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

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.

Re:The Sky is Falling....

[Verteiron]

Funny. It didn't work on the DMCA. Maybe this isn't worth "freaking out" over, but to dismiss it as a piece of junk legislation that will be thrown out immediately is insane. The SSSCA does have a chance of passing, and unless there is a sizable outcry from the people, big corps like Disney, etc. can and will push this thing through.

Re:So, once this bill passes...

[roman_mir]

Not only Linux. Any operating system or any electronic device that does not confirm to the set of new proposed regulations will be against the law. You wonder if someone will go to jail for selling his old VCR. But in the brand new world, information will be encoded in Hollywood, passed to your audio/video receiver, decoded there, and this receiver will handshake with any devices connected to it, will detect if the device is complient and only then will communicate with it. If your new DVD player detects a home cut DVD without a watermark in it, it will use your receiver to call police to your house. Your new electronic house security system will automatically engage, to not let you out of the house and a new antiburglar system will put you to sleep instantly with some sleep gas, just to make sure you don't destroy the evidence. If you use an unlawful DVD, CD, tape in your car, it will lock up and will use the car phone to call police while filling up the salon with carbon monoxide from your exhaust, just enough to put you to sleep.

Cheers.
PS.: Your brainwashed relatives will rat you out 'for your own good, just to make sure you are not a terrorist'.

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.

Schneier's doing good work

[kryzx]

Bruce Schneier (of Counterpane) does a good job of sticking up for our rights on this one. He's really been doing a good job of getting the message out. Most articles on this kind of stuff have some good quotes from him. He's a consistent voice of reason. Kudos, Bruce.

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:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi

[Rogerborg]

• How do you explain this to your Mom?

I don't see how you can put this without it sounding a little alarmist. Disney wants you to purchase a new TV, DVD, VCR/TiVo and cable decoder... that they will then control.

Every time you place a DVD or VCR that you own or have rented in the devices that you bought, Disney will decide whether you are allowed to watch it, and how many times. Disney will decide whether you may tape shows to watch later, and how many times you can watch them, or when they will become unwatchable, or even if you can watch them at all.

They will assume that you are a thief, and they will stop you from watching anything that you cannot absolutely prove that you have paid for. If there is any doubt, your screen will go blank, and you will have no right of reply, or opportunity to prove your innocence.

And the best part is that they will make you pay for the new hardware that will enable this.

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.

Another reminder to write (physical mail)

[rjh3]

Just the reminder:

1. DMCA - 300 letters,
2. Health care privacy - 40,000
3. Home Schooling - 500,000+

Those physical letters count most. See the acm letter or the EFF for examples.

Find your congressman and senators, write them letters, and mail them. Mail your own representatives. As a voter in their district you matter most to them. (Email is much less effective. They know about spam just like you do.) Whenever this issue moves into another stage (e.g., draft, committee, floor) write another.

If you want handbooks, check out Congressional Quarterly. The book Lobbying Congress, How the system works is quite relevant, although perhaps disturbing to some. It was written by lobbyists for lobbyists. You will also get other relevant hits with a "lobbying congress" query on Amazon.

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.