I see plenty of direct-action "break the codes and set them free" type talk on/., talk about fighting for the digital future and our rights. Wholly absent from the debate seems to be a coherent vision of what the future should be, how corporations can survive in the digital age and still make money from their efforts.
Thank you!! An intelligent, incisive question, one worthy of conspicuous, public debate.
Speaking entirely on behalf of myself, you are correct that a cohesive vision of How Things Should Be has been absent from my rants. This is because I believe designing a successful, durable, workable, just system would require the efforts of a group of incredibly talented, wise people, the likes of which have not been gathered since the framing of the Constitution. I don't believe I possess such gifts.
I do have a few vague, disconnected ideas. To fully appreciate them, however, you need to understand the framework in which I developed them:
Axiom: When the ability to copy is ubiquitous, and when the incremental cost of copying is effectively zero, the effective value of any given copy -- including the "original" copy -- is zero. (I state this as axiomatic, but I'm willing to discuss its merits. And please note that this assertion says nothing about the effort/resources required to create the original in the first place.)
As a supporting argument, consider the universe presented in the TV show Star Trek. (This may seem silly, but Star Trek is a useful framework for comparison, as everyone's familiar with it.) In a world where everything, including physical objects, can be replicated at zero cost, what is the economic impact? I argue that the market-based economy collapses completely, since its fundamental supports (scarcity and inconvenience) have been eliminated.
I also believe that the social impact will be that casual copying will be seen as perfectly okay, and that the desire to not share copies will be seen as childish. After all, if anyone anywhere -- including artisans -- can copy anything at any time for nothing, then what, fundamentally, will be wrong with copying anything?
So, in a universe where copying everything is seen as perfectly okay, is there anything an artisan should still have control over? I contend that the most crucial aspect of creativity still needing strict controls is the artisan's reputation.
Consider: On a visit to the Enterprise, you see an object you quite like. Naturally, you ask, "Wow! Who made that?" Both you and the object's creator would like to be certain you receive an accurate answer. Note that the question of whether the object you saw was an original or a copy is irrelevant. You no longer care if an object is "genuine;" you want to know who did it. In other words, you want to know about their reputation. (After all, maybe they did other cool stuff, too.)
...Okay, so we don't live on the Enterprise (yet), and we all still have to pay the rent. However, I strongly believe the concept of reputation will be central to a re-design of economics and the concept of intellectual "property" in the digital universe. Reputation will become a chief scarce resource in the digital universe, because it is an artist's reputation that will guide you to their other scarce resource: their time. And it is their time that you will be paying for (no more doing stuff "on spec").
In terms of more immediate, concrete proposals, I've heard the following ideas floated:
Mass-Market Buskware, or the "tipping jar" model. Many question whether such a system can work on a large scale. So far, author Stephen King seems to be doing rather well by it with his free offering, The Plant. However, it's probably worth noting the primary reason he's doing so well is largely due to -- drumroll, please -- his reputation.
Pre-Release Mass Auction (preBay?). This is a system whereby software/music/whatever is made available for a flat price, and bidders can contribute whatever amount they wish toward that price.
For example, let's say John Carmack creates his latest game, qDuOaOkMe, and decides that, for all his efforts and that of his company, he wants to see $50 million. So he posts it to the site: "qDuOaOkMe: $50,000,000". People the world over pledge $25, $50, $100, whatever they feel it's worth toward the final price. When the price is reached, Carmack gets the money, and the game is released free to all. The entry is also kept open on the site so people who didn't bid can continue to throw tips. If the price is not met after a pre-set time, all pledges are returned to the bidders, and the game isn't released.
Shareware. This model has met with mixed success in the past, mostly due to the relative inconvenience of sending in the requested fees. "Impulse" buying, until recently, hasn't been easy. Fortunately, services like Kagi and PayPal may well rejuvenate this idea.
Automatic Micropayments. This is certainly an idea worthy of exploration, but I have concerns about the implications for privacy.
Other ideas are likely out there, and worthy of attention.
Also for immediate consideration, there should be some study into the use of digital watermarks for identifying the artist of a given work. Right now, all the discussion surrounding watermarks has been with an eye toward controlling proliferation of copies, which is unworkable. However, I believe even the most virulent opponent of copy protection would support using digital watermarks to identify the artist, thereby preserving -- wait for it -- their reputation.
Like I said, I don't think I have what it takes to completely design the new system. I've also completely avoided rather sticky issues, such Moral Rights (e.g. should an artist be able to enforce the declaration, "No, you can't use my painting in the background of a porno video"). But I do know that the current system will ultimately prove to be fundamentally unworkable, if for no other reason than the sheer numbers involved (how many copyrighted works will you need to test against to make sure you're not infringing?).
So, yes, you're right. We need to think about this, and it needs to be done rationally and publicly. Too bad the entertainment industry's using all that bandwidth to paint us all as criminals.
and that is one of the [... ] most asinine things I've ever heard.
Perhaps you haven't been paying close enough attention: They are out to screw you.
They want to re-write the rules of retail sales, replacing title transfer with "end-user licenses" (just about any software package).
They want to re-define lawful behavior, taking away your right to exercise your curiosity about the world around you (anti-reverse-engineering clauses).
They want to take away your standalone computer and replace it with a "licensed networked digital media reception terminal," complete with credit card reader.
They want to take away your right to do with your property as you please (:Cue:Cat).
And they want to do this without soliciting your input or consent, and then make you pay through the nose for the privilege of being screwed.
Now, perhaps those things aren't important to you. Perhaps you're not a terribly curious person, or perhaps you're of the opinion that, "I would never need or want to do those things." Perhaps you feel that The Law is The Law, regardless of whether there's a valid ethical foundation for it, or how or why or for whom the law was enacted. Or perhaps you're thinking, "That will never happen in this country." Well, fine, you don't think it's important.
But in my book, this is tyranny, pal; it's damned important; and I will not sit still for it for one nanosecond. This is war, a war of ideas, a war for the digital society of the future. And the enemy has all the lawyers, guns, and money. (And no, this is not hyperbole. What is at stake here is nothing less than who will get to define the social and ethical framework by which we will conduct our lives in the digital universe.)
We are not dealing with people here; we are dealing with corporations. They have no ethics, no morals, no conscience. They are amoeba. They respond to but a single stimulus: Money.
Look at what they are doing. Think about the possible consequences (not just to yourself, but to your neighbors and family). I hope you will discover that the situation isn't as easily dismissed as you may currently believe.
