CADsortaGUY
Lifer
You know how many routers and other things would have to be switched out for "DMCA approved" ones? I'm betting a few billion dollars worth
Now why would corporations who stand to gain the most stand in the way? CkG
You know how many routers and other things would have to be switched out for "DMCA approved" ones? I'm betting a few billion dollars worth
Now why would corporations who stand to gain the most stand in the way? CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You know how many routers and other things would have to be switched out for "DMCA approved" ones? I'm betting a few billion dollars worth
CkG
Cisco has been very vocal of how they are working with "Law Enforcement" in coming out with new Routers that have direct links built in for the Authorities to be able to tap into any unit at any time at will.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You know how many routers and other things would have to be switched out for "DMCA approved" ones? I'm betting a few billion dollars worth
CkG
Cisco has been very vocal of how they are working with "Law Enforcement" in coming out with new Routers that have direct links built in for the Authorities to be able to tap into any unit at any time at will.
Guess I won't be buying any Cisco stuff then
CkG
PS- for you nanny-staters - NO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE!
...or do I?Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Guess I won't be buying any Cisco stuff then
CkG
PS- for you nanny-staters - NO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE!
The problem is that these sdmca Laws will make this kind of "New" Technology being built into new equipment as Mandatory and "outlawing" the previous technology.
Another example is currently people are forced to use a particular DSL Modem that the Telco or ISP will only "Support" on their Network which means if you bought your own unit and you have any kind of problem with your service the Tech Support people refuse to talk to you at all. There are a couple of services that require you to only use one of their registered DSL Modems which has a serial number otherwise you cannot get DSL service at all. These new Laws would allow the "Service Providers" to completely by Law block out the use of any other Manufacturer "devices" (DSL Modems) that would otherwise work perfectly fine on the DSL Network technology wise. Notice I have the word "devices" in quotation marks that is the exact wording of these Laws making the above scenario to be true.
That is the same as the old AT&T requiring you to only use the phone they hand to you either Wall phone or Tabletop Princess phone (and pay rental fees as well) and you had no choice but to use that Western Electric phone. What if the Telcos did this with Dial Up Modems? The Internet as you know it today would not exist. We would still be blazing along at 300 baud with Text only. This kind of dis-service kills innovation and progress in the name of extending and deepening profits.
Yesterday was a Tennessee hearing on their sdmca bill. I will find out today what came of it.
South Carolina time limit has apparently expired for passing of a bill for this year.
Georgia time expired for this session but they plan on Summer hearings.
Oregon is still having hearings. The Motion Picture Association Lobbyist (MPAA) actually spoke to the Legislatures there telling them complete garbage.
South Carolina time limit has apparently expired for passing of a bill for this year.
Georgia time expired for this session but they plan on Summer hearings.
Oregon is still having hearings. The Motion Picture Association Lobbyist (MPAA) actually spoke to the Legislatures there telling them complete garbage.
Here's a conspiracy theory. Lawyers are now in the business of trying to help draft the most contraversial laws that they can. That way there will be plenty of money spent defending/appealing it if it's passed.
Cheers,
Andy
Cheers,
Andy
Andy, it's a fact and the "Industry" of Justice has gotten blantant and out of control. 1 in 5 Americans are now "In" the Justice system. Long ago it was called a Penal Colony and that system has made it's way back into Modern Society.
Even the smallest of Towns here now have the largest and most elaborate buildings built and operated Courthouses with either Jail or another site that is designed for mass Inmate housing for profit.
Sadly Colorado is the latest State to pass the MPAA, RIAA and Telco SDMCA Bill:
http://ww2.scripps.com/cgi-bin/archives/denver.pl?DBLIST=rm03&DOCNUM=12369
OWENS SHOULD REBUFF THE FILM LOBBY
STATE BILL WOULD HAMPER CONSUMERS
Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Section: Opinion/Commentary/Editorial
Page: 40A
Edition: Final
The Motion Picture Association of America has been energetically
promoting model legislation that grants the entertainment industry
sweeping new powers to control how people use the home entertainment
equipment they own. And by passing House Bill 1303, the Colorado
legislature fell for their phony anti-consumer arguments. We're
counting on Gov. Bill Owens' enthusiasm for technological innovation to
lead him to veto this misguided legislation.
The ostensible reason for the bill is to combat the use of
technology for illegal purposes, which include both the
misappropriation of content, as in pirated CDs and DVDs, and the theft
of services, as with cloned cell phones.
Of course, these things are already illegal. The only thing that
is altered when the technology changes is how the illegal act is
carried out. That seldom requires changes in the law, and surely not
changes of such magnitude.
