Fox Explains Why SSSCA Is Bad

corbettw writes "Fox News is running an article that slams Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disney") and the Democrats (with the notable exception of Rick Boucher) as having betrayed their principles. More importantly, the article explains why the SSSCA is so bad, in language any American can understand. It's nice to see someone in the mainstream media taking this beast on before it becomes law."

Opinions, opinions

[Frater 219]

Please note that the linked article is a partisan opinion piece by a law professor. It isn't the work of a Fox columnist; it doesn't necessarily represent the opinions of Fox or its affiliates. Nonetheless, it is quite refreshing to see cogent arguments for freedom in the "mainstream" media.

FWIW, the "partisan opinion" in question is small-"L" libertarian Republican. What the author is arguing isn't just that the SSSCA is bad. It's that Republicans should take advantage of the fact that Democrats' support for the SSSCA makes Democrats look to be in bed with Big Business. I, for one, find it nice when either of the duopolistic parties adopt pro-freedom positions. It gives me hope that someday they might do so out of principle rather than just because it makes them look good. Is a pretense to virtue a possible antecedent to true virtue? I don't know.

Re:A little out there?

[Stonehand]

That's because it's NOT an "article", it's an opinion piece. Look closely at the page; it's called "Straight Talk", and it's in the Views section, and it was submitted by a law professor.

This is an opinion piece, not an article. They're not claiming journalistic objectivity here.

Re:"Keep your grubby laws off my computer"

[commonchaos]

Bumper stickers would be awesome, I'm intrested!

And for those of us who have figured that out

[loosenut]

Do something about it!

Visit the EFF:
http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010921_eff_sssca_alert .html [eff.org]

I used that page to send a few emails to my Congresspeople. And they are listening!! I got this reply from Senator Maria Cantwell:

Dear ---:
Thank you for contacting me about the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). I appreciate hearing your concerns.

The SSSCA has not yet been introduced in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, nor does it exist in final form. My staff has been in contact with the Senator Hollings' office, one of the authors of the SSSCA along with Senator Stevens. I was informed that the SSSCA is yet to be completed, and the timeline for the introduction of the SSSCA is uncertain at this point. The early draft that was made publicly available on the Internet, to which your comments are likely directed, may be significantly different from the legislation that may be introduced by Senators Hollings and Stevens. You may be interested to know that Sen. Hollings held a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee to address this issue on February 28 (To view statements and testimony from this hearing, see: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/hearings.htm)

I understand your concern that we must work to achieve the right balance between protecting copyrights and remunerating the creators of those works and reasonable consumer use of copyrighted works. Indeed, the pace of innovation requires a diligent consideration of both of these interests. I believe that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) passed in 1998 helps to accomplish this goal. I feel we need to continue to encourage innovation in technology while protecting the intellectual property rights of inventors, artists, authors and musicians. The DMCA prohibits circumvention of technological protection measures and the trafficking of such technology. Thus, the law facilitates legitimate distribution of copyrighted work by allowing for the use of technological measures by the copyright holder and providing legal protections for those measures. However, you should know that I will not be supportive of legislation that unduly limits technological innovation or consumers' rights.

At this relatively early point in the development of digital distribution of copyrighted works, the U.S. Copyright Office has recommended that Congress make no significant changes to copyright law right now. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyright law, I will be actively considering these issues. Please be assured that should the SSSCA come before the Senate, I will keep your concerns in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to do so in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Maria Cantwell United States Senator

Re:A little out there?

[medcalf]

The article was not about "the evils of the SSSCA," but instead was about "opportunities for Republicans" to take advantage of a political position taken by the Democrats that goes against the Democrats' normal instincts. Given your tone, I wonder if you would consider the article a rant if the parties were reversed?

Who is Glenn Reynolds?

[rtos]

The article was written by Glenn Reynolds. He also maintains a rather cool weblog at Instapundit.com [blogspot.com]. More information about him can be found here [blogspot.com], from which I will blockquote:

"

WHO IS GLENN REYNOLDS? I'm a law professor [utk.edu] at the University of Tennessee. I write various law review articles, opeds, and other stuff. My most recent book is The Appearance of Impropriety: How the Ethics Wars Have Undermined American Government, Business and Society, (The Free Press, 1997) coauthored with Peter W. Morgan. For something completely different, see Environmental Regulation of Nanotechnology: Some Preliminary Observations, from the April, 2001 Environmental Law Reporter. (Sorry, but most law review articles aren't on the Web).

