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

Re: [dvd-discuss] Protecting Creative Works in a Digital Age (revised)



The computer industry will not be harmed by Hollings' law
any more than the arms industry is harmed by gun and 
export controls. Expect a global implementation of
Hollings' via international copyright regimes.

Protestation by the computer industry is prelude to
an increase in prices to offset the cost of implementation
of copy controls, the cost to customers being multiplied 
several fold over the actual cost due to the expense
of maintaining and enforcing copyright controls.

This is a well-etablished pattern for economic warfare.

Still, there is a corollary benefit to those who will find
well-paid work and return on investments in the copyright
industry and its infrastructure support sysem, again
following the model of the global defense industry.

Indeed, the best and brightest of all nations will be
drawn to the privileges and benefits of a reguated
and controlled industry, far more than to the thankless
labor of unpaid voluntarism.

Morever, the open code movement will likely be 
a training ground for paid positions until it is gradually
taken over by corporate benefactors -- through research
institutes, educational institutions and spectactular
prizes to singular individuals.

But this is not news to those who've followed the copyright
wars, followed the Internet, followed computers.





At 06:32 AM 3/24/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
>
>> [Since my first submission was rejected, I took the opportunity to
>> revise my remarks some. Here's the new version I submitted. If
>> nothing else, I was able to add the new acronym. -- agr]
>>
>
>
>A few other things.. Given how the DMCA was passed, congress will likely
>just put in lip-service useless exceptions for the specific points you
>complain about.. But the bill will pass as is, fundamentally broken.
>
>May I suggest instead pointing out that the bill itself is flawed, with
>economic arguments.. If free-speech arguments actually worked, we'd not

>have the DMCA, much less have this the CBDTPA proposal.
>
>Something like:
>
>
>* The computer industry is several times larger than the entertainment
>industry. It will be irreparably harmed by this legistlation. Progress
>will cease. People will not release programs under uncertain liabilities.
>The software industry, especially small software houses, will be
>irreparably harmed.
>
>* Napster was the single thing that is responsible for the initial uptake
>of braodband in the US. There is already high, though not legal,
>availability of content online, and it is attracting users.
>
>* This attempts to legistlate out the only EXISTING source of
>high-bandwidth content online. Why is it doing that instead of
>*encouraging* the current sources.
>
>* Why not legalize the existing sources of content. Say, through
>compulsary licenses, or a reasonable levy on residential bandwidth.
>Something similar to AHRA, which worked a decade ago.
>
>* People do not want crippled computers or content. They want computers
>and content that they can use how, where, and when they want. No system
>can allow that while being secure. Either it will cripple computers and
>content, or it will be insecure.
>
>* Thus, this proposed legistlation will *retard* the uptake of broadband.
>
>* The telecoms industry, also several times larger than the entertainment
>industry, stands to lose a lot under this legistlation.
>
>...
>
>
>Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> March 22, 2002
>>
>> The United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> Washington, D.C.
>>
>> Re: Protecting Creative Works in a Digital Age: What is At Stake for
>> Content Creators, Purveyors and Users?
>>
>> I oppose proposals, like the CBDTPA (formerly the SSSCA), that
>> require Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology in all digital
>> devices. These proposals radically shift the balance of power between
>> information producers and the public.  Orwellian is the best word to
>> describe such laws.  Here are some of the reasons for my opposition:
>>
>> 1.  The CBDTPA Represents a Massive Economic Power Grab by the Media
Industry
>>
>> The CBDTPA is a brazen attempt by the media industry to destroy the
>> copyright balance the Founding Fathers carefully constructed in our
>> Constitution so as to gain virtually unlimited profits.
>>
>> 1.1 The media industry seeks greater profits through legislation, not
>> market success
>>
>> These proposals are part of a broad campaign by the media industry to
>> gain control over information, with prior efforts directed at

