This Public Knowledge one-pager outlines three unsavory facts about the proposed Digital Transition Content Security Act of 2005. The bill, H.R.4569, is an attempt to close the analog hole.
This document is also available in PDF Format.
1. It mandates an unproven technology:
The Digital Transition Content Security Act (H.R.4569) requires the use of two technologies that have never been used in conjunction before: CGMS-A and VEIL. While CGMS-A is an established standard that is in use in some consumer electronic devices, it is by no means wide-spread. VEIL technology has only previously been used for Batman toys that interact with Batman cartoons. See http://www.veilinteractive.com/ for more information.
The combined standard required in the Act is not the result of any consultation with the consumer electronics industry who will be forced to implement this standard if the Act passes.
Additionally, the Act itself practically assumes the unsuitability of the VEIL technology for the purpose of restricting content use. §105 provides authority to the Patent and Trademark Office to update the VEIL standard should it prove vulnerable, but gives no suggestion as to what might replace VEIL.
2. Legislation’s Broad Scope puts Tech Industry under Supervision of Inexperienced Patent and Trademark Office:
Devices that could be used to convert analog video signals into digital video signals are common, not just in consumer electronics and personal computers, but in microchip form embedded in a variety of devices. The Act makes no distinction. Even if the Act governed only consumer electronics, it would still require that the Patent Office monitor the entirety of a huge industry and sign off on thousands of new products each year. Such a bureaucratic bottleneck would slow technological innovation and cost the government millions of dollars each year. There is no indication that the Patent Office has the experience or resources for such a radical expansion of its authority and jurisdiction.
3. Radical Departure from Current Copyright Law:
The Act allows content providers to create and enforce their own version of copyright law. It permits the a complete prohibition on redistribution of video content and allows radical restrictions on content copying. No exceptions are required for public domain content, or for fair use by the consumer. Moreover, because the Act regulates devices and not the use of those devices, it would leave fair use doctrine nominally intact but technically impossible.