Possibly. The latest version of WinAmp has copy protection (misleadingly referred to as "digital rights management") designed by InterTrust Technologies.
It's quite possible your shiny new version of WinAmp will refuse to play your ripped MP3.
More broadly, the RIAA and MPAA's strategy is to collude with electronics and software vendors such that copy protection-free systems never reach consumers. A quick look at the roster of attendees of the Copy Protection Technical Working Group should illustrate this.
While I'm pleased to see that SDMI was so trivially cracked, I'm disappointed that the individuals mounting the successful attack chose to inform the recording industry. As any military intelligence officer will tell you, you don't brag to the enemy that you've broken their codes. Just ask the British government officials from World War II what their policy was when the German Enigma was cracked.
The idea here is to cause the enemy to commit time and resources to a futile exercise. If the crackers had waited until SDMI had been fully deployed in the marketplace, it would have cost the recording industry and anyone else foolish enough to follow their example at least a few billion dollars; enough money to make them seriously reconsider the whole misguided notion of copy protection as too costly to pursue. As it is, it's only cost them one or two million in research, plus the paltry $10K for the "prize".
I would like to see Slashdot invite the SDMI crackers for an interview, so that we can get an insight into their ethical framework, and why they chose to save the recording industry's lunch.
So, instead of getting there by rocket, they'll get there by submarine. Though perhaps less glorious than space, the environments are equally dangerous. The slightest error will get you killed instantly.
I'm on the San Francisco Peninsula, and I currently have 416K SDSL. The ISP is Best/Verio; the DSL provider is Northpoint. I'm currently paying... er, a lot. Once I get my act together, I'm planning on jumping over to Speakeasy.net which offers similar speeds for much lower prices.
I am about 2000 feet from the central office, so I can crank to 1.5Mbit if I want.
Installation was relatively painless. The first scheduled day they didn't show; they were very apologetic. The second scheduled day they showed up, patched in the line, and tested the line quality.
The day after that, the Netopia R7100 DSL tranciever/router arrived, I plugged it in and... Nothing happened. I called Best, who called Northpoint, who called me back. After a quick conversation, they said, "Try it now." I did, and it worked.
And it's worked ever since. Actual speed, sans network stalls, is closer to 470K. Occasionally one of Best/Verio's routers in Palo Alto or Mountain View will spazz out and drop packets all over the place, but otherwise it's been very solid service. Of course, once Verio assimilated Best, they "integrated" the customer support functions and things started to suck. For example, I used to be able to phone the 24-hour NOC number and get a knowledgable technician within two minutes. Now calls to the NOC get routed to the main Verio call tree, where I get to wait at least ten minutes and speak to... Someone else. sigh
Check to see if there are any wireless Internet providers in your area. The rates in the SF Bay area tend to be higher than for a hard line of the same speed. However, it may be viable in rural areas where it's all too easy to be more than DSL's maximum 15K feet from the central office.
Okay, let's see here: SDMI want me to test the strength of their proposed security measures, measures on which the entire future of the music industry's electronic offerings will be based. An industry that earned over $16 billion in profits last year.
...And they're only offering me $10,000. And they want me to do it "on spec".
How very typical of the music industry. What cheap bastards.
Tell you what, SDMI: Crank the prize offering by at least three orders of magnitude, and we'll talk...
I was 12 years old. I had just been introduced to computers. The first language I had been taught was BASIC at the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley, CA. Eventually a microcomputer store opened in my home town called The Byte Shop, where I started annoying the sales people by fiddling with their SOL-20s and Apples, writing little ditties in BASIC. I got to know BASIC real well. I got to know several dialects of BASIC, and could intelligently discuss the relative merits of each.
With all that hands-on experience, I can say without fear of contradiction: Microsoft BASIC was one of the worst BASIC interpreters available. The only one I can think of off-hand that was even worse was Northstar BASIC.
I settled in to a happy relationship with a variant called Extended Cassette BASIC, published by Processor Technology for the SOL-20. This BASIC (back in 1978, mind), had:
Multiple-line user-defined functions,
Matrix math operations
Auto-indent of program LISTings,
Ran in 16K,
Cost less than $100 (less than 1/5 of Microsoft's inferior offering).
Microsoft, in typical form, took another ten years to get as far, and consumed ten times as much memory doing it.
I really should drag out my old SOL-20 and do some side-by-side comparisons of Microsoft's old stuff.
Correct. If Gates used the same techniques today to start his company, he'd be in prison for software "piracy".
However, Gates wasn't the major force that lobbied for changes to copyright law to encompass software. That ignominious honor belongs to Time-Warner (nee Warner Communications), who owned Atari at the time. Warner took enormous glee in suing anyone and everyone who wrote a game that looked even remotely like Pac Man...
It was such a huge part of their revenue back then that they used to have three major headings on their balance sheet: Applications, Games, and Print Shop.
We had 19 (count 'em) monitors that were just going to get tossed. Ordinarily we would have roof-disposed them (tossed them off the roof of our four-story building and watch them go *smash*; quite entertaining for a typical male geek), but I had just read how much toxic crud is in these things, and sought to get them recycled.
It turns out there's only one organization even remotely set up to recycle monitors in the Bay Area (and, if I had my notes in front of me, I'd post their contact info). It took me a day to actually locate this organization, a few more days to actually speak to a live person, and even then I was informed that, unless one of their people just happened to be in the area, on-site pick ups were, as a rule, not something they did (since they didn't charge for the service).
To make a long story short, they said they'd get back to me. The monitors languished in our hallway for two months, taking up space. They finally disappeared last week, but I have no idea where to. Frankly, I'm afraid to ask.
So if you want to be environmentally conscious in the Bay Area with more than just soda cans and newspapers, you're going to have to work at it. No one's providing the service.
Uh, actually, you have to go out of your way to build a CD/DVD player that will reject gold discs.
We, in fact, did this at 3DO when we were designing the low-cost version of the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer. The CD-ROM guys (both hardware and software) were instructed by management to detect and reject CD-R (gold) copies of 3DO CD-ROMs. This took extra work and code to accomplish.
The new players did play gold audio CDs, but they could just as easily have added the code to reject them as well. But since that wasn't a specific management request, the techs didn't do it.
Here are the comments I sent to the FCC last week. I'm disappointed they did no good. (I've reformatted the submission for viewing on Slashdot.)
