Amendment To Kill Broadcast and Audio Flags 64
Bruce Perens writes "Senator John Sununu is proposing an amendment, H.R.5252, to strike both the broadcast flag and the radio flag from this year's U.S. telecommunications bill.
If the amendment does not pass, we will be faced with mandatory DRM in video and audio devices, and with a prohibition on the use of Open Source software for such devices (because it can be modified to remove DRM). Time is short, the committee markup of the telecommunication bill is proceeding now in Washington and it's important to show your Congressperson that there is constituent support to remove the broadcast and audio flags. Please see the alert and please use the information there to call your Congressperson today."
If the amendment does not pass, we will be faced with mandatory DRM in video and audio devices, and with a prohibition on the use of Open Source software for such devices (because it can be modified to remove DRM). Time is short, the committee markup of the telecommunication bill is proceeding now in Washington and it's important to show your Congressperson that there is constituent support to remove the broadcast and audio flags. Please see the alert and please use the information there to call your Congressperson today."
Contacting your US Senator - call or fax (Score:5, Informative)
it's probably best to write if you can rather then call.
As snail mail takes a long time to get to DC and must be scanned and disinfected, etc,
I find that writing a letter and faxing it to the Congresscritter's office is the best
way to proceed.
Of course, if you can't get the fax off right away, a call is better then nothing.
Senator Barbara Boxer of California's fax# is 213-894-5042
Of course, your mileage may vary.
Have a good Field Day
73 de Peter
Re:Contacting your US Senator - call or fax (Score:1)
A few days ago, in the story about the boradcast flag, someone posted an excellent guide to calling your senator. I'll see if I can find and and link to it.
Re:Contacting your US Senator - call or fax (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Contacting your US Senator - call or fax (Score:2)
I don't know about yours, but if I wanted to influence my Representative, I'd have to change my name to George W. Bush.
Seriously, I already wrote him a letter expressing my unhappiness with the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, and all I got for my trouble was a three-page letter from John Mica full of explanations for how the wiretapping is right and legal (going so far as to drag
In a capitalistic soceity (Score:5, Interesting)
The broadcast flag has zero use to the average american, and is nothing but a means of control as to what can be done with broadcast signals in favour of the media corporations. We've acheived a Marxian nightmare, a truly capitalistic soceity
To quote Lewis Black, "politicians and corporations have been in bed together our whole lives, they've just stopped hiding it."
Bah, I think I woke up on the wrong side of this democracy. >={
I take the opposite tack (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need to do is let them have their locked down sandbox, build a concrete fence around it, a concrete roof, and concrete underneath to. Padlocks, hell yea, let them lock up their content as tight as they want.
They will be inside, snug as a bug in a rug. We will be outside where they can't get. Outside is a lot bigger than inside. Inside can't expand and will in fact suffocate.
Then we can do what we want with our non-copyright content, mix and share to our hearts' content, and their copyright lockdown will prevent them from using it. They are welcome to their corporate factory culture, and good riddance.
Re:I take the opposite tack (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, I'm with you (Score:4, Insightful)
It's time to move the classic "locked automobile hood" DRM analogy to a better analogy, one about supermarkets.
Let them have their freaking DRM. All it is is a fence they are building around their own content. The more they can distance their infected content from my sources of content, the easier it will be for me to acquire content that is not infected.
The content world has become like a string of interconnected weekend supermarkets. In the past, before connectivity, you could stop at your local supermarket on a weekend and get a free sample or two of some food that some company was hosting. Nah, it wasn't all that much food, just a niblet or something to munch on while you shopped, but it was a small tasty free morsel.
With the Internet, now you can sample free niblets simultaneously from every supermarket in the world. You can fully sustain yourself on free samples (free content), nibbling all day long, and never need to buy any groceries ever again.
That's what has changed. And with DRM, they can't win. The more they infect their product with DRM, the more valuable the uninfected stuff becomes. Sure, I enjoyed the Star Wars movies in English more than the Star Wreck Pirkinning movie in Finnish. But I didn't enjoy the Star Wars movies that much more. I could easily learn to live with a world of Pirkinnings.
So DRM no longer scares me.
The scarier thing is this Net non-neutrality stuff. I think the powers that be finally "get it", they realize that DRM by definition won't work so they want to cripple our access to all of those free supermarket samples so we will begrudingly accept their DRM-infected product. DRM is a fence they are building around themselves. Who cares, really? But Net non-neutrality is a fence they can still build around other stuff. That's a problem.
Re: net neutrality (Score:1)
(Just echoing this point as a way to give it a complement.)
Bad Idea (Score:2)
You really believe you are here to drink Mountaindew, stare in a PC-screen, then a TV-screen and then a movie-screen and have some beers in town?
If you're going to let a bad idea win without fight, you better have a good retort when they improve and make DRM better and better, and people are content because they get doped down.
It is always easier to kill a bad sprout, than having to redo the whole garden later.
