Slashdot Mirror
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.
If you're a USA citizen, you might try emailing your congressional representatives with your opinions. Snail mail used to be considered more valuable, but recently Congress staff members have been encouraging email use.
Wow, Slashdot opposes it, And now Microsoft does too?
The two Probably oppose it for entirely different reasons, but Politics sure do make for strange bedfellows....
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
This is definately an important issue for all slashdotters. If the federal government can step in an enforce this kind of ruling, the domino's will fall my friends. These types of steps are simply Uncle Sam dangling his feet in the waters of intrusive actions, and if allowed to go forth, he will dive right in.
I wouldn't put it past Hollings to try to slip this through as an amendment to antiterror legislation. RIAA has already tried this.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
From the article:
This legislation would be an unwarranted intrusion by the government into the commercial marketplace," said Ken Kay, executive director of the Computer Systems Policy Project, a trade group that includes IBM, Intel, Dell Computer, Motorola and others as members. "This would freeze technology...(and) force government to pick winners and losers".
As much as big corporations like to protect their IP, corporations also resent the government telling them what to do. So this puts up an interesting question: What do big corporatons want more, IP protection, or free market enterprise and development?
Whether this bill passes or not will likely show which is the winner.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
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.
At least the media companies are being told that they are NOT the only game in town.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
when /. and Msft are both against it!!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
"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.
________________
Private Essayist
Interesting to see AOL/TW siding, sort of, with tech. Apparently that's where most of the profits are.
Best Slashdot Co
Intel, IBM, Microsoft and Compaq Computer held a coming-out press conference Monday to oppose
a broad copyright protection proposal being backed by Walt Disney and Sen. Ernest Hollings Wow, maybe they realize this'll be bad for business? I mean to the average consumer, nobody will really care, they'll see it as being just another development or something. But most
The bill would bar the sale of any "interactive digital device" that did not have the anti-piracy
technology built in I don't think most people realize what that means, and i think that's what these companies need to do. They have the money, now start advertising. Make sure people know how restrictive this is. I know somebody said this in a discussion yesterday, but oh well. Show a cartoon of a kid trying to print a picture for school and being taken to prison and being abused there. Finally, there's some compainies opposing this, at least a little bit!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&o
All the parties except for the consumers, right?
Apparently Sen. Hollings was to have a hearing this week on the bill. Well Internet Daily reports that due to all the "general confusion" and some of this opposition, he will delay the hearing and won't introduce until he has "dialog" with affected industries. I have heard from second hand sources that even the BSA (not Boy Scouts) are not keen with this bill. Seems like it could DOA, or even pre arrival. But as always, keep vigilant!
Even big companies know this bill is stupid.
:-))
I'm sitting at my desk, doing my job (being a productive engineer) to the benefit of my company and my country's economy. Society benefits greatly through technological progress made by the thousands of people like me all around the world. Let's have a look at what "Interactive Digital Devices" I'm using, which I might soon be unable to use.
1. My PC, on which I'm writing this. It has a variety of uses which we're all familiar with. It runs a variety of software -- free, proprietary, open source, closed course, stuff I've written myself too. Without it, my job would be impossible.
2. My telephone. This is quite high-tech for a phone. I interact with it, and it's full of digital circuitry.
3. The development platform which I'm working on. This contains digital signal processors, FPGAs, CPLDs, PROMS, RAM, glue logic, and various buttons, switches, LED readouts and so on. It's really a cut-down version of a product which my company ships. Interacting with one of these is the only way to get any work done round here. It connects to my PC via a JTAG in-circuit emulation box, which is also mildly interactive.
4. A small "performance monitor" board, which I've been developing and testing. This connects to my development platform, and produces analogue outputs based on digital inputs. (I'm trying not to give too much away here.
5. A digital oscilloscope. This is displaying traces from the hardware on my desk. Often, I screen-grab these traces onto a disk (in a standard graphics format).
6. A data transmission analyser. This box outputs digital test patterns, and monitors its inputs for the purposes of bit error rate measurement. I can set it up to do a variety of things, to verify the design of the hardware I'm helping to create.
