NY Times Technology Editor Tom Redburn responded via email today to my earlier comments on their misuse of the term "piracy".
My initial email along with Tom's message is published with permission in full below:
Sept 26, 2003
I am writing to followup on our telephone conversation this morning. Please pass this along to Bill Keller.
I am a long time NY Times subscriber. I've lived in Denver, San Francisco, Dallas and now Madison and read the paper daily, but for overseas travel (IHT). I'm also co-founder of a growing software/services firm. My tech background makes me very familiar with IP (intellectual property) issues.
Consequently, I've been very disappointed to see your paper incorrectly use the term piracy on the front page the past few days (and in many articles over the past months).
Your headlines and articles fail to recognize legitimate fair use rights that the MPAA and RIAA are trying to kill. I'm astonished that in 2003, I cannot purchase a movie online and watch it at my leisure (on an airplane) on my laptop. You should publicize the fact that the Hollywood cartel cried wolf over the vcr, yet made billions from it.
There's an even larger issue looming. Your friendly publicity for the Hollywood folks has helped them cut deals with Intel, Microsoft and others leading to the creation of "trusted computing". This product, due with the next major windows release, will hand over far more control of personal computers to the hollywood cartel (and, naturally, a great target for hackers).
Fair use is largely dead for most consumer(s) at that point.
Your language also supports their efforts to sue grandmothers:
I urge you to explore the true fair use issues as frequently as you've pushed the incorrect use of the term piracy on your front pages. Customer friendly fair use is possible - see apple's itunes music service terms of use.
I've included some useful links below:
Berkman fellow Dave Winer on your headlines & the RIAA/MPAA:
The true reason for declining CD Sales (price increases & declining quality):
Musician Janis Ian has written a widely distributed article on the music industry's internet debacle:
One small voice in the wilderness, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is trying to save consumer's fair use rights:
"The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is on a rampage, launching legal attacks against average Americans from coast to coast. Rather than working to create a rational, legal means by which its customers can take advantage of file-sharing technology and pay a fair price for the music they love, it has chosen to sue people like Brianna LaHara, a 12 year-old girl living in New York City public housing. "
This is simply the vcr battle all over again....
There's so much more to this issue than hollywood's simplistic notion of "piracy".
Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you,
Sept. 30, 2003
Dear Mr. Zellmer,
Diane <____>passed on your email message to me because I am the editor
in charge of technology news coverage at The Times. You raise some
important issues but I'm afraid that I have to respectfully disagree that
we are misusing the shorthand term "piracy" in some of our references to
the digital copyright fights between the entertainment industry and users.
We use a lot of words, "file sharing," "file swapping," "illegal
downloading,'' etc. as well as music piracy, as terse phrases to describe
the practice. They all carry connotations, some of which you might approve
of, others not, but we do our best to be fair as we cover this controversy
in full. Moreover I don't think using the word "piracy" is meant to convey
support for the music industry; indeed some people might consider being
labeled a "pirate" a badge of honor. It certainly carries some of that
baggage from history.
On your other point that somehow we are shilling for Hollywood and the
music industry, I don't understand how you can draw that conclusion from
our extensive coverage. We've written many stories on other reasons besides
file swapping that account for the decline in CD sales, we've written about
labels and artists that welcome music piracy as a way of developing a
broader audience and we quote the Electronic Frontier Foundation in many of
our articles. And we have certainly pointed out, as you put it, that
Hollywood cried wolf over the VCR and the DVD player.
But those aren't the only voices and viewpoints in the controversy and we
would be remiss if we didn't try to explain to our readers as well as we
can the point of view of people from inside the record industry, too. As
journalists, that's our job. I don't think our coverage has been
"simplistic" at all. I direct your attention to this page on The Times web
site, http://www.nytimes.com/pages/technology/techspecial/, where we have
compiled many of the stories we've written on the subject recently.
We've also written critical stories on Microsoft's trusted computing
effort, most recently a major piece by John Markoff that appeared on the
front of our Monday Business section, which I'm pasting below because I'm
not sure you can easily access it from our Web site.
Thank you for your interest and I hope you continue to be an active New
York Times reader.
Best,
Tom Redburn
June 30, 2003, Monday Late Edition - Final
Section C Page 1 Column 2 Desk: Business/Financial Desk Length: 2030 words
TECHNOLOGY; A Safer System For Home PC's Feels Like Jail To Some Critics
By JOHN MARKOFF
SAN FRANCISCO, June 29
Your next personal computer may well come with its own digital chaperon.
As PC makers prepare a new generation of desktop computers with built-in
hardware controls to protect data and digital entertainment from illegal
copying, the industry is also promising to keep information safe from
tampering and help users avoid troublemakers in cyberspace.
