EFFector Vol. 15, No. 10, April 5, 2002 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
EFFector Vol. 15, No. 10, April 5, 2002 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
For more information on EFF activities & alerts: http://www.eff.org/
To join EFF or make an additional donation:
http://www.eff.org/support/
EFF is a member-supported nonprofit. Please sign up as a member today!
Well, Hollywood's at it again. This time, the entertainment giants are meeting behind closed doors with key consumer electronics and computer companies. Using the rubric of eliminating "piracy," this semi-secret group will set the standards for over-the-air broadcast signals of digital television (DTV), the new TV format that will replace current broadcasts by the year 2006.
While the broadcasts will remain unencrypted, Hollywood is determined to cripple the equipment that can actually receive the broadcasts. Through the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG), an industry forum meeting in Los Angeles, Hollywood is writing a "technical standard" that will restrict digital television equipment -- TVs, VCRs, personal video recorders, and computer "tuner cards" -- capable of receiving digital TV broadcasts.
The BPDG is determined to exclude the public from its discussions. Members of the press are not permitted in BPDG and CPTWG (Content Protection Technology Working Group--BPDG's mother organization) meetings. In order to attend BPDG meetings, one has to come (in person) to Los Angeles and pay a $100 fee -- per meeting. There are no call-in numbers and no public minutes or records of what takes place. In fact, in order to find out that BPDG existed, you had to be a member of one of a handful of trade associations, or be present in person at one of a handful of industry conferences. There was no press release and there is still no public web site run by BPDG or any participating organization (except EFF). BPDG had been meeting for months before references to it were made in recent Congressional testimony regarding the SSSCA and CBDTPA legislation.
Let Hollywood's self-appointed technology cops know what you think of restricting broadcast television!
EFF encourages you to write to the Drafting Committee working on these rules to let them know what you think. To date, the Drafting Committee has received only the opinions of major companies -- not of small businesses or of users. You can read the drafts of the rules they've promulgated (see below) and respond specifically to the technical details. Feel free to use the EFF's sample letter below as a starting point for your comments. You should also feel free to write your own letter about general issues related to BPDG's work.
Let the BPDG Drafting Committee know that you are concerned about their efforts to control your use of free over-the-air television broadcasts, and the long-term effects of government mandates on innovation. Please be polite and concise, but firm.
Use this sample letter as a model (please do not send it verbatim), and send your own letter to:
BPDG Drafting Committee
bpdg-draft@list.lmicp.com
Dear BPDG Drafting Committee:
I'm writing to object to what the BPDG is doing -- meeting in private to bargain away my rights as a consumer and the rights of engineers to create the best possible products for me.
You're creating a future where innovation and consumers' choices will take a back seat to copyright holders' fears. You're setting a precedent for government involvement in technology where open competition is set aside and winners and losers are chosen, not by competition or by giving the public a choice, but by a bureaucrat or by an "industry consensus".
This precedent sets the stage for other mandates on the design of PCs, software, and computer networks, with implications far beyond television broadcast. Jack Valenti is already talking about the "analog hole" and looking for a new mandate to prevent digitizing-without-a-license. We need to draw the line where it was drawn in 1984: if a device -- like a VCR or something as-yet uninvented -- serves a legitimate consumer use then its manufacture, sale and improvement is legal, even if it frightens Mr. Valenti.
I have the right to time-shift television programs, to space-shift them, to format-shift them, and to use technology to help me make the most of free over-the-air TV programming. I should have my choice of any technology that helps me make a legitimate use -- and plenty of manufacturers are prepared to give it to me.
When technology companies want to build products that enable my legitimate use, it's not your business to get in their way. If the electronics companies represented at CPTWG don't care to sell me the best possible products, I want the right to turn to other companies who will continue to put my interests first. Equipment subject to a mandate is going to be less capable, more expensive, take longer to invent, and prevent user-serviceability. New devices under such a mandate will lack even the features of currently available digital TV equipment -- so you're arranging for technology to get worse, not better.
