Uh - Oh, are we Criminals (soon)??

[SARGE]

According to many folks, if the below bill passes, it will be ILLEGAL to have the following:

* assembling a home built computer

* using a "non-secure" computer, on a network (Home network?) built prior to passage of SSSCA.

* using open-source software like Linux or UNIX.

Does anyone else read this from the bill?


http://www.politechbot.com/docs/hollings.090701.html

[snow]

what reasons does this guy give, security? and what harm does a unix based system do?

what's the point of living in a supposed republic based on democratic ideals if people aren't given the right to chose how they do their computing

I think this guy's afraid of people that know more about computers than the majority of people and has labeled them all "hackers" (the idiot 12 year-old let's infect the school network with a virus that I downloaded from some site kind)

This is ludicrous and very sad. Pretty soon we'll all be running Windows version whatever on Dell PC's, monitored by the government thru our own web cams, and arrested for "unofficial" programming or something

maybe I'm overly dramatic and it's not 1984, but that's almost as bad as the bill for charging for email

[Charliey]

This bill is supported by Hollywood and the entertainment industry. This is what they want in an ideal world (for them). They dont want consumers to have any power or any possible way to even think about copying any media w/o paying them.

Recently Intel told a senate commitee (i think thats what it was) that theyve had enough of the entertainment industry pushing them around, and that more aggressive copy right controls (which they want to enact) would be very harmful to the development of the pc.

[SARGE]

I can understand the copying part, but I'm trying to decipher about building pc's or home networking, Linux and UNIX. Looks like Sec 101 (b) says previous stuff bought prior to passage is ok.

I'm assuming we all own a "interactive digital device", if that means computer.

[Paul Victorey]

When dealing with politics, I often wonder "What were they thinking?". This has me wondering, "WERE they thinking?".

I'd heard about this before. The entertainment industry is under the flawed assumption that, somehow, they can make technology that can't be used to copy their content. It's impossible; there will always be those who could easily bypass any protection they attempt.

I personally think they should work on PROSECUTING those who trade in pirated material, instead of trying to make unpirateable material. I mean, it's not like they need to make piracy illegal, it ALREADY IS. They just don't enforce the laws; there is virtually no punishment for piracy. So making NEW laws will help?? Howsabout enforcing the laws we have.

There will always be those who pirate material; illegal goods always have those willing to trade in them. But, if they'd actually try cracking down on piracy itself, they could probably significantly reduce the problem.

That Disney is the main proponent of this is laughable -- Disney already has perfect copy protection. Many of their recent movies/television shows have been so terrible that nobody in their right mind would copy them! Of course, as Disney owns more of the universe than God at this point, I'm sure something they own makes money.

[ylen13]

this act is tottally unconstitutional

[paganboy]

I don't see where it says it would be illegal to have a home built pc, but I could see a scenario where all parts require some windows-type product auth code to install. What a biotch that would be. Interesting that according that page it hasn't been submitted as of September 7. Hopefully if that's true, it will remain that way. I think if something happens we will hear of it quick. I'm a big NPR listener, and I know they would be all over it. It does give me a sick feeling, but doesn't seem like an immediate danger... yet.

[SARGE]

ylen, it don't matter anymore.

[paganboy]

Anyone up for starting our own techno-commune on some small Pacific island?

[Charliey]

A pacific island would be good, or just move to taiwan.

[paganboy]

Nah. Too close to China. Though that might be better for any of you pirates out there.

[Xayd]

Processors have nothing to do with copyright infringement, nor does RAM. Those are the two that come to mind that are distributed by US companies. How many parts of your computer were built and assembled in the US?

Last time I checked the status of my VCD collection, folks in Taiwan have very little respect for US copyright whining .

Either way, the Supreme Court would strike this down as unconstitutional in about 10 minutes. It's not the government's or computer industry's job to control distribution of movies and music to ensure that Music and Film companies have high profits. That'd be like GM going to the government and asking for a law that states no vehicle shall be driven if it has a "Ford" printed on it anywhere.

[paganboy]

Originally posted by Xayd Processors have nothing to do with copyright infringement, nor does RAM. How many parts of your computer were built and assembled in the US?

The problem is most politicians don't know that and the corporate mass-culture nazis would just as soon keep it that way. I doubt someone like Trent Lott knows much about his computer beyond where the on/off switch and the tech support numbers are. My sig sums it up nicely.

[lovitz]

this is bull*hit.

taking away our rights to build our own computers.

No Home Networks?

NO LINUX???


If the day ever comes down to it, the government is going down.

[M. A. Dockter]

If they wanna take away my computers and open source software, they'll have to take away my guns from my cold, dead hands.

[SARGE]

Doc, spoken like a true Texan. You might make a good one, depending on a few other factors.

[Demosthenes]

It is nice to get upset about such things, but does anyone really think such a bill would pass through Congress? If so, why?

I think little of our politicians to begin with, but I give them the same basic courtesy I extend to all people. I mean, even if it did get that far, surely the committee would discover how totally impractical and ridiculously expensive it would be to enforce those rules. For example, a large majority of our dear friend the internet is run under open source.

In addition as of September 7, 2001 this bill has not been introduced. And, it appears that Congress has had its hands tied with more important measures than appeasing lobbiers.

Respectfully,

Demosthenes

[doctorgonzo]

Check this out for some info (scroll down to find the SSSCA stuff):

http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0109.html

That bill is pure garbage. Why can't we deal with real problems?

As for Congress knowing what they are doing, they did pass the original DMCA, didn't they?

[Nuclear Krusader]

If they wanna take away my computers and open source software, they'll have to take away my guns from my cold, dead hands.

And from mine too.

I wonder if there is still liberty. Or the only one left is the freedom to deny freedom to those who ain't rich or powerful.

[paganboy]

Originally posted by lovitz If the day ever comes down to it, the government is going down.

Or a whole lot of us will singing "O' Canada" as our national anthem.

Maybe it's time for Intel to start sticking its nose and money and in our government. Never thought I'd be rooting for Intel on anything. Wonder what Bill and Micky$oft think of all this.

Even if it did did get through, I don't think it would hold up in the Supreme Court.

But it appears to have died, so hopefully it will never become an issue.

[lovitz]

paganboy


The Liberal government is influenced by big business...if they dump a truck load of $$$ on the government, the government will do what they want.

[Frey Grimrod]

Dont blame only the liberal government... all of the government is pretty much corrupt and holds little respect from me but that is one mans opinions. One man with little $$$ or Power so It means well JACK! Would be a sad day my friends but Iv pictured something like this or WORSE comming in the future for quite some time now... not this soon though... and for all you who say that the internet can never be controlled it could be its all a matter of how much effort those in power want to put into it. I mean yes there will always be those trying and able to git around things but not necessarily the masses.

[paganboy]

It has nothing to do with the "liberal" government. The difference between democrats and conservatives on the whole is almost negligable. It has everything to with greed, money, and power.

[corosus]

it's starting to feel good to be a Belgian.
you're all welkom to come over if you want

[Jade]

I heard too they want to introduce a bill that will start charging a certain amount per packet that is sent through your computer? Anyone know about this one?

[doctorgonzo]

Not true. Sounds like a variation of the e-mail tax:

http://www.snopes2.com/business/taxes/602p.htm

[troysvihl]

this act is tottally unconstitutional

You may be right. I'd be interested in knowing what part of the constitution that Senator bases the enablement on.


The Sp Ct has just taken up a case on copyright. The side that won in the appeals ct was arguing that the DMCA was legit. The side that lost argued that the DMCA was unconstitution. The fact that the Sp Ct choose to hear the case was pretty surprising, unless they're going to reverse it. (but then again, it's almost imposible to predict they'll do that)

Hopefully, they will reverse it. Copyright protection in the US has gotten ridiculous and needs a good trimming, IMHO.

We had a discussion on this over at forumclick:

http://www.forumclick.com/vblite/sho...0&pagenumber=1

[RayH]

Approximately 25% of all PCs are "white boxes"!

[snow]

Sorry if this posts twice, I'm on the stupid school network that booted me once already.

I'm curious what the lawyers on the forum have to say about all this. Personally, I doubt that the email tax and this bill will hold up or even be addressed in Congress, but it's scary to think that some hair-brained Senator would even bother proposing it.

[Computer Hobbyist]

This lawyer for one never gives advice on possible bills that haven't even been introduced.

I would like to know precisely who said the proposed legislation would prohibit the building of homebuilt computers, and on what part of the proposed legislation he or she relies. I have similar questions concerning the allegations about its affect on open source.

If you guys don't like this bill, why don't you write your congressmen and tell them why. Did you know that bills are often passed without anybody but the paid lobbiests voicing an opinion? Did you also know that often a single well reasoned argument from a private citizen can trump all the lobbying efforts of the paid lobbiests?

CH