Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Industry Divided Over SSSCA

timothy posted about 13 years ago | from the hope-that-it's-long-division dept.

United States 368

CBravo writes: "The EE Times has a story that talks about the SSSCA and how it divides the industry. Short part:'If approved, the law would be enforceable under federal regulations and could dramatically alter the way system OEMs design and develop PCs, TVs, set-tops or other digital appliances with embedded microprocessors, according to industry sources familiar with the Hollings proposal. The motion-picture industry, with the Disney and Fox studios in the lead, backs the legislation.'" If you thought the DMCA was bad, look out -- the SSSCA would inject far more control into a wide range of electronic devices.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

timothy (-1)

CmdrTaco on (468152) | about 13 years ago | (#2373569)

What do you think about the Mideast situation? I bet special forces already have bin Laden and he's squealin like a baby...

Re:timothy (-1, Flamebait)

Dead Penis Bird (524912) | about 13 years ago | (#2373586)

His squealing is probably more like a piglet getting anally sodomized.

Propz to all dead penis birds.

Like a piglet... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373700)

His squealing is probably more like a piglet getting anally sodomized.

Don't forget: he's a Muslim, his religion does not allow him to squeal like a pig! He must endure his chastiment in total silence, or else there will be no virgins waiting for him in heaven...

Re:timothy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373587)

Squealing while the "special" US faggot forces are giving him a rim-job?

Re:timothy (-1)

CmdrTaco on (468152) | about 13 years ago | (#2373597)

We can only hope so. Maybe they have a pig sucking his cock. I hear he eats pork in secret.

Lord only know how much the French homo forces would like to have a crack at his asshole. Oo-la-la!

US special forces (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373614)

"special" US faggot forces

Where do you think those forces are stationed at? I've never heard of them so they must be even a bigger secret than the Delta Force.

Re:US special forces (0)

PowerTroll 5000 (524563) | about 13 years ago | (#2373696)

Remember:

Don't ask, don't tell.

Re:US special forces (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373783)

They should make a late-night TV series of that "special" force.

I'd watch it.

Squealing like a... (-1, Offtopic)

TheMidget (512188) | about 13 years ago | (#2373629)

I bet special forces already have bin Laden and he's squealin like a baby...

Shouldn't that be squealing like a pig [imdb.com] instead? Or does his religion forbid him to squeal like that?

Re:Squealing like a... (1)

hoggoth (414195) | about 13 years ago | (#2373715)

> I bet special forces already have bin Laden and he's squealin like a baby...

He's giggling and laughing from being tickled and kissed? They really ought to get tougher special forces then.

Assertion Failed: Yuo == CmdrTaco ! (-1)

benevolent_spork (446160) | about 13 years ago | (#2373630)

Whassup d00detterina!

How the fuck are you spastic hell!

Re:Assertion Failed: Yuo == CmdrTaco ! (-1, Offtopic)

Igloo Boy (522309) | about 13 years ago | (#2373738)

'sup homez, howzit hangin?

Get it in ya!

Re:Assertion Failed: Yuo == CmdrTaco ! (-1)

TrollMan 5000 (454685) | about 13 years ago | (#2373743)

Supz Iggy! how's the nice cold arctic weather?

Nice here in Florida!

Re:Assertion Failed: Yuo == CmdrTaco ! (-1)

Igloo Boy (522309) | about 13 years ago | (#2373788)

Not bad, stuck at work this morning, then heading to school in the afternoon. Was kind of chilly this morning. I'm going to have to start wearing wool socks with my sandles soon enough.

I am currently fending off a very angry Steve Jobs. He brought polar bears, and keeps trying to install something called OSX.1 on my Igloo. It looks like crap, and it melted my neighbour's home. I keep telling him stay away. But now that he can finally play DVD's he thinks he's all tough.

I tried to tell him that Linux has been playing DVD's for ages, but he's too stubborn. Damn dirty capitalists...

Linux Illegal? (2, Interesting)

some guy I know (229718) | about 13 years ago | (#2373584)

Would this make Linux, et al, illegal, too?

Welcome to your digital nightmare (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373603)

Yup.

This legislation would make:

a) Building your own computer from commodity parts illegal.
b) Building your own OS illegal.
c) Programming your computer/hardware illegal unless: you only use the officially accepted libraries and agree not to even attempt reverse engineering any of them.

Welcome to your nightmare. This is what the Sony executive said a couple of years ago when he said that they'll be taking the battle for their IP rights to every home and every computer.

Re:Welcome to your digital nightmare (3, Insightful)

Red Aardvark House (523181) | about 13 years ago | (#2373664)

Unbelievable.

I just received a "home-built" computer as a gift.

Never thought it might be illegal one day.

IP rights protection is one thing, but when it affects even activities not necessarily related to IP, something is wrong.

Re:Linux Illegal? (2, Interesting)

corebreech (469871) | about 13 years ago | (#2373665)

Perhaps not but it may require computer manufacturers to authenticate that the OS being run is one recognized as having digital rights management built in.

Linux wouldn't qualify, and hacking it to get it to run on modern hardware would no doubt fall under SSSCA, if not DMCA or even the ATA.

Then comes TCP-MS. Anyone running a different network stack gets a knock on the door.

So my guess is yes, Linux will remain legal, but you won't be able to install it on new computers and you won't be able to run it when connecting to the Internet.

Unless of course you live in a free country.

Re:Linux Illegal? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373704)

Unless of course you live in a free country.

I don't think the US government or representatives knows what these laws will do for American technology. Basically, if other countries remain free from these laws, then intelligent people will leave America and go to these countries. Result: massive brain drain from America. Result: America not so important anymore...

Sure, a lot of people will remain, but how long, and how much more legislation will they be able to take?

Tell me: how can regulating IP rights be extended to encompass entirely different and unrelated hardware? Surely these companies should concentrate on making the public want to buy the stuff, as opposed to ripping the consumer off with albums with 2 good songs and 8 bad songs on them in a cynical ploy to make more money?

