Analog Hole Legislation Formally Introduced

phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica is covering a recent bit of legislation introduced to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee this past week. The laws would seek to close the 'Analog Hole' that serves as a sort of last-ditch pirating mechanism when corporate DRM goes all crazy and tramples on your fair-use rights: 'Calling the ability to convert analog video content to a digital format a significant technical weakness in content protection, H.R. 4569 would require all consumer electronics video devices manufactured more than 12 months after the DTCSA is passed to be able to detect and obey a rights signaling system that would be used to limit how content is viewed and used. That rights signaling system would consist of two DRM technologies, Video Encoded Invisible Light (VEIL) and Content Generation Management System--Analog (CGMS-A), which would be embedded in broadcasts and other analog video content.'" We've previously covered this bill.

Comments

Re:I could write something funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

But this time its by Ars! Come on, this ones wide open...

Bad legislation

[ReformedExCon]

This isn't bad because it limits freedom or any such nonsense. That's a lot of hot air blown by zealots with lots more free time than brain cells.

This is bad legislation because it attempts to force certain types of technology into existence. While a government program designed to discourage people from engaging in media piracy would be a good thing, mandating that all devices have this built in is simply a way to skirt the issue while appearing to be tackling the problem.

Such a law does not stop what it is intended to stop. Pirates will still be able to break the encryption, replicate the media, and resell it on the open street in lands far away from where American law can reach. This law is useless anywhere other than America.

What you get, instead of stopping piracy, is a mandated standard form of copy encryption and DRM that may or may not be adequate for everyone's needs. Instead of letting the market figure out what forms of DRM will be used, the government decides that it's items A, B, and C that need to be addressed. Nevermind that in the future item B may no longer be useful and item D is not provided for at all.

It's unfortunate that the respectable John Conyers (D) is drafting this bill. I would have expected more from the gentleman.

Not flamebait

[squarooticus]

Just a definition, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

Fascism is a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

For all you Bush-haters, this is not a rant about Bush, because he has zero power to pass laws. This is about members of both major parties in Congress, who regularly put aside their differences to expand the state-granted power of privileged businesses at the direct expense of our rights. This is fascism, by definition, yet we keep saying, "Thank you sir; may I have another?"

The problem is that politicians need pander to voters only on two or three issues, and then are free to do whatever is most profitable to them on all other issues. You might even be able to make the argument that the "major" issues we hear Congress critters rant about (the war, social security, the war, taxes, the war) are simply a smokescreen for the corruption, because it keeps our rights off most peoples' radars.

Re:Not flamebait

[hey!]

For all you Bush-haters, this is not a rant about Bush, because he has zero power to pass laws.

Technically speaking, sure, except you can't ignore the way everybody parrots exactly the same talking points with almost verbatim the same words.

The basic political/media strategy of the Republican party is to win the debate by defining the terms used in the debate. This requires a great deal of cooperation and coordination between leading party members and their media flunkies. The aparachniks must be coordinate from somewhere. Currently this is the White House.

The more abstract an issue is to people the better this works. Gay Marriage, DRM, these things don't really mean anything concrete in most people's daily lives. In any debate where you have to start by educating the public, a coordinated media effort beats accuracy. Issues with real and concrete impact on people's lives, such as gas prices, can't be controlled this way.

I think unless it is largely wrapped up within the next year, the war will be the issue that will break the back of this strategy. Before a war starts, it is an abstraction. Afterwards, it becomes undeniably concrete to more and more people. As an American, I think we should get out of there quickly. However if we don't, although our national interests will suffer greatly, and many indiviiduals and families will suffer unspeakably, it will be a blow against American fascism.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The Real Pirates Win Again!

[blueZhift]

Yet another piece of legislation that will do nothing to stop the real pirates! Indeed, as *AA imposes more and more restrictions, inconveniences, and expense upon consumers, they will make the cheaper and relatively hassle free offerings of pirates even more compelling. It's been argued before, but it seems all too clear that the most effective way to combat piracy is to offer a better product at a reasonable price. But I guess some people just have to learn the hard way.

