Subject: Re: Response from Sen. Stevens WRT CBDTPA
From: Greg Jetter (greg@lazymountain.com)
Date: Tue Jul 02 2002 - 20:28:44 AKDT
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 07:23 pm, Frederick J Polsky v1.0 wrote:
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> [bracketed comments mine]
>
> June 6, 2002
>
> Dear Frederick:
>
> Thanks for your letter regarding the Consumer Broadband and Digital
> Television Promotion Act. You raised some good pionts, and I appreciate
> your taking the time to share your views.
>
> A number of Alaskans have expressed concern about the impact this bill
> will have on programmers and others. I have been working with Intel and
> Microsoft [gee, I feel better now. not.] and am pleased to report that
> many of those concerns will be addressed when the bill is marked up in
> the Senate Commerce Committee. Representatives from the computer
> industry, software production, and movie and music studios have been
> working dilligently to develop voluntary standards on software
> protection. Our bill says that if they cannot agree on a standard within
> 18 months, then the government will assist in that effort. [government
> 'assistance'.. what everyone needs. Just ask the children of the Branch
> Davidians..] My staff has been told that industry is within days of
> reaching an agreement on this issue. If that happens, this legislation
> will either be set and/or substantially revised.
>
> If an agreement is not reached, Senator Fritz Hollings, Chairman of the
> Committee, has agreed to an amendment I plan to offer clarifying that
> software producers who participate in developing those uniform standards
> will be able to copyright and protect their proprietary work. Microsoft
> and Intel both strongly support that amendment. [Well! Problem solved!
> That is, the problem of non-Microsoft and non-Intel products being
> allowed to exist, anyway]
>
> Others have raised concerns about the impact the bill might have on
> consumers personal use of material. The measure actually confirms
> consumers legal rights for the first time and actually extends them.
> [That which is not compulsory is forbidden; that which is not forbidden
> is compulsory] For example, the Supreme Court decision in the Betamax
> case gave consumers the right to time shift television shows they copy
> for later viewing. Our bill puts that right into the United States Code.
> [Really, I'm satisfied with the following legal claim to rights:=20
> Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
> shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
> people.; Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by
> the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
> the States respectively, or to the people.] It also extends "personal
> use" to include any "lawful use in the home," not just time shifting.
>
> In addition, the bill guarantees consumers a seat at the table as
> copying policy and technology decision are made [sic] - a guarantee they
> do not currently enjoy. Consumers are also guaranteed the right to
> participate in decision on encoding rules, the policy conditions that
> will determine what consumers may copy, under what conditions, and how
> many times. They do not currently have that right.
>
> If the private sector discussions fail, perhaps because consumers are
> not satisfied, then the Federal Communications Commission will reoslve
> the dispute through a public rulemaking through which consumers may
> participate. Further, the technology standards and encoding rules must
> meet the pro-consumer protection included in the bill.
>
> The legislation also imposes statutory penalties including monetary
> fines on content companies who try to lock up their content more
> stringently than allowed under the encoding rules. Consumers enjoy no
> such protections today. [The right not to purchase products from such
> companies? Oh, wait, that's being repealed with this bill. I forgot..]
>
> Lastly, the measure includes a section called "limitation on the
> Exclusive Rights of Copyright Owners". This section mandates that as a
> matter of law, that the encoding rules for new technologies like
> broadband internet distribution MUST "take into account the limitations
> on the exclusive rights of copyright owners, including the fair use
> doctrine." Absent the bill, content companies would be free to impose
> more stringent standards.
>
> This is a very complex issue, but one important both to content
> companies as well as the technology world. I am working hard to strike a
> reasonable balance between the needs of consumers for fair use and the
> rights of companies producing content to protect their products. I also
> want to make sure that software developers and computer manufacturers
> whether they are Alaskans telecommuting from their home computer, or
> building computers in their garage, are not unduly restricted. [like I
> want to be duly restricted...] Thanks again for taking time to share
> your views.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Cordially, [sic]
>
> Ted Stevens
>
>
>
> -- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
> -- File: signature.asc
> -- Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> [bracketed comments mine]
>
> June 6, 2002
>
> Dear Frederick:
>
> Thanks for your letter regarding the Consumer Broadband and Digital
> Television Promotion Act. You raised some good pionts, and I appreciate
> your taking the time to share your views.