I say this law should apply to cars as well. No-one is allowed to tinker with their cars. You can't build your own combustion engine. No, you will conform and obey your masters, slave.

what about kids? (0, Insightful)

CrudPuppy (33870) | about 13 years ago | (#2373755)

I used to LOVE opening up broken electronic stuff and trying to understand how it worked when I was a kid...

will the laws include provisions for lesser jail sentences for minors who "attempt to circumvent copyright-enforcing hardware for media playback"?

Re:Linux Illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373790)

how can regulating IP rights be extended to encompass entirely different and unrelated hardware?

Simple. Because the hardware MAY be used to infringe the rights of the copyright holders.

Is islam the enemy? (-1)

CmdrTaco on (468152) | about 13 years ago | (#2373588)

I say yes, in a sense. But religion as a whole is to blame. I'm sure my friend Jon Erikson would back me up on this one. Fanaticism is an unavoidable by-product of religion, so why not do away with it as a whole?

Re:Is islam the enemy? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373642)

while(exists($religion))
{
$religion -> adduser($fanatics);
$religion -> addsinners($other_religions);
$religion -> create($conflict);
$other_religions_size = sizeof(religion -> getusers(other_religions);
for($i=0;$i<$other_religions_size;$i++)
{
$religion -> deluser($other_religions);
}
}

Gashcode is a piece of fucking shit (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | about 13 years ago | (#2373769)

you can't blame the sand niggers for this one! towheaded little Asscode 2.2 chokes on cock, gags, and throws up on the user.

So, once this bill passes... (4, Insightful)

frleong (241095) | about 13 years ago | (#2373591)

OEMs of PCs will be forced to install Windows because Windows Media Player will be one of the few players with support from motion-picture industry due to its built-in "copy-protection" mechanisms. Linux will be BANNED from OEMs or face lawsuits for circumventing copyright. Or did I miss the real implications of this bill?

Re:So, once this bill passes... (5, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | about 13 years ago | (#2373660)

Not only Linux. Any operating system or any electronic device that does not confirm to the set of new proposed regulations will be against the law. You wonder if someone will go to jail for selling his old VCR. But in the brand new world, information will be encoded in Hollywood, passed to your audio/video receiver, decoded there, and this receiver will handshake with any devices connected to it, will detect if the device is complient and only then will communicate with it. If your new DVD player detects a home cut DVD without a watermark in it, it will use your receiver to call police to your house. Your new electronic house security system will automatically engage, to not let you out of the house and a new antiburglar system will put you to sleep instantly with some sleep gas, just to make sure you don't destroy the evidence. If you use an unlawful DVD, CD, tape in your car, it will lock up and will use the car phone to call police while filling up the salon with carbon monoxide from your exhaust, just enough to put you to sleep.

Cheers.
PS.: Your brainwashed relatives will rat you out 'for your own good, just to make sure you are not a terrorist'.

selling old VCR's (3, Funny)

CrudPuppy (33870) | about 13 years ago | (#2373742)

"selling old VCR's..."

shouldn't that read "trafficking media copyright circumvention devices" ?

*grin*

Re:So, once this bill passes... (3, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 13 years ago | (#2373797)

  • You wonder if someone will go to jail for selling his old VCR

The DMCA already has provision for mandatory copy control on video devices, and has special allowances for selling used older devices. The idea is to hide the fact that you're fucked until all of your devices are compliant.

Re:So, once this bill passes... (1)

FatRatBastard (7583) | about 13 years ago | (#2373698)

Linux will be BANNED from OEMs or face lawsuits for circumventing copyright.

Here's an interesting question for those better versed in the law (in general) and this proposed law. Assuming it gets passed as is, and we assume the worst in interpreting the language of the law (because it seems pretty vague) how would linux fare?

Could the appropriate code be included in the Kernal (in order to make it legal) but made an option like everything else in the kernal, so I can compile a new one sans all the copy control nonesense?

Also, is it just the kernal we have to worry about? More to the point, would we even have to worry about the kernal at all? Wouldn't this effect applications more than the kernal (I'm thinking XMMS, WinAmp, Real, etc.)?

Would filesystems have to be changed? How deep would all of this have to go to make a "compliant" system?

Enquiring mind (not to mention slightly ignorant) wants to know.

N.

Re:So, once this bill passes... (1)

Si (9816) | about 13 years ago | (#2373793)

Could the appropriate code be included in the Kernal (in order to make it legal) but made an option like everything else in the kernal, so I can compile a new one sans all the copy control nonesense?

No. The SSSCA [cryptome.org] specifically prohibits circumventing copy controls, much like the DMCA.

Re:So, once this bill passes... (1)

grahamm (8844) | about 13 years ago | (#2373734)

Should Windows (at least 9x) not either also be banned or be forced to improve its security? As this is supposed to mandate a minimum level of security, is Windows not the least likely OS to be approved?

Re:So, once this bill passes... (1)

The Wicked Armadillo (123058) | about 13 years ago | (#2373774)

Well according to the article "Even if a watermark scheme is introduced, DTLA sources questioned whether the DTCP spec is the right place to implement it. "The DTLA and its member companies are certainly interested in pursuing Congress' goal on interindustry solutions," Ayers said. But he questioned the wisdom of asking technology companies to stretch their already-limited resources for copy protection development all the way to Washington."
So we may get something along these lines rammed down our throats anyway.

Kiss Linux Goodbye (2)

NumberSyx (130129) | about 13 years ago | (#2373602)


If this passes, we can all kiss Linux goodbye. I have already written all my Reps in Congress, the Senate and Fritz Hollings who is the writer of this bill, expressing my displeasure at this new assault on my Fair Use Rights. I don't think it will do any good, considering the Justice Dept now catagorizes Hackers as a Terrorist Threat.


