The entertainment companies are doing this as an act of self-preservation in an era where pirating of digital content is admittedly rampant. They have done similar things before with respect to recording media such as cassettes, videocassettes, and recordable CDs  without much success. This time, they are in effect asking Congress to help save them by hobbling another entire industry  that is, by forcing a very wide spectrum of digital device makers to go to significant trouble and expense on their behalf, just because some people happen to use some of those devices some of the time to play copyrighted material. They have apparently decided that the new business opportunities possible in a world where free file sharing is officially permitted are not sufficiently bountiful, too risky, or too much trouble to achieve; therefore, they would prefer that such a world not exist.

The big players in the computer industry are vehemently against the SSSCA and have begun lobbying efforts accordingly, with Intel taking the lead. For one thing, vendors are worried that people will stick with their older PCs and other devices rather than buy new equipment with copy protection built in, thereby potentially doing to their industry what Al Qaeda did to the U.S. airlines on Sept. 11. But beyond that, the technology vendors are right. Even if you believe that the entertainment industry deserves this kind of crutch from the government, there are several things seriously wrong with the SSSCA.

Shortcomings

The media companies are claiming that the SSSCA is necessary to stop the threat on "creativity". Coming from the likes of Michael Eisner, this argument rings so hollow that its hard to believe anyone can take it seriously  even members of Congress.Let a good cross-section of actual artists (of all types and income levels, not just Stephen King or Metallicas Lars Ulrich) testify that this is a good idea, and maybe it will have some credibility.Such testimony is unlikely to be forthcoming, as anyone who attended the Future of Music Coalition conference in Washington this past January knows from the reactions of the less-than-famous artists and songwriters there.

Secondly, the wording of the law makes it apply to just about anything with a microprocessor, including millions of devices that have nothing to do with playing music or videos, reading books or articles, or doing anything else that would concern copyright owners.The makers of such devices could be legally liable for no good reason at all.Yet it is doubtful that a narrower definition of applicable devices would make the SSSCA more palatable, because technology changes so rapidly that any such definition would quickly become obsolete.

Third, one reason why DRM technology has not been adopted in the mass market thus far is that is just isnt ready for prime time.Nontrivial issues of personal and device identity in cyberspace have yet to be worked out, and they clash head-on with privacy concerns.(The SSSCA does, at least, pay lip service to privacy protection.) Current DRM technology is inconvenient for consumers and will drive some of them away.And, of course, no DRM technology is provably unbreakable.Foisting DRM technology on the masses at this time does a service to no one  except, of course, the makers of widely applicable DRM technology that could be chosen as standard, companies such as Microsoft, InterTrust, IBM, and various smaller companies that hold patents on certain aspects of DRM (such as ContentGuard for the format of rights descriptions, or Verance or Digimarc for watermarks).

eBooks as Counterexample

The experience of the book publishing industry shows how the free market system can work just fine when left to its own devices.The Association of American Publishers, which represents book publishers in the U.S., is not (visibly, at least) party to the SSSCA.Its members chose to facilitate the development of copy-protected digital devices  eBook readers  by working with startups like NuvoMedia and SoftBook Press as well as established vendors like Adobe and Microsoft. Publishers didnt produce eBooks until they were satisfied about the devices copy protection, functionality and ease of use. And even though most eBook formats copy protection schemes have been cracked, publishers are enjoying a slowly yet steadily growing market for eBooks.

The SSSCA would result in computer and other digital device makers being forced to put technology into their products that merely adds to the cost of those products, which they would pass along to the consumer.Would it stop piracy? Absolutely not.It would merely inconvenience legitimate users who want to exercise rights to use content that the copyright law still grants them, and it would thwart certain fair uses of content altogether.Meanwhile, serious pirates will still find ways to ply their justly illegal trade.