However, the technology argument is a useful pretext for the motion
picture group, which is primarily concerned that its product will
become vulnerable to the same kind of computer file-sharing that has
trimmed revenues at record companies. Because movie files are too big
to share easily, it's not yet a terribly serious problem, but it will
get worse as the technology improves.
Trouble is, no one knows exactly what technology is going to cause
problems. So the industry's solution is to draft language so broad that
any conceivable technology that is or could be misused is covered. In
effect, it defines as a crime connecting any device to a communications
service without the explicit consent of the communications service
provider.
And in the process, it has swept in a lot of behavior and equipment
that has been and should be legal.
Did you get permission from your cable company before you bought
your kids a new VCR? Did your telephone company say you could use a
modem to log on to the Internet? Did your Internet service provider
give written approval for your Webcam?
Do you think you should have to ask them?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has been following the
unintended and unfortunate consequences of the federal Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, calls these bills ``super-DMCAs.'' Its
line-by-line analysis of the language are at www.eff.org on the Web.
Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the foundation who specializes in
intellectual property law, points out that these laws effectively say
that all technology not expressly permitted is forbidden, which turns
current policy on its head.
Also, he says, the ban on devices ``capable of concealing
communication'' would make a wide range of multi-purpose tools illegal,
including encryption software, home networking and the networks many
companies use to enable employees to work off-site.
Research into computer security is also threatened, because
researchers will be leery of owning devices that could be used
illegally, even for the purpose of thwarting illegal use. There is a
great deal harmful in this bill and nothing of value. Veto it, governor.
http://ww2.scripps.com/cgi-bin/archives/denver.pl?DBLIST=rm03&DOCNUM=12369
OWENS SHOULD REBUFF THE FILM LOBBY
STATE BILL WOULD HAMPER CONSUMERS
Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Section: Opinion/Commentary/Editorial
Page: 40A
Edition: Final
The Motion Picture Association of America has been energetically
promoting model legislation that grants the entertainment industry
sweeping new powers to control how people use the home entertainment
equipment they own. And by passing House Bill 1303, the Colorado
legislature fell for their phony anti-consumer arguments. We're
counting on Gov. Bill Owens' enthusiasm for technological innovation to
lead him to veto this misguided legislation.
The ostensible reason for the bill is to combat the use of
technology for illegal purposes, which include both the
misappropriation of content, as in pirated CDs and DVDs, and the theft
of services, as with cloned cell phones.
Of course, these things are already illegal. The only thing that
is altered when the technology changes is how the illegal act is
carried out. That seldom requires changes in the law, and surely not
changes of such magnitude.
However, the technology argument is a useful pretext for the motion
picture group, which is primarily concerned that its product will
become vulnerable to the same kind of computer file-sharing that has
trimmed revenues at record companies. Because movie files are too big
to share easily, it's not yet a terribly serious problem, but it will
get worse as the technology improves.
Trouble is, no one knows exactly what technology is going to cause
problems. So the industry's solution is to draft language so broad that
any conceivable technology that is or could be misused is covered. In
effect, it defines as a crime connecting any device to a communications
service without the explicit consent of the communications service
provider.
And in the process, it has swept in a lot of behavior and equipment
that has been and should be legal.
Did you get permission from your cable company before you bought
your kids a new VCR? Did your telephone company say you could use a
modem to log on to the Internet? Did your Internet service provider
give written approval for your Webcam?
Do you think you should have to ask them?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has been following the
unintended and unfortunate consequences of the federal Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, calls these bills ``super-DMCAs.'' Its
line-by-line analysis of the language are at www.eff.org on the Web.
Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the foundation who specializes in
intellectual property law, points out that these laws effectively say
that all technology not expressly permitted is forbidden, which turns
current policy on its head.
Also, he says, the ban on devices ``capable of concealing
communication'' would make a wide range of multi-purpose tools illegal,
including encryption software, home networking and the networks many
companies use to enable employees to work off-site.
Research into computer security is also threatened, because
researchers will be leery of owning devices that could be used
illegally, even for the purpose of thwarting illegal use. There is a
great deal harmful in this bill and nothing of value. Veto it, governor.
I dont think that a bill written the way that it is posted here will ever get past the Supreme Court as it is to broad and open to many interpertations.
as to this post
Bleep
as to this post
No state can change the laws regarding Amature Radio because it comes under federal law that is administered by the FCC, many city codes have been struck down relating to Amature Radio, mostly codes trying to eleminate or severly restrict Antenna hight and visilibility.
