Red Hat puts out Legislation Alert on the SSSCA

the_2nd_coming writes "Red Hat has announced a legislation alert for the SSSCA. They are collecting comments to hand to lawmakers. Get those comments in while you can, but make sure you give them some thought."

Comments

Get behind this!

[Sturm]

We, as a community, really need to get behind this effort. Say what you want about Redhat, but a company is probably going to have louder voice than a few disorganized individuals. Way to go Redhat!

Re:Get behind this!

[NumberSyx]

Yes there are good sides to it

This is a bad statment. Part of Politics is the art compromise and by giving him this much you are telling him he is on the right track. Remember most of these guys have people filter thier mail for them and sum up issues as "Number For and Number Against" and a statment like this one could be taken as a "Number For". When writting your letters, give them no room for compromise, no room to "Fix" the bill. Tell them the current copyright laws are enough, this bill will only gut Fair Use and should be completely thrown away.

Re:Get behind this!

[tim_maroney]

According to this bill the TELNET protocol would be ILLIGAL to use, same with SMTP, any protocol which used plain text transfers would be ILLIGAL:...

Not even remotely true. First off, try the very second paragraph:

Subsection (a) does not apply to the offer for sale or provision of, or other trafficking in, any previously-owned interactive digital device, if such device was legally manufactured or imported, and sold, prior to the effective date of regulations adopted under section 104 and not subsequently modified in violation of (a) or 103(a).

In addition, this bill only applies when private sector representatives have achieved consensus on a security standard for a particular technology. Can you imagine that the Internet standard bodies would create standards that ban all the previous standards on which the Internet is founded and by which it runs?

It's not a good bill, but let's not lie about what it actually is. Sheesh. I mean, the first time this bill was mentioned here, some geek at a Linux zine was claiming it banned all open source software.

Tim

Videotapes are digital?

[Red Aardvark House]

From the Redhat article:

Essentially, all devices and software that fall into this vague definition of digital interactive technology will have to include encryption so it can't be copied. This could include VCR tapes, compact discs, and the devices that run them, as well as computers and open source software.

Surprises me. This is one of the most heavy-handed pieces of legislation I've seen. I can understand the digital aspect of it, but even encrypting videotapes, the last bastion of small-scale piracy? I'm really not for piracy, but I thought the videotape issue fell under "don't sweat the small stuff".

Gotta give credit for the thoroughness of the proposed legislation, though.

Justification for Legislation?

[debest]

I seem to recall that the DMCA was "justified" because it was written to be compliant with the WIPO / WTO treaties that the U.S. signed.

Does anyone know if these international treaties proposed anything like the restrictions called for in the SSSCA?

U.S. legislation would outlaw open source software

[Spootnik]

But there is absolutely no way the "industry committee" will approve as "secure" any operating system where you could just reconfigure the kernel to remove the DRM feature. They would never, ever do such a thing--because they're the "industry committee."

The amazing thing to me is that Senate will be openly considering legislation to put a committee of corporations in charge of deciding which hardware and OS configurations will be legal and illegal. Even if the committee somehow miraculously doesn't ban Open Source operating systems, the thought that they might be handed the power of life and death over operating systems is startling.

I think it's wildly unrealistic to assume SSSCA won't pass just because it's obviously crazy legislation. There are a lot of crazy laws on the books, and most geeks didn't take DMCA very seriously either until Dmitry got busted. Don't be complacent.

Don't fall for the illusion of doing something.

[dave-fu]

Don't write a bit player in the software world (no offense to RedHat, but they're far from what I think of when I hear the term "multinational" bandied about), write your goddamned representatives and senators letters. Make sure your home address is on it, and make sure that you make the disdain for how the bill will treat you obvious without resorting to f bombs and the like.

SSSCA Loophole

[Apreche]

Just as with the DMCA DCSS loopholes of turning the code into a prime number, and making songs out of the source code, there is a loophole in the SSSCA as well. If you previously owned non-secure electronic equipment then it's ok. Oh, look plextor has to re-design all of their plexwriters, I wonder what will happen to the old ones? ^_^
The big problem with the SSSCA is that newer faster computers will have to have built in security against copyright infringement, and it is illegal to break that security. It is also illegal to remove security stuffs from a copyrighted file, like one of those secure windows ones. What do we do about this? We write a java program that goes into your system and cracks all the security. Then we have it run off an obscure web server in another country. Visit website, java runs. You didn't do it. You thought the site was something else. It doesn't say anything about files that originally had no security. The SSSCA is all about making new stuff illegal, not already existing stuff. So you change the dates on all your files.

The real reason the government gets away with stuff like this is because we /.ers are the only people who understand what's going on, and pay attention to it. We have to bring this to the attention of the general public. Tell people that mp3s wont play correctly on a new computer with windowsxp. And that if this law is passed it will be illegal to download winamp. See what happens.

Yeah so buy up a bunch of hardware and download software now, that way it wont be illegal.

Shh! Don't tell them we can modify open software!

