- Dan Glickman, MPAA
- Mitch Bainwol, RIAA
- Gigi Sohn
- Michael Petricone, Consumer Electronics Association and the HRRC
Later: Jesus H. Christ! This is what I get for being away from this for a couple of weeks. I cannot believe this draft bill — for example:
Section 103. Encoding Rules.
No person shall encode a program, or cause a program to be encoded, using the rights signaling system unless such encoding conforms to the following requirements:
(a) The rights signaling system may be encoded so as to prevent or limit copying, redistribution, or both, of prerecorded media, video on demand, pay-per-view, subscription-on-demand, and undefined business models that are comparable to any of the foregoing;
(b) The rights signaling system may not be encoded so as to prevent first generation of copies as are permitted under Title II of pay television transmissions, non-premium subscription television, free conditional access delivery, and undefined business models that are comparable to any of the foregoing, but the rights signaling system may be encoded so as to prevent or limit further copying of any of the foregoing (including comparable undefined business models) redistribution of any of the foregoing, or both;
(c) The rights signaling system may not be encoded so as to numerically limit copying as permitted under Title II of a non-conditional access broadcast transmission and undefined business models that are comparable to a non-conditional access broadcast transmission, but the rights signaling system may be encoded so as to prevent redistribution of any of the foregoing; and
(d) The VEIL portion of the rights signaling system may only be encoded in program formats described in subsection (a) until 12 months following the effective date as established in Section 106; thereafter the VEIL portion of the rights signaling system may be encoded in any and all program formats, provided, however, that under all circumstances if a person encodes a program or causes a program to be encoded with the VEIL portion of the rights signaling system, then that person shall also encode the program or cause the program to be encoded with the CGMS-A portion of the rights signaling system.
So we really are going to start legislating the content of programs?
Worse, I am sure that proponents will point to this language as supporting innovation:
Section 101. No person shall
(b) manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any
technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —
(2) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to modify or cause an analog video input device to no longer conform to the requirements set forth in subsection (a); or
Of course, any novel application is not going to have more than “limited commercially significant purpose or use” until it gets disseminated and understood (c.f., TiVo). As written now, without the funds to implement VEIL, a firm looking to develop a new application (or, God forbid, an open source application!) would be formally restricted.
What a mess! Lots of reading to catch up on.
I like how Gigi sticks it to Glickman, contradicting something he tries to imply in his testimony:
Preliminarily, I would note that this is the first time in the recent discussion over digital content protection that CGMS-A + VEIL technology have been proposed. While the CGMS-A + VEIL technology was discussed at the Analog Hole Reconversion Discussion Group, it was quickly dismissed as not worthy of further consideration. Thus, unlike the broadcast flag, this technology has not been fully vetted by industry and public interest groups.
Accordingly, we are quite surprised that CGMS-A + VEIL is being presented
today as a fully formed, mature proposal to Congress. [….]