Hidden Threats to Ham Radio - DRM & DMCA

There are many things a foot that can harm Ham Radio's future that most hams
are not aware of. One of the "silent enemies" of Ham Radio is the current move
by the entertainment cartel in the United States to force Digital Restriction
Management on the American public by act of Congress and FCC rule making.

In the world envisioned by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)
and the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) there are 2 classes
of citizens, those that can have full general purpose computers (MPAA & RIAA
members) and the rest of the world. Among the restrictions that these folks
are trying to impose is the outlawing of ANALOG to DIGITAL CONVERTERS. I
was at a Department of Commerce hearing on DRM on July 17, 2002 when
Jack Valenti stood up and told all assembled that there was a need to
"Plug the analog hole" to prevent unauthorized digitizing of analog signals.
On behalf of New Yorkers for Fair Use (www.nyfairuse.org) I disagreed with
the entire premiss of DRM that the panel was discussing and pointed out that
it would prevent innovation and would stagnate progress. After this meeting the
MPAA and RIAA lobbyist and their congressional puppets decided to approach
forcing DRM on the American public by way of FCC rule making. There is
a current NPRM (02-230) for the so called "Broadcast Flag" that if enacted
would be backed with the force of law under the DMCA
(http://www.nyfairuse.org/dmca.xhtml) and would effectively put an end to
software defined radio projects such as GNU Radio
(http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/gnuradio.html).

If the entertainment cartel gets their way and is allowed to castrate all
digital devices not owned by them there will be an end to development of new
forms of digital communications and signal processing by anyone that is not
part of the entertainment industry. Tinkering on software to enhance
communications could be a felony for Hams located in the United States.

Please get educated on what is going on by visiting the New Yorkers For Fair
Use web site at http://www.nyfairuse.org/ and also submit comments on
the Broadcast Flag to the FCC by December 5th 2002 by following the
links at http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/fcc.flag.xhtml. It is important to
use the form you will be linked to as the FCC only accepts electronic comments
in a special format. The form will submit them in the proper format.

Below is the New Yorkers For Fair Use Action Alert that has been sent out
to other outlets.

73

Brett
wa3yre@arrl.net


New Yorkers for Fair Use Action Alert:
--------------------------------------

Please send a comment opposing the "Broadcast Flag" Proposal
to the United States FCC by this Thursday, December 5, 2002.

Tell the FCC to Serve the Public, Not Hollywood!


Okay, you folks understand this issue -- it's very important
for concerned Americans to send word to the FCC by the
public comments deadline, this Thursday, December 5, that
you OPPOSE the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking #02-230. This
rule would make it illegal for ordinary citizens to own
fully functional digital television devices. We've made it
easy; just follow the links below.


1) Please send in your comments to the FCC using the form
provided below. Tell them that the movie industry should
have a special privilege to own fully-functional digital
television devices. Read the alert below for details.

2) Please forward this alert to any other interested parties
that you know of, who would understand and see the
importance of this issue.

3) Volunteer to help us with this and other alerts related
to your rights to flexible information technology in the
future. Two roles you can take up are to become a Press
Outreach Campaigner or a Commentator. Simply reply to this
email to show your interest.


Tell the FCC to Serve the Public, Not Hollywood!

Public Comments Needed to Stop the "Broadcast Flag" Proposal
at the FCC


Please follow this link and use the form on the Center for
Democracy and Technology's site to let the FCC know that the
public's rights are at stake:
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/fcc.flag.xhtml.

What's Going On:

The FCC is considering a proposal that digital televisions
be required to work only according to the rules set by
Hollywood, through the use of a "broadcast flag" assigned to
digital TV broadcasts.

Through the deliberations of a group called the Broadcast
Protection Discussion Group which assiduously discounted the
public's rights to use flexible information technology,
Hollywood and leading technology players have devised a plan
that would only allow "professionals" to have
fully-functional devices for processing digital broadcast
materials.

Hollywood and content producers must not be allowed to
determine the rights of the public to use flexible
information technology. The idea of the broadcast flag is to
implement universal content control and abolish the right of
free citizens to own effective tools for employing digital
content in useful ways. The broadcast flag is theft.

