[BPDG Drafts]
EFF comments on MPAA/5C robustness/compliance proposal

Below are the EFF (and co-signers') comments on the MPAA/5C proposed revisions to Compliance/Robustness Requirements, 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 MPAA/5C Requirements Revision proposal

>"Authorized Digital Output Protection Technology" means a
>technology listed on Table A, as such list may be amended from
>time to time pursuant to Section [] [anticipates section (to be
>discussed by the parallel group in accordance with the "Notes" to
>the "Proposal to BPDG for Table A Criteria") that would specify
>how technologies would be added to and removed from the list of
>Authorized Digital Output Protection Technologies].

>"Authorized Recording Method" means a recording method listed on
>Table A, as such list may be amended from time to time pursuant
>to Section [] [anticipates section (to be discussed by the
>parallel group in accordance with the "Notes" to the "Proposal to
>BPDG for Table A Criteria") that would specify how recording
>methods would be added to and removed from the list of Authorized
>Recording Methods].

As per EFF/VOSN/DSP/FSF's remarks to the MPAA/5C joint-proposal on Table A, it would be unduly onerous, anticompetitive and inappropriate for the removal of Table A technologies to include any ban or marketplace withdrawal of consumables and/or replacement parts of formerly included technologies; likewise, the removal of a technology from Table A should not entail the remote deactivation of lawfully acquired devices already in the field.

>(6) where such Covered Product is incorporated into a Computer
>Product and passes, or directs to be passed, such content to an
>unprotected DVI output as an image having the visual equivalent
>of no more than (a) 350,000 pixels per frame (e.g. an image with
>resolution of 720 x 480 pixels for a 4:3 (non-square pixel)
>aspect ratio) and (b) 30 frames per second. Such an image may be
>attained by reducing resolution, such as by discarding, dithering
>or averaging pixels to obtain the specified value, and can be
>displayed using video processing techniques such as line doubling
>or sharpening to improve the perceived quality of the image.

>(5) where such Covered Product is incorporated into a Computer
>Product and passes, or directs to be passed, such content to an
>unprotected DVI output as an image having the visual equivalent
>of no more than (a) 350,000 pixels per frame (e.g. an image with
>resolution of 720 x 480 pixels for a 4:3 (non-square pixel)
>aspect ratio) and (b) 30 frames per second. Such an image may be
>attained by reducing resolution, such as by discarding, dithering
>or averaging pixels to obtain the specified value, and can be
>displayed using video processing techniques such as line doubling
>or sharpening to improve the perceived quality of the image.

EFF/VOSN/DSP/FSF is concerned that this will have the effect of making users of free/open source operating systems into second-class video-citizens, incapable of viewing full-resolution video on their systems (as open source/free code cannot satisfy the existing robustness rules). This objection applies to X4(a)6 as well.

> ["User" means a consumer of a Covered Product but not a
> professional trained to repair, build or service a Covered
> Product.]

This section is struck from the MPAA/5C proposal; does that mean that the position of the MPAA/5C companies is that the strictures associated with the BPDG mandate will apply to technical professionals involved in servicing approved technologies?

If so, EFF/VOSN/DSP/FSF would like to register its objections to this, on the grounds that such a regiment will unfairly concentrate the power to service and repair devices with their manufacturers, limiting end-user freedom to choose from a variety of service and repair options.

>(3)[where such Covered Product outputs, or directs to be output,
>such content to a Downstream Product solely within the home or
>personal digital network environment, using a Robust Method;]

This section is struck from the MPAA/5C proposal; does that mean that the position of the MPAA/5C companies is that the strictures associated with the BPDG mandate will prohibit the retransmission of screened content in the home?

If so, EFF/VOSN/DSP/FSF would like to register its objections to this, as it would clearly limit a noninfringing use (namely, watching a signal that is demodulated in one room while you're present in another).

Respectfully yours,

Cory Doctorow
Electronic Frontier Foundation

Pieter Hulshoff
Vereniging Open Source Nederland

Jonathan Watterson
Free Software Foundation/Digital Speech Protd c