That nice "Hollywood" sign... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373604)

...would make a nifty landing spot for Bin Laden's pilot buddies. And it would have people dancing all over the US and Europe, rather than just some Palestinians.

Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on this! (4, Insightful)

tester13 (186772) | about 13 years ago | (#2373605)

I understand the issues of building copy controls into hardware. Unfortunately my friends and family do not. Is it possible to explain this to someone in a non alarmist manner (not the MS/the Govt will control all your data)? The only way I can think to explain it is by giving an overview of low level languages, current copy protection schemes, etc.

How do you explain this to your Mom?

Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi (5, Insightful)

Tim Doran (910) | about 13 years ago | (#2373666)

Explain it to your mom the same way you explained the chilling implications of the DMCA.

And unfortunately, you can expect to be just as effective in getting her excited about stopping the bill.

This is scary as hell - because these initiatives are difficult to explain to consumers, it may be impossible to stop them. Voter apathy has never had such potential to rot the country from the inside out. Soon, any business big enough to afford a good lobbyist can expect to have their business plan protected by law.

Easy (4, Informative)

Carnage4Life (106069) | about 13 years ago | (#2373768)

How do you explain this to your Mom?

Hi, mom.
Congress is considering a law that will make copying anything illegal. Taping shows from TV, copying songs to your Sony Minidisc, burning CDs, making backups of software, moving eBooks from your PC to your PDA, and a whole lot more won't be illegal but will be impossible because all computers and devices that will be made once the law is passed will explicitly ban it. Welcome to my nightmare.

Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi (3, Informative)

Ed Avis (5917) | about 13 years ago | (#2373787)

You could show people RMS's story The Right to Read [gnu.org] . It doesn't specifically relate to hardware-controlling laws though.

Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi (5, Informative)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 13 years ago | (#2373789)

  • How do you explain this to your Mom?

I don't see how you can put this without it sounding a little alarmist. Disney wants you to purchase a new TV, DVD, VCR/TiVo and cable decoder... that they will then control.

Every time you place a DVD or VCR that you own or have rented in the devices that you bought, Disney will decide whether you are allowed to watch it, and how many times. Disney will decide whether you may tape shows to watch later, and how many times you can watch them, or when they will become unwatchable, or even if you can watch them at all.

They will assume that you are a thief, and they will stop you from watching anything that you cannot absolutely prove that you have paid for. If there is any doubt, your screen will go blank, and you will have no right of reply, or opportunity to prove your innocence.

And the best part is that they will make you pay for the new hardware that will enable this.

Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi (1)

ChristTrekker (91442) | about 13 years ago | (#2373803)

I think the best way to explain this to "mom" is something like the following. Make a list of reasonable "fair use" activities that "mom" does currently. Then explain that these will be illegal and uncircumventable if this bill passes into law.

Anyone want to start such a list? Unfortunately my knowledge of the particulars of DMCA and SSSCA is limited beyond "it's bad and infringes on our rights".

Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi (1)

Occam's Nailfile (522986) | about 13 years ago | (#2373805)

Explain to them that they'll have to buy all new equipment just to listen to the stuff. It won't take long at all. This is going to go over just like DIVX. In fact, it's the industry's attempt to implement a legally mandated divx-like scheme, where they lock themselves in to a new standard and lock everyone else out. It will fail, and spectacularly, if the public is motivated not to buy. The DIVX backlash was tremendous. If the DIVX cartel hadn't caved in, many of their members would likely be out of business right now.

Just give your friends and relatives the bottom line: this means you will have to spend a shitload of money to keep watching TV, or listening to music. This is the same thing that's going to leave HDTV stillborn. Large numbers of consumers are going to opt out of that mandatory conversion.

Don't forget to sign the petitions.. (2, Informative)

Si (9816) | about 13 years ago | (#2373607)

http://www.petitiononline.com/SSSCA/petition.html is just one.

(20..19..18..17...)

Re:Don't forget to sign the petitions.. (4, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | about 13 years ago | (#2373699)

Online petitions are actually worse than useless, because they give the illusion to people that they are actually doing something, when they might otherwise have written a letter.

If you care about this issue, write a real letter, on real paper, with a real stamp.

Re:Don't forget to sign the petitions.. (1)

Si (9816) | about 13 years ago | (#2373751)

Good point. Do both ;)

Re:Don't forget to sign the petitions.. (2, Insightful)

JLinden (332375) | about 13 years ago | (#2373810)

Or even better, write a letter to your congressman using certified mail. That way they have to sign for it. It probably won't go straight into the statistics room like all the other.

The Sky is Falling.... (4, Insightful)

atrowe (209484) | about 13 years ago | (#2373608)

There's no reason to freak out about all this. Take off the foil hat and think reasonable-like for a minute. The SSSCA is *not* a law. It is a proposal put forth by a single (miguided) lawmaker. Literally *thousands* of worthless/unconstitutional legislation are proposed by congress every year. The vast majority of the time, the checks-n-balances system of our government keeps these proposals from getting put into the books. The system does work, and this piece of crap will end up getting thrown out just like all the other junk legislation.

If you don't like the proposal, write your representative. Tell them how stupid and unconstitutional this is. Don't complain about how "The Man" is out to strip you of your rights. That won't accomplish anything.

Re:The Sky is Falling.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373618)

You bite these proposals hard so that they don't make it to the house floor; where our representatives (who are purchased by the big boys) will vote as best represents their 'constituants' (those who pay their bills).

Re:The Sky is Falling.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373624)

And just why do we have a worthless/unconstitutional law called DMCA at the moment?

Re:The Sky is Falling.... (5, Informative)

Verteiron (224042) | about 13 years ago | (#2373634)

Funny. It didn't work on the DMCA. Maybe this isn't worth "freaking out" over, but to dismiss it as a piece of junk legislation that will be thrown out immediately is insane. The SSSCA does have a chance of passing, and unless there is a sizable outcry from the people, big corps like Disney, etc. can and will push this thing through.

