SSSCA Editorials 234
idiotnot writes: "This editorial from the New York Times, by Jonathan L. Zittrain, a professor at Harvard Law School, urges legislators to exercise caution in regulating the PC. Eisner, et. al. want to limit the PC's capability, which will limit what PC users are allowed to do. See this earlier story about Eisner's testimony to Congress. '[W]e should beware the haste with which some would sacrifice flexibility for control.'" Other readers submitted a story in Hardware Central and an AP article. Seems like the ruckus over the SSSCA is finally reaching the mainstream press.
So that's what he meant (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So that's what he meant (Score:1)
I haven't heard many people say they used MS products for... flexibility? It's usually because of "features" or "benefits" that the software has over other alternatives.
-Sara
Re:So that's what he meant (Score:1)
Changing the region is not illegal! Microsoft has the legal clout to do what's best for their customers (not enforce RCP2), and it annoys me when they don't.
Re:So that's what he meant (Score:1)
From your description it sounds as if it happens completely within the DVD player's bios - the DVD has its region encoded, the player knows what regions it can play and will either play the DVD or not.
Re:So that's what he meant (Score:1)
Paul Graves had good things to say about your site. I never saw it when it was up. Are you doing anything now?
Re:So that's what he meant (Score:4, Informative)
> Umm I hate to tell you this, Microsoft actually is against this as a law.
> Maybe you should read the press releases more.
Maybe you should read up on Microsoft's patents more. Here's one that might interest you: Patent # 6,330,670; "Digital rights management operating system"; dated December 11, 2001. You can read all the gory details at:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1
Really, Microsoft would have to come out publicly opposing SSSCA. The first time round (last fall), they didn't have the above patent. This second time round, they have the patent, but Enron happened. Microsoft has paid out two to three times the campaign contributions as Enron, and probably can't afford to be caught paying for and then embracing and extending SSSCA into its total and eternal dominion of the operating system market for all devices.
So Microsoft quietly grumbles and complains, all the while letting the MPAA and RIAA do its dirty work. When SSSCA passes, Microsoft brings out its DRMOS patent, and forces its competitors (Linux, OS X, etc.) to license it (and embrace IE,
We've got 12 to 18 months to stop SSSCA. That's how long Senator Hollings is giving the industry to comply voluntarily (as if an already wounded industry should further cripple itself to serve the fat sharks of Hollywood!). Fight it! Writing your congress critters is good. Telling all your friends and family, writing letters and press releases to your local papers, writing articles for news sites, etc. is better. Get the word out to ordinary folks in a way they can understand. That way, both you and all of them can write their congress critters. With enough public outcry, this nightmare of a law might be stopped for good!
Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have got to pay!
New Kirk calling Mothra, "We need you today!"
I've written my representatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've written my representatives (Score:1)
Re:I've written my representatives (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're representatives aren't listening to their constituents, then who *are* they listening to?...
One thing to note, though...Since the recent anthrax scares, many representatives aren't reading their paper mail, and much of congress is behind the times w/r/t email. Try sending a fax instead.
Re:I've written my representatives (Score:2)
Just got a reply today via snail mail from one of my senators. The message I got back from John Ensign's office, while a bit more than a quick note (it spilled over onto a second page), seemed a bit noncommittal. While I doubt that he's in Hollyweird's pocket (Republicans tend to not have much use for those types), I would've liked a more forceful response. (It was mainly a rehash of the DMCA, SSSCA, and similar measures...stuff I already knew, and the letter even acknowledged that.)
All I've seen from Harry Reid's office so far, OTOH, is an auto-response from the mail server that they received a message. Given that Ensign is on the commerce committee and Reid isn't, that might not be too big a deal at this point. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a favorable reply, though, given that he's the #2 Democrat in the Senate. I'm sure that when the time comes, the Hollyweird types will be all over him to get him to do their bidding...just as they've already bought Fritz Hollings.
(I blame Vermont for this mess. If Jumpin' Jim Jeffords had stayed with the people who put him in the Senate, we wouldn't have an idiot like Hollings in a position to introduce such a crappy piece of legislation as the SSSCA.)
Re:I've written my representatives (Score:1)
Maybe so... but then again... If not him, there's always some other monkey willing to jump through hoops to further its career.
Jumpin Jim Jeffords (Score:2)
Blame instead the Religious Right, who have been transforming the Rupublican Party into something Jeffords no longer could reconcile with his conservative-centrist views. I'm an Independent, have never registered with any party, and never will. I vote for whomever I think/feel will do the best job, regardless of party affiliations. That includes Jim Jeffords.
Re:I've written my representatives (Score:2)
And the folk who gave us the DMCA would be? Oh yes thats right, Orin Hatch and the GOP.
OK so Hatch has since discovered that the RIAA lied to him repeatedly and took him for a fool, but the fact is that the GOP record on this issue is no better.
It is Ashcroft's 'justice' dept that has been out to make 'high proile arrests' to enforce DMCA.
I don't think this is a left/right issue at all. This is a donor/citizen issue. Hollings and his cronies in the Senate care more about the interests of the donors than the voters.
As for Jeffords, put the blame where it belongs. GWB began his term of office in the most divisive and partisan manner imaginable. Jeffords had run as a moderate conservative, not as an extreemist.
Re:I've written my representatives (Score:3, Informative)
The best method is to try and arrange a face to face meeting with your Rep. Calling on the phone, come next, followed by writting and lastly e-mail. Basically, the more effort it is the more effective it is. If you are willing to travel to washington or arrange a meeting with your Rep. when they are at home, they will realize that what ever issue you want to discuss is very important to you.
Re:I've written my representatives (Score:4, Insightful)
My open letter to my representatives goes into quite a few separate objections to the SSSCA (and why the DMCA was broken). It's eight paper pages long, going into extra details and speaking plainly since it's also intended for a wider audience. It covers scope, civil, business, technical and motive objections to such legislation.
If you're writing to your representatives, you may want to read my letter for additional arguments on the topic. A couple of the court case mentions are slightly out of date now, as it was originally written last October.
It is posted online at http://www.halley.cc/ed/politics/2001-10-22.conten t.control.html [halley.cc]. Comments always appreciated.
