Industry Divided Over SSSCA

CBravo writes: "The EE Times has a story that talks about the SSSCA and how it divides the industry. Short part:'If approved, the law would be enforceable under federal regulations and could dramatically alter the way system OEMs design and develop PCs, TVs, set-tops or other digital appliances with embedded microprocessors, according to industry sources familiar with the Hollings proposal. The motion-picture industry, with the Disney and Fox studios in the lead, backs the legislation.'" If you thought the DMCA was bad, look out -- the SSSCA would inject far more control into a wide range of electronic devices.

Comments

So, once this bill passes...

[frleong]

OEMs of PCs will be forced to install Windows because Windows Media Player will be one of the few players with support from motion-picture industry due to its built-in "copy-protection" mechanisms. Linux will be BANNED from OEMs or face lawsuits for circumventing copyright. Or did I miss the real implications of this bill?

Welcome to your digital nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup.

This legislation would make:

a) Building your own computer from commodity parts illegal.
b) Building your own OS illegal.
c) Programming your computer/hardware illegal unless: you only use the officially accepted libraries and agree not to even attempt reverse engineering any of them.

Welcome to your nightmare. This is what the Sony executive said a couple of years ago when he said that they'll be taking the battle for their IP rights to every home and every computer.

Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on this!

[tester13]

I understand the issues of building copy controls into hardware. Unfortunately my friends and family do not. Is it possible to explain this to someone in a non alarmist manner (not the MS/the Govt will control all your data)? The only way I can think to explain it is by giving an overview of low level languages, current copy protection schemes, etc.

How do you explain this to your Mom?

The Sky is Falling....

[atrowe]

There's no reason to freak out about all this. Take off the foil hat and think reasonable-like for a minute. The SSSCA is *not* a law. It is a proposal put forth by a single (miguided) lawmaker. Literally *thousands* of worthless/unconstitutional legislation are proposed by congress every year. The vast majority of the time, the checks-n-balances system of our government keeps these proposals from getting put into the books. The system does work, and this piece of crap will end up getting thrown out just like all the other junk legislation.

If you don't like the proposal, write your representative. Tell them how stupid and unconstitutional this is. Don't complain about how "The Man" is out to strip you of your rights. That won't accomplish anything.

Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi

[Tim Doran]

Explain it to your mom the same way you explained the chilling implications of the DMCA.

And unfortunately, you can expect to be just as effective in getting her excited about stopping the bill.

This is scary as hell - because these initiatives are difficult to explain to consumers, it may be impossible to stop them. Voter apathy has never had such potential to rot the country from the inside out. Soon, any business big enough to afford a good lobbyist can expect to have their business plan protected by law.

Deep pockets on both sides of this, which is good

[mmacdona86]

Having the consumer electronics folks against this is good, since they have a well-funded lobby (though it may not be as influential as the MPAA). That's what will slow down this kind of bad legislation. The best way to keep the consumer electronics folks on the right side of this is consumer education: if we geeks can inform the masses about content controls and convince them that they should avoid devices that contain them it could stiffen the consumer electronics manufacturers resistance. DVD enthusiasts made Divx smell like dogsh*t to the masses and prevented it from being widely adopted. But the manufacturers will only resists content controls for as long as they think it will cost them money.

Re:Don't forget to sign the petitions..

[Reality Master 101]

Online petitions are actually worse than useless, because they give the illusion to people that they are actually doing something, when they might otherwise have written a letter.

If you care about this issue, write a real letter, on real paper, with a real stamp.

Letter I sent to 60+ senators--do the same!

[coats]

I am a mathematician and computer scientist (PH.D., MIT 1978). I am writing to you to express my vehement opposition to the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" (SSSCA), a bill drafted by Senators Ernest Hollings (SC) and Ted Stevens (AL). I urge you in the strongest possible terms to oppose this bill. There are four reasons for my opposition:

1. It represents a serious threat to the national security and the well-being of the United States;
2. Its provisions are outrageously un-Constitutional;
3. It represents poor public policy, advancing a narrow corporate interest against the interests of the public at large; and
4. It is (deliberately) over-broad and unconscionably vague in its provisions, particularly as regards its definition of "digital device".

