporate projects. I also work with independent film makers, local bands, and student film makers and animators. And occasionally I provide services to the sight impaired by legally transcribing media into a format they can use with their computerized readers.

My tools are the top end pro-sumer level digital video cameras and customized video editing stations build with off-the-shelf computers, my partner and I built ourselves, while we were working with Avid Technology as a member of the design and testing team on the first Windows NT video editor ever built, called MC-Xpress. Everything we use to record, edit and produce our tapes, CDs and DVDs is done with off the shelf products readily available today. These sensibly priced tools allow me to make a modest income, provide clients professional productions at reasonable prices and satisfy my need for creativity while remaining at home to work without very long commute into Los Angeles. And as many of my clients will tell you, I honor and protect the copyright law to the best of my ability.

However, I deeply resent you implying that by owning these tools you consider me a thief.

The proposed "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" (CBDTPA) you and Senators Feinstein, Stevens, Inouye, Breaux and Nelson are co-sponsoring will make it impossible for independent editor like myself, to remain in business. Why? Because the proposed SSSCA does not differentiate between someone illegally duplicating DVDs or video tapes for sale, from me trying to earn a living by editing a commercial spot from my home.

In essence the CBDTPA will put me out of business. Because as a small business, I can not afford to purchase expensive proprietary editing stations used by the corporate entertainment industry to upgrade my business in the coming years. Our editing systems use reasonably priced off-the-shelf computers. Furthermore, the CBDTPA makes it clear that it would be illegal for me to purchase or alter a stock system in order to do my work. So either way I lose.

Obviously you have little knowledge about the technology you wish to regulate so tightly. This lack of understanding about the technology you are proposing to control will write off small business people like me and countless other film, video and music editors who work outside the corporate entertainment workplace.

Thanks for the "pink slip" Senator. I'll be sure to tell all the small businesses who will not be able to promote their businesses through our lower priced productions. It is obvious you and your supporters do not care about small businesses we operate, because you care more about your big money friends in the corporate entertainment industry.

Respectfully,

Mary Wehmeier

 

[clarkmo]

Ok, interesting post. Nice Letter. Another opinion, But what is in the bill that says he won't be able to do that? What directly leads to this?
Is this just a nightmare worst case scenario? Or just another hysterical reaction? I have read the bill AND I can't see this as a result. Could someone lead me thru it step by step?

 

[pnw97warrior]

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.


=====================================================


Well said tm37...this is exactly the way it needs to be looked at. PSYWVic is missing the point.

 

[deftron]

I had a thread about a report I had to do on this subject

Link

tcsenter pretty much dissed it and said I should get an F

Here's his comment...



<< Well, since I appear to be the only one with enough guts to defend the truth on another forum, here is one thing that leaped out at me:

"The CBDTPA will violate the fair-use rights of consumers and block new innovation by technology companies."

This is completely false, as easily proven by reading the following sections from the actual Bill:

Sec 3(e) Encoding Rules -

(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, 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 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).

Obviously, there is no merit or support whatsoever for the contention that the "CBDTPA will violate the fair-use rights of consumers..." Indeed, the CBDTPA expressely recognizes and observes all current fair use doctrines.

Also, it is important to understand that CBDTPA (also known as Senate Bill 2048) itself creates no prohibition, it makes nothing illegal. The bill creates a commission who will then determine and formulate the actual rules, which must then be approved by Congress. The bill merely mandates that this commission follow a prescribed time-line and act pursuant to the stated objectives and intent laid-out in the legislation.

So, anywhere you have claimed that the CBDTPA would 'prohibit' something or 'make' something illegal, that is also completely false. The CBDTPA creates no prohibition, it makes nothing illegal. The CBDTPA ONLY creates a commission and lays out objectives for that commission.

That is just two of several fallacies with your paper, but this has all been discussed elsewhere and I'm getting a little tired of it. You would get an "F" if I were your teacher. Well, I suppose actually writing something is considered effort, even if it is completely wrong, so I would give you a D+ for at least trying.

I'm pretty fair like that. >>



And my reply

The only exclusion is television broadcasts.


<< (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 >>



As for the first example, (preventing copywright infringement while promoting fair use) it's very vague.
How are they going to do this?...and like I said, in order to make a copy or play on older equipment without
protection implemented.. you may have to bypass the protection.. therefore commit a crime.


<< SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY TECHNOLOGY
(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 >>




As for the CBDTPA only forming a commision and not being a law..
Yes.. but it has a goal in mind...puting copy protection in all digital devices by making it illegal to sell
those without proection.


<< 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
>>



and a digital media device is basically anything


<< 3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that --

(A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;
(B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or

(C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph
>>




Most importantly..like I said in the paper... your current computer may not work.. causing you to have to buy a new one


<< Current agreements reached in the marketplace to include security technologies in certain digital media devices fail to provide a secure digital environment because those agreements do not prevent the continued use and manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate such security technologies. >>




I think the incompatilbility with new digital devices that implement this protection and the old ones that don't will be the biggest problem...
This can already be seen in CD's that have copy-protection...They dont work in alot of CD-ROMS, DVD players and car CD players..
Also, it will add the the manufacturing cost of new products...negatively affecting legit customers.
And the protection will likely not even stop those determined to circumvent it...