If the UK were to pass a law like the SSSCA, it would put my company out of business for two reasons - the engineers would be unable to work because their tools would be illegal, and in any case the product we create (wireless telecoms equipment, UMTS Node-B) would also be illegal until the 3GPP mandated spread-spectrum radio standards were updated to include this copy protection/DRM/PITA standard.
I rest my case. Passing the SSSCA would, I think, bring the digital revolution to an ugly and unceremonious end.
These sigs are more interesting tha
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
It's good to know that their memories aren't so short that they've forgotten the furor over the CPRM.
Thankfully, this bill isn't masquerading as an anti-terrorism/anti-pedophile bill but rather being seen for the anti-consumer bill that it really is.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
If shit like this is put in computers, will the computer still feel like a universal tool? There is of course a limit when a computer is to restricted to feel like a computer. Most geeks here appreciate computers because they are so flexible.
Hopefully, there will always be a quite large demand for computers like they are today. And even though most people might buy "computers" that are more like a Nintendo with WWW/email/DVD/office, for scientific uses and in the industry, truly flexible and programmable computers will be needed.
Or whatever beings or forces of nature you want to thank that the self-interests of major companies and industries are seldom in line with each other. For as long as there's a solid business reason for one industry or company to oppose the actions or legal efforts of another industry or company, those of us who always get caught in the middle will have a chance to survive and maybe even prosper, however we individually understand prospering.
Maybe we'll get really lucky and have Sony Entertainment and Sony Electronics on the opposite sides of another lawsuit. That's always fun.
Given the current threat of recession, I can imagine how Congress would feel about adopting something like SSSCA if there was a credible threat to boycott SSSCA-compatible products. Many in Congress remember the "Luxury Tax", and how it nearly bankrupted the recreational boating and civil aviation manufacturers. That was not a boycott per se, but the effect was the same.
In this case, a boycott would surely impact the hardware manufacturers and Microsoft. Even without SSSCA, Q4 2001 is not going to be all that good for these companies.
Businesses will continue to buy computers and software, but the Dells and Gateways of the world will scream loudly if Congress makes a mess of the home market.
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.
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.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
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:
More here:
http://www.ridiculopathy.com/index.php?display=20
Many of these companies in Hollywood use Linux and other free tools to produce their works of art. Could we, just as a sly move use the evils of the DMCA, etc, make it illegal for anyone to use Open Source software to create any works of art for the Music, Movie, Television, etc. industries with out having a notice running for the first five minutes on the evils of said DMCA, etc. laws?
And since the DMCA allows us to change the EULA without notice, we can force them to retro-actively make these changes in their products.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Option 1 would still be illegal, unless they discussed, wrote, and shipped the non-SSSCA version completely outside the U.S. All the programmers would have to emigrate to another country and could never return to the U.S. for fear of becoming Skylrov's cellmate.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
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?
0 .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."'
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/0,1283,47617,0
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...
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
The same way they can force you to drive a car with seatbelts.
During the 18th century, thousands of weavers were put out of business when machines came along that could do their jobs faster, cheaper, more reliably and with better quality.
The weavers were obviously distraught and there were riots with the Luddites as they were known attempting to destroy the machines that put them out of business.
Over the last 200 years, technology has made many people redundant, from riveters to bank clerks. It's the media businesses turn now. It's just progress.
Anybody can replicate information, large media corporations with top heavy management structures and CD/DVD pressing factories are no longer required. They are doomed, redundant, as were the Luddites. All the legislation in the world won't change that.
The survivors will be small fast media companies who can take advantage of the digital media such as MPEGs and MP3s.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
So, either the war on drugs is creating the economic environment that supports al Qaeda, or else this claim by a "senior official" is BS intended to excuse military action in S. America. Why does it seem incredible to me that S. American coke runners would welcome or benefit from partnership with Moslem religious/political extremists? Yes, they do business with local Marxist insurgencies, but that's because those have a political base there. Like, Columbians need help money laundering or running drugs? And we're supposed to be prepared for this war not to end in "our lifetime"?
