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.
Linux Illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Welcome to your digital nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Welcome to your digital nightmare (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Linux Illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Linux Illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Got any suggestions?
Brain Drain (Score:4, Interesting)
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.)
Sorry to see you go, lets us know how you fair.... (Score:2)
We are headed for horrible things, right now only the Supreme court (The constitution is toast when one of them dies. They won't retire, even they don't trust Bush.), public proof of treason by someone like Archroft, or bringing guns to bear can save us from fascist oppression. Americans no longer seek justice or even truth, just a comfey couch and proof of our superiority.
Let us know how things are there for a open sourcish computer geek, we may have to run for our lives.
I hope they eraticate campain contibutions in DC. I would hate to see the fight for the USA's freedom decided between the royalties new royalty and the Timmothy McVeighs of the world. shivver......
I wonder who is next after the geeks. Maybe we should all wear pink square floppy disks patches on our jackets and check into camps now. Look, I am so frustrated with ignorance I invoked Godwins law on myself.
Re:Gawd. Get a freakin' grip on reality. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:what about kids? (Score:3, Interesting)
<DARKHUMOR>Nope, you'll be convicted of terrorism under the ATA and sent to prison for life.</DARKHUMOR>
Re:And by your logic (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
So, once this bill passes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So, once this bill passes... (Score:5, Funny)
Cheers.
PS.: Your brainwashed relatives will rat you out 'for your own good, just to make sure you are not a terrorist'.
selling old VCR's (Score:3, Funny)
shouldn't that read "trafficking media copyright circumvention devices" ?
*grin*
Re:selling old VCR's (Score:2)
shouldn't that read "trafficking media copyright circumvention devices" ?
*grin*
It's funny now. At the rate we're going, in 5 years it'll be a felony.
Re:So, once this bill passes... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
If this law passes (Score:2)
We may have a decent chance of winning this one...
LOL (Score:2)
Kiss Linux Goodbye (Score:2)
If this passes, we can all kiss Linux goodbye. I have already written all my Reps in Congress, the Senate and Fritz Hollings who is the writer of this bill, expressing my displeasure at this new assault on my Fair Use Rights. I don't think it will do any good, considering the Justice Dept now catagorizes Hackers as a Terrorist Threat.
Re:Kiss Linux Goodbye (Score:2)
Fax your congressmen with the click of a button (Score:2)
You can send a fax to all of your congressmen via aclu.org even easier than you can send an email. If you go to http://www.aclu.org/action/liberty107.html, at the bottom of the page you will see an option to fax your congressmen. It will figure out who they are based on your physical address and fax them whatever content you enter into the web form.
I don't want to repost the whole thing here, but I posted [slashdot.org] the letter that I wrote to my congressmen regarding the SSSCA and the other recent oppressive IP legislation. If you're writing a letter to your congressmen, you might use it for fodder.
Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on this! (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you explain this to your Mom?
Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Remember communism, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just about a decade ago, this was called "communism."
Easy (Score:4, Informative)
Hi, mom.
Congress is considering a law that will make copying anything illegal. Taping shows from TV, copying songs to your Sony Minidisc, burning CDs, making backups of software, moving eBooks from your PC to your PDA, and a whole lot more won't be illegal but will be impossible because all computers and devices that will be made once the law is passed will explicitly ban it. Welcome to my nightmare.
You know, spin works both ways (Score:2)
"Congress is looking at a new bill that will make it illegal to tape TV shows",
we could create enough of an uproar that at least Joe C will be aware of this bill.
Even if your mom hears "The bill doesn't make it illegal to tape TV shows, it will just make it more difficult", Mom's not gonna be happy to see it pass.
No need for the media companies to be the only capable PR flacks; I'll let the end justify the means here
Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see how you can put this without it sounding a little alarmist. Disney wants you to purchase a new TV, DVD, VCR/TiVo and cable decoder... that they will then control.