I'm interested in everything, but my chief interest is in the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty. The vast majority of my writing touches on this in one way or another.

I'm also very interested in music. I produce, write for, or perform with a number of bands (but not "Pachyderm Party" -- that's a different Glenn Reynolds), including Mobius Dick, The Nebraska Guitar Militia, and the Defenders of the Faith. I own a small record company (it's not organized as a nonprofit, but it might as well be) with my brother and another guy, called WonderDog Records. Some of my favorite acts are Cecilia Noel and the Wild Clams, BT, The Supreme Beings of Leisure, and, of course, Creedence Clearwater Revival."

And he may be one of the few columnists out there that hates the RIAA as much as the Slashdot crowd.

I thought a little background on him would be appropriate since all the claims of conservative bias and such started being flung around.

Some numbers that are in the actual SSSCA document

[Anonymous Coward]

Being Caught with 1 "illegal" copyright work: $25,000
Being Caught 3 years later with an "illegal" copyright work: $75,000
Total: $100,000

For 1000 mp3s: $100,000,000 (100 million)

And according to the SSSCA, an illegal work would be an mp3 of a song on a CD that you yourself bought. Or when the "secure content checker" written about in the SSSCA is on all computers, an illegal work is a work it doesn't recognize, such as a term paper you wrote 5 years ago.

$100,000 for trying to read your own paper.

Re:Interesting Political trend.

[Anonymous Coward]

They both fuck the consumer. Only difference is how.

Re:Not *everything* is the fault of the MPAA.

[jsprat]

Here is a quote from a Kelly Research study:

Radio Play Plays a Big Role in Music-Purchasing Habits

A new study by the Philadelphia-based Kelly Research shows radio has the greatest impact on rock music purchase decisions among listeners ages 16-39.

The nationwide survey of music buying habits surveyed 428 rock music listeners. Sixty-one percent rated radio airplay as "very important" in determining what they will buy. Videos were cited as very important by 37%, concerts were cited by 32%, and 7% cited critics reviews.

Radio is also influential as a music advertising medium, according to the study. Fifty percent of survey respondents cite radio spots as influential in their buying decisions. Television spots are important to only 39% of those surveyed, and print ads influence 30%.

According to the study, 49% of males ages 16-24 first hear of music they buy "from friends" more than any other source. In the male 25-49 category, that figure drops to 16%. Among females 16-24, 35% first hear of music they buy "from friends," but only 14% of women ages 25-39 cite friends as a source.

Re:Interesting Political trend.

[cabodog77]

Ridiculous comment. I believe if you do your research you'll find that the Clinton Democratic administration is the one that funded 18 out of 20 Enron ventures, and propped that company up, while the Republican administration of former Bush Sr. funded one out of 15 proposed, or around that number. I also believe Enron contributed more to the Dems than Repubs. And at any rate, I'm not accusing either Dems or Repubs of anything at Enron...

Enron is a result of dishonest people, period.

SSSCA

[maxwells daemon]

Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), a version of which is posted at http://216.110.42.179/docs/hollings.090701.html [216.110.42.179] Think of your reader.

Re:And for those of us who have figured that out

[mikeboone]

If I remember correctly, Maria Cantwell used to work for Real Networks. So I could see her siding with the DMCA since "secure" content transmission is part of her former employer's business.

Isn't this basically corruption?

[eggstasy]

I'm sorry if this sounds ignorant or something, but... Isn't taking a boatload of money in exchange for making a law basically corruption?

You may call it "campaign contributions" but it's fairly obvious to anyone what the real purpose of the money is. Hell I wouldnt be surprised if the (RI/MP)AA was writing up the laws and having Hollings just sign on the dotted line.

If it's so bloody obvious that the guy is "bought" why on earth is no one raising an awful ruckus about it? Well shit if the guy was getting a BJ from some intern (which doesnt hurt anyone) all hell would break loose, but since he is "just" getting money from Big Business in order to make a law for them, I guess it's all ok!?!?

I'm from Portugal and AFAIK there isn't anything like that here, if some politician was caught receiving money from a big company in exchange for trying to make a law that favours it, well it would be an enormous scandal!

