Subject: Bring on the SSSCA - Rev. 1

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 01:13:23 +0300 (IDT)

This is the text of something I wrote. It was supposed to be part of my
"IP in the Info Age" treatise, but it's pretty much standalone. I post it
here to get some comments, suggestions, typo reports, etc. before I
propagate it further (like post it to Advogato or Slashdot).

Please keep the discussion (even if it is a typo report or is slightly
flamatory) on this list.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

Bring on the SSSCA! Why? Because I want to kick some serious intellectual
property Law Butt! I have nothing against the concept of intellectual
property. I believe it is also valid now, in the information age. However, I
do believe that IP Law is objectively tilted towards the wrong side, and I
wish to change the fact. And legislation of the SSSCA (or CBDPTA as it is now
called)[2] is the perfect vehicle to make it gain momentum.

Let's imagine a world in which the SSSCA has been passed (in the U.S. alone
for the time), and it has taken effect. What would happen? Here's my
predictions based on the commonplace interpretation of the law:

1. Most existing software and hardware systems becoming illegal. Literally.
This includes open-source and commercial software. Windows XP, Microsoft's
latest operating system lets people hear "pirated" mp3s doesn't it?
Then, obviously it has to go.

2. Hardware and software vendors will need to invest a lot of money in building
copyright protection into their products.

3. Someone will have to finance this development, and later on converting the
legacy systems into the SSSCA-sound devices.

4. This someone is the U.S. Government.

5. I'm not really good at approximating things like that, but I think this
amount of money can easily surpass the current U.S. Budget. And I mean the
entire budget, defense budget and all.

6. Assuming they are forced to switch, then people will have to put up with
computers, that are not quite those that they were used to. Not only that
Moore's Law will be temporarily reversed, but those systems will not put up
with many actions that are considered mundane and day-to-day now. Even such
that are perfectly sound copyright-wise.

7. This will make everybody unhappy and they demand the law to be changed.

Do you think that a different outcome can happen? It is possible that the
SSSCA will exist on paper but won't be enforced until someone is reported
to commit a crime against it. But obviously the Free Software Foundations
can sue Microsoft for manufacturing an operating system that violates its
intellectual property. After all, I can use Notepad to remove the copyright
notice off one of gcc's files. Which is a clear violation even of existing
copyright law.

When the SSSCA was first heard of (in its previous incarnation) some people
thought that Microsoft would be happy to see it because it will most existing
free software illegal. But even Microsoft cannot to put up with the terms of
the SSSCA. Microsoft would rather be a company whose products are possibly
threatened by Linux, than a monopoly which will manufacture a practically
useless operating system that could only exist in Sen. Ernest Hollings
imagination.

Obviously #7 will probably happen a long time before the law takes into effect.
And I think it is a good thing, because then:

1. Everybody will take about intellectual property laws and their
implication on computers.

2. Hackers who strive for political freedom will become media icons.
Remember when Linus Torvalds appeared on the cover of Forbes?
Now think of Richard M. Stallman on the cover of Time magazine.[1]

3. People will become interested in other IP laws that violate their
individual rights. Acts such as the DMCA, or the UCITA, or the
restrictions on encryption or previous copyright legislation that is
bluntly illegal (objectively speaking) may actually become headline news.

Which means: more publicity for us! And a greater chance of getting something
to move there.

Don't get me wrong, I don't encourage the U.S. legislation to make the SSSCA
into law. But I think it may actually serve as a turning point for those who
strive for digital freedom of expression. We should criticize it rationally
as much and as hardly as we can, but even if it passes it won't be the end of
the world, but rather the beginning of a wonderful era.

The other possibility would be that Sen. Hollings et. al will decide to pass
the SSSCA incrementally by one irrational provision at a time. But I
believe this will only make the process slower, but the final outcome
inevitable as it is. Many people who download mp3s illegally would agree that
it is the right thing not to do it. But they would much more think that
they should be given a choice whether to do it or not.

I have one piece of advice to Sen. Hollings, Disney's CEO, Michael
Eisner and all the other people who have expressed support of the SSSCA. Learn
how to program. This is not only enlightening and mind-exercising, but also
a very practical skill. After you have learned how to program, I want you to
make your code or commonly used code SSSCA-friendly.