Every time you place a DVD or VCR that you own or have rented in the devices that you bought, Disney will decide whether you are allowed to watch it, and how many times. Disney will decide whether you may tape shows to watch later, and how many times you can watch them, or when they will become unwatchable, or even if you can watch them at all.
They will assume that you are a thief, and they will stop you from watching anything that you cannot absolutely prove that you have paid for. If there is any doubt, your screen will go blank, and you will have no right of reply, or opportunity to prove your innocence.
And the best part is that they will make you pay for the new hardware that will enable this.
Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi (Score:2, Interesting)
--
My
Don't forget to sign the petitions.. (Score:2, Informative)
(20..19..18..17...)
Re:Don't forget to sign the petitions.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Don't forget to sign the petitions.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Sky is Falling.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Sky is Falling.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Thank GOD! (Score:2)
Furthermore, conservative judges tend to be strict constitutionalists (they've been striking down laws right and left not because they're bad laws, but because they are not permitted by the constitution. A recent example is a law against spousal abuse. Because it does not affect interstate commerce, they decreed that it was under state, rather than federal, jurisdiction). Liberal judges, otoh, tend to do more moral wrangling. Roe vs. Wade is a classic example of a liberal Supreme Court decision. Most of us are very happy with the outcome, but I think it's pretty obvious that the decision was was on exceedingly thin legal ground.
Re:The Sky is Falling.... (Score:2)
Re:The Sky is Falling.... (Score:2)
If they really had to get involved they could have settled things with a toin coss. It happens in local elections occasionaly when there is a tie. I used to feel that it was an interesting paradox that the greatest defender of liberty in the United States was a lifelong appointed non-democratic division. They have earned the unending contempt of anyone who ever believed that the Supreme Court can be depended upon
Re:The Sky is Falling.... (Score:2)
Also, the Warren court is often critisized for its soliciting cases so it could set essentialy legislate through litigation, which is a large breach of Judicial authority.
They made some ground breaking decisions, and most of them I wouldn't argue with.
The President selects, congress accepts, and they judge according to their own values. Its sane and rational. I've found that there are a large number of people that argue with that process only becuase they didn't get to decide who would be the justice. (I feel that way many times myself.)
Re:The Sky is Falling.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Sky is Falling.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Sky is Falling.... (Score:2)
Huh? Ashcroft is still bitching that his laws haven't been passed yet. (Which don't mention encryption at all, BTW, though that's a frequent bugaboo of the /. crowd, myself included.)
Re:The Sky is Falling.... (Score:2)
And don't forget, a large part of the damage these laws do is merely forcing someone to go to court. That can bankrupt many of the smaller players these laws are enforced against, irregardless of any legitimacy or the law. Thus do the bad laws get enforced anyway, as people try to avoid any actions that might possibly lead to a lawsuit.
Thus, in practice, the checks and balances have been bypassed and are obsolete. Time to come up with a new system, I say.
So, who has the better lobbyists? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Jack Valenti can go to hell. (Score:4, Funny)
That's funny. Now, I could have sworn that the internet came to be the world-altering sucess it is today due to open standards and a lack of control. But hey, who knows, maybe I just need to go take my soma and follow the MPAA/RIAA party line? yeah.
- Cheers,
- RLJ
Re:Jack Valenti can go to hell. (Score:2)
Re:Jack Valenti can go to hell. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Jack Valenti can go to hell. (Score:2)
Yup. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I actually like to pay for quality content - even though I no longer have to. Also I like to leech, watch and discard bad content, because I know that deep down, it bothers some weasel in an expensive suit who's actually convinced himself that if my only choice was to have paid for it I would have done so.
Perhaps the biggest mistake we make is to watch, rent and buy appalingly shoddy and cynical movies and albums. If we only supported good content, maybe we'd get our message across. At the moment, all we're saying is that we're big dumb walking wallets who will spend a fixed amount of money on the least-bad content offered to us.
So, the next time you go to the movies and there's nothing good on, consider seeing nothing. It'll cleanse your soul.