Schwab
________________
Comment on Proposed Rulemaking, PP Docket No. 00-67
1. I, Leo L. Schwab, am a resident of Redwood City, CA. I am a
software engineer of over 15 years professional experience and, as such,
have direct experience with "copy protection" measures as employed to combat
unsanctioned copying of computer software. I am also an owner and buyer of
consumer electronics and computer equipment.
2. The FCC has been asked to resolve compatibility issues surrounding
digital broadcast and cable television and consumer electronics equipment.
My comments will focus primarily on the issue of "copy protection."
3. I urge the Commission to oppose mandating copy protection measures
in consumer electronics equipment, for the following reasons:
Inherent Fragility
4. In general terms, copy protection measures operate by attemptng to
distinguish between "legitimate" copies (i.e. copies manufactured by the
vendor) and unsanctioned copies (as typically made on a home computer).
Because computers -- and indeed all digital equipment -- are designed to
copy information perfectly, making this distinction is a difficult technical
challenge.
5. Many methods have been employed to attempt to make this distinction,
all of which have attendant advantages and drawbacks. However, no matter
which specific method is employed, they all basically introduce artificial
fragility and unreliability into the system. More clearly, by introducing
copy protection measures into a product or system, that product or system is
by definition rendered less reliable, since it now has a deliberately
introduced capacity for failure. Some copies will work, whereas others will
fail, having been identified as, "illegitimate."
6. There is not, nor can there be, a 100% reliable method of
distinguishing between sanctioned and unsanctioned copies. As such, all
existing copy protection methods can and do yield false results, causing
legitimate store-bought copies of software to fail (and allowing
unsanctioned copies to operate unhindered). The reasons for the false
results may be manifold: damaged distribution media, incompatible hardware,
incompatible operating system software, etc.
7. Working remotely (as do cable system operators when dealing with
subscribers), it is impossible to determine if such failure is due to an
"honest" flaw in the hardware or distribution media, or because the user is
attempting to use an unsanctioned copy. Direct examination of the system
and media is necessary to make such a determination.
8. Thus, employing copy protection measures in consumer electronics
will render such equipment inherently less reliable, resulting in undue
inconvenience and cost to the consumer and equipment manufacturer alike.
Lack of Compelling Need
9. Until the mid-1980's or so, consumers were tremendously
inconvenienced by copy protection systems. This was due not only to their
fragility, but also by their preventing users from copying their software
from the vendor-supplied floppy disks to internal hard disks, which were
gaining popularity at the time.
10. Consumer opinion on the issue was overwhelming and adamant. Bowing
to market pressure, many vendors agreed to abandon copy protection measures.
This was done with much trepidation because vendors feared that, without
them, individuals would make unsanctioned copies in such overwhelming
numbers that the potential market for the software would be diluted to the
point where even recovering development costs would be impossible. To the
best of my knowledge, there is not a single instance throughout the history
of the computing industry where such fears have materialized.
11. Thus, there are no historical precedents or incidents justifying a
need for copy protection measures. Further, there is no credible reason to
believe the situation will be different for digital content delivered via
broadcast or cable systems.
Undue Burden to Consumers
12. In my experience, copy protection measures, as applied to computer
software, are expensive to develop, both in terms of engineering time and
resources. It is reasonable to believe that the same will be true for
measures applied to digital broadcast content. These costs must be
recovered somewhere. If the Commission mandates copy protection measures in
consumer electronics, the consumers will solely bear not only the direct
costs of their development and manufacture, but the indirect costs
associated with decreased reliability.
13. If copy protection were a feature being requested by consumers, then
it would be reasonable to expect consumers to pay for it. But they are not
requesting it. Indeed, they are demanding the precise opposite.
14. The only organizations professing a need for copy protection are
television and movie studios, and cable system operators. It therefore
seems reasonable that those organizations solely bear the costs of
development and deployment, and leave end-user equipment unencumbered.
Squelching Future Innovations
15. My review of proposed copy protection methods involve the use of
viewers or viewing software that are "approved" by a central licensing
authority under the control of film and television studios (this is
currently the case with DVD playback devices, which have been licensed by
the DVD Copy Control Authority). To obtain such approval, the viewing
device typically may only have functionality deemed appropriate by the
licensing authority, and nothing else. This functionality is typically
limited to playback only, with pause, fast-forward, and rewind features (and
even these are handicapped in certain circumstances). In the proposed
protection schemes, any individual wishing to employ new or different
functionality must first petition for and obtain approval from the licensing
authority, or risk being sued.
16. One use to which an individual might put digital broadcast content
is to incorporate it into their computer's "screen saver" facility. For
example, images from a digital television signal could be received by a
computer (possibly through a IEEE-1394 interface), mathematically
transformed into a sphere, and bounced around the screen. Such use of
broadcast television content is not (currently) unlawful. Indeed, it would
strain credibility for content producers and broadcasters to argue such use
was even unethical. As such, seeking approval from a licensing authority
for such use would seem to throw an unnecessary roadblock in the path of
developers conducting lawful research and development.
17. While my example is admittedly a trite one, I hope it serves to
illustrate that there are non-obvious uses to which digital content may be
put that are useful, interesting, beneficial to consumers, and
non-infringing. Full exploration of such possibilities has yet to begin.
Mandating copy protection would seriously cripple such explorations.
Not a Commission Function
18. At this point, I stray from my expertise into admittedly inexpert
readings of the Commission's charter and contemporaneous intellectual
property disputes. Nevertheless, I request the Commission bear with me.
19. I can find nothing in the Commission's charter that suggests it
should be involved in interpreting intellectual property law. By mandating
copy protection measures, the Commission will effectively serve as an
interpreter of Fair Use doctrine. Fair Use is not applied in a blanket
manner, but on a case-by-case basis by the Federal Courts. Moreover, the
meaning of Fair Use is constantly changing as circumstances evolve and
technology advances.
20. Should the Commission choose to mandate a form of blanket copy
protection, it is easy to envision a future Federal Court decision declaring
that consumers have Fair Use rights that extend beyond those provided by
equipment containing the Commission-mandated protection measures. In
practical terms, however, such a decision would be virtually moot, since the
Commission's previous interpretation of Fair Use has been cast in stone (or,
in this case, silicon). The Commission would then find itself in the
unenviable position of having to implement the Court's order. Whatever form
that took, it would be tremendously burdensome to the Commission,
electronics manufacturers, and consumers.
21. Finally, my readings of intellectual property disputes show that --
if the Commission will permit the colloquialism -- the field of intellectual
property law is extremely hairy bananas. It is inordinately complex,
frequently self-contradictory, and its interpretation is crucially dependent
on the specific circumstances of a given case. I respectfully suggest this
is a field of endeavor the Commission would wish to avoid. It would take
Solomonic wisdom to design a technical specification that would serve the
interests of copyright holders without impacting the ever-changing Fair Use
rights of consumers.
Conclusion
22. In summary, I urge the Commission to oppose mandatory copy
protection measures for consumer electronics equipment because:
such measures inherently decrease product reliability;
the film and television industries have not demonstrated a compelling need for them;
consumers have stated unequivocally and consistently they don't want it;
it attempts to shift the cost of such systems away from the organizations insisting on it;
it would stifle innovation;
interpreting intellectual property law and Fair Use doctrine is not a function traditionally undertaken by the Commission.
23. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to provide comment, and
sincerely thank the Commission for its time and attention.
It seems to me that the best way to mitigate these idiot court rulings is to ensure that the jurors selected have a clue about tech issues. I daresay that a jury packed with technically literate engineers would have a much easier time distinguishing the truth from the bombast in, for example, patent cases.
In any case, I'd feel much better with an intelligent, educated jury sitting than a bunch of randoms who were, "too stupid to get out of jury duty" (an aphorism I find rather shortsighted and offensive).
On your own, send a parallel letter to the USPTO. Be sure to cite the patent application number, and declare yourself as one of the named inventors. Explain your situation, and explain why the USPTO should not grant the patent.
However, I echo the sentiments expressed above: Cough up the $500 or so and talk to an intellectual property and/or contract lawyer before you do anything, including what I outlined above.
And, speaking as one tech to another, thank you for having a conscience about this stuff.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a bogus news story about taxing blank digital media. It was born out of my blinding frustration that, in what should be a conspicuous, informed public debate, all the wrong people are being listened to.
I shouldn't have to spend a lot of time explaining this one. Who here honestly believes that Micros~1 would put out a digital VCR that would allow you to share recorded shows with your friends?
A digital VCR -- or, more generally, a digital media center -- is a wonderful idea. It would allow you to record, mix, match, edit, transform, and otherwise manipulate the half-dozen or so media sources already streaming into your home (broadcast TV, cable TV, AM/FM radio, Internet). Using a single well-designed system, you could, for example:
Record that evening's Star Trek broadcast,
Go to TrekFanSite.org (not a real site) and download the fan-authored cutlist to automatically chop out the commercials,
Hop over to the Simul-Trek site, download and lay in a replacement soundtrack; or
Visit MST3Kinfo.com and download an MPEG overlay of Joel/Mike and the bots offering commentary,
Assemble snippets from various episodes to create some wacky dialog,
Post the result to your Web site and share it with the world.
Now, which is the more probable: That Micros~1 will create the afore-described flexible, open system that gives ordinary people the power to use media in new ways; or will they create a box that will copy-protect the fsck out of everything -- all the worst features of Macrovision and CSS -- preventing you from even copying the recordings to your own PC, and will fink on you if you try?
The term Machinima is clearly an amalgam of the words "machine" and "cinema." I don't know who coined it, but it doesn't roll off the tongue very well.
I think a better term would have been Mechanime (mechanical anime).
The:CueCat reader is only on loan to you from Digital:Convergence and may be recalled at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, your possession or control of the:CueCat reader does not transfer any right, title or interest to you in the:CueCat reader.
You have got to be fscking kidding me! This one goes in the Hall of Shame...
Why am I not surprised that Radio Shaft would be pushing this? "You have questions, we have batteries."
Prepare to witness the most concerted and massive engineering effort -- both social and technical -- ever undertaken by mankind: The digital equivalent of damming the ocean.
I wrote about this on Slashdot almost a year ago, in the vague hope it might become a featured article: The music and movie industies are working very hard to prevent you from using your lawfully-obtained material in any way they don't want. To that end, they have formed the Copy Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG), which is working hand-in-hand with a ton of high-tech companies to bring pervasive copy protection measures to your PC.
I saved my original screed on the subject, and it's reproduced below, with appropriate updates. Bottom Line: Do not let them sneak this garbage past you or your friends. If you find that a product contains copy protection, don't buy it, and encourage others to do likewise.
____________________
Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.
I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.
I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]
Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.
One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:
CPTWG has focused until now only on "casual piracy [sic]", characterized as what a grandmother can do in her home with her DVD. Piracy [sic] requiring even the level of expertise (and equipment) of her grandson, who might be an EE student, has been excluded from consideration. There is a growing awareness that a broader content protection effort may be necessary.
The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. It costs $100 to attend. According to the site, their last meeting was on 11 April 2000. It's not clear if additional meetings have been held at regular intervals.
The attendance roster from the April meeting (RTF file) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:
DVD-CCA, licensors of CSS, and currently in court trying to prevent the spread of DeCSS,
A number of law firms.
If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.
If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.
What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.
Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.
Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:
DSS (Digital Signature Standard)
Diffie-Hellman key exchange for device authentication,
Blowfish cipher for content encryption, with a keylength of 32-128 bits,
Digital watermarking techniques to declare "rights" (right to playback, right to copy, etc.) to the receiving device.
The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).
Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)
Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.
Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.
In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).
This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.
The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.
Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.
The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.
We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.
So what you're saying is the entertainment industry believes it has found a way to tell us, "You'll never work in this town again!!"
Sadly, I fear you may be right.
However, engineers can fight back. For example, somewhere within the bowels of Intel are a bunch of guys working on bringing copy-protection to IEEE-1394 (FireWire) devices. It simply requires the engineers to lay down their pencils/keyboards/VHDL compilers and say, "We will not build this for you. We don't want it, and you don't need it."
Yes, they will put their career at risk, but even if they are fired, they will not carry the responsibility of having created the tools by which their families, friends, and neighbors were shafted.
For myself, I couldn't live with myself if I did something like that to my friends.
I'm taking bets on the next version of AOL having some sort of "copywright protection/watermark" code to prevent "unauthorised" media distribution.
You'd win that bet. AOL will be incorporating copy-protection measures (under the misleading name, "digital rights management") as part of the next WinAmp and AOL 6.0 release. The copy-protection technology is to be supplied by InterTrust.
Alert your AOL-using friends; encourage them to not install it.