Re:I've written my representatives (Score:2)
You've just guaranteed that none of your representatives will actually read your letter. Eight pages long?? You've done the exact opposite of what you should have done. When writing to Washington, the cardinal rule is concise, Concise, CONCISE!! They don't give a damn about your interpretation of the motivations for such legislation - they have lawyers for that. All they want to know is Yes or No, Do you support it?
Your representatives most likely receive hundreds of letters a day. In the time they spend reading your eight page monstrosity, they could read letters from ten other people. Think they'll read your's? Think again.
You want your voice heard? Tell them you don't support the SSSCA b/c it doesn't allow for a balance b/w business interests and fair use interests, b/c it will have a negative effect on self-publication in the arts, b/c it will stiffle innovation in the tech industry and cause us to lose our place as leaders in technology to countries like Japan, China, and India. See? Nice and concise. (And that last point will definitely get their attention!)
Re:I've written my representatives (Score:2)
You've just guaranteed that none of your representatives will actually read your letter. Eight pages long??
Did you read the fucking page?
Up front, page one, for the staff who tallies feedback:
Regarding any bills such as the SSSCA proposed by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC).
Do not pass legislation that erodes civil rights in exchange for corporate profiteering.
Do not pass legislation that disregards established fair use doctrine and stifles technical innovation.
Detailed reasoning for my position is included within. Please consider.
I then give enough details that other staff may flip through when (1) looking for "constituent sentiment" soundbites, and (2) looking for coherent industry voices in their district. I also say up front that it's an open letter which has gotten some press on other sites. If news percolates widely enough, it forms a feedback cycle, whereby the staff takes a second look, etc.
So now we know who reads and who doesn't. You may not feel like you can be bothered with someone's opinion, but you founded one assumption (that reps don't read) on another (that you thought I didn't know that). You came up short.
Re:I've written my representatives (Score:2, Informative)
Yes I read it, but I missed your summary (scanned the header and got right to the meat of it!)
It wasn't a matter of being bothered by someone else's opinion - I agree wholeheartedly with your position and you make good arguments - but rather with some of the atrocious open letters that some
But you have good reasons for the length, particularly as a tool for sparking discussion as you do distill the best arguments against SSSCA. So mea culpa, I stand corrected.
text of article (Score:2, Informative)
Of course they didn't quite phrase it that way. Michael Eisner, chief executive of the Walt Disney Company, complained that the technology industry made it too easy for "people wanting to get anything for free on their television or computer or hand-held device." Peter Chernin, president of the News Corporation, worried that the Internet's "ability to empower the general public" would lead to the online theft of some of the contents of media companies' digital treasuries.
Both men want the next generation of personal computers to be unable to deliver unauthorized movies, music and other content, and they asked that Congress stand ready to intervene if industry failed to deliver the necessary technology to safeguard its products. A lone executive, from Intel, objected. The market, he said, not Congress, should dictate how technology works.
The debate on Capitol Hill between content providers like Disney and those who make the products to deliver that content, like Intel, was really a proxy for a much larger debate: What do we want our technology to do? How do we want it to work? And do we have any say in the matter?
For most forms of current technology, these questions have long been settled. No executives are worried about illegal uses of televisions or coffee makers, for instance, and no consumers need to worry that these appliances will crash or become infected with viruses and we would never accept it if they did. Our TV's and VCR's don't take ill when we watch infected programs, and our refrigerators never require rebooting.
Yet we have come to tolerate such problems from our personal computers. The PC's fundamental and unique unreliability flows from its construction as a so-called flexible platform a mere staging area for many kinds of software. The point (and bane) of a PC is, essentially, to run whatever software it encounters.
There are plenty of reliable computers: the controls of the modern Airbus 340 are fully given over to a computer, and video-game consoles consistently work as advertised, as do Aegis missile cruisers, cellular telephones and digital watches. All contain transistors. Can technologists figure out how to replicate the reliability of airplanes, telephones, watches and televisions in future versions of Windows and Linux, so that a mischievous 12-year-old half a world away can't erase a thousand far-flung hard drives?
Absolutely. In January Bill Gates sent a memo to all Microsoft employees declaring a new, overarching, even revolutionary mandate: Software must be reliable and "trustworthy." This new focus is both welcome and worrisome, because the very steps needed to secure our computers and networks can be the steps that will deaden them to continued innovation and creative uses while opening them to more intrusive monitoring by mainstream technology manufacturers and content providers.
Mr. Gates and the co-captains of his industry are producing blueprints for so-called "trusted" PC's. They will employ digital gatekeepers that act like the bouncers outside a nightclub, ensuring that only software that looks or behaves a certain way is allowed in. The result will be more reliable computing and more control over the machine by the manufacturer or operating system maker, which essentially gives the bouncer her guest list.
And as soon as there are limits on the software a PC can run, there will be limits on what PC users can do. That's exactly what executives like Mr. Eisner and Mr. Chernin want. They'd like software and hardware companies to build PC's to allow a publisher an exquisite level of control over a book or a song or a movie in the hands of a consumer. Trusted PC users might spend $1.95 for a single viewing of the latest Disney animated feature, or they might pay a similar amount for three listens of U2's most recent single. Security, stability, reliability and control.
Users may buy a trusted PC even if it won't show a digital video lent by a friend, because it will act less like a temperamental computer and more like a crash-free super-VCR like the just-released Microsoft X-box. But in the process of "improving" our PC's, the manufacturers and their partners will be able to determine what software will and won't be allowed to run, what we can and can't do with the information to which we're exposed, and what data about our online activities will be collected and sent to the manufacturer or content provider to assist in future marketing.
Re:text of article (Score:1)
I can't really comment on the Aegis missile cruisers, but man, where has this guy been? He must not actually own any video games or a cell phone. When you get down to it, is there really a difference between your PS2 and your PC (aside from a bit less complexity)?
Am I the only one thinking "network computer"? (Score:2)
They *aren't* ubiquitous, despite being available more cheaply than PCs and offering more manageability and lower costs to corporations. This says to me *the public don't want it*.
The media companies want to limit access to their content? What's to stop them using the network computers that already exist and simply limit their content to those platforms? It could be done *right now* without the need for legislation.
