SSSCA Hearing 779
larsoncc writes: "According to this article on CNET, a Senate Bill will likely force the issue of adding copy protection to hardware. They are giving the industry 12 to 18 months to come up with a voluntary solution to the "problem" of copies, and if not... Well, you just have to read the article. Insane." Wired also has a story. The IP list published two interesting documents: an account of the hearing by an attendee, and a letter from Intel published immediately after the hearing. Read the letter carefully - note that the disagreement between the tech industry and Hollywood is not over whether or not copy protection will be implemented into every electronic device, but only whether or not this should be written into law. If the SSSCA isn't passed, Intel (and others) get a lot of leverage over Hollywood. If it is, Intel's leverage disappears. But since both sides want to build copy protection into everything, they only differ over the process, we're in trouble either way.
Bought and Paid For (Score:5, Interesting)
As much as I like some of my representatives, I've put them on notice that I'll vote in someone else if they dare pass this scam.
Congress: Quit telling me how to run my business, or I'll tell you how to run yours!
*scoove*
There's alway a way to break copy protection (Score:2, Interesting)
We'll all be running some Open Design homebrew
box if this happens. What is the governement going to do,.. outlaw electronics as a hobby?
I think it's time we all boycott the MPAA and RIAA.
I will accept copy protection. (Score:4, Interesting)
All media has a lifetime guarantee against anything I do to it.
Basically, I want to back things up for my personal use. But, if the media companies wish to stop me doing that myself then I feel that they ought to provide me, for free (or the cost of production), with as many replacements of the original media as I want. If they are unwilling to accpet this financial undertaking (it'd be big, I'm a clumsy/forgetful/stupid person) then they ought not be able to stop me protecting my initial investment.
overseas.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Porn companies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Jesus H. Christ. So any pocket calculator with a M+ key on it is going to be illegal? What a bunch of assholes.
On another note, where do the porn companies stand in this? I think I'm going to start writing the big porn video companies and let them know that movies they make are being shared online. That could be the one thing that could kill this bill. Imagine telling Mary soccer mom that the reason her computer is hobbled is to protect the profits of pornographers. She'll get into her Suburban and drive right over to her Congressman's office with a letter.
Re:I will accept copy protection. (Score:4, Interesting)
Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting how they point out that the Alaskan Senator is a Republican, yet never point out what party Hollings is from....
If you can't copy, it's not a computer (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole effort is somewhat like trying to outlaw the laws of physics. If they could, these guys would try to slow down the speed of light because it allows copying to happen too fast.
Copying is how computers work. Would somebody with some influence and a clue please tell them this?
Re:Porn companies? (Score:2, Interesting)
Holy shit thats a good idea! I am just going to tell people this if the bill starts being talked about.
"You know that SSSCA? Well
Personal Copyrights (Score:2, Interesting)
Assume I do record myself and, for whatever reason, someone else wants to hear this. So I make an mp3 without any copyright info watermarked/whatevered into it, and give it to this person. Now their mp3 player has DRM built in and sees no copyright info - and thus won't play this recording.
As the copyright holder, I'm well withing my rights to distribute the recording (that is, after all, one of the main reasons for copyright), yet I can't because I don't have access to any watermarking technology (don't think for a minute there won't be license fees for this technology).
Does anyone see problems here???
Jon
My Copyright Plan (Score:5, Interesting)
2. ALL copyrights expire after 20 years. (Not this 95-150 years BS when original copyrights were 14 years)
3. When a copyright expires, it must be released without DRM (Digital Rights Management) software.
Personally, I think this is a perfect balance. While I would deam circumvention devices illegal, I would also release TONS of MODERN works in the public domain. You're probably thinking, "Big deal, you're realing everything prior to 1980 into the public domain. I'll get to watch old movies."
We don't even have a dictionary in the public domain that is clear enough to scan in with OCR software. (I'm not sure of the current status.)
