FC: Everyone hates SSSCA, CBDPTA in comments to Senate Judicary panel

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[Some sample comments follow. An exercise for the reader: How many of
these comments *applaud* the SSSCA or, by extension, the approach its
successor takes? See: http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/
--Declan]


http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/input_form.cfm

   
      Protecting Creative Works in a Digital Age: What is at stake for
                   Content Creators, Purveyors and Users?
                                      
                         Thursday,  March 21, 2002
                                      
                                Scott Atwood
                        Los Altos Hills , California
                                      
                                      
                                      
     Dear Honorable Senators,
     I am writing to you as a concerned citizen
     regarding the proposed "Security Systems Standards
     and Certification Act" or SSSCA. There has
     always been a delicate balance between holders
     of copyrights and users of copyrighted materials.
     I fear that the SSSCA will drastically alter the
     balance in favor of copyright holders.
     The courts have historically recognized and
     protected the fair use rights of consumers of
     copyrighted materials. For instance recording
     a television program to watch later at a more
     convenient time, copying music from a CD I own
     to my MP3 player to listen to while I work out,
     and loaning a book to a friend are all legal under
     fair use. The SSSCA would curtail or eliminate
     the ability to perform these actions in the
     digital domain, thereby trampling on consumers
     fair use rights.
     The media industry supporting this legislation
     claims that it is necessary to prevent piracy.
     It would prevent the average unsophisticated
     user from casually copying protected materials,
     whether for a legally protected use or not.
     Technically sophisticated users will still be
     able to bypass the restrictions and copy at will.
     One only has to look at the software industry to
     recognize the effectiveness of copy protection
     schemes. Most companies have given up copy
     protection but they still make good profits.
     If the media industry is worried about illegal
     copying of their copyrighted materials,
     they should support increased enforcement of
     existing laws against illegal copying instead of
     enforcing technical measures against all copying.
     Legal enforcement can distinguish between legal
     and illegal copying. Technical measures would
     prohibit *all* copying whether permitted under
     fair use or not. Rather than punish American
     consumers, shut down the piracy factories in Asia.
     __________________________________________________________________
                                      
                                Wade Minter
                       Fuquay-Varina , North Carolina
                                      
                                      
                                      