Re:text of article (Score:2)
There are plenty of reliable computers: the controls of the modern Airbus 340 are fully given over to a computer, and video-game consoles consistently work as advertised, as do Aegis missile cruisers, cellular telephones and digital watches
I'm afraid these are terrible examples.
Airbuses have been using digital flight controls for a while, and several crashes have been influenced by them. (See comp.risks back issues for details.)
Video game consoles crash often enough to be a problem: I've never seen all three consoles at the local software place working at the same time. (Interestingly, I've never seen the XBox down, but the GameCube and PS2 are often kaput.)
The Aegis software worked exactly as designed on the Vincennes, except that the UI was so bad the sailors couldn't tell that the target was climbing, not descending. I don't think shooting down civilian airliners counts as reliable.
Even the (Dish Network) receiver on my TV needs rebooting about once a month. (Can't speak for cellphones: I stay as far away from them as possible.)
And as the article point out, these are all dedicated purpose machines: nobody's loading Morpheus onto the Airbus flight control system. Getting true reliability for a general purpose machine is damn hard.
Eric
Re:text of article (Score:2)
Also cases of aircaft behaving so strangely that not crashing is actually suprising...
The Aegis software worked exactly as designed on the Vincennes, except that the UI was so bad the sailors couldn't tell that the target was climbing, not descending.
Plenty of cases of military radar systems not working as they should do in the middle of a real shooting war. e.g. the Sea Dart system on HMS Coventry. Also turns out that the Patriot missile system used in the Gulf war wasn't as effective as was claimed at the time, more that the Scuds were an utterly awful missile system.
Even the (Dish Network) receiver on my TV needs rebooting about once a month. (Can't speak for cellphones: I stay as far away from them as possible.)
Nokia released a phone which can lock up completly.
Re:text of article (Score:2)
Wonder why they think the American consumer is more of a threat than the rather greater number of people in the rest of the world who generally want much the same things...
Re:text of article (Score:2, Insightful)
After reading the article for the fourth time, I have come to the conclusion that this Harvard Expert must be one of the many Business orientated technophobes that litter the technology community by virtue of their appointment to some board or company due to their business expertise. His article makes little sense when he goes and compares the operating system of a computer to the hardware of a refrigerator. Its not a fare comparison, akin to that of apples to oranges. Since I am not a console gamer(Never owned one, never will.. Not till that PS9{the brain spore one} comes out:P) I cant claim the reliability of a console to a PC, except on the rare occasion of watching a peer in the heat of the action just to be caught by a bug in a game. (thats not to say that never happened to me in a PC Game...)
Aaanyway.. It just seems to me that this content lockdown, wether the author is for or against it, is in general a bad idea, not for the PC manufacturer, but more for the content creator. Since the begining of the computer age home brew systems have existed, and if this comes into being, that community will see a resurgence in popularity (not that it never died). I forsee, in the event of this highly unlikely situation, that systems designed from currently available "legacy" hardware using "alternative" operating systems will become common place, to a level equal to, if not superior to the major PC manufacturers of today. Maybe I'm Right, maybe I'm wrong, but I predict that if this does happen, not only will content creation companies lose cash buy the truck load from all their lobbying, they will lose support from the all important consumer because I know I am not the only one who sees this as an infringment on the basic freedoms of a United States Citizen. It can not be a proactive activity to choke out software and media development and place it in the hands of the few mighty.
This post seems to be rambling on, so I will sum it up in one clean sentence: If this happens, The world will never be the same again!
NYT Login (Score:2, Informative)
Re:NYT Login (Score:1)
joe sixpack (Score:3, Interesting)
unfortunately, the tactic used in the poast has been to ust gradually reduce the feature set of the products gradually so that he never notices.
hopefully the best hope on this is the quandary seen in companies like sony. Sony music, I believe, grosses 4 billion dollars a year, while Sony Electronics, makers of mp3 players, etc grosses 40 billion dollars. In this case, I wonder which part of the company will win out, given the conflict of interest inside the company.
there are plenty such issues messing up the priorities.
Re:joe sixpack (Score:2)
psxndc
Re:joe sixpack (Score:3, Informative)
Senator Kickback: So, what can you guys offer me?
Recoring Exec:A roofied teenage pop starlet, a sack full of crack, and a job in marketing for your idiot waster nephew.
Electronics Exec: Uh, I dunno, how about a really neat watch that turns into a robot dinosaur?
Consider that internally these departments are knifing each other with merry abandon. Want to bet they can't lobby separately? Then it comes down to who's the more corrupt and ruthless. I know who my money's on.
Are we now so blind to the Constitution (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Are we now so blind to the Constitution (Score:1)
Re:Are we now so blind to the Constitution (Score:2)
those aspects are just a few from the top of my head. there are many more that have been enumerated across other documents on the web about the SSSCA. do a google search and you will find them.
Before you flame (Score:4, Insightful)
Even a professor at Harvard Law School would say something like that! Those guys are supposed to reach a certain degree of clue level. I always think they must be smarter than us in all aspect. Now you can see how serious the matter is - we are surround by professional Cluelessnesses!!
To add insult to injury, they want to redefine the reality to suit their clue level. The worse is that the reality would be changed so that sane people are considered insane and vice versa. It just happens.
Don't just sit there! Write to your senators to voice out your opinions!(write with plain letter, of course)
Re:Before you flame (Score:1)
This has been discussed almost to death, but you shouldn't limit yourself to just snail mail. Especially considering recent events, they may actually prefer email (not to mention it saves trees!). If you bother to write up or put together a well thought out letter, send it to them every way that you can. Each senator may have their own preference as to how they like to receive such things so why not be thorough and make sure they really get it? Just be careful not to send _too_ many copies, thus becoming an annoyance, or they might dismiss them all.
Clue (Score:1)
Mainstream Press Coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully, as more and more editorials criticize this law, the general public will begin to see what is at stake and demand that Congress abandon this Disney law.
It is not the role of the government to protect the revenue streams of industry; but somewhere and somehow this has become their sole occupation. In a democratic free-market, the government should ensure fairness (I'm not a libertarian, I have no belief in an entierly market-based system) - unfortunatly in our system the government seems only concerned with appeasing the largest corporations, with no regard for the people they are presumed to serve.