These points, as well as changes I think are needed in current copyright law, are more fully discussed below A. Introduction.
The Constitution requires that copyright term be limited. From this point of view, the current copyright law is no less than a Constitutional outrage. Triply so: From a theoretical point of view, if Congress is free retroactively to extend copyright term at will (as it has repeatedly done in this century), then copyright term fails to fit the definition of "limited". From an operational point of view, a copyright law that has been repeatedly extended so that no works have actually made it or will make it into the public domain during my entire adult lifetime, both past and future, is a copyright law that fails the operational definition of "limited". And finally, in human terms, a copyright term that extends more than a lifetime after the death of the author fails the definition of "limited" on the human scale. It has been argued that this extension of copyright encourages authorship. Such an argument is purely specious: it is impossible that an author already 50 years dead can be encouraged to produce further works by the extension of his copyrights for another twenty years.

B. Discussion
1. National Security: First of all, this bill is a serious threat to the national security of the United States. The reason for this is as follows: Both the Internet and digital computers have become critical to the continued security and prosperity of the United States. This bill, by outlawing all digital equipment that does not " include and utilize certified security technologies" would have the de facto effect of outlawing all software and computers except those from a few large corporate sources--particularly, the effect of outlawing so-called "Open Source" software such as the Linux operating system and the Apache web-server, which are distributed in human readable and modifiable form. What would remain is exactly the systems and software which have shown themselves most vulnerable to attack: virtually all of the disruptive "virus" and "worm" attacks of the last five years have been made possible by defects in the inherent design of Microsoft operating system, server, and email and application software. The computer-security situation is so serious that earlier this week the very staid Gartner Group management consulting firm issued a warning recommending that their clients immediately remove Microsoft internet server software and replace it with products from other vendors such as Apache and IPlanet (see http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101 034). A year ago, the US National Security Agency concluded that it was impossible to make Microsoft systems sufficiently secure for sensitive applications, and constructed an especially secure configuration of the Linux operating system for that purpose (see http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/). The SSSCA would make Apache and Linux illegal.

2. Un-Constitutionality: The SSSCA, with its absolutist protection for "security technologies" is an affront to the Constitutional provision for copyright. The Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a LIMITED monopoly,

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

against whose conditions the SSSCA is an outrage. The SSSCA admits no limit on the term of protection it espouses. Nor does it make any provision for fair use. In its original 1823 decision establishing the doctrine of fair use, the Supreme Court stated that Congress may make no copyright law so strict as to deny freedom of speech nor freedom of the Press. The SSSCA violates this Constitutional requirement also.

3. Poor public Policy: The Founding Fathers did not regard "intellectual property" as a natural right, but rather as a limited legislated monopoly which was of benefit to society as a whole _if managed properly_. They had had relatively recent experiences with both no-copyright situations and with permanent Crown monopolies on publishing (and, sadly, they tended to be better versed in history than many are today.) They knew that copyright was of greatest benefit to society at large if it offered a quid pro quo: in exchange for a temporary monopoly on copying, the authors must pass their works into the public domain--the property of all of us--at the expiration of the limited term. This bargain has already been brought to the breaking point by current copyright law,e specially the DMCA; the SSSCA breaks it completely. It is purely and specifically for the narrow benefit of a few large publishing houses who fear that digital technology will break both their stranglehold on the authors and music-writers and their captivation of the public at large. (Note that the SSSCA's provision for setting "standards" has the effect of freezing out both writers and the general public.)

4. Over-breadth and Vagueness: Finally, Sen. Hollings himself has admitted in interviews with Wired magazine that the provisions are deliberately vague, in order to get a bill passed with provisions that may be applied far more broadly than Congress intends or believes reasonable. Congress should not permit itself to be so deceived.

