The end of Hozer, Homebrews and new Hardware in the US?

[cschell]

Ah, the wonders of the US politcal system and it's special interest lobbying. Look at this wonderful update to the DMCA that is being considered. It's the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act or SSSCA for short. You can read about it at these links.

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/hollings.090701.html

 

and

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,...3,46655,00.html

 

From the second link:

quote:

---

The SSSCA says that it is illegal to create, sell or distribute "any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies" that are approved by the U.S. Commerce Department. An interactive digital device is defined as any hardware or software capable of "storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving or copying information in digital form."

---

 

This certainly includes the Cuttle Cart, the Supercharger, and eprom programmers. Not sure about carts that include eproms, after all they're capable of storing information in a digital form.

 

This proposed law also contains absolutely no provisions for fair use. So much for creating song compilations from the CDs you already own, etc. etc.

 

I just had to mention this here. The DMCA is the worst law every written, and this one if ever passed (it has not yet been submitted) would make the DMCA look tame. As a home hardware developer it's so nice to know that if I build a digital device that doesn't have the necessary protection systems in it that I'm breaking the law - even if said digital device isn't built for copying any existing format. What? That home lighting controller you built contains flip flops? That's digital storage - you're busted.

 

I strongly suggest that any Americans follow the progress of this proposed law. And if it ever actually gets submitted that you write your representatives and let them know that you won't stand for it. (I think writing at this time would be worthless as it would be lost in the turmoil caused by the recent terrorist attacks.)

 

Chad

[Ze_ro]

Ugh... I am thouroughly against laws like this that take away our rights. It makes me glad that I live in Canada where stuff like this hasn't happened (yet). I really hope something challenges this and exposes it for what it really is: Companies trying to over-protect their "property" by disallowing us to actually use it. I was following the whole DVD problems way back when they were decrypted.

 

If it's any consolation, I have my doubts that anyone will sue you over 20 year old technology. Especially since you have Bridgestone's permission.

 

I guess I should put in an order with Hozer while I can...

 

--Zero

[Mindfield]

Okay, this is a little confusing. The DMCA already contains provisions for fair use under Title III sections 301-302: "Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act." In short, it states that any archive that is made for personal use and with the sole intention of being a safeguard against failure of the original media upon which the data is stored is perfectly legal. It also states that said archive is also legal in the case of the failure of the hardware that it runs upon provided that it is used solely to restore that hardware to working condition, and that in this particular case, the archive is deleted upon restoration of the hardware to the condition of working. In other words, the first part provides a legal means to archive (make one working copy of) your legally owned software, music, or any other media which contains data and could be subject to failure of the original media. Though it is not provided for in the DMCA, it logically follows that this includes "hard" storage -- ROMs, generally, be they console cartriges or your own system's BIOS, as long as they are archived only for your personal use for the purpose of ensuring a working backup in the event the original fails.

 

By the account of this proposed amendment to the DMCA, this would make any portable device that is capable of copying, transmitting, or otherwise has the potential to infringe upon copyrights, illegal. This would not only include the likes of the Cuttle Cart, or GB/GBA copiers, it would also mean Zip/Jaz/Sharq drives, external CD-RWs, external floppies, dialup/cable/DSL modems, and so on, unless these devices utilize unspecified "approved" security technologies.

 

I do not think however that this covers hobbyist development devices. This proposed amendment, as nefarious as it is, is intended to protect the interests of copyright holders against copyright infringement. Hobbyist/homebrew developers usually give permission to distribute their ROMs freely, as well as many offering their games for sale in cartrige form in limited quantities. By the author's own actions, (s)he does not fall under the DMCA's jurisdiction as their permission has already been given to allow the transmission of their work in digital form.

 

In any event, I still think this law is a very bad idea, as it will raise a great number of hackles for those who legitemately own software and want to ensure they have backups of it in the likely eventuality that the originals fail.

 

I'll bet the IDSA is just foaming at the mouth to get this one passed...

[cschell]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindfield:

I do not think however that this covers hobbyist development devices. This proposed amendment, as nefarious as it is, is intended to protect the interests of copyright holders against copyright infringement. Hobbyist/homebrew developers usually give permission to distribute their ROMs freely, as well as many offering their games for sale in cartrige form in limited quantities. By the author's own actions, (s)he does not fall under the DMCA's jurisdiction as their permission has already been given to allow the transmission of their work in digital form.

---

 

Just because the homebrew author grants the right to distribute the code, the actual data, they cannot exempt people from the law that says it is illegal to create, sell, distribute, or otherwise traffic in devices which are capable of the storage of digital information but don't have copyright protections. Literally interpreted, this means that they could not distribute carts containing eproms that did not implement the digital copyright protection mechanism. It also means they could not grant others the right to distribute those products for them.