United we stand... (Score:2, Informative)
Write Your Representative [house.gov]
Write Your Senator [senate.gov]
Keep our rights alive!
A way to cash in big: (Score:3, Funny)
2. Support this legislation and await its passage.
3. Rake in the money selling "r@r3 pre-ban computers with CD-R drives" on eBay based on the grandfathering in section 101.
4. (optional) Spend the money you made to vacation somewhere and reminisce about the day when information wanted to be free.
Is this stuff really worth protecting?? (Score:2, Funny)
Such as 'Driven,' 'Spy Kids,' or any of the other facile, intellectually insulting drivel these people put out on a predictable basis? Seeing this constant stream of unadulterated crap described as "valuable creative work" makes me almost as nauseous as watching the stuff in the first place!
Flamer Disclaimer: Yes, yes, yes. I know I don't have to watch it. Easy, cheap date for the wife/kids, though.
So why not just go "analog"? (Score:2, Interesting)
That way, the input to PVR or set-top box would be analog thus exempting it from the legislation.
Whatcha think?
Re:So why not just go "analog"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So why not just go "analog"? (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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
Schneier's doing good work (Score:5, Interesting)
Schneier speaking on DMCA & SSSCA in Minneapol (Score:2)
We plan to make audio and maybe video of the talks available online for those of you who aren't in MN. Perhaps Slashdot will carry a link when it's available.
For more info, check out the Minnesotans for Fair Copyright [yahoo.com] mailing list.
Deep pockets on both sides of this, which is good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Deep pockets on both sides of this, which is go (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Deep pockets on both sides of this, which is go (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Why Divx Really Failed (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Deep pockets on both sides of this, which is go (Score:2)
Re:Deep pockets on both sides of this, which is go (Score:2)
Jack on Crack! (Score:2)
Lemme get this straight - locking down all consumer hardware, banning the PC, and doing it all to prevent people from getting any use out of P2P networks for file-sharing.
So - in order to "expand broadband access", we not only kill Napster (which was arguably the "killer app" that drove people to demand broadband access at home) - we also now want to kill the PCs on which any application can run.
Well, I suppose if nobody uses broadband for themselves, that leaves more dark fiber available to Hollyweird.
But it smacks a little too much of "we had to destroy the village to save it" for my tastes.
(Of course, we all know this is exactly what Jack wants. To which I say "Fuck you, Jack. Fuck you with a wire brush. You and your partner in oligopoly, Ms. Rosen, are cordially invited to tongue my hot sweaty bag.")
I was half-joking when I suggested scouring the surplus shops for spare PCs to last us through the coming Dark Ages. I'm no longer joking. If your "new PC" budget is $2000, don't buy a $2000 PC. Buy four $500 PCs - with non-CPRM hard drives, flashable-firmware DVD-ROMs, and CD/RWs. Because the hardware you buy over the next 2 years may very well have to last you the rest of your life.
Fuck you, Jack.
Hey kids! Click here to win a prize!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Hey kids - you know that stealing and breaking the law is a bad thing? I thought you did. So, here's how you can do the right thing and win a prize. If you tell M*ck*y what movies, music, or game your parents have copied, we'll send you a prize!
Hehehehe...
Actual Information (Score:3, Informative)
Will this cause the US to lose its economic lead? (Score:2, Interesting)
Haven't your maggots (er, politicians) got bigger things on their plate too?
I wouldn't hold your breath (Score:2)
1) US Congress signs unconstitutional law into existance (See DMCA.)
2) US Pressures other WTO countries into signing treaties making these laws pertain to their own homelands.
3) US Supreme court declares the law unconstituional.
4) Other countries are now stuck supporting IP laws which help keep them in the information economy third world.
So you see, this is actually an evil plan to fuck the rest of the world over and maintain the US technical edge.
Re:Will this cause the US to lose its economic lea (Score:2)
you can bet your ass corporation will push this in Britain. I would be surprised if there not doing so right now under some other guise.