We have nothing, as far as modern works is concerned, in the public domain. Imagine the wealth of information published prior to 1980, now imagine it's all free. Now imagine you're free to plaigerize from all those works to create an uber-encyclopedia of data structures, gardening, renewable energy guide, home medical guide, medical diagnosis software, etc.
It would create a whole new landscape for a whole new type of aggrigate content. You would be free to mix the best of two books or entire volumes and magazines, and put it on a CD or DVD. The amount of knowledge that could be compiled would be insane.
You might as well give new works the ability to protect themselves for a limited amount of time.
It's time to educate the people with the free information they are entitled to. The US Constitution acknoweldges that information is inherantly free, because they had to make a provision for limited copyrights and patents.
The only reason they would make such a provision is because it was self-evident that information, specific works or vague abstractions, belong to the public and no individual.
In other words, copyrights and patents are privledges, not rights.
home movies:non-geeks::free software:geeks (Score:2, Interesting)
The Intel guy wrote:
Could this be a signal?
Politically, he's suggesting that the best argument against SSSCA is that it would effectively ban "home movies" and similar things.
If you want to persuade your Senators, your Representative, or your neighbors that SSSCA is a bad idea, perhaps the "home movie" angle tells the story best. Home movies are the non-geek equivalent of Free Software, after all.
We are in *much* more trouble one way (Score:2, Interesting)
With many of us using Linux, there would always be ways around the protection. However, if the law is passed, we are in big trouble. I quote from one of the articles:
"The Hollings bill, called the Security System Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), makes it a civil offense to make or sell digital technologies that do not contain what it calls "certified security technologies," built-in systems that prevent the copying of content."
How many programmers are going to release something for free that might land them in prison for 5 years?
Non US Citizens (Score:3, Interesting)
God I hate problems that I am powerless to help solve.
But Enron and Global Crossing were _un_regulated (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you take the stance that corporations should be well-regulated and individuals should be free. But even then, government could come to the wrong conclusion and regulate the hardware manufacturers rather than regulate to restrict the legal claims of the content pimps.
Now if you say, "Corporations should be well-regulated to protect the freedom of the individuals," that's getting closer, except what about the freedom of individuals to invest in pyramid schemes like Enron?
How about, "Corporations should be regulated to assure the transparent and abundant flow of information in every sphere"? - That would both require Enron-like scammers to open their books fully, and require content pimps to let their artists get off the street and into the loving arms of their admirers.
__
The value of General Computers. (Score:2, Interesting)
The primary purpose of a general computer is to logically process data according to user input (software).
If this law passes - general computers will no longer be produced. The primary purpose of the computer will then be to check if the user is doing anything illegal, and THEN do it if it appears to be acceptable.
There is not so much a difference between polititians and programmers as some would believe - we must TALK or otherwise communicate with these law makers, so that they may understand the collosal value of the general computer - and understand why it should NOT be lost!
Ryan Fenton
Go read the Thoreau, but think too... (Score:2, Interesting)
I know I'll be flamed to Redmond and back for this, but do we have the right to read/view/hear materials for which we have paid NO MONEY to the people who created / distributed / promoted them? Justify that. Please. I'm very interested. Now, I'm not exactly innocent; I've used Napster quite a bit. But because of that, I've become a fan of several bands I'd not known about before, bought their CDs, and plan to see them next time thery tour through SF.
I've heard the, "Well, I wouldn't buy the music/movie/game anyway, so they wouldn't make anything from it either way." argument. Faeces tauri. If it's good enough to listen to, good enough to use backup space/CD-Rs on, good enough to spend hours playing or watching, it's good enough to pay for. Believe me, I used to run Win95 *and* Office *and* have various games and mp3s within a gig. I had to prune mercilessly more than once and make decisions about what I really valued. Most of that music, I ended up buying anyway, save what I couldn't find (anime soundtracks, etc).