[SanLouBlues]

I can see it now. In the code:

#IFDEF INANE_COPY_PROTECTION
#include RIAA_Headers.h)
#ENDIF

And in the documentation:
b) Please do not define INANE_COPY_PROTECTION. It is very bad.

The Impact On The American Economy

[Rosonowski]

The truth is, here, as I've been preaching to those at my school, this law will have many impacts that will be quickly felt. Aside from the obvious intent of making it illegal to burn a CD, and other such things, which do fall under fair use I might add, It will have a great deal of financial impact.

Open source software is run on a great deal of the smaller and even the larger buisnesses in this nation. It is generally more stable, and easier to apply. Larger companys favor the *nix frame, as they are often familar with it, so no further training is needed in many cases. For smaller company, the thousand dollar plus (per machine) liscencing fees for other software can be overwhelming.

Many buisnesses will die, if unable to use this free or low cost software.

And there are other implications to this LAW.

Implications that, when I gave copys of the law to my sociolgy class, bursts of laughter were heard to erupt.

And the basis of the laws....

Section 109, Definitions, defines an 'Interactive Computer Service' Under a law passed in 1934!

And section 104 is laughable as well. 'Antitrust Exemption?'

Although there is minor solace, even if this law was passed. It's unconsititutional.

The fourth Ammendment protects against Search And Seizure without reasonable cause. To enact the use of software which would monitor my activitys is illegal, according to rulings which deem that any method of surveillance (such as thermal imaging) that could find information that could not be otherwise obtained warrantless, is invalid.

You could not otherwise find this information without physichal acsess to my computer.

Therefore, it is in violation of the fourth ammendment.

I wasn't going to comment but...

[Outlyer]

I wasn't going to comment, but I just loved this one line:

• 
  The bill is being motivated by motion picture and television studios that seek to end piracy of their movies and other forms of entertainment. Curiously, these studios also happen to be among Hollings' top campaign contributors, as noted by Newsforge reporter Dan Berkes.
  

(Emphasis mine)

"Curiously" is an understatement. Apparently in America you can buy anything.

On a related note, does anyone find it strange the commiting a crime against a corporation is worse that a crime against another individual?

Violate the DMCA - 25 Years w/o parole

Kill someone - 20 Years, parole after 6-8

Why would anyone think this is a good idea?

[mttlg]

Okay, so the idea here is to make every possible data storage device and the associated software play nice with copyright. The benefits are:

• Copyright infringement in the original digital form is theoretically impossible.
• Content providers, software manufacturers, etc. can sleep well knowing that their profits are secure, as long as people keep buying their products.

And some of the problems are:

• Copyright "theoretically" expires, but protection methods don't.
• Fair Use will be outlawed through technology.
• Infringement will just require an analog capture method or good old reverse engineering (which of course is already illegal in some cases, even though it isn't...).
• Hardware and software will be more expensive/less useful and there will be less to choose from, resulting in slower sales of new products and a surge in the used equipment market.
• Content will be less useful, and therefore will have less value, meaning lower sales if prices do not fall considerably to compensate (take a look at the sales of e-books).
• Updates must be made mandatory to prevent vulnerabilities from being exploited once they are discovered, meaning that the government must have access to your computer for this to work.
• The feeling of the government trying to regulate or control every aspect of our lives will increase dramatically, adding fuel to the anti-government sentiment that has temporarily faded in the past month.
• The acronym "SSSCA" doesn't even have the warm and fuzzy feel to it that "DMCA" does.

So why would someone support this?

• Ignorance
• Stupidity
• Bribes
• Greed
• Totalitarianism
• A general desire to screw people over

Am I missing something here, or could this show us what our lawmakers really think of the people they represent (assuming that they actually record the votes this time...)? We've seen much of this before, but this time they aren't even trying to make it look good.

Re:Why would anyone think this is a good idea?

[sdo1]

OK, everyone repeat after me...

"Lawmakers represent those interests which supply the greatest campain funding."

Sorry, but despite what they would have you think, they DO NOT represent YOU, or ME, or any other member of the "public"... unless of course they have very large wallets.

Yesterday's "interview" with Jamie Love, he stated the problem very suscinctly...

Politics have gone downhill ever since the US Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo. By making campaign spending a constitutionally protected form of speech, and essentially legalizing bribery, we created a system where the average member of Congress spends most of his waking hours trying to raise money, just to compete with some other person who might do the same thing.

The draft legislation has is authored by Senator Hollings (D-SC). As this newsforge.com article points out...

...there are five major media and entertainment companies in the top 20 list of Hollings' most generous campaign donors. They include AOL Time Warner ($33,500), Fox parent News Corporation ($28,224), Viacom's CBS ($16,632), the National Association of Broadcasters ($22,000), and Walt Disney Co. ($18,500). The individual donors from those companies include a flock of high-ranking executives from various News Corp/Fox subsidiaries, Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone, and Ted Turner from AOL Time Warner. Since 1995, employees from companies producing television, movies, music, and other media content have sent Hollings $287,534, making the entertainment industry his second most generous supporters.