In the ongoing fight with old world content industries, the
most essential rights and interests in a free society are
those of the public. Free citizens are not mere consumers;
they are not a separate group from so-called
"professionals." The stakeholders in a truly just
information policy in a free society are the public, not
those who would reserve special rights to control public
uses of information technology.

Please go to <a href="http://www.nyfairuse.org/action.....gt;http and follow the
instructions to file your comments with the FCC.


----

Some background links:

http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/archives/one-page.pdf

http://www.eff.org/effector/HTML/effect15.22.html#III

http://www.cdt.org/press/020807press.shtml

 

After alot of thought on the matter, the one part of the DMCA that should be taken out completely, is the part about Access Controls. It affords the MPAA, RIAA and others who license digital playback devices patent like protection for their devices via copyright law.

You might think, so what's the big deal? The big deal is this.

When you patent a method, you must disclose how that method works. In return, you are granted a monopoly on your patented method for a period of time. (25 Years IIRC) It's a win-win. We get to see how it works and won't have to pay licensing fees after 25 years.

Under the DMCA, anyone who produces a product that can be attached to copyright and uses access controls, no matter how trivial, must be licensed by the copyright holder. This restriction is never ending.

If you create a device or write software that can use such a product without a license, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW. You could be fined and/or put in prison for it.

This is what the law is NOW. The MPAA's new Digital Rights Management initiative has the makings to outlaw general purpose computing devices. The computer must no longer trust you, the user. Operating Systems that do not have DRM could be outlawed. The End of open computing may not come from the Great North West. It might come from Hollywood, New York and Nashville.

What does this have to do with ham radio? We will never be able to get programmable DSPs in the IF of your ham radio. This is because you will required to use DRM. Your DSP will not be user programmable, you will have to get ones that the MPAA and RIAA say are OK. Otherwise, somebody might use their radio to record something from a broadcast TV or radio station that has the "Dont record" bit set. Yes, yes, I know. That would be a violation of the DMCA. But with DRM, you simply outlaw devices and software that _COULD_ be used for copyright violations.

With DRM, you can't have "Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art." when the next step in the radio art is DSP and DSP programming is illegal.


Home of the free indeed.

 

This just jerks my chain...

1. A bunch of little cheap cry babies want to STEAL music.
2. The rightful owners want to protect their property.

Now Hams are asked to support thievery in order to protect our RIGHT to use A to D and D to A techniques.

BS.. Big FAT BS... BIG fat PILE of BS... with flies !!

I say support the EXISTING laws and jail the persons downloading or allowing uploading of STOLEN music.

All a copyright is good for is a right to sue the person abusing your ownership. Now this big outfit figured out that they can't afford to sue 20% of the population and now they are crying and calling for legislation....

Again I say, let them go after the perpetrators themselves... That is what I would have to do if someone stole my book... SAME THING !!!

Arghhhhhhh...

Harry Kholer N0PU

 

Harry-
I invite you to go to www.nyfairuse.org
and become educated on the issues. You should also read the post just
above yours by ke4pjw. He has a good handle on what is going on. The law to put force behind NPRM 02-230 was passed in 1998. It is the DMCA. It passed congress with only 3 no votes, all in the senate. I am sure that under the DMCA you can be hauled away to jail today for having a circumvention device in your home. I can not think of a home or office in the USA that does not have many circumvention devices. You can thank both congress and Sony for making you the criminal you are today. How did they do that you ask? I am glad you did. They came out with a new form of audio disc with what they called "copy protection" that did not work properly. A by product of the disc hitting music stores all over the country a few months ago was that many common household items have been criminalised.

The DMCA also gives anyone the power to shut down any web site they want to just by claiming that illegal copies of protected works are on the site. There is no due process the site must be shutdown upon getting notice and must stay down for a minimum of 14 days. Yes the DMCA is a nasty snake in the grass and some parts of it impact directly on HAM RADIO. The bottom line is that the MPAA and the RIAA bought Congress on the DMCA so that they could have total information control forever. It also criminalises what had in the past been a civil matter. This means that the entertainment cartel no longer has to track down and sue people they think are infringing on them. Your tax dollars get to do the job and in the bargain you lost your fairuse rights to material you legally own and the public lost any chance of much information ever going into the Public Domain.

