|
|
|
The CBDTPA has been presented as a bill in the Senate. This was called the SSSCA (Security Systems Standards and Certification Act ) during drafting, but apparently that wasn't warm and fuzzy enough. Full text is available here: http://cryptome.org/s2048.txt It would require all digital media devices to incorporate standard security features (standard to be set later) to prevent copyright infringement. Manufaturing or import of devices that don't meet the standards would be illegal, though devices that have already been purchased would be grandfathered in. There are some apparent compromises. Section 2.22 and 2.23 state that the technology should facilitate legitimate home, educational, and research use. Section 3.d.2 states that any software portion of the standard should be based on open source code. Section 3.e.1 says the encoding rules shall take into account fair use doctrine, and 3.e.2 appears to specifically protect time-shifting. Removing the security features from a device, or distributing copyrighted material without the encoding, would be illegal.
43 responses total.
I have some serious misgivings about this bill. For starters, legacy devices are probably doomed. Let's say you have a $3,000 HDTV without this copy-protection system. How are you going to watch your copy-protected video discs on it? If the player outputs an unencrypted digital stream, it's creating an unprotected version of the content, which is illegal. Likewise, your current CD player is probably doomed. This bill could also put U.S. electronic manufacturers at a serious disadvantage. They'd be prohibited from manufacturing devices for export that don't have the U.S.-mandated copy protection, and those are unlikely to be popular overseas. They might be prohibited from exporting ones that do, for that matter, since they'd contain strong encryption technology. Like the DMCA, this makes removing copy protection a crime even if you don't actually infringe anyone's copyright. To me that's like banning bolt cutters and hacksaws because they can be used to remove padlocks. Copyrights expire, but encryption is forever. Under this law it'd be illegal to circumvent the copy protection to copy a work that was no longer under copyright! This alters the whole idea of copyrights being for a limited time.
Its bad law proposed by lobby-ites who have the interest of a few in mind and is anti-republican and doesn't do anything to benefit the citizen. It is evil.
I think what we're likely to see is a huge train wreck and
lots of money lost, because nobody remembers the past. Ergo,
we are doomed to repeat it.
Congress has been through this with other technologies before,
specifically the Digital Audio Tape, or DAT. It was supposed
to be the next great thing, replacing the Phillips cassette
and offering recordability and wonderful sound quality.
For all that, tpryan is the only DAT owner I know. So what happened?
What happened is that Congress listened to the record companies
moaning about how perfect digital copies would put them out of
business (pretty much the same argument they're making now to
Hollings et al). In response, Congress mandated that something
called a Serial Copy Management System be placed in every DAT
machine. The SCMS has at least 3 settings: no copy restrictions,
copy-once (no second-generation copies), and no copies allowed at
all. (There is a fourth possible value of the 2-bit permission
code, but I don't know if it's used or not.) A copy of a "copy
once" recording is set to "no copies" by the SCMS hardware.
Here's the kicker: to prevent people from recording music to
unprotected DAT and then making perfect digital copies until the
end of time, *everything you record on a consumer unit is set to
be copyable ONLY ONCE.* You cannot make second-generation
digital copies even of your own material, unless you buy an
expensive professional unit. Only the professionals are allowed
to designate their audio to be "free as in speech"; everyone
else is assumed to be a thief, and is prevented from doing so.
This, among other things, doomed DAT technology. There is
essentially no consumer market for it.
So what can we expect from technology required to make computers,
video recorders and everything else safe for Hollywood's wet dreams?
Let me list a few:
1.) Serial copy management at least as draconian as on DATs.
You will probably not be able to transfer your digital
video recordings of your vacation between computers,
because that's a copy of a copy and the hardware can't
tell the difference between your family on the beach
and the latest Hollywood blockbuster. And if you want
to send a snippet to Aunt Mae, you're going to have to
send the mail directly from the camcorder.
2.) Watermarking everywhere. Watermarked stuff just won't
record, and woe be unto you if your material has some
artifact which looks like a watermark to the hardware.
Or *un*watermarked stuff won't record, to prevent you
from stripping the watermark off someone else's stuff.
Of course you won't be allowed to make watermarks without
a license, limiting the recording business to enterprises
big enough to afford them (bye-bye, free speech).
3.) Globally Unique Identifiers in all hardware. These will
get attached to all material recorded or digitized and
will allow infringing copies to be traced back to the
hardware which made them (and presumably the infringer).
It's also going to tag everything you make with those
numbers so everything you say can be traced back to you.
Tampering with or removing the GUIDs will be a crime.
If this isn't starting to sound "Nineteen Eighty-Four"-ish, you
haven't thought about it hard enough.
It's an appalling piece of legislation -- profoundly anti-consumer, terribly broad in its language, and threatening, if read literally, to completely restructure -- by legislative fiat -- the computer and entertainment-appliance industries. I urge everyone to contact their representatives to register their strong opposition.
tipper gore and pat buchanan are probably giggling a bit over this. e-gads! what a disaster. mcnally is right on in #4, please do it, twice if necessary.
