Let's Talk About Computer Security

A week ago I was cracking jokes in this space about August being the slow month for news, but now I'm doing my second Web chat in two weeks after spending a sleep-deprived work week trying out Microsoft's Service Pack 2 update to Windows XP. From now on, I am not even going to think about complaining about a lack of news.

Because of the magnitude of this Windows update (not to mention all the other computing-security-related stories that ran in yesterday's business section), you'll be stuck with me for a second Monday in a row. I'll be online from 2 to 3 p.m. ET today, taking questions about Microsoft's big bug-fix release -- and any other tech-related topics you can think of. Submit a question or comment early if you can't monitor the live chat.

You can check out my review of SP2 that ran in yesterday's newspaper, and from there navigate through the rest of the computer-security package.

Copy Control Debate, Cont'd

I meant to use last week's newsletter to recap a couple of interesting e-mails I received in response to my column on TiVo's request to have the Federal Communications Commission approve a new Internet-sharing feature in future versions of its digital video recorders.

Fritz Attaway, the Motion Picture Association of America official I quoted in the column, wrote to express his objections:

"Rob -- your disdain for copyright is distressing to me, and a bit hypocritical on your part. Whether you call it 'protection' or 'control,' the idea is to protect investment in valuable intellectual property which real, talented people, like yourself, worked hard to create. The Washington Post is copyrighted and that copyright is aggressively protected (or controlled) by your employer. I assume you accept a paycheck from The Post. The people who create music and movies would also like to keep getting paychecks. What is so awful about that?"

Here's my reply:

"First, my answer to your question above is 'nothing.' I have no problem with people trying to get paid for their work. But does the right to make a living in a given profession include the right to force other people to contribute to that living? In the case of other industries challenged by technological change -- travel agents, long-distance phone companies and express-delivery services come to mind -- the answer seems to be, 'No.' I have not yet heard a convincing argument as to why the movie and music industries should be different, and why the electronics and computer industries should be forced to work for their benefit.

"It's interesting that you cited my own employer as an example, which brings up the other flaw I see in your argument -- the idea that the Internet will make it impossible for people in creative professions to earn a living. The Post's content, along with that of every other newspaper I can think of, is published online without any technological copy controls, and, last I checked, none of us has asked that the government require other industries to implement any such controls for our sake. I'm not saying that everybody else should adopt our model (last I checked, our Web site, although not those of other papers, was still losing money), but I am saying that the market can sort through these problems on its own.

"Finally, about my 'disdain' for copyright -- if I may steal from the e-mail I just sent to a former Recording Industry Association of America executive -- you read far more into my column than I've ever said. All I am arguing for is that we evaluate copyright issues by the criteria set forth in the Constitution. When it says that Congress may grant copyrights and patents 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,' it's saying quite clearly that copyrights only exist because we think they'll serve a larger social good. I'm just trying to follow that logic in my writing -- if we adopt what this or that group advocates, will we all be better off or not?"