The Clicker: DTCSA -- A whole lot of analog holes are being plugged
Every Thursday Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, a weekly opinion
column on entertainment and technology:
No one can be 100% sure what the written agenda was when the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, Republican Jim Sensenbrenner, and the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Democrat John Conyers, got together for a bi-partisan game of strange bedfellows. Nor will we know if alcohol was involved. All we know is that on that fateful night they looked into each other’s eyes and decided it was finally time to plug each other’s analog holes. Thus was born the Digital Transition Content Security Act of 2005 (DTCSA).
To be fair – they’re not just looking to plug each other’s holes, they’re looking to plug yours too.
So what is the “Analog Hole?”
Ever since the birth of digital content-protection there has existed a “loophole” that drives copyright-proponents nuts: Like it or not, audio-visual content needs to be heard and seen. It seems like an obvious point, but it’s been the bane of existence for many a production studio. You see, content owners can place all the encryption they’d like on the files, but once it hits the analog stage, it’s free for the taking.
It started with its most basic form: the guy who took his video camera to the movie theater and sold duplicates on the streets of NYC. Sure, there might have been a hat in the shot and you were a slave to the filmer’s “artistic direction,” but you had the content.
Fast forward a couple decades to today and, with the help of the Internet, analog content duplication has become much more widespread -- or has it? We’ve all been told that the dreaded “Analog Hole” is evil incarnate, but where are the facts to back it up? Sure, there are a lot of files flying around the Internet. You can download just about any episode of any show (provided that you look hard enough), but with few exceptions these shows weren’t captured through the “Analog Hole.” The source for the these shows usually tracks back to one of three places: DVD rips, over-the-air HDTV, and direct-from-digital satellite.
Accordingly, it wasn’t surprising in 2002 to see a studio such as Warner Bros flirt with the idea of removing analog protection from its discs entirely. When faced with paying the 5 cent per DVD Macrovision licensing fee, Warner chose to release Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone sans analog protection. This begs the questions “Why legislation?” If companies are unwilling to pay minimal fees for protection, why should they be afforded special rights such as those in the DTCSA?
So what is the DTCSA?
In a nutshell it’s the “Broadcast Flag” on steroids, but this time it’s for analog signals. The DTCSA makes it illegal for any device to input and convert (or input and output) an analog signal without respecting the “rights-signaling” flags in the analog input stream. Unlike the previously-defeated and ever-resurrecting “Broadcast Flag” which simply governed devices whose purpose was to receive the flag via the over-the-air ATSC, the DTCSA governs ALL devices capable of converting an analog signal to digital. If it inputs an analog video signal, chances are it’s covered by the DTCSA.
If the DTCSA goes into effect, you might find yourself asking, “Why are all the VCRs so damn expensive now? I used to be able to buy a low-cost machine.” Why would prices go up? Because nearly every PVR, VCR, etc. will need to be reengineered. In the case of PVRs (e.g. TiVo) this is simply a nuisance and the price increase might only be minimal. However, in the case of legacy products such as VCRs, many companies won’t have the resources to re-invest in a product that is sustained purely by momentum. This will decrease competition and increase the cost for those machines still made.
What about computers? The bill contains such vague language as “any analog video input device that converts into digital form an analog video signal that is received in a covered format.” While it’s unlikely to affect giants such as Microsoft, whose Media Center Edition product already fully complies with the rights-signaling rules in question (much to the annoyance of many users), smaller companies which might lack the resources to develop DRM protection, signal reinsertion, etc. could find themselves in quite a pickle. It’s also unclear how these rules will be enforced in an open-source environment such as Linux. Who’s liable? Is it the software engineers? Is it video card manufacturers? In a decentralized systems like open-source projects (or computers themselves, for that matter) it’s unclear what constitutes a “device” and which entity is responsible for the entire chain being “secure.” Perhaps the lawmakers should start by plugging the holes in this bill.
What’s most troubling about the bill, however, isn’t the idiocy of it. Sure, introducing legislation to plug the analog hole is a lot like using a contraceptive after the fact. It ain’t gonna work! But we’re used to idiocy from our lawmakers. What’s troublesome about the bill is that it upsets the natural harmony of DRM.