It is possible that trying to build compatible IRLP system by looking at how the ve7tld system works is a crime as Dave will not disclose full details of how the system works and it uses encryption.

If NPRM 02-230 passes it will be backed up by the DMCA. The only stink I smell here is coming from Washington DC and from uninformed minds that do not want to learn the truth, or defend the rights that our forefathers fought so hard to secure for us.

73
Brett
WA3YRE

DRM is theft! We are the stakeholders! http://www.nyfairuse.org/

 

I agree the stink is coming from Washington...By being in bed with the music industry...no doubt...

But, I go back to the origin of the problem... The original CAUSE...and THAT is music theft...

I say repeal any law that makes it NOT the responsibility of the Music Companies to go after the perpetrators...And then stick the perps with MAJOR fines...

Copyright was never meant to have Government enforcement outside the Judicial System... as persued by the offended party...

I say it again... snotty nosed music thieves started all this... If they had bought their records/tapes/cds to begin with, none of this would have happened...

Go after the REAL thieves and leave honest people alone...

Get the Cause and Effect in the correct order...
You appear to say that the effect of congress's action is the cause of the problem... and that is backwards... This is a common problem today... Folks don't seem to understand the difference between cause and effect... And we're not suppose to BLAME anyone for the problems... And God forbid anyone take resposibility for their actions...

I'll get off my soapbox...

Harry Kholer N0PU

 

They already stick "perps" with major viruses and adware- I spent all weekend fixing my OS after KAZAA and IMESH were loaded on one of the computers by the kids. Now they get "guest" access and can't install programs. I myself can do without the downloads and made it clear it won't happen again on our computers.

 

Maybe they'll outlaw digital cameras. Next it will be camcorders and regular cameras, magnetic tape, and finally, paint brushes. Hell, put everyone's eyes out and install a chip that will only let you see what "they" want you to see.

 

You're all wrong. The restrictions of DMCA and so on are not targeted at limiting your freedoms. They are targeted at promoting consumerism and central control over the mass media.

The "Analog Hole" was not a problem when only analog media was in use. The relative difficulty and high cost of redistributing or transmitting via analog methods kept competition against the market, allowing the RIAA and MPAA to gain monopolistic control over their respective markets, radio and movies. If you wanted your band's song on the radio, you paid the RIAA and signed over your rights, and they would get you on the air. If you wanted to make tapes or whatever, you paid the RIAA and they made it happen. But you COULD NOT do anything of any useful scale on your own.

Enter the PC and the internet. Now anyone, anywhere can take their music, their art, their -whatever- and easily and (relatively) cheaply put it on the internet for others to see. Think about it - Instead of putting this message that I am typing right now on a bulletin board somewhere, or continuously broadcasting it on the radio, or putting it in magazines, I just sit here by the monitor and TYPE. The server stores the message and spits it out whenever you request it. All I had to do was create it, and all you had to do was chose to come here and read it.

Good for me.
Bad for the RIAA.

Since everyone no longer has to go through them to get their music out, they no longer have a monopoly. In fact, their function in the food chain - Getting your music on the air and out to people - is outright redundant. Why should I pay them to do something for me that I can do myself, easily?

The RIAA has two options to maintain their control and their business - Destroy the internet, or take control of it.
They've elected to take the latter - First by forcing all of the content they do not control off the internet, and finally by eliminating that which makes it easy to post content that competes with theirs.

Here at home, I normally have a radio running in the background, playing the Japan-A-Radio web-radio station. They play Japanese music and such. They play NOTHING that the RIAA has anything to do with. Yet, at the RIAA's insistence and by legislation the RIAA has caused to pass, they are being required to pay royalties to the RIAA for songs the RIAA had *NOTHING TO DO WITH*.  Why is JAR paying the RIAA for work they didn't do? Why do they have to pay royalties on songs for which royalties are not owed?

Because it's -THE LAW-.

And if they can't cough up the RIAA's money, they go off the air.

Right now, they're planning their next move - They have to either go commercial and eliminate most of their user base, or go off the air.