>> extending copyright duration, fighting copying technology, killing
>> digital audio tape and even attempting to block the introduction of
>> the VCR. At the same time, deregulation measures sought by the
>> industry allow increasing concentration of media ownership, mostly in
>> foreign corporations.
>>
>> No one is forcing media companies to release their content in digital
>> form that can be played on personal computers. It is a choice they
>> continue to make in the face of the claimed risks. If they wish to
>> develop secure digital distribution systems, they should do so with
>> their own ample resources and convince consumers to accept their
>> devices through market forces, not by legislation.
>>
>> 1.2. The media industry wants a free ride on the Internet
>>
>> The creation of the personal computer and the Internet is one of the
>> great achievements of American technology, and one that offers
>> profound hope for our future. The media companies are trying to
>> commandeer this technology to gain a new means of distribution at
>> little or no cost to themselves. Why should they be permitted to
>> cripple this engine of progress just so they can enhance their
>> profits?
>>
>> There is a real risk here to the health of the personal computer
>> industry.  PCs are already far more powerful than any super-computer
>> 20 years ago. How much power do consumers really need? A major
>> reduction in the usability of computers forced by CBDTPA may signal
>> to consumers to stop buying new machines every few years and simply
>> upgrade what they own.  The economic impact on the computer industry
>> could be devastating.
>>
>> 1.3 The coming Pay-Per-View Society
>>
>> The media industry's goals go far beyond ending "Internet piracy."
>> They wish to create a pay-per-view world where they collect a fee
>> every time a copyrighted work is viewed or read.  In passing the
>> Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Congressional committees
>> specifically disavowed the creation of a pay-per-view society. The
>> CBDTPA would reverse that position. The rights consumers now enjoy to
>> record TV programs and radio broadcasts and listen to them as often
>> as they wish, granted by the Supreme Court in Universal v. Sony,
>> would be repealed by CBDTPA.
>>
>>
>> 2. The Unintended Consequences Will Curtail Our Cherished Freedoms
>>
>> The dangers of CBDTPA and its kin go far beyond the economic. Here
>> are some scenarios where CBDTPA would undermine basic public rights
>> to access and use information:
>>
>> 2.1 Balkanization of human culture
>>
>> One sign of what a DRM world would be like is already apparent with
>> DVDs. The motion picture industry has arbitrarily divided the world
>> into six "zones." Movies recorded on DVDs for one zone are not usable
>> on DVD players in the other zones. If I buy a DVD on a trip to Europe
>> or Mexico, I can't play it when I get home. Movies that lack a large
>> market, because they are not in English or are too local in content,
>> are unlikely to be released in a North American version (Zone 1), so
>> U.S. citizens can never watch them.  Is this what Congress intended

>> when it passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?  CBDTPA will
>> only make things worse by making it physically impossible to access
>> foreign works that industry does not choose to distribute in the U.S.
>> and by making criminals of those who attempt to do so. Our right to
>> read and view foreign works, works that we pay for, will be sharply
>> curtailed.
>>
>> 2.2 The new Iron Curtain
>>
>> In the future, repressive governments may insist that media players
>> imported into their territory include DRM technology adapted so that
>> it can block any unapproved works. That would not be hard to do. Only
>> media that has a digital signature from a government censor would be
>> playable. As new digital devices come to dominate information
>> commerce, these governments will be able to totally control what
>> movies, songs, political tracts, TV programs and news stories are
>> available to their citizens. Any U.S. citizen who tried to create
>> material that would bypass the censor would be subject to criminal
>> prosecution under CBDTPA.
>>
>> If you think I'm exaggerating, consider this: China already has its
>> own DVD zone, number 6. Suppose I re-record for zone 6 a copy of
>> "Kundun," the Walt Disney feature film about the Dalai Lama's escape
>> from Chinese-occupied Tibet. I could then sent it to a friend in
>> China to play it on his DVD player. Right now I'd be risking a $2000
>> fine under the DMCA. Under CBDTPA, I would be committing a felony.
>>
>> 2.3 The end of the Public Domain
>>
>> The media industry has already obtained extensions to copyright
>> protection that insure no work created today will enter the public
>> domain in our children's lifetime. DRM will prevent new works from
>> ever entering the public domain. Even if the law is amended to
>> require provisions for the public domain, most works will become
>> unreadable before they can be decoded. Our written cultural history
>> will be mostly erased.
>>
>> 2.4 Revisionism by law
>>
>> In the past, when an organization issued a public statement, it
>> became part of the public record. In the future organizations can
>> issue statements, advertisements, stock solicitations, et cetera in
>> the form of protected, time limited documents using DRM technology.
>> If the statement proves to be embarrassing, inconvenient or otherwise
>> problematical, they can simply erase it from their records or even
>> alter it to eliminate the problem text or to add exculpatory
>> material. Anyone who attempted to save a readable copy of the
>> original that would catch this fraud would be subject to criminal
>> prosecution under CBDTPA.
>>
>> 2.5 No more free Public Libraries
>>
>> Ben Franklin himself invented the public library and publishers have
>> been seething ever since.  The free public library has been a
>> cornerstone our democracy, allowing people of all economic classes to
>> access our common culture. The CBDTPA will effectively kill
>> Franklin's concept by establishing the pay per view business model as
>> the prime mode of publishing. Public libraries will become retail
>> kiosks for collecting access fees. Already, advanced information

