Tech Heavyweights and the SSSCA

Keith Russell writes: "Looks like Sen. Hollings' uphill climb just got a little bit steeper. The Computer Systems Policy Project, a trade group which includes IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Compaq, Dell, and Motorola, has officially stated their opposition to the SSSCA, calling it "an unwarranted intrusion by the government." The ZDNet article also indicates that Big Media isn't quite behind it themselves. Disney's support is well-documented, and Fox seems to like it, but AOL Time Warner and the MPAA, while keen to the idea, don't like this bill in particular." Read the entire article - not supporting this proposal "in its current form" is not very strong opposition.

Comments

For How Long?

[Lysander Luddite]

Once a standard is reached how long would it be before the manufacturers start supporting the proposition, especially in a bad economy with a sales slump for traditional "luxury" items?

Doesn't standards decrease cost over the long term? I get the impression hardware manufacturer's main gripes boil down to:
1. Additional cost to implement SSSCA into their products.
2. SSSCA provisions limiting future product design.

Make no mistake, I am against SSSCA, but if Sony can make money from CD and DVD players, why not be able to make money from these hypothetical devices?

Copy protected devices (DVD/ e-nbook readers, MiniDisc) seem to be the trend anyway. Especially as the content creators become content distributors.

Some commentary on the article

[Private Essayist]

"The movie, music and technology industries have been trying for years, with only limited success, to agree on a standard way of protecting content from Internet and other digital piracy. A high-profile effort dubbed the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI), intended to be a private sector version of the kind of technology effort Hollings' plan outlines, collapsed largely because of disagreements between technology and content companies. "

...and because it turned out to be so easy to crack SDMI, despite their claims to the contrary. Oops...

"Hollings' plan would restart this process, this time with the force of law behind it, and apply it to all digital devices. "

Can't do it with technology? Buy a law instead. That's how the DMCA happened. You can't stop people by adding more pickable locks, so they chose to make it illegal to pick a lock, to own picks in the first place, and even to discuss how to pick locks with your buddies. Overkill, but that's how government works.

"The early draft bill would require the technology industry to come to its own decision on a copy-protection standard within 18 months, or else have the government step in to mandate a solution. "

There's a scary thought: When the private sector fails to come up with an uncrackable system, the government will step in and have a go.

"The bill would bar the sale of any "interactive digital device" that did not have the anti-piracy technology built in. It would also be illegal to remove or disable the security technology as well as to remove the piracy protections from a song, movie or other piece of content. "

And the government's solution, as I said, is to ignore the fact that they can't make it uncrackable from a technology point-of-view, and to just say, "Illegal!" every time someone tries to crack it. The idea of working with consumers to come up with a balance that can work for everyone, as with traditional "fair use" provisions, never seems to occur to them.

Valenti doesn't make sense

[gorilla]

MPAA President Jack Valenti said in a statement. "When an agreement is reached by the private parties, we will all then together support appropriate legislation regarding copyright protection in digital devices."

All the parties except for the consumers, right?

Re:Valenti doesn't make sense

[thedavid]

Of course it will be the media companies that make the decision in regards to copy-protection. Were any consumers asked when they implemented CSS protection for DVD's?

Or how about the CD replacements DataPlay Think any "focus groups" met for this wonderful product?

The more copy protection capabilities they can put into a device or the more laws that they can push that will provide for copy protection, the better. And if they can get it through without consumers knowing, at least at first, all the better.

Beware the "good bill"

[sphealey]

Odds are that there is another bill lurking around somewhere which has 83.67% of the provisions of the original. The "bad bill" will be killed publicly, then the 2nd bill will be slipped through in a stealth mode.

sPh

Re:More government intervention

[grahamm]

I think that it is one set of corporations, the media content producers, who want to introduce restrictions and others, the technology producers, who do not want it.

Re:More government intervention

[Flower]

These are not mutually exclusive goals especially in this case. The backers of this proposed bill want to protect their copyrights while the industries opposing this bill don't want to be forced into using a technology that they haven't patented, made into a trade secret or what have you.

There is *no* way the industry could agree upon a DRM technology in 18 months and I think they know it. Then it comes down to the government mandating a solution with the very real possibility that nobody gets the brass ring and makes a ton of money selling a proprietary solution.

legislation as last resort

[Bistromat]

the big media corporations are all on unfamiliar ground, and they've had several years to catch up with the current state of technology. well, they haven't. they haven't because the state of technology has rendered them obsolete, and thus they must try to hang on as best they can.

they tried to restrict media distribution via encryption, and it failed as it was destined to do; it's theoretically impossible to devise a truly secure media distribution format. if YOU can read it, the guy sitting NEXT to you can, too. since that failed, their only option is legislation.

i don't condone it. it's evil. but the media companies are trying to survive the paradigm shift in content distribution that the internet has started. corporations are considered people under the law; like people, they're just trying to survive as best they can, and they'll do whatever it takes. thus, if they can get legislation passed that lets them live, they'll do anything they can to ensure it gets passed.

everyone keeps suggesting that media companies "revise their traditional methods of distribution". how are they supposed to do that? either you give the media away for free, or you restrict distribution any way you can. there's no room in Scott McCloud's pass-the-hat paradise for media companies.

so, the big question is: if YOU were a major media corporation's CEO, and YOUR family's livelihood depended on keeping your corporation afloat in the face of underground distribution channels, what would YOU do?

i'll bet your answers, if you're truthful, aren't that far from what's happening now.

Today is an awfull lot like the thirties.

[Odinson]

• We just came out of the roaring twenties.
  
