News coverage and link to bill: http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6001825.html "A new proposal in Congress could please Hollywood studios, which are increasingly worried about Internet piracy, by embedding anticopying technology into the next generation of digital video products." "If the legislation were enacted, one year later it would outlaw the manufacture or sale of electronic devices that convert analog video signals into digital ones--unless those encoders honor an anticopying plan designed to curb redistribution. Affected devices would include PC-based tuners and digital video recorders." --- http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000326.htm Comment #96: JC said on 12/19/05 @ 7:16pm ET... 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composers to come together...[t]he Internet says to the industry that you folks are yesterday's news, you're following outdated models, your business strategies don't work anymore, and your profit motive is showing rather vulgarly."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 digital content is already illegal. In a digital world, and an internet that spans the globe, locating people who steal content is nearly impossible in some cases. The costs of one such act of piracy can be astronomical. So we turn to market forces and technology. In terms of market forces, I have consistently criticized both the recording industry and now Hollywood for being too slow to adapt to the digital world. For years, I was told that you simply “can’t compete with free.” I believe the advent of online digital music sales has shown that to be a falsehood. Music is still available for free through illegal downloading services, yet Apple’s iTunes music service has sold hundreds of millions of downloads. At the same time, it is a fact that rampant piracy of songs on the internet persists. The market doesn’t take care of everything. So we turn to technology. We are now in a debate about whether copyright owners have a right to limit uses of the content they own the rights to; if so, what limitations are appropriate and how we ensure that those limitations are respected. One answer is found in the iPod and iTunes music store. Music purchased through the music store is subject to limitations which iTunes and the iPod attempt to ensure aren’t violated. We are engaged in a debate about whether similar technology that recognizes limitation imposed by the copyright owner should be required in other devices. My cosponsorship of this bill is intended to start that debate, not end it. 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. I certainly understand that there are some who believes this bill falls short in this regard, and would welcome an open and civil dialogue about those concerns. However, Tuesday I have long planned a major announcement that I think will be welcomed by many participants on this blog. At this point I would request that you allow me some time to work on that, with my commitment to return and discuss this issue in more detail. _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Sat Dec 24 2005 - 10:29:00 PST