Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine

In article <vnabt19o73k1ol0a99t3la6ti3h75feckc@xxxxxxx>,
jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> On 23 Jan 2006 19:55:53 -0800, cs_posting@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> They'll never make it mandatory for general-purpose sar adc chips to
> >> search for watermarks. And you can always make an audio-quality [1]
> >> delta-sigma in an FPGA. But why do you think it important to be able
> >> to bootleg someone else's intellectual property? If you don't like the
> >> product, don't buy it.
> >
> >The obvious answer is that there is a huge difference between what the
> >courts have decided you can do in terms of legitimately using your
> >legitimately aquired instance of someone's intellectual property, and
> >what their DRM controls are likely to permit you to do. If DRM systems
> >literally implemented copyright law and no more, that would be one
> >thing - but they far over-reach the law with technical means, and
> >legislation like this would prevent the consumer from using technical
> >means to rematch what is possible to what is legal.
>
> If the copyright holder says "do not reproduce this", those are the
> rules. He owns it, and you don't. And "fair use" tilts that
> formulation in favor of the copier.
>
> >
> >Further, some of the implementations may have a negative effect on the
> >ability to use consumer-market gear to create original intellectual
> >property.
> >
>
> Are you suggesting that it will become illegal or technically
> impossible to play your own piano into a mic and burn the result to a
> CD? Or illegal for garage bands to burn CDs and give them away, or
> sell them without watermarks? I don't think so.
>
> They could make it impossible that you could play the sound of a
> purchased CD into that same mic and burn a CD. So if you don't like
> those terms, don't buy the CD.
>
> >But I'm sure you already knew that, which raises the interesting
> >question of why you chose to ignore it.
>
> I think anybody should be able to attach whatever technical
> protections they desire to their own IP.

They're not just attaching it to their IP, John, as has been explained
to you numerous times. By making it illegal to sell certain pieces of
hardware, they're attaching whatever technical protections they desire
to _YOUR_ IP.

> I think what most people fear is that their ability to bootleg IP will
> be diminished

Actual pirates, as usual, will be totally unaffected by this
legislation. In fact, they are being thrown into the briar patch of
Prohibition all over again.

The only people who will *really* suffer are the ones who actually do
pay for their media, as you argue. The ones who play by the ever-
tightening rules will be the only ones who notice those rules.

-- jm

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx
Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
------------------------------------------------------
.