Industry Divided Over SSSCA

CBravo writes: "The EE Times has a story that talks about the SSSCA and how it divides the industry. Short part:'If approved, the law would be enforceable under federal regulations and could dramatically alter the way system OEMs design and develop PCs, TVs, set-tops or other digital appliances with embedded microprocessors, according to industry sources familiar with the Hollings proposal. The motion-picture industry, with the Disney and Fox studios in the lead, backs the legislation.'" If you thought the DMCA was bad, look out -- the SSSCA would inject far more control into a wide range of electronic devices.

So, once this bill passes...

[frleong]

OEMs of PCs will be forced to install Windows because Windows Media Player will be one of the few players with support from motion-picture industry due to its built-in "copy-protection" mechanisms. Linux will be BANNED from OEMs or face lawsuits for circumventing copyright. Or did I miss the real implications of this bill?

Welcome to your digital nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup.

This legislation would make:

a) Building your own computer from commodity parts illegal.
b) Building your own OS illegal.
c) Programming your computer/hardware illegal unless: you only use the officially accepted libraries and agree not to even attempt reverse engineering any of them.

Welcome to your nightmare. This is what the Sony executive said a couple of years ago when he said that they'll be taking the battle for their IP rights to every home and every computer.

Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on this!

[tester13]

I understand the issues of building copy controls into hardware. Unfortunately my friends and family do not. Is it possible to explain this to someone in a non alarmist manner (not the MS/the Govt will control all your data)? The only way I can think to explain it is by giving an overview of low level languages, current copy protection schemes, etc.

How do you explain this to your Mom?

The Sky is Falling....

[atrowe]

There's no reason to freak out about all this. Take off the foil hat and think reasonable-like for a minute. The SSSCA is *not* a law. It is a proposal put forth by a single (miguided) lawmaker. Literally *thousands* of worthless/unconstitutional legislation are proposed by congress every year. The vast majority of the time, the checks-n-balances system of our government keeps these proposals from getting put into the books. The system does work, and this piece of crap will end up getting thrown out just like all the other junk legislation.

If you don't like the proposal, write your representative. Tell them how stupid and unconstitutional this is. Don't complain about how "The Man" is out to strip you of your rights. That won't accomplish anything.

Re:The Sky is Falling....

[Anonymous Coward]

And just why do we have a worthless/unconstitutional law called DMCA at the moment?

Re:Welcome to your digital nightmare

[Red Aardvark House]

Unbelievable.

I just received a "home-built" computer as a gift.

Never thought it might be illegal one day.

IP rights protection is one thing, but when it affects even activities not necessarily related to IP, something is wrong.

Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi

[Tim Doran]

Explain it to your mom the same way you explained the chilling implications of the DMCA.

And unfortunately, you can expect to be just as effective in getting her excited about stopping the bill.

This is scary as hell - because these initiatives are difficult to explain to consumers, it may be impossible to stop them. Voter apathy has never had such potential to rot the country from the inside out. Soon, any business big enough to afford a good lobbyist can expect to have their business plan protected by law.

Deep pockets on both sides of this, which is good

[mmacdona86]

Having the consumer electronics folks against this is good, since they have a well-funded lobby (though it may not be as influential as the MPAA). That's what will slow down this kind of bad legislation. The best way to keep the consumer electronics folks on the right side of this is consumer education: if we geeks can inform the masses about content controls and convince them that they should avoid devices that contain them it could stiffen the consumer electronics manufacturers resistance. DVD enthusiasts made Divx smell like dogsh*t to the masses and prevented it from being widely adopted. But the manufacturers will only resists content controls for as long as they think it will cost them money.

Re:The Sky is Falling....

[Tim Doran]

Exactly. Remember, the politicians who wrote the DMCA could collect their kudos from the industry by getting it passed, not by making it stick.

Congress is not afraid of passing an unconstitutional law, since there's always the Supreme Court to strike it down if necessary. Scary thought, isn't it? Especially when you consider that most sitting members of the Supremes were appointed by Reagan and Bush Sr. and at least two will retire in time for Dubya to replace them with new hand-picked right-wingers. This is your last defense against unconstitutional laws and it even costs *me* sleep, up here in Canada...

Re:Don't forget to sign the petitions..

[Reality Master 101]

Online petitions are actually worse than useless, because they give the illusion to people that they are actually doing something, when they might otherwise have written a letter.

If you care about this issue, write a real letter, on real paper, with a real stamp.

Re:The Sky is Falling....

[Cramer]

Really? Maybe you should get your head out of your ... never mind.

The system of "checks and balances" originally envisioned hasn't worked for many many years. People are too stupid and too greedy. The "system" failed for the DMCA. The "system" has had no effect on the recent anti-terrorism laws -- passing in HOURS. And it will fail with this bullshit as well.

This will be one more law people break with abandon. Of course, this one will be a lot harder to break with all the hardware manufacturers playing along.

Short of a cue, none of this is ever going to change.

what about kids?

[CrudPuppy]

I used to LOVE opening up broken electronic stuff and trying to understand how it worked when I was a kid...

will the laws include provisions for lesser jail sentences for minors who "attempt to circumvent copyright-enforcing hardware for media playback"?

Re:Deep pockets on both sides of this, which is go

[Tim Doran]

Right. But in a wag-the-dog scenario, the entertainment industry (with huge lobbying budgets and relatively modest economic significance) is pushing through laws that will have huge effects on telecom, consumer electronics and high tech (with relatively modest lobbying budgets and massive economic significance).

The best we can hope for is an upswing in lobbying efforts by high-tech organizations. That *might* counter this bill, but just means more lobbying by groups defending their business.

What is really required is a massive, permanent lobbying effort by EFF and other civil rights organizations. Too bad it'll never be within their financial reach.

Letter I sent to 60+ senators--do the same!

[coats]

I am a mathematician and computer scientist (PH.D., MIT 1978). I am writing to you to express my vehement opposition to the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" (SSSCA), a bill drafted by Senators Ernest Hollings (SC) and Ted Stevens (AL). I urge you in the strongest possible terms to oppose this bill. There are four reasons for my opposition:

1. It represents a serious threat to the national security and the well-being of the United States;
2. Its provisions are outrageously un-Constitutional;
3. It represents poor public policy, advancing a narrow corporate interest against the interests of the public at large; and
4. It is (deliberately) over-broad and unconscionably vague in its provisions, particularly as regards its definition of "digital device".

These points, as well as changes I think are needed in current copyright law, are more fully discussed below A. Introduction.
The Constitution requires that copyright term be limited. From this point of view, the current copyright law is no less than a Constitutional outrage. Triply so: From a theoretical point of view, if Congress is free retroactively to extend copyright term at will (as it has repeatedly done in this century), then copyright term fails to fit the definition of "limited". From an operational point of view, a copyright law that has been repeatedly extended so that no works have actually made it or will make it into the public domain during my entire adult lifetime, both past and future, is a copyright law that fails the operational definition of "limited". And finally, in human terms, a copyright term that extends more than a lifetime after the death of the author fails the definition of "limited" on the human scale. It has been argued that this extension of copyright encourages authorship. Such an argument is purely specious: it is impossible that an author already 50 years dead can be encouraged to produce further works by the extension of his copyrights for another twenty years.

