Big Brother Awards
quintessenz search  /  subscribe  /  upload  /  contact  
/q/depesche *
/kampaigns
/topiqs
/doquments
/contaqt
/about
/handheld
/subscribe
Linuxwochen Österreich Tour
RSS-Feed Depeschen RSS
Hosted by AKIS
<<   ^   >>
Date: 2002-01-18

Cops im Computer


-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-.

Zwar nicht mehr ganz taufrisch vom Datum - weil mehr als 24 alt - aber vom
Inhalt wird Mike Godwins Analyse noch ein bisschen länger halten. Wie sich
Content- und IT-Industrie gegen den Rest der Welt verschwören könnten, um
ihn auszuspionieren.

-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.-
A Cop in Every Computer The content and technology industries differ over an
initiative that would build infringement-sniffing powers into new computers
Mike Godwin

January 16, 2002 There's a war looming in cyberspace over copyright. The
war will not be about whether to combat the spread of unauthorized copies of
computer programs, music or movies. On that point, the combatants agree.
This will be a war about tactics and solutions.

The content industry -- especially Hollywood and the record labels -- wants
the solution built into computers and other digital devices, such as Palm
Pilots and MP3 players. The industry also wants it built into software,
operating systems, Web browsers, and routers -- the devices that guide
Internet traffic. It's a solution designed around the assumption that nearly all
computer and Internet users are potential large-scale infringers.

In short: The content industry wants to place a copyright cop in your
computer. It also wants to station one anyplace else on the Internet where an
unauthorized copy might be made.

And if the industry has its way, we all may feel the consequences. Digital
videos you shot in 1999 may be unplayable on your computer in 2009. You
may no longer be able to move music or video files around easily from one
computer to another (from, say, a home desktop to a laptop or to a personal
digital assistant).

The content companies, on the other hand, see something different at stake.
In a speech before Congress in 2000, Michael Eisner, chief executive of The
Walt Disney Co., voiced the worries of the content industry when he said that
"the future of the American entertainment industry [and] the future of
American consumer" is at stake over the issue.

The content companies, with Eisner in the lead, argue that failure to build
copy protection into the very digital environment itself will lead to their
industry's destruction.

In previous battles over copyright, Hollywood and the large record labels have
received the full support of their powerful friends in the software and computer
industry. But this time, many of the high-tech companies are on the other
side. They're satisfied that current law -- rather than future Rube Goldberg
design mandates -- can do the trick. "We think mandating these protections
is an abysmally stupid idea," says Emery Simon, special counsel to the
Business Software Alliance (BSA), an antipiracy trade group whose
members include the Adobe, Microsoft, Intel and IBM corporations.

A recent legislative proposal floated by Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., chairman of the
Senate commerce committee, is the most public manifestation of the content
industry's struggle. The Hollings bill, called the Security System Standards
and Certification Act (SSSCA), makes it a civil offense to make or sell digital
technologies that do not contain what it calls "certified security
technologies," built-in systems that prevent the copying of content.

Draft versions of the legislation, which hasn't yet been formally introduced,
also would impose criminal penalties -- up to five years in prison -- upon
anyone who alters existing security technologies or disables copy protection
mechanisms.

There's more than one way to prevent copying of copyrighted content.
Various approaches, sometimes referred to as digital-rights management
schemes, exist. One general method, called encryption, involves scrambling
content in a "digital envelope." Encryption is what protects DVD movie and
video game software from piracy. But the content industry wants to do more
than just protect content. If encryption is broken -- and hackers are often able
to break it -- content is free to be copied. To prevent this, the industry wants
content to be labeled or digitally "watermarked," and it wants computers and
other devices to be redesigned to look for the watermark, and to limit copying
accordingly.

Supporters of the Hollings proposal don't couch the legislation in terms of
protecting embattled copyright interests. They frame it as a measure
designed to promote digital content and the use of broadband, high-speed
Internet services. If Hollywood could be assured that its content would be
protected on the broadband Internet, the argument goes, it would develop
more compelling programs for the Web and spur greater consumer demand
for broadband.

An aide to the Senate commerce committee says there are likely to be
hearings on the bill as early as February 2002; hearings that had been set for
fall of 2001 were postponed because of the Senate anthrax scare.

Back in 1998, Hollywood, record labels and software and technology
companies came together to support the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
That act -- now law -- prohibited the creation, dissemination, and use of tools
that circumvent digital-rights management technologies.