The most compelling argument for DRM is often “It will work for a little while.” Content providers release a new product and, on the other side of the fence, “hackers” work to free the content for “Fair Use.” The result is that it helps to keep content providers moving forward. For instance, one could argue that movie studios are being driven by the ease of DVD-ripping to evolve past DVDs (e.g. to Blu-Ray) in order to incorporate higher levels of copyright protection. Likewise, when in a few years that copyright protection is broken, content providers will need to develop new and even more compelling offerings in order to entice consumers to switch over to a new system with even stronger protection schemes still. It’s a natural ebb and flow. By codifying a law that so heavy-handedly gives power to the content providers, legislators are potentially stifling innovation and giving studios the ability to rest on their laurels.
No one can be 100% sure what the written agenda was when the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, Republican Jim Sensenbrenner, and the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Democrat John Conyers, got together for a bi-partisan game of strange bedfellows. Nor will we know if alcohol was involved. All we know is that on that fateful night they looked into each other’s eyes and decided it was finally time to plug each other’s analog holes. Thus was born the Digital Transition Content Security Act of 2005 (DTCSA).
To be fair – they’re not just looking to plug each other’s holes, they’re looking to plug yours too.
So what is the “Analog Hole?”
Ever since the birth of digital content-protection there has existed a “loophole” that drives copyright-proponents nuts: Like it or not, audio-visual content needs to be heard and seen. It seems like an obvious point, but it’s been the bane of existence for many a production studio. You see, content owners can place all the encryption they’d like on the files, but once it hits the analog stage, it’s free for the taking.
It started with its most basic form: the guy who took his video camera to the movie theater and sold duplicates on the streets of NYC. Sure, there might have been a hat in the shot and you were a slave to the filmer’s “artistic direction,” but you had the content.
Fast forward a couple decades to today and, with the help of the Internet, analog content duplication has become much more widespread -- or has it? We’ve all been told that the dreaded “Analog Hole” is evil incarnate, but where are the facts to back it up? Sure, there are a lot of files flying around the Internet. You can download just about any episode of any show (provided that you look hard enough), but with few exceptions these shows weren’t captured through the “Analog Hole.” The source for the these shows usually tracks back to one of three places: DVD rips, over-the-air HDTV, and direct-from-digital satellite.
Accordingly, it wasn’t surprising in 2002 to see a studio such as Warner Bros flirt with the idea of removing analog protection from its discs entirely. When faced with paying the 5 cent per DVD Macrovision licensing fee, Warner chose to release Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone sans analog protection. This begs the questions “Why legislation?” If companies are unwilling to pay minimal fees for protection, why should they be afforded special rights such as those in the DTCSA?
So what is the DTCSA?
In a nutshell it’s the “Broadcast Flag” on steroids, but this time it’s for analog signals. The DTCSA makes it illegal for any device to input and convert (or input and output) an analog signal without respecting the “rights-signaling” flags in the analog input stream. Unlike the previously-defeated and ever-resurrecting “Broadcast Flag” which simply governed devices whose purpose was to receive the flag via the over-the-air ATSC, the DTCSA governs ALL devices capable of converting an analog signal to digital. If it inputs an analog video signal, chances are it’s covered by the DTCSA.
If the DTCSA goes into effect, you might find yourself asking, “Why are all the VCRs so damn expensive now? I used to be able to buy a low-cost machine.” Why would prices go up? Because nearly every PVR, VCR, etc. will need to be reengineered. In the case of PVRs (e.g. TiVo) this is simply a nuisance and the price increase might only be minimal. However, in the case of legacy products such as VCRs, many companies won’t have the resources to re-invest in a product that is sustained purely by momentum. This will decrease competition and increase the cost for those machines still made.
What about computers? The bill contains such vague language as “any analog video input device that converts into digital form an analog video signal that is received in a covered format.” While it’s unlikely to affect giants such as Microsoft, whose Media Center Edition product already fully complies with the rights-signaling rules in question (much to the annoyance of many users), smaller companies which might lack the resources to develop DRM protection, signal reinsertion, etc. could find themselves in quite a pickle. It’s also unclear how these rules will be enforced in an open-source environment such as Linux. Who’s liable? Is it the software engineers? Is it video card manufacturers? In a decentralized systems like open-source projects (or computers themselves, for that matter) it’s unclear what constitutes a “device” and which entity is responsible for the entire chain being “secure.” Perhaps the lawmakers should start by plugging the holes in this bill.
What’s most troubling about the bill, however, isn’t the idiocy of it. Sure, introducing legislation to plug the analog hole is a lot like using a contraceptive after the fact. It ain’t gonna work! But we’re used to idiocy from our lawmakers. What’s troublesome about the bill is that it upsets the natural harmony of DRM.