Sucks, huh? Well whip out the checkbook and fork over a few hundred grand and maybe "our" side of things can be represented too...

-S

Excellent.

[A_Non_Moose]

Say what you will, but to echo the statement:
"Thank you, RedHat".

Think back to a not so far era with MS wielding the DMCA over /.'s posters with the Kerbos fiasco.

Some of the trade rags were quoted as saying "Slashdot is the only (institution) one so far to have the cajones to say 'Go ahead, sue, we'll defend that suit'".

Well, RedHat is stepping up to the plate...hot damn. "We the people" need this because the lawmakers and representatives of the people are not listening to us, but to corporations.

If I am not mistaken, RedHat is a corporation, and can probably use the "We are the voice of reason" in an insane world (or something like that).

Really, I'm not joking... Think about all the "innovators, heretics, and *individual* the quintessential Great Minds" of our time.

The ones that went against the grain, conventions, accepted beliefs, morals of thier peers (and monarchs/rulers)...as a corporation...this is what RedHat is doing.

Freakin' A.

Moose.

I hope this happens.

[juuri]

I sincerely hope this gets through and happens. No I am not joking. This isn't sarcasm. This should go through, in fact we shouldn't resist it at all.

Because as others have pointed out this is *too damn* far. This is what we need to get the general populace involved. You try telling finicky Americans that they no longer have any choices. Hell it doesn't matter if that is already true, but once you tell them that to their face things will change. Sometimes things have to go way too far before enough people will stand up to it. The general populace of any nation is much like a spring. You can push it in for a long time but only to a certain point... and after you get tired of pushing they are going to push back hard.

Let this pass.

Then I will have no problems convincing friends or family why Microsoft/RIAA and their ilk are bad news in the long run. And then? Then I will be standing there with open arms to all those who want choice and won't take it anymore.

Re:Politics for Sale - Cheaper in SC?

[calibanDNS]

As a South Carolinian, here is my view on this subject:

According to a poll that a Poli Sci proffessor gave me in college, most South Carolinians cannot name their junior Senator. Strom Thurmond is much more well known, and because of this Fritz Hollings tends to be able to do just about anything he wants without fear of retaliation from the voters. Senator Thurmond is a much more public figure and therefore draws all of the attention away from Senator Hollings. Many organizations target Hollings to support their bills because of this fact, and because of the numerous positions that he holds in the Senate:

• He is the fifth most senior member of the Senate and the fourth most senior Democrat.
• Hollings is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the senior member of the Senate Budget Committee.
• He is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary and serves as the third-ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee

He is up for re-election in 2004, and if I'm still in this state then he will certainly not have my support.

Here is what I sent

[Sloppy]

I have several objections to the SSSCA bill:

1) The bill contains Orwellian Newspeak. It keeps talking about "security"
when nothing in the bill is even *related* to security. I believe this
wording exists as an attempt to deceive both
a) representatives/senators who will be voting on it
b) the people of the United States

In the wake of the recent terrorism, mislabelling things as being for
"security" to play on people's fears, is particular dishonest and
reprehensible.

Even if this bill is passed (which would be bad), the wording should be
corrected to refer to its actual intent: restricting people's access to
things they themselves own. Euphemize it if you must, but calling it
"security" is going way too far.

2) 104(b), where congress creates a new power and then hands control of
the details over to "representatives of interactive digital device
manufacturers and representatives of copyright owners" is totally
unacceptable. Those so-called representatives (who will likely
represent only a handful of companies and ignore the remaining 99.9%
of copyright holders) are not accountable to voters. YOU are. You
cannot hand over power without responsibility; that leads to tyranny.

3) More semi-Newspeak: Remove the word "interactive" from the the term
"interactive digital device", since the term's definition doesn't make
any reference to interactivity. Casual readers of the bill may get
the impression that it's less restrictive than it really is, unless they
scrutize the definitions section.

4) This bill causes acts that are currently lawful, to become unlawful.
Don't you have anything better to do than take people who are doing
nothing wrong, and turn them into criminals? If you are thinking about
voting for this, ask yourself three questions:
1) What percentage of my constituents want this to become law?
2) Am I protecting my consituents from tyranny, crime, etc?
3) Are there any reasons FOR voting for this?

Fair Use has been attacked too much already, and this just makes it
worse. Please work on repealing or otherwise correcting Title 17
Section 1201 to make the situation better, instead of making things worse.

5) This bill serves no purpose for anyone, including the people who are
purchasing it. Ostensibly, the bill's purpose is to protect copyright.
But copyright law already exists, and copyright holders already have means
to remedy violations. Thus, they are gaining no additional USEFUL rights
from this bill. Piling redundant laws upon one another is a Bad Thing.

6) This bill imposes heavy burdens upon developers, for no gain. That
is a destructive waste of resources. Please end government-mandated waste
and government suppression of industry and development.

7) Certification creates monopolies. This is also anti-industry.