Slashdot Mirror
SSSCA Editorials
idiotnot writes: "This editorial from the New York Times, by Jonathan L. Zittrain, a professor at Harvard Law School, urges legislators to exercise caution in regulating the PC. Eisner, et. al. want to limit the PC's capability, which will limit what PC users are allowed to do. See this earlier story about Eisner's testimony to Congress. '[W]e should beware the haste with which some would sacrifice flexibility for control.'" Other readers submitted a story in Hardware Central and an AP article. Seems like the ruckus over the SSSCA is finally reaching the mainstream press.
Have you? It takes just a couple of minutes, and might mean a lot. This law scares the bejesus out of me, and I hope it does the same to you. Let your Senators and Representatives know.
I'm very glad to see all the mainstream press that this proposed legislation is getting.
Hopefully, as more and more editorials criticize this law, the general public will begin to see what is at stake and demand that Congress abandon this Disney law.
It is not the role of the government to protect the revenue streams of industry; but somewhere and somehow this has become their sole occupation. In a democratic free-market, the government should ensure fairness (I'm not a libertarian, I have no belief in an entierly market-based system) - unfortunatly in our system the government seems only concerned with appeasing the largest corporations, with no regard for the people they are presumed to serve.
If we all stand up, and let our politicians know that "enough is enough" hopefully they will change their ways. And it seems like more and more "everyday" people are beginning to make their voice heard (witness protests in Seattle, etc.), but the corporate media does its very best to quiet this dissent.
Unfortunatly the American idea of freedom has been transformed, and what remains is solely a concern with the freedom to make money.
I thought the article missed the point. Many people are going to come away from reading it thinking, "I don't want one of these crippled computers, so I won't buy one, no matter how much I see ads for them." They aren't going to appreciate the fact that the media companies don't want this to be a choice we have--they want to ram these things down our throats. They know damn well that, given the choice, no one will want them, so they want to pass a law like the SSSCA to force the issue. That is what people need to understand.
But this article is a great opportunity for anyone interested to write a letter to the editor of the Times. Getting published won't be easy, but it's possible, now more so than ever, since the paper has given this issue publicity. So if you want to write, here's your chance. They have an e-mail address for submissions:
letters at nytimes dot com (munged to prevet spam)
I wasn't able to locate a postal address on the Web site for letters to the editor, but maybe someone else will have that available and post it here.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
For example, I have no conceptual problem with restricting some traditional fair-use rights when it comes to renting movies. I don't think a renter needs the ability to copy the movie for either time-shifting or back-up purposes. Congress started with that basic thought, and ended up with section K of the DMCA that required copy protection on all new VCR's (CopyGuard/MacroVision). The problem is that the movie industry promptly screwed the consumer!
* They put copy protection on all tapes (and DVDs), not just ones for rental.
* The copy protection removes fair-use (that I think) should still be available in a rental situation: such as "quoting" a section of a movie for review or analysis.
* The copy protection does not expire once the movie becomes public domain, an issue that will cause our future historians fits!
Most the DRM systems I've seen proposed eliminate most of the rights/benefits consumers (and society) normally have under traditional copyright law. If the DRM clauses were put into a "shrinkwrap" contract, they would be ruled unenforceable (for example the courts quashed the publishers attempt to enforce a "do not resell" notice in a book). A DRM system combined with the DMCA anti-circumvention measures puts the consumer at the mercy of the system designer. Your only option is to not buy it, which may mean going without since the publishers/recording-industry are going to be loathe to make any non-DRM content available.
Ignoring all the practical issues with the SSSCA for a moment (and there are a bunch!), the only way the bill should proceed is if it guarantees that no DRM will hamper or eliminate rights in the copyright balance. I'm not talking about Disney's definition of fair-use either (which as best I can tell, is something to the effect that Disney can use public-domain material, but does not have to release any of it's own work into the public domain). To take my rental example, the DRM would have to find some way to accommodate all three bullets (not an easy thing to do).
To be fair, another slant on this is the definition of new "relationships". We can now think of two normal methods of obtaining a movie for example: "purchase" and "rental". The DRM proponents are trying to make new workable models. The original idea behind DIVX went something like this: Electricity used to be charged based on capacity. Edison would count the number of lights in your house, and set the monthly charge based on the potential capacity of how much electricity you might use. Once they designed a power meter (a very tricky area, even now), they could dramatically lower the prices and only charge you for the electricity that you used. DIVX would allow a very low charge per use (planned to be lower than a traditional rental charge), instead of a one-size-fits-all purchase price.
