Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Industry Divided Over SSSCA 368

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Industry Divided Over SSSCA

Comments Filter:
  • Linux Illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by some guy I know ( 229718 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @11:39AM (#2373584) Homepage
    Would this make Linux, et al, illegal, too?
  • by Styx ( 15057 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @11:45AM (#2373615) Homepage
    This battle might actually be interesting. Which industry has the best most influence on .us politicians?
    It looks like [opensecrets.org] Hollywood contributes more to the coffers of the political parties.
    Let's just hope the Electronics Industry and Comsumers win this one.
  • Re:Linux Illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by corebreech ( 469871 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @11:54AM (#2373665) Journal
    Perhaps not but it may require computer manufacturers to authenticate that the OS being run is one recognized as having digital rights management built in.

    Linux wouldn't qualify, and hacking it to get it to run on modern hardware would no doubt fall under SSSCA, if not DMCA or even the ATA.

    Then comes TCP-MS. Anyone running a different network stack gets a knock on the door.

    So my guess is yes, Linux will remain legal, but you won't be able to install it on new computers and you won't be able to run it when connecting to the Internet.

    Unless of course you live in a free country.
  • by jbarr ( 2233 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @11:57AM (#2373677) Homepage
    OK, the bill and all the other hype specifies a "digital device". So why doesn't someone just design some sort of "interface" that connects to the digital source and simply converts the digital signal to some (probably yet-to-be-invented) "high-speed" analog signal. This analog signal then would be input to the DVR or set-top box, and converted back to digital. The conversion would just have to be fast enough to "keep up" with the digital speed.

    That way, the input to PVR or set-top box would be analog thus exempting it from the legislation.

    Whatcha think?
  • by kryzx ( 178628 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @11:58AM (#2373679) Homepage Journal
    Bruce Schneier [counterpane.com] (of Counterpane [counterpane.com]) does a good job of sticking up for our rights on this one. He's really been doing a good job of getting the message out. Most articles on this kind of stuff have some good quotes from him. He's a consistent voice of reason. Kudos, Bruce.
  • by slipgun ( 316092 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @12:12PM (#2373747)
    If this ridiculous piece of legislation is passed, it could being to erode the US's competitiveness on the world market. Here in Britain, we will be able to continue to run Linux and 'non-approved' devices such as (gasp) PCs which we have built ourselves, which will make things much easier for businesses (and consumers) than it would be over there. If such a law was passed here, no one would take much notice anyway. We've got bigger problem at the moment (eg stopping an attack on the Square Mile).

    Haven't your maggots (er, politicians) got bigger things on their plate too?
  • Although it is an almost foregone conclusion that most of the U.S. Congress is more for sale than for principles, the larger majority will flee from passing anything that is brought to their attention as being probably unconstitutional or reducing valuable protections for Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, because let's face it: while what is good for Microsoft, Hollywood, etc. is in general good for the politicos in a few states (Washington, California, NY, etc.), folks across the rest of the country have representation as well -- enough to cause trouble with the desired agendas of the big companiers.

    Trouble is, the big players spend a lot of time and money figuring out how to package the lie in FUD and mis-direction so that the only issues brought up for debate favor passage -- which IIRC is exactly how the DCMA was snuck through. I (for one) would love to get my hands on a definitive and complete copy of the legislative history of how often and how in depth "constitutionality" and "freedom" were at issue in the committees and floor debate when the DCMA was slipped through.

    Best opportunity for us: get in touch en-masse with the representative branch of the US Gov'g with lucid, non-inflammatory communications that reference why the SSSCA and DCMA, etc. are in conflict with some of our most cherished rights (which do NOT include copyright theft, music or video piracy, by the way!), and get behind the EFF, etc. so that all of the issues are part of the debate.

    And without declaring allegience to either party, campaign finance reform was defeated by a very narrow margin by politicians who are very closely allied with the big companies. So pushing the campaign finance reform onto your representative's legislative agenda is not a bad idea either.