My home machine is all SCSI, all the time. I'm using a Mylex/BusLogic BT-958 controller (does Ultra 2 Wide). On the internal bus, I've got two Seacrate 4G drives, an IBM 8G drive, and a Plextor 40X CD-ROM. These are connected together using a 68-pin twisted-pair cable. On the external bus, I have a Castlewood ORB drive (if you've got one of these, download the v3.0 SCSI firmware now!), connected using a 68-pin shielded cable. I used to get occasional bus lockups, but once I replaced the Toshiba CD-ROM drive with the Plextor, they went away.
My laptop (HP Omnibook 800CT) has built-in NCR/Symbios SCSI controller. It rocks.
The IDE controller in my home desktop machine is unused, and will remain that way. IDE sucks. Always has.
The reason I insist on SCSI is mostly because I've been a SCSI wonk since my Amiga days. Sticking with SCSI lets me use all my old drives (and get the data off them!). All the old drives still work, including a really massive 5.25" full-height 600M drive from HP that needs a power supply all to itself just to spin up. Being able to get at all these drives, both on the desktop machine and the laptop, is insanely useful.
It wasn't so long ago that SCSI and IDE drive prices were at near parity. The SCSI drive had maybe a $10 premium over its IDE counterpart. But now you can expect to pay up to 50% more for a SCSI drive. This is clearly opportunism on the manufacturers' part, as the electronics aren't sufficiently different to warrant such a price disparity. They're simply soaking the server market.
Slashdot Mirror
*urk!* Guilty as charged.
However, I did pay for VoodooLights...
Schwab
Thank you!! An intelligent, incisive question, one worthy of conspicuous, public debate.
Speaking entirely on behalf of myself, you are correct that a cohesive vision of How Things Should Be has been absent from my rants. This is because I believe designing a successful, durable, workable, just system would require the efforts of a group of incredibly talented, wise people, the likes of which have not been gathered since the framing of the Constitution. I don't believe I possess such gifts.
I do have a few vague, disconnected ideas. To fully appreciate them, however, you need to understand the framework in which I developed them:
Axiom: When the ability to copy is ubiquitous, and when the incremental cost of copying is effectively zero, the effective value of any given copy -- including the "original" copy -- is zero. (I state this as axiomatic, but I'm willing to discuss its merits. And please note that this assertion says nothing about the effort/resources required to create the original in the first place.)
As a supporting argument, consider the universe presented in the TV show Star Trek. (This may seem silly, but Star Trek is a useful framework for comparison, as everyone's familiar with it.) In a world where everything, including physical objects, can be replicated at zero cost, what is the economic impact? I argue that the market-based economy collapses completely, since its fundamental supports (scarcity and inconvenience) have been eliminated.
I also believe that the social impact will be that casual copying will be seen as perfectly okay, and that the desire to not share copies will be seen as childish. After all, if anyone anywhere -- including artisans -- can copy anything at any time for nothing, then what, fundamentally, will be wrong with copying anything?
So, in a universe where copying everything is seen as perfectly okay, is there anything an artisan should still have control over? I contend that the most crucial aspect of creativity still needing strict controls is the artisan's reputation.
Consider: On a visit to the Enterprise, you see an object you quite like. Naturally, you ask, "Wow! Who made that?" Both you and the object's creator would like to be certain you receive an accurate answer. Note that the question of whether the object you saw was an original or a copy is irrelevant. You no longer care if an object is "genuine;" you want to know who did it. In other words, you want to know about their reputation. (After all, maybe they did other cool stuff, too.)
...Okay, so we don't live on the Enterprise (yet), and we all still have to pay the rent. However, I strongly believe the concept of reputation will be central to a re-design of economics and the concept of intellectual "property" in the digital universe. Reputation will become a chief scarce resource in the digital universe, because it is an artist's reputation that will guide you to their other scarce resource: their time. And it is their time that you will be paying for (no more doing stuff "on spec").
In terms of more immediate, concrete proposals, I've heard the following ideas floated:
For example, let's say John Carmack creates his latest game, qDuOaOkMe, and decides that, for all his efforts and that of his company, he wants to see $50 million. So he posts it to the site: "qDuOaOkMe: $50,000,000". People the world over pledge $25, $50, $100, whatever they feel it's worth toward the final price. When the price is reached, Carmack gets the money, and the game is released free to all. The entry is also kept open on the site so people who didn't bid can continue to throw tips. If the price is not met after a pre-set time, all pledges are returned to the bidders, and the game isn't released.
Other ideas are likely out there, and worthy of attention.
Also for immediate consideration, there should be some study into the use of digital watermarks for identifying the artist of a given work. Right now, all the discussion surrounding watermarks has been with an eye toward controlling proliferation of copies, which is unworkable. However, I believe even the most virulent opponent of copy protection would support using digital watermarks to identify the artist, thereby preserving -- wait for it -- their reputation.
Like I said, I don't think I have what it takes to completely design the new system. I've also completely avoided rather sticky issues, such Moral Rights (e.g. should an artist be able to enforce the declaration, "No, you can't use my painting in the background of a porno video"). But I do know that the current system will ultimately prove to be fundamentally unworkable, if for no other reason than the sheer numbers involved (how many copyrighted works will you need to test against to make sure you're not infringing?).
So, yes, you're right. We need to think about this, and it needs to be done rationally and publicly. Too bad the entertainment industry's using all that bandwidth to paint us all as criminals.
Schwab
Perhaps you haven't been paying close enough attention: They are out to screw you.
They want to re-write the rules of retail sales, replacing title transfer with "end-user licenses" (just about any software package).
They want to re-define lawful behavior, taking away your right to exercise your curiosity about the world around you (anti-reverse-engineering clauses).
They want to take away your standalone computer and replace it with a "licensed networked digital media reception terminal," complete with credit card reader.
They want to take away your right to do with your property as you please (:Cue:Cat).
And they want to do this without soliciting your input or consent, and then make you pay through the nose for the privilege of being screwed.
Now, perhaps those things aren't important to you. Perhaps you're not a terribly curious person, or perhaps you're of the opinion that, "I would never need or want to do those things." Perhaps you feel that The Law is The Law, regardless of whether there's a valid ethical foundation for it, or how or why or for whom the law was enacted. Or perhaps you're thinking, "That will never happen in this country." Well, fine, you don't think it's important.
But in my book, this is tyranny, pal; it's damned important; and I will not sit still for it for one nanosecond. This is war, a war of ideas, a war for the digital society of the future. And the enemy has all the lawyers, guns, and money. (And no, this is not hyperbole. What is at stake here is nothing less than who will get to define the social and ethical framework by which we will conduct our lives in the digital universe.)