If we all stand up, and let our politicians know that "enough is enough" hopefully they will change their ways. And it seems like more and more "everyday" people are beginning to make their voice heard (witness protests in Seattle, etc.), but the corporate media does its very best to quiet this dissent.
Unfortunatly the American idea of freedom has been transformed, and what remains is solely a concern with the freedom to make money.
Re:Mainstream Press Coverage (Score:1)
Some of you out there (that haven't already found it) may find this [adbusters.org] to be an interesting read.
Re:Mainstream Press Coverage (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply getting this law abandoned would simply be "winning the battle", in order to "win the war". You'd need a fundermental change in attitude of the US government. But a change which does not require too much loss of face in admitting that all which has been done to aid corporates was wrong (even "Unamerican".)
Unfortunatly the American idea of freedom has been transformed, and what remains is solely a concern with the freedom to make money.
Thing is that this didn't happen "overnight". Things have been going wrong since the nineteenth century. It's also more "freedom for (especially large) corporate entities to make money" than a plain and simple "freedome to make money".
Whilst it dosn't actually say it anywhere this "Digital Rights Management" is clearly not intended for the "little guy" to use to bypass or even directly oppose the existing publishing industry...
Re:Mainstream Press Coverage (Score:2)
I thought the article missed the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the article missed the point. Many people are going to come away from reading it thinking, "I don't want one of these crippled computers, so I won't buy one, no matter how much I see ads for them." They aren't going to appreciate the fact that the media companies don't want this to be a choice we have--they want to ram these things down our throats. They know damn well that, given the choice, no one will want them, so they want to pass a law like the SSSCA to force the issue. That is what people need to understand.
But this article is a great opportunity for anyone interested to write a letter to the editor of the Times. Getting published won't be easy, but it's possible, now more so than ever, since the paper has given this issue publicity. So if you want to write, here's your chance. They have an e-mail address for submissions:
letters at nytimes dot com (munged to prevet spam)
I wasn't able to locate a postal address on the Web site for letters to the editor, but maybe someone else will have that available and post it here.
Re:I thought the article missed the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is still missed; everybody is talking about computers, dvd player, mp3 players, video games ect. But when you actualy read the act it in only refers to digital interactive devices. Sorry guys but that also includes my wrist watch (it has a chip and two buttons) as well as my car, (a computer and many buttons).
Also the impression I get is that the act treats hardware/software combinations as a system; so they may be able to treat an upgrade/patch as a change requiring the whole system to be re-certified. This certification is going to be expensive Do we believe that Redhat is going to spend millions to get their latest/greatest version certified or that Microsoft will be able to?
Grandfatering will not help much either because sooner or later something is going to break, and the repair or patch will make it a new system and then it falls under the law.
Re:I thought the article missed the point. (Score:2)
It includes the radio in your car, your television, your cellphone, your fixed line phone, etc.
NYT Letter to Editor info (Score:2, Informative)
Letters to the Times should only be sent to the Times, and not to other publications. We do not publish open letters or third-party letters. When writing be certain to include your name, address and a daytime and evening phone number. Letters should be limited to about 150 words. We regret we cannot return or acknowledge unpublished letters. Writers of those letters selected for publication will be notified within a week.
Letters may be shortened for space requirements.
To e-mail a letter to the editor, write to letters@nytimes.com
You may also send your letter to:
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
fax: (212) 556-3622
Re:I thought the article missed the point. (Score:2)
Working on it now. I hope others are doing the same.
Ad Absurdum and the SSSCA (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously! Wouldn't this be incredibly efficient? Isn't this the logical conclusion of laws that are designed to guarantee profits for a particular group?
Re:Ad Absurdum and the SSSCA (Score:1)
that's getting to close to Communism and we all know americans hate that !
The state is not suposed to provide support and income directly to unemployable individuals like musicians like that
America the land of the Free, heh
FBI, NSA, CIA, ATF, SS - you have more secret police than anywhere else
If it wasn't for those nutcases hoarding firearms and undereducated criminals the government couldn't even justify having that many ( after all educated criminals get jobs as CEOs or record execs and then they can't be stoped....)
America pushing this crap on the rest of the world generate bad feeling everywhere.
It really pisses me off when america Passes laws that affect stuff in other countrys without any thought - hell I can't vote them out!
Re:Ad Absurdum and the SSSCA (Score:2)
Yes, it would be. Unfortunately it would be too efficient for those in power (I mean the likes of the record intustry execs, not their puppets in Washington), because it would cut them out completely, allowing the creators a direct path to their readers/listeners and guaranteeing them an income.
Re:Ad Absurdum and the SSSCA (Score:2)
No no, this would have to be a direct flat tax. Income irrelevant. Even the poor gotta listen to tunes, right? The deaf too, even people without kids have to pay for the taxes that fund schools, right? Direct from your pockets to thiers. After all, they've EARNED it, right?
Re:Ad Absurdum is a logical fallacy (Score:2)
It was supposed to be kind of ironic and sarcastic, actually, not really an argument.
Bring it on! (Score:2, Funny)
New slashdot pole! (Score:1)
If the US gov had to sacrfice an industry, which one should it be?
1)Movie/Record
2)Electronics/software
3)Cowbo
I wonder what the results would be if someone sponsored a real poll like this (minus #3) nationwide?
Maskirovka
Re:New slashdot pole! (Score:1)
1) Light entertainment (pick up a book)
2) Life as we know it.
In all honesty how many people could actually live a normal (or not depending on what you prefer) life, with no electronic devices at all. Think major infrastructure, street and traffic lights for example??
To go to less of an extreme, what about if technology stopped here. How long would it be until we had polluted this planet so much we were all dead?
Contact your Senators (Score:1)
Re:Contact your Senators_YRO bill builder (Score:1)
I'm beginning to think that a
imagine a
*feasibility
*cost (how to finance law)
*repercussions
*forces
*punishment (no punishment= no teeth in law)
*specify agency for enforcement (no jaw for the teeth, see above)
This is about YRO, why not a bill builder for
Put it to use.