Personally, as I am unemployed, I will be unable to listen to JAR in either case. I do all I can just to continue to put food in my mouth and keep a roof over me. I have been living day-to-day for almost a year now, fighting to get enough money to get out of where i am and end up somewhere where there's jobs to be had. I don't even have an antenna anymore - Vandals cut it down over the summer - I haven't been on the radio for months now. I can't even afford the length of wire to make a damn dipole. But the RIAA does nothing but sit there and collect royalty payments which don't belong to them, exploit the artists they do have control over, and force legislation to squash anyone they don't control. And they make BILLIONS.

Why do these people control my government, and not me?  I voted - Why does my vote mean nothing?  Something's wrong with this picture. But that's another subject.

The RIAA and MPAA liked things the way they were - You went to work, you earned your money, you came home, and one way or another, you gave your money to them.  These companies no longer serve a purpose - Their functions are rendered obsolete by the relentless march of technology. Now they are trying to hold back the march - They want to put the demons back in Pandora's box and lock it up, then bury it somewhere never to be found.

This fight is not about theft, or artists's rights, or your rights, or any of that idealistic stuff - It's about money. These people make far, far, far more money than you will ever make, they control the minds of millions - And they like it that way. They're fighting to preserve their control. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sure you'd do the same in their situation.

 

I don't see what all the fuss is about.  I have read the FCC NPRM, researched the "Broadcast Flag", and quite frankly don't have any major objections to it as it relates to ham radio.  The NPRM is very narrowly worded and only applies to broadcast digital TV.  Nowhere did I see the assertion that A/D-D/A converters would be outlawed.  

It seems like the FCC is openly wondering if the slow adaptation of digital TV is primarily due to regulatory or consumer issues.  The Hollywood types believe it is due to the lack of copy protection, therefore the NPRM.  I personally feel that digital TV offers very little improvement over conventional TV given the costs, and in today's ultra-competitive environment is economically unattractive to the consumer.

Do I agree with actions and proposals of the MPAA/RIAA and their ilk?  Absolutely not.  But does the current NPRM endanger ham radio? No.

The bigger problem the industry must face is this:  all of the really good stuff has already been done and is available on the TV, radio and internet.  The genie is out of the bottle, and all the lawyers and Nazi-style tactics won't put it back in.

In short, I have 500 cable channels, and a 20 theater movieplex within a 10 minute drive...and there's still nothing worth watching!

 

The RIAA's move to require copy protection in all electronic devices cable of handling audio is so outlandish that it would be tenamount to the US Congress selling itself to-- oh wait, they already did sell themselves to the RIAA.

Well, then I suppose we better get homebrewing!

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KE4MOB @ Dec. 02 2002,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't see what all the fuss is about. I have read the FCC NPRM, researched the "Broadcast Flag", and quite frankly don't have any major objections to it as it relates to ham radio. The NPRM is very narrowly worded and only applies to broadcast digital TV. Nowhere did I see the assertion that A/D-D/A converters would be outlawed.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The problem is, any device or software that can be used to circumvent access controls is illegal under the DMCA if it is not licensed. From what I understand, the "broadcast flag" is an access control.

Maybe it's only the software that ignores such things, that would be illegal. If that's the case, it still annoys me that you loose your fair use rights to copyrighted works.

Classic Copyright law worked just fine. It was well understood and to the point.

I don't think ham radio manufactures want to be the target of some lawyers for the entertainment industry. They may just stay away from software defined radios because of the problems it could cause them due to US copyright law.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KE4MOB @ Dec. 02 2002,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
It seems like the FCC is openly wondering if the slow adaptation of digital TV is primarily due to regulatory or consumer issues. The Hollywood types believe it is due to the lack of copy protection, therefore the NPRM. I personally feel that digital TV offers very little improvement over conventional TV given the costs, and in today's ultra-competitive environment is economically unattractive to the consumer.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I agree.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KE4MOB @ Dec. 02 2002,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Do I agree with actions and proposals of the MPAA/RIAA and their ilk? Absolutely not. But does the current NPRM endanger ham radio? No
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I agree, sort of.

NPRM is not a threat by itself, but coupled with current copyright law, it is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KE4MOB @ Dec. 02 2002,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The bigger problem the industry must face is this: all of the really good stuff has already been done and is available on the TV, radio and internet. The genie is out of the bottle, and all the lawyers and Nazi-style tactics won't put it back in.