• Unlimited campain contributions are legal.
  
• Microsoft is the railroad companies.
  
• MPAA/RIAA is the oil companies.
  
• Economic times are bad (lower than 30% drop in 8 months, never mind how bad it would be without a single day bottom, federal bank insurance, and interest rate adjustments.)
  
• War on terrorism ~= war on orginizied crime. (the point is it's a bottomless money pit better fought by vigilance by the people than the government)
  

About the only thing missing is prohibition. But we have global taxing and rulemaking without representation to make up for that, or perhaps SSSCA could make computing the underground role by (effectivly) prohibiting computers.

I wish more people would learn from history, it might save us some pain.

Re:Today is an awfull lot like the thirties.

[Rogerborg]

• About the only thing missing is prohibition

Casual recreational drug use is so widespread today that it's not so far from the mass civil disobedience and general contempt for "no victim" laws that we saw during prohibition. And the only material effect is to make a few crime lords very, very rich.

I do take your point about SSSCA being much like prohibition though. For "speakeasy", read "share-easy". Or for Orwell's conspiratorial whisper of "I have a room without an Eye in it", read "I have a CD-RW without an SSSCA chip in it."

Re:E-Mail Your Congressperson

[xmedar]

Or email your CEO with a nice prepared bit on how it's going to hurt your corporation including how much money it will take from the bottomline or some approximate guess, all he has to do is forward that to your congressman that would do far moregood,if they add up it will cost the country $XXX BN then that is more effective that you telling them how bad it is to live in a totalitarian state.

RIAA to four-year old: 'Sharing is bad'

[tenzig_112]

To further spread the word about SSSCA, RIAA representatives have begun traveling from high school to grade school speaking on the evils of file sharing. After a recent speech at St. Bernard's Grade School in Peoria, Illinois, RIAA lawyer Russel Frackman found himself challenged by one of the students:

Eight-year old Zack Beasley tapped on Frackman's leg until he had gained his full attention. "I'm learning to share," he said. "I don't like to share. But they say have to learn how."

"That's nice," said Frackman dismissively.

"But you said sharing is bad."

Seeing the encounter as an opportunity to reinforce the points of his speech, Frackman leaned down to explain the RIAA position on the issue. "Sharing what is yours is okay. Sharing what is mine is not. That's stealing."

"Stealing? I don't get it. You don't want to share?"

"It's not that. I just shouldn't be forced to share if I don't want to."

Beasley shuffled over to his teacher, tugging on her skirt.

"The guy in the suit says I don't have to share if I don't want to," he said. She explained that it didn't matter. Zack was going to have to learn to share, no matter what the man said.

"She says you have to learn to share, too," said the boy.

More here:

http://www.ridiculopathy.com/index.php?display=200 11023

It's not about money or survival...

[Bonker]

so, the big question is: if YOU were a major media corporation's CEO, and YOUR family's livelihood depended on keeping your corporation afloat in the face of underground distribution channels, what would YOU do?

That's the trick, though, isn't it? It's not their welfare that's being hurt by underground distribution channels. BSA companies in particular are some of the wealthiest companies in the world despite rampant piracy of their products. Truthfully, it's not even their pocketbook.

As has been said many, many times before, you *cannot* assume that a sale of your product through piracy would have resulted in a sale for you had the pirate copy not existed.

Case in point:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,47617,00 .html '"It's not that people would just buy legitimate software if they can't get pirated copies," Cheng Yi, a self-described "alternative software dealer" from the Guangdong province said through a translator. "Many people here can't afford the legitimate software, and it is capitalist to say that only the rich should have the advantages."'

Do you think that every 15 yeal old webmaster who uses a warezed copy of Photoshop could get mommy or daddy to drop the $600 for a real copy? Does *anyone* think that less affluent people who build their own computer but don't really know linux can really afford a $300 Windows 2000 license?

The same goes for music. I don't buy RIAA CD's any more because of the RIAA's actions, but beforehand, I wouldn't even consider buying a CD without hearing at least some, and preferrably all the music from the disc. Napster was providing this service for millions. Accordingly, CD sales rose. Now that Napster is gone, CD sales have plummeted.

What is being hurt by underground distribution channels is control. In the case of the software companies, it's the ability to say who and who does not use their software. They lose the ability to lock people into licenses and 'upgrade cycles' if they are illegally using software. Even though they would never profit from those people, the loss of control is unbearable.

The same goes for the music industry. As has been noted by many research firms, Napster helped CD sales. Long and Short, CD sales rose while Napster was in operation and have now leveled off and even decreased. It was never about money for RIAA labels. It was about the ability to control not only their pet artists, but their listeners as well. Do you think that listener choice controls what is a 'hit' and what is not? Think again. A song may be catch, true, but the labels pour big $$$ into artist, songs, and music videos they want to be popular. This includes paying radio stations to play it, as well as putting together concerts, commercials, and promotional material. Look at 'O-Town' for chrissakes! The band is so fake they made a TV show about how fake it was. They have singles in the top 40 though. You think that wasn't entirely due to the effort of their label?

The same thing goes for movie studios, newspapers, televison networks, etc... etc.. etc...

We are living in a time that is analogous to the late middle-ages, just before the emergence of a real middle class. We have an oligarchy of rich, powerful individuals, Corporations and their executives in this case, who know that their continued survival is entirely dependant upon the serf classes. If those classes cannot be controlled, they cannot be trusted to allow the oligarchy to remain in power. Just like the French nobility, however, the aristocracy of money and power in the United States has decided not to try to adapt to the changing world.

Orv wiv'er heads...