DGD
Workable DRM? (Score:5, Informative)
For example, I have no conceptual problem with restricting some traditional fair-use rights when it comes to renting movies. I don't think a renter needs the ability to copy the movie for either time-shifting or back-up purposes. Congress started with that basic thought, and ended up with section K of the DMCA that required copy protection on all new VCR's (CopyGuard/MacroVision). The problem is that the movie industry promptly screwed the consumer!
* They put copy protection on all tapes (and DVDs), not just ones for rental.
* The copy protection removes fair-use (that I think) should still be available in a rental situation: such as "quoting" a section of a movie for review or analysis.
* The copy protection does not expire once the movie becomes public domain, an issue that will cause our future historians fits!
Most the DRM systems I've seen proposed eliminate most of the rights/benefits consumers (and society) normally have under traditional copyright law. If the DRM clauses were put into a "shrinkwrap" contract, they would be ruled unenforceable (for example the courts quashed the publishers attempt to enforce a "do not resell" notice in a book). A DRM system combined with the DMCA anti-circumvention measures puts the consumer at the mercy of the system designer. Your only option is to not buy it, which may mean going without since the publishers/recording-industry are going to be loathe to make any non-DRM content available.
Ignoring all the practical issues with the SSSCA for a moment (and there are a bunch!), the only way the bill should proceed is if it guarantees that no DRM will hamper or eliminate rights in the copyright balance. I'm not talking about Disney's definition of fair-use either (which as best I can tell, is something to the effect that Disney can use public-domain material, but does not have to release any of it's own work into the public domain). To take my rental example, the DRM would have to find some way to accommodate all three bullets (not an easy thing to do).
To be fair, another slant on this is the definition of new "relationships". We can now think of two normal methods of obtaining a movie for example: "purchase" and "rental". The DRM proponents are trying to make new workable models. The original idea behind DIVX went something like this: Electricity used to be charged based on capacity. Edison would count the number of lights in your house, and set the monthly charge based on the potential capacity of how much electricity you might use. Once they designed a power meter (a very tricky area, even now), they could dramatically lower the prices and only charge you for the electricity that you used. DIVX would allow a very low charge per use (planned to be lower than a traditional rental charge), instead of a one-size-fits-all purchase price.
The DIVX problems make a good illustration for almost all the DRM schemes I've seen. I never heard of DIVX being cracked. Secure client software backed up with a centrally managed server can make things pretty bullet proof (up to the point it converts to something outside of the DRM scheme). But security aside, DIVX had a whole host of problems, which frankly I don't know of a way to get past. Aside: I've considered job offers at today's DRM companies, but many of them are just too sleazy. The typical attitude is that public domain and fair-use is unimportant - the copyright holders content needs to be protected at all costs!
* The most obvious issue, is that once the central DIVX system died, all the media became useless. This is the single largest issue with DRM.
* The discs were too machine specific (they did have some theoretical "sharing pool" for people who had multiple DIVX players, which I'm not sure how well it worked). Even if you paid for a life-time access (see above), you could not play the disc on your neighbor's machine.
* There was a large potential for "marketing abuse", since they had to identify each item played on the machine (they would know who played what media, how many times, etc.). Your only protection was voluntary agreement that the data collected would not be misused.
* You are at the mercy of the DIVX operations staff. They could change the price or terms-of-use any time they wanted to.
As to the practicalities of the SSSCA, I think the closest analog the computer industry has experienced is export regulations. I [unfortunately] have lots of experience of just how bad that can be! I worked for a company that used encryption in virtually all of it's products. We once estimated that approximately 20% of the company's resources were used to deal-with, design, and follow export regulations. Of a hundred employees, "only" 3-4 actually dealt with the regulations daily, but virtually the entire design team had to take them into account. What should have been a single product would be split into multiple products to fit the ever changing interpretations of the regulations (resulting in a dramatic increase in development, testing, manufacturing, and marketing). Believe me, very few people in or out of the industry have any idea of how bad the SSSCA would clog our technology industry up!
Re:Workable DRM? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, we have a situation where it is possible to make copies, one as perfect as the first, no degradation of quality, for almost no cost at all.
How can this be negative? I mean, it should be the best thing since sliced bread! It is absolutely astonishing that technology has progressed this far, it was unthinkable just a few years ago.
This fact that there is no scarcity makes it possible to share everything at no cost. For the first time in history can we share everything we make with everyone.
Ok, so what's the problem? The problem is that people can't envision a viable business model in this kind of society. Especially not the suits. Without a business model, how do you make sure that the creative people can go on being creative?
Ok, so this is the problem. However, enforcing scarcity is just a Wrong Solution[tm]. It is means destroying the most fundamental technological advance that the world has seen in a very long time. You shouldn't do that.
The pornography model (Score:2)
Copy their business model.
Re:Workable DRM? (Score:2)
But it is a hell of an experiment to perform...
Re:Workable DRM? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet despite the fact that the system has been utterly hacked, I would guess that no more than 5% of the viewers are using hacked cards. Why? Mostly because the effort and knowledge required to keep a hacked system going is sufficient that only the dedicated hobbyists will make the effort.
I guess the moral here is that while any secure system can be cracked, it's really only necessary to make the process difficult enough that the average person won't tolerate it to make the system effectively secure.
Re:Workable DRM? (Score:2)
The companies probably spend more money on trying to stop the 5% who hack the equipment then they lost in revenue from those 5%. Most of which probably would not pay for the service anyway. From an economic point of view they should just put in place a simple hurdle to keep joe six-pack from screwing around with his receiver.
I do have to wonder, do the geeks at the satellite companies scream to the upper managment about how they are getting hacked, just to further thier job enjoyment?
~Sean
Re:Workable DRM? (Score:2)
While I agree with most of your points, this one is moot. Thanks to the Bono Act, no copyrighted work will fall into the public domain within our lifetimes (or at least until the revolution comes).
The craziest ideas of the rich get attention. (Score:1, Troll)
It is a world in which the craziest ideas of the rich get a lot of attention. If computers are controlled, there will be kits to build uncontrolled ones from ICs. People will bring in uncontrolled computers across the border. Old, uncontrolled computers, of which there are many tens of millions, will go up in value. People will network their old computers to their new computers, so that they can bypass control.
Personal computers have been one of the best things to come along in many years, and rich people want to destroy the growth.