Bleep
Never say never. These DMCA Laws are being used by scrupuless Lawyers for Greedy Corporations for everything they think they can use the words to apply in their interests. Who would of thought that printer ink would be covered under the DMCA?
> FOR RELEASE
> Contact: Jeff Joseph or Jenny Miller
> tel: (703) 907-7664 tel: (703) 907-7079
> e-mail: jjoseph@ce.org e-mail: jmiller@ce.org
> http://www.CE.org
>
>
> CEA Expresses Strong Opposition to Tennessee "Model Communications
> Security" Bills
>
> Association Joins Philips and Sharp in Speaking Out Against SB 213 and
> HB 457
>
>
> Arlington, VA, May 20, 2003 - The Consumer Electronics Association
> (CEA) today joined CEA member companies Philips Consumer Electronics
> North America and Sharp Electronics Corporation in speaking out about
> anti-consumer and anti-technology legislation currently being
> considered today by the Tennessee General Assembly. This legislation
> has been promoted as addressing theft of cable and Internet service,
> but in fact threatens the manufacture, sale and use of legitimate
> products such as computers, televisions and personal video recorders.
>
> "This overreaching legislation is not about piracy or theft of
> service; this legislation is about Hollywood trying to dictate what
> products lawful consumers can use in the privacy of their homes," said
> CEA Vice President of Technology Michael Petricone. "The Motion
> Picture Association of America (MPAA) has devoted enormous resources
> to a state-by-state effort to 'update' communications security or
> 'theft of service' laws, but if cable and Internet service theft truly
> is the issue, their model legislation - which is reflected in these
> Tennessee bills - is not the solution.
>
> "CEA joins service providers and the content community in their desire
> to address true theft of service and piracy, but these bills are not
> directed at digital pirates. Rather, they unfairly target everyday,
> law-abiding Tennesseans. Existing law already criminalizes theft of
> service."
>
> Petricone expressed concern about the broad scope of the bills under
> consideration.
>
> "With S.B. 213, manufacturers, retailers and their customers could be
> made into criminals for legitimate activities that today they take for
> granted, such as use of consumer electronics products over the
> Internet or allegedly 'unauthorized' uses on a home network.
>
> "For some offenses," Petricone continued, "this legislation requires a
> showing of 'intent to defraud,' but leaves this crucial provision
> undefined. This and other gray areas in these bills mean that a
> consumer who attaches legal products to a broadband network could be
> subject to criminal penalties if the device is not specifically
> permitted by the service contract. S.B. 213 and H.B. 457 would have a
> chilling impact on Tennessee businesses, consumers and innovators.
>
> "These bills would turn average, law-abiding consumers into thieves,"
> said Petricone. "The draconian civil and criminal penalties that
> would be imposed by S.B. 213 are disproportionate to the conduct of
> the person charged with its violations. CEA joins Philips, Sharp, the
> high tech industry, consumer groups, retailers and others in voicing
> opposition to these anti-consumer, anti-technology and anti-innovation
> bills currently being considered in Tennessee. We urge Tennessee
> lawmakers to reject this legislation."
>
> CEA continues to fight for consumer fair use rights in 10 states that
> are considering bills modeled on MPAA's "communications security" or
> "theft of service" legislation, including Tennessee, Texas,
> California, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts,
> Oregon and South Carolina.
>
> About CEA:
> The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) is the preeminent trade
> association promoting growth in the consumer technology industry
> through technology policy, events, research, promotion and the
> fostering of business and strategic relationships. CEA represents
> more than 1,000 corporate members involved in the design, development,
> manufacturing, distribution and integration of audio, video, mobile
> electronics, wireless and landline communications, information
> technology, home networking, multimedia and accessory products, as
> well as related services that are sold through consumer channels.
> Combined, CEA's members account for more than $85 billion in annual
> sales. CEA's resources are available online at www.CE.org, the
> definitive source for information about the consumer electronics
> industry.
> Contact: Jeff Joseph or Jenny Miller
> tel: (703) 907-7664 tel: (703) 907-7079
> e-mail: jjoseph@ce.org e-mail: jmiller@ce.org
> http://www.CE.org
>
>
> CEA Expresses Strong Opposition to Tennessee "Model Communications
> Security" Bills
>
> Association Joins Philips and Sharp in Speaking Out Against SB 213 and
> HB 457
>
>
> Arlington, VA, May 20, 2003 - The Consumer Electronics Association
> (CEA) today joined CEA member companies Philips Consumer Electronics
> North America and Sharp Electronics Corporation in speaking out about
> anti-consumer and anti-technology legislation currently being
> considered today by the Tennessee General Assembly. This legislation
> has been promoted as addressing theft of cable and Internet service,
> but in fact threatens the manufacture, sale and use of legitimate
> products such as computers, televisions and personal video recorders.
