Linux.com

Feature

Open Source advocates may find opposing Hollings bill makes for strange bedfellows

By on April 10, 2002 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

- By Jack Bryar -
It is taking a while, but Open Source opponents to Senator Fritz Hollings' newest anti-copying legislation are starting to get traction -- with a lot of help from a variety of big business types. Unfortunately no one in Hollings' home state seems to care about his services to the entertainment industry or its impact on high tech. At least one important IT ally of the Open Source community might just benefit if the Hollings Bill goes through. And another old enemy might help Open Source advocates fight it.
After a quiet couple of weeks there's increasing disquiet about the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act in a variety of industry circles. There is nothing quite as powerful as a "consumer" movement underwritten by an important business sector, and the business community is beginning to take sides.

Financial analysts are already warning major stockholders that their investments in the electronics industry are going in the tank unless the Hollings bill is killed. Credit Lyonnais's Brad Beago suggested that the CBTPA "would be negative for the entire IT/telecom industry" and that the communications and networking hardware industry would be thrown "into disarray." Beago suggested that investors steer clear of the equipment and components sector until this "ominous bill" is killed for good.

Video outlets, especially those who sell used videos to supplement rentals, have read the fine print in the Hollings bill. They worry that the law would overturn what is called the First Sale Doctrine. Enshrined as Section 109 (a) of the U.S. copyright statute, it allows purchasers of copyrighted material to "dispose of" such property as they see fit, including renting it to third parties, and selling a used videocassette or DVD at their discretion. Rental agencies worry that the changes in property rights envisioned by the Hollings bill extend past restrictions on copying to restrict resale or redistribution rights of any type -- effectively putting them out of business.

Promoters of high definition video and interactive TV likewise see their investments at risk if high priced HDTVs are made obsolete by the bill. Independent cable outlets are already furious about what they see as an orchestrated attempt to force them to deploy copy restriction equipment and to take the legal hit, should that equipment fail or be circumvented.

As a result of these industry concerns, an array of lobbyists for the IT industry have been buttonholing congressmen, either directly or through sponsorship of a variety of "consumer" organizations. Industry execs and venture capitalists active in the IT and high-definition TV industries have joined together with Open Source activists to create Digital Consumer.org and transform it into a high-profile, consumer lobbying organization. DigitalConsumer claims to have sent more than 80,000 faxes to members of congress in recent weeks, all denouncing the CBDTPA and most promoting a consumer's "Bill of Rights." Other industry PR types have been busy placing op-ed pieces, such as one by Intel's Andy Grove, into prominent newspapers. For their part, Hollywood executives, led by Disney's Michael Eisner, are accusing Intel and the electronics industry of orchestrating consumer protests while profiting from software and content piracy.

One result of the war among industry leaders is that the Hollings bill is about to generate opposition from an unexpected source: conservatives. The upcoming issue of the National Review, one of America's most influential conservative publications, will take a chunk out of South Carolina's junior senator for supporting the CBTPA. Suggesting he's "a joke" who is beholden to anti-technology interests, the magazine mischievously suggests that Hollings has "betrayed" his Democratic Party and its de facto alliance with the high tech industry. Hollings once said that he would rather have BMW employing the citizens of South Carolina than Oracle or Microsoft. The Review suggests that his position on the Senate Commerce Committee means that he is "in a position to do real damage" to the economy in general and high tech in particular.

On the other end of the U.S. political spectrum, liberals are already setting up roadblocks to the Hollings bill. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) has already said he would personally make sure that the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act wouldn't make it past his Judiciary Committee and onto the Senate floor. The Web site his Judiciary Committee set up to solicit comments has registered several thousand hits. According to spokeswoman Mimi Devlin, the committee has yet to receive any emails in favor of the Hollings bill.

Over in the U.S. House, leaders sympathetic to the bill are already ducking for cover. Freshman Congressman Adam B. Schiff (D-California) represents a district that consists of greater downtown Burbank -- home to Warner Brothers, Disney and NBC studios. He has circulated a "Dear Collegue" letter and claims to have widespread allies for his effort to introduce the CBDTPA on the House side. However, in public, most congressional leaders are looking for a compromise.

House Judiciary Chairman Charles Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) is believed to be sympathetic, but he has broadly hinted that he wants to avoid a public fight, and wants to generate a "consensus" bill. Reportedly, he wants to introduce legislation that might meet some Hollywood concerns about distributing bootlegged digital movies over broadband, while at the same time, appeasing opponents by amending some of the more controversial provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. His colleague Billy Tauzin (R-Louisiana) is looking for a similar compromise. Tauzin suggested that because Sony was both a movie studio and an electronics manufacturer, he hoped it could provide him and his colleagues with objective advice on how to proceed.

