In the flurry of legislative action yesterday was a hidden gem from the House for the content industry in the form of HR-4569. Not too surprisingly with a huge amount of last minute legislation yesterday Thomas is way behind today so it’s hard to get much detail beyond the above mirrored text of the legislation and the public outcry and the MPAA chair calling it “very important piece of legislation.”
I had to write my Representative the Honorable David Wu a note in response.
To The Honorable David Wu (Representative for the 1st Congressional
District of Oregon),
Having noted today the proposal of HR-4569 “Digital Transition Content
Security Act of 2005″ I was moved to contact you. Probably due to the huge
amount of legistlative action at the last minute, Thomas is running very
slowly and I’m unable to view anything about the status of this act, but I
have found the text mirrored on another web site. This act is deeply
disturbing!
You recently spoke at GOSCON and your remarks demonstrate an understanding
of the huge potential of open source and the unique paradigm shift that it
represents in technology innovation. You also recognised the large
economic impact and potential both to Oregon and the country.
HR-4569 represents an alternative future to the one enabled by the open
source ethos. It and associated legislation around content management and
trusted computing are designed specifically by the Motion Picture
Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America and
other special interests to not merely stifle this burgeoning innovation,
but to gain absolute control over all future innovation. These interests
have a well known track record of fighting both innovation and consumer
choice. They are focused on the past, on a historical economy that serves
neither artists, consumers or the future economic interests of our state
and nation.
In similar form (ie: the “broadcast flag” as mandated by the FCC), this
content protection concept was recently struck down in the courts.
Further, such systems are known to simply not work. As a computer
scientist I can assure you that these systems will not do anything to quell
content piracy. The nature of these systems makes it scientifically
provable that they can be circumvented. The willful lawbreakers who
currently violate copyright and other laws to steal will continue to do so
trivially. What this technology will do is hamstring those who do work
within the law. Innovation will be what is quelled, not piracy.
There is plenty of reason to oppose this legislation and if you have
questions I would urge you to discuss it for instance with the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (eff.org), one of a handful of groups lobbying
intelligently against this type of legislation.
With Thomas not providing data on HR-4569 I cannot see if you have
supported it yet, but I am writing primarily to remind you that backing
this type of legislation will alienate a large number of hyperintelligent
and vocal constituents, especially in your open source friendly district.