Comment Flaws in the CBDTPA aka SSSCA II (Score 1) 551
The following is the text of a letter that I sent to my state senators and congressmen...
Please oppose S2048: the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act".
As a Computer Scientist, Software Engineer and Electrical Engineer with 20 years experience I can unequivocally say that the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" a.k.a. SSSCA II is inherently impossible to implement, as written, using any known software or hardware technology.
Section 3.(d).(1).(A) through 3.(d).(1).(I) are contradictory requirements that can never be satisfied together. Any device or technology that does not satisfy section 3.(d).(1).(I) will result in products that cannot be sold because no customer will pay the price. Any technology that satisfies section 3.(d).(1).(A), (B), (C) and (F) would require an internet connection for each such device and therefor will fail to satisfy section 3.(d).(1).(I).
The only possible means of encoding any digital content that will be (A) reliable, (B) renewable (C) resistant to attack, and (F) applicable in multiple technology platforms, would be to have a globally unique identifier for each target device that the content will be played or performed on and to individually encrypt the content for the target device or download the decryption key to the target device so that it can only be decrypted and played on the target device. All other methods of encryption will fail to be either (C) resistant to attack, or (F) applicable in multiple technology platforms.
The nature of encryption is such that you cannot attach the decryption key to the encrypted data and expect it to be (C) resistant to attack. This is the fatal flaw in the encryption used on DVDs as was shown by the trivial attack used by the DeCSS program.
Any media that contains an individually and uniquely encrypted file but does not contain the decryption key would require an internet connection in order to access the decryption key associated with the specific encrypted file. The requirement for an internet connection would add $100-$300 to the cost of each such device except for a fully configured Personal Computer. $100 added cost for incorporating a modem would be doubling the price of a CD player and if the CD player was in a car it would require an added $300 since it would require a cell phone as well as a modem in order to be able to connect to the internet to access the encryption keys for each encrypted file. In addition to the hardware costs there would be the cost of an additional phone line or a cell phone account and an ISP account which would add a cost of at least $50 per month making such media unavailable anyone who cannot afford the $50 per month.
The inevitable consequence of these conflicts in conjunction with the word "practicable" in section 3.(d) will be to guarantee that the "copyright owners" will insist on rules that match what was in the original draft of the SSSCA "3.(d) SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS. -- In achieving the goals of setting open security standards that will provide effective security for copyrighted works, the security system standards shall ensure, to the extent practicable, ...".
Any technology that would meet the requirements of the SSSCA would violate 3.(e).(1) "promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible" and 3.(e).(2) "prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use in the home".
Section 3.(e).(2) contradicts the "Doctrine of Fair Use" for "Space Shifting" as affirmed by the US Supreme Court. Fair Use "Space Shifting" allows the playing of a copy of a copyrighted work on any device owned by or in the possession of a person who has legally obtained an original copy of a copyrighted work. Section 3.(e).(2) in conjunction with the DMCA would restrict "Fair Use" to Television broadcasts and would exclude music CDs, video tapes and DVDs and any other media that is embodied in a material object or transmitted via the internet.
Section 6 makes the practice of maintaining or fixing a computer or any other compliant device a criminal act. All electronic devices inevitably fail and need to be repaired. Section 6.(a).1 makes it a crime to "knowingly remove or alter any standard security technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in interstate commerce, ..." which makes it a crime to fix any such device.
Section 7 attaches the CBDTPA to the DMCA and since the DMCA is both unconstitutional and self contradictory, the CBDTPA cannot be validly interpreted by the courts.
Section 4, section 6.(a).2 and section 9.2 combined create an undue burden on ISPs ("interactive computer service" providers) and on customers. Unique, per-device encrypted media would require transmitting between 5 million and 5 billion bytes of data per target device for each copyrighted work played on that device. This is because the work must be uniquely encrypted for each target device. Transmitting such large quantities of data would cost as much as the original purchase price of the copyrighted work for each device it is to be played on. The aggregate quantity of data that would need to be transmitted would be as large as the total internet traffic of the US. This would require doubling the capacity of the internet itself which would cost billions of dollars and would have to be paid for by the "interactive computer service" providers.
Section 9.3 is unclear. Section 9.3 does not make explicit exactly what constitutes a "Digital Media Device" or if a component of such a device is distinguished from the whole device for the purposes of the act. A microprocessor or microcontroller is a required component of any "Digital Media Device", but, section 9.3 does not distinguish between a microprocessor or microcontroller used in a "Digital Media Device" and a microprocessors or microcontroller used in a toaster or traffic light controller. The same microprocessor or microcontroller may be used in both devices and the microcontroller in a toaster can "reproduce copyrighted works in digital form" if it has a means of accepting input and providing output. Because of the economies of scale, almost all microcontrollers contain digital input and output ports and are programmable and so would be classed as a "Digital Media Device" even if the microcontroller was incorporated into a toaster or a traffic light controller. "DEFINITIONS: In this Act (3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that -- (A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form; (B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or (C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B)".