The standards you're creating have no conceivable technical purpose except as raw material for legislation or regulation; there isn't even the faintest pretense that they're "purely technical" and free of policy implications.
BPDG is working closely with people whose job is to get what you come up with enacted into law. You're creating legislation in private to spring upon us in the hope we won't notice.
I should not be punished in advance for the possibility that someone else will commit a crime. That's exactly what technology mandates do; they undermine my rights even though there's no indication that I've done, or will do, anything wrong. They take away my choices. They impose costs on me. They slow down innovation and give the entertainment industy veto power over technologists. They treat me like a criminal.
I don't want to be treated like a criminal.Sincerely,
[Your name;
include full address for maximum effectiveness]
Please remember to be polite but firm. Ranting, swearing, or lack of clear focus and resolve will not make a good impression. Try to make it brief (1 page or less written, or a few sentences spoken) and clear, without getting into nitpicky details. Re-casting the letter in your own words will be more effective than copy-pasting our sample.
This alert is mostly for U.S. residents, but the techonology policy issue and its effects will be felt globally, so non-U.S. activists should send in letters as well.
Since the FCC has mandated that broadcasts will remain unencrypted, Hollywood is determined to seal any device capable of touching digital video in layers of tamper-proof laws and innovation-dampening "standards." They call themselves the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG), and they're writing a "technical standard" that will restrict digital television equipment -- TVs, VCRs, personal video recorders, and computer tuner cards -- capable of receiving digital TV broadcasts.
The standard BPDG is developing is a dense technical document called the "BPDG Compliance and Robustness Rules". Here "compliance" means that a device will do what Hollywood wants (as opposed to what its owner wants); "robustness" means that it will be difficult (and illegal!) for the owner to modify the device. The result is that you'll get equipment which is less functional, less flexible, more expensive, less interoperable, and harder to fix, modify, or upgrade.
New brief EFF introduction to BPDG:
"Consensus At Lawyerpoint" -- EFF news site with regular BPDG updates, docs:
Copy Protection Technical Working Group, the parent organization of the BPDG:
Charter of Broadcast Protection Discussion Group:
5C consortium introduction/proposal/rationale for BPDG's work:
Current discussion draft of BPDG Compliance and Robustness Rules:
Current drafts of language to ban all "non-compliant" devices and software:
This drive to contact BPDG Drafting Committee with your objections to Hollywood control of digital media technology is part of a larger campaign to highlight intellectual property industry assaults against the public's fair use rights, and what you can do about it.
Check the EFF Campaign for Audivisual Free Expression (CAFE)
website regularly for additional alerts and news:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties
organization working to protect rights in the digital world. Founded in
1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to
support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information
society. EFF is a member-supported organization and maintains one of the
most linked-to websites in the world:
http://www.eff.org
Seth Schoen, EFF Staff Technologist
seth@eff.org
+1 415-436-9333 x107
Cory Doctorow, EFF Outreach Coordinator
cory@eff.org
+1 415 436 9333 x106
- end -
The House subommittee fax issue, reported last EFFector, has been resolved. Your comments on the future of digital music should now go to the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, and by fax only (at staffers' request):
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property:
Rep. Howard Coble +1 202-225-3673
Rep. Howard Berman +1 202-225-3196
For full text of alert, see:- end -
(Deadline: April 29, 2002)
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is seeking public comments for a committee review on ICANN's mission, structure, and processes.
This review comes on the heels of President M. Stuart Lynn's proposal "The Case for Reform," which acknowledges ICANN's shortcomings and determines that restructuring is neccesary.
Lynn's plan would drastically reduce public representation in the Board of Directors by eliminating the At Large Directors, who are elected to represent the global community of Internet users.
The Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform is studying possible structural changes, and have called for public comments, due by April 29, relating to how the organization may be more successful in its mission. Their request reads as follows:
(1) What is or should be ICANN's mission? In this regard, please use the recent staff posting as your starting point, and tell us (a) which if any of the activities listed there should not be part of ICANN's mission, (b) whether there are additional activities not listed that should be part of ICANN's mission, and (c) what mechanisms are available, once ICANN's mission statement is finalized, to minimize the risk that ICANN will stray beyond those boundaries.
(2) Are the issues raised in Stuart Lynn's report a correct perception of the problems facing ICANN? If not, why not? What are the real problems?
(3) Are the specific suggested reforms set forth in that report appropriate, and likely to be workable and effective? If not, why not? What are your ideas for workable and effective alternatives?
(4) Assuming you believe that structural and procedural reforms are necessary to ensure that ICANN carries out its mission, what transition mechanisms or approaches should be used to migrate from the status quo to the future environment? Over what time period should this migration take place?
Comments can be forwarded to the Committee in three different ways:
1. Substantive submissions can be made to reform-comments@icann.org. All submissions made will be reviewed, sorted by subject, indexed, and posted on the ICANN forum web site. This mechanism is intended to promote thoughtful community discussion of the issues involved in the ICANN reform process
2. The Committee has also established an e-mail address (reform@icann.org) which can be used for direct communications to the Committee, including both inquiries and comments regarding the Committee's report and proposals for the Committee's consideration. Submissions to this address will not be routinely posted.
3. Finally, the existing web-based forum on President Lynn's proposal will remain available to all who wish to use it. This forum is automatically updated and will not be sorted in any way.
The Committee encourages all interested parties to offer their views on the important and complicated subject of ICANN evolution and reform. It will appreciate all the help it can get in formulating recommendations.
For more information, please see:
Announcement - Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform Seeks Public Submissions:
ICANN mission ("recent staff posting" of question 1):
President's Report: ICANN Ð The Case for Reform:
ICANN Public Comment Forum on President Lynn's proposal:
New York Times - "Plan to Change Internet Group Is Criticized as Inadequate":
- end -
After denying a motion by defendant to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on March 27, Judge Whyte of the Federal District Court in San Jose heard argument, Monday, April 1, about the constitutionality of the DMCA. Elcomsoft, the Russian company that employs programmer Dmitry Sklyarov, is still facing criminal prosecution for offering software that allows Adobe eBook customers to lend, space-shift, time-shift, make backup copies, print and otherwise make fair and non-infringing use of eBooks. The government argued that the DMCA flatly bans providing software that can make these legitimate uses because the same software can also be used by recipients to engage in copyright infringement.
Elcomsoft brought two constitutional challenges: the first claiming that the statute violated the Due Process clause of the constitution because it was too vague; the second claiming that the statute violated the First Amendment by improperly restricting the publication of computer software, which is itself speech, and by preventing fair use of eBooks, something protected by the First Amendment. EFF submitted an amicus brief in support of Elcomsoft's First Amendment motion, as did over 35 law professors.
Judge Whyte asked few questions, but was clearly engaged in the case. The next hearing in the case is on April 15, 2002 and the parties are hopeful that he will issue a ruling on these motions and on the two motions heard in mid-March before the hearing.
- end -
What happens when Hollywood, Congress, and the consumer electronics and computer industries get together to squish the fair use rights of the little guy (or gal)?
It's alphabet soup time! (No, say it isn't so!)
Congress' first legislative proposal to lock down digital devices so they could throw out the noninfringing fair-use baby with the piracy bathwater was Senator Hollings' Security Systems Standards and Certification Act. This law had a pronounceable and memorable acronym SSSCA, sneaky snaky legislative proposal that it was.
When SSSCA got trounced by legislators and consumers alike, Hollings resorted to the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act with the unpronounceable and impossible to remember acronym CBDTPA, designed no doubt to facilitate consumer understanding of and comment on the proposed legislation while threatening industry with Congressional action if they can't work out the details of the lock down mandate amongst themselves.