Re:The Sky is Falling.... (3, Insightful)

Tim Doran (910) | about 13 years ago | (#2373690)

Exactly. Remember, the politicians who wrote the DMCA could collect their kudos from the industry by getting it passed, not by making it stick.

Congress is not afraid of passing an unconstitutional law, since there's always the Supreme Court to strike it down if necessary. Scary thought, isn't it? Especially when you consider that most sitting members of the Supremes were appointed by Reagan and Bush Sr. and at least two will retire in time for Dubya to replace them with new hand-picked right-wingers. This is your last defense against unconstitutional laws and it even costs *me* sleep, up here in Canada...

Re:The Sky is Falling.... (1)

notext (461158) | about 13 years ago | (#2373731)

big corps like Disney, etc. can and will push this thing through.

Too much publicity, good or bad, doesn't hurt it either. The more opposition to something like this, the more the congressman can sqeeze out of a big company and that will make him adore legislation even more.

Re:The Sky is Falling.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373647)

Chill. It's not the sky, it's just the building you're sitting in...

Re:The Sky is Falling.... (3, Insightful)

Cramer (69040) | about 13 years ago | (#2373702)

Really? Maybe you should get your head out of your ... never mind.

The system of "checks and balances" originally envisioned hasn't worked for many many years. People are too stupid and too greedy. The "system" failed for the DMCA. The "system" has had no effect on the recent anti-terrorism laws -- passing in HOURS. And it will fail with this bullshit as well.

This will be one more law people break with abandon. Of course, this one will be a lot harder to break with all the hardware manufacturers playing along.

Short of a cue, none of this is ever going to change.

Re:The Sky is Falling.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373716)

Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.

Dork. And what the fuck is "toleranse", anyways, Mr. mega-brain?



-- Someone who would easily qualify for Mensa, but is not pathetic enough to need that validation

Sig: Irony (1)

rufus t firefly (35399) | about 13 years ago | (#2373771)

Dork. And what the fuck is "toleranse", anyways, Mr. mega-brain?

-- Someone who would easily qualify for Mensa, but is not pathetic enough to need that validation

I think the signature is supposed to be ironic. You know, incorrectly spelling a word while saying that you belong to a society of overly intelligent people?

And chill out. There's enough tension and hatred in the world without being mad at every person belonging to something like Mensa. I doubt all the people in that organization are "pathetic." It's like saying that people in a charitable organization are pathetic because they are enjoying the company of other like-minded people; I don't see the correlation.

Also, if you're going to accuse someone of being pathetic and requiring validation, you might want to consider not appearing pompous in your sig; he managed to get his point across without using slang or vulgarity. For someone supposedly so intelligent, you might want to look up "irony." It's under "I" in the dictionary.

Does literacy correlate in any way to a high IQ (1)

why-is-it (318134) | about 13 years ago | (#2373724)

-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.

Dude I think you mis-spelled tolerance...

As well as undermining the credibility of Mensa...

A little help... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373786)

atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
This [dictionary.com] has been bugging me for a while. Just thought you should know.

SSSCA -- that was a close one (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373612)

I thought that the Social Security administration was going to be starting up a certificate authority until I read the article there... seems much less ominous sounding now.

So, who has the better lobbyists? (3, Interesting)

Styx (15057) | about 13 years ago | (#2373615)

This battle might actually be interesting. Which industry has the best most influence on .us politicians?
It looks like [opensecrets.org] Hollywood contributes more to the coffers of the political parties.
Let's just hope the Electronics Industry and Comsumers win this one.

Lets (-1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 13 years ago | (#2373625)

ban guns like england!

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/c rv s.htm

look at the result, our crime rates drop and theirs go up. I feel much safer, thank you.

Sing a song... (-1)

helstar (172465) | about 13 years ago | (#2373628)

The Final Word (4:44) K. Vanderhoof / M. Howe
By Metal Church

Why don't you find a worthwhile cause to channel your energies?
Like finding a solution to starvation and disease
I know that you're concerned about your First Ammendment rights
But don't you burn our flag to make your point, that's just not right
If you think you're better off in a different country
Why don't you pack your bags right now
Here's your ticket
It's on me

I've been around this whole wide world and found no better place
And no one's gonna start a fire in my homeland's face
We have a tendency to take our freedom for granted
We have some problems, yes I know
Look at the seed you've planted

I know that you're aching to be heard
What gives you the famous final word?
To think that your opinion is preferred
What gives you the famous final word?

What other country do you know that pays you without work?
When you need some money, see your welfare officer
There's a lot of other things that you could take a stand about
So you and your activists can take the next train out

I know that you're aching to be heard
What gives you the famous final word?
To think that your opinion is preferred
What gives you the famous final word?

Freedom of speech out of hand
Demonstations in the land
If you complain a little more
What rights you have left
Go flying out the door

Why don't you find a worthwhile cause to channel your energies?
Like finding a solution to starvation and disease
With all the problems in this world that are facing us today
We need a concentrated push or in the long run we'll all pay

Jack Valenti can go to hell. (4, Funny)

Rev.LoveJoy (136856) | about 13 years ago | (#2373631)

I love this quote.

"This is the best way to protect America's valuable creative works, which in turn will expand broadband access and Internet use,"

That's funny. Now, I could have sworn that the internet came to be the world-altering sucess it is today due to open standards and a lack of control. But hey, who knows, maybe I just need to go take my soma and follow the MPAA/RIAA party line? yeah.

- Cheers,
- RLJ

Re:Jack Valenti can go to hell. (2)

Cramer (69040) | about 13 years ago | (#2373714)

Translation: "This is the best way to protect my paycheck."

Re:Jack Valenti can go to hell. (1)

PinkStainlessTail (469560) | about 13 years ago | (#2373735)

Now, I could have sworn that the internet came to be the world-altering sucess it is today due to open standards and a lack of control.

