Hollings, Hollywood, etc. want to kill the 'Net and the software industry

[Shy Tall Guy]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51275,00.html
http://216.110.42.179/docs/cbdtpa/
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/hollings.s2048.032102.html

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF NONCONFORMING DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- A manufacturer, importer, or seller of digital media devices may not --

(1) sell, or offer for sale, in interstate commerce, or
(2) cause to be transported in, or in a manner affecting, interstate commerce,

a digital medial device unless the device includes and utilizes standard security technologies that adhere to the security system standards adopted under section 3.

(b) EXCEPTION. -- Subsection (a) does not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or transportation of a digital media device that was legally manufactured or imported, and sold to the consumer, prior to the effective date of regulations adopted under section 3 and not subsequently modified in violation of section 6(a).

SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY TECHNOLOGY; VIOLATION OF ENCODING RULES.

(a) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY TECHNOLOGY. -- No person may --

(1) knowingly remove or alter any standard security technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in interstate commerce, or

Essentially, Hollings and the corporate sponsors (Hollywood, record labels, Time Warner, etc.) want the government to force the digital content industry to come up with a copy protection standard, and then by federal law the government will force all hardware, software, and content providers (including all websites), to incorporate that scheme into their software (digital media device).

Yes it is ridiculous, preposterous and uneforceable - but it would have very deletrious effects on the internet, the open source software movement (goodbye Linux, Mozilla, Netscape), and much of the software industry.

It may seem this is only targeted at CD players, VCRs, etc. - but read the text of the bill carefully, read the analysis of legal experts, and you will find that the bill is written such that it applies to almost everything and anything that is digital:

SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

<snip>

(3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that --

(A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;
(B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or

(C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).

That includes browsers, image viewers, sound/movie players, even text viewers/editors such as Notepad or MS Word. Essentially, almost any and all software that is capable of loading and displaying "copyrighted" works whether those "works" are simple text, sounds, photos or movies.

Now, if you care about this, go here and comment on it:

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

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

So the Internet will be destroyed if it's not allowed to steal someone else's art, content , residuals and profits? Oh, okay...

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

"Fair Copy" is not the same thing as "Copyright theft". The Supreme Court has recognized "Fair Copy" and "Fair Use" for a loooooooong time.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

So the Internet will be destroyed if it's not allowed to steal someone else's art, content , residuals and profits? Oh, okay...

Read the supplied material DCL - I did not assert that people should be allowed to steal other's intellectual property - you know me better than that. I have no problem with content providers coming up with copy protection schemes either - I just wouldn't buy their content if they did.

What I have a problem with is the federal government stepping in, on the behalf of the content providers, and saying that all software and hardware capable of accessing any copyright digital content, from text to music, to GIFs, to JPEGs - must implement and use this copy protection scheme. That includes all browsers, word processors, editors (such as the little text window I am using right here on Lit. to compose this post - it would be considered a "digital media device"), etc. - almost all software, whether provided freely or for sale, must, under penalty of law (and the penalties are quite stiff) implement and include the copy protection scheme.

That, requiring the inclusion of the copy protection scheme in all software, would have very serious effects on the software industry and the Internet. Lit for instance would be required to have this kind of copy protection that would automatically prevent anyone from posting a copyrighted image.

For one thing, it is almost unworkable and unenforceable. For another, it would not be cheap to do. I encourage people to protect their rights, but this is ridiculous and it would have very bad effects on the software industry, the Internet in general, and anybody that allows the uploading of material to their website.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

That is different, ShyTallDude, but not totally without precedent.

CB - I stole the AV. BUT, it is considered fair use because I'm not selling it, profiting by it, or telling anyone that Lenny Bruce drinks Coke. Still, the owner of the photo (and, frankly, I think this photo is in the public domain) has every right to ask me to not use it, though he has no right to demand money from me.

You are allowed to videotape "Friends" every week, and watch it, and keep that tape, and lend it to friends, without the permission of Warner Brothers or NBC. Fair ccopy, fair use. You are not allowed to tape "Friends" and then show it at your restaurant and charge people to watch it, or include sequences for your public access TV program (despite the fact that public access is non-profit). That is "Unfair Use".

You can sing "Oklahoma" in your cabaret act without paying a royalty to Tams Whitmark, even if you charge money for people to see your show, because in Entertainment Law that's considered "Fair Use". However, you cannot use that same song in a 99 seat, Equity or tiered theatrical production. It's considered "unfair".