The DIVX problems make a good illustration for almost all the DRM schemes I've seen. I never heard of DIVX being cracked. Secure client software backed up with a centrally managed server can make things pretty bullet proof (up to the point it converts to something outside of the DRM scheme). But security aside, DIVX had a whole host of problems, which frankly I don't know of a way to get past. Aside: I've considered job offers at today's DRM companies, but many of them are just too sleazy. The typical attitude is that public domain and fair-use is unimportant - the copyright holders content needs to be protected at all costs!
* The most obvious issue, is that once the central DIVX system died, all the media became useless. This is the single largest issue with DRM.
* The discs were too machine specific (they did have some theoretical "sharing pool" for people who had multiple DIVX players, which I'm not sure how well it worked). Even if you paid for a life-time access (see above), you could not play the disc on your neighbor's machine.
* There was a large potential for "marketing abuse", since they had to identify each item played on the machine (they would know who played what media, how many times, etc.). Your only protection was voluntary agreement that the data collected would not be misused.
* You are at the mercy of the DIVX operations staff. They could change the price or terms-of-use any time they wanted to.
As to the practicalities of the SSSCA, I think the closest analog the computer industry has experienced is export regulations. I [unfortunately] have lots of experience of just how bad that can be! I worked for a company that used encryption in virtually all of it's products. We once estimated that approximately 20% of the company's resources were used to deal-with, design, and follow export regulations. Of a hundred employees, "only" 3-4 actually dealt with the regulations daily, but virtually the entire design team had to take them into account. What should have been a single product would be split into multiple products to fit the ever changing interpretations of the regulations (resulting in a dramatic increase in development, testing, manufacturing, and marketing). Believe me, very few people in or out of the industry have any idea of how bad the SSSCA would clog our technology industry up!
This SSSCA is laying the infrastructure for mass control, not only of software, but also expression.
I can forsee that the SSSCA will be applied so that ISPs are forbidden from accepting connections from non-'trusted' client computers.
'Trusted' computers would contain hardware-based digital certificates, so it would be easy for the ISP to determine if an open-source computer is trying to connect.
That's Linux gone in one fell swoop.
Next, the SSSCA will wipe out all independent software developers - 'trusted' OSs simply won't run software that doesn't have a digital license.
Digital licenses will only be available to approved companies, after passing a thorough security examination, and paying a fortune.
On trusted computers, programming tools will only be available to security-certified corporations. Any software written will have to pass an expensive security audit at source-level before being granted a release certificate (which would allow it to run on other people's PCs).
Media creation tools, such as desktop publishers, audio/video editors etc will produce secure media files that will only be able to play on the computer on which they were created - or, for an extra license fee, up to 5 other designated computers. Licenses to create media for mass distribution will cost a mint, and require security clearance.
Websites are next. Web browsers will only be able to access certified websites. Webmaster security certification will cost a fortune.
Email too - email clients will vet outgoing email messages through an 'Intellectual Property Clearance Server', which will scan the message's text against a huge database of copyrighted texts. So if an email contains more than a few words that happen to appear in the IP database, it won't get sent. The 'IP Clearance Servers' will also scan for phrases which are too controversial.
This is WAR, folks!!!!!
The most significant event in US history since the Declaration of Independence and the Civil War.
Time for everyone to kick up the biggest fuss the country has ever seen.
Or else!
"He loved Big Brother"
-- last words of '1984' by George Orwell
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
What i've never understood is, if the RIAA or MPAA folks don't want people to make copies of digital works, why do they keep releasing digital works? If there's no CD available, then i can't copy it.
Piracy is a social problem, not a technical one, yet the recording industry keeps insisting on technical solutions. They released products into the market place which people realised they could use in new and interesting ways which hadn't occurred to the industry folks. So now the RIAA is stomping around shouting, "Wait! Wait! That's not what I meant!" Well, that doesn't mean we need to legislate the rights of the consumer. It means the recording industry should be smarter next time.
You shouldn't get federal legal protection for making stupid business decisions, you should get the opportunity to learn from your mistakes. It seems like we're going about this whole problem bass-ackward.
This SSSCA is certainly legislatable, but hardly enforceable. Ya can't stop people from owning compilers. The US IT economy would stifle itself so fast that foreign heads would spin, no other country would enact similar legislation, and the US IT infrastructure would collapse. That's IFF they actually tried to enforce such legislation.
I do not fear this legislation. Part of me hopes the bozos actually pass it and enforce it, even though it would make me a criminal, just for the sheer fun of watching all the resultant confusion build up as various deadlines approach.
I gather one of the goals for terrorists from Timothy McVeigh to al Qaeda is to sow so much confusion that the target system gets more and more restrictive and finally collapses from within. Sort of like carrying any argument to the extreme just to show how ridiculous it is. This SSSCA is just the ticket to make a mockery of all intellectual property.
Infuriate left and right