The most compelling argument for DRM is often “It will work for a little while.” Content providers release a new product and, on the other side of the fence, “hackers” work to free the content for “Fair Use.” The result is that it helps to keep content providers moving forward. For instance, one could argue that movie studios are being driven by the ease of DVD-ripping to evolve past DVDs (e.g. to Blu-Ray) in order to incorporate higher levels of copyright protection. Likewise, when in a few years that copyright protection is broken, content providers will need to develop new and even more compelling offerings in order to entice consumers to switch over to a new system with even stronger protection schemes still. It’s a natural ebb and flow. By codifying a law that so heavy-handedly gives power to the content providers, legislators are potentially stifling innovation and giving studios the ability to rest on their laurels.
If you have comments or suggestions for future columns, drop me a line at theclicker@theevilempire.com
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Martin Rafferty @ Dec 22nd 2005 7:01PM
Ryan,
You clearly have done some home work on this issue. The truth of the matter is that this is going to come down to plain facts. When has anything ever have? If it's not two guys racing across a finish line the facts don't exactly matter. What matters is how you carry your facts and how you fight against the other guys facts.
Saying that this is a temp solution won't do it. The language is the important thing here, saying that this will put thousands of people out of work and then saying its only a temp solution may just do it. We have to wrap our shrimp in bacon..our facts in butter..So they go down easy and without a hitch.
Ryan Block @ Dec 22nd 2005 7:22PM
Martin, this is Stephen Spheicher's column.
Best, Ryan
Bryan @ Dec 22nd 2005 8:49PM
This may be an extreme response, but this is the kind of corruption in government (the lawmakers being paid off to introduce such trash) will lead to an anarchy if it goes on long enough. The internet is a powerful force that will, I hope, undo a lot of wrongs in our government.
I hope these dark days of governing by the few voices (the ones with the money) are quickly overshadowed by a true democracy of governing by many voices. Too bad we have 3 more years of the current administration with it's corporate agenda so plainly visible.
Qubit @ Dec 22nd 2005 8:55PM
Nothing is copy protected. There will never be copy protection. If you can physically view the data, then you can physically copy it. The "analog hole" is the last resort, and it cannot be prevented. We fortunately don't have to reley on the "analog hole", hackers have been doing a good job on figuring out how to decode some digital media, so they can achieve full quality.
I like this quote from the article "But were used to idiocy from our lawmakers." ^-^ so true
Grant @ Dec 22nd 2005 9:15PM
Bryan,
Yes your comment is extreme. The internet, while a great tool, cannot right a government. It can be used to reach mass amounts of people to influence public opinion, and eventually legislators, but I have little faith in that. The only things I see that influence legislators from the internet seem to be the outrageous blogs (forsake the troops, godhatesfags etc.).
It is not going to lead to an anarchy. If anything, it will lead to authoritarianism. (I realize this is obviously worse)
The other thing you said made me very sad. The "dark days" of governing? I am going to take a stab in the dark here, but I am guessing you aren't a big Bush supporter. Even with that said, I cannot believe that you think we are governed by few. Yes, we live in a representative democracy, that means we vote for people who in turn vote for us. A total democracy, where everyone votes on every issue (referendum style) would not work in today's world due to logistics, politics, and the morons of the world.
Clearly corporate agenda? please.
Martin Rafferty @ Dec 22nd 2005 9:32PM
Grant,
You clearly have sold yourself out so you don't have to feel bad about the clearly corporate agenda,
I myself was once a Bush fan, but it was only because the other side left me feeling powerless, its to bad that these kind of reasonsings will lead to genocide.
You are a pawn Grant so make sure you move out of the way of the big guns.
DMills @ Dec 22nd 2005 9:36PM
Bryan, you are blind from your hate.
Like John Conyers is in the pocket of of the Administration.
Corporations(capitalism) are why your standard of living is so high.
Don't buy the hate dude!
BTW I Don't support this.
Grant @ Dec 22nd 2005 9:49PM
Martin, I would try to respond, but what you said was almost 100% ad-hom.
You said my reasonings leads to genocide. I am pretty sure that genocide is the planned extermination of a group based on ethnicity, race, etc. I cannot in no way see how my support of capitalism will encourage genocide.
