Technology

 by Brendon J. Wilson

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

The media industry’s assault on fair use is now entering its final Orwellian chapter with the MPAA‘s latest suggestion to plug the “analog hole” by legislating manufacturers to incorporate watermark detection technology into analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). ADCs are hardware components that convert analog signals (such as the input into a soundcard) into digital signals suitable for storage on digital devices. By requiring devices to refuse to convert analog signals containing a watermark, the media industry would achieve complete control over all digital content and effectively eliminate consumer’s right to fair use of copyrighted material. As pointed out by John Gilmore, the consumer may have the protected right to fair use of copyrighted material but not the technological means to extract and reuse copyrighted material.

This move by the media industry should come as no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention. For those who haven’t been paying attention, here’s what you’ve missed:

  • The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA): Designed to update copyright to address the new challenges posed by digital technology, the DMCA included provisions making it illegal to circumvent copyright protection technology. While this may sound reasonable, opponents of the law note the media industry is using the law to squelch legitimate security research. Front and center, the case of the RIAA versus Dr. Richard Felten, a case that illustrated the law’s deadly double-edge. Most disturbing is the fact that other countries, including Canada, are looking to adopt legislation similar to the DMCA.
  • The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Act of 2002 (CBDTA): Introduced as a bill in March by Senator Hollings, the “Senator from Disney”, the CBDTA seeks to force all software and hardware to incorporate copyright control technology. This bill is a re-tooled and re-named version of a previous bill introduced by Hollings, the “Security Systems Standards and Certification Act”. The bill requires manufacturers to create a standard within 18 months of the bill becoming law; if manufacturers fail to agree on a standard, it will be up to the US government to set the standard.

With this latest suggestion, the media industry is illustrating how small changes, each perfectly logical, can result in a society where civil liberties and free will are next to non-existent. What’s to prevent the media industry to seek mandatory implantation of copyright protection mechanisms in humans once the appropriate technology is available? Sure it sounds crazy, but think of the advantages for media industry if every human’s sense of touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight were regulated to squeeze out every last cent of profit from copyrighted material:

  • “Premium” experiences: While you may pay for food or clothes, the implanted technology could be used to prevent you from fully experiencing the taste of your food or the sensation of your clothes. Want that extra experience? It’ll cost you.
  • Don’t whistle while you work: Say you’ve got a cool song in your head, so you decide to whistle it. By doing this you’re reproducing a copyrighted work, so the implanted technology prevents you from doing so without paying a royalty. Even once you pay the royalty, the implants force the sounds you produce to contain an embedded watermark forcing anyone around you to pay a royalty to listen to you. Good-bye impersonations and catch phrases.
  • So much for casual teenage sex: Want to enforce teen abstinence? Install NetNanny software into the implants that prevent the teens from experiencing sex in any way!

Is this stuff far-fetched? Sure, but as pointed out in The Age of Access this culture of paid-for experiences is already exists today, even without the benefit of copyright control technology. If we give companies the tools to commodify our culture, our experiences, our very lives, they will use it. Companies exist for one purpose: to make a profit. And in the war of business, everything is fair game.

in Technology 0 comments
 by Brendon J. Wilson

Celine Dion: Hacker?

The release of Celine Dion’s newest CD this week heralded not only the singer’s hopeful comeback to the world of music, but also a potential career change for the Canadian chanteuse. With the release of her new latest album, A New Day Has Come, Dion may be preparing to undergo the unprecedented transformation from diva to hacker. Or even terrorist.

In Europe, Dion’s newest release incorporates Sony’s Key2Audio technology, a copyright protection technology that has the unfortunate effect of crashing the computers of users who insert the disc into their machines. The Key2Audio technology is designed to thwart unauthorized piracy of music using personal computers, but the methods used to achieve this end may have disastrous consequences for unsophisticated users. Though the discs carry explicit warning labels, it is probable that average users will not fully comprehend the warnings and inevitably lose unsaved data when they insert the disc into their machine.

One might wonder if the Key2Audio-protected version of the album has only been released in Europe due to its lack of comprehensive computer fraud and abuse legislation, currently only under consideration by the European Union Parliament. Had the album been released in the United States, it is likely that Dion and her record company would be in violation of the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Specifically, consumers would be able to launch action under US Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Section 1030, Subsection (a), Paragraph 5, Subparagraph (A):

Whoever knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

Successful prosecution under this law would translate into a fine, imprisonment, or both. In fact, under the newly anointed Anti-Terrorism Act, it’s possible that either Dion’s record company or the singer herself could be prosecuted as a terrorist, something that would no doubt delight the singer’s critics.

Of course, this is all conjecture. Is it likely that a record company would fall victim to the same legislation designed to protect the American public from nefarious ne’er-do-well hackers? Probably not. Given the precedent-setting nature of such a case, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) would undoubtedly mobilize its lawyers to defend its members’ right to protect their intellectual property. However, the resulting lawsuit would require Dion, her record company, and the RIAA to position themselves opposite the United States’ formidable anti-hacking laws.

If the RIAA won such a fight, it would not only eliminate its customers’ right to access music they had already purchased, it would also set a dangerous precedent that would risk crippling law enforcement’s ability to pursue criminals for unauthorized computer access. Given the United States’ desire to crack down on cybercrimes, it is unlikely that it would throw away its primary tool for battling cybercriminals just to appease the music industry. And perhaps the audacity of such an attempt would finally be enough to convince the public to put the media giants in their place.

in Politics / Technology 0 comments