Why isn't anyone arresting that Hollings idiot?
What on earth are your laws like, that they permit your politicians to be so obviously and openly corrupt??

Re:The Senator from Disney

[the gnat]

Hollings is certainly a poor senator and a relic. However, the first poster in this thread referred to his "atrocities". Take a closer look at his voting record:
[issues2000.org]
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Fritz_Hollings. ht m

I wouldn't characterize him as an ideologue or a tyrant. He's probably just not a very effective representative and one of the "old school" types who feel they have a responsibility to create a "healthy bidness climate" (to paraphrase Molly Ivins). He's certainly relatively conservative, but he did oppose Ashcroft, and support hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation. Honestly, I'm not wild about the latter (based on principle, not moral/religious beliefs), but given that Hollings is from S.C. I think his vote indicates that he's willing to act on principle sometimes.

The Fox article was right to point out that the Democrats are really fucking up here. I've been reading Politech articles about this, and several Republicans have gloated over this. I'd prefer Hollings stay where he is, given that no credible Democratic challengers can unseat him. The Republicans may be right on this case, but their leadership is still a bunch of homophobic racist bigoted hypocrites, and I have no doubt that they'd support this bill too if Disney was lining their pockets.

NEVER listen to Fox News.

[Triv]

Check this out: FAIR Special Report: The Most Biased Name in News [fair.org]. Fox has a history of misrepresenting the facts.

Triv

Re:The Senator from Disney

[cje]

It may be this "keep your head down, get re-elected" shift that will oust Hollings, Daschle, et. al. It certainly cost Gary Condit his job...

Huh? Fucking around with an intern that ended up missing (and presumed dead) is what cost Gary Condit his job. Stonewalling the police and the press didn't help anything, either. If you paid any attention to the media over the course of the past couple of weeks, Gary Condit did anything but keep his head down.

Re:The Senator from Disney

[Stonehand]

The individual limit is $1000 per donator per candidate per election cycle. There's also a total limit per election cycle, if memory serves. It doesn't matter that much if you're Bill Gates or not, however, if you're looking mostly at your own representatives (1 Fed rep, 2 state senators, and 1 Pres.).

It does matter to a certain degree in that if you don't have that much discretionary spending, you may not fill the limit... but the limit is not THAT high(*). Somebody who is upper-middle-class could probably meet contribute on a fairly regular basis if he put politics at a high priority, compared to eating out less, being more discriminating with music and movies, and so forth. Or toys, like graphics cards (how much do the latest nVidia ones cost?) and digital cameras (which go into the thousands...).

(*) The current version of McCain-Feingold will double it, to compensate for the complete removal of soft money donations to national political parties.

Re:Not *everything* is the fault of the MPAA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for the record, the MPAA is the Motion Picture Association of America. Their product is not usually distributed on the radio or by mp3.

The RIAA, the Recording Industry Associaton of America, is who you're talking about.

They both, as oligopolies in copyright based businesses, support SSSCA and contributory copyright infringement lawsuits against P2P networks that allow the sharing of copyrighted material.

Slight corrections

[Zoop]

Basically, Sen. Hollings could parade naked down Huger St. in Columbia SC, and the Republican party would run commercials on how the Sen. must have nothing to hide.

I'm guessing you meant =~ s/Republican/Democrat/ on that one, 'cuz a Huger (prn. Yoo-GEE, to show my local quals) street parade would actually cause the Republicans to trumpet it as much as they can, but it would do no good "because my Daddy voted for Hollings and Thurmond, and if it was good enough for my Daddy, it's good enough for me!"

Also, Strom has not yet been re-elected this year, and in fact there are Republicans contesting for his seat, including Mark Sanford, who actually stuck to his "two terms and I'm out" congressional pledge.

Re:The Senator from Disney

[BlaisePascal]

Rule 1: Forbid for-profit and tax-exempt corporations from participation in the political process. Corporation may not contribute to political campaigns, lobby government officials (elected or appointed), or pay others to do so. This would mean that if Michael Eisner chose to testify before Congress, Disney would need to record that time against his vacation or paid sick time, or not pay him for that time at all.

I think this would go a long way towards taking politicians out of corporate pockets.