We are not dealing with people here; we are dealing with corporations. They have no ethics, no morals, no conscience. They are amoeba. They respond to but a single stimulus: Money.
Look at what they are doing. Think about the possible consequences (not just to yourself, but to your neighbors and family). I hope you will discover that the situation isn't as easily dismissed as you may currently believe.
Schwab
Possibly. The latest version of WinAmp has copy protection (misleadingly referred to as "digital rights management") designed by InterTrust Technologies.
It's quite possible your shiny new version of WinAmp will refuse to play your ripped MP3.
More broadly, the RIAA and MPAA's strategy is to collude with electronics and software vendors such that copy protection-free systems never reach consumers. A quick look at the roster of attendees of the Copy Protection Technical Working Group should illustrate this.
Schwab
While I'm pleased to see that SDMI was so trivially cracked, I'm disappointed that the individuals mounting the successful attack chose to inform the recording industry. As any military intelligence officer will tell you, you don't brag to the enemy that you've broken their codes. Just ask the British government officials from World War II what their policy was when the German Enigma was cracked.
The idea here is to cause the enemy to commit time and resources to a futile exercise. If the crackers had waited until SDMI had been fully deployed in the marketplace, it would have cost the recording industry and anyone else foolish enough to follow their example at least a few billion dollars; enough money to make them seriously reconsider the whole misguided notion of copy protection as too costly to pursue. As it is, it's only cost them one or two million in research, plus the paltry $10K for the "prize".
I would like to see Slashdot invite the SDMI crackers for an interview, so that we can get an insight into their ethical framework, and why they chose to save the recording industry's lunch.
Schwab
So, instead of getting there by rocket, they'll get there by submarine. Though perhaps less glorious than space, the environments are equally dangerous. The slightest error will get you killed instantly.
Schwab
I'm on the San Francisco Peninsula, and I currently have 416K SDSL. The ISP is Best/Verio; the DSL provider is Northpoint. I'm currently paying... er, a lot. Once I get my act together, I'm planning on jumping over to Speakeasy.net which offers similar speeds for much lower prices.
I am about 2000 feet from the central office, so I can crank to 1.5Mbit if I want.
Installation was relatively painless. The first scheduled day they didn't show; they were very apologetic. The second scheduled day they showed up, patched in the line, and tested the line quality.
The day after that, the Netopia R7100 DSL tranciever/router arrived, I plugged it in and... Nothing happened. I called Best, who called Northpoint, who called me back. After a quick conversation, they said, "Try it now." I did, and it worked.
And it's worked ever since. Actual speed, sans network stalls, is closer to 470K. Occasionally one of Best/Verio's routers in Palo Alto or Mountain View will spazz out and drop packets all over the place, but otherwise it's been very solid service. Of course, once Verio assimilated Best, they "integrated" the customer support functions and things started to suck. For example, I used to be able to phone the 24-hour NOC number and get a knowledgable technician within two minutes. Now calls to the NOC get routed to the main Verio call tree, where I get to wait at least ten minutes and speak to... Someone else. sigh
Schwab
Check to see if there are any wireless Internet providers in your area. The rates in the SF Bay area tend to be higher than for a hard line of the same speed. However, it may be viable in rural areas where it's all too easy to be more than DSL's maximum 15K feet from the central office.
Schwab
Okay, let's see here: SDMI want me to test the strength of their proposed security measures, measures on which the entire future of the music industry's electronic offerings will be based. An industry that earned over $16 billion in profits last year.
...And they're only offering me $10,000. And they want me to do it "on spec".
How very typical of the music industry. What cheap bastards.
Tell you what, SDMI: Crank the prize offering by at least three orders of magnitude, and we'll talk...
Schwab
I was 12 years old. I had just been introduced to computers. The first language I had been taught was BASIC at the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley, CA. Eventually a microcomputer store opened in my home town called The Byte Shop, where I started annoying the sales people by fiddling with their SOL-20s and Apples, writing little ditties in BASIC. I got to know BASIC real well. I got to know several dialects of BASIC, and could intelligently discuss the relative merits of each.
With all that hands-on experience, I can say without fear of contradiction: Microsoft BASIC was one of the worst BASIC interpreters available. The only one I can think of off-hand that was even worse was Northstar BASIC.
I settled in to a happy relationship with a variant called Extended Cassette BASIC, published by Processor Technology for the SOL-20. This BASIC (back in 1978, mind), had:
Microsoft, in typical form, took another ten years to get as far, and consumed ten times as much memory doing it.
I really should drag out my old SOL-20 and do some side-by-side comparisons of Microsoft's old stuff.
Schwab
Correct. If Gates used the same techniques today to start his company, he'd be in prison for software "piracy".
However, Gates wasn't the major force that lobbied for changes to copyright law to encompass software. That ignominious honor belongs to Time-Warner (nee Warner Communications), who owned Atari at the time. Warner took enormous glee in suing anyone and everyone who wrote a game that looked even remotely like Pac Man...
Schwab
Brøderbund.
It was such a huge part of their revenue back then that they used to have three major headings on their balance sheet: Applications, Games, and Print Shop.
Then Carmen San Diego came along...
Schwab
...At least in the San Francisco Bay Area.
We had 19 (count 'em) monitors that were just going to get tossed. Ordinarily we would have roof-disposed them (tossed them off the roof of our four-story building and watch them go *smash*; quite entertaining for a typical male geek), but I had just read how much toxic crud is in these things, and sought to get them recycled.
It turns out there's only one organization even remotely set up to recycle monitors in the Bay Area (and, if I had my notes in front of me, I'd post their contact info). It took me a day to actually locate this organization, a few more days to actually speak to a live person, and even then I was informed that, unless one of their people just happened to be in the area, on-site pick ups were, as a rule, not something they did (since they didn't charge for the service).
To make a long story short, they said they'd get back to me. The monitors languished in our hallway for two months, taking up space. They finally disappeared last week, but I have no idea where to. Frankly, I'm afraid to ask.
So if you want to be environmentally conscious in the Bay Area with more than just soda cans and newspapers, you're going to have to work at it. No one's providing the service.
Schwab
Uh, actually, you have to go out of your way to build a CD/DVD player that will reject gold discs.
We, in fact, did this at 3DO when we were designing the low-cost version of the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer. The CD-ROM guys (both hardware and software) were instructed by management to detect and reject CD-R (gold) copies of 3DO CD-ROMs. This took extra work and code to accomplish.