The Honorable Lynn N. Rivers 1724 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-2213 The Honorable Carl Levin 269 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510 The Honorable Debbie Stabenow 702 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
I wouldn't mind seeing the entertainment industry self-destruct, but this
is absurd. As has been pointed out, they have no choice but to rig things
to that copies of un-watermarked stuff are impossible, without exception,
or they may as well not bother. The provisions that sop to fair-use
cannot survive. This means that it would be illegal/impossible to back up
your data, since it is not watermarked.
I'd love to see the industry come up with bulllett-proof copy protection
without having to cripple all technology to do it. They would be defuct
quickly, and the new blood that sprang up to replace them would have
learned some lessons.
{Will likely be dismissed as crazy ranting here...}
Observing the world around me has lead me to conclude that what the
studios call piracy is essential to the industry as we know it. If the
materials were not trivially easy to copy, the worldwide entertainment
market could not support ONE of the big entertainment companies at present
size, and very few of any size.
What information I have been able to gather says that the entertainment
industry gets a boost with every easy-copy technology that comes out.
Take away the easy copies, and the sales dry up quite a bit. I can't
prove this to anyones satisfaction who has not reached this conclusion on
thier own, but I figure if I mention it, maybe some more people will go
looking and learn for themselves.
Another one to contact:
Congressman Mike Rogers, U.S. House of Representatives
509 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone - (202) 225-4872
I guess its back to taping the radio again. :)
I saw an interesting comment today to the effect that the computer industry brings in twenty times the profit that Hollywood does -- so why is anyone listening to the studios on this?
Because Hollywood is a much older, more politically astute industry. They know who to buy, and the glamour of the movie business also helps win support.
They also control many media outlets, so they can more convincingly argue to Congresspeople that they can swing public opinion in their favor.
This response has been erased.
That was a rhetorical question, actually. ;-)
More about the CBDTPA from Declan McCullagh of "Wired": ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:00:02 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: politech@politechbot.com Subject: FC: CBDTPA bans everything from two-line BASIC programs to PCs Just in case folks haven't figured out how sweeping the Hollings-Feinstein bill, aka CBDTPA is, well, keep reading. The CBDTPA says that if I were to write and sell this BASIC program... 10 INPUT A$ 20 PRINT A$ ...after the regulations take effect, I would be guilty of a federal felony. That's up to five years in prison and up to a $500,000 fine. Distributing my two-line application without charging for it, either via handing out floppies or by posting it on a website would be at least a civil offense and, depending on the circumstances, a crime as well. It's no joke. CBDTPA regulates "any hardware or software that reproduces copyrighted works in digital form." My program above does that, especially if my BASIC interpreter permits arbitrarily long strings. The business end of the CBDTPA says that "a manufacturer, importer, or seller" of such software cannot "sell, or offer for sale, in interstate commerce, or cause to be transported in, or in a manner affecting, interstate commerce" their code unless it "includes and utilizes standard security technologies that adhere to the security system standards adopted under section 3." The FCC gets to invent those. But I can't see how my two-line program is going to incorporate such standards. If I'm using C, must I "#include <sys/copycheck.h>?" In Perl, will I "use Parse::DRMVerify?" If so, who at the FCC will ensure that these modules are available for the languages I'm using? (It is true that folks at the FCC are smarter than the folks in Congress, though that is not saying much. FCC staff will try to make the standards workable. But the CBDTPA gives them -- and the public -- precious little wiggle room.) By design, programming languages are terribly flexible. The only way to prevent software from removing do-not-copy bits from digital content would be for Congress to ban the programmable PC. And replace it, perhaps, with WebTV television-top boxes. In case you're curious, the felony penalties kick in when you try to sell your post-ban BASIC program -- not to mention any commercial software -- and perhaps even if you're a free software developer hoping to gain reputation capital from your code. They say that violators "shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense." (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1204.html) Yes, this is silly. No, it is probably (I hope) not what senators Hollings and Feinstein and their colleagues intended. Yet it is what the text of the bill says. And this is after the good senators had seven months of correspodnence from computer scientists and industry representatives worried about the scope of the legislation after it was widely circulated in August 2001. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself: Text of CBDTPA: http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/ Politech archive on the CBDTPA: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=cbdtpa -Declan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCullagh reports in Wired that a Democratic US House representative from California is moving to introduce a House version of the Hollings bill. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51400,00.html Looks like the skids are being greased to ram this through, fast. ----- Another cheerful article, from Cnet, gives me the impression that most of the tech industry is ready to roll over: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-869902.html "D.C. anti-piracy plans fuel culture clash" Quote: > But Washington insiders say he is a powerful negotiator > who often advocates extreme > positions to draw a compromise closer to his > side of the argument. Some say the current bill is > just this kind of negotiating tactic, aimed at > drawing tech companies into copy-protection > agreements more quickly. > > In fact, Hollings' and the other legislators' > pressure has spurred a new wave of public > statements in support of copyright protection > from the tech industry. Late last month, a group > of nine CEOs, including Microsoft's Steve Ballmer, > IBM's Louis Gerstner and Dell's Michael > Dell, sent a joint letter to the heads of the major > media conglomerates expressing their desire > for more "interindustry cooperation." The Cnet article also goes on about the "analog hole" and plans to close it by embedding watermarks (frequency notches, most likely, just as in the failed CopyCode and SDMI proposals) and then legally requiring everything to fail to record such content.
