boycott-riaa.com - Article: SSSCA Introduced By Fritz Hollings as CBDTPA

SSSCA Introduced By Fritz Hollings as CBDTPA

Posted by Bill Evans on March 21, 2002 at 5:17 PM (printer friendly)

Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA)is now a bill in the Senate. Renamed the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA ),it prohibits the sale or distribution of nearly any kind of electronic device -- unless that device includes copy-protection standards to be set by the federal government.

Responding to concerns about unauthorized sharing of digital media over the Internet, Sen. Ernest Hollings introduced a bill that would require Silicon Valley and Hollywood to agree on a standard to stop digital piracy. The bill would require any digital device to incorporate copy protection into the device. All computers, vcrs, walkmen, mp3 players, toasters, microwaves. Yep, that's right microwaves. The wording (if it's anything like the draft verson) is so broad that even those devices would be required to have copy protections built in.

It also creates new federal felonies, punishable by five years in prison and fines of up to $500,000. Anyone who distributes copyrighted material with "security measures" disabled or has a network-attached computer that disables copy protection is covered.

I wrote about this last fall when the draft bill was released and it's just as scary now as it was then. Sources in DC tell me the bill doesn''t have a snowballs chance in hell, but then again we thought the same thing about the DMCA didn't we? Now is the time to let your Senators know that this bill must not and can not pass.

Links:
The Senate By State
The Original Article
The Original Draft of the SSSCA

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


Frawgster	Date: March 21, 2002 @ 5:26 PM this bill is bad, bad, bad. bill is right folks...how is the time to let our senators know our thoughts.

Frawgster	Date: March 21, 2002 @ 5:47 PM I'm especially disgusted with the two sections below... "SEC. 101. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN DEVICES (a) IN GENERAL.--It is unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the ublic, rovide r otherwise traffic in any nteractive digital device that does not nclude and utilize ertified security echnologies that adhere to the security ystems standards dopted under section 04." "SECTION 107. ANTITRUST EXEMPTION. (c) EXEMPTION AUTHORIZED. -- When the Secretary finds that it is required by the public interest, the Secretary shall exempt a person participating in a meeting or discussion described in subsection (a) from the antitrust laws to the extent necessary to allow the person to proceed with the activities approved in the order."

creativetim	Date: March 21, 2002 @ 6:06 PM This is crap!

creativetim	Date: March 21, 2002 @ 6:30 PM Just sent a message to one of my senators, the one I thought would listen. The other one is an old man who is probably for the idea.

Cryxan	Date: March 21, 2002 @ 8:57 PM Most of the people in Congress don't even know how to use a computer! It's scary to think that they are responsible for making these decisions. Can you say First Amendment? What's wrong with these people??? And where's the ACLU when you need them? I haven't heard about their stance on it, but I'll go see their site now...

Cryxan	Date: March 21, 2002 @ 9:11 PM ...nothing on ACLU's site. What's really scary is that our wonderful government has already made it legal to monitor our online activities and e-mail withou a search warrant in the name of safety in the hastily passed "Patriot Act." And so having unsecured MP3's on your "network-attached computer" could land you in jail? Sure reads that way. Scary shit. Seems like the Bill of Rights is only a suggestion nowadays, not the law of the land. (If it's ok to make a political statement here, I'd like to recommend that people vote Libertarian--the only party that actually upholds the Constitution. If this was out of line I'm sorry--let me know and I'll keep it toned down.)

Remye	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 3:44 AM Holy white collar felony batman

creativetim	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 7:56 AM LOL :)

ElmerFusterpuck	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 5:12 PM If this actually passes, it's only the beginning. You won't be able to connect without getting hundreds of ads crammed down every body cavity. And it will be illegal to skip or reject the ads to. Hollings and company have their heads so far up their Hershey Highways, even a long shoehorn couldn't get them to see the light of day.

Megledon	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 5:13 PM This makes me sick Comment of Hilary Rosen, President and CEO, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), On Introduction Of "Consumer Broadband Act" March 21, 2002 "The introduction of the 'Consumer Broadband Act' sends an unmistakable signal about the importance of protecting digital music and other content from piracy. Without stringent protections, online piracy will continue to proliferate and spin further out of control. "We appreciate that Senators Hollings, Stevens, Inouye, Breaux, Nelson and Feinstein have sent a wake-up call to the information technology and consumer electronics industries that the time has come to achieve a voluntary marketplace solution to the growing threat of online piracy. We have been, and continue to be, eager to work out a voluntary solution, for that is in the best interests of everyone involved, especially the American consumer. We look forward to working with the Senate and House Commerce and Judiciary Committees on combating the digital piracy that threatens the development of the legitimate marketplace for music."

Megledon	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 5:16 PM I think it�s time to get the BFG out.

ElmerFusterpuck	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 5:53 PM I love this phrase from Hilary: "...digital piracy that threatens the development of the legitimate marketplace for music." Legitimate, my ass! They've ignored the marketplace the past few years (except for fabricated teen trash) and now want the gov't to support their crumbling empire. If Hilary ran Burger King, her phrase would be, "Have it my way, unless you want jail time." Truly pitiful and scary at the same time.

Megledon	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 6:23 PM Question: What does Senators Hollings, Stevens, Inouye, Breaux, Nelson and Feinstein all have in common?

Megledon	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 6:47 PM You got to read this... http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/hollings.cbdtpa.release.032102.html

pressf8	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 6:52 PM contributions from the RIAA? ;)

Megledon	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 7:07 PM My heads going to pop. Statements by Senator Ernest F. Hollings �By unleashing an avalanche of digital content on broadband Internet connections as well as over the digital broadcast airwaves, we can change this dynamic and give consumers a reason to buy new consumer electronics and information technology products. To do so requires the development of a secure, protected environment to foster the widespread dissemination of digital content in these exciting new mediums.� �Leaders in the consumer electronics, information technology, and content industries are some of America�s best and brightest. They can solve this problem. The consumer electronics and high tech industries claim they are ready to do just that. America�s top high-tech executives sent me a letter three weeks ago to that effect.� �Pursuant to the bill we introduce today, the standards, technologies, and encoding rules would work in the following manner. Digital content delivered over the Internet and over the broadcast airwaves would include instructions as to consumers� ability to copy available content and would prevent the illegal retransmission of that content over the Internet. Digital media devices such as television sets, cable boxes, and personal computers, would be manufactured to recognize and respond to those instructions to prevent illegal copying or redistribution.� �America�s creative artists deserve our protection�

pressf8	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 7:09 PM I'm feeling ill after reading his intro--he's got so many facts screwed up (and un-cited) that I just want to smack him. 100 million downloading americans can't be wrong, and I'm of the opinion that were something like this implemented it would not drive consumers to buy $2000 HDTV sets and $50/mo. broadband so they could access the biblical flood of GREAT digital content that the industry is so eager to feed us--but would stop people from buying it--they'd keep their old unsecure ones! AAAHAHHHHH! I'm declaring Senator Hollings clinically insane--someone needs to take lobotomize him--oh wait, the intertainment industry already did when they implanted that chip in his brain...

Megledon	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 7:28 PM Tech vs. Hollywood We are indeed the force of another creation Let�s get it on

Frawgster	Date: March 22, 2002 @ 7:52 PM Contributions to Congress 1 - Walt Disney Co - $537,440 - Is backing this bill with all they've got. 10 - Recording Industry Assn of America - $189,972 - Tenth, behind Vivendi, AOL/TW, etc. For the year 2002 election cycle, which means there's more money where that came from. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B02 ************************ RIAA Contributions to individuals (Read: expect these people to back the bill wholeheartedly) http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.asp?strID=C00009357&strCycle=2002 - Year 2002 http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.asp?strID=C00009357&strCycle=2000 - Year 2000 ********************** 1999 Lobbying expenditures by the RIAA (It's old, but it'll give you some idea just how much these people spend to get their agendas passed) http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/client.asp?id=19723&year=1999 ********************** Search for Rosen, Hilary here to find out how much her and the RIAA have donated. http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp ************************ Money talks...

Remye	Date: March 23, 2002 @ 1:12 AM wtf? I think hilary is just scared of what tech can do. My question is now the same as it has been, and it's one that I"ve heard echoed from many people.. why does she CONSTANTLY talk about the music? This would affect other more "legitimate" stuff as well..from sharing of real letters and info to programs like open source Linux. she's stupid. nuff said? riaa stupid. Nuff said? my opinion etc etc

-X-	Date: March 23, 2002 @ 1:23 PM http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html Electronic Frontier Foundation ACTION ALERT ALERT: Congress Calls For Public Participation on Digital Music Issues Submit Comments Opposing Technology Mandates (Issued: Friday, March 22, 2002 / Deadline: Monday, April 8, 2002) Introduction: Imagine a world where all digital media technology is either mandatory or forbidden -- Senator Fritz Hollings and a cabal of Hollywood entertainment interests are cooking up a set of laws aimed at conjuring this apocalyptic world into existence. Today, Senator Hollings introduced the alarming Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), which will give Hollywood plutocrats the power to stall new digital media technologies for a year, negotiating a phony "consensus" at lawyer-point with technologists. This "consensus" will receive the force of law, prescribing which user-hostile features are mandatory and which innovative features are forbidden. CBDTPA is derived from the draft SSSCA (Security Systems & Standards Certification Act), the subject of our last alert. Both the House and the Senate have called for comments on the future of digital music, an issue that is deeply entwined with technology mandates. What YOU Can Do Now: This is YOUR chance to voice your opposition to laws that make all digital media technology mandatory or forbidden.

mtbatol	Date: March 23, 2002 @ 7:27 PM damn, i don't know where to start and this is after reading this damn thing yesterday and today several times over. But the implementing of this technology will cause alot of problems that can affect the quality of content. I would much rather rip music at high quality rather then buy it online at 128 which isn't too bad but if i had my choice how about a good 192 or 360 at times? My first mp3 portable device was the Sony MS7 memory stick player and the stupid sdmi regulations had me throw this thing away on eBay. Sometimes the atrac file songs won't play back on pc due to stupid errors that forces me to rip the songs again and convert mp3's back over to atrac while deleting the old atrac files.. and over time that led me to players that allows me to just convert what i have on pc over there and play. This is why people don't like this bill being passed. "Security" type technology so far in the past was just :poop:ty and implementing it on every type of electronic device that comes out in the future will cause problems for the consumer hence everyone expressing anger towards this stupid bill! Past portable players using this technology will and have caused problems whenever lets say.. a hard drive were to crash and trying to copy music on same player or just the sdmi compliant files just going bad or some media sdmi type files being no good without the software (as the case with my stupid sony "mp3" player), stupid cd's being copyproof (don't give me that "well you can always download the music from our website" crap because will they offer a choice of 128kbps@lame or 192kbps@ogg and etc etc etc), and wma files having the stupid option of only having those files play back on the pc and nowhere else. It's nice that you're able to turn it off but it's too damn bad it's default and i found out after tryin to play those 100 files on another computer and portable (personal use or how they would call it "pirating") and will i be able to play those same "protected" files on pc if harddrive was formatted or crashed rendering them into trashy waste of drivespace?? I doubt it that much of the senate is computer educated enough to know how much this bill will set back the precious consumer who buys a "protected" album, device, or whatever and then is greatly inconviences when he/she wants to do something with the media file for personal use but can't because of sloppy implecation. I download a few nas "stillmatic" songs, talib kweli "reflection eternal" songs, and jay z "blueprint" songs before actually buying them for better quality from the actual albums so if i eventually buy what i got for free how is that breakin the law?? Perhaps some people download some songs and don't pay for it afterwards because they find out that past the hit single all the other songs on album is crap! ehhh, i could go on and on about this whole thing but i'll stop right here for now :mad:

Frawgster	Date: March 23, 2002 @ 7:53 PM In its current form, I don't think this bill will pass. Why? Cause it's ridiculous. Plain and simple. The passing of this bill would require an overhauling of a CRAPLOAD of companies and how they produce goods, market goods, and do business. Computer makers will be affected. Hard drive manufacturers will be affected. Hardware (CD rom, sound cards, etc.) makers will be affected. Consumer electronics (CD players, DVD players, televisions, MP3 players, etc.) manufacturers will be affected. If this bill, by some stroke of luck, passes, TOO MANY people/companies will be FORCED to change much of their business dealings. However, just because this bill doesn't have a chance in hell of being passed doesn't mean it won't get passed. Like Bill said, few thought the DMCA would pass, and we all know the outcome of that. I think this bill WILL ultimately pass...it'll be HEAVILY amended and modified. Whether that's bad or good remains to be seen.

yiuchan	Date: March 24, 2002 @ 9:27 PM LATEST NEWS BREAK: Sen. Ernest Hollings is busy preparing another bill known as the "writing instrument certification act" or WICA. It will be presented to the senate once SSSCA is passed into law. The bill will prohibit the sales of all writing instruments such as papers, pens and pencils unless it is certified by the Copyright Office. The aim is to prevent the use of pens and paper to infringe the copyright of original authors of letters, memos, jokes, essays, stories, term papers, etc., by the traditional method of simply writing it down. The Bill will force pen and pencil manufacturers to incorporate copyright protections into all writing instruments. The wordings of the proposed Bill is broadly enough to include pens, pencils, paper, inks, carbon papers, typewriters, ink ribbons, etc., because, according to Sen. Ernest Hollings, Americans had been using such devices to copy other peoples' works since the dawn of history and therefore should be outlawed. Devices such as whiteouts and erasers are exempted. The bill provides a punishable offence up to 5 years in prison and/or $1000 fine per device for anyone caught using uncertified pens and paper. (WARNING - All rights reserved. No parts of this B.S. may be retold to anybody else by any means without my expressed permission. Any broadcasting, transmission and copying of this B.S. is prohibited and punishable by law.)

crawdd	Date: March 25, 2002 @ 4:59 AM Even if this bill passes in the senate, it won't pass the house of represenatitives. While all those powerful senators like the bill, the house is hjust the opposite, where all the powerful representitives, even the guy that holds hollings's position in the house, don't like the bill. And without both the house and the senate, it can never become law.

mtbatol	Date: March 25, 2002 @ 5:39 PM heheh, what bill?? the pen & paper bill or the electronic device bill?? ;) :lol: :O

W-B	Date: March 30, 2002 @ 12:21 PM First off, to paraphrase Shakespeare, "That which we call SSSCA by any other name would smell as badly." Secondly, what we see going on is pretty much the moral equivalent of "racial profiling" and/or "blood libels." It is obvious that the average consumer is the last individual who could be spat upon or defecated on without fear of lasting consequences. Now, if any of these individuals (Rosen, Greene, Valenti, Eisner et al.) were to give a speech saying something to the effect of "Blacks and Hispanics commit far greater rates of CD/Internet piracy than whites, and are far more involved in peddling pirated discs on the streets," there would be such hue and cry, and threats of moguls like Russell Simmons or Sean 'P. Diddy' Combs to quit the RIAA (that is, if they're members), and charges of "racism" that would be so deafening, these high-priced lobbyists and executives would back down faster than you could say "Jack Robinson." But viz the average consumer: Aw, he/she is a pirate/thief, so his/her opinions don't matter or count. What arrogance.