a. Legislative session on SSCA.
b. Begin with Declan’s summary.
III.
Steps
a. Copyright exists
b. Promiscuous publication – Sue the
middle people for vicarious and contributory infringement.
c. Trusted systems – Systems to protect
intellectual/digital property and DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. Must respect technical systems.
d. Big objection to trusted systems was
that you could lock it up tighter than you could with the law directly. But DMCA still penalizes crackers of this
system.
IV.
SSSCA
a. Too difficult to protect without help
from the digital devices.
b. Review of SSSCA. http://216.110.42.179/docs/hollings.090701.html
http://cryptome.org/sssca.htm
c. Temperature of the room:
-
meta-temperature – hum for thinking people will pass it. No one.
- temp - a few people into it.
Most against it.
d. Cohen (pro): Better get everyone
working to protect a copyright if we think it should be protected and if
everyone needs to do it for it to be effective. Half of the devices protecting is useless.
This
is the only way to do it.
e. Alexander (con): Public voice not being
heard in the formulation of the law. No
consumer representation. SSSCA affects
the way people use the content/devices.
The protections could end up stronger than the protections afforded by
law. Without public input, they could
make the protections even stronger.
f. Cohen (pro): It would be good to repeal
1201 in favor of the SSSCA. If Congress
would be responsive to what people want in passing the standards.
g. Proposal: Amend to include repeal of 1201
with the bill. Repeal anti-circumvention
in favor of having this instead.
h. Warner: This amendment creates an
invitation for crackers without any recourse against them. Everyone agrees on one thing that everyone
will focus cracking efforts on.
i. Hall: Should keep 1201 and get rid of
this. This reduces incentive for
creating new encryption technologies.
We’ll fall behind and the terrorists will win.
j. Vila(?): This doesn’t reduce general
market for encryption technologies.
Can’t we limit what people can protect with these technical protection
schemes?
k. Blavin: Let the market create the technologies that we need. Don’t institutionalize technology but make limits on the extent of technological protection allowed.
l. Bradford (con): Not happy with act’s
affect on fair use. This act limits
open source software.
V.
Is this bill a threat to hardward manufacturers?
a. Abelson: HP would want to know what was
in the device. Nothing in this standard
talks about the cost of it.
b. Isn’t it harder to crack a closed
system? Abelson: the people who really
know think that’s not true.
c. Pius:
All this is moot. Make people
agree to obey something that doesn’t exist yet.
- this is common in cyber-stuff with Congress. Because we can’t agree on the standards but
we can agree that we need standards.
- See HIPPA, create rules about creating standards
for sharing health records. Let a
committee come up with how to do this.
d. ??: Plenty of federal agencies do
this. This gives corporations
development incentives.
VI. THE BILL FAILS even w/ Amendments.
VII. Webcasting
A. Zittrain on CARP – A case study
Copyright bundle of rights in sound
recording:
- Mechanical reproduction rights/ right to copy.
Rights in creator. Given to record
company when you get a deal.
- Public performance right – doesn’t go to record
company when artist signs with them.
Held by ASCAP on behalf of the artists. Radio stations need to get/buy permission
from ASCAP (not the RIAA) to play song.
b. The webcast – Internet radio
-
Is it making a copy (RIAA mad)
-
Is it a public performance (ASCAP mad)
-
In 1998 Congress said “yes”. It is
both.
- What about radio stations who do both broadcast
and Internet? Do they have to pay
both? Probably. But you might be able to qualify for
compulsory license, which will be reasonable.
- Qualification for compulsory license: Adhere to
performance complement. Difficult
restrictions. Can’t play a lot by one
person. Can’t pre-announce what is
coming up on playlist.
- Why is performance complement in the law?
Tippet: to prevent people from copying stuff off of
webcasts, which is pretty hard.
- How is the amount of the license to be set? Negotiate and fail. Then convene the CARP
c. The CARP
-
Parties all testified.
-
3 person panel of judges.
-
Decision of CARP retroactive to 1998.
-
New rates set every 2 years.
d. Discussion
1. Isn’t this the same as Napster? What’s the difference?
Tippet: This is harder to do. You have to get special software and you
have to trick it. More difficult than
Napster. The software makers make it
hard to rip.
Zittrain: There are some tools out there that let
you rip stuff pretty easily. (supposedly).
RIAA likes this a lot.
2. CARP decided last week. Decision was much closer to what RIAA wanted than what the
webcasters wanted. Should you have to
pay for the copies you make as you prepare to stream them out.
3. One interpretation is that it is meant to drive
webcasters out of business to make room for the pressplays of the world.
4. www.live365.com. Lets people put their playlists up for other
people to hear. Ostensibly each user
covered performance complement. Will
probably be gone after the CARP decision.
5. Is there an antitrust problem? Maybe and the RIAA may try to keep some
companies around to defend against this.
e. What does this mean?
- increasing clarification of the copyrights on
songs.
- not the case that if you digitize it, you own
it.
- Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Eldred v. Reno; Eldred v. Ashcroft. See: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvashcroft
- Fairness in Music Licensing Act. RIAA trying to get money from camps and
restaurants for performance of songs.
Says how many speakers a restaurant can use to play music off the
radio.
- This is the end on property for us.
FEEDBACK
MEMOS:
1.
What’s your biggest thought? What’s on
your mind right now?
2.
What question about the course do you have right now?
3.
Is there anything you want to say directly to the teaching staff?
Something else