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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

Good comments. Submit them


Date sent:      	Sun, 24 Mar 2002 06:32:47 -0500 (EST)
From:           	Scott A Crosby <crosby@qwes.math.cmu.edu>
To:             	"Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com>
Copies to:      	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Protecting Creative Works in a Digital Age 
(revised)
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 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.
>