>
> "This overreaching legislation is not about piracy or theft of
> service; this legislation is about Hollywood trying to dictate what
> products lawful consumers can use in the privacy of their homes," said
> CEA Vice President of Technology Michael Petricone. "The Motion
> Picture Association of America (MPAA) has devoted enormous resources
> to a state-by-state effort to 'update' communications security or
> 'theft of service' laws, but if cable and Internet service theft truly
> is the issue, their model legislation - which is reflected in these
> Tennessee bills - is not the solution.
>
> "CEA joins service providers and the content community in their desire
> to address true theft of service and piracy, but these bills are not
> directed at digital pirates. Rather, they unfairly target everyday,
> law-abiding Tennesseans. Existing law already criminalizes theft of
> service."
>
> Petricone expressed concern about the broad scope of the bills under
> consideration.
>
> "With S.B. 213, manufacturers, retailers and their customers could be
> made into criminals for legitimate activities that today they take for
> granted, such as use of consumer electronics products over the
> Internet or allegedly 'unauthorized' uses on a home network.
>
> "For some offenses," Petricone continued, "this legislation requires a
> showing of 'intent to defraud,' but leaves this crucial provision
> undefined. This and other gray areas in these bills mean that a
> consumer who attaches legal products to a broadband network could be
> subject to criminal penalties if the device is not specifically
> permitted by the service contract. S.B. 213 and H.B. 457 would have a
> chilling impact on Tennessee businesses, consumers and innovators.
>
> "These bills would turn average, law-abiding consumers into thieves,"
> said Petricone. "The draconian civil and criminal penalties that
> would be imposed by S.B. 213 are disproportionate to the conduct of
> the person charged with its violations. CEA joins Philips, Sharp, the
> high tech industry, consumer groups, retailers and others in voicing
> opposition to these anti-consumer, anti-technology and anti-innovation
> bills currently being considered in Tennessee. We urge Tennessee
> lawmakers to reject this legislation."
>
> CEA continues to fight for consumer fair use rights in 10 states that
> are considering bills modeled on MPAA's "communications security" or
> "theft of service" legislation, including Tennessee, Texas,
> California, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts,
> Oregon and South Carolina.
>
> About CEA:
> The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) is the preeminent trade
> association promoting growth in the consumer technology industry
> through technology policy, events, research, promotion and the
> fostering of business and strategic relationships. CEA represents
> more than 1,000 corporate members involved in the design, development,
> manufacturing, distribution and integration of audio, video, mobile
> electronics, wireless and landline communications, information
> technology, home networking, multimedia and accessory products, as
> well as related services that are sold through consumer channels.
> Combined, CEA's members account for more than $85 billion in annual
> sales. CEA's resources are available online at www.CE.org, the
> definitive source for information about the consumer electronics
> industry.
<-- bookmarked the EFF page so I'll be able to see if/when Indiana tries to pass something like this. :frown:
and what will they do when international ISP's are offering wipespread service from satelites in space?
Can we blast off all the lawyers and release them in open space?
Can we blast off all the lawyers and release them in open space?
Samples from Texas SDMCA bill about to be passed anyday;
TV;
Makes skipping Commercials illegal thus outlawing devices such as Tivo and Re-playTV.
Felony charges if you add more cable receivers in your home but only paying for one.
DSL service;
You must only use the DSL Modem provided by the Telco and must load their DSL software that puts Spyware and Adware on your Computer otherwise you are committing a Felony crime.
Network Technicians;
If you worked on installing a Network that is not expressly permitted to be installed by either a Telco or Cable Company, you have "assisted" and thus also charged with Felony crime even though you do not own or use this Network.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the material on the Texas bill...
The industry has argued that "theft" includes both skipping commercials, and
activities that do not easily get recorded by the Neilson logs. Under this
theory a box that records TV but does not report back viewing information to
the networks and the MPAA could be illegal.
The term "fee or compensation" I suspect is designed to cover both the
compensation of you watching the commercials, and the compensation of market
share statistics. The (floor amendment 3) Intent to Defraud definition
seems to me to be susceptible to supporting this in "concealment" and
"omission of a fact" as well as "artifice".
Without seeing the actual bill, I can theorize scenarios where things would
still be illegal.
Extra sets. In Georgia, cable companies used to want an extra fee for each
TV in your home, maybe $2 or $10 month. I do not think this is true any
more, but if requested, the law seems to criminalize not paying it.