There won't be a similar broad-based coalition behind anything like the
Hollings bill. Software and technology companies simply aren't ready for a
state-ordered restructuring of their entire industrial sector. In remarks made in
December at a business technology conference in Washington, D.C., Intel
Corp. chief executive Craig Barrett spoke out against legislation like the
Hollings bill. Let the private sector work out its own systems for protecting
copyright, Barrett said.

A few companies are so big and so diverse that they don't fall easily into the
content or technology camp. AOL Time Warner, for example, is conflicted.
The movie companies and other content producers under the AOL Time
Warner umbrella tend to favor efforts that lock down cyberspace, but AOL
itself and some of the company's cable subsidiaries oppose compulsory
designs. "We like the DMCA," says Jill Lesser, AOL Time Warner's senior
vice president for domestic public policy. "There isn't from our perspective a
need for additional remedies of copyright violations."

Broad as it is, the Hollings proposal is only one small part of a global effort to
make the digital world safe for copyrighted materials. Standards groups,
industry gatherings and global business policy forums are all working to
create industrywide standards that don't require the approval of lawmakers.

A group called 4C Entity is promoting a standard for building digital rights
management into digital storage devices, such as hard drives and possibly
writable CD-ROM drives (the devices that copy CD-ROMs). The 5C
Consortium is developing a copy protection standard for digital television, and
interindustry forums like the Content Protection Technology Working Group
are also working on digital TV.

But the content industry complains that the standard-setting process is
proceeding at a tortoise's pace. The Hollings bill is meant to speed up the
process, acting as a lever to compel the technology companies to negotiate
more and faster.

The movie and TV studios are trying to ward off a possible Napster-like
scenario. Though the free music-sharing service is now gone, other file-
sharing systems, more decentralized and less easy to sue, remain. And
Napster's legacy still casts a shadow over the music industry -- and on the
content owners as a whole. A technology expert at News Corporation says
that Napster signals the music industry's downfall. Music fans are now
accustomed to copying CDs with CD burners, and downloading music from
the Internet as MP3 files. "Within five years," the expert says, "music will be
a cottage industry."

Rubbish, responds Matthew Gerson, the vice president for public policy at
Vivendi Universal S.A., which produces and sells both music (Universal
Music Group) and movies (Universal Studios Inc.). "We know that if we build
a safe, consumer-friendly site that has all the bells and whistles and features
that music fans want, it will flourish," Gerson says. "Fans will have no trouble
paying for the music that they love, and compensating the artists who bring it
to them -- established stars as well as the new voices the labels introduce
year after year."

But maintaining that model -- with the record label serving as the conduit
between creation and consumption -- depends both on large streams of
revenue and on control of copyrighted works. The Internet and digital
technology could cut off the revenue stream by moving music consumers to a
world in which trading music online for free is the norm.

The record labels and the movie and TV studios see watermarks --
undetectable yet traceable digital imprints -- as their way to prevent a future
world of widespread trading in free music, movies, and other types of content.

How would those watermarks work? For an example, let's use digital
television, a nascent technology that transmits high-quality television
broadcasts using a digital, rather than an analog, signal. A digital broadcast
would include a watermark that identifies the content as copyrighted and
might contain certain instructions. Devices and software designed according
to the content-industry's mandate would look for the watermark. Those
devices, in turn, would have strict limitations built in as to whether, and how
often, a copy of that broadcast could be made.

The reverse might also be true: Those components might be designed not to
play un-watermarked content. Otherwise, it would only encourage pirates to
learn how to strip out the watermarks. In a world in which all consumer digital
technology looks for watermarks, our legacy digital videos and MP3
collections might no longer be playable.

Digital television is the most pressing worry. Unlike DVD movies, which are
encrypted on disc and decrypted every time they're played, digital broadcast
television must be delivered unscrambled. The Federal Communications
Commission requires that broadcast television be sent in the clear as a
matter of public policy.

The prospect of high-quality, unencrypted content, delivered digitally, scares
Hollywood. Without watermarking, consumers could simply record their
favorite shows, trade them with friends, or -- worst of all -- make them
available on the Internet, à la Napster.

Content owners are also worried about the computer as it becomes not just a
stand-alone device but also a component within the overall home
entertainment system.

Says the BSA's Simon: "That's the multipurpose device that has them
terrified." The fear is that computers will leak copyrighted content all over the
world, he says.