Despite all the controversy, Hollings' home state has had little to say about the CBDTPA or the senator's activities on behalf of the entertainment industry.

The media outlets in Holling's home state are generally small, but they represent a wide range of opinion, from the funny and liberal-leaning Charleston Daily News to staunchly conservative publications such as The State or the Greenville News. However, none of these publications have had much to say about the Hollings bill, nor have Charleston Courier, or the Spartansburg Herald Journal. These papers are lively and opinionated, but the issue of digital rights has not made much of a blip on their collective radar. With the exception of a pungently written letter to The State, South Carolina's press have not touched the issue, or even treated it as news. As far as their readers are concerned, the Hollings bill has been a non-event.

While most IT companies are resisting congressional pressure, some have made it clear they would be open to creating an industry-led "standard" that would parallel many of the provisions of the Hollings bill. Congressmen, such as California's Howard Berman, are pressuring IT executives such as Cisco's John Chambers to "find a way" to cooperate with Hollywood and other content producers. Some of them appear to be open to the idea.

As a result, Open Source advocates fighting the Hollings bill may find themselves with some odd allies and opponents. One of the firms best positioned to develop precisely the type of hardware envisioned in the Hollings bill is IBM. The company has invested years of development work on its Electronic Media Management System. Despite the fact that IBM's marketing staffers have argued against a government-mandated hardware standard, they have voiced little objection to standards generated by an industry consortium.

One firm that might help lead the fight against the CBDTPA -- or any "industry led" standard -- could be Microsoft. Microsoft has been quietly promoting streaming media and peer-to-peer broadband networking, and both initiatives could be crippled by the CBDTPA or any hardware based anti-copying scheme. It is a shocking notion, given Microsoft's historical opposition to file sharing and its development of proprietary encryption and copy protection software. At least one news source has suggested that Microsoft technology is virtually written into the bill. However, my sources suggest that Microsoft is just as opposed to the Hollings bill as the rest of the IT industry, perhaps even more than most. So if the company lobbies hard against the Hollings Bill, Open Source advocates could find they they have a temporary ally that they may have trouble getting used to.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Open Source advocates may find opposing Hollings bill makes for strange bedfellows

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Microsoft

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 12:42 AM
Somehow I doubt Microsoft would lose more than it would gain from passage of the CBDTPA. Making free software illegal in Microsoft's biggest market? They'd trade almost anything for that, at this point.

#

Re:Microsoft

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 10:57 AM
nah... open source is only a temporary threat for ms, and only in their server division. If they really wanted to, they could get rid of it by other means. It's not a huge market, anyway. OTOH, the entertainment market (Windows media, xbox, webtv, whatnot) is much more lucrative, and would be damaged severely by the hollings bill. Finally, the bill would hurt the long-term ms interests. They, not the government, want to control copying on their OS. Then, they can dictate who can have copy controls and for what price. Having a government-mandated system takes that away from them, thus nullifying the business opportunity. The consumer is screwed either way, assuming they use windows. Now, an industry solution (preferably software-based) would be much better than anything else, since free OSs would not be affected much.

#

Re:Microsoft

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 10:01 PM
Son. What have you been smoking? They do really want to get rid of open source. They've been trying really hard to get rid of it. Long-term, it's a threat in every market MS currently dominates and a deadly threat to their very business model. Open source is Microsoft's doom, and they know it quite well.

#

i'm conseravtive

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 02:21 AM
uh, so only liberals can be hackers/geeks/linux advocates? i am very conservative, and a huge supporter of linux/open source solutions, especially for schools.(btw, i'm a public school teacher) conservatives stress feedom, economic and personal. i.e. low taxes, gun rights, etc. politics is local. politics is also about money. BOTH parties are corrupt. like giving missile technology to china for campaign contributions. this is just an example of politics, not ideology.

rob mandel

#

Re:i'm conseravtive

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 05:47 AM
thank you

I fail to see why the article's author is shocked at support from the republican party, they advocate free enterprise. De-regulation is the name of the game; this bill makes companys bound to what the government says they can make. I don't see how anyone can say that such a thing fits into an economic system of capitalism? Democrats are traditionally the party the supports bigger government and bigger government involvement in our lives through never-ending bills that mandate it.

