Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government Entertainment Technology

Digital Content Security Act 473

Posted by samzenpus from the laws-make-everything-better dept.
bdwoolman writes "Congress is leaving a special gift under the tree for Hollywood's film industry. Just before closing for the holidays, legislators introduced a new proposal designed to curb redistribution of movies.The Digital Transition Content Security Act would embed anticopying technology into the next generation of digital video products. If it makes its way from Capitol Hill to the Oval Office and becomes law, the measure will outlaw the manufacture or sale of electronic devices that convert analog video signals into digital video signals, effective one year from its enactment. PC-based tuners and digital video recorders are listed among the devices."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Digital Content Security Act More

Digital Content Security Act

Comments Filter:

  • You are violating the act (Score:5, Funny)

    by arrrrg ( 902404 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:44PM (#14314688)
    by converting this post from analog to digital in your brain. You will be hearing from my lawyers (fp?).
    • I appreciate your sense of humor, but I find it odd that /. would publish this post, which is a clear plagiarism of this article on CRM [crmbuyer.com].
      • No plagiarism, they're both published by the same company and both have identical credits to the author.
        • Actually what I was referring to was the verbatim quoting of the article in the text of the summary.
          • verbatim quoting of the article

            "I think "verbatim quoting" is a tautology; moving on, it's one or two paragraphs, making about 20% of the entire story. I'd consider this "fair use", especially as it links back to the source. But of course lots of copyright owners don't believe there is such a thing as "fair use", as witness the topic of the story.

    • However, by typing your reply you already are in violation! You translated your analog thoughts and movements into digitaly stored characters by typing them into your comptuer!!!

      Ack! Now Im in violation myself!

      tm

    • Does it apply only to video and audio? If not will this outlaw any computer used to recieve and process faxes? How about the equipment that converts audio into text for the deaf? Analog to digital conversion is required for that equipment to work. Knowing the techo-illiterate congress we have they will probably pass a law so vague that it criminalizes everyone.

      /sarcasm
      Of course the RIAA will have Homeland Security chasing after every violater of the law because by then they will have made a case that IP

  • Backed by John Conyers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:45PM (#14314693)
    I had a lot of respect for John Conyers. Unfortunately, with this bill, he's spent all his political capital in my eyes.

    • Re:Backed by John Conyers (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:51PM (#14314728)
      >he's spent all his political capital in my eyes.

      Ewww.

      I hope he at least had the common decency to hand you a tissue.

    • Re:Backed by John Conyers (Score:4, Informative)

      by Penguinshit ( 591885 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:41AM (#14315012) Homepage Journal

      I agree with you. I greatly respect Congressman Conyers, but I totally disagree with him on this subject. However, for the record, here's JC's response from his blog [conyersblog.us]:

      I have been hearing today that a lively discussion is taking place around the internet about my cosponsorship of the "Digital Transition Content Security Act," a bill that attempts to plug the "analog hole." Because the tone of some of these discussions has become so vitriolic, I decided to respond here.

      First, some who disagree with my cosponsorship of this bill have imputed motives to me in a manner that I think is unfair. My cosponsorship has been labeled a "sell out," a "giveaway" or a "handout" to the movie/music industry, among other things. It has been said that I must have had "a lot of [my] time bought by the content industries" to cosponsor this bill.

      The content industries would be very surprised to hear these assessments, which belie a great unfamiliarity with my legislative record and statements about these issues. Over a more than 40 year Congressional career, I have stood up clearly and consistently for the artists and others who work in the content industry. In my view, they are being squeezed from two sides. When it comes to working and contractual conditions, they are squeezed by the content industry. When it comes to piracy, they are being squeezed by illegal file sharing. Collectively, this squeeze has led to a lower standard of living for artists and lower profile workers in the content industry.

      To say I am somehow beholden to the content industry ignores a number of actions I have taken. Here are a few from recent years. At a meeting of the Future of Music Coalition (an artists' rights group) in 2002, I rebuked the industry saying "[t]echnology is forcing the record labels and the artists and the writers and the composers to come together...[t]he Internet says to the industry that you folks are yesterday's news, you're following outdated models, your business strategies don't work anymore, and your profit motive is showing rather vulgarly." I also proposed a series of reforms to benefit artists that was strongly opposed by the RIAA.

      When the recording industry slipped a provision to reclassify recording artists songs as "work for hire" into a satellite television bill and thereby deprived artists of reversionary rights to their songs, I fought back, saying among other things, "[i]t is about time we separate the people in the recording industry from the recording artists. I keep hearing from the recording industry telling me what the recording artists want. I know a few recording artists, and we will be checking on this. This is appropriately a sensitive subject." I have been outspoken about the industry practice of pay for play (or "payola") as well.

      When the film studios have moved film production to Canada or overseas, thus costing American workers their jobs, I stood up to them.

      When the publishing industry sought to deprive freelance writers of their rights (something fellow Kos poster Jonathan Tasini knows quite a bit about), I introduced a bill to protect freelance writers, illustrators, cartoonists, graphic designers, and photographers. The publishers did not like that very much.

      I hear from lots of people that artists don't care about piracy. While it is true that some artists struggling to make it into the business don't mind file sharing because it exposes their songs to a wider audience, many - many - artists have come directly to me saying that piracy is threatening their ability to make a living. I have heard similar complaints from animators, writers, grips, and cameramen, who have seen job opportunities diminish in part because of piracy.

      To be sure, as I have said above, piracy is not the whole problem - industry practices are part of the problem as well, but it is part of the problem. So what should we do about it?

      Some say we do not need to do anything because uploading di

      • More ignorance than malice. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        His response is fair, and seems to indicate that he simply doesn't understand the technology involved. In particular, he fails to understand the financial magnitude of the change he's requesting (huge), the degree to which it would impose on ordinary citizens and small businesses in the process of their own content creation and hobbies (large), and the degree to which it or any technological measure would actually curb piracy (small to zero--DRM has a terrible track record in this respect, and there are a

      • Re:Backed by John Conyers (Score:5, Informative)

        by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @01:22AM (#14315163) Homepage Journal
        And I suppose that 10 grand capaign donation from the music industry [opensecrets.org] is a complete coincidence?

      • Re:Backed by John Conyers (Score:5, Insightful)

        by weston ( 16146 ) <westonsd@@@canncentral...org> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @02:38AM (#14315408) Homepage
        First off, where did you find this entry? I don't see a title containing the words Digital or Content anywhere here [conyersblog.us]...

        Second:

        "I have said repeatedly that any legislation affecting the ability of consumers to use content must be carefully balanced to respect consumer expectations and rights and, of course, fair use."

        Does he really know what he's talking about? How can he not realize that if you outlaw devices except those that follow instructions from content owners, you've effectively eliminated any use except those they decide to give you -- fair or not?

        Has he really though through the implications for independent journalism? If you can put an analog signal in a broadcast, speech, performance, that dictates its disposition/distribution, you've effectively ended independent journalism that uses direct A/V sources. Bush messes up in a speech? Sorry, you *can't* rebroadcast it -- hell, you might not be allowed to record it. The only version that will exist and be distributed will be the official version.

        "many - many - artists have come directly to me saying that piracy is threatening their ability to make a living. "

        Who? How many? Can we really trust decisions in a matter of policy like this to secondhand anecdotal estimates? Make your case, but do it openly and preferably with some references to some analyses that looks harder than that. As the Representative himself stated, there are also many, many artists who don't feel like piracy is a particularly big problem. I'd be interested to know why he's choosing to listen to those who do feel threatened by piracy.

        Giving content providers ultimate control is the wrong place to fight this for anyone who can think through the issue and genuinely cares about liberties. If the Representative can't see this, he'll have a hard time convincing me he's not deficient in at least one of the two areas. I'd love to be able to see his responses, thoough.
      • The gulibility and/or insincerity of Congress- and Mr. Conyers- on this is pretty alarming (hey kind of like iraq! Close the analog hole John! Your consituents will be greeting you with flowers, thanking you for saving their favorite programs!) At least George Bush is throwing my freedoms in the trash so he can fail to protect me from terrorists. Mr. Conyers & Co. are throwing them in the trash so that ABC can fail to prevent bittorrents of Deperate Housewives.

        There is one simple reason why t
      • He makes the usual mistake of believing it is all about music and video.

        The industry can put all kinds of control in their products as long as I can just choose not to buy them.

        But when they try to regulate the equipment I use to make holiday movies it is an entirely different matter.

        I too would like good artists to make a decent living. But bills like this is essentially saying that artists (and their record companies) are first class citizens and that I am a second class citizen.

        (If I lived in the US that

  • Remember people (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Saven Marek ( 739395 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:45PM (#14314695)
    USA only gets control over USA, and you always have a choice where to live.

    • Re:Remember people (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zwilliams07 ( 840650 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:50PM (#14314724)
      You don't know the USA. Give em a few years, soon you won't have a choice where to live.