>> services like Lexis charge rates well beyond what the poor can
>> afford. That is the DRM vision of the future.
>>
>> Recall that Harvard University was named after John Harvard because
>> he donated his library to the fledgling college. In the future,
>> scholarly material will be delivered to each professor in a DRM
>> format keyed to the professor's player or smart card. When she dies,
>> no one will be able to access her lifetime of accumulated material
>> per CBDTPA.
>>
>> 2.6 The end of the paper trail
>>
>> Already companies are programming internal e-mail systems to erase
>> messages from archives after a few months. Soon companies will
>> distribute internal memos in a time limited DRM format that can only
>> be played on company computers. The software that plays these memos
>> will not permit them to be saved in a neutral format.  This will
>> effectively eliminate the paper trail that is used to prosecute
>> white-collar crime and end whistle-blowing as we know it.
>>
>> Enron's auditors would not have had to shred documents if they had
>> access to the type of technology CBDTPA would mandate. The documents
>> would simply cease to exist once a master key was erased.
>>
>> An issue in the last New York Senate campaign was whether one
>> candidate had espoused positions in his fundraising letters that
>> differed from those he stated in public. The public certainly has an
>> interest in knowing about such behavior. In the future, politicians
>> will deliver fund raising material using time limited DRM technology.
>> An opposing candidate that attempts to introduce copies into the
>> public debate would criminally violate CBDTPA.
>>
>> 3. The Need for Repressive Legislation Will Not End with CBDTPA
>>
>> How long has it been since DMCA was passed? Hundreds of millions of
>> computers are in consumer hands. Tens of millions more will be sold
>> before CBDTPA approved machines hit them market.  Many consumers will
>> choose to upgrade their older machines rather than accept the CBDTPA
>> restrictions. The media companies will be back for new laws and
>> regulations banning upgrades and restricting the sale of used
>> computers. First generation CBDTPA computers will be found not to be
>> secure enough so they will have to be removed from the used market.
>> Bandwidth available to consumers on the Internet must be restricted.
>> And on and on...
>>
>> The CBDTPA is a massive change in the way we use information. I have
>> attempted to suggest some of the likely consequences but I cannot
>> begin to predict all the evil that will ensue from the total control
>> over electronic expression that CBDTPA enables. This is too great a
>> risk for our democracy to bear.
>>
>> "1984 is not a novel, it's just another high tech product plan with
>> an overoptimistic ship date."
>>
>>
>> Respectfully submitted,
>>
>> Arnold G. Reinhold
>> 14 Fresh Pond Place
>> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
>>
>
>--
>No DVD movie will ever enter the public domain, nor will any CD. The last CD
>and the last DVD will have moldered away decades before they leave copyright.
>This is not encouraging the creation of knowledge in the public domain.

>