![[Politech logo]](http://www.politechbot.com/image/logo.gif){kind=logo}
Politech is the oldest Internet resource devoted to politics and technology. Launched in 1994 by Declan McCullagh, the mailing list has chronicled the growing intersection of culture, technology, politics, and law. Since 2000, so has the Politech web site.
[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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------