[iwar] [fc:Copy-control.Senator.sleeps.while.fair-use.rights.burn]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-22 12:44:43


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2234-1001187884-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 22 Sep 2001 12:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 2679 invoked by uid 510); 22 Sep 2001 19:45:09 -0000
Received: from n4.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.54) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 22 Sep 2001 19:45:09 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2234-1001187884-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.52] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Sep 2001 19:44:44 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 22 Sep 2001 19:44:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 64065 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2001 19:44:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Sep 2001 19:44:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Sep 2001 19:44:43 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id MAA19865 for iwar@onelist.com; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 12:44:43 -0700
Message-Id: <200109221944.MAA19865@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 12:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Copy-control.Senator.sleeps.while.fair-use.rights.burn]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Copy-control Senator sleeps while fair-use rights burn

By Dan Berkes, Newsforge.com

Posted: 22/09/2001 at 09:25 GMT

Picture a future where distributing Linux is a crime punishable by a
hefty fine and a prison sentence.  If that sounds ridiculous, then you
haven't run into the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act. 
It's the very latest - and most bizarre - word in political
back-scratching from one of South Carolina's U.S.  senators.  And he'd
rather not talk about it, thank you very much. 

It is unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or
otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that does not
include and utilize certified security technologies that adhere to the
security systems standards adopted under section 104.  This is the heart
of the new Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), a
draft of legislation proposed by U.S.  Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings,
a Democrat from South Carolina. 

Yes, it is vague, and perhaps intentionally so.  The SSSCA raises a
number of questions, none of which its politically powerful sponsor
feels compelled to answer. 

Repeated calls to Hollings' office were routed to voicemail or
message-takers, and on two occasions, an individual who was unable to do
anything - including providing his name - other than repeat the phrase
"I'm simply not qualified to comment on this matter," to any question I
asked until I hung up the phone. 

What is the ominous-sounding section 104, with its security systems
standards? According to the draft legislation, the companies that make
digital devices and the companies that own copyright content are
expected to sit down together and, within 12 months of the SSSCA's
passage, come to an agreement on copy-protection standards. 

If what these two camps agree on passes muster with the Department of
Commerce, eventually compliant copy-protected devices will be created
using those standards.  If, after two years (Commerce can extend the
deadline by another 12 months) the two parties can't agree, then the
Department of Commerce can create its own legally-binding standards. 

When calling Hollings' office, I merely wanted to know the answers to
the following questions:

- What, exactly, is a digital device? Are we talking about just
computers, or are we talking about computers, plus MP3 players,
television sets, and VCRs? Are we talking about everything digital, and
does that mean that the next alarm clock I buy will have to prohibit
copying, even if was never intended for that use in the first place?

- How will this affect fair use provisions that currently allow copying
of recordings I own for my personal use? Will the argument be that I'm
still allowed to make such copies if I can find a pre-SSSCA device, but
if I buy such a device from, say, a secondhand store, will that land the
shopkeeper (not to mention me) in jail?

- And yeah, what about Linux? How do you make the operating system,
where every column inch of source code is available for inspection,
SSSCA compliant?

I think this may be a self-answering question: You can't - not unless
some drastic changes to current licenses and code distribution are made. 
If there's a certain level of paranoia in Hollings' office regarding the
SSSCA, perhaps it's understandable.  From all perspectives, this is
nothing more than a blatant attempt to offer a return on investment to
campaign donors. 

As the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, one of the most
important committee chairs on Capitol Hill, Hollings has attracted quite
a stable of high-profile donors over the years.  According to Federal
Election Commission data presented by campaign contribution watchdog
Open Secrets, there are five major media and entertainment companies in
the top 20 list of Hollings' most generous campaign donors.  They
include AOL Time Warner ($33,500), the Murdoch-owned News Corporation
($28,224), Viacom's CBS ($16,632), the National Association of
Broadcasters ($22,000), and Walt Disney Co.  ($18,500). 

The individual donors from those companies include a flock of
high-ranking executives from various News Corp/Fox subsidiaries, Viacom
CEO Sumner Redstone, and Ted Turner from AOL Time Warner.  Since 1995,
employees from companies producing television, movies, music, and other
media content have sent Hollings $287,534, making the entertainment
industry his second most generous supporters.  Those individual
donations look like small potatoes, especially when you find out that
they cover the past five to six years of campaign contributions. 

It's illegal for corporations to spend money on federal elections, and
individual donors aren't allowed to to contribute more than $1,000 to a
candidate for federal office, or more than $20,000 per year to a
political party.  Not that this stops anyone from doing it, and doing it
legally through something known as soft money. 

Soft money has been around since 1978, when a Federal Election
Commission made an administrative ruling that allowed money to be
donated to political organizations for the purpose of building party
structure.  The activity and the money that fueled it was never intended
to be used to influence the outcome of a federal election.  The only
problem is that the FEC has no power to investigate where soft money is
applied once it enters the political machine. 

And it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, hard to figure out
what AOL Time Warner and Disney want when each donated over $1 million
last year to the major American political parties.  Nor does it take a
cluster of Linux supercomputers to figure out that such money may
eventually wind up being spent by the more connected members of that
party - the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, for example. 

Even with such staunch support from the nation's media giants, they're
only number two on Hollings' list of top givers broken down by industry. 
The top spot goes to a combination of lawyers, law firms, and
influential lobbyist groups.  Individual supporters include legal eagles
from Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson, and Hand ($28,508) who
represent virtually every major sports league and the Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flohm
($2,500), who currently have their hands full with representing Compaq's
side of its $25 billion merger with Hewlett-Packard. 

And then there's Tony Podesta's high-profile lobbying firm, which
represents such friends of fair use as RIAA and the MPAA.  Taking up the
rear are individual donations from lawyers, many with experience in
technology and intellectual property litigation.  It's important to
remember that the SSSCA is a draft of a bill that may or may not be
introduced in both houses of Congress.  Unfortunately, it's a draft
that's just gained a sponsor in the House of Representatives.  The good
news from many watchdog groups is that the bill, in its current state,
isn't expected to get past committee.  The bad news is that some parts
of it will likely survive or be resurrected in any number of other bills
that could be introduced in the next Congressional session. 

Now sure, I can understand that perhaps our Congressional leaders are
little preoccupied, what with last week's events.  And I don't mean to
vulgarize or trivialize that tragedy, but it's times like these when our
elected leaders should be under the most intense scrutiny.  Unpleasant
regulatory surprises have a way of sneaking in the back door when the
voting public is otherwise engaged. 

© Newsforge.com.  All rights reserved. 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XrFcOC/m5_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:48 PDT