I, Karma Whore

[rolfwind]

The Digital Transition Content Security Act of 2005 (PDF) is sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) (PDF) and would close that pesky analog hole that poses such a dire threat to the survival of the music and movie industries. The bill was originally planned for introduction in early November, but was tabled after hearings held by the House Subcomittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

Remember, Wisconsin and Michigan residents, these are your representatives. Unless you support the massive "content creation" in your area, you might want to drop these assholes a note:

http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/

http://www.house.gov/conyers/

Oh, and this is how they think on the subject:

According to Reps. Sensenbrenner and Conyers, the legislation is absolutely necessary because of the dire threat PCs and the Internet pose to the content-creation industry's very livelihood. Apparently, it's not nimble enough to keep up with advances in technology.

Tell them why they are wrong.

The best copy protection is semantic

[Junior J. Junior III]

Keep on making shitty movies and music that suck ass, and you'll kill all motivation to illegally copy them. This is the real solution, and the MP/RI-AA is a lot closer to it than they realize.

Re:digital to analog conversion

[kahei]

to the very best of my knowledge our eyes and ears are analog devices.


Speak for yourself, flesh creature.

Re:digital to analog conversion

[Kadin2048]

That's why the next generation of DRM will actually be a small microchip implanted into your brain that does the last step of decoding, taking the scrambled analog inputs from your ears and driving the impulses directly into your somatic sensory cortex. It will probably also have a mandatory "copyright enforcement anti-circumvention device" consisting of a few tenths of a gram of plastic explosive, just in case you try to mod-chip it.

It's the logical next step, really. Where else are you going to go?

Re:Why are people worried?

[MoonBuggy]

From my point of view it is the principal that is the problem, not the implementation. Yes, the technical restrictions will be broken, but the fact that large corportations are able to purchase legislation that goes against what the (previously) law abiding public want as well as those who choose to break existing laws is extremely worrying. Copyright infringement is illegal, why introduce the DMCA's non-circumvention clause? If you're circumventing DRM in order to infringe copyright, there's a law to stop you already. If you're circumventing DRM for 'fair use' reasons then the law should be on your side. Same goes for the blank media tax that several countries now have - assume you're a criminal, charge you the money for a crime you may or may not commit. Hell, even the length of copyright is only appropriate to big business - most other professions don't continue paying for almost a century after your death, yet copyrights last that long even against the wishes of the original content creators (Happy Birthday, for a start).

Veil?

[archeopterix]

"Video Encoded Invisible Light (VEIL)"?

"Encoded Video Invisible Light"?(EVIL)

"Video Invisible Light Encoded"?(VILE)

It's Not For The Big Guys

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Such a law does not stop what it is intended to stop. Pirates will still be able to break the encryption, replicate the media, and resell it on the open street in lands far away from where American law can reach. This law is useless anywhere other than America.

This law is in no way designed to go after the big guys. It's all about the small fish and keeping them in check.

Essentially the TV and Movie industry is terriffied that what happened to the music industry will happen to them. I.e., people will stop viewing entertainment as a commodity. Or at the very least, people will realise that the prices they pay for it are unreasonable.

How does this law try to change that? Essentially it makes it more difficult for Joe Consumer to view his music, movies, films, tv shows, etc as something he can do what he likes with, .i.e. share. These restrictions, along with big warnings along the lines of "You cannot record this program", "you do not have permission...." "It is an offense..." etc, etc, all reinforce the idea in his head that a video or sound recording is not his/hers. It is still someone elses, despite copyright law and any monies he/she may have paid for the product.

The movie industry is afraid of what's already happened. New technologies have made people realise that information is cheap, and even cheaper to duplicate. There is no justification for charging $20 per gigabyte when I can upload terrabytes for less than a dollar. And people have realised this. Even Joe sixpack cops it after a few days in front of his computer.

