Response to Congressman Cannon

I have to admit being rather impressed that Mr. Cannon would write back to me specifically (or more likely, that he would instruct one of his office staff to write back to me specifically - either way I feel somewhat heard).

Still, you can't help but love some of the comments in the e-mail. Such as, "This legislation is designed to address the generally held concern for the 'Analog Hole Problem.'" "Generally held concern?" I hadn't realized that the general public was deeply concerned about the fact that they can legally record copies of their favorite shows. More likely, I suspect that the "generally held concern" would be that this freedom would be taken away.

I also love this phrase: "usage rights negotiated through voluntary agreements." Tell me - when was the last time you negotiated a voluntary usage agreement for a CD, a DVD, or a television program? Where is the contract you signed or the license agreement you agreed to adhere to?

Another good line is: "there is nothing to prevent manufacturers from taking advantage of the Analog Hole and allowing unrestricted copying and redistribution of content." Agreed. And there hasn't been since the start. And this act is not going to stop people from making and redistributing copies of protected content, trust me. But at least now we are getting somewhere.

Here's the point - this is a law that takes freedom away from the law-abiding citizens and does nothing to really prevent the criminals from committing crime. If we assume that people are not idiots, the only other assumption we can come up with is that those promoting this bill know it won't prevent piracy - instead, it is about greed, power, money, and control, primarily that you and I have less of these and give more of these to the government and to wealthy corporations.


Anyway, here's my response to his e-mail:

Dear Congressman Cannon:

Thank you for your response to my concern. I can tell by reading your response that it is tailored to my concerns, as opposed to a general-purpose form response. I was impressed to see a response that was tailored to my concerns.


I appreciate that you would take the effort to explain this problem to me. As a professional, senior-level software engineer with over ten years of experience, you can be assured that I have a pretty firm grasp on technology, digital rights management, patents and copyrights, and other issues surrounding intellectual property.


I have argued both sides of these issues in my career and have seen many valid points on both sides. I have many concerns about intellectual property administration and policy in general in our country; much of this has to do with our country's future in a world economy and our ability to continue to compete.

I won't get into all of these issues because it will take even longer than what is already stated herein. Instead of delving into the issues of this bill at hand, I prefer to keep the details out and discuss what is happening in general terms.


What is happening in general terms is that certain corporations have identified a means by which people COULD steal from them. The capability to steal their property is not new (people have had this ability for decades), but the ability to prevent it IS relatively new. Thus, they are asking to pass a law that makes it so people cannot choose to steal from these companies.

This is my key area of concern. My problem with this is that, at a fundamental, moral, and religious level, I think it is wrong to enact law that takes away an individual's freedom to choose, even if it is to choose to commit a crime. Do I think that people who steal should be let free? No; on the contrary, I depend upon the laws of our country to uphold penalties for stealing intellectual property, or I would otherwise lose my livelihood.

But what we are talking about here is passing a law so that people won't be able to commit a crime. This is a different case, and I think it sets a dangerous legal precedent. You said that you have "always tried to outlaw piracy." Congressman Cannon, piracy is already outlawed. This bill is not about outlawing piracy; it is about removing freedoms from the law-abiding majority in order to prevent some people from committing piracy. What comes next? Disallowing people to host their own blogs because they might post child pornography? Outlawing the ownership of firearms because someone might use one to kill someone else? Revoking all driving privileges because someone might use a car to get away from a bank robbery?

In addition to these moral concerns, I do not think that such laws will work out as we believe they will. If the innovation to legally circumvent such restrictions or provide alternative solutions doesn't originate within the United States, I believe it will elsewhere, which will be worse than having to deal with the stolen IP in the first place.