Please oppose S2048: the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act".
As a Computer Scientist, Software Engineer and Electrical Engineer with 20 years experience I can unequivocally say that the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" a.k.a. SSSCA II is inherently impossible to implement, as written, using any known software or hardware technology.
Section 3.(d).(1).(A) through 3.(d).(1).(I) are contradictory requirements that can never be satisfied together. Any device or technology that does not satisfy section 3.(d).(1).(I) will result in products that cannot be sold because no customer will pay the price. Any technology that satisfies section 3.(d).(1).(A), (B), (C) and (F) would require an internet connection for each such device and therefor will fail to satisfy section 3.(d).(1).(I).
The only possible means of encoding any digital content that will be (A) reliable, (B) renewable (C) resistant to attack, and (F) applicable in multiple technology platforms, would be to have a globally unique identifier for each target device that the content will be played or performed on and to individually encrypt the content for the target device or download the decryption key to the target device so that it can only be decrypted and played on the target device. All other methods of encryption will fail to be either (C) resistant to attack, or (F) applicable in multiple technology platforms.
The nature of encryption is such that you cannot attach the decryption key to the encrypted data and expect it to be (C) resistant to attack. This is the fatal flaw in the encryption used on DVDs as was shown by the trivial attack used by the DeCSS program.
Any media that contains an individually and uniquely encrypted file but does not contain the decryption key would require an internet connection in order to access the decryption key associated with the specific encrypted file. The requirement for an internet connection would add $100-$300 to the cost of each such device except for a fully configured Personal Computer. $100 added cost for incorporating a modem would be doubling the price of a CD player and if the CD player was in a car it would require an added $300 since it would require a cell phone as well as a modem in order to be able to connect to the internet to access the encryption keys for each encrypted file. In addition to the hardware costs there would be the cost of an additional phone line or a cell phone account and an ISP account which would add a cost of at least $50 per month making such media unavailable anyone who cannot afford the $50 per month.
The inevitable consequence of these conflicts in conjunction with the word "practicable" in section 3.(d) will be to guarantee that the "copyright owners" will insist on rules that match what was in the original draft of the SSSCA "3.(d) SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS. -- In achieving the goals of setting open security standards that will provide effective security for copyrighted works, the security system standards shall ensure, to the extent practicable,
Any technology that would meet the requirements of the SSSCA would violate 3.(e).(1) "promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible" and 3.(e).(2) "prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use in the home".
Section 3.(e).(2) contradicts the "Doctrine of Fair Use" for "Space Shifting" as affirmed by the US Supreme Court. Fair Use "Space Shifting" allows the playing of a copy of a copyrighted work on any device owned by or in the possession of a person who has legally obtained an original copy of a copyrighted work. Section 3.(e).(2) in conjunction with the DMCA would restrict "Fair Use" to Television broadcasts and would exclude music CDs, video tapes and DVDs and any other media that is embodied in a material object or transmitted via the internet.
Section 6 makes the practice of maintaining or fixing a computer or any other compliant device a criminal act. All electronic devices inevitably fail and need to be repaired. Section 6.(a).1 makes it a crime to "knowingly remove or alter any standard security technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in interstate commerce,
Section 7 attaches the CBDTPA to the DMCA and since the DMCA is both unconstitutional and self contradictory, the CBDTPA cannot be validly interpreted by the courts.
Section 4, section 6.(a).2 and section 9.2 combined create an undue burden on ISPs ("interactive computer service" providers) and on customers. Unique, per-device encrypted media would require transmitting between 5 million and 5 billion bytes of data per target device for each copyrighted work played on that device. This is because the work must be uniquely encrypted for each target device. Transmitting such large quantities of data would cost as much as the original purchase price of the copyrighted work for each device it is to be played on. The aggregate quantity of data that would need to be transmitted would be as large as the total internet traffic of the US. This would require doubling the capacity of the internet itself which would cost billions of dollars and would have to be paid for by the "interactive computer service" providers.
Section 9.3 is unclear. Section 9.3 does not make explicit exactly what constitutes a "Digital Media Device" or if a component of such a device is distinguished from the whole device for the purposes of the act. A microprocessor or microcontroller is a required component of any "Digital Media Device", but, section 9.3 does not distinguish between a microprocessor or microcontroller used in a "Digital Media Device" and a microprocessors or microcontroller used in a toaster or traffic light controller. The same microprocessor or microcontroller may be used in both devices and the microcontroller in a toaster can "reproduce copyrighted works in digital form" if it has a means of accepting input and providing output. Because of the economies of scale, almost all microcontrollers contain digital input and output ports and are programmable and so would be classed as a "Digital Media Device" even if the microcontroller was incorporated into a toaster or a traffic light controller. "DEFINITIONS: In this Act (3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that -- (A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form; (B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or (C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B)".