This idea has the same sensibility as the U.S. government trying to outlaw privacy by trying to outlaw encryption.
The craziness is not limited to issues surrounding copyright. The U.S. government engages in violence to enhance the profits of the weapons manufacturers and oil companies. See What should be the response to violence? [hevanet.com]
Re:The craziest ideas of the rich get attention. (Score:2)
One, since Europe and Canana are going in for the same insanity, Asia will be the fount from all future conmputer innovation springs. This crap simply isn't going to over in large swaths of Asia and it will they who have the cool toys that the rest of us must dream about. As a corollary, tech companies in this country will take a severe beating since no one is going to want to "upgrade" to this crap. Imagine that, my little K6-2 500Mhz will MORE capable than a 4 Ghz Itanium 7 DVD player. This will only have about a million wonderful effects on the economy.
Two, computer technology in the Western world will be quickly degraded back to 1977 levels. Let's face it, a lot of are going to be building computers out of whole cloth in our garages again. We'll probably wind up having to reinvent everything done in the past 25 years once the insanity has run course. Since the public nets will be similarly degraded we'll have to roll our own there too. Once we manage to reinvent the Commodore 64, it'll be back to the BBS. Way to go Mikie, Jackie and Hilary! I hope you're reallllyyy happy with yourselves. I hope everyone here knows how to solder!!
disagree (Score:1)
RIP Linux - '1984' achieved through stealth (Score:5, Interesting)
I can forsee that the SSSCA will be applied so that ISPs are forbidden from accepting connections from non-'trusted' client computers.
'Trusted' computers would contain hardware-based digital certificates, so it would be easy for the ISP to determine if an open-source computer is trying to connect.
That's Linux gone in one fell swoop.
Next, the SSSCA will wipe out all independent software developers - 'trusted' OSs simply won't run software that doesn't have a digital license.
Digital licenses will only be available to approved companies, after passing a thorough security examination, and paying a fortune.
On trusted computers, programming tools will only be available to security-certified corporations. Any software written will have to pass an expensive security audit at source-level before being granted a release certificate (which would allow it to run on other people's PCs).
Media creation tools, such as desktop publishers, audio/video editors etc will produce secure media files that will only be able to play on the computer on which they were created - or, for an extra license fee, up to 5 other designated computers. Licenses to create media for mass distribution will cost a mint, and require security clearance.
Websites are next. Web browsers will only be able to access certified websites. Webmaster security certification will cost a fortune.
Email too - email clients will vet outgoing email messages through an 'Intellectual Property Clearance Server', which will scan the message's text against a huge database of copyrighted texts. So if an email contains more than a few words that happen to appear in the IP database, it won't get sent. The 'IP Clearance Servers' will also scan for phrases which are too controversial.
This is WAR, folks!!!!!
The most significant event in US history since the Declaration of Independence and the Civil War.
Time for everyone to kick up the biggest fuss the country has ever seen.
Or else!
"He loved Big Brother"
-- last words of '1984' by George Orwell
Re:RIP Linux - '1984' achieved through stealth (Score:1, Interesting)
*I can forsee that the SSSCA will be applied so that ISPs are forbidden from accepting connections from non-'trusted' client computers.
Why not, China is leading the way with Red Flag Linux designed to tie into the Great Firewall of China...
*'Trusted' computers would contain hardware-based digital certificates, so it would be easy for the ISP to determine if an open-source computer is trying to connect.
no, if the certificate is hardware based, there is no stopping the open system from using the hardware certificate.
*That's Linux gone in one fell swoop. Next, the SSSCA will wipe out all independent software developers - 'trusted' OSs simply won't run software that doesn't have a digital license.
This would be like windows Xp not running Java, it would make use of alerts and other FUD that can be put into the OS.
*Digital licenses will only be available to approved companies, after passing a thorough security examination, and paying a fortune.
Trouble is the licenses would be generated by US export grade crypto, it can be cracked easily and quickly. This will increase trojan apps doing weird stuff.
*On trusted computers, programming tools will only be available to security-certified corporations. Any software written will have to pass an expensive security audit at source-level before being granted a release certificate (which would allow it to run on other people's PCs).
This sounds like MCSE or Sun Java certificates, basically it's a tax that says you're ok. These certificates aren't worth WIPOing your bottom on.
*Media creation tools, such as desktop publishers, audio/video editors etc will produce secure media files that will only be able to play on the computer on which they were created - or, for an extra license fee, up to 5 other designated computers. Licenses to create media for mass distribution will cost a mint, and require security clearance.
We all know about apple delaying quicktime 6 until MPEG 4 gets rid of the restrictive royalties, no publisher or editor will pay a tax to produce content.
What was the First Amendment of the US constitution? Something about a free press? Licenses to publish is a communist idea anyway...
*Websites are next. Web browsers will only be able to access certified websites. Webmaster security certification will cost a fortune.
Again, the right to a free press makes this proposal unconstitutional. There is no need to register with the government or corporations to publish information in constitutional law.
*Email too - email clients will vet outgoing email messages through an 'Intellectual Property Clearance Server', which will scan the message's text against a huge database of copyrighted texts. So if an email contains more than a few words that happen to appear in the IP database, it won't get sent. The 'IP Clearance Servers' will also scan for phrases which are too controversial.
There was a 1982 hugo award short story that had this scenario in it, in the end Senator Bob Dole (well over 120) decided he wanted copyrights to finish after a few decades.
The problem of the story was that artists had to check everything for clearance from a century ago, new art was dying.
"He loved Big Brother" -- last words of '1984' by George Orwell
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4, when that is granted all else follows." 1984
Re:RIP Linux - '1984' achieved through stealth (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not fear this legislation. Part of me hopes the bozos actually pass it and enforce it, even though it would make me a criminal, just for the sheer fun of watching all the resultant confusion build up as various deadlines approach.
I gather one of the goals for terrorists from Timothy McVeigh to al Qaeda is to sow so much confusion that the target system gets more and more restrictive and finally collapses from within. Sort of like carrying any argument to the extreme just to show how ridiculous it is. This SSSCA is just the ticket to make a mockery of all intellectual property.
