SSSCA Hearing

larsoncc writes: "According to this article on CNET, a Senate Bill will likely force the issue of adding copy protection to hardware. They are giving the industry 12 to 18 months to come up with a voluntary solution to the "problem" of copies, and if not... Well, you just have to read the article. Insane." Wired also has a story. The IP list published two interesting documents: an account of the hearing by an attendee, and a letter from Intel published immediately after the hearing. Read the letter carefully - note that the disagreement between the tech industry and Hollywood is not over whether or not copy protection will be implemented into every electronic device, but only whether or not this should be written into law. If the SSSCA isn't passed, Intel (and others) get a lot of leverage over Hollywood. If it is, Intel's leverage disappears. But since both sides want to build copy protection into everything, they only differ over the process, we're in trouble either way.

Comments

Bought and Paid For

[scoove]

I think we need to remind our congresscritters that in light of the Enron and Global Crossing special interest fiascos, the last thing that would be appropriate for them to do now (especially after their activity on campaign finance reform) would be to pass a bill that should be renamed the "AOL/Time Warner and Friends Racket Act."

As much as I like some of my representatives, I've put them on notice that I'll vote in someone else if they dare pass this scam.

Congress: Quit telling me how to run my business, or I'll tell you how to run yours!

*scoove*

I will accept copy protection.

[onion2k]

I'm entirely willing to accept copy protection, DRM, whatever, with one single condition.

All media has a lifetime guarantee against anything I do to it.

Basically, I want to back things up for my personal use. But, if the media companies wish to stop me doing that myself then I feel that they ought to provide me, for free (or the cost of production), with as many replacements of the original media as I want. If they are unwilling to accpet this financial undertaking (it'd be big, I'm a clumsy/forgetful/stupid person) then they ought not be able to stop me protecting my initial investment.

Re:I will accept copy protection.

[42forty-two42]

You don't understand. Open source software will become illegal.

overseas....

[Raleel]

I think I'll start buying my hardware overseas now. Oh, what? Mr. Tech Industry? You don't like that? Put down this silly business. Guess I'll have to start attending more live performances.

Porn companies?

[Silver222]

"An interactive digital device is defined as any hardware or software capable of "storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving or copying information in digital form."

Jesus H. Christ. So any pocket calculator with a M+ key on it is going to be illegal? What a bunch of assholes.

On another note, where do the porn companies stand in this? I think I'm going to start writing the big porn video companies and let them know that movies they make are being shared online. That could be the one thing that could kill this bill. Imagine telling Mary soccer mom that the reason her computer is hobbled is to protect the profits of pornographers. She'll get into her Suburban and drive right over to her Congressman's office with a letter.

If you can't copy, it's not a computer

[scruffy]

I agree with the Mike Godwin letter that politicians and media moguls simply do not understand computer technology. Copying is simply a fundamental operation of computers. Any algorithm that does squat has to move information around, even "Hello world". Every read and print makes a copy. Every assignment statement makes a copy. Every packet is a copy. Everything on your disk drive is a copy. This effort to somehow mark a bit as copy-protected or not is just going to throw a huge wrench in the works. And how are they going to mark a bit as copy-protected or not except by using more bits?

This whole effort is somewhat like trying to outlaw the laws of physics. If they could, these guys would try to slow down the speed of light because it allows copying to happen too fast.

Copying is how computers work. Would somebody with some influence and a clue please tell them this?

My Copyright Plan

[JohnDenver]

1. Circumvention devices are illegal, IF they have the exclusive purpose of being a circumvention device. (Providers can't use an amateur DRM system)
2. ALL copyrights expire after 20 years. (Not this 95-150 years BS when original copyrights were 14 years)
3. When a copyright expires, it must be released without DRM (Digital Rights Management) software.


Personally, I think this is a perfect balance. While I would deam circumvention devices illegal, I would also release TONS of MODERN works in the public domain. You're probably thinking, "Big deal, you're realing everything prior to 1980 into the public domain. I'll get to watch old movies."

We don't even have a dictionary in the public domain that is clear enough to scan in with OCR software. (I'm not sure of the current status.)

We have nothing, as far as modern works is concerned, in the public domain. Imagine the wealth of information published prior to 1980, now imagine it's all free. Now imagine you're free to plaigerize from all those works to create an uber-encyclopedia of data structures, gardening, renewable energy guide, home medical guide, medical diagnosis software, etc.

It would create a whole new landscape for a whole new type of aggrigate content. You would be free to mix the best of two books or entire volumes and magazines, and put it on a CD or DVD. The amount of knowledge that could be compiled would be insane.

You might as well give new works the ability to protect themselves for a limited amount of time.

It's time to educate the people with the free information they are entitled to. The US Constitution acknoweldges that information is inherantly free, because they had to make a provision for limited copyrights and patents.

The only reason they would make such a provision is because it was self-evident that information, specific works or vague abstractions, belong to the public and no individual.

In other words, copyrights and patents are privledges, not rights.

Re:Should I send this to my congressmen?

[pnuema]

Here is mine. Credit to all whose post I have ripped off. :)

Senator Kit Bond
274 Russel Senate Office Building
Washington, DC. 20510

Senator Bond:

I am writing to express my deep concerns over recent trends I see in new intellectual property law, specifically the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). From what I understand, this law will make it illegal to manufacture and/or sell an interactive digital device that does not have built in "content protection", where an interactive digital device is defined as any hardware or software capable of storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving or copying information in digital form.
Frankly, I am shocked and deeply alarmed that such a bill is even being considered on the floor of the US Senate. Intellectual Property was created by the framers of our constitution not to ensure that corporations can make money for the span of many human lifetimes, but to ensure that said property would eventually fall into the public domain by providing a (small) window of revenue for content creators. This act would violate both the spirit and the letter of past intellectual property law. Consider, under the SSSCA:

1. Fair use rights have been virtually eliminated. I can no longer make copies of media that I legally bought and own, and am legally entitled to copy.
2. Media that I created (home videos, pictures, etc.) will no longer be viewable on SSSCA compliant hardware. You will lose the home movies of an entire generation.
3. Some greeting cards, credit cards, calculators, picture frames, children's toys, answering machines, cell phones, etc. will now be illegal. (Anything that can store data digitally will have to be manufactured to this standard.)

Perhaps most insidious, however, is the ramifications for who can publish and who cannot. This "content protection" works by the content providers agreeing on a standard for "watermarking" their products, and the hardware manufacturers interpreting said watermark. The watermarking method will have to remain secret; otherwise illegal copies could be watermarked and distributed. Thus, only people with access to this watermarking method will be able to produce media viewable by the American public. In other words, only approved media will be viewable by the American public. As a private citizen, I can no longer distribute digital copies of a video I created with my current camera, because it does not hold an MPAA watermark, and thus all SSSCA compliant hardware will treat it as a pirated copy.

I sincerely doubt that such a law would survive a constitutional test. I urge you to demonstrate that you really do work for us, and not for Hollywood. Vote down this legislation.

Sincerely,

Missouri Citizen

Here's my letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Hollings's office,
This letter is being addressed to your office for your capacity as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and co-sponsor of the proposed legislation the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). The legislation that you are proposing will have a definite, immediate, and chilling effect on the economic growth of the technology and entertainment industries for the foreseeable future.

I would like to point out that your legislation intends on preventing free market forces from being allowed to shape the economic growth of these industries by creating artificial barriers intended to maintain the current balance of power/wealth held by the copyright holders. This is very similar to the competition felt by the railroad industry from the automobile, in that both the railroad and record/movie labels depended upon their absolute control over all major distribution channels for their sources of revenue (the record industry receives 94% of total revenue from CD sales). The PC/internet is like the automobile/highway system in that it frees the masses from having to rely on a bulky, inefficient, and tightly controlled distribution channel that allows for illegal price fixing, for which the record industry has been found guilty of in the past. I am not an advocate of any form of piracy because if the government were to allow the markets to naturally rebalance themselves, they could now do so in such a way that piracy would no longer be an attractive option for consumers, unless you feel that every citizen is a thief at heart. This would be do to the volume of scale involved with the internet distribution of data including songs and movies.

To illustrate this point the average cost per song on a CD is ~$2 for the consumer. This $2 includes certain privileges like owning the physical media, protective case, label and lyrics, the ability to create copies for personal use within the fair use doctrine, unlimited listening, portability, and then the right to sell the CD provided that you don't keep any copies. Under the current overpriced CD distribution scheme, very few successful CDs will sell a million or more copies. By contrast is the reported popularity of some pirated songs on the Internet which regularly exceeded ten million downloads. If the record companies were to offer their songs for sale on the internet with the legal right to download the songs, giving the buyers full fair-use privileges, the ability to create playable audio CDs, unlimited listening ability, and portability for a cost that reflects the volume of scale, lack of overhead, and fair profit margins they would see immediate, dramatic, and profitable sales.

Instead these companies are moving their businesses online in a way that allows them to continue to maintain the same near absolute control over the online music industry that was had by their control over the traditional distribution channels. Should the railroads been given control over all highways? If allowed to continue, your proposed legislation will allow these industries to continue their abuses on the consumers by way of forcing consumers to pay every time they listen to a song/see a movie/read a book, without regard to any legal fair use. As proof of their true intensions the record industries current online ventures have proposed an insulting royalty payments from online sales to the artists they claim to represent/protect. Some of these songs being sold online by the record companies don't even have a legal right to sell online, and the artists' who own the online rights are threatening them with lawsuits and sending cease and desist orders, which the record industry has chooses to ignore.

To end I would like to include a quote from Robert Heinlein's "Life-Line"
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

All opinions expressed within are mine alone and by no means represent those of my employer.