Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Expensive Tech That No One Can Examine
from the uhhhhhh dept
One of Ed Felten's claims to fame was that he showed successfully showed the weaknesses of an earlier copy protection system the recording industry wanted to use. Even though the cracking of SDMI was part of a challenge issued by the industry, in preparing to actually publish the info on the weaknesses of SDMI the industry threatened to sue Felten. So, it should be no surprise to find out that Felten is quite interested in the new bill to "plug the analog hole.," that also requires a watermarking system. He's already pointed out that it appears the purpose of the bill has little to do with preventing copying and much more to do with killing off competition from amateur content providers, but now he's trying to look more thoroughly at what the bill proposes. There's just one major problem: it's all a big secret. Apparently, the digital watermarking spec that would be required under the bill is a secret -- and the only way to look at it is to pay $10,000 and sign non-disclosure forms. In other words, there's absolutely no way to know what the bill is actually requiring without paying ten grand to a private company -- and if you've done so, you can't discuss it publicly. That seems quite problematic. Not only does it make it even less likely that smaller innovators and amateur content producers can comply, it means that our politicians may be passing a law concerning everyone's rights, where one of the core components is considered a trade secret. It's no surprise that the industry wants the info out of Felten's hands, given his work in the past, but if the company (and the lawmakers) actually think that keeping this info secret somehow makes the protection scheme stronger, they're sadly mistaken.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bloated Lackeys of the Imperialistic Media Mongers
recording industry has come up with yet.
Plugging the analog hole is impossible as
long as there is no direct digital
connection to the brain.
Ed is right on, it will hurt the consumer
and the low/no budget content providers.
There are plenty of current and older A/D
components out there that don't give a hoot
about any water marks that a determined
pirate will be able to use. If the price
is right, there is no shortage of engineers
(despite what the IEEE might say) that could
easily build a discreete A/D which would work
just fine... even if it is a kludge. You can
build one of anything. It's the consumer
equipment manufactured in high volume that
this evil scheme would impact most of all.
I'm getting kind of sick of these media
schmucks and their bloated lackey politicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bloated Lackeys of the Imperialistic Media Mon
Time to donate to the EFF then.
www.eff.org
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
Yossarian: So, there is a copyright law, but nobody knows what the law says?
Cathcart: Correct, it's called Senate Bill #22. I wrote it.
Yoassarian: If you wrote it, you must know what it says?
Cathcart: I never read what I wrote, so I don't know what it says either
Yossarian: How will I know when I violate copyright laws?
Minderbender: When you get sued by the RIAA.
Yossarian: What if I want to avoid a lawsuit?
Cathcart: Just follow the law and you won't be sued.
Yossarian: The law that nobody knows what it is.
Cathcart: Yes, follow it to the letter!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FoIA
I think the recording industry is going to be sorely mistaken if they think that they can keep part of a law under wraps, or held hostage for $10K.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Supreme Court might have something negative to say about that.
After all, this is a government of the People, for the people, and by the people, and nowhere in the founding documents does it say "corporation."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
Haggie,
You gave me quite a laugh with the Catch 22 bit, thanks for making my day.What can we say about this mess? Sad but true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cost of living...
Its will only bring about 'More' pirated software, movies, and games to those less fortunet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FoIA
This is how a corporation can sue (or be sued), among other things.
This makes for some very interesting watching. I highly recommend it:
http://www.thecorporation.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
got torrent?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: got torrent?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
In effect the law would not exist in a form that could be regulated because of a lack of knowledge beyond its contextual existance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
I could find any civil law in existence in your jurisdiction at random and file a lawsuit against you today. I could sue you for molesting my poodle and I don't even own a poodle. Can you afford the attorney to defend yourself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FoIA
Today someone reminded me that the original draft of Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" speech actually read "Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex"... I think it's the anniversary of that speech, maybe we ought to think on that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's happened before
There was an issue a while ago where someone tried to put the laws for some state or other online, and got into trouble because some of it was copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]