I'm sure many here are at least familiar with the debate that erupted after the invention of the VCR. And even more have likely heard these comments by Jack Valenti to a Congressional panel in 1982: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
It seems that before recessing for the holiday, Congress decided to turn back the clock, revisit the 1982 debate, and rule instead in the favor of the content industry.
And our man Conyers is one of the culprits...
It's called
The Digital Transition Content Security Act of 2005 and if you want to know what it means, imagine if VCR technology had been banned in the 80's.
From Slashdot:
Calling the ability to convert analog video content to a digital format a "significant technical weakness in content protection," H.R. 4569 would require all consumer electronics video devices manufactured more than 12 months after the DTCSA is passed to be able to detect and obey a "rights signaling system" that would be used to limit how content is viewed and used.
Considering the fact that in our lifetimes we will see a complete shift to digital technology, this means not just a shift in technology, but a major change in the way view media and information. I don't mean to give a lecture I'm sure we've all heard before, nor do I think I'm up to the task. I'm just not enough of a technophile. But I want people to consider the practical implications of what this means.
We take for granted out ability to "save it for later." This was the beauty of the VCR and the tape recorder. We may not have considered it a fundamental right (though it may be) but out physical or technical ability to do it was never questioned. With passage of this new law, the user will never again have the assumption of these conveniences. Content providers will have the ability to dictate not just the duplication of saved content (which is their official justification) but also the length of time you are permitted to wait befor it expires, the number of times it can be viewed, or whether or not you have the right to record something and watch it later at all. Technology that doesn't respect these dictates will be forbidden to manufacture or import.
If you aren't sufficiently outraged, consider it this way. A fairly passive form of technology, one without an agenda, that simply converts an analog signal to a digital signal will be made illegal by this law. Instead, the market will be mandated to produce it only if it is bundled with digital rights recognition, which is most certainly a technology with an agenda. This is like Congress mandating that match and lighter technology must be made so that it will not function in the presence of the American Flag. It is, in effect, politicizing an inherently apolitical technology.
I could ramble on and on about this, but I'll spare you all...
But I would like to point out before I finish, that John Conyers, though someone I often think highly of, is absolutely on the wrong side of this issue. Some have suggested that he's in the pocket of the content industry, and he has received money from them, but I'm not convinced that this is the reason he supports the legislation.
Conyers has defended his position with the following:
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.
I've yet to see any evidence (correct me if I'm wrong) that content piracy has had anything to do with decreasing sales. Conyers should probably familiarize himself with people like Lawrence Lessig, who while coming down quite hard on content piracy, also argue compellingly that the increasingly restrictive interpretation of "fair use" is having a measurably detrimental effect on our culture. Mr. Conyers ought to weigh the 'scourge of piracy' against the common good.
I also suspect that many of our legislators are stuck in the past. They don't realize that "digital" is no longer a fringe technology. When they pass laws that treat digital technology differently from analog technology, they ought to think back in their lives, and imagine if tape technology had been treated the same way digital storage technology is being treated now.
In defense of his position, Conyers claims he's been no friend of the recording industry in the past. He also issues a challenge to critics:
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?
A running theme in the debate over the Patriot Act, and now Bush's Leave no Wire Untapped program, has been that victory in the War on Terror is meaningless if we undermine all we stand for in waging it. I think the same can be said here. Piracy may be an issue, but the so-called solutions proposed by congress are effectively throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And the Content Industry just happens to be catching that baby and selling it on the black market behind the scenes.
End of rant...
Thank you you for your time...
Update: Ars Technica also comments on this law here.