I'd like you to take the Meta-Circular Evaluator of the classic text
"Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" and make sure it
does not execute copyrighted code. I'd like you to take GNU echo and make
sure it does not prints copyrighted expressions to the screen. (you may
actually find it useful to start from agrep). I want you to take gcc
and make sure it does not compile code that one does not own the copyright
to. And I want you to make sure your own pet programs and script follow suit.

Then I want you to let me know how you felt doing that. I know I would
feel that it would be a complete waste of time if my own Freecell Solver[3]
had to make sure it respects the copyrights of layouts it receives as input.
Worse yet, I may have to make sure it does not inspect such boards at
mid-run. FYI, Freecell Solver can scale to millions of
boards (which are all valid Freecell states) during a mundane run, and
I have to make sure I check each one.

If I had to comply with the SSSCA, I would rather be jailed before I implement
such a disaster in it. (seriously) If the U.S. Government would sacrifice the
well-being of thousands of engineers and millions of users just so Walt Disney
Corp. would be happy, then I'd rather get rid of the U.S. Government, (Disney
is actually a relatively benevolent and productive corporation as far as I can
tell), than the American or world-wide public.

So, fire away I say to Sen. Hollings. Unless, of course, he actually
want to remain in one piece afterwards.

[1] - I'm not very fond of the latter. But he is one of the most influential
and opinionated people in the free software/open-source world, so I chose
to give him as an example.

[2] - I'm not calling the SSSCA, in its new name, because it has a very
horrid acronym. And it is basically the same law.

[3] - Refer to:

http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/freecell-solver/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        [email-masked]
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail:       [email-masked]

"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."
"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:39:18 +0300

> called)[2] is the perfect vehicle to make it gain momentum.

I suggest you start with a short paragraph or two saying what the SSSCA
or CBDPTA (eek, couldn't they have chosen more obscure acronyms? I suggest
they join the AAAAA, the American Association for the Abolition of
Abbreviations and Acronyms). Most people probably don't really know what
this proposed law says.

> 4. This someone is the U.S. Government.

I don't see how 4 would necessarily follow from 2 and 3.

> entire budget, defense budget and all.

If such a law ever passes, I assume they will have to "grandfather" [4] any
existing applications. Americans usually cherish the concept that you cannot
be prosecuted for something you did before that act became illegal.

This will make converting existing applications (like Windows XP) unnecessary,
but also make creating new applications nearly impossible. Instead of ruining
Microsoft with huge modification costs, it might make it a monopoly forever ;)

> to. And I want you to make sure your own pet programs and script follow suit.

I think that anyone familar with computers will find the proposed laws'
absurdity and unapplicability "self-evident". Americans love "self-evident
truths" [1]

> had to make sure it respects the copyrights of layouts it receives as input.

Or worse in the case of another game, Mine Sweeper. It was proven that
Minesweeper is Turing-complete :) [3]

> want to remain in one piece afterwards.

Romans had a horse for a senator [2], so why can't the Americans have
a jackass? :)

[1] http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/declaration.html
[2] http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1843/Caligula.html
[3] http://www.mat.bham.ac.uk/R.W.Kaye/minesw/
[4] grandfather clause: noun, 1900: a clause creating an exemption based on
       circumstances previously existing; especially : a provision in several
       southern state constitutions designed to enfranchise poor whites and
       disfranchise Negroes by waiving high voting requirements for
       descendants of men voting before 1867
    For the curious, http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Poll_tax explains the
    origin of this phrase a bit clearer:
       The United States Constitution, Article 1, section 9, prohibits Congress
       from laying capitation taxes or other direct taxes. (The Sixteenth
       Amendment allows the Federal government to tax income.) However, some
       states used poll taxes and literacy tests to determine eligibility for
       suffrage, circumventing the Fifteenth Amendment with a "grandfather
       clause" that allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather voted
       to vote. The Twenty-fourth Amendment ended this process.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |       Tuesday, Apr 9 2002, 27 Nisan 5762
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |I used to work in a pickle factory, until
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |I got canned.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:36:02 +0300 (IDT)

> Abbreviations and Acronyms). Most people probably don't really know what

I will include a link to the LWN coverage of its newer incarnation, or
some other resource that describes it. My modus operandi is that they are
familiar with it. Describing it is kind of like the chicken and egg
problem.

> I don't see how 4 would necessarily follow from 2 and 3.