It is better to let these corporations learn how to adapt to a new market and to new consumer demand. If the economy is like a natural ecosystem, then corporations in that ecosystem are like animal species. The ecosystem becomes more robust only if natural selection is allowed to run its course. Corporations that can't innovate to meet new consumer demand shouldn't be able to rely upon the government to save them from having to evolve.
Imagine if the wagonmakers of 100 years ago had successfully rallied together and lobbied Congress to enact laws making automobiles illegal. They may have stated a noble premise (say, because automobiles are more unsafe than wagons, which is probably true, or that they would make it easier to commit crime, which is probably also true), but you and I know what the real reason would have been - to preserve their line of business.
Imagine if they had been successful. Not only would we still be using horse and wagon, but there are many other ways our society would have changed as a result. Our cities would be smaller and more crowded, since people couldn't live more than a mile or two from employment. And how many hundreds of thousands of Americans are employed today because of the automobile industry, either directly (manufacturing, design, testing, etc.) or indirectly (parts, petroleum, highway construction, tire manufacture)?
We can see that this would have been a devastating step to take. More likely, this innovation would have occured in another country, and we would have cars today, but we would not have had the economic benefit like we have had.

This situation is no different fundamentally. Corporations are asking for law to be passed so that they don't have to compete or evolve. This is a short-sighted view that is detrimental to our long-term viability. It is wrong on an economic as well as at a moral level. I urge you to help our Congress understand the danger of such laws and to cease consideration of this bill. I appreciate your consideration and responsiveness to my concerns thusfar.

Warmest Regards,

Matt Ryan

Letter From Congress On the Digital Transition Content Security Act (DTCSA)

If you read my blog you'll remember this earlier post on the DTCSA. I fear that someday we will all be rolling that acronym off our tongues as slickly and contemptuously as we say DMCA today.

Anyway, I thought you might be interested to read the correspondence I have had thusfar with Congressman Chris Cannon, who is the US Congress representative from where I live.


Here's a letter I received back from him on this subject:


Dear Matt:

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 4569, the Digital Transition Content Security Act (DTCSA). It is good to hear from you.

This legislation is designed to address the generally held concern for the "Analog Hole Problem" that occurs when the usage rights negotiated through voluntary agreements that are applied to high value digital content basically disappear when that digital content is converted into analog form. Content is "in the clear" once it has been converted to analog form. Unlike encrypted digital content, where access to the decryption keys can be subject to particular content usage obligations, there are no keys, licenses, or contractual obligations required to access and manipulate unencrypted "in the clear" analog content. Currently, there is nothing to prevent manufacturers from taking advantage of the Analog Hole and allowing unrestricted copying and redistribution of content that originated in a protected digital format.

The purpose behind the legislation is to preserve the same usage rights when video content is digitized as would have applied had the content not been stripped of its usage rights information in the format conversion process. For my part, I have always tried to outlaw piracy while trying to maintain fair usage rights for consumers. My position on the Judiciary Committee has given me the great opportunity to advocate for technological advances while working to clarify copyright law.

I am weary of government mandates on technology, believing that manufactures should do most of the negotiating. I do not believe it is the role of government to pick the winners and losers among different technologies. The preferred method is always private sector solutions to\ncontent protection issues. The market is generally well-suited to deal with the usage issues surrounding digital content, and it is doing so on many fronts.

Thank you once more for expressing your concerns. I will examine this bill, desiring to leave to the market what can be solved in the market while ensuring consumer choice and a level playing field for manufacturers. You raise legitimate questions that I will keep in mind as this bill and other Intellectual Property issues are addressed in the House of Representatives.

If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. For more information on issues currently in Congress, please visit my website at www.house.gov/cannon.

Warmest regards,

Chris Cannon
Member of Congress

The Rock is Rolling On

That to-be-expected but nonetheless-saddening day arrived - Mike LaRocco has retired from professional racing.

I actually have Mike LaRocco's autograph. Don't laugh. I had to wait in line a long time to get it.

I don't want to wax poetic about Mike LaRocco. Something about LaRocco and poetry don't seem to mix, anyway. Let's just say, this guy is a true half bad boy. Supercross racer, hard worker, good father, and married to a babe - what all us half bad boys aspire to (and, at least the being married to a babe part, some of us have accomplished - like me).

Mike's had some great moments, but his last win at Indianapolis in front of his home crowd was one of the best in all of Supercross history. You'll be missed, Mike.

Chad Reed is the Man - Again

Ok, I know that RC won Daytona, pretty handily in fact. But the Half Bad Boy award has to go to Chad Reed. He took second place - with a separated shoulder?! This guy is one tough mother.

Hats off to Chad for a gutty performance at the toughest track of the year to stay right in the thick of the points battle.

