|
|
|
||||
|
||||||
|
EFF Position on Joint AOL-Time Warner/Intel Pro-DRM Statement:A Step in the Wrong DirectionRecently, Intel Corporation has issued two very different statements about the dangers to innovation and fair use posed by copyright owners' attempts to get Congress to put the power of federal law behind digital rights management schemes. In his testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, Intel Executive Vice President Leslie Vadasz courageously spoke out against the Hollywood moguls who are asking Congress make copy controls mandatory in all new technologies. Vadasz expressed skepticism of the demands of copyright industries, which he said "historically feared technology -- from the advent of sound recording, to the development of the VCR, the DVD, the PC, and other digital devices". He explained that innovation must not be sacrificed in an impossible quest to lock down every tool that might be used for infringement. By contrast, a March 19 joint statement by Intel Corporation and AOL Time Warner suggests a disappointing change of heart by Intel. The "AOL Time Warner -- Intel Joint Statement of Principles" envisions a world in which corporate negotiations decide consumers' rights, and government outlaws devices falling outside a "consensus" imposed by Hollywood at lawyer-point. According to the joint statement, "The goal of these efforts is to create an overall architecture for protecting digital content throughout its distribution life so that it does not 'leak' out in an unprotected manner" -- with the result that copyright holders shape the digital architecture of the future, retaining the power to control your use of the movies, music and books you buy. The earlier Vadasz statement praised innovation and suggested that copy control efforts can, and have, put innovation at risk. Vadasz cited historical examples like the movie studios' protracted efforts to outlaw the VCR. The joint AOL-Intel statement scarcely mentions this risk, endorsing a collaboration between copyright owners and technology companies against the public. The "voluntary inter-industry negotiations" to reach agreements on copy controls are not a good model for legislation, nor have their prior efforts benefited consumers. These negotiations occur in relative secrecy -- generally excluding the press -- and rarely include consumers or consumer advocates. Typically, these groups discount the kind of innovation praised by Vadasz. Today, the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG), endorsed by the AOL-Intel statement, is meeting in Los Angeles to try to decide what sort of copy controls will be built into every device capable of receiving digital television (DTV). Consistent with the AOL-Intel statement's expressed ambition of creating an "overall architecture [...] so that [content] does not 'leak' out," BPDG aims to prevent any device from recording a DTV broadcast in an open format without the copyright holder's explicit permission. Existing products which don't impose these restrictions -- such as some TV cards for PCs -- would be outlawed. This federal ban on "noncompliant" televisions and PC peripherals is endorsed in the AOL-Intel statement as a "narrowly focused government regulation," "necessary" and "appropriate for proper enforcement of [industry] consensus." We call this process bankrupt, its outcome a threat to innovation, and its legacy a restriction of the public's fair use rights. We call on Intel to hold fast to Vadasz's vision of the technological future, one which holds no place for federal mandates on innovative digital technologies. Links
Testimony of Leslie Vadasz:
Intel and AOL Time Warner's "Statement of Principles":
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||||
|
|
Please send any questions or comments to webmaster@eff.org. |
|||||