Martin Rafferty @ Dec 22nd 2005 10:13PM
Your telling me honestly, and believe me this is all pointless if you are not being honest. You are telling me that you stand behind Bush's actions..his words..all of them?
jorellh @ Dec 22nd 2005 10:31PM
I'm moving to France, at least P2P sharing is legal there.
dave @ Dec 23rd 2005 12:46AM
This story is NOWHERE! except maybe a blip on EFF and at
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051220-5808.html
Now maybe becuase is it just a house resolution and maybe it wont get passed, but this is just one more indication ALL of our representitives are bought and paid for and its not the citizen/consumer doing the buying. This HR is clearly a giveaway to specail interests groups and should be considerd jsut as abhorent as the windfall tax breaks to Big Oil, Big Ag, Pharma et al.
The fact that John Conyers, is a co-sponsor seals the deal for me. Government of the people, by the people , for the people in American is dead. Hail the almighty corporation, Mussolini would be proud.
The only comfort I get from this kind of MPAA/RIAA nonsense is, I know more restrictions placed on their crappy content will only make alternatives more attractive and them less relevant.
Slaven @ Dec 23rd 2005 2:04AM
This legislation may indeed never happen, but that's all part of the plan - slowly, over the years, like the Chinese water torture, these types of proposals will erode public resistance to legislating analog signals until 5 years from now we're all happy that something like this will keep Mickey Mouse safe from terrorists. Sadly, they know this approach works!
Quiiick @ Dec 23rd 2005 7:49AM
Quote:
"A total democracy, where everyone votes on every issue (referendum style) would not work in today's world due to logistics, politics, and the morons of the world."
I live in Switzerland. It DOES work fine over here!
Ok, it's a very small country, I admit, but never the less: it is doable.
Taylor @ Dec 23rd 2005 11:34AM
Wow, you guys are all serious and stuff...
Good column.
-Taylor
otakucode @ Dec 23rd 2005 3:00PM
Very impressive column. I think it's one of the first columns I've read on the issue of digital rights where it sounds like the column author is actually out there and lives in the same world I do. You seem to have a handle on the reality of the situation. But what about a different perspective?
Imagine in, say, 15 years, that we've figured it all out. The content providers have ways of getting the content to their viewers at a price the viewers deem acceptable, provide all of the capabilities and features the consumer desires, etc. Business is running smooth. What will present day look like through those glasses of hindsight? I think it won't be until then that the corporations of the world look back on what is happening today and realize how petty they've been and how often they cut off their nose to spite their face.
I want content in my home in HD resolution with 5.1 surround sound with absolutely no commercials on a durable, transferrable and copyable media. Right now, I can have it. Not legally, mind you. No matter how much I am willing to pay for what I want, I can't get it. The product does not exist. And their half-steps of trying to provide only part of what I want (and what I believe a load of other people would also want, though I firmly believe that advertising-supported product can coexist with premium content, etc) are simply an insult. They need to stop relying on the law making their product more attractive than the "illicit" product available via the Internet and start making their product ACTUALLY competitive!
(As for our government, it is not a representative democracy any longer. It is an oligarchy. And it is moving towards totalitarianism. Every single law passed is one step closer to it. And neither of the major parties have any interest, real or even lied about, of reducing the number of laws restricting our freedoms. The only option within this system is support of the Libertarian party. If you hate Bush and think a Democrat would do better, you are brainwashed. The big two parties agreed a long time ago to put on a show for the people and just agreed to swap back and forth, pushing the same agenda on both sides with slightly different flavors - more power for them, less power for us. We've been at war since the beginning of World War 2. They've both had their chances.)
JoeBorn @ Dec 23rd 2005 6:17PM
Great column, well articulated and researched, very nice job. I would strongly encourage everyone to write their congress person on this important issue
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Like many manufacturers, we have legitimate products that would effectively be outlawed by this legislation and it would be a horrible shame, not just for us but for all consumers. Consumer's digital rights have been eroding for sometime due to the lack of independent CE manufacturers, and ordinary citizens need to step in and make themselves heard. This is our position on what's happening http://www.neurosaudio.com/press/freedom.asp
Paul @ Dec 24th 2005 11:44AM
I read about this in popular science, the way it works is it puts a digital "Watermark" in the image that can not be seen with the naked eye, when you film the image with another analogue source, it distorts the watermark and any devise trying to play this ripped image with a distorted watermark will have an error.
!!blue @ Dec 27th 2005 4:19PM
Wow, such much craziness! :-S
Here's the EFF Deeplink entry with a link at the bottom to a form you can fill out that will send a neat-o letter to your representative(s) in Congress:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004261.php
Nothing like having it all ready for ya! ;-)