Re:It's also impossible (Score:2)
Not just the IT industry, expect the telecoms industry to follow. Then every bit of US industry which relied on either IT or telecoms.
no other country would enact similar legislation, and the US IT infrastructure would collapse
The US, if it still existed as a functional nation state, might well attempt to get similar laws passed in the rest of the world. In the same way that there are attempts to get DMCA clones passed elsewhere.
Let me clarify a bit (Score:2)
It will be an interesting few years. I would not be surprised if Hollywood wakes up at some point and waters down the SSSCA just because they too will begin to see the collapse of IP if they push it to the max.
Re:It's also impossible (Score:2)
Re:RIP Linux - '1984' achieved through stealth (Score:2)
Brother, can you spare a dime? (Score:1)
All I want for Christmas... (Score:4, Funny)
I won't ever buy any of that crippled crap they're thinking they'll push on the market. I'll use what works, and they'll have to pry my system from my cold, dead hands before I'll ever install any DRM hardware. Let 'em come and try to take it away! I'll shoot 'em coming in the door!
AOL-TW, Vivendi Universal, Bertelsmann, Disney/ABC, and all those MPAA and RIAA pimps and their whore lawyers can kiss my ass!
Re:All I want for Christmas... (Score:3, Insightful)
The market is just not ready for SSSCA.
Re:All I want for Christmas... (Score:2)
But are these questions being raised in the right place, which would be the US Congress?
My letter to Zittrain (Score:2, Insightful)
From: Phil Karn
To: zittrain@law.harvard.edu
Subject: Your NYT editorial
Reply-to: karn@ka9q.net
Jonathan,
I was very interested to read your editorial on the SSSCA in the New
York Times. I strongly oppose the SSSCA, so I certainly agree with
your points about how much useful innovation has come from the
openness of the personal computer.
But I think you severely damage your own argument with statements like
this:
Users may buy a trusted PC even if it won't show a digital video lent
by a friend, because it will act less like a temperamental computer
and more like a crash-free super-VCR ?
There is absolutely no reason to believe that a "closed" PC
architecture would be any more reliable than an open one. Indeed,
there is plenty of evidence for exactly the opposite. If openness
implies unreliability, then why is Linux so stable while Windows
constantly crashes? Why is Linux so rarely affected by worms and
viruses while many thousands of Windows machines are still trying to
propagate countless variations of the Code Red email worm?
By tempting consumers frustrated with unreliable Microsoft software
with the false promise of "reliability", you are playing right into
the hands of those who promote the SSSCA.
Regards,
Phil Karn
I've opted out of moderation to bring you this. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not that I can hack or mod or even as this bill would imply, CRACK, but I would if I could just for the sake of it. So they block the internet to 'unsafe' computers. Does that mean pirate net wouldn't happen. I figure that once the MPAA and RIAA see that the technology is as hard to control as the people they'll give up. This about who ended up running the show after prohabition. The son of a boot-legger. (JFK) We might actually need this BS to pass so we can all point our collective fingers at Hollywood and laugh at their failures. You never know, we might end up with a leader who knows what a boot-loader is.
Re:I've opted out of moderation to bring you this. (Score:1)
THINK about who ended up running the show after prohabition.
Will the SSSCA kill publishers? (Score:1)
If so then couldn't each individual artist release their own music without the need for anyone to print CD's for them. Distribution becomes cheap and easy and the need for publishers disolves.
Perhaps Big Media knows this and is trying to use legislation to make as much money now while it still can. Why should anyone write music so a publisher can take 90% of the profit when you can release it yourself?
Re:Will the SSSCA kill publishers? (Score:2)
I'm sure the publishers have thought of this and will move to some kind of service or certification clearinghouse. Maybe they'll even provide the tools squeezing software comapnies to work for them or not at all.
Re:Will the SSSCA kill publishers? (Score:2)
Digimarc several years ago introduced a watermarking plugin for PhotoShop. Now let's say that that watermarking technolgy becomes the chosen DRM technology for images. The SSSCA allows Digimarc to sell the plugin. IIRC the SSSCA explicitly allows for monopoly control of DRM technologies. So what prevents Digimarc from making money here? I read the SSSCA to explicitly allow money making off DRM in the same way that the DVD forum makes money off licsensing the DVD playback to manufacturers.
Also remember that real power arrives from distribution, but also from exposure. You may have the best program since sliced bread but if nobody can see it then you are very unlikely to ever recoup your costs.
Thanks for the reply. I hope you are right and I am wrong!
Re:Will the SSSCA kill publishers? (Score:2)
The other option, a stronger DRM, is that you can't transmit files at all without DRM; no DRM == piracy. Say goodbye to sending copies of your digital photos to your family, unless you want to pay a certifier.
Starting to get the picture?
Dear Congressperson: (Score:4, Interesting)
298UGH3892HOEWIGH98H2UIEWHG89HGEE
298UH3G92H392RSIDHGHU98UWHEFE9239
23HFUSHHFHOIWE90G9UGHUIHG98UFQOIE
UI2OHG290239URJJHSUIHGEUIHG90EUFH
----
Can't read the above? That's because your SSSCA-compliant computer refuses to decode my SSSCA-compliant message, because you haven't paid Microsoft $1,000,000 for the right to legally decode messages sent to you by your constituents. That you got the above at all was only because I paid Microsoft $10,000 for a license to send messages to Congress.
----
Of course, the above hasn't happened yet. But it will, if the SSSCA passes. Because the SSSCA will give COMPLETE and ABSOLUTE control over what you are allowed to do and not do to only those corporations that are given the privilege to write the operating system and other software for SSSCA-compliant computers.
Some in Congress might actually regard it as a good thing that constituents are no longer able to communicate with Congress, especially by computer. If you are one of those, then I will make it my mission in life to make sure that you never get elected to any public office ever again.
Thank you for your time.
The Government and the SSSCA (Score:3, Insightful)
In Australia, we have an old saying for a situation like this... Dont steal, the government hates the competition
By the looks of this bill, the music and movie industry in the states wants to apply our saying to their own means. It's a a pretty basic bill really... "we're right, you're wrong, give us all your money and we wont put you in jail for being a scum-sucking thief who wont give us money".