Oh, and for those of you that say, "Well, Stewart would have beaten Chad if he hadn't crashed." I got news for you - Stewart crashed. Crashing is a part of the sport. The winner is whoever can get through 20 laps the quickest, not whoever can post the fastest lap time. You might as well say, "Stewart would have beaten Chad, if he could have completed the race before Chad." In other words, it is a dumb thing to say, so don't say it.

Way to go, Chad. You rock. Keep toting the banner for us half bad boys.

Half Bad Boy Hero - Chad Reed Wins St. Louis

Let me be the first to congratulate Chad Reed on his awesome victory in the St. Louis Supercross. What's that you say? He's already been congratulated? Well, then I guess I won't be the first to congratulate him. I want to do it anyway.

Chad Reed is a true half bad boy hero. He participates in one of the most bad-boy sports on the planet, and does so at a top level. He expects nothing less than the best of himself, but he truly loves the competition. And who was the first person he thanked on the podium this week? His wife Ellie.

Oh yeah. That's what a half bad boy is all about.

Eating Humble Pie (but just a nibble)

After my last post, I have to give some credit to Krista Voda, who, in her podium interview with Jeremy McGrath last Saturday, said, "He definitely is the king of Supercross."

Of course, we already knew that. Until someone at least ties his record of seven Supercross titles, he will always be the king. But it was nice hear Krista say it; it means either she started learning about Supercross, or someone is telling her what to say so she doesn't say something stupid. Either way, it is an improvement.

How To Be A Supercross Announcer

I hear that Supercross is the fastest growing action sport in the US today. If you are a Supercross racer, or if you are a spectator, whether live or on TV, or if you ride or support their sponsors, congratulations: You are helping Supercross to grow.
Unfortunately, if you are Supercross TV announcer for Speed or CBS, I'm sorry: You are not helping Supercross to grow. You are helping position Supercross as a sport for stupid people.

I don't mean "stupid" as in, "You'd have to be stupid to try to blitz those whoops." I mean "stupid" as in, "I wonder if these people passed elementary school?"

I know there are some good Supercross announcers, but this is only because I am a long-time fan. Any new person watching Supercross on TV would have to assume that it is a sport for stupid people. They would arrive at this conclusion the moment they heard these people speak; they would remark to themselves, "I've never even seen a real motocross motorcycle in person, and I know more about this sport than they do." Where are you, Jamie Little??? Where are you, David Bailey???

Alas, we are stuck with Ralph "I Wish I Could Go Through Puberty" Sheheen, Denny "It Is So Hard To Construct A Sentence" Stephenson, and Krista "I Am Blonde For A Reason" Voda.

Krista is by far the worst. A typical Krista moment was at San Francisco this year, amidst the rain and mud. Broc Glover was explaining to Krista how the mud tires are self-cleaning, designed to cause the mud to remove itself from the tires. Krista turned to the camera and said, "Self-cleaning tires? I wish I had that in my oven." At which point my wife and I looked at each other, and I said, "She wants self-cleaning tires in her oven??"


I shouldn't complain too loudly. Speed and CBS, we Supercross fans do appreciate you broadcasting Supercross on TV and we continue to support you by watching. But do you think you could do something about the announcers? That's really all we're asking.

What It Means That Superbowl XL Is Over

Superbowl XL is over. What does this mean? What do we learn from this? What happens now that is is over?

We learn that:

1. There are no good NFC teams.
2. Controlling almost the whole game doesn't mean that you are going to win.
3. Being inept almost the whole game doesn't mean that you are going to lose.
4. The first strategic point in Seattle's two-minute drill is, "Everybody go into panic mode."
5. The second strategic point in Seattle's two-minute drill is, "Whatever has worked so far, do the opposite."
6. The third strategic point in Seattle's two-minute drill is, "Whatever you do, DO NOT STOP THE CLOCK."
7. Good things don't always happen to good people. Sometimes, good things happen to a bunch of haughty, arrogant jerks.

What it means:

1. Eleven more months until the best football games of the year are on TV again.
2. Now I don't have to worry about missing my favorite NFL team on TV in order to watch Supercross.
3. Hopefully Jerome Bettis will finally retire, and by doing so, bring the average NFL player's IQ up by a good 80 points or so.