The new players did play gold audio CDs, but they could just as easily have added the code to reject them as well. But since that wasn't a specific management request, the techs didn't do it.
Schwab
Here are the comments I sent to the FCC last week. I'm disappointed they did no good. (I've reformatted the submission for viewing on Slashdot.)
Schwab
________________
Comment on Proposed Rulemaking, PP Docket No. 00-67
1. I, Leo L. Schwab, am a resident of Redwood City, CA. I am a software engineer of over 15 years professional experience and, as such, have direct experience with "copy protection" measures as employed to combat unsanctioned copying of computer software. I am also an owner and buyer of consumer electronics and computer equipment.
2. The FCC has been asked to resolve compatibility issues surrounding digital broadcast and cable television and consumer electronics equipment. My comments will focus primarily on the issue of "copy protection."
3. I urge the Commission to oppose mandating copy protection measures in consumer electronics equipment, for the following reasons:
Inherent Fragility
4. In general terms, copy protection measures operate by attemptng to distinguish between "legitimate" copies (i.e. copies manufactured by the vendor) and unsanctioned copies (as typically made on a home computer). Because computers -- and indeed all digital equipment -- are designed to copy information perfectly, making this distinction is a difficult technical challenge.
5. Many methods have been employed to attempt to make this distinction, all of which have attendant advantages and drawbacks. However, no matter which specific method is employed, they all basically introduce artificial fragility and unreliability into the system. More clearly, by introducing copy protection measures into a product or system, that product or system is by definition rendered less reliable, since it now has a deliberately introduced capacity for failure. Some copies will work, whereas others will fail, having been identified as, "illegitimate."
6. There is not, nor can there be, a 100% reliable method of distinguishing between sanctioned and unsanctioned copies. As such, all existing copy protection methods can and do yield false results, causing legitimate store-bought copies of software to fail (and allowing unsanctioned copies to operate unhindered). The reasons for the false results may be manifold: damaged distribution media, incompatible hardware, incompatible operating system software, etc.
7. Working remotely (as do cable system operators when dealing with subscribers), it is impossible to determine if such failure is due to an "honest" flaw in the hardware or distribution media, or because the user is attempting to use an unsanctioned copy. Direct examination of the system and media is necessary to make such a determination.
8. Thus, employing copy protection measures in consumer electronics will render such equipment inherently less reliable, resulting in undue inconvenience and cost to the consumer and equipment manufacturer alike.
Lack of Compelling Need
9. Until the mid-1980's or so, consumers were tremendously inconvenienced by copy protection systems. This was due not only to their fragility, but also by their preventing users from copying their software from the vendor-supplied floppy disks to internal hard disks, which were gaining popularity at the time.
10. Consumer opinion on the issue was overwhelming and adamant. Bowing to market pressure, many vendors agreed to abandon copy protection measures. This was done with much trepidation because vendors feared that, without them, individuals would make unsanctioned copies in such overwhelming numbers that the potential market for the software would be diluted to the point where even recovering development costs would be impossible. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single instance throughout the history of the computing industry where such fears have materialized.
11. Thus, there are no historical precedents or incidents justifying a need for copy protection measures. Further, there is no credible reason to believe the situation will be different for digital content delivered via broadcast or cable systems.
Undue Burden to Consumers
12. In my experience, copy protection measures, as applied to computer software, are expensive to develop, both in terms of engineering time and resources. It is reasonable to believe that the same will be true for measures applied to digital broadcast content. These costs must be recovered somewhere. If the Commission mandates copy protection measures in consumer electronics, the consumers will solely bear not only the direct costs of their development and manufacture, but the indirect costs associated with decreased reliability.
13. If copy protection were a feature being requested by consumers, then it would be reasonable to expect consumers to pay for it. But they are not requesting it. Indeed, they are demanding the precise opposite.
14. The only organizations professing a need for copy protection are television and movie studios, and cable system operators. It therefore seems reasonable that those organizations solely bear the costs of development and deployment, and leave end-user equipment unencumbered.
Squelching Future Innovations
15. My review of proposed copy protection methods involve the use of viewers or viewing software that are "approved" by a central licensing authority under the control of film and television studios (this is currently the case with DVD playback devices, which have been licensed by the DVD Copy Control Authority). To obtain such approval, the viewing device typically may only have functionality deemed appropriate by the licensing authority, and nothing else. This functionality is typically limited to playback only, with pause, fast-forward, and rewind features (and even these are handicapped in certain circumstances). In the proposed protection schemes, any individual wishing to employ new or different functionality must first petition for and obtain approval from the licensing authority, or risk being sued.
16. One use to which an individual might put digital broadcast content is to incorporate it into their computer's "screen saver" facility. For example, images from a digital television signal could be received by a computer (possibly through a IEEE-1394 interface), mathematically transformed into a sphere, and bounced around the screen. Such use of broadcast television content is not (currently) unlawful. Indeed, it would strain credibility for content producers and broadcasters to argue such use was even unethical. As such, seeking approval from a licensing authority for such use would seem to throw an unnecessary roadblock in the path of developers conducting lawful research and development.
17. While my example is admittedly a trite one, I hope it serves to illustrate that there are non-obvious uses to which digital content may be put that are useful, interesting, beneficial to consumers, and non-infringing. Full exploration of such possibilities has yet to begin. Mandating copy protection would seriously cripple such explorations.
Not a Commission Function
18. At this point, I stray from my expertise into admittedly inexpert readings of the Commission's charter and contemporaneous intellectual property disputes. Nevertheless, I request the Commission bear with me.
19. I can find nothing in the Commission's charter that suggests it should be involved in interpreting intellectual property law. By mandating copy protection measures, the Commission will effectively serve as an interpreter of Fair Use doctrine. Fair Use is not applied in a blanket manner, but on a case-by-case basis by the Federal Courts. Moreover, the meaning of Fair Use is constantly changing as circumstances evolve and technology advances.
20. Should the Commission choose to mandate a form of blanket copy protection, it is easy to envision a future Federal Court decision declaring that consumers have Fair Use rights that extend beyond those provided by equipment containing the Commission-mandated protection measures. In practical terms, however, such a decision would be virtually moot, since the Commission's previous interpretation of Fair Use has been cast in stone (or, in this case, silicon). The Commission would then find itself in the unenviable position of having to implement the Court's order. Whatever form that took, it would be tremendously burdensome to the Commission, electronics manufacturers, and consumers.
