First up in "Deconstructing Fritz" is Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing:
"The CBDTPA (let's call it the Anti-Mammal Dinosaur Protection Act and have done with it) requires technologists to arrive at a trumped-up "consensus" with Hollywood Political Officers before they can bring any new products to market. This "consensus," reached at lawyerpoint, establishes what features every product that can store, trasnmit, display or manipulate digital files must have and which files it must not have: everything not mandatory is verboten.
If Senator Fritz has his way, no new technologies will be brought to market without a one-year review. Open Source will be dead, since there will be no way to ensure that your users don't remove your mandated copy-protection measures.
Now more than ever, it is time to put your money and time and energy behind organizations like the EFF as our technologies' very right to exist is challenged."
I wonder if all of our new Gates machines will have to be retrofitted....
Over at Microcontent News, John Hiler provides a very detailed examination of the current Google versus Scientology controversy, which has the online world watching the search engine's every move. Apparently they've started re-instating Xenu.net links, but John's article catches you up on all of the various aspects of what's going on. He also - rightly - ties the rise of Google to the religious fervor it inspires in information workers, especially librarians.
"If anyone worships at the altar of Google, it is librarians, the high priests of the information world....
Google is almost like a religion of its own, especially for information workers. Ask any techie and they will all swear by Google's search of Microsoft's website. Librarians have an even deeper faith in the power of Google. This belief in Google has spread throughout the world, making Google as much of a faith as it is a brand.
From this perspective, deleting information from the Google Cache would be like stealing holy icons out of the Vatican. Google is well aware of this perception - but of course, needs to balance this with its own fiduciary responsibilities.
In the end, the Church of Scientology™ may have finally come up against the one religion it can't litigate out of existence: Google, the world's favorite search engine."
Can I get an amen!
Anti-Copy Bill Hits D.C.
"The Democratic senator from South Carolina finally has introduced his copy protection legislation, ending over six months of anticipation and sharpening what has become a heated debate between Hollywood and Silicon Valley....
Translation: Future MP3 players, PCs and handheld computers will no longer let you make all the copies you want....
Once known as the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act, the newly named CBDTPA says that all "digital media devices" sold in the United States or shipped across state lines must include copy-protection mechanisms to be defined by the Federal Communications Commission.
'Digital media device' is defined in a breathtakingly broad way: Any hardware or software that reproduces, displays or "retrieves or accesses" any kind of copyrighted work." [Wired News]
Here's my favorite part, though:
" 'A lack of security has enabled significant copyright piracy, which drains America's content industries to the tune of billions of dollars every year,' Hollings, the powerful chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, said in a statement on Thursday."
I look forward to Hollings' next legislative proposal that will finally address the lack of security on my car. It's unbelievable that auto manufacturers have not done a better job of preventing auto theft and car jackings. As things stand, they are enabling significant vehicly piracy, and they must be stopped. Legislation is our only recourse since they refuse to enact security measures on their own.
Here's the part that should scare librarians:
"The CBDTPA does say the final "encoding rules" should take into account fair-use rights, such as making backup copies or reproducing short excerpts from books, songs or movies. Copies of TV broadcasts made for one-time personal use at home are also permitted.
But the CBDTPA also says that with those two exceptions, owners of digital content can encode their "directions" for use, copying and reproduction.
Anyone intentionally violating the CBDTPA would be subject to civil and criminal penalties, including prison terms."
Fair use for a digital file hardly matters if you don't have access to it or can't circulate it. This is really scary stuff. Isn't Hollings up for re-election this year?
Thursday, March 21, 2002