 

It's like the Adobe situation, where after mass public outcry Adobe said they did not wish to press charges against the Russian that broke their protection mechanism, but it didn't matter what Adobe wanted because he had broken the law and the authorities were prosecuting him anyway. Adobe does not have the authority to grant people the right to break the law.

 

Of course this law has far more problems than just homebrew classic gaming items. It would be illegal for CD players to be manufactured or sold that did not have the digital copyright protection built into them, so you could not sell your old CD player. And new CD players couldn't play the old CDs because they do not have the necessary copyright standard encoded on them. So all of your old CDs would be useless in any new player, and you would not be able to buy another CD player that would play the old CDs because that would be illegal.

 

Chad

[Ze_ro]

I'd like to see them try to implement copy protection for a 2K cartridge the copy protection itself would likely have to be more complicated than the entire Atari itself!

 

--Zero

[Ze_ro]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindfield:

By the account of this proposed amendment to the DMCA, this would make

any

portable device that is capable of copying, transmitting, or otherwise has the potential to infringe upon copyrights, illegal. This would not only include the likes of the Cuttle Cart, or GB/GBA copiers, it would also mean Zip/Jaz/Sharq drives, external CD-RWs, external floppies, dialup/cable/DSL modems, and so on,

unless

these devices utilize unspecified "approved" security technologies.

---

 

This is what pisses me off most about this law... I personally will *never* buy any hard drive or any other storage medium which implements this copy protection technology. I'll gladly sit back in the dark ages with my 8 gig hard drive before I allow Microsoft to tell me what I can and can't copy. I'm surprised they allow the internet to exist, since you can so easily transfer things over it.

 

It's sad how technology has to suffer because of things like this.

 

--Zero

[Mindfield]

The thing is, this method of hard-coded copy protection was already recently attempted in the manufacture of hard drives. The scheme was to incorporate a method of copyright authentication that would recognize a piece of digitally signed material, such as an MP3, and allocate in permanent space on your hard drive. Once stored there, it could not be moved, and once removed, could not be replaced unless the appropriate restitution was again provided. In the end, though the technology is still being developed, hard drive manufacturers flat out refused to incorporate this technology because they knew the public's reaction: Do it, and we won't buy it. Making it law won't help matters, and will only direct the public's ire at the government, rather than the hardware manufacturers. It would also direct the ire of the hardware manufacturers at the government, as they know it would dramatically impact their sales to the point where they may not even make enough money to continue operating. And it's not just hard drive manufacturers. It's manufacturers of modems, external recording/reading devices, CD players and recorders, MP3 players, Smart Media, backup devices of all sorts, handheld computers, and so on, and so on. It would have such a widespread, negative impact on the industry that I have to believe it will never be passed. The potential financial repercussions alone would bankrupt half the companies out there, and the others would be hit hard enough to get royally pissed. There's no way the US could, in all fairness, allow such a law to be passed if they at all consider the consequences.

[Ze_ro]

Well, I'd like to think a law like this couldn't get passed in "the home of the free", but then I would have thought the same about the DMCA too. It all comes down to how much the government is willing to accept ($$$) before compromizing people's freedom (Anyone care to guess how Microsoft got the DOJ off their back?). What also worries me is that if this law comes up in the recent future, current events might overshadow it, and it wouldn't get noticed until it was too late.

 

Well, if there's a bright side to all this, it's that all encryptions eventually get cracked. Making it illegal will only slow things down slightly. Just because marijuana is illegal doesn't mean that no one uses it. Of course, I'd rather do things legally if possible.

 

--Zero

[Inky]

Years back on the Coleco Adam, there was a program that allowed you to copy carts to floppy. Many Activision games wouldn't work on it though because Activision put copy protection on thier carts.

 

try holdsing a 4 month old and typing. Fun fun fun..

[Mindfield]

There was also a copycart program on the Atari 8-bit, which would read the contents of an inserted cartrige and dump it to disk. That worked pretty well though; I don't think there was much that didn't work using that.

 

Nevertheless, I think the whole issue will reach congress, who will likely consider the consequences and then send it back for revision. Frankly, the amendment is too broad of scope and narrow of vision. While its heart is in the right place with respect to protecting the financial interests of copyright holders, it encompasses too much in its nonspecific dialectic, it calls for vast, sweeping changes in consumer storage and transmission devices of all types, and the financial repercussions on the companies that make these devices would be doubly devastating, as they'd have to spend bundles on R&D implementing the changes, and the consumers who would then not buy their products -- even in the short term -- would sap their liquid assets faster than you can say Ivanna Trump. There's no way congress could in good conscience pass the amendment without sending it back for some serious reworking -- at the very least to more specifically define what devices it would encompass and how it is to be implemented.