I'm prepared to stand behind America doing some really ugly things to those who have actually attacked us. Doing ugly things to those who provide consumer society with its vices I'm only for it also broadens to include the idiots who sold us the SUVs that make us oil-addicted clients of the Saudi princes who have financed bin Lauden all along.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I think hat a lot of people don't understand one thing about the SSSCA. I agree it would be a very bad thing if it were to become law. And yes there is a lot of bad stuff in it. However it only applies to things in the future. So the plexwriter that I've already bought is completely legal. However the plexwriter that is being designed by plextor right now, is not legal. They will have to cease manufacture of all non-secure hardwares and softwares.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
It funny sometimes I get unfocused for a moment(Really need to get my eye exam done), and read anti-piracy as anti-privicy...but then again, maybe its not misreading, so much as reading between the lines.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Because if they agreed to this law, then they probably would have to agree that the government could be justified in stepping in at any time to tell them how to design their hardware and software products. Wouldn't do to appear two-faced now would it.
Of, course, the MPAA doesn't like the proposed law because it doesn't go far enough.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Read the proposed legislation.
It doesn't make distinctions of "professional" or "consumer"- it's any computing device whatsoever.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The only problem I see is what they claim not to have done is pretty close to what they agree that they did do.
Be careful out there - it's a villifying world these days.
sPh
However, I think we're on our guard and there's going to be many watching out for that one- this was being ran in stealth mode for a while before we caught wind of it. Hell, Hollings isn't talking to anyone about it other than the backers of the proposed bill.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Look in any truck stop. You'll find pirated tapes and CD's in a Lossless format for sale.
All it takes for it to happen online is someone to use shorten and a fat pipe to allow downloading/uploading. MP3's, WMA's, TVQ's, and Ogg's merely make it easier with the need for a fat pipe lessened.
They're on the brink of obsolecence right now- bandwidth is high enough to make it a real problem for them, they're pissing off the artists left and right, and they're beginning to see the pissing off of the consumers themselves.
I just wish they'd die or adapt quickly- all this tar-pit thrashing about they're doing right now is going to make things ugly for everyone, including themselves.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
True, but actually breaking the protection would mean 5-10 in prison and up to $1,000,000 in fines.
Pot's largely harmless if you know it's pharmacology.
Cocaine is damn dangerous as are all the opiates.
Many of the halucinogens are dangerous as well.
All the deleriants (e.g. scopalamine) are very dangerous.
Dangerous in the sense of serious bodily harm in the form of easy overdose, injury to oneself because you're very definitely not in control of yourself, etc.
I don't agree with all the thinking they have, but some things are beyond ill-advised.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
- Osama bin Laden sailing up as the next Hitler. Even if he isn't I'm sure the US will make him look like it... I just hope he won't be able to make this into a western world - islamic war.
KjellaLive today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
What about "fritz.isverybad.com"? I own isverybad.com. Anyone with good content for such a site feel free to contact me at j[FIDEL'S_SURNAME]@[CHIPSET_MAKER_BEGINNING_WITH_A _V]link.com.br
"Giving them to friends for gifts", if your friends don't own legal copies of the individual tracks of their own, IS a violation of existing copyright law, not just the newer, unreasonable laws and proposed laws. (Personally, I don't think this aspect of copyright law is actually "unreasonable", as much as at the same time I don't think giving a track or two would really HARM the copyright holder...) On the other hand, making copies of tracks you legally own for YOUR OWN use is not SUPPOSED to be illegal, as far as I know, this INCLUDES 'private' parties (if you're inviting the general public, then it's a "public performance" and you have to pay royalties and such, I believe). THIS is the part that the newer, unreasonable (in my opinion) laws and proposals would criminalize (e.g. the DMCA's attempt to criminalize 'unsanctioned' DVD decoders which might be usable to make 'space-shifted' copies of DVD movies).
Interesting question about the speakers, though - especially if digital devices start popping up to take the niche formerly occupied by microcassette recorders. If the SSSCA passed, then the recorder has to have copy-prevention in it. But if it's recording from speakers, as you say, the digital copy-prevention part of the signal is gone...as well as your example of taking speaker output from one device through the line-in on another.
