[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Comment to the Senate Judiciary Committee



I find that I disagree with the following:

"These comments are not addressed to dedicated 'game machines,' digital
video viewers, or CD players, etc., that are not designed to function as
general purpose computers."

The problem I see here is that the difference between 'game machines' or
digital video viewers and general purpose computers is growing quite small
and will soon be entirely gone.  Sony is selling Linux kits for PlayStation
and PS2.  Microsoft's XBox is nothing more than a stripped down Windows
machine.  TiVo is a Linux box that runs specialized software, but when
hacked can do just about anything, not to mention that these digital video
viewers are doing more and more - and will soon merge with the game machine.

This merger is something that concerns me.  For many households a dedicated
'media center' that handles games, video and a few basic tasks (such as
wordprocessing or email) may be all that these households have.  Frankly, I
think that the day of the general purpose computer as we know it is
numbered.  Many will still use them, of course ... but increasingly it will
be the home server with relatively dumb terminals that will rule the
consumer's day.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Cc: <junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:13 PM
Subject: [dvd-discuss] Comment to the Senate Judiciary Committee


>
> I just sent the following comment in response to the request
> for comments about Protecting Creative Works from the Senate
> Judiciary Committee.
>
> --
> Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
>  EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
>      NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists
>
> ------- Forwarded Message
>
> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:56:51 -0500
> Message-Id: <200203162356.g2GNupr14596@samsara.law.cwru.edu>
> To: usercomments@judiciary.senate.gov
> X-URL: http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/feature.cfm
> X-Mailer: Lynx, Version 2.8.4dev.16
> X-Personal_Name: : Peter D. Junger
> From: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
> Subject: Comment on Content Protection Legislation
> Cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
>
>
> I am writing in response to the request for comments contained in the
> Senate Judiciary Committee's notice entitled:
>
> >      Protecting Creative Works in a Digital Age: What is at stake for
> >                   Content Creators, Purveyors and Users?
>
> This comment is directed to the following portion of that notice:
>
> >   Some  content  owners are calling for
> >   congressional   intervention  to  provide  additional  protection  for
> >   digital copyrighted works in the form of government mandated standards
> >   for,  and  agency  certification  and  approval  of, DRM technologies.
> >   Information technology companies, in turn, have expressed concern that
> >   inappropriate  government  mandates could stifle innovation and hobble
> >   technology  that  could be made available to creators and consumers to
> >   improve  the  quality,  functionality,  flexibility,  and freedom that
> >   digital delivery systems, and personal computer technology in general,
> >   have to offer.
>
> I am an Emeritus Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University
> and am currently a Visiting Professor at Whittier Law School. My
> major research concern for many years has been with the application
> of law to the process of computing.  I am also the plaintiff in
> the case of Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000), the
> leading case holding that computer programs are speech that is
> protected by the First Amendment.
>
> Except for mentioning the fact that there is no such thing as a
> "content owner,"  as opposed to the owner of the limited set
> of rights that are included within the grant of a copyright
> monopoly, I shall confine these comments to the drastic
> consequences that would be entailed by any legislation mandating
> that Digital Rights Management ("DRM") technologies be included
> in general purpose digital computers.  These comments are not
> addressed to dedicated "game machines," digital video viewers,
> or CD players, etc., that are not designed to function as
> general purpose computers.
>
> The simple fact is that any legislation mandating that general
> purpose computers must contain an effective DRM technology would
> outlaw the manufacture and sale of all those general purpose
> digital computeers that are subject to the mandate, since the
> purpose of all DRM technologies is to limit what can be done
> with the devices that contain them and to make sure that those
> devices cannot perform all of the functions of a general purpose
> computer.
>
> The wonder and the almost unlimited potential of general purpose
> digital computers, from the cheapest PC to the most powerful
> of super-computers, is that they can perform any calculation--any
> computation--whatsoever that can be performed on digital
> representations of one or more numbers.  The only limitations are
> those imposed by the size of the computer's memory and the speed
> at which it can perform its computations.
>
> Any copyrightable work that is represented in digital form--whether
> contained in a tangible medium like a CD or a DVD or "streamed"
> over the Internet or a television channel--can be viewed as a
> digital representation of a number that can be used in a
> computation. DRM technologies as applied to works in digital form
> involve computations that scramble the data so that it is difficult
> for an unauthorized entity to unscramble it again.
>
> What worries the so-called ``content owners'' is the fact that
> it is not actually that difficult in many cases for an unauthorized
> entity to use a computer to perform the calculations needed to
> unscramble the scrambled data.  Their proposed solution to this
> problem is to require that devices that process digital works
> be incapable of performing those calculations (or incapable
> of performing calculations upon certain numbers.)
>
> I am not a computer scientist, but I have difficulty in conceiving
> how one could modify a general purpose digital computer so that
> it will not perform certain calculations (or so that it will not
> perform computations upon certain numbers) and have it still
> be capable of performing any calculations at all.  In any case,
> one does not have to be a computer scientist to recognize that
> any device that is modified in such a fashion would no longer be
> a general purpose computer, although it might be a dedicated
> word processor or a video player or a game machine.
>
> I believe that outlawing general purpose computers by requiring
> all devices capable of processing digital data to contain DRM
> technologies would have drastic consequences for the progress
> of science and the useful arts, as well as for our nation's
> economy, but I am not an expert in these matters.
>
> I would, therefore, suggest that you solicit comments and
> testimony from computer scientists and programmers as to the
> the desirability--and the feasibility--of applying DRM
> technologies to devices intended to function as general purpose
> computers.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> Peter D. Junger
> - --
> Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
>  EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
>
>
>
> ------- End of Forwarded Message