>
> A number of Alaskans have expressed concern about the impact this bill
> will have on programmers and others. I have been working with Intel and
> Microsoft [gee, I feel better now. not.] and am pleased to report that
> many of those concerns will be addressed when the bill is marked up in
> the Senate Commerce Committee. Representatives from the computer
> industry, software production, and movie and music studios have been
> working dilligently to develop voluntary standards on software
> protection. Our bill says that if they cannot agree on a standard within
> 18 months, then the government will assist in that effort. [government
> 'assistance'.. what everyone needs. Just ask the children of the Branch
> Davidians..] My staff has been told that industry is within days of
> reaching an agreement on this issue. If that happens, this legislation
> will either be set and/or substantially revised.
>
> If an agreement is not reached, Senator Fritz Hollings, Chairman of the
> Committee, has agreed to an amendment I plan to offer clarifying that
> software producers who participate in developing those uniform standards
> will be able to copyright and protect their proprietary work. Microsoft
> and Intel both strongly support that amendment. [Well! Problem solved!
> That is, the problem of non-Microsoft and non-Intel products being
> allowed to exist, anyway]
>
> Others have raised concerns about the impact the bill might have on
> consumers personal use of material. The measure actually confirms
> consumers legal rights for the first time and actually extends them.
> [That which is not compulsory is forbidden; that which is not forbidden
> is compulsory] For example, the Supreme Court decision in the Betamax
> case gave consumers the right to time shift television shows they copy
> for later viewing. Our bill puts that right into the United States Code.
> [Really, I'm satisfied with the following legal claim to rights:=20
> Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
> shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
> people.; Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by
> the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
> the States respectively, or to the people.] It also extends "personal
> use" to include any "lawful use in the home," not just time shifting.
>
> In addition, the bill guarantees consumers a seat at the table as
> copying policy and technology decision are made [sic] - a guarantee they
> do not currently enjoy. Consumers are also guaranteed the right to
> participate in decision on encoding rules, the policy conditions that
> will determine what consumers may copy, under what conditions, and how
> many times. They do not currently have that right.
>
> If the private sector discussions fail, perhaps because consumers are
> not satisfied, then the Federal Communications Commission will reoslve
> the dispute through a public rulemaking through which consumers may
> participate. Further, the technology standards and encoding rules must
> meet the pro-consumer protection included in the bill.
>
> The legislation also imposes statutory penalties including monetary
> fines on content companies who try to lock up their content more
> stringently than allowed under the encoding rules. Consumers enjoy no
> such protections today. [The right not to purchase products from such
> companies? Oh, wait, that's being repealed with this bill. I forgot..]
>
> Lastly, the measure includes a section called "limitation on the
> Exclusive Rights of Copyright Owners". This section mandates that as a
> matter of law, that the encoding rules for new technologies like
> broadband internet distribution MUST "take into account the limitations
> on the exclusive rights of copyright owners, including the fair use
> doctrine." Absent the bill, content companies would be free to impose
> more stringent standards.
>
> This is a very complex issue, but one important both to content
> companies as well as the technology world. I am working hard to strike a
> reasonable balance between the needs of consumers for fair use and the
> rights of companies producing content to protect their products. I also
> want to make sure that software developers and computer manufacturers
> whether they are Alaskans telecommuting from their home computer, or
> building computers in their garage, are not unduly restricted. [like I
> want to be duly restricted...] Thanks again for taking time to share
> your views.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Cordially, [sic]
>
> Ted Stevens
>
>
>
> -- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
> -- File: signature.asc
> -- Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQA9Im4rfUdXAv3jqewRAv49AKC5I+BES0189l6UmBW5uVyEJhszYwCfcRVi
> VmMLJyHkWCmiqxLO3+zb+Zk=
> =T4RQ
>
\
I also recived the same form letter , it's quit clear stevens has been
bought off and is going ahead with this bill , the only thing I can see to
do is to put him on notice that as a group the IT professionals in Alaska
will active work against his attempt at re-election by making sure that
people opposed to him in the next election get monitary donations as well as
active support .
For instance next time the RNC conducts a poll or a fun drive make sure
they are aware of why you are no longer supporting their party and mention
Stevens and this bill , I did they called me just last week looking for a
donation. Start with the alaskan branch and work up. Maybe pressure from
his cronnies might change his mind. If all else fails and the bill becomes
law , ignor it , yes it's that simple ignor it and also let the companies
who worked so hard to get it passed know your not going to buy their
products any longer. Boycots work , always have always will , jut got to
rember these folks are motivated by greed and money so thats where you got
to make your point !
later
Greg
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 20:28:50 AKDT