  • Greed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pslam ( 97660 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @12:34PM (#2373843) Homepage Journal
    '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.

    From dictionary.com:

    "greed (grd)

    n. An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: "Many... attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed" (Henry Fawcett)."

    The industry neither needs nor deserves such a wide sweeping and damaging act. Perhaps we need to remind our respective governments just how little the entertainment industry makes to the GDP of a country. Such small corporations should not be destroying the freedoms of everyone else.

  • Goodbye USA (Score:2, Interesting)

    by palfrey ( 198640 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @12:37PM (#2373866) Homepage
    Glad no other country (AFAIK) is doing anything this stupid. If this goes through, then the computer manufacturers (and anyone else who doesn't want to have to put this crap in their systems) will simply have to make the hardware elsewhere. A black market will emerge in America for "non-SSSCA hardware" from the rest of the world.

    Can someone who's in the USA point this out to their senators, as the vote of a UK person doesn't go very far in America.....
  • Brain Drain (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hooya ( 518216 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @12:40PM (#2373880) Homepage
    i can relate. i'm considering moving to australia (pending some research regarding their laws.)

    i came to US looking for the 'land of the free' and 'land of opportunities'. well, i've had some success. i make a *nice* living. but lately, i've been reflecting on the laws that are being passed (DMCA comes to mind). the whole IP shabang.. now this. i know, it probably won't make it to becoming a law but knowing that my future as a lawful resident depends on the hands of some clueless lawmakers that take thousands and thousands of dollars (soft-money or otherwise) from coorporations that are intent on taking control of everything short of the oxygen i breathe i fail to see the free in 'the land of the free'. it's become 'the land of cartels' (explain RIAA and MPAA) and 'the land of bought politician' and 'the land of how much justice can you afford' and the land of just about everything but freedom.

    granted you don't see my name on any of the change-logs on any opensource/GNU projects, i have been contributing in other ways -- writing key components for an american company that services companies worldwide. i consider myself as an active contributer to the american economy. lately, i'm seeing deminishing returns on my contributions. Apart from salary, a lawful, contributing resident comes to expect certain niceties from the government. and freedom, it seems, is exactly that -- a nicity. not the essentials; just a nicity.

    i'd rather live with lower wages as long as i can continue to do what i love without interference. without the chokehold on both my throat and my beanbags.

    it seems, if i do come up with something revolutionary i better have the dough to back it up. P2P with napster comes to mind. of course some mega corp is going to take interest since they would want not just a piece of the action by *all of it*. and would resort to the one great mechanism at work in america -- the law suits. so i've been very, very careful *not* to come up with anything remotely useful for the general public. in fact i have been very, very careful not to think of any ideas even. i sure don't have the money, or the politicians to protect it.

    no one cares about IPs. it's not about coming up with new IPs or at least encouraging or creating the environment for new IPs. it's about *protecting* them. a key difference. gone are the days where the likes of wright brothers invented flying in their bike-shop. if you do the equivalent of that today in the digital world, you will essentially become a 'terrorist' (a hacker == a terrorist as some very bright leader put it)

    my IPs are going to either my grave, or to australia or any other country where it's still about trying to foster development of 'em. not just about *protecting* and hoarding every halfwit-incomplete-though under the name of IP.

    (i'm not certain about australia. that's just the first country that came to mind.)
  • Re:what about kids? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Amazing Quantum Man ( 458715 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @12:45PM (#2373912) Homepage
    will the laws include provisions for lesser jail sentences for minors who "attempt to circumvent copyright-enforcing hardware for media playback"?

    <DARKHUMOR>Nope, you'll be convicted of terrorism under the ATA and sent to prison for life.</DARKHUMOR>
  • by sterno ( 16320 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @12:57PM (#2374005) Homepage
    Divx didn't fail because DVD enthusiasts made it look bad, it failed because ultimately consumers didn't want to watch movies in the way that the Divx backers had envisioned. The miscalculation was that consumers would be okay with the notion of something they buy but don't actually own. This concept was confusing, complex, privacy invading, and pointless.