Microsoft's dream come true!! (Score:4, Informative)
Don't let free software get destroyed by this clause, which seems obviously bought and paid for by Microsoft!
Questions (Score:2)
Letter I sent to 60+ senators--do the same! (Score:5, Insightful)
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. Discussion1 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.
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=10
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,
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:
D. Conclusion
You have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Copyright law should be returned to its Constitutional limits.
What does the rest of the industry think? (Score:3)
This law, if it passes, will make impossible any real innovation in software development or networking technology. This would harm not only OEMs and other computer companies, it would harm the complete industry.
I don't even think Microsoft will like it. Sure, it might be a temporary advantage for them, as their Media Player already includes usage control technology. But what about their long-term visions [slashdot.org]? I wonder how they'll implement things like seamless distribution or storage- and location-irrelevance while at the same time making sure that the data stays where the RIAA wants it.
What does IBM think about this bill? They invested a lot of money in Linux, what do they think about Linux becoming illegal?
Sun's vision -- "The network is the computer" -- will effectively be impossible to realize if you can't store data "on the network" but must control where exactly it is.
In fact, the SSSCA denies the idea of a networked computer in favor of computers which are reduced to media player devices. The idea of being attached to a network is no longer communication, it is to be able to receive and pay for content. The media industry's vision is to turn computers into televisions, and this law is another step in making that vision a reality. I can imagine the RIAA and MPAA love the idea, but I have no idea why anyone in the computer industry (or any other industry) can support it.
The article talks about OEMs, does anyone know what the other industries, and big computer corporations like the three mentioned above think about this bill?
Re:What does the rest of the industry think? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:What does the rest of the industry think? (Score:2)
-jhp
Dying industry? Poor management? No innovation! (Score:2)
Look at ANY company you've seen (ok aside from microsoft
The only difference is now they still have a lot of cashflow and influence... If they would be fair, they'd developp a system WITH encryption and an honnor thing like you download the movie, you pay 2$, you watch it, it gets deleted or scrambled 48 hours later... what's bad about that? they generate a pile of money, they could sell that system to places like blockbusters, the technology exists, it's feasible (dvd-rw, cd-rw, whatever media), and people WOULD support it. Heck, I'd even support at 100% arresting someone who hacks these CD for a fraudulent usage because that would be really low, I do accept they have to generate income and protect their content, but not by doublecrossing us and limiting our use of a computer.
Now shoving a bill and using criminal laws to shove content up our butt is quite insulting, and will get the exact opposed reaction.
Keep It Simple (Score:3, Redundant)
Secondly: the problem is that the general public won't care unless they see how this will hurt concretely; for this, the question needs to be strippend down to its essentials, which are nontechnical.
So let's do ourselves a favor. Forget all the beloved technical jargon we like to wrap these discussions in. Concentrate on something simple like email, which people know about, care for and roughly understand, and which already exhibits all aspects of the problem. Now publically ask Senators Hollings and Stevens and other backers of the proposal elementary questions like this:
Re:Keep It Simple (Score:2)
When Jack plays the song, the decrypted version exists briefly in computer hardware. The intent of this law and associated technologies is to stop Jack from intercepting this decrypted information.
Essentially the computer is divided into two compartments, Red and Black. Black can connect to the internet, and the user has complete control over Black. Red is secured. Black can stick protected material into Red, and delete material in Red. Black can list, play, pause, stop material in Red. Email is a function of Black. It has no effect on the security of Red.
WOAH Everybody... Chill!! (Score:2, Insightful)
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!
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
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
Re:WOAH Everybody... Chill!! (Score:2)
But of course, your point #2 simply reveals you as a simple troll. If the majority accepts the elimination of fair-use, then those of us who complain are criminals? Is that your point? Do you really think that all citizens can be grouped into A) Those who blindly accept any new restrictions place upon them and B) criminals?