In short, I have 500 cable channels, and a 20 theater movieplex within a 10 minute drive...and there's still nothing worth watching![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I just don't get why they think they need to micro manage the private use of not only their product, but anything that can play their products as well. Has been illegal to copy and distribute copyrighted material for a long time. Those who wish to traffic such materials will ignore the law and do so anyway. It will be us, the law abiding consumers that are the most effected by these bad laws.

-- Terry
KE4PJW

 

KE4MOB-
The broadcast flag will hurt Ham Radio because to
"properly implement" it one must castrate general purpose
computers. Take a look at the NPRM again, and also
take a look at the DMCA which is what gives the NPRM teath.
You can find links to both at www.nyfairuse.org.

73

Brett
wa3yre

 

I see many problems with "digital flag" and similar initiatives, including added cost and hassle
to consumers everywhere, a ton more government controls we can't afford, higher cost
consumer electronics, impediments to innovation, and, worst of all, continuation of a
general erosion of our rights. This idiocy needs to be stopped, and I have entered my own
response to the NPRM reflecting all these points.

No commercial interest group should be
catered to this way, and I agree with prior comments about the MPAA and RIA - they are
dinosaurs and have done much to damage the public and impede better protection of content
producers' rights. I am a content producer, but they have no interest in protecting my
rights unless I am willing to pay them. Ther must be a better way, but this is the wrong way
to approach the issue.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ Dec. 02 2002,04:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But, I go back to the origin of the problem... The original CAUSE...and THAT is music theft...
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The DMCA was written long before music was easily stolen on the Internet. As a matter of fact, there are no Access Controls on anything labeled "Compact DISC".

This is about controling devices that _MIGHT_ be used to view licensed content on unlicensed devices.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ Dec. 02 2002,04:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Go after the REAL thieves and leave honest people alone...

Get the Cause and Effect in the correct order...
You appear to say that the effect of congress's action is the cause of the problem... and that is backwards... This is a common problem today... Folks don't seem to understand the difference between cause and effect... And we're not suppose to BLAME anyone for the problems... And God forbid anyone take resposibility for their actions...
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The thing is, it is no longer even about stealing. You can copy encrypted works. There is _NO WAY_ to stop people from making copies of Movies and Music. It's now about controling the devices that record and play Movies and Music. If they want to add those features in their equipment, that's fine with me. But passing a law that allows private groups to regulate what devices can and can't be used to display legal,licensed content is wrong.

 

I broached this issue with the ARRL earlier this year when Fritz "The Senator from Disney" Hollings presented the CBDTPA into the Senate. At the time I sent copies of a letter with my concerns to the ARRL president, the division director, the assistant division director and the section manager. I only heard back from the assistant director.

In his reply several days after my initial message the assistant director told me that League counsel Chris Imlay had looked into the matter and he (Imlay) and others in the League hierarchy did not believe the CBDTPA posed any significant threat to ham radio. I disagreed with that assessment then and nothing has occured in the intervening months to change my opinion. Anything produced for the ham shack in the future from the lowliest APRS TNC to the most advanced DSP for an SDR would need to comply with the provisions for access control as required of "digital devices" had the CBDTPA become law.

I'm afraid that many hams, League leadership included, believe this NPRM along with the DMCA and DRM in general to be an "Internet issue" or a "broadcast issue" when it is quite evident to me that the parties involved do not wish to leave any loopholes whatsoever available to the population at large.

Whether you believe it or not, the threat to general purpose computing is real, folks. Like it or not there are parties out there that have placed their business models ahead of all else that is important in this country. Right now ham radio hasn't been on their list of talking points, but it will be once they understand many of the technologies available to us. Don't underestimate their motivation or their ability to acheive their goals or their sheer panic at the thought of powerful technology controlled by common citizens.

I believe that we hams need to align ourselves with the groups that best advocate our interests. The ARRL won't be able to take on Hollywood and win, and by the disinterested reply I received, when the League does decide this is a problem, it will be too late. This means we need to get on board with organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Free Software Foundation.

It is issues like these that dampen my optimism for the future of technology. I can only hope that this nonsense doesn't spread to the rest of the world.

"When general computers are outlawed, only outlaws will own general computers."