     Hello,
     I am a computer professional working in the field of Unix System
     Administration. I have been involved in technology for
     approximately ten years. I am opposed to laws such as the DMCA and
     the SSSCA.
     I have been watching with increasing dismay as copyright law has
     moved from a balancing act between the rights of the public and an
     incentive to creators to a tool to protect corporate profits. This
     is far from the ideals of the founding fathers, who correctly
     regarded copyright as a limited monopoly for creators, with works
     quickly entering the public domain for the benefit of all.
     The current situation does nothing to benefit the public. Copyright
     holders, increasingly large corporations instead of individual
     authors, retain control over their works for an obscene period of
     time (more than a lifetime in the case of both individual and
     corporate works). And it seems that over the past 40 years or so,
     the copyright period gets increased regularly, usually after
     lobbying by media companies. How the current copyright term can
     coexist with the Constitutional limitations of "for a limited time"
     and "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts" is
     beyond me. Current copyright law promotes nothing but corporate
     control and profit-mongering over works that should have long ago
     entered the public domain.
     Contrast copyright law with patent law. Patents cover control over
     physical items for a term of 17 years. Copyright covers control
     over intellectual items for terms over 100 years, generally. If the
     maker of a drug to cure cancer or AIDS is expected to earn back
     their development costs in 17 years, why is a record label or
     publishing house allowed to control their work for up to ten times
     as long?
     Copyright is intended as a balance and an incentive. It is NOT a
     tool to guarantee profits, or legislate the survival of a
     particular business
     model. Can anyone look at the copyright system as it currently
     exists and say that at achieves any type of balance? Media
     companies say that they need draconian copyright protection in
     order for people to create new works. However, lasting works of
     art, music, and literature were created long before this system of
     copyright abuse, and will continue to be created if copyright laws
     are reformed, for no other reason than creative people are driven
     to create. In addition, more reasonable copyright law would most
     likely spur MORE creative works, as A) artists would no longer be
     able to wring every last cent out of a work, and B) there would be
     a larger body of public-domain work available for everyone to work
     from.
     I found it absurd that Disney's Michael Eisner was in front of
     Congress talking about "pirates" who steal, as opposed to artists
     who create. What have Disney's big hits been lately? The Hunchback
     of Notre Dame? Atlantis? The Little Mermaid? All of those are taken
     from stories and tales in the public domain. Disney has used these
     stories to make millions. However, they refuse to release their own
     works into the public domain to inspire others. Who in this
     situation is exploiting the work of others?
     Laws like the DMCA and the proposed SSSCA take corporate control
     over intellectual property to the next level. Under the guise of
     "protecting the artists", media companies want to make it a federal
     felony if you find a way around their copy-prevented items. As
     codified in the 1984 Supreme Court decision on VCRs, people have,
     for example, the right to time-shift and space-shift TV programs
     onto videotape. In the future of the SSSCA, though, the media
     companies will be able to mark digital TV shows as "uncopyable",
     and digital VCRs and the like will be forced to oblige, technically
     cutting off people from taping a TV show while they're at work. And
     if you are able to circumvent this restriction, to exercise your
     legal rights, you can be thrown in jail for five years. Where is
     the justice? Where are the rights of the citizens?
     When the VCR came into general use, Hollywood swore up and down
     that it would be the death of the industry. Why, if people were
     allowed to copy
     video and TV, then nobody would buy anything anymore. Now, of
     course, Hollywood makes a large chunk of its profits each year from
     video rentals, and media profits grow larger each year, even though
     people have the ability to use a VCR. If they were completely wrong
     about the VCR, what makes you think they're correct about digital
     media being the death of their industry?
     In addition, laws like the SSSCA will have a chilling effect on the
     progress and innovation of new technology. When every digital
     device created must meet the copy prevention standards (and
     licensing costs) ordered by the media companies, there will be a
     much lower incentive to create new technology. I point you to the
     Linux computer operating system, started by one man in Finland a
     decade ago, that is now a robust business-class operating system
     supported by companies such as IBM. In the world of the SSSCA,
     Linux would cease to exist, because as an open and
     freely-modifiable product, it would not be able to incorporated
     closed copy prevention technology. Is that the technological
     innovation that you claim to support? Someone who comes up with the
     next big digital audio invention will be forced to include this
     copy-prevention technology, cutting off the individual inventor.
     In addition, there will be an incentive to purchase pre-SSSCA
     digital hardware, and a disincentive to purchase post-SSSCA digital
     hardware, as no consumer in their right mind will want to pay more
     for crippled technology. This will have an adverse affect on the US
     technology
     industry.
     It is time for copyright to return to its ideals - a balance
     between citizens and producers. This is NOT the time to swing the
     balance even more toward producers than it already is. I implore
     Congress to reject measures designed to technically impede the
     rights of the people.
     Thank you,
     Wade Minter
     __________________________________________________________________
                                      
                               Paul Cantrell
                            St. Paul , Minnesota
                                      
                                      
                                      
     It has come to my attention that the "SSSCA" bill proposed by Sen.
     Hollings is in a public comment period.
     I am a professional in both music and computer technology. In
     technology, I am a software engineer specilizing in Java. In music,
     I am a pianist and composer, and bring my music to the public
     through performances, recordings, and printed scores. From both
     professional perspectives, I have a strong interest in the
     development of copyright law.
     I have heard many times in the public debate surrounding first the
     DMCA and now the SSSCA that the new wave of copy protection laws
     represent the interests of creative professionals. This is
     grotesquely untrue. Let me go on the record as stating, in the
     strongest possible terms, that the SSSCA absolutely DOES NOT
     REPRESENT MY INTERESTS as either a musician or a software engineer.
     The SSSCA proposes that copy protection be mandatorily included in
     a wide variety of digital hardware and software devices. Such a
     mandate would crush the open, creative market for technology which
     has given us the innovations we enjoy today. It would also make the
     work of the creative professional one of endless finagling with
     copy protection, and endless fighting for creative freedoms
     normally protected by copyright law.
     The SSSCA is a threat to my creative work, and my freedom. I urge
     you to trash this destructive bill; its introduction would be an
     embarassment to the senate.
     Sincerely,
     Paul Cantrell
     __________________________________________________________________
                                      