Re:WOAH Everybody... Chill!! (Score:2)
DVD CSS did not inherently rely on STO. It was broken due to a bad, homemade cipher and the greedy decision to allow software implementations of a DVD player.
No it doesn't. The video hardware can do the MPEG decoding. It can do decryption too. The general purpose computer simply feeds data to the trusted subsystem. There is no need for the computer to have access to the decrypted data.
This law is insanely broad and could well ban Linux. However it is quite possible to have strong, highly restrictive content control that works just fine with Linux. It's based on trusting hardware, not software.
The red light known as constitutionality... (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.....
No such thing as "privacy of your home" anymore... (Score:2)
There is a trade-off here - the content creators are encouraged to produce content and make it public in some form, opening it to the possibility of unlawful distribution, while we can benefit from this content, but are in turn required by law to respect the creator's rights to control first sale distribution and in some cases derivative works. Recent laws seem to be taking away the potential for benefit from produced content while also enacting stricter regulations on and penalties for unlawful redistribution. In other words, creators/providers win on both counts, citizens/consumers lose on both counts.
Another reminder to write (physical mail) (Score:5, Informative)
Find your congressman and senators, write them letters, and mail them. Mail your own representatives. As a voter in their district you matter most to them. (Email is much less effective. They know about spam just like you do.) Whenever this issue moves into another stage (e.g., draft, committee, floor) write another.
If you want handbooks, check out Congressional Quarterly. The book Lobbying Congress, How the system works is quite relevant, although perhaps disturbing to some. It was written by lobbyists for lobbyists. You will also get other relevant hits with a "lobbying congress" query on Amazon.
Findings? We don't need no steenking findings! (Score:2, Insightful)
Here is what's going to happen (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Support the EFF, write your Congresscritters (Score:4, Informative)
We can stand around all day and yammer, but the more of us who write *and* call our Congressfolks, the more our voices are heard.
This is aimed at the average consumer (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Moore's Law (Score:2)
The content will be encrypted. Only the trusted hardware (video card) can decrypt it. The virtual machine doesn't help any if the content is encrypted and you don't have the decryption keys.
Grandfathered (Score:2)
> will be illegal
Nope. Read the proposal. They're grandfathered in.
Anti-SSSCA task force (Score:4, Informative)
As a German... (Score:2)
Re:As a German... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
When videos are outlawed... (Score:2, Funny)
Naaahhhh. America's been turned into a nation of sheep.
I see a Future... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:I see a Future... (Score:2)
And it will probably be illegal to even have a bible.
Take a deep breath folks (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Hmmm... this affects EVERYTHING! (Score:2)
How will industrial factories be affected by this? Will industrial machine control systems be required to contain MPAA/RIAA-approved hardware and software? (Yes; Geeks always use industrial machines to pirate music.)
How will medical systems be affected by this? Will every computerized medical device contain MPAA/RIAA-approved hardware and software? (Yes; Geeks always use medical devices to pirate music.)
How will the automotive industry be affected by this? Will emissions control computers be required to contain MPAA/RIAA-approved hardware and software? (Yes; Geeks always use their distance-speed sensor to pirate music.)
How will NASA be affected by this? Will new satellites be required to contain MPAA/RIAA-approved hardware and software? (Yes; Geeks have always pirated music through Voyager II.)
How will airlines be affected by this? Will new flight control systems and air traffic control towers be required to contain MPAA/RIAA-approved hardware and software? (Yes; Geeks use box-cutters to pirate music through airline communication systems.)
How will handheld calculators be affected by this? Will calculators be required to contain MPAA/RIAA-approved hardware and software? (Yes; Real Geeks have always computed the MPEG encoding manually.)
I have a better solution: Let's just have sensors with satellite-phone transmitters installed directly in our brains. These sensors will contact the gestapo whenever we think about viewing or listening to content without first paying the copyright holder for each instance.
CONGRESS.SYS corrupt. Reboot Washington DC? (Y/n)