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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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
In this case, the supporting companies would not have government interfere with
them. If I develop some kind of "intellectual property" and ask the government to intrude into OTHERS' rights, the government is not interfering with my rights.
Similar example: Democrats don't want government intrusion in abortion and reproductive rights, but they are fine with government dictating what parents teach their kids. They oppose government road blocks that search for illegal drugs, they support mandated smog testing.
My point: 99% of politics is not fundamental principal, it's a matter of convenience.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
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
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!
This isn't such a whacked out idea - Microsoft want to change from EULA (End User License Agreements) to a kind of EUUA (End User Usage Agreements), to prohibit people from using (e.g.) Frontpage to create anti-Microsoft content.
Using that precedent, if you can find an OS license that doesn't prohibit adding this kind of licensing restriction, then feel free to go for it. It should be an interesting experiment.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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