And that, says Simon, is why the Hollings legislation is so broadly drafted.
It's designed to close up all the leaks that digital technology might pose. In
the drafts made available in the fall of 2001, the Hollings bill would make it a
civil offense to develop a new computer or related technology that does not
include a federally approved security standard preventing the unlicensed
copying of copyrighted works. In at least one version, the law would make it a
felony to remove a watermark or flag from copyrighted content. It would also
outlaw logging onto the Internet with any computer that removes or sidesteps
the copy protection technology.

Before the draft legislation was circulated, "we didn't know how broad this
was," says one lawyer for cable company interests. Many cable companies
are worried that the measure will interfere with their customers' viewing
experience.

Although the Hollings legislation is controversial, its supporters are working
to garner support. Preston Padden, the executive vice president for
government relations for Disney, traces the origins of the bill to the Global
Business Dialog on e-Commerce, a public policy group whose members
come from a wide range of businesses. The group's IP subcommittee is
chaired by Eisner, who, after much give and take with software and computer
companies, shepherded through language favoring government "facilitation" of
copyright protection standards.

With the group's recommendations in hand, Eisner could go to Congress and
say there was a general business consensus favoring the passage of new
laws to protect content on the Internet.

But there is a big difference between what that group generally recommended
and what the Hollings bill specifically proposes.

The devil will be in the details. IBM, Microsoft and other technology
companies are all developing their own ways of protecting copyright. Their
digital rights management schemes are generally based on encryption, not
watermarks. These companies don't want design mandates, which would
effectively kill a market they are poised to exploit.

Moreover, technology companies have a "philosophical problem" with being
told how to build their technologies, says Disney's Padden. With the
exception of export controls on encryption, the computer and software
industry does not have much experience with government mandates.

Not surprisingly, Rick Lane, News Corp.'s vice president for governmental
affairs, and the other content industry lawyers think that the computer
companies need to get over it. After all, mandates have been a fact of life for
the consumer electronics industry -- particularly radio and television
equipment -- for decades. Forty years ago, for example, the government told
television makers to build UHF-reception capability into all new TVs.

The real problem runs deeper than mere resistance to government control.
There's a philosophical difference that separates the content industry from
the technology companies. You can see that difference in the way each
industry refers to its customers. The content companies refer to
"consumers," while the tech industry refers to "users." If you see a world of
"consumers," your major concern is setting prices at the right level, so that
buyers will purchase your products -- while you still make money. You
control access to your merchandise, and do everything you can to prevent
theft. For the same reason that supermarkets have cameras by the door and
bookstores have electronic theft detectors, content companies want copy
protection to prevent theft of their wares. Allowing people to take stuff for free
is inconsistent with their business model.

But if you see a world of "users," you want to give that market more features
and powers for less money. The impulse to empower users was at the heart
of the microcomputer revolution. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, for example,
founded Apple Computer Inc. partly because they wanted to put computing
power into ordinary people's hands.

Redesigning the world of digital tools so that every device, application and
operating system is on the lookout for copyrighted works is at odds with that
view.

What gets lost in the debate is the voice of consumers -- whatever they are
called. Maybe they are willing to trade away open, robust, relatively simple
digital tools for a more constrained digital world in which they have more
content choices. But maybe they aren't. The Hollings bill is unlikely to attract
them to the debate, pitched as a "security standard" rather than as a new
copyright law.

Like the larger philosophical war that is raging around the world in the
aftermath of the terrorist attacks, the looming war between these two sides
has the potential to be a long, difficult fight without a foreseeable conclusion.
And if and when peace talks begin between the two sides, there's no
guarantee that the rest of us will have a seat at the table.
http://www.law.com/cgi-
bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=Z
ZZGFPVOGWC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=News&ExpIgnore=true&sho
wsummary=0&useoverridetemplate=ZZZHCC0Q95C
-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.-

- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-.
edited by Harkank
published on: 2002-01-18
comments to office@quintessenz.at
subscribe Newsletter
- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-.
<<   ^   >>
Druck mich
Linuxwochen Austria

meet q/uintessenz every friday

BigBrotherAwards





25. Oktober 2018
freier Eintritt
#BBA18
Big Brother Awards Austria
 related topiqs
 


 CURRENTLY RUNNING
bits4free 18. Jan. 2012: Ihre Meinung zählt
Liquid Democracy - direkte Demokratie durch Online-Partizipation?
 
 !WATCH OUT!
q/Talk, Di 29. Nov: Es gilt die unSchuldsvermutung!
Bürger unter Generalverdacht und stundenlange Einvernahme von Chattern