B. Discussion
1. National Security: First of all, this bill is a serious threat to the national security of the United States. The reason for this is as follows: Both the Internet and digital computers have become critical to the continued security and prosperity of the United States. This bill, by outlawing all digital equipment that does not " include and utilize certified security technologies" would have the de facto effect of outlawing all software and computers except those from a few large corporate sources--particularly, the effect of outlawing so-called "Open Source" software such as the Linux operating system and the Apache web-server, which are distributed in human readable and modifiable form. What would remain is exactly the systems and software which have shown themselves most vulnerable to attack: virtually all of the disruptive "virus" and "worm" attacks of the last five years have been made possible by defects in the inherent design of Microsoft operating system, server, and email and application software. The computer-security situation is so serious that earlier this week the very staid Gartner Group management consulting firm issued a warning recommending that their clients immediately remove Microsoft internet server software and replace it with products from other vendors such as Apache and IPlanet (see http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101 034). A year ago, the US National Security Agency concluded that it was impossible to make Microsoft systems sufficiently secure for sensitive applications, and constructed an especially secure configuration of the Linux operating system for that purpose (see http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/). The SSSCA would make Apache and Linux illegal.

2. Un-Constitutionality: The SSSCA, with its absolutist protection for "security technologies" is an affront to the Constitutional provision for copyright. The Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a LIMITED monopoly,

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

against whose conditions the SSSCA is an outrage. The SSSCA admits no limit on the term of protection it espouses. Nor does it make any provision for fair use. In its original 1823 decision establishing the doctrine of fair use, the Supreme Court stated that Congress may make no copyright law so strict as to deny freedom of speech nor freedom of the Press. The SSSCA violates this Constitutional requirement also.

3. Poor public Policy: The Founding Fathers did not regard "intellectual property" as a natural right, but rather as a limited legislated monopoly which was of benefit to society as a whole _if managed properly_. They had had relatively recent experiences with both no-copyright situations and with permanent Crown monopolies on publishing (and, sadly, they tended to be better versed in history than many are today.) They knew that copyright was of greatest benefit to society at large if it offered a quid pro quo: in exchange for a temporary monopoly on copying, the authors must pass their works into the public domain--the property of all of us--at the expiration of the limited term. This bargain has already been brought to the breaking point by current copyright law,e specially the DMCA; the SSSCA breaks it completely. It is purely and specifically for the narrow benefit of a few large publishing houses who fear that digital technology will break both their stranglehold on the authors and music-writers and their captivation of the public at large. (Note that the SSSCA's provision for setting "standards" has the effect of freezing out both writers and the general public.)

4. Over-breadth and Vagueness: Finally, Sen. Hollings himself has admitted in interviews with Wired magazine that the provisions are deliberately vague, in order to get a bill passed with provisions that may be applied far more broadly than Congress intends or believes reasonable. Congress should not permit itself to be so deceived.

C. Needed Copyright Reforms.
There are reforms that do need to be made in copyright law; let me suggest that any copyright bill should be amended to include at least the following:

• Section 105 should be amended so as include not only "any work of the United States Government" but also all laws -- Federal, State, and local -- in the public domain. (Note that some trade associations have had local and state governments adopt their copyrighted codes as public laws, while still maintaining a copyright upon them. As a matter of public policy, the law should not be owned by private interest groups.)
• Section 107 should be amended so as to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. When a disabled person owns a copy of a copyright work which is by reason of disability inaccessible, it should be fair use to make an enhanced copy for private use, in order to make accomodation for that disability. Commercial publishers who use "technical means of protection" (as under the DMCA) or "certified security technologies" (under the SSSCA or its ilk) should be required to publish enhanced copies for the accomodation of persons with disabilities, at the same price that they sell un-enhanced copies.
• Fraudulent claim of copyright should be a crime punishable at least as severely as copyright infringement. Fraudulent claim of copyright steals from the patrimony of us all. Such fraudulent claim of copyright is rampant in at least the classical music publishing industry. And since the record of the last decade shows that the Department of Justice cannot be relied upon to prosecute copyright offenses, and since it steals from us all, any member of the public should have standing for civil suit against such fraud.

D. Conclusion
You have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Copyright law should be returned to its Constitutional limits.

Re:So, once this bill passes...

[Rogerborg]

• You wonder if someone will go to jail for selling his old VCR

The DMCA already has provision for mandatory copy control on video devices, and has special allowances for selling used older devices. The idea is to hide the fact that you're fucked until all of your devices are compliant.

Re:Don't forget to sign the petitions..

[JLinden]

Or even better, write a letter to your congressman using certified mail. That way they have to sign for it. It probably won't go straight into the statistics room like all the other.

Re:Jack Valenti can go to hell.

[ichimunki]

And because it is his paycheck on the line, I suggest that we geeks need to take a good look at what we've done so far in this matter. After all, every time we've gone to the movies, bought a DVD or VHS new, watched TV, bought a major-label-(or-minor-label-affiliate)-produced CD new, or purchased merchandise which was co-branded or licensed, we have helped fund the very corporations that are working to destroy a free America and turn it into privately owned fiefdoms. It's not just a question of which representative do we write to, but how do we change our lives (and our culture) so that these corporations become unprofitable?

I found it amusing as I've listened to Governor Bush's Sept. 20th address before Congress, that he describes Afghanis as the first victims of Al-Qaida and the Taliban. He even mentions that in Afghanistan you can be jailed for owning a television. Welcome to the next USA, where you can own a television, but will be jailed if the television you own is not State Approved.

WOAH Everybody... Chill!!

[Telek]

(Please guys, hear me through before flaming or modding down.)

Can someone please explain to me the exact portions of the bill that state that

a) you will not be allowed to run linux
b) you will not be allowed to build your own PC from commodity parts

??

What I see is "unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies that adhere to the security system standards.". Which is basically saying that "if you want to have something that you can view multimedia on, it has to have built in digital copyright controls on it".

So what you're saying is: "Hey, hell no we won't put such things into linux! .... Damn! now we can't use linux (to view videos or listen to music)" "Hell, I don't want to build a computer using those parts that have built in copy control ..... damn, now I can't build my own computer!"

While I am not saying that this is a good thing, don't you think that you all are going just a wee bit over the deep end with the exaggerations on this one?

Please tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that it is nearly as bad as you are claiming it to be. If linux were to implement these technologies (which, of course, the people who make linux would really, really, truly rather not do) then you could still use it. If you bought the hardware that conformed (which, btw, all hardware sold will so I don't see the argument there?) then you can still build your own computer.

Now, with that aside, this "proposed" legislation is shitty for the customers, but why is it? If you think about it, they are not preventing us from doing anything that the majority of customers don't already do. Now let me qualify that. What you are legally allowed to do is buy something and watch it. What this prevents is piracy, which BTW is illegal anyways. Piracy in this case means viewing it when you're not allowed/making copies/etc. Yep, it sucks. However we always break these laws anyways.

Oh, can someone please explain to me how the ability to copy a movie or music is a funamentally basic human right?

In any case, as with all things, if this does get passed and these restrictions are put on, and if you don't like it, nobody is making you buy that movie or listen to that music ... Sure you like to, but it's not a necessity. As has been said before (that seems to fall on deaf ears), vote with your wallet. Don't buy that stuff that has the restrictions that you don't agree with. If people adapt this mentality, then 1 of 2 things will happen:

1) the purchases of music/videos/etc will fall by the curb and the industries will be left scratching their heads going "wtf happened?"

-or-

2) the majority of people won't care and will still continue to buy the new restricted stuff anyways, and, in the eyes of the corps, they will not have lost.

Of course, if #2 happens then that means that you, my friends, are indeed in the minority and it's just because you want to illegally copy/pirate your stuff or get stuff for free, because the majority of people won't have seen a difference.

however if #1 happens, then it will turn out that everything that you are saying is correct, and justice will take care of itself.

Thus perhaps you should be putting your energies into the right place. If indeed this legislation does pass, (or even before it does), then lean on the same mechanisms that they use to promote this shit. Write your local newspapers. Create situations where this stuff truly is horrible. Tell your friends and neighbours. Put up billboards and posters. And certainly not the entire public are morons, they can see through shit, and if it is truly, absolutely horrible for the gross public then the gross public will respond.

Is everyone aware here that there are 5,000 children dying every month in iraq from malnutrition? check out [erols.com] the list of the top 30 atrocities of the 20th century, some of which are still continuing. And there's more that happens every day, in front of you, that you're too desensitized to look at. There's homeless [nationalhomeless.org] (up to 700,000 each night sleeping on the streets, begging for money during the day), and many others.

Just a reminder that perhaps you guys with your DVD players and 28" televisions and well paying jobs and 1GHz+ computers might want to step back and take it all in perspective.

And finally, talk is cheap. If you are seriously angered by this, that's GREAT, seriously, so do something about it. I don't agree with this type of legislation any more than you do, but yelling/overexaggerating about it on /. isn't going to accomplish anything. And I'm not really sure that sending emails/real mail to your congress is going to do anything either. Educate the public at large and you'll find out if either everyone thinks the same way, or if you are indeed just in the minority. If you can't get your mother and your computer illiterate significant other to get the least bit roused by this, the perhaps it isn't that big a deal after all.

Re:So why not just go "analog"?

[evilphish]

would that not be technology designed to circumvate this so called copyright technology?

Findings? We don't need no steenking findings!

[graybeard]

In Section 2 of the bill, Findings, there appears "[TO BE SUPPLIED]". In other words, they'll make the law first, then "find" the facts to support the law later.

Re:Deep pockets on both sides of this, which is go

[frank_adrian314159]

Having the consumer electronics folks against this is good, since they have a well-funded lobby (though it may not be as influential as the MPAA). That's what will slow down this kind of bad legislation.

Unless they cut a deal with the MPAA, getting other concessions for their lack of opposition. Just think, the MPAA could ban all of those BAD foreign components that didn't have the joint CEIA/MPAA seal of approval, which takes many years of verification to receive due to its rigorous nature. Of course, American manufacturers (and their South Asian partners) get first crack at being tested.

Don't think something like this can happen? This is business. The electronics industry isn't in this for free speech or any other such ideological crap. As long as they can keep making a buck, they're happy.

Here is what's going to happen

[famazza]

Do you wanna know what's going to happen? Big companies (like HP and IBM) will stop production and research activities in US. The money they spend today in americans university will be spent in other countries universities, like Brazil, India or China. In US there will be only the offices, all the production will be done in foreing countries or foreign countries.

The high-tech jobs will be discontinued, many will be fired out. All US will have to use Windows or OS/2 or another "new" OS that will probably be supported by the government.

The technology research will be affected, no company will finance a research, because most of the money will go to the lawyers' hands. Meanwhile in other countries, where is much easier to develop technologies, the big corporations will finance more and more resarches and will help the development of know-how all over the world (all over the world but in US).

The high geeks will leave US, the gurus will find better jobs in foreign countries, all technology production will leave US. Most of the FreeSoftware comunity will leave, and then, maybe one day, US will ban the internet.

Much more horrible things might happen, this is just a few reactions. Let's wait to see what will happen.

Maybe I'm beeing too pessimist, but at least 70% of all I have said will happen.

Re:And by your logic

[BadDoggie]

What ever happened until "innocent until proven guilty"?

What happened was a govenrment elected by an increasingly disinterested populace. Officials placed by a minority of eligible voters who gave themselves the ability to be influenced by money (PACs, soft money, junkets, etc.).

More importantly, it was able to remain in place thanks to the load of sheep who continue to do nothing as long as they get their X-Boxes and Game Boys and Star Trek The Lamest Generation on the Dubba-Ya-Bee.

Not willing to fight for your rights? Then this is what you get. Even if you are willing to(in the US, anyway), not enough of your fellow non-voters are, so give up. You are consumers and will be treated as such. Hell, most of your countrymen are begging to be given the ability to trash a few more articles in the Bill of Rights in the vain hope that there'll never ever ever be another terrorist attack in the US ever again.

Don't like it? You're gonna have to give up more than your DreamCast, 187 channels and Double-half-decaf mocha-choco-frappaccinos now.

Experience says you won't.

woof.

