Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[tom poe <tompoe AT renonevada.net>]

Hi:  This letter was sent, but refused.  Do you have a working address for 
these folks?  They will, in fact, be reporting to Congress on Tuesday as to 
the progress of these meetings that have been ongoing for some time.  I 
object strongly to this most "undemocratic" process, as one who is keenly 
interested in preserving our Public Domain rights.
Thanks,
Tom Poe
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/
http://www.ibiblio.org/studioforrecording/

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
Subject: What Are You Doing?
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 23:07:01 -0800
From: tom poe <tompoe AT renonevada.net>
To: bpdg-draft AT list.lmicp.com


Hello:  I understand, having read a sample letter offered by the folks at
eff.org, that you are drafting rules and regulations regarding digital TV.
Your charter states,
"1.     Problem Statement: A solution is needed to prevent unauthorized
redistribution of unencrypted digital over-the-air broadcast content on a
worldwide basis (including unauthorized redistribution over the Internet).
Such a solution, consisting of effective technologies and legal enforcement
mechanisms, would (a) enable content owners to signal the application of
content protection mechanisms for such content, (b) require that receiver
products detect such signaling means and, when the signaling means is
detected, treat the content securely so as to prevent unauthorized
redistribution, and (c) not interfere with reasonable and customary consumer
expectations with respect to the home recording and enjoyment of broadcast
content. "

You have been acting in secrecy for several months, if not longer, and your
current practice is to hold meetings without permitting the press to attend,
without permitting interested consumers to attend, nor anyone who cannot
afford the $100 entry charge.  Further, I understand "The BPDG is determined
to exclude the public from its discussions.

Members of the press are not permitted in BPDG and CPTWG (Content
Protection Technology Working Group--BPDG's mother organization)
meetings. In order to attend BPDG meetings, one has to come (in person)
to Los Angeles and pay a $100 fee -- per meeting. There are no call-in
numbers and no public minutes or records of what takes place. In fact,
in order to find out that BPDG existed, you had to be a member of one
of a handful of trade associations, or be present in person at one of a
handful of industry conferences. There was no press release and there
is still no public web site run by BPDG or any participating
organization (except EFF). BPDG had been meeting for months before
references to it were made in recent Congressional testimony regarding
the SSSCA and CBDTPA legislation."

If, for any reason, it is shown that as a direct result of these secret
meetings, your group, or group associated with your group, presents the
results to the Congress as representing the meetings required by elected
members of Congress to come to a consensus on matters relating to the
proposed CBDTPA, there will be a costly and drawn out response by the
American Consumers.  More aggregious, is the blatant attempt to drive up the
cost of resolution, not to your organization, the RIAA, or other groups, but
to the American taxpayer.  I sincerely believe that you're setting the stage
for a tremendous backlash by your customers, and what I see is not a pretty
picture.  You have no regard for carrying out the proclamations mandated by
your own charter.  How can you expect to avoid the outrage when the General
Public becomes aware of your actions?

Outraged, and ready for action,
Tom Poe
Reno, NV

-------------------------------------------------------