The Internet presents new challenges to what's "fair" and "unfair". If I wanted to maintatin exclusive rights to "Teaching Patti" I am within my right to do so, and I could prevent you from copying it and posting it on your web site (in fact, I already have, several times). I could not prevent you from copying it and reading it at home.

I'm sure you know all this CB, so I'm not quite sure what you're trying to make me understand. Is it that all art that CAN be copied and distributed SHOULD be copied and distributed? You're very intelligent, and I think you can see the enormous difference between my using a Lenny Bruce photo on a free web site as an icon (as opposed to a trademark) and copying Steven King's novel without paying for it.

I support legislation that protects an artist's intellectual rights (beyond the scope of Fair Use) -- and I also support legislation against allowing commercial technology that can steal my material. I supported the fight against Napster, because Napster was, essentially, a set of skeleton keys that allowed users entry into the vault of mass duplication. I don't care HOW big a group of assholes the people in the record business are and how much BMG and RCA deserved it, and how many new artists benefitted from the exposure, it was still a technology which allowed millions of people to steal. You CAN legislate that, the same way you can make a law about how many fish you can take out of a lake.

What ShyTallGuy is discussing at top may be more insidious and stupid, and deserves a second look by me, but I don't think "Hollywood wants to kill the Net!"

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

What ShyTallGuy is discussing at top may be more insidious and stupid, and deserves a second look by me, but I don't think "Hollywood wants to kill the Net!"

Well, that is recognizable hype - which is usually not my style, but it makes for a better title to a thread than "What Hollywood wants to do will kill the net", or does it??

Anyway, I am not so sure that some in Hollywood don't just wish the 'net would go away. Certainly, many content providers want their cake and to be able to eat it too; they wish that it wasn't so easy to copy digital content. That is one of the downsides of computers, but the content provider companies are going to have to face the fact that no amount of legislation is going to roll back the clock and force the world to adopt these stupid schemes that are unenforceable and easily bypassable.

I have always been of the opinion that if you want to treat a disease you go for the underlying cause not the symptom. For example, the problem with Napster was not with the fact that they were a file sharing service, it was that they allowed and encouraged people to share pirated music files. We shouldn't make file sharing illegal as that isn't the problem, we should (and do) make copyright infringement illegal.

Forcing a copy protection scheme to be incorporated into almost all software is akin to forcing every paper manufacturer/seller to print copyright warnings on half the surface of the paper. Not a very good example I know, but the proposed bill is so stupid and infuriating I am having trouble thinking of a good analogy.

Believe me, as a software developer and someone who understands computers and electronics, the bill as written has extremely broad applications and there will be very little hardware or software to which it will not apply. The ramifications on the costs of hardware and software especially, will be quite significant and in many cases extreme enough to drive many companies out of business. I can't even begin to express how this will affect innovation, but to say it will bring innovation almost to a standstill may only be a slight exageration.

If you think this isn't going to affect you then think again - this will affect everybody that uses computers, the Internet, televisions, cell phones, almost anything that is capable of displaying/playing back or otherwise manipulating copyrightable material. It doesn't matter whether you typically see/hear/etc. copyright material on these devices, it is what they are capable of.

BTW, DCL, I disagree with your seeming defintion of "fair use" - you don't have to profit from the use of someone's copyrighted material; if I reproduce the entire text of someone's book (or story, or poem) on my website just so others can read it, whether I make a profit from it or not, I am violating their copyright.

If OTOH, I reproduce a little a statement or even a paragraph, and discuss it, then that is fair use. Using a someone else's copyrighted image as my Avatar, without their permission, is copyright infringement - not fair use. If I reproduce the image a book cover on my website in the process of recommending the book (or recommending against it), then that is usually considered fair use. I do know however of one author who stupidly threatened legal action against one website that had an image of his book next to a recommendation to buy it - I acutally think the stupid people were his lawyers and he may not have known about the whole situation.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Putting someone's entire novel on your web site is not considered Fair Use. I never gave it that definition.

Lawyers have spent mucho hours working out the myrriad permutaions of what's "Fair" and what's not. I can't list them all here.

 

[Weird Harold]

Putting someone's entire novel on your web site is not considered Fair Use. I never gave it that definition.

Lawyers have spent mucho hours working out the myrriad permutaions of what's "Fair" and what's not. I can't list them all here.

If I understand STG's contention correctly, this proposed bill would make even "fair use" of anything that is digitized illegal -- period -- AND require software and hardware engineers to expend a great deal of effort to make it as difficult as possible to, for example, read Teaching Patti offline by clicking "save target as."

All of the "save" functions of IE and NAvigator would have to be removed if this bill passes -- including the ability to cut and paste from any website for any reason.