Corporations, like all entities, have to act in their own survival interest. No, it's not nice of them to want to restrict what we do with our computers. It's downright draconian to lock us into Microsoft's "trusted" operating systems. But, guess what? We haven't given them a choice. If filesharing becomes much more widespread, the whole RIAA/MPAA house of cards will fall over - good, you say? - yes, but there will be nothing to replace it. Will artists release their own songs on
Having said all that, I still hope this is defeated on some grounds. I don't hold out much hope. Our Senate serves the Almighty dollar (In Profit We Trust), not the people they're supposed to serve. And anything the clueful might try to change with their votes will be lost in the noise.
"He's got to make a living, or move to Russia..." - Moxy Fruvous, River Valley
Re:Should I send this to my congressmen? (Score:5, Interesting)
Senator Kit Bond
274 Russel Senate Office Building
Washington, DC. 20510
Senator Bond:
I am writing to express my deep concerns over recent trends I see in new intellectual property law, specifically the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). From what I understand, this law will make it illegal to manufacture and/or sell an interactive digital device that does not have built in "content protection", where an interactive digital device is defined as any hardware or software capable of storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving or copying information in digital form.
Frankly, I am shocked and deeply alarmed that such a bill is even being considered on the floor of the US Senate. Intellectual Property was created by the framers of our constitution not to ensure that corporations can make money for the span of many human lifetimes, but to ensure that said property would eventually fall into the public domain by providing a (small) window of revenue for content creators. This act would violate both the spirit and the letter of past intellectual property law. Consider, under the SSSCA:
1. Fair use rights have been virtually eliminated. I can no longer make copies of media that I legally bought and own, and am legally entitled to copy.
2. Media that I created (home videos, pictures, etc.) will no longer be viewable on SSSCA compliant hardware. You will lose the home movies of an entire generation.
3. Some greeting cards, credit cards, calculators, picture frames, children's toys, answering machines, cell phones, etc. will now be illegal. (Anything that can store data digitally will have to be manufactured to this standard.)
Perhaps most insidious, however, is the ramifications for who can publish and who cannot. This "content protection" works by the content providers agreeing on a standard for "watermarking" their products, and the hardware manufacturers interpreting said watermark. The watermarking method will have to remain secret; otherwise illegal copies could be watermarked and distributed. Thus, only people with access to this watermarking method will be able to produce media viewable by the American public. In other words, only approved media will be viewable by the American public. As a private citizen, I can no longer distribute digital copies of a video I created with my current camera, because it does not hold an MPAA watermark, and thus all SSSCA compliant hardware will treat it as a pirated copy.
I sincerely doubt that such a law would survive a constitutional test. I urge you to demonstrate that you really do work for us, and not for Hollywood. Vote down this legislation.
Sincerely,
Missouri Citizen
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's my letter (Score:4, Interesting)
This letter is being addressed to your office for your capacity as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and co-sponsor of the proposed legislation the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). The legislation that you are proposing will have a definite, immediate, and chilling effect on the economic growth of the technology and entertainment industries for the foreseeable future.
I would like to point out that your legislation intends on preventing free market forces from being allowed to shape the economic growth of these industries by creating artificial barriers intended to maintain the current balance of power/wealth held by the copyright holders. This is very similar to the competition felt by the railroad industry from the automobile, in that both the railroad and record/movie labels depended upon their absolute control over all major distribution channels for their sources of revenue (the record industry receives 94% of total revenue from CD sales). The PC/internet is like the automobile/highway system in that it frees the masses from having to rely on a bulky, inefficient, and tightly controlled distribution channel that allows for illegal price fixing, for which the record industry has been found guilty of in the past. I am not an advocate of any form of piracy because if the government were to allow the markets to naturally rebalance themselves, they could now do so in such a way that piracy would no longer be an attractive option for consumers, unless you feel that every citizen is a thief at heart. This would be do to the volume of scale involved with the internet distribution of data including songs and movies.
