[Fsfe-uk] Latest US Legislation going before the Senate.

[Martyn Ranyard]

First, apologies to all those who get Kernel Traffic, and to those who are 
not interested at all in what's happening in the US.

Here's the info I received on Kernel Traffic

1. Some Discussion Of The SSSCA

1 Mar - 7 Mar (38 posts) Archive Link: SSSCA: We're in trouble now

Paul G. Allen [*] said:

    Before anyone remarks about this being Off Topic for the various mailing
    lists I've sent this to, please think about the effects this could have to
    Linux. In addition, even though many of you may not be US citizens, the
    recent happenings with international laws against cybercrime, copy
    protection and the like could make this US law relevant to you as 
well, not
    to mention the impact to your company should you not be able to do 
business
    in the US because of such a law. Therefore, it really IS on topic, and the
    time to think about and act on such things is _BEFORE_ they are written in
    stone, not after.

    In case you haven't heard, the SSSCA is before the Senate Commerce
    Committee, with a hearing earlier today
    (http://slashdot.org/articles/02/03/01/1423248.shtml?tid=103 for the
    story and several links, including a
    draft of the bill). The SSSCA, if passed, would basically require that all
    interactive digital devices, including your PC, have copy protection built
    in. This protection would not allow digital media from being viewed,
    copied, transferred, or downloaded if the device is not authorized to do
    so. The bill also makes it a crime to circumvent the protection, including
    manufacturing or trafficking in anything that does not include the
    protection or that would circumvent it.

    Even if there is no SSSCA, the entertainment industry as well as the IT
    industry both agree: we must have copy protection of some kind. While I do
    not disagree that many movies, songs, and other media are distributed
    illegally without their owners consent, and that copyright owners need 
some
    sort of protection, this is not the way to fight the problem, and doing so
    can, and probably will, have drastic and far reaching consequences for not
    only the IT industry, but the entertainment industry and the consumer as
    well.

    Many of us have become increasingly involved with, and dependent upon, 
Free
    Software (as in GNU GPL or similar), especially the Linux operating 
system.
    This type of software is distributed with the source code, allowing anyone
    to modify it as they choose and need. Linux has become popular to the 
point
    that many companies, especially those that provide some kind of service on
    or for the Internet, rely upon it heavily. Because of the free nature of
    Linux, and other Free Software, it is extremely difficult to place actual
    numbers on how many systems are out there employing such software. Some of
    you, like me, can approximate the number of such systems in your own
    company or realm of knowledge. So how does this relate to the SSSCA?

    As any programmer worth his/her salt will attest, given the resources,
    anything that can be programmed into a computer can be programmed out, or
    worked around. In the case of copy protection such as the SSSCA would
    require, the resources needed for circumventing it is simply the source
    code for the operating system of the computer, and/or other source 
code for
    applications used on the computer (such as one of the many free 
video/audio
    players available). Now given the wording of the SSSCA, along with the 
DMCA
    and other supporting laws, it stands to reason that such Free Software
    would suddenly become a target for legislation. Such legislation logically
    may require such software to be judged illegal. Such a decision may have
    serious consequences to the IT industry as well as the entertainment
    industry and the consumer as well. Little may the consumer or 
entertainment
    industry know, but much of the technology they rely upon today is provided
    at low cost by Free Software. Take that software away, and suddenly doing
    business costs a lot more, and eventually the consumer just will not be
    willing to pay for it.

    Now aside from the consequences to Free Software, what about the
    consequences to those who do not use such software. Imagine that home 
movie
    you shot last weekend on vacation. Now you wish to send that home movie to
    a relative, friend, whoever, over the Internet, or place it on your web
    site for all to download. Well, with many of the protection technologies
    suggested, this would not be possible, or would be extremely difficult.
    Some of these technologies require digital watermarks to be placed in the
    media, for one example. CD burners, digital cameras, etc. can not make
    these watermarks. The copy protection works by checking for such a
    watermark, and if it does not exist, the system either will not allow the
    media to be played, or will not allow it to be transmitted over the
    Internet as the case may be. So much for sending your cousin your latest
    home movie, or allowing your whole family to see it from your web site. An
    additional problem is all current media, including CDs and DVDs, you may
    currently legally own would not work on proposed new CD and DVD players
    with copy protection hardware. You would not be able to copy CDs, 
tapes, or
    anything else that you legally own in order to exercise your right to fair
    use, so as to listen to that CD on the cassette deck in your car.

    I could go on, but I think this is long enough and has given some food for
    thought. Besides, I have work to do. Election time is near, so think about
    what that person you are voting for represents. Think about actually
    writing a letter to a congressman or other legislator, to a magazine (I
    actually had one published once, so it's not beyond the realms of
    possibility), newpaper, etc. Many people have the attitude that they 
can do
    nothing and make no difference. Well, I say to them they are right, 
because
    there are so many people with that attitude, that none of them do anything
    and they make no difference in doing so. The once that make the 
difference,
    are the ones taking a stance, and the ones taking the stance are the ones
    that are causing these rediculous laws to be passed. Guess who those 
people
    are?...

    Welcome to The United Corporations of America.

Shawn Starr [*] was outraged and said, "Let them pass it, they won't be able to
enforce it. I won't let my Linux kernel become 'tainted' by closed binary
drivers and I will really actively get involved in defeating such measures in
Linux kernel modules." But Xavier Bestel [*] pointed out, "You already use much
BIOS with linux today, and tomorrow ACPI will be mandatory to use your box.
Both are untrusted binary "drivers"." Shawn replied that Linux would avoid
using the BIOS if possible and properly configured. Florian Weimer [*]
remarked:

    The problem is that if you don't follow the Trusted Computing Platform
    Alliance booting procedure, you won't see much mass-compatible content on
    the Internet any longer.

    The solution is simple: go and create your own content, and share it with
    your friends. But you won't get Hollywood movies this way.

Thomas Hood [*] replied:

    The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective if you impose
    Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.

    Certain powerful corporations want effective copy-protection. Ergo, those
    powerful corporations will want to impose Soviet style restrictions on the
    use of computers.

    The attempt will ultimately fail. So did the Soviet Union, but in the
    meantime the attempt to make it work was, and will be, something of an
    inconvenience.

Florian replied to Thomas' first paragraph, "That's not necessarily true. Most
people cannot circumvent even basic obstacles when it comes to computers, and
both industry and legislative might be content with that." Helge Hafting [*]
replied:

    Don't be too sure about that. If a "few" knows how to circumvent, they'll
    release circumvention kits that anybody can use.

    Few people can use a new buffer overflow exploit, much more can use a
    rootkit.

At one point Paul said, "The bottom line is, too many too often sit and do
nothing until they come to realize it's too late to do anything other than the
drastic. Is this to be the trend when it comes to Open Source, including Linux?
Maybe the SSSCA or other laws will have no effect, but then maybe they will. I
for one do not wish to sit on my rear and wait to find out it (or they) have."


Martyn

Life's a bitch, but so am I.

icq - 122500800
irc - Joran on OPN
msn - address@hidden
y!  - ranyardm
e   - address@hidden