21. Finally, my readings of intellectual property disputes show that -- if the Commission will permit the colloquialism -- the field of intellectual property law is extremely hairy bananas. It is inordinately complex, frequently self-contradictory, and its interpretation is crucially dependent on the specific circumstances of a given case. I respectfully suggest this is a field of endeavor the Commission would wish to avoid. It would take Solomonic wisdom to design a technical specification that would serve the interests of copyright holders without impacting the ever-changing Fair Use rights of consumers.
Conclusion
22. In summary, I urge the Commission to oppose mandatory copy protection measures for consumer electronics equipment because:
23. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to provide comment, and sincerely thank the Commission for its time and attention.
It seems to me that the best way to mitigate these idiot court rulings is to ensure that the jurors selected have a clue about tech issues. I daresay that a jury packed with technically literate engineers would have a much easier time distinguishing the truth from the bombast in, for example, patent cases.
In any case, I'd feel much better with an intelligent, educated jury sitting than a bunch of randoms who were, "too stupid to get out of jury duty" (an aphorism I find rather shortsighted and offensive).
Schwab
On your own, send a parallel letter to the USPTO. Be sure to cite the patent application number, and declare yourself as one of the named inventors. Explain your situation, and explain why the USPTO should not grant the patent.
However, I echo the sentiments expressed above: Cough up the $500 or so and talk to an intellectual property and/or contract lawyer before you do anything, including what I outlined above.
And, speaking as one tech to another, thank you for having a conscience about this stuff.
Schwab
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a bogus news story about taxing blank digital media. It was born out of my blinding frustration that, in what should be a conspicuous, informed public debate, all the wrong people are being listened to.
I had no idea I was predicting the future.
Schwab
I shouldn't have to spend a lot of time explaining this one. Who here honestly believes that Micros~1 would put out a digital VCR that would allow you to share recorded shows with your friends?
A digital VCR -- or, more generally, a digital media center -- is a wonderful idea. It would allow you to record, mix, match, edit, transform, and otherwise manipulate the half-dozen or so media sources already streaming into your home (broadcast TV, cable TV, AM/FM radio, Internet). Using a single well-designed system, you could, for example:
Now, which is the more probable: That Micros~1 will create the afore-described flexible, open system that gives ordinary people the power to use media in new ways; or will they create a box that will copy-protect the fsck out of everything -- all the worst features of Macrovision and CSS -- preventing you from even copying the recordings to your own PC, and will fink on you if you try?
Pay very close attention to this one, people...
Schwab
The term Machinima is clearly an amalgam of the words "machine" and "cinema." I don't know who coined it, but it doesn't roll off the tongue very well.
I think a better term would have been Mechanime (mechanical anime).
Schwab
You have got to be fscking kidding me! This one goes in the Hall of Shame...
Why am I not surprised that Radio Shaft would be pushing this? "You have questions, we have batteries."
Schwab
Prepare to witness the most concerted and massive engineering effort -- both social and technical -- ever undertaken by mankind: The digital equivalent of damming the ocean.
I wrote about this on Slashdot almost a year ago, in the vague hope it might become a featured article: The music and movie industies are working very hard to prevent you from using your lawfully-obtained material in any way they don't want. To that end, they have formed the Copy Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG), which is working hand-in-hand with a ton of high-tech companies to bring pervasive copy protection measures to your PC.
I saved my original screed on the subject, and it's reproduced below, with appropriate updates. Bottom Line: Do not let them sneak this garbage past you or your friends. If you find that a product contains copy protection, don't buy it, and encourage others to do likewise.
____________________
Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.
I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.
I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]
Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.
One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:
The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. It costs $100 to attend. According to the site, their last meeting was on 11 April 2000. It's not clear if additional meetings have been held at regular intervals.
The attendance roster from the April meeting (RTF file) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:
If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.
If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.
What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.
Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.
Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:
The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).
Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)
Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.
Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.
In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).
This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.
The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.
Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.
The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.
We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.
Schwab
So what you're saying is the entertainment industry believes it has found a way to tell us, "You'll never work in this town again!!"
Sadly, I fear you may be right.
However, engineers can fight back. For example, somewhere within the bowels of Intel are a bunch of guys working on bringing copy-protection to IEEE-1394 (FireWire) devices. It simply requires the engineers to lay down their pencils/keyboards/VHDL compilers and say, "We will not build this for you. We don't want it, and you don't need it."
Yes, they will put their career at risk, but even if they are fired, they will not carry the responsibility of having created the tools by which their families, friends, and neighbors were shafted.
For myself, I couldn't live with myself if I did something like that to my friends.
Schwab
You'd win that bet. AOL will be incorporating copy-protection measures (under the misleading name, "digital rights management") as part of the next WinAmp and AOL 6.0 release. The copy-protection technology is to be supplied by InterTrust.
Alert your AOL-using friends; encourage them to not install it.
Schwab
SCSI, hands down!
My home machine is all SCSI, all the time. I'm using a Mylex/BusLogic BT-958 controller (does Ultra 2 Wide). On the internal bus, I've got two Seacrate 4G drives, an IBM 8G drive, and a Plextor 40X CD-ROM. These are connected together using a 68-pin twisted-pair cable. On the external bus, I have a Castlewood ORB drive (if you've got one of these, download the v3.0 SCSI firmware now!), connected using a 68-pin shielded cable. I used to get occasional bus lockups, but once I replaced the Toshiba CD-ROM drive with the Plextor, they went away.
My laptop (HP Omnibook 800CT) has built-in NCR/Symbios SCSI controller. It rocks.
The IDE controller in my home desktop machine is unused, and will remain that way. IDE sucks. Always has.
The reason I insist on SCSI is mostly because I've been a SCSI wonk since my Amiga days. Sticking with SCSI lets me use all my old drives (and get the data off them!). All the old drives still work, including a really massive 5.25" full-height 600M drive from HP that needs a power supply all to itself just to spin up. Being able to get at all these drives, both on the desktop machine and the laptop, is insanely useful.
It wasn't so long ago that SCSI and IDE drive prices were at near parity. The SCSI drive had maybe a $10 premium over its IDE counterpart. But now you can expect to pay up to 50% more for a SCSI drive. This is clearly opportunism on the manufacturers' part, as the electronics aren't sufficiently different to warrant such a price disparity. They're simply soaking the server market.
Grr, I say, grr...
Schwab