Industry Divided Over SSSCA

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

Welcome to your digital nightmare

Yup.

This legislation would make:

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

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

Brain Drain

i can relate. i'm considering moving to australia (pending some research regarding their laws.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(i'm not certain about australia. that's just the first country that came to mind.)

Re:And by your logic

What ever happened until "innocent until proven guilty"?

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

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

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

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

Experience says you won't.

woof.

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

So, once this bill passes...

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

Re:So, once this bill passes...

Not only Linux. Any operating system or any electronic device that does not confirm to the set of new proposed regulations will be against the law. You wonder if someone will go to jail for selling his old VCR. But in the brand new world, information will be encoded in Hollywood, passed to your audio/video receiver, decoded there, and this receiver will handshake with any devices connected to it, will detect if the device is complient and only then will communicate with it. If your new DVD player detects a home cut DVD without a watermark in it, it will use your receiver to call police to your house. Your new electronic house security system will automatically engage, to not let you out of the house and a new antiburglar system will put you to sleep instantly with some sleep gas, just to make sure you don't destroy the evidence. If you use an unlawful DVD, CD, tape in your car, it will lock up and will use the car phone to call police while filling up the salon with carbon monoxide from your exhaust, just enough to put you to sleep.

Cheers.
PS.: Your brainwashed relatives will rat you out 'for your own good, just to make sure you are not a terrorist'.

Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on this!

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

How do you explain this to your Mom?

Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi

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

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

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

Easy

How do you explain this to your Mom?

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.

Re:Someone needs to right an advocacy howto on thi

• How do you explain this to your Mom?

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:Don't forget to sign the petitions..

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.

The Sky is Falling....

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

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

Re:The Sky is Falling....

Funny. It didn't work on the DMCA. Maybe this isn't worth "freaking out" over, but to dismiss it as a piece of junk legislation that will be thrown out immediately is insane. The SSSCA does have a chance of passing, and unless there is a sizable outcry from the people, big corps like Disney, etc. can and will push this thing through.

So, who has the better lobbyists?

This battle might actually be interesting. Which industry has the best most influence on .us politicians?
It looks like [opensecrets.org] Hollywood contributes more to the coffers of the political parties.
Let's just hope the Electronics Industry and Comsumers win this one.

Jack Valenti can go to hell.

I love this quote.

"This is the best way to protect America's valuable creative works, which in turn will expand broadband access and Internet use,"

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.

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

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

A way to cash in big:

1. Buy lots of upper mid-end PC's with CD burners right now.

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.

Schneier's doing good work

Bruce Schneier [counterpane.com] (of Counterpane [counterpane.com]) does a good job of sticking up for our rights on this one. He's really been doing a good job of getting the message out. Most articles on this kind of stuff have some good quotes from him. He's a consistent voice of reason. Kudos, Bruce.

Deep pockets on both sides of this, which is good

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

Hey kids! Click here to win a prize!!!

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

Cryptome.org has the full text of the bill here [cryptome.org]. Check it out.

Microsoft's dream come true!!

Section 107 provides an Antitrust Exemption, allowing exemption of antitrust laws! (first section of the Clayton Act)

Don't let free software get destroyed by this clause, which seems obviously bought and paid for by Microsoft!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does the rest of the industry think?

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?

Keep It Simple

First: pushing for even more drastic laws is certainly, in part, a tactic to draw pressure away from the DMCA. Let's not fall into this trap.

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:

1) Any viewable item on a computer exists as a file -- a sequence of 0's and 1's stored in memory.

2) e-mail is a popular device which allows [e-mail] to send (as attachment) a copy of any file to [e-mail], completely independent of whether the copy is "legitimate" or not.

Now,

• Are you opposed to email?
• If not, then exactly how do you intend to prevent "illegitimate" uses of it, without invading everyone's privacy?

The red light known as constitutionality...

Although it is an almost foregone conclusion that most of the U.S. Congress is more for sale than for principles, the larger majority will flee from passing anything that is brought to their attention as being probably unconstitutional or reducing valuable protections for Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, because let's face it: while what is good for Microsoft, Hollywood, etc. is in general good for the politicos in a few states (Washington, California, NY, etc.), folks across the rest of the country have representation as well -- enough to cause trouble with the desired agendas of the big companiers.

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

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

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

Another reminder to write (physical mail)

Just the reminder:

1. DMCA - 300 letters,
2. Health care privacy - 40,000
3. Home Schooling - 500,000+

Those physical letters count most. See the acm letter [acm.org] or the EFF [eff.org] for examples.

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.

Support the EFF, write your Congresscritters

The EFF has a large page on the SSSCA, complete with sample letters for your Congresscritters, and information on how to contact them. Check out the EFF Action Alert: Defeat the SSSCA [eff.org].

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

Note how this (like the DMCA before) is aimed at the average consumer, and definitly not against criminals. It's aim is to make criminals out of anyone who wants to View/Copy/Transmit any piece of