      • Re:Remember people (Score:2, Insightful)

        by xTantrum ( 919048 )
        i have to agree. The U.S. has a 2 things going for it. its army and hollywood. with its amy it can plant pupet leaders and disrupt already content countries and with hollywood it sells "the american" dream. making foreigners want a piece of the american pie.

        hollywood has a lot of money behind it and i'm sure a lot of senators in their pocket - if the world watches a lot of hollywood films i wouldn't be surprised to see this bill introduced in some forms in other countries.

        sad really, i just hope we don't

      • Re:Remember people (Score:5, Informative)

        by ZoTo ( 645302 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:38AM (#14314994)
        The US pushes many of its laws into other countries. Australia for instance is being forced to adopt US copyright laws (amongst other things) in return for being able to export goods to the US.

        • Re:Remember people (Score:4, Informative)

          by skribe ( 26534 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @01:00AM (#14315076) Homepage
          Australia for instance is being forced to adopt US copyright laws (amongst other things) in return for being able to export goods to the US.

          We weren't forced to do anything. We (aka the majority government coalition parties on our behalf) chose to do so freely in return for greater access to the US markets. We could have walked away from the deal at anytime. We just chose not to.

    • Re:Remember people (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jasonditz ( 597385 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:58PM (#14314782) Homepage
      and move to Australia, to get placed under house arrest for sedition... or move to the UK, where the government has decided they have to track every car on the road at all times. This is a worldwide problem of encroaching tyrannies, it's not as simple as packing a bag and going to a less insane place.
    • You know that fence on the Mexican border, soon it will be to keep the USians out of Mexico...
    • Uh, have you ever tried expatriating? It's very difficult, and takes a long time.

    • Re:Remember people (Score:4, Insightful)

      by chriswaclawik ( 859112 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:32AM (#14314964)
      Actually, many people have absolutely no control over where they live (due to either social, economic, or political reasons).

    • Re:Remember people (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Lazarian ( 906722 )
      "USA only gets control over USA, and you always have a choice where to live."

      Unless the US begins to apply political and economic pressure to adopt laws that are the equivalent to the DMCA. Recently here in Canada, the government turned down a proposal from the US to enact a DMCA type law, and the Bush administration "rejected" our "rejection". It was posted here a few months back.

      I wonder where the economic thumbscrews are being turned. Softwood lumber dispute, perhaps?

       

  • Digital Rights Massacre (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eli Gottlieb ( 917758 ) <eligottlieb@noSpAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:45PM (#14314697) Homepage Journal
    Wow, and won't all this conversion to DRM'd digital machines obsolete the old ones? Of course, which is probably the real goal here. They aren't merely plugging a hole in their Digital Rights Massacreing, they're forcing everyone to go out and buy new stuff! WOOT, keep the economy fueled and the profits where they belong: in the hands of those who don't need them.

    • Re:Digital Rights Massacre (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pete6677 ( 681676 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:31AM (#14314959)
      This will ensure that the bill fails. We should be glad that it is so ridiculous that it has no chance of passing, rather than only being semi-crazy like the DMCA. Hollywood may like the idea of making their movies so secure that most people can't even play them, but device makers won't appreciate having to redesign their entire product line. Competing corporate interests will keep this bill from ever seeing the light of day.

      • Re:Digital Rights Massacre (Score:4, Insightful)

        by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @01:47AM (#14315246)
        "We should be glad that it is so ridiculous that it has no chance of passing, rather than only being semi-crazy like the DMCA."

        On September 10, 2001, almost everyone in Washington would have told you that the Patriot Act was so ridiculous that it had no chance of passing. All it takes to get a despicable law passed in Washington is timing. Wait for voters to stop paying attention to what's really important, and one can slip any crazy law by. News from Washington in January will see the Alito nomination, more Patriot act showdowns, hearings into domestic spying by the DoD and the NSA, and a lot of noise from 2008 presidential hopefulls. Karl Rove is expected to be indicted soon and rumors of the imminent resignation of Donald Rumsfield just keep coming. With all of that noise on top of the bird flu nonsense, continued post-Katrina rebuilding being bungled, and the latest noise from Iraq constantly coming in, do you really think that it would be very hard for the *AAs to grease a few palms, twist a few arms, and sucker in a few morons to get this law passed?

      • Any bill can pass (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jetson ( 176002 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @02:36AM (#14315401) Homepage
        We should be glad that it is so ridiculous that it has no chance of passing

        All it takes is for someone to attach it to an omnibus funding bill, as happened this week with the bill to open the Arctic Wildlife Reserve to the oil companies by sticking it into an arms appropriation bill at the last second. Someone basically said "the military uses imported oil, so drilling in the arctic could be considered a military neccessity!" In this case, of course the vote was overwhelmingly in favour of allowing big business to polute the arctic in search of what is estimated to be about a 16-month supply of oil.

        I don't know why you guys (Americans) don't make this kind of legislative foolishness illegal. It's usually used for pork-barreling by attaching an obvious waste of money (in the form of directed bids for expensive purchases) to a bill that, oh, maybe funds school lunches or something. If the politicians don't vote in favour of the pork-barrel then they get a big "he voted against school lunches" attack in the next election. I'm sure it will happen one way or another with this "analog hole" proposal. Someone will find a way to roll it into a bigger block of regulations that nobody will have the guts to vote down....

        • Re:Any bill can pass (Score:4, Informative)

          by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:20AM (#14316711) Homepage Journal
          But they did vote that spending bill down. That really surprised me. Seems like it's raining reason in Washington this week. I really hope that there's some political backlash against Ted Stevens for introducing the language in the first place. For those of you who missed it, he's the guy who threw a temper tantrum when they tried to unfund his pork-barrel bridge to nowhere in Alaska in order to fund Katrina relief. He's also the guy who refused to swear in the oil executives when they were testifying before his committee.

          Yeah, it seems like all the worst legislation as far back as I can remember has been introduced via riders like this. I'd love to see the practise done away with, but it'd take a massive petition drive to pull it off and I doubt most Americans care that much about the practise, if they even know it exists. It never ceases to amaze me how little people I talk to seem to know about our political process...

      • Getting it passed probably isn't their intent (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jesterzog ( 189797 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:16AM (#14315888) Journal

        This will ensure that the bill fails. We should be glad that it is so ridiculous that it has no chance of passing, rather than only being semi-crazy like the DMCA.

        Considering it seems so unlikely on the surface, it makes me concerned that getting the bill passed isn't the actual point.

        After all, it wouldn't be the first time that members of an industry have proposed something "ludicrously ridiculous" so that law-makers might be convinced that it's entirely rational and reasonable to meet half way... at either "ludicrous" or "ridiculous".

  • Ready to move to Canada yet? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CokeBear ( 16811 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:46PM (#14314704) Journal
    Its days like this I'm so happy I live in Canada. Anyone want to move up here? I have a spare bedroom.

    Land of the free? heh

  • The senate can leave this present under the tree.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by theheff ( 894014 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:48PM (#14314709)
    ...but I'll still be leaving the flaming bag of poo at the front door.

  • But I like my microphone! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by masgrada ( 916623 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:49PM (#14314714) Homepage
    So now I can't record my guitar to my computer? No more computer karaoke? How broad of a "analogue" device definition are we talking?

  • MPAA Amnesty Program (Score:3, Funny)

    by themadplasterer ( 931983 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:51PM (#14314732)
    If this legislation is passed the MPAA Amnesty program will be offering one free movie for every PC tuner card, ADVC converter & mini DV surrendered. Unfortunately the movie will be: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299930/ [imdb.com]

  • All analog-to-digital video conversion? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Verteiron ( 224042 ) * on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:53PM (#14314737) Homepage
    That's a lot of stuff. For a start, my father-in-law loves his digital camcorder. As a journalist I'm sure he'll be thrilled with this new "freedom of choice".

    Geez.. all digital still and video cameras, my old Hauppage WinTV-PCI card... Let's see, all HDTV and LCD monitors...

    Somehow I don't see this one going through without a fight from hardware manufacturers. And since they have more money than Hollywood, they'll probably win. I hope.
    • Well the article was a little misleading, it won't really outlaw all analog to digital conversion, it will just make it so that the hardware manufacturers have to recognize a signal in the analog stream that dictates what can and can't be done with the stream. In effect this will likely make those devices useless since no media will allow recording, just like virtually no DVDs allow copying today. Yes, you can expect the INDEPENDENT hardware manufacturers to fight this, but there aren't very many of them around anymore. Sony has studios, Apple is the 7th largest music retailer in the US with ITMS, and TiVo is already largely beholden to the content providers. Microsoft is aggressively courting Hollywood to adopt its DRM and codec standards, so it's not clear they'll fight it. It really is scary:

      http://www.neurostechnology.com/press/freedom.asp [neurostechnology.com]

      • Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by AaronW ( 33736 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @01:14AM (#14315125) Homepage
        This has the potential to wreck havoc with consumers. Say I'm trying to tape my kid's birthday party and a DVD is playing in the background. Or I'm trying to tape something and someone blares music at the same time with the signal. What will happen? Will my video camera refuse to record because an analog signal is embedded in the DVD soundtrack? I think this is a very bad idea that will anger a lot of consumers. It will do little, if anything, to curb copyright infringement. For people that record movies in theaters it will just mean that they'll use older equipment or find some other way around it. Also, a lot of those movies come out of foreign countries which have no such restrictions.

      • Re:All analog-to-digital video conversion? (Score:4, Informative)

        by yo303 ( 558777 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:20AM (#14315905)
        You are absolutely right. In reality there will be many embedded signals, and if you go to the very end of the act [publicknowledge.org], Table W lists what the hardware is supposed to do if it sees or does not see the signals. The devices must even detect "tampered" signals, that are inconsistent.

        As an example, in scenario 2 we see what all devices must do if only the VEIL signal is found.

        (Step 1) CGMS-A State Detected -- Not present
        (Step 2) RCI State Detected -- Not present
        (redistribution control bit to be detected with CGMS-A)
        (Step 3) VEIL Detected -- YES
        Rights Assertion Description -- INCONSISTENT STATE: Rights are being asserted so the CGMS-A was probably tampered and/or the RCI was probably stripped
        Technical Content Protection Response -- VIEW ONLY - Protect as Copy Protected Content

        The last encoding technique, VEIL (Video Encoded Invisible Light) is particularly interesting as it was originally developed as a way to transmit information to a series of Batman toys [veilinteractive.com]. Now it is supposed to be a DRM watermark technology. Hmmm.... The EFF has weighed in on this too [eff.org].

        It is already illegal to do the things that this technology supposedly is designed to prevent. Does the MPAA really need to be protected by the government, at our expense, like this?

        MPAA - the unfreedom fighters.

        yo.

  • Is this going to affect services like Tivo?
  • There's no EFF action alert yet, and I can't find the bill's title to send a fax.

  • Not this rubbish again! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Toaste ( 892190 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:56PM (#14314760)
    Legislating away the "analog hole" has always been a wet dream for content owners. Until the consortium for the DRMed video interface previously mentioned on slashdot [slashdot.org] manages to screw us permanently, the signal will always be available, and this is just another attempt to jump the gun. Problem is, how are we supposed to edit video without a capture card?
    • Problem is, how are we supposed to edit video without a capture card?

      You're not supposed to 'edit' video. You're supposed to consume(pay for) what they give you, and like it.

      Produce you OWN video? Ha! That's only for the big studios. Home movies? Who even watches those, anyway?
      No, citizen. Sit down, shut up, and take what they give you.

    • 'tis the season, I s'pose...

  • What about PVRs? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:56PM (#14314762) Journal
    Their sole job is to convert from analog to digital. Equally, what about devices like DVD recorders, transferring home movies to DVD, LP to CD, etc.

    Seems the "analog hole" is about to get ripped a new one.

  • Write your congress person (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JoeBorn ( 625012 ) * <.jborn. .at. .neurosaudio.com.> on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:58PM (#14314780) Homepage Journal
    There is no bigger threat to technical innovation than this bill presents
    http://www.house.gov/writerep/ [house.gov]

    There is a great imbalance in the corporate interested regarding fair use rights, and citizens need to make up the difference if we're going to keep this kind of legislation at bay, see below for our take on why digital rights have been steadily eroding recently.
    http://www.neurosaudio.com/press/freedom.asp [neurosaudio.com]

  • Ahem... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rscoggin ( 845029 )
    Why does this require legislation? Forgive me if that sounded stupid, but I honestly don't understand why there needs to be LAWS in place for this sort of thing.

  • Something Missing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Thunderstruck ( 210399 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:00AM (#14314793)
    Something must be missing in the inflamatory language of this article. Wouldn't this outlaw the digital to analog convertor for my television? You know, the one that the federal government is going to subsidize for me when we switch to digital television in 2009?

    Someone has to be misreading this act.

    • Re:Something Missing (Score:2, Informative)

      by JoeBorn ( 625012 ) *
      It wouldn't outlaw analog to digital conversion, it would force all manufacturers to recognize signals embedded in the analog stream, so that content providers could disallow recording for example. It would basically reverse the famous Sony betamax case that legalized the VCR and other recording devices.
    • digital to analouge is fine according to this bill, just not analouge to digital. if you outlaw the former, we go back to VHS tapes, or silent films. you have to convert a digital audio signal to analouge just to play it.
    • The converters you speak of convert digital TV signals to analog signals for use in older TVs, but the bill would ban converting analog signals into digital. TV signal coverters are thus not presently covered by the bill.