Silicon Valley -- led by Microsoft and Intel -- calls the concept ''trusted
computing.'' The companies, joined by I.B.M., Hewlett-Packard, Advanced
Micro Devices and others, argue that the new systems are necessary to
protect entertainment content as well as safeguard corporate data and
personal privacy against identity theft. Without such built-in controls,
they say, Hollywood and the music business will refuse to make their
products available online.
But by entwining PC software and data in an impenetrable layer of
encryption, critics argue, the companies may be destroying the very
openness that has been at the heart of computing in the three decades since
the PC was introduced. There are simpler, less intrusive ways to prevent
illicit file swapping over the Internet, they say, than girding software in
so much armor that new types of programs from upstart companies may have
trouble working with it.
''This will kill innovation,'' said Ross Anderson, a computer security
expert at Cambridge University, who is organizing opposition to the
industry plans. ''They're doing this to increase customer lock-in. It will
mean that fewer software businesses succeed and those who do succeed will
be large companies.''
Critics complain that the mainstream computer hardware and software
designers, under pressure from Hollywood, are turning the PC into something
that would resemble video game players, cable TV and cellphones, with
manufacturers or service providers in control of which applications run on
their systems.
In the new encrypted computing world, even the most mundane word-processing
document or e-mail message would be accompanied by a software security
guard controlling who can view it, where it can be sent and even when it
will be erased. Also, the secure PC is specifically intended to protect
digital movies and music from online piracy.
But while beneficial to the entertainment industry and corporate
operations, the new systems will not necessarily be immune to computer
viruses or unwanted spam e-mail messages, the two most severe irritants to
PC users.
''Microsoft's use of the term 'trusted computing' is a great piece of
doublespeak,'' said Dan Sokol, a computer engineer based in San Jose,
Calif., who was one of the original members of the Homebrew Computing Club,
the pioneering PC group. ''What they're really saying is, 'We don't trust
you, the user of this computer.' ''
The advocates of trusted computing argue that the new technology is
absolutely necessary to protect the privacy of users and to prevent the
theft of valuable intellectual property, a reaction to the fact that making
a perfect digital copy is almost as easy as clicking a mouse button.
''It's like having a little safe inside your computer,'' said Bob
Meinschein, an Intel security architect. ''On the corporate side the value
is much clearer,'' he added, ''but over time the consumer value of this
technology will become clear as well'' as more people shop and do other
business transactions online.
Industry leaders also contend that none of this will stifle innovation.
Instead, they say, it will help preserve and expand general-purpose
computing in the Internet age.
''We think this is a huge innovation story,'' said Mario Juarez,
Microsoft's group product manager for the company's security business unit.
''This is just an extension of the way the current version of Windows has
provided innovation for players up and down the broad landscape of
computing.''
The initiative is based on a new specification for personal computer
hardware, first introduced in 2000 and backed by a group of companies
called the Trusted Computing Group. It also revolves around a separate
Microsoft plan, now called the Next Generation Secure Computing Base, that
specifies a tamper-proof portion of the Windows operating system.
The hardware system is contained in a set of separate electronics that are
linked to the personal computer's microprocessor chip, known as the Trusted
Platform Module, or T.P.M. The device includes secret digital keys -- large
binary numbers -- that cannot easily be altered. The Trusted Computing
Group is attempting to persuade other industries, like the mobile phone
industry and the makers of personal digital assistants, to standardize on
the technology as well.
The plans reflect a shift by key elements of the personal computer
industry, which in the past had resisted going along with the entertainment
industry and what some said they feared would be draconian controls that
would greatly curtail the power of digital consumer products.
Industry executives now argue that by embedding the digital keys directly
in the hardware of the PC, tampering will be much more difficult. But they
acknowledge that no security system is perfect.
The hardware standard is actually the second effort by Intel to build
security directly into the circuitry of the PC. The first effort ended in a
public relations disaster for Intel in 1999 when consumers and civil
liberties groups revolted against the idea. The groups coined the slogan
''Big Brother Inside,'' and charged that the technology could be used to
violate user privacy.
''We don't like to make the connection,'' said Mr. Meinschein. ''But we did
learn from it.''
He said the new T.P.M. design requires the computer owner to switch on the
new technology voluntarily and that it contains elaborate safeguards for
protecting individual identity.
The first computers based on the hardware design have just begun to appear
from I.B.M. and Hewlett-Packard for corporate customers. Consumer-oriented
computer makers like Dell Computer and Gateway are being urged to go along
but have not yet endorsed the new approach.
How consumers will react to the new technology is a thorny question for PC
makers because the new industry design stands in striking contrast to the
approach being taken by Apple Computer.
Apple has developed the popular iTunes digital music store relying
exclusively on software to restrict the sharing of digital songs over the
Internet. Apple's system, which has drawn the support of the recording
industry, permits consumers to share songs freely among up to three
Macintoshes and an iPod portable music player.