I'm lazy, that's why I'm active NOW.
Re:In a capitalistic soceity (Score:2)
Re:In a capitalistic soceity (Score:2, Insightful)
We've acheived a Marxian nightmare, a truly capitalistic soceity
No. If this were capitalism, the government wouldn't be forcing vendors to support this flag and the market would sort it out. The problem is not capitalism, the problem is that the USA is no longer a democratic republic, but an oligarchy [wikipedia.org].
Seriously, corporations can legally bribe politicians and nobody really gives a damn because people use the weasel-word "lobby" instead of "bribe". WTF?
Re:In a capitalistic soceity (Score:3, Insightful)
As soon as you come up with a way to prevent people in power from being powerful, you'll solve the problem.
(this is not an endorsement of any current situation, just a cynical but realistic look at the world.)
Re:In a capitalistic soceity (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sparse list.
Re:In a capitalistic soceity (Score:2)
Re:In a capitalistic soceity (Score:1)
And then there's Carter, who not only came from a background of peanut farming, but who was also possessed of (and by) quite possibly the most dysfunctional family on the face of the earth.
Re:In a capitalistic soceity (Score:2)
Eh, House Majority Leader Tom Delay was a pest control technician. I think that means he caught raccoons and poisoned termites for a living. A decent position for an American Dream case, despite what later happened to his career (he could have avoided that).
Of course, when you come from such a background the MSM leave no oppo
What can us non-americans do? (Score:4, Interesting)
If at first you don't succeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If at first you don't succeed (Score:4, Insightful)
As for their persistence in seeking broadcast flag legislation, it's not at all surprising. Suppose you're in a group of businessmen. The group's goal is to make its members more wealthy. One way to do that is to increase the output of the entire society that you live in - basically, make the pie bigger so that everyone (including your group) gets a bigger slice. But that's really, really hard to do, and the group's efforts would probably cost more in time, money, and energy than they would get back as a result.
The other way to achieve the goal is to try to re-divide the existing wealth so that your group gains more. The pie doesn't get any bigger; but your group gets a bigger slice. This is much easier, and your group gets 100% of the benefits, so it makes more sense to direct the efforts of the group in that direction. Of course, the fact that YOUR group gets MORE of the pie, means every OTHER group gets LESS. But you don't care about those others. They're not in your group. Let them fend for themselves.
The broadcast flag legislation is a perfect example of this kind of group logic at work. A small group (5 major music companies, a correspondingly small number of movie studios) seek legislation that gives them higher income and protection from a perceived threat to their business. The fact that everybody else in the society has to face the consequences of that legislation is fine with them. From their point of view, that's not a bug - it's a feature.
For more details, I refer you to "The Rise and Decline of Nations" by the late economist Mancur Olson. [wikipedia.org]
Re:If at first you don't succeed (Score:2)
Of course you can't ban ideas, but you can prohibit implementing those ideas. That's most likely what the parent was getting at.
Anyway, how about this:
?
Re:If at first you don't succeed (Score:2)
Errr ... how about what? The quote you've given there doesn't appear to actually be from anything. The language looks vaguely constitutional; but nothing like this quote appears in the Constitution. And a Google search for "Right of the People to Fair Use" turned up nothing. So ... what's the question you're asking, again?
Re:If at first you don't succeed (Score:2)
Grammar/comma Nazi moment (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless the submitter was just using poor grammar and was saying that Sununu was proposing an ammendment to the combined bill that will be worked on by both Houses of Congress.
Re:Grammar/comma Nazi moment (Score:2, Informative)
see http://thomas.loc.gov/ [loc.gov]
According to thomas.loc.gov
There are 4 versions of Bill Number H.R.5252 for the 109th Congress
1 . Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)[H.R.5252.IH]
2 . Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (Reported in House)[H.R.5252.RH]
3 . Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and
Re:Grammar/comma Nazi moment (Score:3, Informative)
The description is incredibly unclear on that point.
Re:Grammar/comma Nazi moment (Score:3, Insightful)
Strikes me that what is unclear is the politics.
SB
Re:Grammar/comma Nazi moment (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Grammar/comma Nazi moment (Score:2)
The bill in committee is definitely H.R. 5252 (meaning that the bill itself originated in the House). Sununu's ammendment will be attached to it for the final floor vote in both houses if the committee members vote to allow it out of the conference.
Re:Grammar/comma Nazi moment (Score:1)
Actually... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Actually... (Score:1)
Just a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
The bad amendment is already there. Thus we need to pass an amendment to get rid of it.
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
No, if the bill gets passed without being amended, it's a bad thing. The amendment, which we want to be passed, amends the bill to take out the harmful stuff. So we want either the amendment to be passed or the bill to not be passed. Either is fine, but the latter is not likely, which is why the amendment being passed is so important.
