[dvd-discuss] Protecting Creative Works in a Digital Age (plain text)

["Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold(at)world.std.com>]

[This was previously sent in html format. I apologize for the 
inconvenience. -- agr]

March 18, 2002

The United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington D.C.
Via E-mail to usercomments@judiciary.senate.gov

Re: Protecting Creative Works in a Digital Age: What is at stake for 
Content Creators, Purveyors and Users?

I oppose proposals, like the SSSCA, that require  Digital Rights 
Management (DRM) technology in all digital devices because they 
radically shift the balance of power between information producers 
and the public.  Orwellian is the best word to describe such laws. 
They are part of a broad effort on the part of the media industry to 
gain complete 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.

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? No one is forcing media companies to release their precious 
content in digital form that can be played on personal computers.  It 
is a choice they continue to make in the face of the obvious risks 
and they should live with the consequences.

But the dangers of this latest proposal go far beyond the economic. 
Here are some scenarios where SSSCA would undermine basic public 
rights to access and use information:

Balkanization of Human Culture
One sign of what a DRM world would be like is already apparent with 
DVDs. The Motion Picture Industry Association 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 you buy a DVD on a 
trip to Europe or Mexico, you can't play it when you 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?  SSSCA will only make things worse.

The New Iron Curtain
In the future, repressive governments may insist that media players 
imported into their territory have their DRM technology adapted so 
that it can block any unapproved works. Only media that has a digital 
signature from a government censor will 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 SSSCA. 

If you think I'm exaggerating, consider this: China already has its 
own DVD zone -- number 6. Suppose I were to re-recored for zone 6 a 
copy of "Kundun," the Walt Disney feature film about the Dalai Lama's 
escape from Chinese-occupied Tibet. Doing this would allow a friend 
in China could play it on his DVD player. Right now I might be 
subject to a $2000 fine for an act of circumvention under the DMCA. 
Under SSSCA, I would be committing a felony.

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, etc. 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 their fraud would be subject to criminal 
prosecution under SSSCA.

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 Digital Rights Movement 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.

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 he or she dies, no one 
will be able to access his or her lifetime of accumulated material 
per SSSCA.

Secret Fundraising Letters
An issue in the last New York Senate campaign was whether one 
candidate had espoused positions in his fundraising letters that 
differ 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 SSSCA.

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 SSSCA would mandate.

I fear we will discover other, more insidious, unintended 
consequences of this dangerous proposal. It lays the groundwork for 
total control over electronic expression.  "1984 was 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