                                 Ross Biro
                           Pacifica , California
                                      
                                      
                                      
     Dear members of the committee:
     My understanding of the Security Systems Standards and
     Certification Act
     (SSSCA) is that it would require Digital Rights Management (DRM) to
     be built
     into hardware and software. I am worried about the economic impact
     of the
     SSSCA on the American economy. Virtually all businesses use
     computers in
     one shape or another, and hence may be impacted.
     As a long time software developer, I am concerned about the impact
     of this
     act on open source software such as Linux, FreeBSD, and apache.
     Currently
     55% of web servers run Apache software [www.netcraft.co.uk/Survey].
     Would
     the apache group no longer be allowed to publish their source code
     in the US
     since doing so would allow someone to easily remove any built in
     DRM?
     Another concern is how to prevent content from accidentally falling
     under
     the control of the DRM system. What would the impact on
     productivity be
     when people can no longer mail copies of documents and spread
     sheets they
     have created to their coworkers? If a document were to fall under
     the
     control of the DRM system, it may be effectively lost to the
     company that
     created it.
     A much larger concern is the impact of the SSSCA on innovations by
     American
     companies in both the computer industry and the consumer
     electronics
     industry. Any new products introduced by either of these industries
     would
     require to include the mandated DRM. What additional development
     time and
     costs would be needed to include the required DRM? Would a company
     such as
     Apple Computers been able to create the Apple I and Apple II if the
     SSSCA
     had been in force when the company was founded?
     Finally what will the impact be on the compositeness of American
     companies
     in the world market? Will businesses in other countries be willing
     to
     purchase American made computers if they have built in DRM? Will
     companies
     in foreign countries be able to manufacture new products more
     quickly and
     cheaply that US companies? Will Microsoft have to move most of its
     operations overseas to be able to produce versions of their
     software with
     DRM and versions with out? How many American jobs will be lost if
     the SSSCA
     becomes law?
     I understand that many copyright holders support this act because
     they are
     worried about copyright violations costing them money. We should
     all be
     concerned about illegal activies hurting the economy. However, one
     of the
     things that has made American businesses great and our economy so
     strong is
     an ability to adapt to change and find ways to turn adversity into
     a profit.
     Perhaps what is really needed is for the copyright holders to be
     helped and
     encouraged to find new ways of making profits in our changing
     times, thus
     strengthen the American economy instead of weakening it.
     __________________________________________________________________
                                      
                               Malcolm Slaney
                        Los Altos Hills , California
                                      
                                      
                                      
     I am very disappointed in the response the Judiciary committee gave
     to the
     high-tech industry during the recent SSSCA hearings.
     The SSSCA bill is very misguided for several reasons.
     First, the behavior it is trying to prevent is already illegal.
     Napster is
     already out of business. And one article I read this morning
     suggested
     that the reason that broadband deployment has fallen off is because
     of
     this. Illegal trading activity has already been cut off.
     Second, it is mind-boggling to suggest that one industry (the
     music/movie
     people) should tell another industry (the computer industry) how to
     build
     their products. If the music industry doesn't like how computers
     work,
     they should invent their own music delivery system. They can put as
     much
     encryption into the system as they want. If they make a good
     product, then
     people will buy it.
     Third, the SSSCA proposal is entirely too broad. It's like asking
     all
     people who make wheeled-devices (cars, wheelbarrels, trucks,
     matchbox cars)
     to put breath-analyzers into their devices because a few people
     drive
     drunk. The cost of the SSSCA is way out of proportion to possible
     damage. More importantly, I can't imagine how the SSSCA would allow
     people
     to build their own computers. That is how I learned, and many other
     people
     too. Hollywood is important, but I suspect that the computer
     industry
     deserves a lot more credit for the strength of our country. We need
     to
     encourage people to play and learn. The SSSCA would kill this
     possibility.
     I have a computer full of MP3s that I play in my living room.
     *Every* one
     of them came from a CD that I purchased and is now stored in a box.
     I
     would gladly buy the MP3s directly from the record industry, if
     they ever
     got a clue.
     Thank you for your attention.
     -- Malcolm Slaney
     Los Altos Hills, CA
     __________________________________________________________________
                                      



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------