To illustrate this point the average cost per song on a CD is ~$2 for the consumer. This $2 includes certain privileges like owning the physical media, protective case, label and lyrics, the ability to create copies for personal use within the fair use doctrine, unlimited listening, portability, and then the right to sell the CD provided that you don't keep any copies. Under the current overpriced CD distribution scheme, very few successful CDs will sell a million or more copies. By contrast is the reported popularity of some pirated songs on the Internet which regularly exceeded ten million downloads. If the record companies were to offer their songs for sale on the internet with the legal right to download the songs, giving the buyers full fair-use privileges, the ability to create playable audio CDs, unlimited listening ability, and portability for a cost that reflects the volume of scale, lack of overhead, and fair profit margins they would see immediate, dramatic, and profitable sales.
Instead these companies are moving their businesses online in a way that allows them to continue to maintain the same near absolute control over the online music industry that was had by their control over the traditional distribution channels. Should the railroads been given control over all highways? If allowed to continue, your proposed legislation will allow these industries to continue their abuses on the consumers by way of forcing consumers to pay every time they listen to a song/see a movie/read a book, without regard to any legal fair use. As proof of their true intensions the record industries current online ventures have proposed an insulting royalty payments from online sales to the artists they claim to represent/protect. Some of these songs being sold online by the record companies don't even have a legal right to sell online, and the artists' who own the online rights are threatening them with lawsuits and sending cease and desist orders, which the record industry has chooses to ignore.
To end I would like to include a quote from Robert Heinlein's "Life-Line"
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
All opinions expressed within are mine alone and by no means represent those of my employer.
SSSCA offers some -opportunities- too (Score:2, Interesting)
The recording industry consists of specialists of various kinds. Some of these even have (or had) to do with the sound quality of recorded music (I'll just talk about recorded music and forget about movies, try extending what I say yourself). People who knew how to run a disc cutter, for example, were contributors to the sonic excellence - or lack thereof - of a given disc.
These specialists' work has largely been outmoded by digital copying. Much recorded music is only ever represented digitally until it's played back. And as the recording industry has become aware, digital storage and retrieval is something many consumers can do.
The recording industry -hires- talent. It does not have the talent as 'employees' but as a sort of hybrid of employees, contractors and indentured servants. The talent, not the recording industry, provides the product. The recording industry provides the package. For this service they receive the bulk of the money paid for the product generated by the talent.
Such a package isn't needed any more. When talent itself realizes this, they may decide the recording industry doesn't help them, and -iff they can assert their own content controls-, the recording industry can be cut out of the value equation. This means that talent will be able to -write their own contracts- based on the type and severity of copy controls they themselves wish to assert.
This does not mean copy controls won't be broken. It does, however, mean that less-severe copy controls will be seen as they should be, enhancement of the work's value, and below a certain point it won't be economically feasible to infringe the work's copyright at a profit. It will then fall to the -talent- to decide what point they will accept as correct.
Look at what else it does: imagine a perfect means exists of forcing a one-cent direct payment to listen to a recorded work of Bill Nelson's. (I am not saying this is good, I am just asking your suspension of disbelief for a few seconds.) Now, if Bill earns a million euros from people listening to "Atom Man Loves Radium Girl" he may conclude that he can wring more money out of that song, right? Wrong. If the content controls are a contract, they aren't subject to change. Your copy grants specific rights, -whatever they happen to be-. Would they be change-able? Impractical and probably fraudulent. Now Bill might re-issue the song with a more interesting mix, and raise the bar, but the existing work comes with a -contract- the artist himself said was OK.
Bill might price himself out of the market with the re-mix. In that case, he'd get lots of pennies from the old version and hardly any from the new. That is OK, right? "Oops, too much for that song, next one better be cheaper."
This is distribution, all right, and it lets the artists decide what they get for their work. All it takes is that the ability to assign content controls be available to anyone who wants to do it.
Therefore, if you are going to write to your favorite politician about SSSCA, please, don't ask them not to pass it. Ask them instead to make sure evenhanded assertion of copyright is available to everyone through the mechanism of SSSCA, and that the copyright agreements mediated or enforced by SSSCA mechanisms be considered contractual.
Re:Should I send this to my congressmen? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fuck that dumbass cracker [roundeye.net] sellout.