Home networks. I've been told repeatedly by large ISPs (telcos) that I
cannot have my home computer attached to a network and have their ISP
service. I deprive the ISP of fees or compensation by using a router rather
than purchasing more IP addresses.
DSL Software. My ISP has a variety of marketing agreements and causes
software to be loaded on the user's PC to provide extra fees and
compensation as a result of marketing agreements. I in fact use none of
this. I install nothing. Even the DSL modem which is not a stand alone
product and requires a PC based component is kept running through the
artifice of my router.
IP telephony. Do I deprive my telco (or phone providing cable company) of
fees and compensation if I use Internet phone rather than pay long distance
charges? It would seem so. IP telephony is a clever artifice which assists
in this.
PPV. If I record a pay per view broadcast and watch it twice, have I
knowingly deprived my service provider of fees? Is not this considered
acceptable today?
Network Technicians. If I install a network for someone, have I knowingly
"assisted"?
Cable boxes. Cable companies rent cable boxes, and make money off of it.
If I connect a device that does not require a service provider provided
cable box, have I knowingly deprived the service provider of fees?
Robert Costner
Electronic Frontiers Georgia
TV;
Makes skipping Commercials illegal thus outlawing devices such as Tivo and Re-playTV.
Felony charges if you add more cable receivers in your home but only paying for one.
DSL service;
You must only use the DSL Modem provided by the Telco and must load their DSL software that puts Spyware and Adware on your Computer otherwise you are committing a Felony crime.
Network Technicians;
If you worked on installing a Network that is not expressly permitted to be installed by either a Telco or Cable Company, you have "assisted" and thus also charged with Felony crime even though you do not own or use this Network.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the material on the Texas bill...
The industry has argued that "theft" includes both skipping commercials, and
activities that do not easily get recorded by the Neilson logs. Under this
theory a box that records TV but does not report back viewing information to
the networks and the MPAA could be illegal.
The term "fee or compensation" I suspect is designed to cover both the
compensation of you watching the commercials, and the compensation of market
share statistics. The (floor amendment 3) Intent to Defraud definition
seems to me to be susceptible to supporting this in "concealment" and
"omission of a fact" as well as "artifice".
Without seeing the actual bill, I can theorize scenarios where things would
still be illegal.
Extra sets. In Georgia, cable companies used to want an extra fee for each
TV in your home, maybe $2 or $10 month. I do not think this is true any
more, but if requested, the law seems to criminalize not paying it.
Home networks. I've been told repeatedly by large ISPs (telcos) that I
cannot have my home computer attached to a network and have their ISP
service. I deprive the ISP of fees or compensation by using a router rather
than purchasing more IP addresses.
DSL Software. My ISP has a variety of marketing agreements and causes
software to be loaded on the user's PC to provide extra fees and
compensation as a result of marketing agreements. I in fact use none of
this. I install nothing. Even the DSL modem which is not a stand alone
product and requires a PC based component is kept running through the
artifice of my router.
IP telephony. Do I deprive my telco (or phone providing cable company) of
fees and compensation if I use Internet phone rather than pay long distance
charges? It would seem so. IP telephony is a clever artifice which assists
in this.
PPV. If I record a pay per view broadcast and watch it twice, have I
knowingly deprived my service provider of fees? Is not this considered
acceptable today?
Network Technicians. If I install a network for someone, have I knowingly
"assisted"?
Cable boxes. Cable companies rent cable boxes, and make money off of it.
If I connect a device that does not require a service provider provided
cable box, have I knowingly deprived the service provider of fees?
Robert Costner
Electronic Frontiers Georgia
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Looks like I didn't post this Good News Update:
A State Governor has a brain and Vetoes State DMCA Bill that Colorado Legislature passed for him to sign.
He said" I hope that the Legislature looks much harder at Bills with such broad language before they pass the next draft".
Does this man really have the backbone to stand up against the huge wallets of Hollywood, the RIAA and the Telcos?
This is a huge development to watch. Certainly not a walk in the park for the MPAA and RIAA to get theor agenda through all of the States from this point forward.
CEA Commends Colorado Governor's Veto of Anti-Consumer State DMCA Bill
CEA Commends Colorado Governor's Veto of Anti-Consumer State DMCA Bill
Business Editors/High-Tech Writers
ARLINGTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 22, 2003--The following statement was issued today by Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) President and CEO Gary Shapiro in response to Colorado Governor Bill Owens's veto of Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)-backed legislation to broaden state laws against communications piracy.
"In vetoing HB1303, Governor Owens protected the people of Colorado against those who seek to curtail innovation and consumer rights and has once-again underscored his position as a leading advocate for technological advancement.
