Raspberries, Crippled PCs, and Libraries
By Walt Crawford
American Libraries Columnist
Senior analyst, Research Libraries Group
Column for December 2002
Copyright can drive you crazy, which may explain this month’s title. Raspberries? That’s what I hear when I turn “CBDTPA”—the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act—into an acronym. (I would say “Bronx cheer” but that may not be the other kind of PC.) Crippled PCs? That’s the only plausible implementation of what CBDTPA would yield. And libraries? They are careful respecters of copyright that rely on fair use and first-sale rights to operate; but they are threatened by legal raspberries and perhaps not fully aware of it.
Seasoned observers may stop here, saying, “Crawford’s ranting about a bill that’s never going to pass.” That’s the good news: CBDTPA, Sen. Fritz Hollings’s (D-S.C.) new name for what he formerly called the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act, seems unlikely to become law, according to government observers. Maybe that’s why some legislators have suggested that the FCC issue fiats to do the dirty work.
This gets technical, but let me offer a quick summary and why I find it so threatening for honest users and all libraries.
CBDTPA would require that all digital devices able to reproduce, display, retrieve, or access anything that’s copyrightable include undefeatable copy-protection circuitry defined or approved by the government. That proposal may not go anywhere, but less-extreme proposals are likely to be adopted.
Why this is a Big Deal
Here’s the scenario as I see it. You may need to read the bullets twice.
- If copy protection means outlawing all copying, that overturns fair use and would not survive judicial review. The Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, Association of American Publishers, and others (“Big Media”) disclaim any such intention—although the track records of the MPAA’s Jack Valenti for movies and the RIAA for recordings lead me to doubt their sincerity. In any case, all current proposals assume some legal copying—but publishers would have full, undefeatable, control over all copying.
- Copy control for digital resources really requires digital watermarks: Additions to copyrighted materials that spell out attached rights but (supposedly) don’t interfere with the music, video, picture, or text itself.
- Any digital watermark that can be detected can be defeated or removed digitally by true (commercial) pirates—and a digital watermark that isn’t detectable won’t work.
- For amateurs, a digital-analog-digital (DAD) round trip will eliminate any watermark that doesn’t audibly or visibly deface the file. What do I mean by a DAD round trip? Plug your CD player into your PC’s sound card. MusicMatch Plus, Easy CD Creator Gold, and other extended-capability PC music programs will convert the analog audio output back into digital MP3 or WAV files (which is also why “copy- protected” CDs aren’t copy protected at all, they’re just defective). Maybe it takes 70 minutes instead of three to redigitize a 70-minute CD, but that’s no big deal. Movies? A player, a TV, and a videocamera; it may not be pretty, but it’s all you need. For photos there are scanners. Sure, there are quality losses in each case—but anyone who thinks 128K MP3 files or network-downloaded movies offer adequate quality won’t care about the losses.
- That does not mean undefeatable copy protection is impossible. It will work just fine on the principle that anything not expressly allowed is forbidden. I believe a fully workable chip would necessarily refuse to play or copy any possibly copyrighted file, whether new or old, that does not carry an appropriate watermark. The more I think about it, the more I believe there is no other way to achieve the ends of those pushing CBDTPA-style restrictions.
Maybe I’m wrong. I hope so—but I don’t see how. If I’m right, and even a modified version of this horror show is ever adopted, “crippled PC” is not a hyperbole.
Realistically, such provisions would outlaw new general-purpose PCs. Even less-drastic implementations would destabilize and limit PCs as used by honest people. True (commercial) pirates and thieves would find and circulate ways to disable the protections, regardless of the possible consequences.
You can draw your own conclusions as to how this would affect library circulation, digitization, preservation, and other services. I’m an optimist by nature and a believer in copyright. I believe the consequences would be devastating. That’s why I worry about CBDTPA and the less dramatic proposals likely to slip by under its draconian cover. Maybe you should worry a little too.
|