Well, sure, yeah, but you know, that was then: now that there's a real audience of non-geek people out there it's time to start the wallet harvest in earnest. Control what we see, how we see it, etc. Guess it's time to start that community wireless intranet for wacky uncontrolled fun...

United we stand... (2, Informative)

bacontaco (126431) | about 13 years ago | (#2373633)

If there's one thing we've learned this past month, it's that we must stick together. As computer users, we must stand together on this issue. This includes writing your state representatives in the U.S. Congress and Senate, since they will ultimately be deciding the fate of this bill.

Write Your Representative [house.gov]
Write Your Senator [senate.gov]

Keep our rights alive!

I got my iBook 2 this weekend, and man it's fan (-1)

TRoLLaXoR (181585) | about 13 years ago | (#2373639)

I got my iBook 2 this weekend, and man it's fantastic! 640 MB RAM, 500MHz PowerPC 750 (w/ 256k L2 cache on-chip), and it feels and acts faster than my PIII 1GHz system at work with Win 2000 (I have Mac OS 10.1).

Probably the neatest thing of all is the DVD player, which I've never had in a computer before. So, I went bargain CD shopping and here's what I came up with!

  • Angel Heart
  • Back to School
  • Cannonball Run
  • King Kong vs. Godzilla
  • The Last Dragon
  • The Meaning of Life
  • Weird Science

Well these movies are pretty great, in Cannonball Run Roger Moore even plays a man obsessed with... Roger Moore!

All for under $45!

Well, gotta go. Feels like I have to vomit again.

Lat0r!

Kazaa blocks gift (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373643)

Sensing the ongoing increase of popularity [sourceforge.net] of giFT [sourceforge.net] , KaZaA [kazaa.com] has blocked all open-sourced attempts to connect to the FastTrack network used by KaZaA, Morpheus [musiccity.com] , and Grokster [grokster.com] . More information here [giftproject.org] . For more about giFT, refer back to this [slashdot.org] slashdot article.


also, visit #gift on irc.openprojects.net for even more info

A way to cash in big: (3, Funny)

alecto (42429) | about 13 years ago | (#2373645)

1. Buy lots of upper mid-end PC's with CD burners right now.


2. Support this legislation and await its passage.


3. Rake in the money selling "r@r3 pre-ban computers with CD-R drives" on eBay based on the grandfathering in section 101.


4. (optional) Spend the money you made to vacation somewhere and reminisce about the day when information wanted to be free.

Is this stuff really worth protecting?? (2, Funny)

slow_flight (518010) | about 13 years ago | (#2373661)

"This is the best way to protect America's valuable creative works, which in turn will expand broadband access and Internet use," said Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

Such as 'Driven,' 'Spy Kids,' or any of the other facile, intellectually insulting drivel these people put out on a predictable basis? Seeing this constant stream of unadulterated crap described as "valuable creative work" makes me almost as nauseous as watching the stuff in the first place!

Flamer Disclaimer: Yes, yes, yes. I know I don't have to watch it. Easy, cheap date for the wife/kids, though.

Re:Is this stuff really worth protecting?? (1)

carlos_benj (140796) | about 13 years ago | (#2373785)

Flamer Disclaimer: Yes, yes, yes. I know I don't have to watch it. Easy, cheap date for the wife/kids, though.

Easy way to not have to interact with them but give the illusion of quality family time? If you're looking for easy and cheap, a picnic in the park uses food you would have eaten at home anyway, gets you outdoors and gives you an opportunity to get to know your wife/kids beyond watching their reactions to different scenes in a slickly produced but otherwise irredeemable movie (What? You think you know your wife already???).

Don't buy products that use restrictive tech. (1)

Mathetes (132911) | about 13 years ago | (#2373671)

Since it appears I don't have much power to do anything else about it. It may come to the point where I don't buy any new electronic gadgets at all. I think this is something that each of us will have to consider in the coming years as the media companies try to mold technologies using the legal system.

I've began to draw lines in the sand. I will not buy from a website that requires you use Microsoft Passport. I will not buy copy protected CD's, and if I discover one I buy to be copy protected, I will return it. I will not buy an e-book. I will not use a media format that requires a special proprietary player. This isn't a boycott, this is simply a moral decision on my own part. I would have been the most likely person to buy these things, but not under these terms.

So why not just go "analog"? (2, Interesting)

jbarr (2233) | about 13 years ago | (#2373677)

OK, the bill and all the other hype specifies a "digital device". So why doesn't someone just design some sort of "interface" that connects to the digital source and simply converts the digital signal to some (probably yet-to-be-invented) "high-speed" analog signal. This analog signal then would be input to the DVR or set-top box, and converted back to digital. The conversion would just have to be fast enough to "keep up" with the digital speed.

That way, the input to PVR or set-top box would be analog thus exempting it from the legislation.

Whatcha think?

Schneier's doing good work (5, Interesting)

kryzx (178628) | about 13 years ago | (#2373679)

Bruce Schneier [counterpane.com] (of Counterpane [counterpane.com] ) does a good job of sticking up for our rights on this one. He's really been doing a good job of getting the message out. Most articles on this kind of stuff have some good quotes from him. He's a consistent voice of reason. Kudos, Bruce.

Deep pockets on both sides of this, which is good (4, Insightful)

mmacdona86 (524915) | about 13 years ago | (#2373680)

Having the consumer electronics folks against this is good, since they have a well-funded lobby (though it may not be as influential as the MPAA). That's what will slow down this kind of bad legislation. The best way to keep the consumer electronics folks on the right side of this is consumer education: if we geeks can inform the masses about content controls and convince them that they should avoid devices that contain them it could stiffen the consumer electronics manufacturers resistance. DVD enthusiasts made Divx smell like dogsh*t to the masses and prevented it from being widely adopted. But the manufacturers will only resists content controls for as long as they think it will cost them money.