#

Re:i'm conseravtive

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 06:01 AM
You mean that you actually are a conservative, not a "conservative" (or "Republican"). Being truely conservative is not incompatible with the hacker vision, but being a part of "Today's Compassionate Conservative Republican Party" is. Such a shame that (many) Democrats and Republicans have come to represent so poorly those who identify with the two parties. *sigh*

#

Re:i'm conseravtive

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 05:40 AM
Yeah, you can't be a conservative and be a Linux fan at the same time. They are a contradiction of terms. Conservative is stereotypically: me, me, me, natural resources are infinite (exploit them), fat and unhealthy food, smoking and drinking, bible thumping, corporations are good no matter how bad they are, imposing their way of life on everyone through legislation to name a few. I'm not saying being liberal superior but the point is open source is contrary to capitalism (IMAO) and conservatism is capitalism

#

Re:i'm conseravtive

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 11:03 AM
Give me a break !!!

Conservatives (not the weenies calling themselves such, today)

Independents, (Libertararians, particularly)

And Liberals

ALL benefit from Open Source.
Conservs = limited government, and freedom, individual rights

Liberts = My box, no one but me decides what goes on it

Leberals = Free hand out, + group (community) rights

Let the good times roll,
but I'm a genuine right wing extremist, who makes Pat Buchanon look a little soft on communism, and espouse Linux, advocate it EVERYWHERE in my full time IT job, to anyone within three feet, since Linux has no paid marketing department, and I have credibility in this area with my peers.

visit my right wing/ProLinux site at
www.mann-made.com

NRA & EFF foreveor, otherwise YOUR freedom will be sold by whores like Hollings to the highest bidder

Respectfully to all
-A

#

SC's Junior Senator

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 03:28 AM
I am in the process of writing a "letter to the editor" of The State (Columbia, SC) expressing why Holling's bill should never become law. The letter is too long to fit their letter guideline policy, so, I am hoping my letter will be as a guest columnist.

#

Microsoft and Hollings' bill

Posted by: static on April 11, 2002 03:44 AM
I don't think M$ wants that bill to pass. If no one ever used a pirated version of windows (or office) less than half of the PC's in homes would be using M$. (instead of whatever it is now) Then they are suddenly not "the standard" for software or file formats. I used M$ right up until february, but I have never given them a cent.

This bill would cripple them because people still want free stuff, but they'd have to go elsewhere for it. Like linux.

#

Re:Microsoft and Hollings' bill

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 03:59 AM
This bill would cripple them because people still want free stuff, but they'd have to go elsewhere for it. Like linux.


What makes you think they'd be able to get Linux if this becomes law? Any software that users can change will become illegal. Microsoft should love this bill!

#

Re:Microsoft and Hollings' bill

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 10:57 AM
Except for the fact that if it does go through, it will make Microsoft and most of the rest of the tech industry the movie industry's bitch. Microsoft won't want to answer to the movie industry, let alone anyone else.

#

Re:Microsoft and Hollings' bill

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 10:06 PM
So, Microsoft will take a few dozen billions out of the bank and buy up enough of the entertainment industry to make sure they have input.

#

Re:Microsoft and Hollings' bill

Posted by: static on April 15, 2002 09:19 PM
Bingo

#

Re:Microsoft and Hollings' bill

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 05:53 AM
> Any software that users can change will become illegal.

You're on crack. The bill does not say that.

#

strange bedfellows?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 06:16 AM
It's good news, but who's opposed to the bill isn't a surprise. Anyone with a nugget of insight can see that absolutely no one will benefit from this piece of trash long-term. CBDTPA is backed soley by nutbags.

#

International effects

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 08:41 AM
If this bill does go through, which I hope it doesn't, does anyone know what the effects will be for people living outside the US??

#

Re:International effects

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 02:35 PM
If this bill does go through, which I hope it doesn't, does anyone know what the effects will be for people living outside the US??


(I'm writing from Finland)


If the bill goes through in something like its present form, it is so cataclysmic event
that I am sure nobody can predict what exactly will happen, but based on
past precedent, I am pretty sure of one thing: lobbyists from the media
industry will do their damndenest to push laws in other countries for
hobbling technology in the same way. In the EU, they might well succeed
in getting the Commission to propose a directive about it. After all,
they could create something similar to the DMCA, and the software
patent idiocy is progressing as well in the Commission.


The Commissars are maybe not as beholden to big business as US senators, but they don't
have to be for evil to happen: EU was originally only about promoting economy at the
expense of everything else, and that clearly still shows in the attitudes of the Commission.
The only way to stop a proposal like this there would be good arguments that it harms
economy seriously plus serious lobbying by threatened industry to push that
message (forget about folk movements, they don't count in the Commission).


After that, it might be able to be blocked or mitigated in the EU parliament. It usually
has more concern for citizens' rights, but is much less powerful than the US House.
The current EU power structure is tailor-made for backroom dealing. If a directive
passes the EU parlament, the member states have no option but to change their
laws to be in harmony with it.


So I implore the good citizens of USA: Defend freedom and kill this legislative monster
before it hatches from its leathery egg, because we in the EU may not be
able to contain it afterwards.

#

Re:International effects

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 07:28 PM
if you look at the EU structure you will see a lot of opportunity for such a directive to be tripped up and killed by the EU parliment and/or council of ministers. it would be easier and less politically dangerous (for the entertainment industry) to try and convince governments one by one, but especially in the UK back benchers would have a rather good opertunity talk it out (ie kill such a bill), or the lords could block it (if they do I couldn't see any UK government wasting so much political capital forcing it through with the parliment act).

but to be honest if the EU does adopt it or something like it I don't think anyone (ie most/all consumers) who this adversly affects supporting the EU, especially when it comes to referendums on new treaties, like giving the EU more control. it would however be quite a boon for the anti EU lobby.

#

Re:International effects

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 05:55 AM
> If this bill does go through, which I hope it doesn't, does anyone know what the effects will be for people living outside the US??

Their country will suddenly start getting a whole lot of immigrants.

#

Re:International effects

Posted by: static on April 15, 2002 09:35 PM
Not much, unless Georgie Porgie convinces the UN he can legally bomb "software-terrorist countries"

Or

There will be muscle threats like "we won't export our software unless..."

heh heh heh heh

Who loses then? :)

#

Please correct the HTML

Posted by: sombragris on April 11, 2002 12:27 PM
Midways through the article there is a hyperlink with the closing tag missing. Please fix it. Thanks :)

#

A judgement against Micro$oft which has some teeth

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 01:09 PM
Force Micro$oft to put really serious and effective copy protection into ALL their software.

Make it impossible for the purchaser to install their software on more than one computer at a time ... AND... If their copy protection proves ineffective, grant the offending copier an immediate pardon from prosecution.

Why would one do this?
Well, isn't it time someone stopped this crap from being spread throughout the world like the virus it is? Gates and Ballmer have known since forever that this stuff would be copied and copied, if they make it easy enough for Joe User. And let's face it, it is easy!

Isn't this called entrapment?
Force them to tighten up their act, and watch the fur fly! No more raids by the Software Gestapo... no more exhorbitant software pricing from G&B because income will have dropped to the point where they gotta move to Plan B - fire sale on software, "buy now while stocks last"

heh.

#

Take Senators and Congressmen's names

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 02:11 PM
Check out your senators' and Congressmen's web pages. See if they list a position on the bill. Make note if it says "compromise preferred" (code for not telling you their true position). Then write to the Senator/Congressman and pin them down on their exact position on this bill. Especially find out, separately, their position on 1. First Use, 2. exemption from the law for home copying. When you get your results, go to www.gothamcitynewshound.com (don't go there now, site is scheduled to go live May 1st or sooner if possible) and submit your results. I will be devoting a special section to this issue, and you will be able to see each Senator's and each Congressman's position on this bill. A full accounting will be made on their support or opposition, so that they won't be able to run, and won't be able to hide their position prior to election day.

btw, privately, I have information that this bill is dead this year due to election year, but is already planned to be brought up again next year.

As to the IBM issue, don't forget that it was reported on the 'net that IBM was the main hard drive manufacturer that was attempting to get one of the standards bodies to approve inserting low level code into hard drives that would prevent copying.

.

#

Congress

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2002 11:33 PM
Wassting away again in Margaritaville
Searching for my lost shaker of salt
Some people claim...

#

I wrote to the Judiciary

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 12:55 AM
...asking them about copyright's "limited time" concept. In the letter, I of curse questioned why the "limited time" is so stacked in favor of the likes of Disney and Time/Warner and the big publishing houses.

But I also asked them this: what happens when a copy-protected work *does* go into the Public Domain?

Frankly, my guess is that the greedy pigs that support this stuff won't be remembered 200 or 300 years from now, while those of us who believe in openness and freedom will. It always struck me that the recording industry moguls never seem to give all that much support for novel musical ideas. Maybe the new-idea musicians and composers should steer clear of them, and band together to support open distribution of their works.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya