>ED FOSTER: "Gripe Line" InfoWorld.com >Tuesday, October 22, 2002 >AN UPHILL BATTLE >MAYBE IT'S TIME for a little self help of our own. > >For years we've associated electronic self help -- the >remote disabling of software -- with UCITA, the >Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act. And >UCITA is going to remain a threat in that regard as >long as it remains on the books in Virginia and >Maryland. But it's all too clear that the bigger >threat now lies, geographically speaking, somewhere in >between: on Capitol Hill. > >It's almost a bad joke to see how many bills to deprive >consumers of digital products their rights were >introduced in Congress this year. Bills abound that >would mandate all hardware and software products >incorporate "technological protection measures" that >would allow copyright holders to restrict and even >terminate use of their products. And in this highly >digitized, highly branded world, those products could >be just about any household device you care to mention. > >Some people are puzzled when I talk about these >"copyright holder protection acts" in the context of >remote disabling of software. After all, it's the >motion picture and music industries that are hauling >buckets of money to D.C. in support of these bills. >And they are in fact opposed by many high tech >companies as restricting technological innovation. But >Congress also had the media moguls' interests >uppermost in mind when they passed the DMCA (Digital >Millenium Copyright Act) in 1998. That sure hasn't >prevented the software industry from using the DMCA >for its own purposes, such as jailing Russian >programmers or arbitrarily shutting down online >auctions of used software. As with the DMCA, any tools >Congress hands copyright holders will almost surely be >used most aggressively by the software industry for >purposes Congress probably doesn't intend. > >When it comes to electronic self help, the one thing >that the DMCA and most of these proposed bills lacks >is a "safe harbor" protecting the virtual repo man >from criminal charges under data tampering and >anti-hacking laws. Another bill introduced this year >by Rep. Howard Berman of California is designed to >fill that gap. The "P2P Piracy Prevention Act" (H.R. >5211) has created quite a stir by granting copyright >holders immunity for hacking activities of their own, >such as denial-of-service attacks, when done to thwart >piracy on peer-to-peer networks. Responding to the >outrage the bill has generated, supporters have argued >in part that Berman's bill specifically prohibits >those exercising self help from deleting, altering, or >corrupting computer files. And it does, but with a >very interesting loophole. > >The Berman bill's central provision says "a copyright >holder shall not be liable in any criminal action for >... impairing the unauthorized distribution ... of his >or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible >peer-to-peer network, if such impairment does not, >without authorization, alter, delete, or otherwise >impair the integrity of any computer file or data >residing on the computer of a file trader." Now, that >"without authorization" phrase strikes me as rather >incongruous. Why say that it's OK for the copyright >holder to rape and pillage, as long as they have >authorization? Who in their right mind is going to >authorize anyone to impair the integrity of their system? > >Well, it just so happens that Windows XP users have >already authorized Microsoft to do just that. >Remember, even before the Service Pack 3 for Windows >2000 update added all those additional nasty terms, >the original Windows XP license agreement gave >Microsoft the right to "download onto your computer >such security updates that a secure content owner has >requested" even though those updates "may affect your >ability to copy, display, and/or play Secure Content >through Microsoft software or third party >applications." Is that the kind of authorization Rep. >Berman had in mind when he stuck that phrase in there? > >Some observers believe that H.R. 5211 has little chance >of being passed in its current form, and the same can >be said of many of the other bills that aim to give >copyright holders more control. But the media >conglomerates have deep pockets, so, for every bill >that stalls, a few more crop up. One way or the other, >they mean to have a law that gives teeth to their copy >protection schemes. > >There is at least one ray of hope. Earlier this month >Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia introduced the Digital >Media Consumers' Rights Act (H.R. 5544), a bill >designed to roll back some of the worst imbalances >created by the DMCA. It would amend the DMCA to allow >users to bypass copy protection schemes for >noninfringing "fair use" purposes, and it would >mandate that copy-protected audio CDs be clearly >labeled so customers will know they're not getting a >standard CD that can play in all devices. > >Boucher's bill is certainly a step in the right >direction, and the best thing about it is the range of >support it has received, including endorsements from >Intel, Verizon, Sun, Gateway, the Consumer Electronics >Association, Consumers Union, Electronic Frontier >Foundation, and the American Library Association. Of >course, even with that show of support, Boucher's >proposal will never have the kind of lobbying muscle >(that is, cash) that the copyright holder protection >acts have behind them. > >But all these bills must wait for the next Congress, >the one we are about to elect, and therein lies an >opportunity. With Boucher's bill having been formally >introduced, it makes it much easier for voters to push >their congressional candidates to take a clear >position on these issues. Ask your congressional >candidates to take a stand in favor of H.R. 5544 and >to oppose H.R. 5211, and see what they say. It's not >likely to affect who wins this election, but it will >serve notice that this is an issue that is on the >voters' radar screen. That's the one way we have right >now of helping ourselves. > >Ed Foster is InfoWorld's reader advocate. Contact him >at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phil Daley < AutoDesk > http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