But, if you can legislate, you can slow this tide and perhaps even reverse it. It is possible. Rhetoric won't make people revolt. An example of this system failing, but having lasting effects, is alcohol prohibition in the 30's. An example of this system working well( for its proponents) is the illegalisation of marijuana.

Re:It's Not For The Big Guys

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This law is in no way designed to go after the big guys. It's all about the small fish and keeping them in check.

This is not designed to stop pirating at all. Small scale pirating does not lose the media companies a significant amount and even a medium sized operation can manage to find old hardware or foreign hardware without these restrictions. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the next media format and hardware has no way to import your current media, thus forcing you to buy yet another copy of the music, book, or song you already own. That is big money and that is diametrically opposed to the interests of these politicians supposed constituents. That is also why this crap is always presented as a piracy issue, rather than what it really is. Please stop believing their lies.

Audio Copy Protection

[Zarkonnen]

The only real solution: copy-protect the actual audio output from the speakers, say by adding a high-energy ultrasonic screech which instantly obliterates all recording devices within hearing range.

Re:Audio Copy Protection

[lisany]

The only real solution is to overthrow the capitalist giants whose sole purpose is to exploit "consumers" to make money.

But at the moment I'll settle for no DRM.

Re:Audio Copy Protection

[cdrudge]

I see you have the latest Ashley Simpson albumn too.

Re:Audio Copy Protection

[ajwitte]

But if you don't buy the **AA's products, the **AA will claim that they are losing money due to "piracy". They will get a law passed that requires you to buy their products. Then, if you don't buy **AA products, you will be thrown in jail.

Re:digital to analog conversion

[archeopterix]

I foresee a frenzy of cheap Chinese-made DVD recorders where you can simply press "tray open" and "0" to switch off the DRM system. They made region coding look a bit of a lame duck, anyway.

User's manual: Do not remove the third yellow jumper on the backpanel (counting from the left) to disable the VEIL content protection. This device should be used only to copy content that you have rights to. Thank you for your cooperation.

Re:digital to analog conversion

[Total_Wimp]

For a few years, my daughter put a microphone in front of the radio to record the songs she liked. A huge chunck of the the movie pirating market is done by bringing a cam-corder into a movie theater. Neither of these methods produce content of especially high quality but, as it turns out, many consumers don't really mind.

I like my fairly nice audio and video gear, but I don't pirate content either. I imagine that most of the purchasers of nicer equipment don't buy much pirated content. Can you imagine someone spending a few grand on AV and then being too cheap to buy a DVD?

I predict this will do very little to solve the issue of piracy because too many people doing the pirating will be plenty happy with content that ignores these roadblocks altogether. The real losers will be people like me who'll be forced to re-buy ephemeral content that disapears with time.

TW

Re:"Consumer Electronics"

[nolife]

Also, I remember how easy it was to mod a scanner in '93 to make it pick up cellphone signals -- just remove a single SMT resistor. This was the work of minutes. And voila -- full band reception.

So easily modded consumer goods (whatever that is) will be banned too.


To add to your comment..
That is exactly what they did with scanners. They went back and edited the law to include that the scanner must not be able to be easily modified. Here is a paste from a scanner faq:

In its simplest form, US Federal laws (Communications Act of 1934, Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Telecommunications Disclosure & Dispute Resolution Act of 1992, Digital Telephony Bill of 1994) make it illegal to :

1. Repeat what you hear to anyone but the transmitter or intended receiver of the transmission
2. Use what you hear to aid in the commission of a crime (e.g. evading police)
3. Use what you hear for personal gain (e.g. tow trucks listening for accidents to show up opportunistically at the scene)
4. Listen to transmissions relating to the following services :
* cellular phones
* cordless phones
* public land mobile systems
* voice paging services
* satellite/microwave/studio-to-transmitter links
* broadcast point-to-point relays.
5. Import a receiver which is capable of tuning cellular telephone frequencies
6. Import frequency converters which can be used to circumvent the blockage of cellular telephone frequency bands


Then took it a few steps further in 1997 and released directive DA 97-334 to make the modification you described above illegal:

Scanning receivers are required by Section 15.101(a) of the FCC Rules to be certificated by the Commission. Section 15.121 states that scanning receivers, and frequency converters designed or marketed for use with scanning receivers, must be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated to the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service. Scanners that are capable of "readily being altered by the user" include, but are not limited to: those for which the ability to receive cellular telephone frequencies can be added by clipping the leads of, or installing, a simple component, such as a diode, resistor and/or jumper wire; replacing a plug-in semiconductor chip; or programming a semiconductor chip using special access codes or an external device. Scanners and frequency converters for use with scanners, must also be incapable of converting digital cellular frequencies to analog voice audio. Under Section 15.37(f), the manufacture or importation of scanning receivers, and frequency converters used with scanning receivers, that do not comply with Section 15.121 shall cease on or before April 26, 1994.

I have been loosely following the changes over the years and have always been a scanner person. What stands out with these modifications to the communications act to prevent cellular listening is the speed the FCC acted and continued to act and modify the laws as people found ways around the initial wording. I never really fully understood the motivations. I assume it was the cellular providers trying to provide consumers a false sense of security in combination with not having to admit they went cheap and used plain old non encypted analog commun

I have no problem with this

[swillden]

... as long as one proviso is added. In addition to requiring all consumer devices to honor the copyright protection system, the law must also require all consumer devices to honor all of the exceptions codified in current copyright law. In particular, devices need to detect and permit Fair Use as well as reproduction of content whose term of copyright protection has expired. The things that copyright law allows are just as important as the things it restricts, so if you're going to require device manufacturers to build devices that enforce the law, they need to enforce *all* of the law, not just most of it.

Take a few min and write your committee member

[splatter]

Here is a link:http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembershi p.aspx Here is a list of names and states they represent..... If you care about this topic take the time to write them and let them know how stupid this is.
Hon. Hyde(R) Illinois, 6th
Hon. Coble(R) North Carolina, 6th
Hon. Smith(R) Texas, 21st
Hon. Gallegly(R) California, 24th
Hon. Goodlatte(R) Virginia, 6th
Hon. Chabot(R) Ohio, 1st
Hon. Lungren(R) California, 3rd
Hon. Jenkins(R) Tennessee, 1st
Hon. Cannon(R) Utah, 3rd
Hon. Bachus(R) Alabama, 6th
Hon. Inglis(R) South Carolina, 4th
Hon. Hostettler(R) Indiana, 8th
Hon. Green(R) Wisconsin, 8th
Hon. Keller(R) Florida, 8th
Hon. Issa(R) California, 49th
Hon. Flake(R) Arizona, 6th
Hon. Pence(R) Indiana, 6th
Hon. Forbes(R) Virginia, 4th
Hon. King(R) Iowa, 5th
Hon. Feeney(R) Florida, 24th
Hon. Franks(R) Arizona, 2nd
Hon. Gohmert(R) Texas, 1st
Hon. Berman(D) California, 28th
Hon. Boucher(D) Virginia, 9th
Hon. Nadler(D) New York, 8th

Re:Take a few min and write your Rep.. Part 2

[splatter]

Damn slashdot filter wouldn't let me finish the list... Here is the rest
again this is from:http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembershi p.aspx

Hon. Scott(D) Virginia, 3rd
 
Hon. Watt(D) North Carolina, 12th
 
Hon. Lofgren(D) California, 16th
 
Hon. Jackson Lee(D) Texas, 18th
 
Hon. Waters(D) California, 35th
 

Hon. Meehan(D) Massachusetts, 5th
 
Hon. Delahunt(D) Massachusetts, 10th
 
Hon. Wexler(D) Florida, 19th
 
Hon. Weiner(D) New York, 9th
 

Hon. Schiff(D) California, 29th
 
Hon. Sánchez(D) California, 39th
 
Hon. Van Hollen(D) Maryland, 8th
 
Hon. Wasserman Schultz(D) Florida, 20th