    The reason I make this point is that I think this is an inappropriate comparison to what we are looking at with this new potential law. Here we see the possibility of a choice being made for consumers by politicians and their lobbyist backers. Trying to explain this stuff to the average consumer is difficult because it is somewhat abstract. They will say that the media producers have the right to make money from what is rightfully theirs and it's okay for the government to support that with legislation. When they have no choice but to pay per view, they'll go with the only choice they have and likely not think twice about it. Perhaps I'm just too ravingly cynical but I don't think an appeal to the people is going to be terribly effective here.
  • Re:Linux Illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jcast ( 461910 ) <.jonathanccast. .at. .fastmail.fm.> on Monday October 01, 2001 @01:01PM (#2374039) Journal
    Unless of course you live in a free country.

    Got any suggestions?

  • by jem.cc ( 454877 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @02:25PM (#2374600) Homepage
    That doesn't protect you for a variety of reasons, some obvious, some requiring research:

    1. Analog devices can perform operations on digital information. Modems use different tones to stand in for different bits, same principle.

    2. The definition from SSSCA 109(3)

    INTERACTIVE DIGITAL DEVICE. -- The term "interactive digital device" means any machine, device, product, software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form.

    Consider a device composed of paper and pencil and a human mind. I personally use this for the primary purpose of "storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form." The only reason I wouldn't is brain damage. I don't *think* they'd go so far as to admit that their definition covers my Turing Complete mind, because literal thought control is not something they would admit to... but that's a matter of PR, not of clear verbal distinctions which have correspondingly obvious distinctions in the world.

    You can certainly object that neurons are analog, because that's a common view (political reality is mostly based on that sort of thing anyway) but the more time I spend studying neuro-psych the less I tend to agree with that. Neurons are fundamentally on/off devices which simulate analog with firing rates variation.

    Hmmm... I was going to add more, but this probably covers it. I'll leave the rest of the reasons "as an exercise for the reader" :)

    "Memory is theft, memory is impossible, memory is liberty" --My paraphrase of Proudhon

  • by Urug ( 459845 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @02:56PM (#2374832)
    They don't even need to move to a website... Sec. 103 (b) allows time-shifting only for "an over-the-air broadcast, non-premium cable channel, or non-premium satellite channel". How long until the only things broadcast over-the-air are ads for programs only available on "premium channels"? For that matter, do the "extended basic" channels (like Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, CNN, Discovery, History) that seem to be the only ones I watch already count as "premium channels"?

    --
    My .sig is available on the ".sig channel" for only $2.99 a month...Sign up now!!!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02, 2001 @12:42AM (#2377050)
    After reading about the SSSCA, I wrote my Senators (FL) expressing opposition to the proposed legislation. For good measure, I wrote my Representative as well - Mike Bilirakis, 9th District FL.
    I received a reply soon after.
    The opening to his reply to me was:

    "Thank you for contacting me in opposition to the proposed Security Systems Standards and Certification Act. I appreciate hearing from you. At this time, I am unaware of any such legislation that has been introduced by Senator Fritz Hollings or anymember of the House of Representatives."

    OK, So I thought to myself, give him the benefit of the doubt. Not every congressman can be aware of every proposed piece of legislation.

    Then looking over the letter I notice the letterhead, which listed all of the Committees on which Bilirakis sits. There it was: Member, Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee.

    I shook my head in dismay at the apparent cluelessness. As a member of that particualr subcommittee, shouldn't a congressmen be a little more aware of pending and proposed legislation? Nice to see our elected rep's are taking these things so seriously.

    Oh wait -- maybe they just wait for their friendly industry lobbyist to show up and "educate" them on the facts they need to know.

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Working...