      Now, the **AA would love banning digital to analog conversions, too. Right now, you can take a digital video signal and output from your TV to your VCR via analog jacks to record the TV show. That's what the Supreme Court authorized in the Betamax case. The entertainment industry would give
      • "the **AA would love banning digital to analog conversions, too.

        That could cause some problems. It would take some increadibly responsive (and expensive) speakers just to output digital audio. Basically the speakers would need the ability to produce square waves in the air with sufficient frequency to recreate the sound (say 44kHz).
  • is this the third incarnation of the cbdtpa / sssca?

  • The Act (Score:5, Informative)

    by ElNonoMasa ( 820089 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:07AM (#14314831)
    http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/HR-4569-DTCS A-Analog-Hole.pdf [publicknowledge.org]

    • Re:The Act (Score:3, Insightful)

      by queenb**ch ( 446380 )
      First off, all that means is we get something new to hack. Those that will be pirates will continue to pirate. All this is going to do is really pi$$ people off when the go to watch their movie and the stupid thing won't play. I've already stopped buying music because of the RIAA.

      I urge all of you to join in boycotting the RIAA and MPAA.

      RIAA Radar is here - http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ [magnetbox.com] This site will tell you if a band is a member.

      I'm unable to find a site that lists the MPAA members, however, there i

  • Before you buy an XBOX this Christmas ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:08AM (#14314840)
    ... please understand that their vision of the future of computing and the information age is very different from our vision of the future of computing and the information age. When they arrested those people for illegal copying and DMCA mod chip violations - hard prision time for simple copying is the rule of the game.

    While I like video games as much as the next guy, I think it is very imporant for people to understand that online freedoms are more important than entertainment. And hard time is for people like mudders and thiefs who steal real property, not for those who make coppies of pretend properties such as "copyrights".

    IMHO, people should really question the copyright system. If they take it to it's logical conclusion .... this is where it leads ... for everyone.

    essay: Straight Talk About Copyrights http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/11/25/1329 258 [technocrat.net]

  • Tin hats for purchase here (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:10AM (#14314847) Journal
    If they're broadcasting their data through my head, I have every right to digitize it.

    That is all.
  • The people who are technically stealing content off of the net will continue to so no matter how many laws there are. Just as it's technically illegal to buy a region free DVD player you'll still be able to buy equipment (from the far east) that will copy analog content.

    It's enforcement that's the issue.

    Once jack booted FBI/DOJ/ATF/FCC whatever start breaking down people's front doors to their houses THEN I'll be impressed.

    Go ahead...pass another law. It only helps chinese/korean manufacturers who will take
  • Oh come on, seriously. Looking at this [publicknowledge.org] makes me want to puke! Perhaps a requirement for becoming someone who dictates legislation.... you should have to go to grammar school and not write something that looks like one big sentence!

    Why do I feel like they write this in a way to make it near impossible to read?

    Dickhead who Lobbies: *lies*
    Congress: *listens to lies*
    DWL: *presents legislation*
    Congress: *Doesn't understand, bases judgement on lies written by the marketing/legal department
    DWL: *laughs a

  • This outlaws ADC hardware as well (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Russ Nelson ( 33911 ) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:20AM (#14314906) Homepage
    This stupid-ass law would also outlaw all high-speed analog to digital convertors as well. GNU Radio [gnu.org] has demonstrated HDTV reception off broadcast radio using such hardware. Why are we allowing our legislators to even consider laws which regulate computers to protect media? The computer industry is WAY larger than the media industry. Hell, computer games alone have greater revenue than movies.
    -russ
  • Does this mean that the only video or image capture devices that will be legal will be 35mm still, VHS/VHS-C/etc, Super-8 for video? The 50's called, they want their home movie tech back.
  • I looked though the bills on Thomas, and I couldn't find it. Can anyone substantiate this bill? I want a reference for when I call up and threaten^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlobby my Congresscritters. And Sensenbrenner's Private Property Rights Protection Act looked so good...

    • Re:Can anyone post a link? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:42AM (#14315015) Homepage Journal
      It is HR4569. THOMAS appears a little slow at the moment, but it is available elsewhere on Google I think.

      John Conyers indicated he will discuss this further on his blog later as well, as the issue was brought up by some angry people under one of his posts (I think as a result of a Daily Kos article on the matter). Comment #80 [conyersblog.us] on this page appears to be the start of the comments on the matter, and it might be worth hovering around the blog in days to come to see if he gives the opportunity for people to (calmly and rationally) express their thoughts on the matter.

      BTW: his comment in the thread above (Comment #96) gives more details about why he signed on. I don't think it even begins to consider the spirit of Fair Use or the rights of the average consumer, but then I don't get the impression that Congress thinks we're worth a damn beyond our votes and purchasing power.