Not only was I at "Ground Zero" NYC, I was near the Pentagon that Tuesday morning as well. Lost friends at both sites. Had to wait an extra week to get a guaranteed ticket back to Europe.

This is aimed at the average consumer

[gotan]

Note how this (like the DMCA before) is aimed at the average consumer, and definitly not against criminals. It's aim is to make criminals out of anyone who wants to View/Copy/Transmit any piece of content in ways not approved by the RIAA and MPAA. This includes cutting out advertisement, playing a piece of Music as often, whereever, whenever, and to as large an audience and in as good a quality as you want. Also anyone who wants to create, market or distribute content (that is anyone possibly competing with established industry to make money from content) finds himself at a disadvantage: he has to pay license fees for encoding, probably needs to set up a huge infrastructure or again pay for the use of an infrastructure to distribute his content in the 'right way' (since he can't just distribute an mp3, but needs to provide servers to serve the 'keys' necessary to unlock his content), and generally has to build his business modell around some very rigid legislation and the technology it allows.

Anyone who is ripping off and selling content in Volume won't be affected anyway. He is already engaged in criminal activity, using unauthorized soft/hardware is the least of his worries, and to believe this hardware/software wouldn't be available because of such legislation is just plain ridiculous. Probably directions how to remove the copyprotection will be available all over the net, like it was with disabling DVD-Region-Codes.

What is happening is, that the Record- and Movie Industries want their old business protected by laws. But the internet and the digital representation of content have already changed the world, and change always means hard times for established business, but it also means opportunities for new business. Adhering to the old ways means leaving out these opportunities, and if the USA as a country choose not to use these opportunities, they may find, that other countries are not willing to do so for the sake of Disney.

This is a lot like legislating that every car has to have a horse running in front of it after the event of the Otto motor, just to ensure, that all the industry around horses doesn't go out of business. I think even the USA can't afford to abandon the technological progress the new media will bring, and these laws will only help to establish the old industry for the next 10 years or so, at the cost of halting progress on that sector for about the same time.

Moore's Law

[TheSHAD0W]

You know, this new regulation will stop Moore's Law cold. People will no longer want to buy new, restricted computers; instead, those old Pentium 4 2 GHZs will be in hot demand. There'll be no other way to display your content. Demand for new machines will drop, and the funds for research will no longer be there.

Ever since a Federal law was passed in 1994 banning certain features in new or imported guns, there has been a brisk market in "pre-ban" weapons; expect a similar situation in the computer market.

This should be really fun when computers get fast enough to run virtual machines that can decode MPEG. How's the hardware going to tell if you're viewing restricted content when the viewing operation isn't even in the same machine code?

Re:The Sky is Falling....

[Datafage]

Appointing conservatives to provide the checks and balances for laws passed by a conservative Congress IS an unpartisan travesty...

Remember communism, anyone?

[j7953]

Soon, any business [...] can expect to have their business plan protected by law.

Just about a decade ago, this was called "communism."

Re:What does the rest of the industry think?

[bnenning]

What does IBM think about this bill? They invested a lot of money in Linux, what do they think about Linux becoming illegal?

I'm not sure they'd mind terribly. They might figure that the SSSCA would expand the market for their government-approved AIX version. Likewise for Sun and Solaris. And here's a scary thought I just had: bytecode-based languages like Java could become a key tool for enforcement. Try to open an MP3 file, get a NoCopyrightAuthorizationException, and of course any tools which allowed you to directly access the bits on "your" computer would be illegal.

The one company I would expect to be 100% opposed to this is Apple. Their "digital hub" strategy is based on being able to freely move data between different devices.

I see a Future...

[GTRacer]

I don't think this will affect any of us in the next 5 years or so, even if the mere discussion of it is chilling.

What I see is a future in, say, 25 years, where I'm teaching my grandson how to disable the copy controls in our State-supplied EntBox so we can watch old DVD-format movies I had in the attic. I'm teaching him how to shield the GPS trackers in his car (serviceable ONLY at State centers) so he can go to Bible Study/IP Revolution meetings. I'm teaching him how to run an ancient PC we keep buried and wrapped in lead to prevent its detection.

Dammit, I should be teaching him how to fish.

Listen, I'm not a super-paranoid individual, but I honestly see the potential, years down the road, where we've lost our IP freedoms bit by bit until we don't remember what fair use was...

GTRacer
- I don't remember signing anything...

Re:As a German...

[Hanno]

[In case anybody cares, here's my letter. I'll fact it to the offices of all US senators tonight. May help, may not, let's see.]

I am a computer scientist and the owner of an IT company.

It has come to my attention that the United States have recently passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which - to summarize it broadly - makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection devices such as the DeCSS algorithm, used for DVD video.

As a result, many previously lawful uses of digital media which used to be considered "fair use" have been seriously restricted for average consumers in the United States. Despite the protests of computer scientists, media professionals and consumer groups within and outside the United States, these horrifying consequences of the DMCA have come in effect today and first arrests have been made against software developers who do research on decryption. Already, non-American computer professionals have begun avoiding visiting US conferences because their perfectly legal work at home is considered illegal in the US and may lead to an arrest there.

Now, the United States are preparing an even stricter law. The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), proposed by Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, will require all future "digital devices" to include a content control mechanism certified by the US government. This mechanism will allow the creators of audiovisual digital content to control when, where and how often a consumer may use digital media. As a consequence of SSSCA, un-certified hardware and software will become unlawful.

The implications of the SSSCA would be incredible. As an example, in a few years, a buyer of a DVD will not "own" the movie he bought, only the right to watch it a limited time. He will not be allowed to watch it outside his country's region (circumventing DVD region encoding is already semi-illegal under the DMCA today). "Fair use" for private, educational or research purposes will not exist anymore. Consumers will not be allowed to make backups of the digital media they own. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Building computers from scratch will be illegal. Research on these aspects in Universites and Colleges will be illegal. Open Source Software such as Linux, a primary part in IT education and a major force in the industry, will be illegal.

As a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany, I should probably care less.

In fact, as a computer professional, I should even be glad that the US stifles innovation for its IT professionals, because it will help my country's industry to gain an advantage over US corporations. The combination of DMCA and SSSCA will seriously hurt the American IT industry and the American computer science education. The implications of these two laws are unconstitutional and will put lasting restrictions on the liberties of US citizens, who are the consumers of digital audiovisual media.

The German government has already made clear that it will not allow such restrictions to be imposed unto its citizens. Considering this, I'm glad not to live or work as a computer professional in the United States these days.

However, as a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it saddens me to see the United States of America going this path into such a bleak future, taking essential liberties away from its citizens and putting full control into the hands of media corporations.

I urge you to oppose the SSSCA and I ask you to remove the DMCA, in the interest of US citizens and in the interest of the international community of computer professionals.

Sincerely,

Hanno Müller

Take a deep breath folks

[Zeinfeld]

First off, the bill ain't going to pass this session. That is in nobody's interest, or at least in no senators inerest. Before they allow a bill like that to pass or be defeated they want to squeeze the industries concerned to see how much in the way of campaign contribution bribes they can extort from each side.

I recomend that slashdot have a counter going showing the amount of the bribes accepted by various senators from the media industry. And yes, they are bribes pure and simple.

Second point is that the IT industry can't comply with the bill if it wanted to. There are many working groups that have been developing DRM standards - MPEG, IETF-DRM, XACML and others. Lack of interest has not been the problem, the difficulty of converging the technology is very high.

In particular the incompetence of the USPTO which has granted thousands of spurious patent claims in the area prevents a workable agreement being reached. There are too many overlapping rights to build a workable system without a serious risk of being sued. This despite the fact that there is prior art for paractically all the technologies.

Legislative fiat will not speed up the technology efforts, in fact they will retard the process. The manufacturers know that if they call the studios bluff and refuse to agree that they can play out the end game in the law courts for decades.

