I hope to be meeting next week with a staffer in Senator Gordon Smith’s (R – Oregon) D.C. office about HR4569, the Digital Transition Content Security Act, which may work its way towards a vote this year, if the MPAA gets their way.
HR4569 is intended to close the “analog hole” in the digital rights management chain. Many of us disagree with DRM on principle, and fight the Motion Picture Association of Amerika to protect the rights of fair use and free speech. This goes beyond that, because one side effect of HR4569 may be the destruction of post-1960 electronic technology in the United States.
The “analog hole” is the place where video leaves your VCR or DVD player as analog signals (typically as one or three cables) to go to your TV set or DVD recorder or TIVO or whatever. These analog signals can be captured by a digitizer, and the bits can be stored on a DVD or sent out on the internet. The analog signals can be marked in multiple ways to signify that they are not supposed to be copied, with either a signal in the strip of black above/below the field of the signal ( CGSM-A vertical interval signalling, or the “broadcast flag” ) or with a steganographic technique that signals by twiddling the luminance levels of successive lines of video (VEIL or Video Encoding Invisible Luminance).
HR4569 demands that digitizing systems preserve this information, and in particular that they respond to it and not digitize if they detect VEIL or CGSM-A signals indicating “do not copy”. These signals are not difficult to extract if the system is specialized to handle video. If this bill passes, and your “Tivo-Reloaded” detects these signals on a broadcast show, it will refuse to record the show. Since both CGSM-A and VEIL signals are fairly easy to detect if you know you are looking for them, it is also pretty easy to build a stripper circuit that takes them out or mangles them, and passes the rest of the information through. Such a circuit is specifically forbidden by HR4569.
So what’s my beef? Where does the doom and gloom come from? Why is this so major, and not merely a small step in the gradual elimination of our fair use and free speech rights?
While there are systems that specialize in digitizing video, that are built by the millions with inexpensive high yield technology, these aren’t the only digitizers out there, nor are they the only digitizers capable of turning analog video into bits. General purpose analog-to-digital converters are used in thousands of applications, and the same component or system that might be used in an electronics test system or a cell phone can be used to produce a stream of bits that could be recorded by a computer. This could be no more complicated than plugging a PCI digitizer card into a computer (and this is probably how they prototyped the Tivo before they built specialized hardware). This could be as sophisticated as using a multi-gigahertz bleeding-edge-technology Tektronix digital oscilloscope to capture similar bits, then running the record into a computer for analysis. This is done all the time when video equipment is designed – that’s how the design engineer can test whether the inexpensive consumer gear they are designing will work under a broad range of conditions.
So in fact there is no clear distinction between electronics that can digitize video and electronics for other purposes; placing all-encompassing constraints on video applications must be applied to all applications, or else the constraints are useless. There are billions of converter chips and instruments and legacy consumer gear already made and in the world that can do this conversion. HR4569 will not apply in Canada or Mexico or Europe or Asia. So this bill does not do much hole closing at all. It just robs consumers of simple options to exercise their fair use rights.
The problem comes if the MPAA uses this monopoly grant of power to extend their reach to close more of the hole. They would be enabled by this bill to demand that a new Tektronix digitizing oscilloscope have CGSM-A and VEIL technology built into the scope. Irksome and expensive, with the side effect that these instruments would be much less useful for developing video technology in the US. But the hole is still not plugged, just restricted on the margin.
The billions of analog-to-digital converters produced each year are the next plausible target. HR4569 does not recognize the difference between a component and a system; again, there is no clear technological distinction. So the MPAA is entitled to use their monopoly power to exercise prior restraint against chip manufacturers, and distributors, to ensure that these chips are fitted with detectors for CGSM-A and VEIL. And this is where the system collapses.
A general purpose chip analog-to-digital converter can be used in a number of different ways. It can operate at a wide range of sampling rates, so it is impossible to find line 21 in the vertical interval to find CGSM-A, or to detect the characteristic 7200Hz luminance signal of VEIL, because this requires recognizing many details about the video signal and knowing accurately “what time it is”. Chips don’t know these things – this knowledge is applied at the system level. In fact, specialized video chips could be run at different rates by the same sort or tricks that computer overclockers use; even if all these detectors were hard coded into a chip, they are likely to be easily fooled by software or hacking. Yet the manufacturers and distributors of the chips are held accountable, and subject to half-million dollar fines per component, if their components can be used or abused this way.
Can you imagine the chilling effect this will have on the availability of electronic components in the US? Who would take the risk? All electronic development will move overseas by the threat of lawsuit. New technologies will get developed there. At some point, even system repair moves there, or doesn’t get done. Who wants to take the risk of selling test equipment in the US?
As I mentioned, VEIL technology works on a 7200Hz luminance signal added to the video field. If a video system detects that, it is not supposed to record it. So imagine I am an LA cop, and I don’t want to be recorded the next time I beat up a Rodney King. With an LED flashlight modified to produce a 7200Hz luminance signal broadcasting “don’t record me”, I can wield my truncheon without worries. Or perhaps I am a terrorist in Iraq, wishing to escape observation from a US military camera surveilance system. I buy the same flashlight. turn off the cameras with it, and hide my bomb or assassinate my target.
Or I could build a very big 7200Hz flashlight and sit outside the perimeter of a Hollywood movie set, shutting down the digital movie cameras. Let the MPAA enjoy a taste of what they created. They wouldn’t have many options – all their cameras are from overseas, and bought on the grey market, because their own stupid law shut down the legitimate channels.
My, I think this has turned into a flame. Time for my meds … Ah, that’s better!
So what does this all mean, and what can you do about it? First, learn more about the bill. You can read more about HR4569 at
http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/HR-4569-DTCSA-Analog-Hole.pdf
http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/47939.html
Look up “analog hole”, “DRM”, “CGMS” and “VEIL” on Wikipedia. You can also go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation at www.eff.org and follow the growing protest.
The bill is being sponsored by the ranking members of the House Judiciary Committee, Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R) of the 5th Congressional District of Wisconsin, and John Conyers (D) of the 14th Congressional District of Michigan. They come up for re-election this year. A campaign contribution to the appropriate opposing campaign ( D, R, G, L, or other), with an explanatory note to all the campaigns, would be a sincere way to say “you are SO FIRED!”
A letter to your own Congressional representative would help. This HR4569 crock of fertilizer may make it to the Senate, which is why I am planning a meeting with Senator Gordon Smith’s staff. Sen. Smith heads the Commerce committee, which will have a lot of influence on whether this thing passes.
A rule of thumb in politics is that a single written letter approximates the opinions of 1000 constituents. It costs about $4 per voter for Smith to run a campaign. So in some sense, a postal letter to Smith on this issue is worth about $4000 . So get writing! A polite well written letter on paper in a stamped envelope counts for more than an email or fax or phone call. An office visit counts for even more.
So, learn, discuss, write, and take action.
Keith
![[x]](/images/sigil_md.jpg)
Blackmoor Vituperative