"HB1303 was promoted as addressing only theft of cable service. In reality, this vague bill would have extended and broadened the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to criminalize honest consumers and legitimate products, subjecting Colorado citizens to massive civil penalties for using lawful devices in the privacy of their homes.
"CEA stands firmly against piracy and theft of service. However, as Governor Owens made clear, any bill addressing this issue must be narrowly drafted so it does not penalize lawful consumers, manufacturers and retailers.
"While we commend Gov. Owens for his courageous veto, we are troubled that harmful legislation similar to that rejected in Colorado remains pending in many states. Versions of this anti-consumer legislation are under active consideration in Texas and Tennessee, and one has been passed by the Tennessee legislature.
"The technology community joins retailers and consumer groups in urging lawmakers in these states to follow the lead of Governor Owens and reject this ill-considered legislation."
About CEA:
The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) is the preeminent trade association promoting growth in the consumer technology industry through technology policy, events, research, promotion and the fostering of business and strategic relationships.
CEA represents more than 1,000 corporate members involved in the design, development, manufacturing, distribution and integration of audio, video, mobile electronics, wireless and landline communications, information technology, home networking, multimedia and accessory products, as well as related services that are sold through consumer channels.
Combined, CEA's members account for more than $85 billion in annual sales. CEA's resources are available online at www.CE.org, the definitive source for information about the consumer electronics industry.
CEA also sponsors and manages the International CES - Defining Technology's Future. All profits from CES are reinvested into industry services, including technical training and education, industry promotion, engineering standards development, market research and legislative advocacy.
A State Governor has a brain and Vetoes State DMCA Bill that Colorado Legislature passed for him to sign.
He said" I hope that the Legislature looks much harder at Bills with such broad language before they pass the next draft".
Does this man really have the backbone to stand up against the huge wallets of Hollywood, the RIAA and the Telcos?
This is a huge development to watch. Certainly not a walk in the park for the MPAA and RIAA to get theor agenda through all of the States from this point forward.
CEA Commends Colorado Governor's Veto of Anti-Consumer State DMCA Bill
CEA Commends Colorado Governor's Veto of Anti-Consumer State DMCA Bill
Business Editors/High-Tech Writers
ARLINGTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 22, 2003--The following statement was issued today by Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) President and CEO Gary Shapiro in response to Colorado Governor Bill Owens's veto of Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)-backed legislation to broaden state laws against communications piracy.
"In vetoing HB1303, Governor Owens protected the people of Colorado against those who seek to curtail innovation and consumer rights and has once-again underscored his position as a leading advocate for technological advancement.
"HB1303 was promoted as addressing only theft of cable service. In reality, this vague bill would have extended and broadened the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to criminalize honest consumers and legitimate products, subjecting Colorado citizens to massive civil penalties for using lawful devices in the privacy of their homes.
"CEA stands firmly against piracy and theft of service. However, as Governor Owens made clear, any bill addressing this issue must be narrowly drafted so it does not penalize lawful consumers, manufacturers and retailers.
"While we commend Gov. Owens for his courageous veto, we are troubled that harmful legislation similar to that rejected in Colorado remains pending in many states. Versions of this anti-consumer legislation are under active consideration in Texas and Tennessee, and one has been passed by the Tennessee legislature.
"The technology community joins retailers and consumer groups in urging lawmakers in these states to follow the lead of Governor Owens and reject this ill-considered legislation."
About CEA:
The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) is the preeminent trade association promoting growth in the consumer technology industry through technology policy, events, research, promotion and the fostering of business and strategic relationships.
CEA represents more than 1,000 corporate members involved in the design, development, manufacturing, distribution and integration of audio, video, mobile electronics, wireless and landline communications, information technology, home networking, multimedia and accessory products, as well as related services that are sold through consumer channels.
Combined, CEA's members account for more than $85 billion in annual sales. CEA's resources are available online at www.CE.org, the definitive source for information about the consumer electronics industry.
CEA also sponsors and manages the International CES - Defining Technology's Future. All profits from CES are reinvested into industry services, including technical training and education, industry promotion, engineering standards development, market research and legislative advocacy.