The tech CEOs might be taking this step in order to demonstrate their willingness to work toward a "solution" only as a means to derail legislative action and regain a negotiating position from which they can preserve some sanity in the end result.
Either that, or the tech CEOs have figured out that if the law passes it will be illegal to connect older computers to the Internet, so everyone will have to buy new hardware from them. Including keesan.
Is it illegal to own an older VCR which can copy copy-protected video tapes? These were popular items, used. The old top-loaders. Keesan does not buy new hardware or even old hardware. Once was enough.
Macrovision doesn't rely on any technology in your VCR to work
effectively. It'll still mess up a copy. Amplifying the video signal works
pretty well to defeat that, though.
resp:18 and 19 :: all versions of the proposal I have heard about contain grandfather clauses for equipment manufactured before the effective date. My assumption is that if such proposals come to pass, there will be an orgy of buying and stockpiling of equipment in the months leading up to the effective date, followed by a horrible crash in electronics retailing.
Followed by a massive alteration in standards which will somehow manage to make all existing technology obsolete. Right. Folks the business sector spends so much money on computer systems that they're going to HAVE to put up a major fight on this unless total backward compatibility can be guaranteed for at least a few years, and if that is technically feasible, then it is hard to see how the plan itself can be.
I don't think hardware vendors have really put enough thought into this
yet ...
This is just bad law period..the entertainment industry is seeing their stranglehold on counsumers slowly slipping away and of course they are fighting back . For decades they have called the shots now for once the consumer has something to say about it and the entertainment industry is not taking too kindly to it ..go to http://www.digitalconsumer.org to voice your opinion
Another place you can go to voice your opinion, interestingly enough,
is the Senate Judiciary Committee's website. See
http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/input_form.cfm
The several dozen messages posted there are OVERWHELMINGLY against
the CBDTPA.
Reportedly, the committee chair, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, is opposed
to this legistlation and intends to block it. Good for him. Folks
may remember that he was one of the strongest congressional voices in
opposition to the Communications Decency Act a few years ago. It's
good to know that there are still legislators in Washington who are
looking out for the public interest, not just special interests.
Patrick Leahy was the first Democrat ever elected to the U.S. Senate from Vermont. I am happier than ever that I was able to contribute to his first Senate campaign.
Leahy actually understands technology, or at least his staffers do.
And what's more, he seems to take his oath of office, to uphold the Constitution, seriously.
Can this be brought to a new technology freedom of speech argument. My PC is a different type of printing press. Be it used to paper print something I write, or used to publish a web-page for the Internet or CD-R. I would still be self publishing. Probably at a greater cost in comparative dollars to what Ben Franklin spent on his printing press. At the time the Constitution was authored a printing press could be used for lawful purposes, or used for illegal uses. I am sure then, someone was probably ripping [off] Poor Richard's Almanac, but the individual copyright holder had to take action against that person.
There is a freedom of speech argument, but the copyright-related arguments may be easier to make.
Internet services that allow filtering services should be used for people who need it like families that work all the time and don't have time to watch over there kids the only problem is that the people may be able to "hack" it. we need to find a software based filter the only problem with "WebkeysProwler" is that it only works with Internet explorer
This response has been erased.
We need software that removes the writings of drooling morons from the
'net.
Some good news:
http://rtnews.globetechnology.com/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate/C/200204
10/
gt?tf=tgam%252Frealtime%252Ffullstory_Tech.html&cf=globetechnology/tech-config
-neutral&slug=gt&date=20020410&archive=RTGAM&site=Technology
(sorry about the URL there, you'll have to take the CRs out)
My browser is resistant to that. Care to give us a *hint* what it's about?
Never mind, I just went to http://rtnews.globetechnology.com and clicked on the obvious link. Reuters story: "Copyright bill universally rejected." Apparently the opposition is well- organized, sizeable, and is being heard.
Sounds like the bill's probably dead in the water. I wonder whether it was ever expected to pass, or whether it was just an opening move to make us more accepting of lesser (but still annoying) measures.
Isn't any legislative gambit of the former variety necessarily also one of the latter?
What?
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss