IP: Re: Thieves R Us

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 12:05:45 +1000
>From: Nathan Cochrane <ncochrane@theage.fairfax.com.au>
>Organization: The Age newspaper
>
>
>Here, here.
>
>FYI
>http://www.it.mycareer.com.au/news/2001/05/08/FFXRSN74FMC.html
>But even while it has file sharing of digital media to thank for its
>revenues, Seagate, along with other  hard-drive makers such as IBM,
>plans to lock out what it sees as unauthorised distribution of
>electronic data.
>  Hard-drive makers have thrown in with copyright holders such as the
>Recording Industry Association of America and Motion Picture
>Association, to fight piracy. In the near future it is likely that your
>hard drive will refuse to store information obtained without the digital
>consent of the copyright holder.
>  "In the past, wherever you've seen changes in (the) way people consume
>entertainment, there are risks," Pait says.
>  "What we're doing from a standards standpoint is to see where that
>balance is, to develop encryption standards that will work across all
>makers' drives. In America we continue to have these debates over the
>exact issue.
>  "Seagate wants to be part of the discussion and then see how much
>encryption is good enough to protect the rights of record companies and
>those of consumers."
>  Pait claims that this does not erode the public's right to "fair use" -
>the copying of copyrighted texts for educational, research or critical
>purposes - but it is not supported by the Electronic Frontier
>Foundation. It says earlier battles over videotape recording are being
>re-fought in the digital age.
>  Last month it fought off an attempt to create a standard that "tethers"
>files to the hard drive that created them.
>  EFF intellectual property attorney Robin Gross says: "Under the guise
>of protecting copyright, the industry is attempting to kill fair use and
>effectively prevent works from passing into the public domain - two of
>copyright's primary goals."
>
>David Farber wrote:
> >
> > >X-Sender: > > >X-Sender: mnemonic@166.84.0.212
> > >Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:36:51 -0400
> > >To: dgillmor@sjmercury.com
> > >From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@well.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >Thieves R Us
> > >Computer makers are building equipment on the assumption that we are all
> > >copyright outlaws
> > >Mike Godwin
> > >The American Lawyer
> > >
> > >April 18, 2001
> > >
> > >
> > >Every year or two I upgrade to a newer, faster Mac laptop, and this means
> > >I go through a now-familiar ritual of hooking up the new machine to the
> > >old one through a cable or local area network and copying everything --
> > >software, data (including my MP3 music collection), and settings -- to the
> > >new machine. So you can imagine my surprise and horror when I heard
> > >reports recently that a new standard for consumer hard drives would make
> > >this kind of copying difficult or maybe even impossible.
> > >
> > >The reports may have been at least partially wrong, as it turns out. But I
> > >think they raise important issues, and ones we ought to be thinking 
> about now.
> > >
> > >The notion that hard drives might be hard-wired to prevent copying first
> > >collided with my consciousness in January. That's when I heard about a
> > >technology known as CPRM, which stands for Content Protection for
> > >Recordable Media. It's being developed by an industry group known as The
> > >4C Entity, with the backing of IBM, Toshiba, and Matsushita.
> > >
> > >CPRM, it turns out, was the basis of a flood of criticism against The 4C
> > >Entity after a single news story appeared in December in a British online
> > >computer journal called The Register. Titled "Stealth Plan Puts Copy
> > >Protection Into Every Hard Drive," the article began with an arresting
> > >lead: "Hastening a rapid demise for the free copying of digital media, the
> > >next generation of hard disks is likely to come with copyright protection
> > >countermeasures built in." Okay, that got my attention.
> > >
> > >The article went on to say that standard-setting bodies were being asked
> > >to adopt CPRM for hard disks. Each disk would have a unique identifier
> > >that would help prevent unauthorized copies. The article suggested that
> > >this padlock could be built into drives as early as this summer.
> > >
> > >The reaction was quick and harsh. By the next day, computer activists,
> > >including millionaire software entrepreneur John Gilmore, had circulated
> > >the story to mailing lists and other online forums. Gilmore called CPRM
> > >"the latest tragedy of copyright mania in the computer industry." He
> > >warned that under the standard, users "wouldn't be able to copy data from
> > >[their] own hard drive to another drive, or back it up, without permission
> > >from some third party."
> > >
> > >Industry spokesmen were quick to respond that the protesters misunderstand
> > >the technology and that their concerns are overblown. The 4C Entity said
> > >that CPRM isn't even designed or licensed for "generic hard disks." It is
> > >instead meant for use with other digital media, such as MP3 players and
> > >writeable DVDs. The group also says the technology will be optional for
> > >computer manufacturers. The standard would simply specify a common digital
> > >signal facilitating CPRM technology, but it would not mandate that the
> > >signal be present and turned on in a device.
> > >These qualifications have not mollified Gilmore and other critics, who
> > >raise the prospect that technologies like CPRM will push the digital
> > >electronics industry into producing only equipment and tools with little
> > >or no capability for unlicensed copying.
> > >
> > >Now, at this point you might say, "So what? What's wrong with designing
> > >hardware in a way that prevents you from breaking the law?"
> > >
> > >I think the best answer to this is: Nothing, so long as it doesn't block
> > >you from lawful stuff you need to do. Consider: It's certainly possible
> > >today to build a car that will never go over the legal speed limit.
> > >Perhaps speed-related injuries and fatalities are enough of a reason for
> > >the auto industry to produce low-speed cars. But then it would be
> > >impossible for drivers to do things they legally have a right to do, and
> > >often need to do, such as accelerating safely onto a freeway or
> > >accelerating to avoid a road hazard. And a car that can do those lawful
> > >things can also break the speed limit. Yet we don't assume that the owner
> > >of such a car is a likely speeder.
> > >
> > >Put more broadly: Technologies that empower people don't discriminate
> > >between good uses and bad. So if we build constraints into our computer
> > >systems that prevent infringement, we're also making it impossible for
> > >users to engage in all sorts of lawful copying. Except for the most ardent
> > >IP hard-liners, most people accept that it is a fair use to make private,
> > >personal copies of music and movies. But the proposed standard could
> > >prevent that sort of activity.
> > >
> > >It's worth comparing these digital rights management technologies to the
> > >copy protection schemes that were the rage back in the 1970s and early
> > >1980s -- the first decade and a half of the microcomputer revolution. Back
> > >then, plenty of commercial software -- not just games, but also
> > >productivity software like word processors and spreadsheets -- was coded
> > >to prevent copying.
> > >Routine tasks like backing up a hard drive and migrating to upgraded
> > >systems were an incredible chore. With backups in particular, the software
> > >discouraged activities that normal, prudent computer users ought to be
> > >doing. As you may remember (and certainly can imagine), this caused a lot
> > >of users to gripe.
> > >Some developers responded by creating programs that circumvented the copy
> > >protection. In the long term, however, most software vendors moved away
> > >from copy protection altogether; they began to rely on copyright
> > >enforcement and the customers' needs for support and upgrades to protect
> > >their interests. You generally need to own licensed copies of software in
> > >order to get support when you have problems.
> > >
> > >The vendors also began lowering the price of software so that it seemed
> > >both reasonable and equitable to pay for it rather than copy it. The
> > >primary reason that software vendors moved away from copy protection
> > >schemes is that they were confronted with competitors that offered similar
> > >products without copy protection and with lower prices. In other words,
> > >market forces (Microsoft was not yet considered a monopoly) pushed
> > >software companies into more rational setups and better relationships with
> > >their customers.
> > >But if copy protection is built into standard computer storage devices,
> > >whether hard drives or anything else, what competitors will I be able to
> > >turn to? Even my Macintosh PowerBook, which you might think is free from
> > >standards imposed in the Wintel world, relies on an IBM standard-issue
> > >hard disk.
> > >
> > >There's another complication. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
> > >expressly outlaws the dissemination of tools that can be used to
> > >circumvent technologies that control access to, or copying of, copyrighted
> > >works. I can't even circumvent those technologies myself. Courts have said
> > >that it's illegal even when the underlying purpose of the copying (fair
> > >use for a classroom presentation or permitted by license) is lawful. Even
> > >if the license of my word processor allows me to make archival copies of
> > >the software, it's still illegal for me to use circumvention tools to 
> do so.
> > >
> > >This combination of law and hardware means that there's a real possibility
> > >that someday soon I won't be able to choose between computer products that
> > >employ such schemes and those that don't. If that day comes, I don't know
> > >how the market will respond, but I know how I will. To the extent
> > >possible, I'll stop buying new computer equipment altogether. I'm guessing
> > >at least some other computer buyers will make that decision, too.
> > >
> > >This will mean I won't have the fastest and best computer equipment
> > >anymore, but I'm betting I can stay afloat by haunting used-computer
> > >stores for a long time to come. And I'll have the pleasure of knowing that
> > >the computer equipment, MP3 device, or CD burner, etc., that I'm buying
> > >doesn't have built into it the assumption that I'm a copyright infringer.
> > >
> > >Mike Godwin is chief correspondent of IP Worldwide. His e-mail address is
> > >> > >mnemonic@well.com.
> >
> > For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/