From Dave Weiner of Scripting News at Userland.com:
"I don't know if this means anything but there are no stories on Google News about Colorado Governor Bill Owens's veto of the state "Super-DMCA" law. They link to one press release from the Music Indistry (sic) News Network commending the governor for the veto. Is this the same kind of thing as CBS (owned by Viacom), ABC (owned by Disney) and NBC (owned by GE) not reporting the FCC handover of local media to big media conglomerates like CBS, ABC and NBC? "
"I don't know if this means anything but there are no stories on Google News about Colorado Governor Bill Owens's veto of the state "Super-DMCA" law. They link to one press release from the Music Indistry (sic) News Network commending the governor for the veto. Is this the same kind of thing as CBS (owned by Viacom), ABC (owned by Disney) and NBC (owned by GE) not reporting the FCC handover of local media to big media conglomerates like CBS, ABC and NBC? "
Guess what? Texans were able to successfully get this bill tabled this Legislative session. That doesn't mean they won't try again next year though.
That is 2 States in a row that have not just railroaded this garbage through with the Colorado Governor leading the way with an outright Veto.
People you must give credit to other Computer & Internet savy people that went to bat and have been going to bat, not just on the behalf of Computer & Technologies but against overly broad and restrictive Laws that stifle Innovation and Competition as well as giving Police and Beneficiary Powers to Private interests in the name of Corporate earnings.
MPAA and RIAA, your lack of ability to progress should not be the digress of Man's Digital evolution.
From News Services:
The Texas Legislative session outcome marked the end of the least successful week for MPAA and cable industry allies in a 3-year-old push for state laws that saw 6 enacted before critics knew what had hit them. May 21, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens (R) vetoed counterpart HB-1303; in quick succession the sponsors of Georgia, Oregon and Tennessee measures declared them dead for 2003, relegated to summer study panels.
The MPAA vows to return. "The group will keep fighting for the 5-10 years it could take to put such legislation on all 50 states? books, he
said: ?We?re not deterred at all. We are not going to rest or stop until they are enacted.?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incredible, FIGHTING, those are War words from that MPAA Private Interest Group. With those kind of words they should be declared as Terrorists and treated accordingly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Washington Internet Daily
To: Washington Internet Daily Subscriber
Sent: 5/28/03 8:55 PM
Subject: Washington Internet Daily 05/29/03
Dear Subscriber:
Here are the headlines from today's Washington Internet Daily, which
is attached:
TECH AGENDA unveiled by Lieberman as part of his economic plan if
he becomes President.
HIGH-TECH issues generally have low profile among Democratic
presidential candidates.
BROADBAND DANGERS of regulation and broadcasters' bias cited by
panel.
STATE PIRACY LAW runs out of time in Tex. MPAA hopes for special
session, sees enactment in all states over several years.
WHITE HOUSE: Bush formally extends PCAST panel.
CAPITOL HILL: Hearing scheduled on stock options bill backed by
high-tech.
INTERNATIONAL: EU extends funding under plan to make Internet
content safer... U.K. rolls out standards body to help foster
local e-govt... European Parliament Internet group to meet on
fixing the ICT/telecom sector slump.
DOMAIN NAMES: Germany's new telecom law touches on domain names.
INDUSTRY NOTES: Jury finds eBay guilty of patent infringement
and hits it with $35 million in damages.
The Texas Legislative session outcome marked the end of the least successful week for MPAA and cable industry allies in a 3-year-old push for state laws that saw 6 enacted before critics knew what had hit them. May 21, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens (R) vetoed counterpart HB-1303; in quick succession the sponsors of Georgia, Oregon and Tennessee measures declared them dead for 2003, relegated to summer study panels.
The MPAA vows to return. "The group will keep fighting for the 5-10 years it could take to put such legislation on all 50 states? books, he
said: ?We?re not deterred at all. We are not going to rest or stop until they are enacted.?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incredible, FIGHTING, those are War words from that MPAA Private Interest Group. With those kind of words they should be declared as Terrorists and treated accordingly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Washington Internet Daily
To: Washington Internet Daily Subscriber
Sent: 5/28/03 8:55 PM
Subject: Washington Internet Daily 05/29/03
Dear Subscriber:
Here are the headlines from today's Washington Internet Daily, which
is attached:
TECH AGENDA unveiled by Lieberman as part of his economic plan if
he becomes President.
HIGH-TECH issues generally have low profile among Democratic
presidential candidates.
BROADBAND DANGERS of regulation and broadcasters' bias cited by
panel.
STATE PIRACY LAW runs out of time in Tex. MPAA hopes for special
session, sees enactment in all states over several years.
WHITE HOUSE: Bush formally extends PCAST panel.
CAPITOL HILL: Hearing scheduled on stock options bill backed by
high-tech.
INTERNATIONAL: EU extends funding under plan to make Internet
content safer... U.K. rolls out standards body to help foster
local e-govt... European Parliament Internet group to meet on
fixing the ICT/telecom sector slump.
DOMAIN NAMES: Germany's new telecom law touches on domain names.