C. Needed Copyright Reforms.
There are reforms that do need to be made in copyright law; let me suggest that any copyright bill should be amended to include at least the following:

• Section 105 should be amended so as include not only "any work of the United States Government" but also all laws -- Federal, State, and local -- in the public domain. (Note that some trade associations have had local and state governments adopt their copyrighted codes as public laws, while still maintaining a copyright upon them. As a matter of public policy, the law should not be owned by private interest groups.)
• Section 107 should be amended so as to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. When a disabled person owns a copy of a copyright work which is by reason of disability inaccessible, it should be fair use to make an enhanced copy for private use, in order to make accomodation for that disability. Commercial publishers who use "technical means of protection" (as under the DMCA) or "certified security technologies" (under the SSSCA or its ilk) should be required to publish enhanced copies for the accomodation of persons with disabilities, at the same price that they sell un-enhanced copies.
• Fraudulent claim of copyright should be a crime punishable at least as severely as copyright infringement. Fraudulent claim of copyright steals from the patrimony of us all. Such fraudulent claim of copyright is rampant in at least the classical music publishing industry. And since the record of the last decade shows that the Department of Justice cannot be relied upon to prosecute copyright offenses, and since it steals from us all, any member of the public should have standing for civil suit against such fraud.

D. Conclusion
You have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Copyright law should be returned to its Constitutional limits.

Re:Jack Valenti can go to hell.

[ichimunki]

And because it is his paycheck on the line, I suggest that we geeks need to take a good look at what we've done so far in this matter. After all, every time we've gone to the movies, bought a DVD or VHS new, watched TV, bought a major-label-(or-minor-label-affiliate)-produced CD new, or purchased merchandise which was co-branded or licensed, we have helped fund the very corporations that are working to destroy a free America and turn it into privately owned fiefdoms. It's not just a question of which representative do we write to, but how do we change our lives (and our culture) so that these corporations become unprofitable?

I found it amusing as I've listened to Governor Bush's Sept. 20th address before Congress, that he describes Afghanis as the first victims of Al-Qaida and the Taliban. He even mentions that in Afghanistan you can be jailed for owning a television. Welcome to the next USA, where you can own a television, but will be jailed if the television you own is not State Approved.

Re:And by your logic

[BadDoggie]

What ever happened until "innocent until proven guilty"?

What happened was a govenrment elected by an increasingly disinterested populace. Officials placed by a minority of eligible voters who gave themselves the ability to be influenced by money (PACs, soft money, junkets, etc.).

More importantly, it was able to remain in place thanks to the load of sheep who continue to do nothing as long as they get their X-Boxes and Game Boys and Star Trek The Lamest Generation on the Dubba-Ya-Bee.

Not willing to fight for your rights? Then this is what you get. Even if you are willing to(in the US, anyway), not enough of your fellow non-voters are, so give up. You are consumers and will be treated as such. Hell, most of your countrymen are begging to be given the ability to trash a few more articles in the Bill of Rights in the vain hope that there'll never ever ever be another terrorist attack in the US ever again.

Don't like it? You're gonna have to give up more than your DreamCast, 187 channels and Double-half-decaf mocha-choco-frappaccinos now.

Experience says you won't.

woof.

Not only was I at "Ground Zero" NYC, I was near the Pentagon that Tuesday morning as well. Lost friends at both sites. Had to wait an extra week to get a guaranteed ticket back to Europe.

This is aimed at the average consumer

[gotan]

Note how this (like the DMCA before) is aimed at the average consumer, and definitly not against criminals. It's aim is to make criminals out of anyone who wants to View/Copy/Transmit any piece of content in ways not approved by the RIAA and MPAA. This includes cutting out advertisement, playing a piece of Music as often, whereever, whenever, and to as large an audience and in as good a quality as you want. Also anyone who wants to create, market or distribute content (that is anyone possibly competing with established industry to make money from content) finds himself at a disadvantage: he has to pay license fees for encoding, probably needs to set up a huge infrastructure or again pay for the use of an infrastructure to distribute his content in the 'right way' (since he can't just distribute an mp3, but needs to provide servers to serve the 'keys' necessary to unlock his content), and generally has to build his business modell around some very rigid legislation and the technology it allows.