And for the person who modded the parent up: please actually check if a correction is true before modding something informative.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
Bruce
I made this up (Score:5, Funny)
(think about that sentance)
Cute paliindrome (Score:1)
Doc, note I dissent. A fast never prevents a fatness. I diet on cod.
Re:Cute paliindrome (Score:2)
Beat this (Score:2, Interesting)
AREPO
SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS
Under palindromes the Encyclopedia Brittanica has the following to say about the above:
This Latin palindromic square found on a Roman wall in Cirencester Eng., and in Pompeii may be translated: "Arepo the sower holds the wheels with care." As late as the 19th century it was graven on amulets and charms and laid upon pregnant women to ensure safe delivery. Like the sign of the fish (an acrostic: Greek ichthys,"fish," happens to have the first letters of the Greek words for
Re:If this Amendment fails to pass..... (Score:1)
My god, you're right! I guess the general Slashdot population will just have to ignore you.
I'll always read you, though. I love the spewings of the anonymous masses. Reminds me how smart I actually am.
Re:If this Amendment fails to pass..... (Score:2)
In your case I think they would also say "and a life."
H.R. 5252 is not an amendment. It's the bill. (Score:5, Informative)
The very first thing the committee did at markup was strike everything and insert text derived from S. 2686, a bill introduced by Senators Stevens and Inouye (the chair and ranking on the committee, respectively) earlier this year. The text they're working from isn't identical to S. 2686, because the members and their various staffers negotiated changes after that bill was introduced, but it is much more closely relatved to the Senate bill than the House bill that they're supposedly amending.
So
Anyone crazy enough to want to listen to the Senators do their thing can hop onto the committe website [senate.gov] and read Sen. Stevens' opening statement, or listen to the markup. It's a realplayer video stream captured from internal Senate TV, but is actually audio only (no cameras were in the room). The markup starts near the 23 minute mark. Opening statements from the various members last until an hour and 20 minutes in, at which point the markup starts in earnest.
Too Late? (Score:4, Funny)
June 21st. Two days ago.
So "tomorrow" would appear to have been yesteday--no Star Trek reference intended.
Re:Too Late? (Score:4, Informative)
who votes for this guy? (Score:2, Interesting)
i hope when he's up again in 2010, alaska has the good sense to send the drama queen packing. (hulk ties so you know he means business? come on....).
Re:who votes for this guy? (Score:2)
Ugh. (Score:4, Funny)
If you can't say it in less than a thousand words, it should be broken into seperate bills.
Of coarse, then they would adopt german-style words...
Indistinguishable, Internationalization, Incomprehensibilities are nothing compared to DONAUDAMPFSCHIFFAHRTSELEKTRIZITAETENHAUPTBETRIEBS
Re:Ugh. (Score:2)
If you can't say it in less than a thousand words, it should be broken into seperate bills.
Here's a good alternative:
The Downsize DC Read The Bills Act [downsizedc.org]. This bill would actually force Congress to utter every single syllable of every single law they pass. This alone would stop things like the USA PATRIOT Act and the DMCA from getting passed. The RTBA would also require a public comment time period between the reading of the bill and the actual vote, so no
OOPS - this is an amendment TO HR 5252. (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Re:OOPS - this is an amendment TO HR 5252. (Score:2)
Why not use their own weapon? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why not use their own weapon? (Score:2)
Re:Why not use their own weapon? (Score:2)
If you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, then don't post at all! Obviously, you've never heard of the "Trusted" Platform Module [trustedcom...ggroup.org], which implements the DRM in hardware where the private key can't be recovered by doing anything short of disassembling and analysing the chip itself.
In other words, even if your proposal made sense, it would still play right into their hands!
A question from a non-US citizen (Score:3, Interesting)
Just point me (us) in the direction of an information source.
I have to say that I have worked in the US*; I *like* the USA and its people, and it saddens me to see even your basic freedoms being eroded. In the theatre of human affairs, this is trivial, I suppose. But still.
*In the 1980's when you were still free - and more free than anyone in Europe. (No, I'm not trolling, I really feel that)
Re:A question from a non-US citizen (Score:4, Insightful)
In time, the ex-US industry will follow suit in order to sell into the US. Once mandatory DRM is entrenched, the US will start to put friendly pressure on its allies in the EU--not too hard these days with Blair leading the dominant power in western Europe. One country then another will start to implement similar laws, until enough of them have done so that the EU will formally insist all member nations comply with a base-level policy, to be implemented however the country sees fit. Most will implement something stricter because they don't want to be the target of "loose laws lead to piracy" rhetoric. Eventually the US will point to the EU's now-tighter laws, and insist that they lock down their own laws further, "in order to align ourselves with international standards."
Looked at copyright laws lately? Same crap, different name. The key is that they lawmakers and industry leaders don't want the people to control the content. It's as simple as that.
Re:A question from a non-US citizen (Score:2)
Write my congressperson? I'm on it... oh, wait (Score:1)