(Sort of like using a video capture card connected to a standalone DVD player to capture a DVD movie to a different format, which the MPAA surely would love to criminalize somehow, regardless of the intended use of such a "space-shifted" copy...)
(As always, I Am Not A Lawyer(tm), so don't assume I know what I'm talking about...)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Interesting analogy, though it's not illegal for YOU to rip that tag off of a mattress YOU'VE purchased, really. It's illegal for, say, the furniture store to remove the tag before selling it to you (Last time I checked, the language on the tags now said "not to be removed except by the consumer" or some variant thereof
What makes this interesting is the fact that aspects of the DMCA, and Hollings' pet law, and such, is that they are LIKE making it illegal to remove tags from your own mattresses.
As I understand it, the "tag law" (whatever it's officially called) is there to protect the consumer from being ripped off, but the consumer is supposed to be able to do whatever they want with it once they've legally obtained ownership of the physical mattress (EXCEPT, I suppose, resell the mattress to someone else without the tags).
Pre-DMCA copyright law (in general) seemed to be a reasonable matter of "you may do whatever you want with the physical copy you've legally aquired, except resell or distribute it to other people without permission from the copyright holder". Post-DMCA copyright laws seem to be a lot like a "real" version of the common perception of the tag laws - imagine that they said "You may not remove this tag under penalty of law, even if you are the consumer, because you MIGHT resell the mattress to someone later". Sound analogous to the justification for the ridiculous copyright laws being pushed these days...
(Another analogy - as far as I know, it's illegal to run away from the police if they try to detain you, yet criminals insist on doing to anyway. OBVIOUSLY we need to outlaw shoes which make it easier for criminals to escape. Sure, this means a bit of inconvenience for non-criminals, but isn't it a small price to pay to be protected from dangerous criminals?)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
There are a number of economists, sociologists, and dynamic systems modelers that have observed 50- to 60-year cycles in economic output, political attitudes, birth rates, tecnological adaptation, and other indicators. The work dates back to the 1920s, when Russian economist Nikolai Kondratieff predicted the Great Depression a decade in advance. (He wasn't popular with his communist colleagues, because he also predicted that the capitalist economies would rebound.)
Here's an article [wholeearthmag.com] from 1998 that gives a good overview of Kondratieff's work as well as more recent studies, and a website [1-888.com] with links to several others.
If these people are right, the good news is that things should go uphill over the next few decades.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Think about it. If Linux were outlawed by this act, wouldn't that be GREAT for Microsoft? Yes, but there are far worse elements in store for software vendors.
The problem is that the act forbids selling, offering to the public, importing, etc. any software device which does not include government certified security systems. A device is defined as something which processes, transmits, or displays information or data...
So hello.c would be illegal as would all the sample programs in computer science textbooks. In fact teaching computer science would be impossible because one would have to start on chapter 11 (pun intended). I can only assume that this would only be resolved by importing foreign programmers because it would be impossible to teach people in this country.
This has substantial ramafications for Microsoft and all other technology firms. I wonder if Disney is scared enough to try to deliberately kill the tech industry...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
How about we find the "Copy Proof" Cd's that can not be played in a computer and send one to each of our respective senators and congresspersons.
/. repeatedly that most of the people representing (I use the term loosely in some cases) us do not understand the implications of the laws the are passing.
Also Include a DVD from a region other than the United States(US is region 1, correct?).
Included In the envelope, fedex package or hand delivery a "voucher" from their district for a $50K "contribution" with the stipulation they only get said contribution provided the do not run afowl of the law by playing both disks on a computer of their choosing.
And if you really wanted to be cruel, provide the documentation electronically as an "e-book" that only allows *one* viewing and no printing.
It has been stated here on
This can only help, I think, to make it perfectly clear the kind of frustrating, draconian, unconstitutional and consumer unfriendly path we are headed down with this kind of nonsense.
If you really think about it, how long *before* the corporations buying this legislation start doing something similar?
Vendor lock-in is one thing, "legislative career lock-in to a corporation" is another.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)