Anyone who is ripping off and selling content in Volume won't be affected anyway. He is already engaged in criminal activity, using unauthorized soft/hardware is the least of his worries, and to believe this hardware/software wouldn't be available because of such legislation is just plain ridiculous. Probably directions how to remove the copyprotection will be available all over the net, like it was with disabling DVD-Region-Codes.

What is happening is, that the Record- and Movie Industries want their old business protected by laws. But the internet and the digital representation of content have already changed the world, and change always means hard times for established business, but it also means opportunities for new business. Adhering to the old ways means leaving out these opportunities, and if the USA as a country choose not to use these opportunities, they may find, that other countries are not willing to do so for the sake of Disney.

This is a lot like legislating that every car has to have a horse running in front of it after the event of the Otto motor, just to ensure, that all the industry around horses doesn't go out of business. I think even the USA can't afford to abandon the technological progress the new media will bring, and these laws will only help to establish the old industry for the next 10 years or so, at the cost of halting progress on that sector for about the same time.

Moore's Law

[TheSHAD0W]

You know, this new regulation will stop Moore's Law cold. People will no longer want to buy new, restricted computers; instead, those old Pentium 4 2 GHZs will be in hot demand. There'll be no other way to display your content. Demand for new machines will drop, and the funds for research will no longer be there.

Ever since a Federal law was passed in 1994 banning certain features in new or imported guns, there has been a brisk market in "pre-ban" weapons; expect a similar situation in the computer market.

This should be really fun when computers get fast enough to run virtual machines that can decode MPEG. How's the hardware going to tell if you're viewing restricted content when the viewing operation isn't even in the same machine code?

Re:As a German...

[Hanno]

[In case anybody cares, here's my letter. I'll fact it to the offices of all US senators tonight. May help, may not, let's see.]

I am a computer scientist and the owner of an IT company.

It has come to my attention that the United States have recently passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which - to summarize it broadly - makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection devices such as the DeCSS algorithm, used for DVD video.

As a result, many previously lawful uses of digital media which used to be considered "fair use" have been seriously restricted for average consumers in the United States. Despite the protests of computer scientists, media professionals and consumer groups within and outside the United States, these horrifying consequences of the DMCA have come in effect today and first arrests have been made against software developers who do research on decryption. Already, non-American computer professionals have begun avoiding visiting US conferences because their perfectly legal work at home is considered illegal in the US and may lead to an arrest there.

Now, the United States are preparing an even stricter law. The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), proposed by Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, will require all future "digital devices" to include a content control mechanism certified by the US government. This mechanism will allow the creators of audiovisual digital content to control when, where and how often a consumer may use digital media. As a consequence of SSSCA, un-certified hardware and software will become unlawful.

The implications of the SSSCA would be incredible. As an example, in a few years, a buyer of a DVD will not "own" the movie he bought, only the right to watch it a limited time. He will not be allowed to watch it outside his country's region (circumventing DVD region encoding is already semi-illegal under the DMCA today). "Fair use" for private, educational or research purposes will not exist anymore. Consumers will not be allowed to make backups of the digital media they own. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Building computers from scratch will be illegal. Research on these aspects in Universites and Colleges will be illegal. Open Source Software such as Linux, a primary part in IT education and a major force in the industry, will be illegal.

As a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany, I should probably care less.

In fact, as a computer professional, I should even be glad that the US stifles innovation for its IT professionals, because it will help my country's industry to gain an advantage over US corporations. The combination of DMCA and SSSCA will seriously hurt the American IT industry and the American computer science education. The implications of these two laws are unconstitutional and will put lasting restrictions on the liberties of US citizens, who are the consumers of digital audiovisual media.

The German government has already made clear that it will not allow such restrictions to be imposed unto its citizens. Considering this, I'm glad not to live or work as a computer professional in the United States these days.

However, as a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it saddens me to see the United States of America going this path into such a bleak future, taking essential liberties away from its citizens and putting full control into the hands of media corporations.

I urge you to oppose the SSSCA and I ask you to remove the DMCA, in the interest of US citizens and in the interest of the international community of computer professionals.

Sincerely,

Hanno Müller