Fwd: SSSCA on its way

[B.K. DeLong]

At 12:07 PM 3/1/2002 -0800, Jon O. wrote:

>Looks like the government thinks we could all use some hardware enforcement.
>I wonder how they'll deal with already deployed, older, non-drm hardware?

Yeah, I contacted my Congressfolk with this note, originally written by a 
good friend with minor editing:

Honorable Senators Kennedy and Kerry, and Representative Tierney-

I am writing to express my great concern over the Security Systems 
Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), sponsored by Senator Hollings.  As 
I understand this bill, it would make illegal the sale or distribution of 
any "interactive digital device" that does not include certified security 
technologies.  I find this objectionable for several reasons.

First, I believe this bill poses a significant threat to my fair use 
rights.  I have the right to make copies of media I legally own, for my own 
purposes.  For example, I may make a copy of a CD I have purchased in order 
to listen to the music in my car or to backup the recording should the 
original get scratched or damaged beyond playability.  I'm allowed to make 
as many copies as I like, but I'm not allowed to give those copies to 
others who do not have a legal right to possess them.

This bill appears to violate my fair use rights by mandating that all 
hardware include a mechanism to prevent me from making copies. Currently, 
if I make a copy of a CD or other media for a friend, I
have broken the law, and I can be prosecuted for this offence - It's 
already illegal.

Secondly, I do not believe this bill can solve the problem it is intended 
to.  The bill appears to be aimed at the prevention of digital media 
piracy.  However, in order for any media to be used
by the consumer, the consumer must be provided with the means to decrypt 
the content so that it can be played.  Fundamentally, this means that no 
matter what protection scheme is employed, the consumer has access to the 
data, and therefore has the capability to copy it.

This bill cannot change this fundamental fact.  As a result, it cannot stop 
people who really want to from copying media.  Those who wish to pirate 
digital video, audio, and other content will still be able to do so, 
illegally.  Making it more illegal will not stop them.  This bill will, 
however make it much more difficult for law-abiding citizens to make legal 
copies of material they own.  It may, in fact, make it such that the only 
way someone can make legal copies is through the employment of some device 
to circumvent the copy protection technology.  As you are, no doubt, aware, 
the distribution of devices to circumvent copy protection is now illegal 
under the DMCA.

In my opinion, the SSSCA fails on all accounts.  Not only does it fail to 
achieve the desired result of hindering piracy, it also infringes upon the 
rights of law-abiding citizens.  Either of these should be enough to make 
the bill unacceptable.  I strongly encourage you to vote against the SSSCA.

Regarding the fact that record companies and motion picture studios are the 
ones actively pushing for such regulations - I think it's deplorable. I 
understand the artists, directors and actors are under contract to produce 
material for said corporations but has anyone done anything to look out for 
their rights?? How much money are artists making off various recordings vs. 
the companies that actually own the material? If anything, congress should 
be looking more at the rights of the artists than the companies profiting 
off them.


--
B.K. DeLong
bkdelong@pobox.com
617.877.3271

http://www.brain-stream.com               Play.
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org        Potter.
http://www.attrition.org                       Security.
http://www.artemisiabotanicals.com     Herb.