Apple only has a tiny share of the personal computer market. But it
continues to tweak the industry leaders with its innovations; last week,
Apple's chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, demonstrated a feature of the
company's newest version of its OS X operating system called FileVault,
designed to protect a user's documents without the need for modifying
computer hardware.
Mr. Jobs argued that elaborate hardware-software schemes like the one being
pursued by the Trusted Computing Group will not achieve their purpose.
''It's a falsehood,'' he said. ''You can prove to yourself that that
hardware doesn't make it more secure.''
That is not Microsoft's view. The company has begun showing a test copy of
a variation of its Windows operating system that was originally named
Palladium. The name was changed last year after a trademark dispute.
In an effort to retain the original open PC environment, the Microsoft plan
offers the computer user two separate computing partitions in a future
version of Windows. Beyond changing the appearance and control of Windows,
the system will also require a new generation of computer hardware, not
only replacing the computer logic board but also peripherals like mice,
keyboards and video cards.
Executives at Microsoft say they tentatively plan to include the technology
in the next version of Windows -- code-named Longhorn -- now due in 2005.
The company is dealing with both technical and marketing challenges
presented by the new software security system. For example, Mr. Juarez, the
Microsoft executive, said that if the company created a more secure side to
its operating system software, customers might draw the conclusion that its
current software is not as safe to use.
Software developers and computer security experts, however, said they were
not confident that Microsoft would retain its commitment to the open half
of what is planned to be a two-sided operating system.
''My hackles went up when I read Microsoft describing the trusted part of
the operating system as an option,'' said Mitchell D. Kapor, the founder of
Lotus Development Corporation, and a longtime Microsoft competitor. ''I
don't think that's a trustworthy statement.''
One possibility, Mr. Kapor argued, is that Microsoft could release versions
of applications like its Office suite of programs that would only run on
the secure part of the operating system, forcing users to do their work in
the more restricted environment.
Microsoft denies that it is hatching an elaborate scheme to deploy an
ultra-secret hardware system simply to protect its software and Hollywood's
digital content. The company also says the new system can help counter
global cybercrime without creating the repressive ''Big Brother'' society
imagined by George Orwell in ''1984.''
Microsoft is committed to ''working with the government and the entire
industry to build a more secure computing infrastructure here and around
the world,'' Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman, told a technology conference
in Washington on Wednesday. ''This technology can make our country more
secure and prevent the nightmare vision of George Orwell at the same time.''
The critics are worried, however, that the rush to create more secure PC's
may have unintended consequences. Paradoxically, they say, the efforts to
lock up data safely against piracy could serve to make it easier for
pirates to operate covertly.
Indeed, the effectiveness of the effort to protect intellectual property
like music and movies has been challenged in two independent research
papers. One was distributed last year by a group of Microsoft computer
security researchers; a second paper was released last month by Harvard
researchers.
The research papers state that computer users who share files might use the
new hardware-based security systems to create a ''Darknet,'' a secure, but
illegal network for sharing digital movies and music or other illicit
information that could be exceptionally hard for security experts to crack.
''This is a Pandora's box and I don't think there has been much thought
about what can go wrong,'' said Stuart Schechter, a Harvard researcher who
is an author of one of the papers. ''This is one of those rare times we can
prevent something that will do more harm than good.''
Images: Photos: A sample of the code for a more secure version of Microsoft
Windows. (John Marshall Mantel for The New York Times)(pg. C1); Mario
Juarez, left, the group product manager for Microsoft's security business
unit, discussing with Aaron Verstraete their work on the ''trusted
computing'' software within the Windows program. (John Marshall Mantel for
The New York Times)(pg. C3)
Chart: ''A Panic Room for the PC''
Microsoft and several other companies are developing a more secure personal
computing technology, called ''trusted computing,'' to help increase
privacy and security and reduce the risk of identity theft. Critics say the
technology will also unfairly constrict users and curtail innovation.
Windows remains the same . . .
The Windows operating system continues to function as it does now. Trusted
computing software would operate alongside Windows, providing a more secure
operating environment.
. . .and the trusted computing software offers certain protections.
Processes data meant to be kept private on a secure, isolated block of
memory.
Prevents information that is being entered or viewed by the user from being
intercepted by hackers or viruses.
Verifies that an application accessing private data is the original,
unaltered application that stored it before releasing the data.
Evaluates the integrity of the users system and any other system it may be
communicating with before transmitting or accepting data.
Trusted computing hardware
A chip, placed on the computer's motherboard, acts as the key to the
trusted computing software, encrypting and decrypting data. The encryption
functions are hard-wired on the chip, to prevent others from cracking the
code.
An example
Unknown to the user, a hacker breaks into the Windows operating system and
tweaks some portion of an application, programming it to send confidential
data back to the hacker.
When the user tries to run the application, trusted computing alerts the
user that the application has been tampered with and access is denied.
(Source: Microsoft)(pg. C3)
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
5:44:28 PM 
|
|