Re:Deep pockets on both sides of this, which is go (3, Insightful)

Tim Doran (910) | about 13 years ago | (#2373764)

Right. But in a wag-the-dog scenario, the entertainment industry (with huge lobbying budgets and relatively modest economic significance) is pushing through laws that will have huge effects on telecom, consumer electronics and high tech (with relatively modest lobbying budgets and massive economic significance).

The best we can hope for is an upswing in lobbying efforts by high-tech organizations. That *might* counter this bill, but just means more lobbying by groups defending their business.

What is really required is a massive, permanent lobbying effort by EFF and other civil rights organizations. Too bad it'll never be within their financial reach.

Digital Watermarking = Terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373682)

At least there will have to be backdoors in any data protection system implemented for this law, otherwise Disney, et al, will be terrorists...

Jack on Crack! (2)

Tackhead (54550) | about 13 years ago | (#2373683)

> "This is the best way to protect America's valuable creative works, which in turn will expand broadband access and Internet use," said Jack Valenti

Lemme get this straight - locking down all consumer hardware, banning the PC, and doing it all to prevent people from getting any use out of P2P networks for file-sharing.

So - in order to "expand broadband access", we not only kill Napster (which was arguably the "killer app" that drove people to demand broadband access at home) - we also now want to kill the PCs on which any application can run.

Well, I suppose if nobody uses broadband for themselves, that leaves more dark fiber available to Hollyweird.

But it smacks a little too much of "we had to destroy the village to save it" for my tastes.

(Of course, we all know this is exactly what Jack wants. To which I say "Fuck you, Jack. Fuck you with a wire brush. You and your partner in oligopoly, Ms. Rosen, are cordially invited to tongue my hot sweaty bag.")

I was half-joking when I suggested scouring the surplus shops for spare PCs to last us through the coming Dark Ages. I'm no longer joking. If your "new PC" budget is $2000, don't buy a $2000 PC. Buy four $500 PCs - with non-CPRM hard drives, flashable-firmware DVD-ROMs, and CD/RWs. Because the hardware you buy over the next 2 years may very well have to last you the rest of your life.

Fuck you, Jack.

Analogy? (1)

rufus t firefly (35399) | about 13 years ago | (#2373791)

Lemme get this straight - locking down all consumer hardware, banning the PC, and doing it all to prevent people from getting any use out of P2P networks for file-sharing.

Isn't that kind of like forcing people to use square cement wheels on their cars, to avoid allowing cars to be used to assist in a bank robbery?

A little too vague? (1)

GiorgioG (225675) | about 13 years ago | (#2373688)

"unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies that adhere to the security system standards."

Don't we have freedom to choose what goes into the products we make?

Bill of Rights, Amendment 14:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm not sure this would stand up in a court of law.

Re:A little too vague? (0)

boxless (35756) | about 13 years ago | (#2373737)

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You miss the most fundamental phrase, which is 'without due process of law', which is what all this debate in congress is about. You actually don't have the right to buy whatever you like. Think of Cocaine, for instance.

On Wired.com... (1)

cyborg_munkee (525540) | about 13 years ago | (#2373691)

I first read about this on Wired [wired.com] on September 7th. It seemed really extreme at the time, but after the attack it seems a little less extreme, and that is were the danger is.

Hey kids! Click here to win a prize!!! (4, Funny)

glebite (206150) | about 13 years ago | (#2373695)

Hey kids - you know that stealing and breaking the law is a bad thing? I thought you did. So, here's how you can do the right thing and win a prize. If you tell M*ck*y what movies, music, or game your parents have copied, we'll send you a prize!

Hehehehe...

SSSCA=BIG TROUBLE; we need a strategy to defeat it (1)

dcavanaugh (248349) | about 13 years ago | (#2373697)

I intend to write to my Congressional representatives and educate them on the perils of SSSCA, including my plan to boycott all SSSCA-compliant devices (should anyone be dumb enough to manufacture them). They need to be aware that this is not something that will be cheerfully accepted.

Assuming plan A fails and the special interests get their wish, we have to ensure that the SSSCA-compliant devices sit on store shelves, as space-wasters. If we aren't willing to resist the implementation of this stuff, then we deserve the end results.

If anyone has a better idea on defeating SSSCA, let's hear about it.

Hmmm, I wonder if those rumors I heard about the SSSCA virus are true?

Just what we need (1)

Ryan Amos (16972) | about 13 years ago | (#2373707)

The main effect of this is how it would stifle innovation and growth in the industry. If OEMs have to comply with a strict standard, there will be little deviation from it and little difference in price/features in the industry. Strict voluntary standards are good to a point, but the way this sounds is the government will basically tell companies what chipset features they can use. Not a good thing.

Defense is a losing battle (1)

ajuda (124386) | about 13 years ago | (#2373710)

We need to take a lesson from other groups. If techies could somehow form an organization to strongly oppose such legislation in the same manner as the NRA prevents gun legislation, these bills would never get off the ground. It's time to organize and take it on the offensive!

Actual Information (3, Informative)

mosch (204) | about 13 years ago | (#2373711)

Cryptome.org has the full text of the bill here [cryptome.org] . Check it out.

It also means, no more reruns of soaps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373740)

Wheee!!!

overload (1)

jcw2112 (147992) | about 13 years ago | (#2373745)

is anyone else hitting overload with this stuff? i'm sick of the mindless pablum that is doled out to me and even sicker of the legislation that gets put into place to protect it. guess what? i don't care!

i've all but given up on tv (must have "good eats", "battlebots" and "the daily show")...i haven't been to a movie that didn't make me feel like i was "goat-sexed" at the box office in YEARS...even music has largely forsaken me.

i read more than ever (god, i LOVE being pretentious!) and i guess i spend more time with my computer than any other "entertainment" device. but i don't watch movies on it or listen to illegally ripped mp3s. i actually use it as a tool for creating my own music.

now, don't get me wrong, i've written to my reps, called their offices, faxed them, etc. i just feel drained. i want it all to stop. yeah, i'm a whiner. anyone wanna toss me a bone with a "me too!" post? damn i hate mondays...