All I can really see is the computer industry going to hell and taking the rest of the world economy with it. If this law comes to pass, I will not want to buy something from the states because it's cheaper anymore, why should it... all of a sudden, I cant use my computer do make my own music CD's, I wont be able to back up my original software media. I wont even be able to back it up to the hard drive. Hell, the way I read this law, I wont even be able to backup my hard drive in case of a computer crash
Considering that there are a lot more people outside of the states who would have brought hardware from the states because it is dirt cheap than there is in the states. I really dont see the hardware manufacturers bending over to get shafted because of this law. Why make two identical products (one with the SSSCA crap in it) when you only have to make one and not sell it to the US.
I think that it will be cheaper for them to move offshore and stop dealing with the draconian laws of the USA than it will be for them to stay in the states and suddenly have to build a separate manufacturing line to build their products for internal US use. Why should they, they have already spent billions on the current crop of production plants that are working just fine.
How do you think that the defence department is going to react when they develop a custom, top secret, piece of software for their network and they have to submit it to the SSSCA inspectors just to make sure that it conforms to the standard...
I really dont think so...
So is the US government going to really welcome something like this that stops them from being able to innovate and develop their little programs. Ohh I forgot, they wrote the law... so I guess that means that their hardware will be exempt from the law. Ahhhh, it's good to be the king (to quote Mel Brookes, History of the World Part 1)
and now we are back to that old saying in Australia... Dont steal, The government doesnt like the competition (and neither does the MPAA and the RIAA)
This is my view of the SSSCA and it's effects on the rest of the world, it is meant to be a semi-humourous view and should be taken as such. Flame me if you want, but just consider the point of view from outside the cube. If you dont like the implied repercussions, write to your local representative and get them to check out anything that disturbs you.
Re:The Government and the SSSCA (Score:2)
Remember the DMCA and the WIPO treaties.
More likely, private industries will agree on "standards" to implement the SSSCA without any legislation, and enforce all suppliers to comply, including those from other nations.
You might be safe moving from Australia to Afghanistan, though.
Re:The Government and the SSSCA (Score:2)
The differance here is that time becomes of the essence. How long do you think the US can hold out against the rest of the world if they pass and attempt to enforce the SSSCA?
These propsed controls are so dangerous. (Score:1, Interesting)
The article implies that people will choose this (Score:1)
Not bad for a lawyer (Score:3, Informative)
Too much time on the freedom vs. reliability thing.
Sure, making reliable machines means curtailing freedom, but not the freedoms he thinks. It means curtailing the freedom of developers to do bad things in the code they write, not curtailing their freedom to deliver capabilities to the consumer.
What he missed altogether was the potential for reduced reliability as the result of systems designed to keep you from doing things. As with all things done by mere humans, there will be bugs, there will be shortcuts, there will be...oh, you get the idea.
The end result will be things that don't work that would work in the absence of controls.
OTOH: He is bang-on about letting the market decide and bang-on about the ultimate loss of utility that comes with content providers' desire to clamp down on PCs.
simple copy protection: (Score:5, Interesting)
Piracy is a social problem, not a technical one, yet the recording industry keeps insisting on technical solutions. They released products into the market place which people realised they could use in new and interesting ways which hadn't occurred to the industry folks. So now the RIAA is stomping around shouting, "Wait! Wait! That's not what I meant!" Well, that doesn't mean we need to legislate the rights of the consumer. It means the recording industry should be smarter next time.
You shouldn't get federal legal protection for making stupid business decisions, you should get the opportunity to learn from your mistakes. It seems like we're going about this whole problem bass-ackward.
Re:simple copy protection: (Score:2)
The fact that more and more consumer are refusing to recognize the validity of the monopolistic RIAA and MPAA speaks volumes about how they (RIAA/MPAA) are doing business. Keep in mind that there are lots of monopolies out there that aren't hated by consumers. The distrust shown towards consumers by the RIAA/MPAA is coming back and biting the industries in the ass, and the industries themselves are more at fault for this than the consumers. Not that consumers aren't partly responsible, but a basic principle of business is that your customers will treat you the same way you treat them. The RIAA and MPAA are learning this the hard way, and they aren't liking it one bit.
Re:simple copy protection: (Score:2, Interesting)
They are getting smarter. They're adding encryption and getting laws passed to make it illegal to bypass that encryption (not that they need the encryption once they have the laws - Macrovision is trivial to defeat, but all VCRs are now required to detect it - might as well have been a simple bit that says "don't copy me" - oh wait, they did that in CDs).
The problem is that the distributors want to have their cake and eat it too. If they want the benefits of a mass market, they have to accept the drawbacks of a mass market. If they were willing to negotiate with each consumer and get a signed contract specifying exactly what could and could not be done with a copy, I wouldn't have a problem with anything they did. That would simply be a matter for contract law. But to expect us to pay for the government to enforce copyright beyond what the Constitution allows for (that is, along with patents, "to promote the Arts and Sciences") is simply unreasonable.
They're getting the advantage of a mass market, and the enforcement of (limited) Copy Rights, if they can't make money on that, the "free market" (as much as it is) will find companies that can make money under those conditions. The only excuse for copyright is if it makes MORE content FREELY available to the public over time; we're exchanging a short-term scarcity for long-term plenty. That's the "Copyright Bargain".
Trade secrets are the only "natural property rights" that should be accorded to "intellectual property"; it follows the rule that "if you don't want someone to have access to it, keep it to yourself." Once you publish something, it has become public.
If Bill can do it... (Score:2)
About going main stream... (Score:2)
Leap of Logic? (Score:2)
Users may buy a trusted PC even if it won't show a digital video lent by a friend, because it will act less like a temperamental computer and more like a crash-free super-VCR
Saying that copy protecting my computer will make it more reliable is like saying that putting copy protection in my car's CD player will improve my gas mileage.
NY Times (Score:2)
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/11/opinion/11ZITT.
It talks about taking control away from the users. It also mentions Microsofts "trusted" PCs. The author seems to think mainstream userse will gladly buy a computer with limited capability if its easier to use and less likely to crash (more like a vcr, gaming system, etc.)
Re:NY Times (Score:2)
*pounds head on desk*
-1 extreme stupidity
Re:Free nude pics!!! (Score:2, Funny)