The best way to derail the effort is by reminding congress of the lies they were fed to pass the DMCA. Even Orin Hatch has realized he was had. In particular the clause introduced by the recording industry that tried to grab the returned rights of recording artists was so eggergious that Congress repealled it without demanding fresh bribes.

Also the comparison should be continually to the demands made when recording technology first became mass market. The publishers fought to prevent cassette tape and the VCR from being sold - and lost conclusively.

At the end of the day the recording industry has nowhere near the influence of the computer industry. Quite a few computer companies have revenues greater than those of all the recording companies and film studios combined.

Congress is not about to severely damage its most successful industry by far in order to protect an industry that is far from struggling.

Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi

[MadAhab]

Here's a pithy way of expressing it:

If this bill passes, in the future you will have to ask permission to read a book or listen to a song.

But I think it's important to point out that the consquences of this attempt to steal the future are so dire, that it's impossible to actually BE an alarmist about this topic, simply because the coup They are trying to pull with this bill is so completely alarming.

Other countries for engineers to move to

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if this legislation passes, this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back and makes all of us engineers decide to leave America. I wonder if there are any countries that would be good places for engineers to move to. Perhaps they can let us know by promoting themselves with some slogan such as "Land for those who are fed up with Hollywood and their well-paid-for representatives in congress who are completely destroying the quality of life in America." Please start telling us who you are so that way I can make my arrangements.

<rant> Hollywood for the most part is a bunch of people who cannot produce anything of value and have long since forgotten about creative endeavour. When was the last time a good movie came out? They maybe produce one good film a year if they're lucky. Why protect anything these people produce. Who is watching it? If the American masses are more interested in this crap than their right to be free, then maybe it is time to leave. I am not going to buy anymore dvd's or cds, and I will never take my kids to Disneyworld.
</rant>

Re:Gawd. Get a freakin' grip on reality.

[corebreech]

Freedom is the ability to say whatever you want...

You can say whatever you want anywhere in the world provided you don't say it out loud. Same is true here. We love to say we believe in free speech but after you've taken away speech that is politically incorrect, speech that might be interpreted as "terroristic", speech that violates the DMCA, and speech with obscenities there isn't much left worth talking about.

go whereever you want...

Who doesn't get to go where they want? You mean people who can't afford tickets? Well, the same is true here... if you can't pay your way, you can't go that way. Or do you mean free travel in the sense of not having to show "your papers." Have you flown on a plane anytime since TWA-800?

do whatever you want...

Can't smoke a doobie, can't grow a plant, can't treat myself for a disease I think I have with a medicine I think cures it... what the fuck are you talking about, do whatever I want, I can't do even the most basic of all things every organism since the beginning of time has been able to do, ingest the substance of my choice!

Talk to whoever you want...

Show me a country where this is restricted in a way that isn't over here.

marry whoever you want...

In most states I can't marry a guy if I'm a guy and a babe if I'm a babe.

Believe whatever you want...

If I keep it to myself, sure. Show me another country that's different.

Worship (or not worship) however you want...

Tell that to the native Americans or the Rastafarians, both denied sacraments they consider vital to their faith thanks to the war on drugs.

Have kids if you want...

I might be able to have them but there's no guarantee they won't be taken away simply because the state doesn't like my lifestyle. Happens all the time.

Not have kids if you want...

Yes, in America we have the right to not do things. Well, to not do everything but pay taxes.

Heck, if you're an IT guy, you're certainly not even trapped by more practical concerns like poverty.

No, it looks like if you're an IT guy you're going to be trapped by something far worse, your knowledge of technology that it appears the government is going to label verboten.

Sell it somewhere else.

Stupid people

[boky]

No offence to the US people, but your congressmen are stupid. Enforcing now this and now that law that makes most of the users unhappy and increases costs for techonlogy will just drive all the production further away to Taiwan, Korea and other contries. Speaking long term, the development of new tecnologies will probably move to EU with much more relaxed constraints...