I do. For instance, when the FBI decided he needs to wiretap all local
phone calls in the U.S. at will, the phone companies demanded money to
implement it, and the government allocated 200 million dollars of its
budget to do it. Then, the phone companies sued the government. Search
for:

http://www.techtv.com/cybercrime/features/story/0,23008,2134763,00.html

It is common knowledge that the government is required to finance
executing its laws into action. The FSF, being a large software vendor,
can naturally demand that the government finance SSSCA-safing all of its
software. Microsoft can follow suit, followed by Oracle, Sun, Corel (which
is based in Canada), IBM. Even I can go to the U.S. Embassy and demand
them to hire programmers to make sure a patch to Freecell Solver in which
it is converted to be SSCA-friendly is maintained.

Someone has to make sure SSSCA-friendly software and hardware is produced,
and that someone has to be the U.S. according to the logic behind the
Democratic process.

> be prosecuted for something you did before that act became illegal.

That's a common legal paradigm, which is commonplace in every liberal
country. Writing retro-active laws is considered Totalitarian.

> Microsoft with huge modification costs, it might make it a monopoly forever ;)

Microsoft cannot live with those terms. Obviously, they will have to add
some features to XP, or fix bugs, etc. I believe they won't be able to
sell new versions of XP. Microsoft is keen on giving the public what it
wants and what it finds appealing. That's not always the case with some of
the software out there, but it is a necessity behind every good software
design. (commercial/o-s, GUI/command line - everything)

Obviously, I would still be able to use Mandrake 8.2 perfectly. But it
would be fully to think that 5 years from now, I would actually still use
it.

> absurdity and unapplicability "self-evident". Americans love "self-evident

I hate them. One needs to reason his conclusions. Perhaps not with a
mathematical proof. (that would be ridiculus in such a scope) But at least
give some basis to it. To quote Atlas Shrugged (which I highly recommend
reading despite what distinguished members of this mailing list have
said):

<<<
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart," said Hugh Akston.  "That is
the moral crime peculiar to our enemies.  We do not tell -- we *show*.
We do not claim -- we *prove*."

I do not prove that 1+1 = 2 or other things whose proof can be trivially
deduced. But I try to illustrate or reason what I say.

> Minesweeper is Turing-complete :) [3]

So is the game of life. BTW, solving MineSweeper was proven to be
NP-Complete. But I did not yet write a complete Mine Sweeper
implementation, so I'd rather keep to stuff I know.

> Romans had a horse for a senator [2], so why can't the Americans have

I think most of the statesmen today are irrational, spineless mystics that
lack any conception of idealogy. They purposely, willingly and directly
destroy values and cause money to be lost and lives to be killed. But
these are just my political opinions which are out of scope of what I wish
to concentrate on conveying.

To quote Leonard Cohen: "First we take Manhattan. Then we take Berlin".
Let's first handle the SSSCA, which is easy bait and a grossly illegal
law. Then we will have a good momentum with which to get rid of the DMCA,
or make the public aware of UCITA, of the grossly immoral nature of
existing IP laws, etc. By then, we can proceed to other things which are
not computer-related. But one step at a time, and everything
done strategically.

The Content Providers are not the real enemy. Yes, they are rich, they are
paranoid and they tend to abuse their power and money. But they produce
intellectual values that give people joy or teach them a lot of things. In
an LFC environment, they could not have been abusive even if they wanted
to, because in an LFC the law does not change to reflect the whims of
private factors. (let's not turn it into a flamewar - if you wish -
subscribe to Philosophy-IL and discuss it there) The digital revolution
naturally changes the model in which they operated in. But I think they
can find a new model to work in. Maybe they won't garner as many profits
as before, but they at least would be happy knowing they produce such
values.

We should try to convince them to lose their paranoia, rather than to
attack them. I don't mean they are innocent in their demands, but an "Foo
is", "Foo is not", "Foo is too" only escalates to a situation where
everybody is more convinced of his opinion. It is fun doing it sometimes,
but usually not constructive.

A better idea, (based on Cognitive Psychology again) is to do the
following:

1. Ask him to explain what he means.

2. Agree that he may have a point.

3. Try to reach a constructive conclusion that will make both sides happy.

With some people, you cannot really reason or should try to. But with most
people, this methodology works very well.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>