Goat-sexed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2373754)

make me feel like i was "goat-sexed"

Heh... thanks for making me laugh.

That's a nice Slashdotism.

Will this cause the US to lose its economic lead? (2, Interesting)

slipgun (316092) | about 13 years ago | (#2373747)

If this ridiculous piece of legislation is passed, it could being to erode the US's competitiveness on the world market. Here in Britain, we will be able to continue to run Linux and 'non-approved' devices such as (gasp) PCs which we have built ourselves, which will make things much easier for businesses (and consumers) than it would be over there. If such a law was passed here, no one would take much notice anyway. We've got bigger problem at the moment (eg stopping an attack on the Square Mile).

Haven't your maggots (er, politicians) got bigger things on their plate too?

It would be so much simpler (1)

Johnny5000 (451029) | about 13 years ago | (#2373753)

They should just go ahead and pass the law they *really* are trying to get at, instead of pussyfooting around it:

Anyone can be arrested for any reason, and detained for however long the 'authorities' deem appropriate.

Problem solved- it's the only law we'd need.

-J5K

Re:It would be so much simpler (1)

Dimensio (311070) | about 13 years ago | (#2373781)

You forgot the provision that allows the MPAA, the RIAA or any company that pays a substantial amount to one of those organizations to order said arrests.

Microsoft's dream come true!! (4, Informative)

mosch (204) | about 13 years ago | (#2373762)

Section 107 provides an Antitrust Exemption, allowing exemption of antitrust laws! (first section of the Clayton Act)

Don't let free software get destroyed by this clause, which seems obviously bought and paid for by Microsoft!

Questions (2)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 13 years ago | (#2373767)

Has it been introduced to the Senate yet? And if so, what's the bill number? Useful information to have when bitching to your Senators.

Chilling: I already predicted this in August! (1)

Duncan Cragg (209425) | about 13 years ago | (#2373772)

I posted the following comment to Slashdot and another site [openp2p.com] not so long ago, unaware of this new proposed legislation.

It's similar in approach to what is being suggested:

Here's my comment [slashdot.org]

I hate it when an ironic posting starts to come true: especially so soon!

Old tech will rule (1)

iplayfast (166447) | about 13 years ago | (#2373775)

Why does my computer run slower now then it did in 2001? because it's busy accessing GlibGlob.com to see if it's legal for me to run this software show this movie, listen to these sounds, etc.

Is it just me or is the US leading the world into the technolgy dark ages?

Letter I sent to 60+ senators--do the same! (5, Insightful)

coats (1068) | about 13 years ago | (#2373776)

I am a mathematician and computer scientist (PH.D., MIT 1978). I am writing to you to express my vehement opposition to the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" (SSSCA), a bill drafted by Senators Ernest Hollings (SC) and Ted Stevens (AL). I urge you in the strongest possible terms to oppose this bill. There are four reasons for my opposition:

  1. It represents a serious threat to the national security and the well-being of the United States;
  2. Its provisions are outrageously un-Constitutional;
  3. It represents poor public policy, advancing a narrow corporate interest against the interests of the public at large; and
  4. It is (deliberately) over-broad and unconscionably vague in its provisions, particularly as regards its definition of "digital device".
These points, as well as changes I think are needed in current copyright law, are more fully discussed below A. Introduction.
The Constitution requires that copyright term be limited. From this point of view, the current copyright law is no less than a Constitutional outrage. Triply so: From a theoretical point of view, if Congress is free retroactively to extend copyright term at will (as it has repeatedly done in this century), then copyright term fails to fit the definition of "limited". From an operational point of view, a copyright law that has been repeatedly extended so that no works have actually made it or will make it into the public domain during my entire adult lifetime, both past and future, is a copyright law that fails the operational definition of "limited". And finally, in human terms, a copyright term that extends more than a lifetime after the death of the author fails the definition of "limited" on the human scale. It has been argued that this extension of copyright encourages authorship. Such an argument is purely specious: it is impossible that an author already 50 years dead can be encouraged to produce further works by the extension of his copyrights for another twenty years.

B. Discussion
1. National Security: First of all, this bill is a serious threat to the national security of the United States. The reason for this is as follows: Both the Internet and digital computers have become critical to the continued security and prosperity of the United States. This bill, by outlawing all digital equipment that does not " include and utilize certified security technologies" would have the de facto effect of outlawing all software and computers except those from a few large corporate sources--particularly, the effect of outlawing so-called "Open Source" software such as the Linux operating system and the Apache web-server, which are distributed in human readable and modifiable form. What would remain is exactly the systems and software which have shown themselves most vulnerable to attack: virtually all of the disruptive "virus" and "worm" attacks of the last five years have been made possible by defects in the inherent design of Microsoft operating system, server, and email and application software. The computer-security situation is so serious that earlier this week the very staid Gartner Group management consulting firm issued a warning recommending that their clients immediately remove Microsoft internet server software and replace it with products from other vendors such as Apache and IPlanet (see http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101 034). A year ago, the US National Security Agency concluded that it was impossible to make Microsoft systems sufficiently secure for sensitive applications, and constructed an especially secure configuration of the Linux operating system for that purpose (see http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/). The SSSCA would make Apache and Linux illegal.

2. Un-Constitutionality: The SSSCA, with its absolutist protection for "security technologies" is an affront to the Constitutional provision for copyright. The Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a LIMITED monopoly,

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
against whose conditions the SSSCA is an outrage. The SSSCA admits no limit on the term of protection it espouses. Nor does it make any provision for fair use. In its original 1823 decision establishing the doctrine of fair use, the Supreme Court stated that Congress may make no copyright law so strict as to deny freedom of speech nor freedom of the Press. The SSSCA violates this Constitutional requirement also.