  • Damn the MPAA is scary. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by radiotyler ( 819474 ) <tyler@dappergeek.BOYSENcom minus berry> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @12:31AM (#14314960) Homepage
    I'm serious. Who else can lobby to get an ENTIRE FAMILY of computer hardware made illegal? It's not a matter of "how people are going to get around the law" but more "why were they able to make that law"? If you're a content owner, you have an absolute right to defend your own proprety. YOU do. The government has no responsibility to come along behind you and clean up and protect it for you, that's insane. It's alreay illegal to duplicate copyrighted works without permission from the owner, so honestly, how is this benefical? If anyone was still in need of a wakeup call, this is the one you were waiting for.

    This issue seems more and more like it should fall into the "if you can't beat them, join them" category. You've known for YEARS that people were copying movie content via VCR's and music via tape decks. There wasn't a mad cram for legislation to codemn "analog to analog devices" that would make duplication of content any easier. This just reeks of technophobia - they aren't sure how they're going to make money with shows floating on the web. (remember Spaceballs? "Merchandising, merchandising, merchandising. Spacballs the flamethrower!")

    Maybe it's time to start focusing some of that lobby money and MPAA kickbacks into either finding a way to preserve your own digital rights, or maybe finding a better way to pay for your content distribution on the internet so you can reap some rewards for owning that bit of cinema / software / music. It sounds like a better plan to me.

  • Gee... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by setirw ( 854029 )
    Why not outlaw camcorders as well? Although there's a negligible loss of quality, they can effectively convert analogue signals eminating from my monitor into a slightly imperfect digital replica... For that matter, why not outlaw the human eye and its corresponding visual cortex? How about the limbic system of the brain, so that we can't store memorable images from movies? Seriously though, I think a far more effective way to restrict the capture of analogue signals is to implement a protection scheme

  • Bravo! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by slashbob22 ( 918040 )
    In Soviet America Analog Holes You!

    Unfortunately, it seems that the Americans have been easy targets as of late. Many other nations are struggling with similar issues. I in no way condone piracy, however a default deny policy works much better in networks then it does in media laws. Banning the use of such converters may only prop up the ailing media distribution chains for a short while. These models will need to change in the near future to remain relevant. Hell WILL freeze over before I submit my ho
  • I don't live in America.

    But instead of whinging about it on a geek news forum site, why not write to your local Govt body and *teach* them what damange this type of brand bill will do?

    I mean, if almost nobody in your Govt read that Patriot Act that seemed to did damage to your free liberties, what chance have you got?

  • How come nobody gets it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Afecks ( 899057 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @01:08AM (#14315108)
    This has little to do with piracy and everything to do with making consumers pay multiple times for the same product.

    That's why movies are released first to film and then to DVD. It's not because it takes time to produce the DVD. Though it does take a little effort to slap together some menus and cut scenes but that's not why. In fact the piracy scene has been able to get several "DVD screeners" while the movie is in theaters. These big budget movies are hoping for an Oscar so they send letter-box DVD versions to the academy for consideration and in the process some pirates get their hands on them. So it's obviously possible to release on DVD and film concurrently. It'll just never happen because they want people to see it in theaters and buy the DVD. Not one or the other.

    This is just one example...it's not why they want to protect digital media though..for that you've got to delve into the mind of the typical MPAA though process..

    "Oh your DVD got scratched? Well you better buy a new copy. What? You want to make back ups?! PIRATE!!!"

    Do you honestly think embedding protection into digital media is going to stop pirates? No, it's going to stop John Q. Public from protecting his investment. Pirates could care less because if they can't copy it freely they'll bypass the protection, if they can't get a digital copy, they'll film it with a camera. All this analog hole and DRM non-sense is just corporate double speak for "we want more money!".

    The MPAA needs to stop using piracy as an excuse to screw over the paying customers. Of course that will never happen because then everyone might actually figure out what's what.

  • Wow! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lazarian ( 906722 )
    Really! Freaking WOW! Banning -all- devices that can encode video? Say goodbye to editing your home movies on anything other than off a firewire or USB camcorder. I'm trying to imagine the kind of world a movie studio or record industry exec dreams of... The banning of -all- computers except for corporate use, and the public would only be permitted to own terminals that dealt with only static images and text - no audio. WiFi covering the world, faithfully reporting every show you watch and song you hear o
  • China and Taiwan continue to flagrantly ignore the US laws that govern them and produce illegal devices that allow playback and recording of media from analog sources.

