Fox Explains Why SSSCA Is Bad

corbettw writes "Fox News is running an article that slams Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disney") and the Democrats (with the notable exception of Rick Boucher) as having betrayed their principles. More importantly, the article explains why the SSSCA is so bad, in language any American can understand. It's nice to see someone in the mainstream media taking this beast on before it becomes law."

Comments

Opinions, opinions

[Frater 219]

Please note that the linked article is a partisan opinion piece by a law professor. It isn't the work of a Fox columnist; it doesn't necessarily represent the opinions of Fox or its affiliates. Nonetheless, it is quite refreshing to see cogent arguments for freedom in the "mainstream" media.

FWIW, the "partisan opinion" in question is small-"L" libertarian Republican. What the author is arguing isn't just that the SSSCA is bad. It's that Republicans should take advantage of the fact that Democrats' support for the SSSCA makes Democrats look to be in bed with Big Business. I, for one, find it nice when either of the duopolistic parties adopt pro-freedom positions. It gives me hope that someday they might do so out of principle rather than just because it makes them look good. Is a pretense to virtue a possible antecedent to true virtue? I don't know.

And for those of us who have figured that out

[loosenut]

Do something about it!

Visit the EFF:
http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010921_eff_sssca_alert .html

I used that page to send a few emails to my Congresspeople. And they are listening!! I got this reply from Senator Maria Cantwell:

Dear ---:
Thank you for contacting me about the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). I appreciate hearing your concerns.

The SSSCA has not yet been introduced in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, nor does it exist in final form. My staff has been in contact with the Senator Hollings' office, one of the authors of the SSSCA along with Senator Stevens. I was informed that the SSSCA is yet to be completed, and the timeline for the introduction of the SSSCA is uncertain at this point. The early draft that was made publicly available on the Internet, to which your comments are likely directed, may be significantly different from the legislation that may be introduced by Senators Hollings and Stevens. You may be interested to know that Sen. Hollings held a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee to address this issue on February 28 (To view statements and testimony from this hearing, see: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/hearings.htm)

I understand your concern that we must work to achieve the right balance between protecting copyrights and remunerating the creators of those works and reasonable consumer use of copyrighted works. Indeed, the pace of innovation requires a diligent consideration of both of these interests. I believe that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) passed in 1998 helps to accomplish this goal. I feel we need to continue to encourage innovation in technology while protecting the intellectual property rights of inventors, artists, authors and musicians. The DMCA prohibits circumvention of technological protection measures and the trafficking of such technology. Thus, the law facilitates legitimate distribution of copyrighted work by allowing for the use of technological measures by the copyright holder and providing legal protections for those measures. However, you should know that I will not be supportive of legislation that unduly limits technological innovation or consumers' rights.

At this relatively early point in the development of digital distribution of copyrighted works, the U.S. Copyright Office has recommended that Congress make no significant changes to copyright law right now. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyright law, I will be actively considering these issues. Please be assured that should the SSSCA come before the Senate, I will keep your concerns in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to do so in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Maria Cantwell United States Senator

Re:And for those of us who have figured that out

[mikeboone]

If I remember correctly, Maria Cantwell used to work for Real Networks. So I could see her siding with the DMCA since "secure" content transmission is part of her former employer's business.

Who is Glenn Reynolds?

[rtos]

The article was written by Glenn Reynolds. He also maintains a rather cool weblog at Instapundit.com. More information about him can be found here, from which I will blockquote:

" WHO IS GLENN REYNOLDS? I'm a law professor at the University of Tennessee. I write various law review articles, opeds, and other stuff. My most recent book is The Appearance of Impropriety: How the Ethics Wars Have Undermined American Government, Business and Society, (The Free Press, 1997) coauthored with Peter W. Morgan. For something completely different, see Environmental Regulation of Nanotechnology: Some Preliminary Observations, from the April, 2001 Environmental Law Reporter. (Sorry, but most law review articles aren't on the Web).

I'm interested in everything, but my chief interest is in the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty. The vast majority of my writing touches on this in one way or another.

I'm also very interested in music. I produce, write for, or perform with a number of bands (but not "Pachyderm Party" -- that's a different Glenn Reynolds), including Mobius Dick, The Nebraska Guitar Militia, and the Defenders of the Faith. I own a small record company (it's not organized as a nonprofit, but it might as well be) with my brother and another guy, called WonderDog Records. Some of my favorite acts are Cecilia Noel and the Wild Clams, BT, The Supreme Beings of Leisure, and, of course, Creedence Clearwater Revival."

And he may be one of the few columnists out there that hates the RIAA as much as the Slashdot crowd.

I thought a little background on him would be appropriate since all the claims of conservative bias and such started being flung around.

Some numbers that are in the actual SSSCA document

[Anonymous Coward]

Being Caught with 1 "illegal" copyright work: $25,000
Being Caught 3 years later with an "illegal" copyright work: $75,000
Total: $100,000

For 1000 mp3s: $100,000,000 (100 million)

And according to the SSSCA, an illegal work would be an mp3 of a song on a CD that you yourself bought. Or when the "secure content checker" written about in the SSSCA is on all computers, an illegal work is a work it doesn't recognize, such as a term paper you wrote 5 years ago.

$100,000 for trying to read your own paper.