3. Poor public Policy: The Founding Fathers did not regard "intellectual property" as a natural right, but rather as a limited legislated monopoly which was of benefit to society as a whole _if managed properly_. They had had relatively recent experiences with both no-copyright situations and with permanent Crown monopolies on publishing (and, sadly, they tended to be better versed in history than many are today.) They knew that copyright was of greatest benefit to society at large if it offered a quid pro quo: in exchange for a temporary monopoly on copying, the authors must pass their works into the public domain--the property of all of us--at the expiration of the limited term. This bargain has already been brought to the breaking point by current copyright law,e specially the DMCA; the SSSCA breaks it completely. It is purely and specifically for the narrow benefit of a few large publishing houses who fear that digital technology will break both their stranglehold on the authors and music-writers and their captivation of the public at large. (Note that the SSSCA's provision for setting "standards" has the effect of freezing out both writers and the general public.)

4. Over-breadth and Vagueness: Finally, Sen. Hollings himself has admitted in interviews with Wired magazine that the provisions are deliberately vague, in order to get a bill passed with provisions that may be applied far more broadly than Congress intends or believes reasonable. Congress should not permit itself to be so deceived.

C. Needed Copyright Reforms.
There are reforms that do need to be made in copyright law; let me suggest that any copyright bill should be amended to include at least the following:

  • Section 105 should be amended so as include not only "any work of the United States Government" but also all laws -- Federal, State, and local -- in the public domain. (Note that some trade associations have had local and state governments adopt their copyrighted codes as public laws, while still maintaining a copyright upon them. As a matter of public policy, the law should not be owned by private interest groups.)
  • Section 107 should be amended so as to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. When a disabled person owns a copy of a copyright work which is by reason of disability inaccessible, it should be fair use to make an enhanced copy for private use, in order to make accomodation for that disability. Commercial publishers who use "technical means of protection" (as under the DMCA) or "certified security technologies" (under the SSSCA or its ilk) should be required to publish enhanced copies for the accomodation of persons with disabilities, at the same price that they sell un-enhanced copies.
  • Fraudulent claim of copyright should be a crime punishable at least as severely as copyright infringement. Fraudulent claim of copyright steals from the patrimony of us all. Such fraudulent claim of copyright is rampant in at least the classical music publishing industry. And since the record of the last decade shows that the Department of Justice cannot be relied upon to prosecute copyright offenses, and since it steals from us all, any member of the public should have standing for civil suit against such fraud.

D. Conclusion
You have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Copyright law should be returned to its Constitutional limits.

What does the rest of the industry think? (3)

j7953 (457666) | about 13 years ago | (#2373796)

This law, if it passes, will make impossible any real innovation in software development or networking technology. This would harm not only OEMs and other computer companies, it would harm the complete industry.

I don't even think Microsoft will like it. Sure, it might be a temporary advantage for them, as their Media Player already includes usage control technology. But what about their long-term visions [slashdot.org] ? I wonder how they'll implement things like seamless distribution or storage- and location-irrelevance while at the same time making sure that the data stays where the RIAA wants it.

What does IBM think about this bill? They invested a lot of money in Linux, what do they think about Linux becoming illegal?

Sun's vision -- "The network is the computer" -- will effectively be impossible to realize if you can't store data "on the network" but must control where exactly it is.

In fact, the SSSCA denies the idea of a networked computer in favor of computers which are reduced to media player devices. The idea of being attached to a network is no longer communication, it is to be able to receive and pay for content. The media industry's vision is to turn computers into televisions, and this law is another step in making that vision a reality. I can imagine the RIAA and MPAA love the idea, but I have no idea why anyone in the computer industry (or any other industry) can support it.

The article talks about OEMs, does anyone know what the other industries, and big computer corporations like the three mentioned above think about this bill?

No End to Linux in sight (1)

gunnerbunny (182711) | about 13 years ago | (#2373800)

This legislation is obviously meant to setup government controls for keeping tabs on exactly what digital media the populus has access to. This certainly doesn't necessarily cry for an end to all linux! Unfrotunately what it will mean is a serious redirection in the way that distribution developers are allowed to distribute. We are looking at the possibility of future legislation enacted to establish mandatory (illegal to remove) source code in certain open source applications...and that is a scary thought...it's like the gov. is trying to block a rushing river with a stick and mud dam, they'll only succeed if they get enough people working together at once....sad thing is, they have the people to do it....

Dying industry? Poor management? No innovation! (2)

tcc (140386) | about 13 years ago | (#2373801)

Any Big corporation that acts lame normally is doing so as a last resort.

Look at ANY company you've seen (ok aside from microsoft :) ) that pissed off it's customers and imposed a shitload of restrictions and played dirty, it's always the same pattern, "we got f*cked because we didn't do any DD nor looked after what's out there simply because we assumed we were the best and had total control over the market..." now that they realize they sat on their success and thought they had the perfect eternal cash cow, they don't accept it and instead of INNOVATING to surpass that (because usually the manager are proud incompetent morons that have no clue about newer technologies), they are simply playing dirty on EVERY level they can.

The only difference is now they still have a lot of cashflow and influence... If they would be fair, they'd developp a system WITH encryption and an honnor thing like you download the movie, you pay 2$, you watch it, it gets deleted or scrambled 48 hours later... what's bad about that? they generate a pile of money, they could sell that system to places like blockbusters, the technology exists, it's feasible (dvd-rw, cd-rw, whatever media), and people WOULD support it. Heck, I'd even support at 100% arresting someone who hacks these CD for a fraudulent usage because that would be really low, I do accept they have to generate income and protect their content, but not by doublecrossing us and limiting our use of a computer.

Now shoving a bill and using criminal laws to shove content up our butt is quite insulting, and will get the exact opposed reaction.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?