The Half Bad Boy DVD Review - Batman Begins

Summary: This masterpiece of moviemaking shows why Batman is a worthy hero, and teaches the movie industry how a movie should be made in the process.
Grade: A

About This Movie: We learn about the origins of Batman as he assumes a secret identity to try to bring peace and order back to his Gotham city home. And he also gets to kiss Katie Holmes.

The Best Part About This DVD Is...
...how everything ties together. These days, it seems most movie makers don't even take the time to tie their own movie together. Batman Begins not only ties together logically from beginning to end, but ties in with the whole Batman story. After watching, I understood how he became who he is, how Gotham came to be the way it is, why he is always fighting so many quirky characters, where he gets all of his neat gadgets, and many other things that were previously unanswered questions. This Batman is a worthy hero. Unlike other Batman portrayals, he is an admirable, good-doing man most of the time (not a sniveling nerd or snobby jerk), but a truly terrifying, yet human, crime-fighter. He chooses to fight crime because he wants to make the world a better place, and chooses to use his money and his life to do this instead of basking in the luxury of a billionaire lifestyle. This Batman (not the others) is my favorite of all superheroes.

The Worst Part About This DVD Is...
...um, I'll have to get back to you on that one.

The Bottom Line
This is how movies should be made - great acting, great casting, great stunts, great special effects, great character development, great cinematography, great plot and theme - no stone was left unturned. Everything made sense in this movie. Even Bruce and Rachel's scene at the end was very satisfying - it was neither cheesy and unbelievable, nor was it disappointing. Not only is this hands-down the best superhero movie of all time, it may be one of my favorites of all time, period. Buy this DVD. You will be glad you did.

Another Stupid Congressional Bill

You might want to read this bill, which is currently being debated in the US Congress. Or, you can let me summarize it for you. The bill will make it illegal to manufacture a device that can record analog signals unless the device complies with whatever DRM accompanies the signal.

This completely destroys my new way of watching TV. I watch the TV programs I want to watch when I want to watch them. This new bill has the potential to make it so that I cannot record my shows, or that I can only view the shows the way they were originally broadcast (potentially no fast-forwarding, rewinding, or pausing), or only view them within a certain time period of when the original was broadcast.

Are people really this stupid? Do the producers of the content think that imposing restrictions on how I consume their product will increase my use? Hardly. I am less likely to watch if they do this than before. There are TV shows that I watch quite regularly, but I never watch them at their broadcast time because that time is not convenient for me. Imposing restrictions like these will cause them to lose a viewer. It's that simple.

What I want to know is, who are the genius lawmakers that are sponsoring these things? Are they a bunch of old geezers, jealous of the young whippersnappers that know how to use technology, and dead-set on punishing the youth of the world for having a more comfortable life than they had? Or are they just ignorant? Why would someone sponsor a bill that only makes life worse for the general public?

Some might say, "Well, they have a reason, because this technology can be used to create pirated copies of movies [or whatever]." Hey, just because something can be used to commit a crime doesn't mean that it should be illegal. Should we outlaw kitchen knives because they can be used to stab people? How about gasoline, since it can be used to burn down a building? Should we outlaw water because people can drown other people with it? Just because I have a DVR and a CD burner doesn't mean that I am a criminal. I use these devices, quite a bit, but for perfectly reasonable and legal purposes. And don't get me started on the whole protecting-the-artists argument. Give me a break.

So, who do the lawmakers care about? Obviously not you or I. They seem willing to entertain obviously stupid laws that don't even benefit society. And don't think for a minute they are doing it for the poor artists. They are doing this for their own selves, at the expense of the future of our country and the freedom of future generations.

And what is it they are doing, exactly? What is their agenda? Their agenda is to pass laws that are so ridiculous that they make criminals out of normal, law-abiding citizens. Pass so many obscure and silly laws that a normal person living a normal life and conducting what seems to be logical, harmless acts is actually breaking laws all the time. This way, the government can have the right to subdue and control citizens, because those who are not criminals are still predisposed to crime.

Come on, US Congress. The average American is generally law-abiding, honest, and upright. The government is supposed to be for the people. Can we stop passing laws that make life worse for the average American? Can we stop taking away freedom in the name of security and safety?