Trying to prevent Congress from dictating the lock down, consumer electronics industry backsliders are acquiescing to Hollywood mogul demands by proposing partisan technology standards in the Copyright Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG) and its sorry offspring the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG).
In an attempt to clarify the true meaning of this alphabet soup -- or at least to have some fun -- we're offering a free vintage EFF T-shirt to those three people who provide the most interesting and memorable alternative decodings of these three acronyms:
CBDTPA
BPDG
CPTWG
To get you started, consider this decoding suggested by Ian Goldberg and Kat Hanna for CBDPTA:
"Consumers Better Dump this Pernicious Act"
You can submit your contest entries at
And while you're at it, check out the EFF's new blog about the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group, called "Consensus At Lawyerpoint". This is the EFF's first-ever blog, the brainchild of new EFF staffer Cory Doctorow of boingboing.net blogging fame.
Consensus At Lawyerpoint covers the efforts of Hollywood -- with the complicity of consumer electronics and computer companies -- to impose a new government mandate for copy controls in digital TV devices. This mandate would outlaw tuner cards for digital HDTV, unless they included DRM (and prevented the end-user from getting a cleartext recording). PVRs and VCRs might be allowed, but only if all their outputs were encrypted. Since all TV broadcasting in the U.S. is supposed to be digital by 2006, this could have an enormous effect on technology and on the competition of video standards in the marketplace.
So, enter the contest and check out EFF's new Consensus at
Lawyerpoint blog at
- end -
You are invited to join an intimate group of fifteen for a lively evening of fine food, history and conversation with the original EFF co-founders, Mitch Kapor and John Perry Barlow. This exchange of ideas will take place on Tuesday, April 16th at 7:30 p.m. and will benefit EFF's work to protect rights in the digital age.
Mitch and Barlow founded EFF in July of 1990 to protect civil liberties
where law and technology collide. (See Barlow's compelling account from that time
at
The dinner will take place at the classic Waterfront restaurant in the North Room. While looking out over the San Francisco Bay, you will have the chance to take part in an in-depth conversation about EFF's fascinating role in the universe. You will also be contributing to an important cause, as the money raised from this unusual evening will go to furthering our work.
The evening includes the full cost of your dinner and drinks, the opportunity to talk with Mitch and Barlow, a vintage EFF t-shirt, and other surprises. The cost is $500. As there are only 15 available seats, space will fill up quickly.
Please contact Katina Bishop, katina@eff.org, for more information and to RSVP at +1 415-436-9333 x101.
- end -
EFFector is published by:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
http://www.eff.org/
Editors:
Katina Bishop, EFF Education & Offline Activism Director
Stanton McCandlish, EFF Technical Director/Webmaster
editors@eff.org
To Join EFF online, or make an additional donation, go to:
http://www.eff.org/support/
Membership & donation queries: membership@eff.org
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: ask@eff.org
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express permission. Press releases and EFF announcements & articles may be reproduced individually at will.
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from EFFector via the Web, go to:
To subscribe to EFFector via e-mail, send to majordomo@eff.org a message BODY (not
subject) of:
subscribe effector
The list server will send you a confirmation code and then add you to a
subscription list for EFFector (after you return the confirmation code;
instructions will be in the confirmation e-mail).
To unsubscribe, send a similar message body to the same address, like
so:
unsubscribe effector
(Please ask listmaster@eff.org to manually remove you from the list if this does not work for you for some reason.)
To change your address, send both commands at once, one per line (i.e., unsubscribe your old address, and subscribe your new address).
Back issues are available at:
http://www.eff.org/effector
To get the latest issue, send any message to effector-reflector@eff.org
(or er@eff.org),
and it will be mailed to you automatically. You can also get, via the Web:
Return to EFFector Newsletters Index
Please send any questions or comments to webmaster@eff.org
![[*]](/icons/home_blue_icon.gif){kind=icon}
EFF Welcome Page