[BPDG Drafts]
EFF Comments on Philips Table A Proposal

Below are the EFF (and co-signers') comments on the Philips Table A Criteria proposal, as submitted to the BPDG mailing list tonight:

To: BPDG members and co-chairs

From: Electronic Frontier Foundation, Vereniging Open Source Nederland, Digital Speech Project and Free Software Foundation

Re: Comments on Philips Table A proposal

>1. Require a User to (x) acquire or build a physical device of
>sufficient complexity to be beyond the ordinary capability of a
>User to construct, in order either to defeat such technology or
>to avoid the application of such technology or (y) acquire the
>keys to an encryption system (which shall be at minimum 56 bits
>in length);

EFF/VOSN/DSP/FSF would like to strike everything in this clause between "build a physical device" and "or (y)," i.e., strike the requirement that the device be beyond the ordinary capability of a user to construct.

EFF/VOSN/DSP/FSF would like this group to safeguard the right of end-users to tinker with, modify, understand and repurpose the technology that they have lawfully acquired.

>2. Preserve the Broadcast Flag with the content or keep other
>information identifying the content as either Marked Content or
>Unscreened Content with the content during digital output and
>transmission over a digital interface, provided that if content
>is identified as Unscreened Content by such other information, it
>shall be treated as Marked Content if the Broadcast Flag is not
>preserved; and

EFF/VOSN/DSP/FSF would like to object to a legal requirement regarding the means by which devices interoperate and communicate with one another, striking this clause in its entirety.

>1. Require a User to (x) acquire or build a physical device of
>sufficient complexity to be beyond the ordinary capability of a
>User to construct, in order either to defeat such technology or
>to avoid the application of such technology (y) acquire the keys
>to an encryption system (which shall be at minimum 56 bits in
>length);
>
>2. Preserve the Broadcast Flag with the content or keep other
>information identifying the content as either Marked Content or
>Unscreened Content with the content while recorded in digital
>form, provided that if the content is identified as Unscreened
>Content by such other information, it shall be treated as Marked
>Content if the Broadcast Flag is not preserved; and

See our objections, above.

>3. Include a means of ensuring that the content is played back
>only on a product that complies with rules for digital outputs,
>digital recording and robustness at least as restrictive as those
>defined for Covered Products herein.

It is EFF/VOSN/DSP/FSF's concern that this "at least as restrictive" language creates a climate where vendors err on the side of caution, creating an ever-tightening noose around the features and freedom available to end-users. Accordingly, we would prefer this language to be changed from "at least as restrictive" to "no more restrictive"

>2. The technology must be available under rules that are limited
>to the broadcast protection functionality [prevention of
>unauthorized redistribution outside of the home or personal
>digital networks] and must impose limitations and requirements no
>more limiting than those set forth in Sections X.3 through X.11
>of these Requirements.

EFF/VOSN/DSP/FSF would like to change "prevention of unlawful redistribution outside of the home or personal digital networks" to "prevention of unlawful Internet redistribution outside of the home or personal digital networks"

>3. Without limiting the foregoing, recording and output
>technologies authorized for use by an Approved Technology must
>authorize the use of digital outputs and recordable media
>protected by the other Approved Technologies without need for
>further authorization or approval.
>
>4. The technology and rules must not be subject to change other
>than under a clearly defined consensus process (including both
>licensees and content providers) that allows time for
>implementation (in ordinary circumstances to be not less than 18
>months), and adequate notice before any change becomes effective
>and may be implemented, to ensure that no implementors have any
>advantage in implementation.

This clause should be extended to include protection for end-users in lawful possession of technologies that are eliminated under such changes, namely:

* Such changes will not create a ban or require a market-withdrawal of parts and consumables associated with removed technologies

* Such changes will not result in the de-activation or reduction in functionality of removed technologies included in lawfully acquired devices in the field

>5. The technology must be available on a nondiscriminatory basis
>under license with fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms
>and conditions that are appropriate to and do not reach beyond
>the scope of broadcast protection.

Please change "broadcast protection" to "protection of broadcast signals from unlawful Internet redistribution outside of the home or personal digital networks"

Respectfully yours,

Cory Doctorow
Electronic Frontier Foundation

Pieter Hulshoff
Vereniging Open Source Nederland

Jonathan Watterson
Free Software Foundation/Digital Speech Project