    When was the last time anyone bought a DVD player that was made in the USA anyway?
    And how exactly does the US think they'll enforce this law onto the rest of the world?

    It just means that as a consumer I need to be more careful to ensure I buy "open" devices instead of devices engineered for the US market (the most restrictive market outside of
  • realize that they have slit their own throats.

    They can't outlaw A/D conversion. Its just more efficient.

    Hell, they couldn't run their industry without it. All of the production labs use it, for god sake.

    NONE of their own blockbuster movies could be done without it. None of their shows could be done without it. None of their audio content could be done wthout it. None of the independents, the people who they suck the life out of could get any content produced without it.

    They can't outlaw D/A conversion for t
  • Where to start?

    1. To begin with, the analog hole can not be closed because the brain's audio and video inputs are analog. Therefore, I can point my lovingly cared for pre-drm camera at the screen, record every frame, then reassemble them.
    2. This bill only affects the USA. Overseas manufacturers *can* tell Congress to shove it, and *will* when they see the profit to be had.
    3. Any attempt to enforce it will cause a consumer revolt. When someone can't use their Sony DVD-RW to record thier home movies any more, can't use a digital camcorder, and can't do any of a myriad other convenient things this bill will break, they will revolt.
    4. The new DRM was just released. ETA of hack: 3... 2... 1... hacked.

    This is move made by an organization that is desperate to avoid losing control. They are evil people, who think only of themselves and what they want at the expense of hundreds of millions of others. In many ways, they are like terrorists. While defenders of freedom must stop them at every turn, they only have to succeed once with a crime like this to hurt everyone. Like terrorists, they can only survive as long as most people support them or don't care. Before the Internet, this was easy as they controlled every means of getting information out. With the Internet, people who see them for what they are will speak out uncontrollably and they will be destroyed once and for all.

    The end is coming for them. They know it. And because they both powerful and evil, they will hurt many many people before they are brought to economic justice. I will celebrate the day the MPAA and RIAA are dissolved when their last member goes bankrupt for the rest of my life.

  • In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stlhawkeye ( 868951 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @01:50AM (#14315254) Homepage Journal
    ...the content lobby has more money than you. Details at 11:00.

  • What about LCD monitors? (Score:3, Funny)

    by corsec67 ( 627446 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @02:40AM (#14315413) Homepage Journal
    Since Analog VGA is, well, analog, then would all LCD monitors that have an input other than DVI be outlawed?

    They do take an analog signal, and digitize it.

    What about LCD TVs that take something other than DVI / HDMI in?

    I am pretty sure that the signal coming in from the sattelite isn't (purely) digital, so somewhere the video has to be converted to a digital form.

    And, at a basic level, even computers aren't fully digital. There is a rising edge of the clock, it isn't instantaneous. Does that mean that a certain slope of rising or falling edge makes a signal "analog"?

    I would like to see the debate on that in congress.

  • What did Tacitus say about dumb laws. . ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @02:46AM (#14315429)
    Just a bunch of excuses to put you in jail and thus threaten you into obedience. This is why the proposal exists. Though, I suspect it'll remain a proposal.

    As the New Fascism steadily materializes into reality, even when Shirow-style Orcs with machine guns stalk the streets, television and movie content aren't going to vanish. Heck no! Look around you. Look at the intensity of the posts just in this article; The unanimous outcry, (on Slashdot??) is evidence of something. . .

    --You can start up fake wars which starve, burn and shred thousands of little kids, you can steal entire elections, and you can poison everybody with bad medicine and bad food, and the populace will take it all without much more than a whimper. But if you try to take away their picture shows. . ? Man, watch out!

    The opiate of the masses is only truly beyond necessity when societal control has been utterly locked into place; when all the gates have fallen and most everyone has been safely processed into tasty meat products.

    So don't worry about your little television picture shows. They'll be around for a while yet. Heck, if you try to turn them off, the most surprising people will expend great effort in trying to sign you up again for free. No joke! Just try canceling your cable and watch what happens. It's truly amazing.

    So this legislation is just a small twist on a much longer road. A dumb distraction. One way or another, you will be force-fed media unless you very actively close your ears and eyes.


    -FL

  • Bah - April Fools isn't in December. (Score:3, Informative)

    by FredThompson ( 183335 ) <fredthompsonNO@SPAMmindspring.com> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @04:33AM (#14315736)
    C'mon, people, do you really think "Hollywood" has more power than the electronics industry? Pffff.

    This is just conyers acting like a kook to "earn" his pay from the lobbyists.

    "Hollywood", like any other content creator, wouldn't have much of anything to worry about if their content was desired by the public.

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Close