Message-ID: <3C8B17BD.1070303@0xdeadbeef.com> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 03:22:21 -0500 From: Christopher Blizzard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020309 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov Subject: Position on the SSSCA - please reconsider Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing this letter because I have become very concerned about a piece of copyright legislation call the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). This legislation would require all consumer electronics and computer equipment to include copy control protection devices and would essentially require all computer equipment produced to be government certified. The certification for the types of computer equipment would be controlled by a group of technology companies, meaning that all technology that is produced has to pass the muster of several industry giants and the federal government. This represents a tremendous blow to the technology sector and creates a defacto monopoly for several large players in the technology field, completely crushing competition and innovation that comes from smaller players. The computer technology sector represents a large part of our economy, and this piece of legislation would require that a small number of players would be able to determine who was able to create and sell new technology. This makes it nearly impossible for new companies and individuals to enter the market on any kind of fair ground. Second, and even more dubious, is the fact that it means that the way that we communicate through any digital media is controlled by a few large players and the federal goverment, whether or not the material in question is copyrighted. It means that no one is free to create new ways for people to communicate using digital mediums because all forms of communication have to pass muster before this board. With restrictions like these, the Internet would never have come to be the important medium that it has because it would have been impossible for anyone to create something as simple and ubiquitous as email because it doesn't include digital rights managment. Another negative aspect of this legislation is that it completely destroys the balance between the public interest and copyright holders. Copyright exists to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" according to the Consitution. Congress is only permitted to secure "exclusive Right[s]" for "limited Times" but this bill makes no provisions for exercising the expiration of copyright. First sale doctrine, fair use rights and public domain rights, which are the primary items in the public's side of the copyright balance, are completely ignored. Copyright exists to promote the arts and sciences. It exists to promote the public good. This legislation does not protect the public good side of the equation. Instead, it sets up artificial barriers that go too far in protecting the holders of Copyright at the expense of being able to educate our children and enriching the whole of society. There is no provision nor care to make sure that works that should be released into the public domain can be, without violating the law. I've watched your work since before I moved to this state and in the past I've been pretty impressed with your seemingly well informed views of the world. You seem to strike a good balance between the public interest and private interest, which I think is the most important characteristic in government officials. I've had a good enough impression of your work that I had even hoped that you might be willing to suffer through a Presidential campaign. However, to be frank, I consider this bill to be such a ill conceived piece of legislation that if you voted for it or supported it it would cost you my vote for the rest of your public career. The issue of balance in Copyright law is rooted in rhetoric which means that it is hard to have a rational discussion about it, even though I can discuss finding the balance between public and private interest at length. However, the practical aspects of the bill and how it will affect the computer industry are very real and easily described. I work in the computer industry and I know how hard it can be to describe these seemingly minute, but really important, technical details to people. I would be more than happy to sit down for as long as it takes and talk with you or a staffer at any time in order educate you or him or her about these matters. In this matter, I am at your service. Please consider not supporting this bill for the reasons I've outlined above. If you feel that Copyright laws need strengthening for some reason, please consider supporting a bill that discourages actual infringing behaviour instead of making tools that has an almost limitless array of legitimate uses illegal thereby stifling markets, innovation and creativity in our society. Sincerly, Christopher Blizzard