INDUSTRY NOTES: Jury finds eBay guilty of patent infringement
and hits it with $35 million in damages.
Here is another example of the DMCA run amok from CNET.com:
Pattern develops in DMCA charges
It's the case of the dumpster-diving DMCA fighter.
Monsterpatterns.com operator Derek Gendron says he didn't see anything wrong with posting for sale the discontinued sewing patterns he'd found in the trash heaps near some Jo-Ann craft shops.
But sewing pattern giants McCall Pattern and Simplicity, makers of the patterns, disagreed. In February, the companies successfully convinced Web host Digital River to shut the Monsterpatterns.com site down, saying Gendron had no right to sell their copyrighted work online. "He did not pay for these patterns," said Robert Hermann, CEO of McCall.
The companies invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which shields Internet service providers from liability if they comply with takedown requests. It seems the long arm of the DMCA, which has been used to crack down on file-swappers, printer cartridge makers and font creators, is now reaching into the competitive world of sewing patterns.
Pirated sewing patterns may not be as hip as the latest copy of "The Matrix: Reloaded," but they have long found ready buyers. Even before the Internet, people could photocopy patterns and distribute them to others. But the Internet allows people to rapidly copy and disseminate items without permission from their creator, a trend that's raised the ire of groups such as the Hobby Industry Association.
Salvage man Gendron isn't giving up, however. He's found a new host for his site. And last week, he filed a lawsuit in federal court in Detroit, asking a judge to declare his dumpster diving, and the selling of his treasures, legal. He said he never thought his plans to profit from dumpster diving would result in a legal tangle. "I'm not a lawyer," he said. "I pick garbage."
[May 30, 2003]
Pattern develops in DMCA charges
Pattern develops in DMCA charges
It's the case of the dumpster-diving DMCA fighter.
Monsterpatterns.com operator Derek Gendron says he didn't see anything wrong with posting for sale the discontinued sewing patterns he'd found in the trash heaps near some Jo-Ann craft shops.
But sewing pattern giants McCall Pattern and Simplicity, makers of the patterns, disagreed. In February, the companies successfully convinced Web host Digital River to shut the Monsterpatterns.com site down, saying Gendron had no right to sell their copyrighted work online. "He did not pay for these patterns," said Robert Hermann, CEO of McCall.
The companies invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which shields Internet service providers from liability if they comply with takedown requests. It seems the long arm of the DMCA, which has been used to crack down on file-swappers, printer cartridge makers and font creators, is now reaching into the competitive world of sewing patterns.
Pirated sewing patterns may not be as hip as the latest copy of "The Matrix: Reloaded," but they have long found ready buyers. Even before the Internet, people could photocopy patterns and distribute them to others. But the Internet allows people to rapidly copy and disseminate items without permission from their creator, a trend that's raised the ire of groups such as the Hobby Industry Association.
Salvage man Gendron isn't giving up, however. He's found a new host for his site. And last week, he filed a lawsuit in federal court in Detroit, asking a judge to declare his dumpster diving, and the selling of his treasures, legal. He said he never thought his plans to profit from dumpster diving would result in a legal tangle. "I'm not a lawyer," he said. "I pick garbage."
[May 30, 2003]
Pattern develops in DMCA charges
"Hi, yes, I'd like to reserve a discussion forum for a party of one?" - dmcowen674
Apparently, 'build it and they will come' doesn't apply to some things.
Apparently, 'build it and they will come' doesn't apply to some things.
Oh really? Do provide all your evidence or sources of these "problems happening now" in Michigan where prosecutors and corporations are suddenly 'contemplating' how the law makes routers and firewalls "illegal".
No fancy back-pedaling, no 'but, uhh, umms', or 'well...my sources are super-secret and anonymous, they're only known to me', and no ignoring my request. Just some independently verifiable facts to support this assertion, please.
Shouldn't be too hard...provided that it were true.
Hello, if you would actually read the articles and quotes from Lawmakers and not just look at my posts you would see the Forest through the trees.
If I have a direct communication of anything I put that persons name clearly there and then : after. If it is a link to a article I put from: first. I will not be accused or have a problem like the NY Times had.
As for the States that passed the SDMCA MPPA Model Draft verbatum, there are committees working on Legislation to "fix" or to "ammend in order to prevent unintended consequences" what they just passed now that they are getting the proper feedback they didn't bother to get in the first place.
Remember, Dave, this is the guy who thinks that the CBDTPA is a Good Thing (TM). You can't expect him to realize that lawyers and corporations will push the limits to the far unintended extents of the law and beyond to commit all sorts of unethical and immoral acts.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter