EFF Urges Support for Rep. Boucher's DMCRA 211
DarkSparks writes "The EFF is urging everyone to contact their Representatives and ask them to co-sponsor Representative Rick Boucher and John Doolittle's recently introduced Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA, H.R. 5544), which would introduce labelling requirements for usage-impaired "copy-protected" compact discs, as well as make several key amendments to the DMCA, including affirming the right of scientific research into technology protection measures and affirming the right of citizens to circumvent technology measures to gain access to copyrighted works they've purchased."
No! (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest people contact their representatives to cancel the DMCA instead.
Re:No! (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as we might not like it, the politicians feel that the DMCA does have a place in todays society - attempting to get the whole DMCA thrown out is likely to be less successful than promoting some key changes to help protect our rights
Remove the most controversial aspects of the DMCA and joe consumer gets most of his rights back... not all, but most
Fight the whole of the DMCA and the odds of success are greatly reduced
Having said that, I'm not suggesting that we accept the DMCA - just that something is a hell of a lot better than nothing
Re:No! (Score:3, Insightful)
Say you get raided and have 1000 copies of 'Snow White' on DivX. They can't get you for illegal distribution, but they could arrest you for illegal decryption, as it's more than fair use. We have something similar with Mobile Phones in the UK, it's now illegal to change the serial number (IMEI), the real reason for this is so that poeple suspected of nicking phones can be arrested on another charge.
Re:No! (Score:2)
You don't need to decrypt something in order to make a copy of it.
Do you need to decode this in order to copy it?
Hint: No.
If you get raided, you can say "I don't know what the F is on these disks. I'm using them as coasters!"
Re:No! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Section 5 makes the necessary changes to the DMCA to restore the historic balance in U.S. copyright law."
You can't (AFAIK) make changes to law without going through the process of sponsoring another bill, etc.. It doesn't mean we will have two sets of laws, only that the originals will be changed. They do not want to repeal the entire DMCA, just correct it.
Not to be rude... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not to be rude... (Score:2)
The Bill of Rights as we know it is very different from the spirit of the law. These days the Bill of Rights does NOT supercede these bullshit laws, because of certain judicial and political factors.
The Bill of Rights was a once-good thing, but is today very eroded since it no longer has precedence.
DMCA?!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Recently there has been so much out cry against DMCA on slashdot, I thought I shall talk to my dad and convince them to talk to our constituents representatives. You know what my dad said "forget it son, there are lot more pressing issues than copying a cd".
I thought may be he was just being indifferent to me, but guess what none of my friends bother either. When I talked to them about this issue and even pointed to all the disadvantages, none of them were even winked. They said "dude right now my immediate concern is whether I'm going to get a job when I graduate, not whether I'll be able to copy a cd".
Now is this mere isolated instance of indifference or ignorance (well 99% of people I talked to never heard of DMCA)? So I think DMCA or corporate America is not the problem the, problem is plain ignorance and indifference. Doesn't matter if this article gets about 1000 comments and every one feels the same way. We've got to do something and by something I don't mean talking to representatives, I mean educating people. Only then can our voice have some effect.
Remember those anti-tobacco ads - "Knowledge is contagious"
Re:DMCA?!! (Score:2)
Unfortunatley, I think it's bullshit. The only thing that changes the world nowadays is money and weapons.
Re:DMCA?!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd argue that money and weapons -- particularly the latter -- generally don't change the world; instead they act to keep it as it is, to keep it going through the same depressing cycles of destruction that the world has always known. There's nothing about, e.g., the situation in the current Middle East that would have seemed unfamiliar to a Roman of the late Empire. "Oh, having trouble with the Persians again, eh? What a surprise
And yet
Excellent post (Score:2)
The work of the artists and scientists and engineers outlives the work of the kings and generals, in the end.
is a candidate for fortune files.
Re:DMCA?!! (Score:3, Funny)
>
>Unfortunately, I think it's bullshit. The only thing that changes the world nowadays is money and weapons.
Au contraire. Margaret Mead was right. Ask Hitler and Goebbels. Or Lenin and Stalin. Or Mao.
Whenever I see a "Successories" or other inspirational/motivational poster with that saying on it, I go back to my cube, print out a photo of one of the aforementioned big-body-count heavies (my favorite's Hitler and company drafting the Final Solution), and attach it nearby with a Post-It note reading "...and that's a bug, not a feature."
Re:DMCA?!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No! (Score:2, Informative)
However established a law could be, it won't resist to the crowd's anger, be it in the US or wherever else.
Re:No! (Score:2)
Re:No! (Score:2)
> I suggest people contact their representatives to
> cancel the DMCA instead.
As has been pointed out by others, this bill will cancel some nasty chunks of the DMCA, as well as force CD manufacturers to be honest about their broken music disks.
Most importantly, this bill will raise the voice of the people in Congress. Up until now, lawmakers have only heard the voice of the media sharks urging them into one outrageous bill after another to "save" their industry. It is past time that we were heard.
This is especially vital in light of Hollings' CBDTPA bill. This bill will decimate remaining fair use rights by mandating DRM in everything. The resultant products would be a difficult sell, threatening the consumer electronics and IT industries (apart or together, these industries dwarf the media sharks).
Microsoft now has patents on the concept of a Digital Rights Management Operating System. CBDTPA could wind up being the mandate for a Microsoft DRMOS monopoly, using Palladium in Longhorn. Microsoft could use its patents to force Apple and Linux out, or use
Our congresscritters may not understand all the issues involved in CBDTPA, but even they can understand that consumers like to rip, mix, and burn their legally aquired media, because they like to do that too. That makes the DMCRA a good first line of defense, because it states the issues in congresscritter speak.
"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of Mothra (1961).
Re:No! (Score:2)
And how exactly do you intend for them to do that without introducing another bill?
Perhaps you should take some time to actually learn how the American legal system works before you start telling people how to operate within it.
::cannot be copied:: (Score:4, Insightful)
This is all an exercise is futility it seems to me. People will find a way to copy the media, no matter what. Why not use money/technology to do something a bit more useful?
Re:::cannot be copied:: (Score:1)
Re:::cannot be copied:: (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe when publishing companies (music and film both) start realizing that consumers are the ones who pay their salary, they'll start treating us with less contempt. Sorry to say that there are a whole lot of people who are NOT sheep content to be shorn of their hard-earned money.
At some point when faced with all of the DRM crap that companies are trying to force us into, I'll just decide to move on to other activities which are less technologically oriented.
Even now, the rise in film prices to over $12 per ticket is severely limiting the number of movies I go to. That doesn't mean I download them on the PC or anything, but I just spend my time doing other things instead...
Re:::cannot be copied:: (Score:3, Interesting)
duplicable things tend to get copied..
and, you don't have to stop watching entertainment even if stopped watching bigstudiobozostuff, there's already vast amounts of free to distribute/enjoy music online, and some movies too, and freaky amount of amateur webcomics and flash cartoons.
after umpteen years you can probably do a film as fast as you can do the script(granted, it might not be a good film, but most s*** out of hwood are generic, gray mass anyways)
Cheap DVDs (Score:2)
Err....M'kay (Score:4, Interesting)
Politicians aren't average consumers. The only time most of them back consumer (rather than corporate) interests is when they absolutely have to do so.
I highly doubt that any of the major music labels or film companies are too worried about a lack of consumer demand. Sure they whine a whole bunch about pirating leading them to bankruptcy, but I think we all know well enough by now that's just not true.
Hmmm...have I said anything that hasn't been said in at least 100 /. posts thus far? Oh well, screw the karma, I'm procrastinating homework right now.
Anyway, I applaud you for doing the ethical thing. Yes, if everyone else followed your model of boycotting ridiculously over-priced entertainmet, then maybe traditional economics would come into play and movie ticket prices would drop down. But most people do one or both of the following instead:
a) Pirate the movie/music instead
b) Pay whatever it costs anyway
From personal experience, I find that most people pirate movies/music they would have rented/borrowed . And they still pay to see/buy movies/CDs they really want to see/own. Let's face it, Yoda yielding a light saber on your 17" CRT and Altec Lansings isn't the same as watching it on the big screen with theater audio.
So, all in all, we're back where we were at the beginning. Pirating won't stop anytime soon (check out last sunday's userfriendly). The movie & music industries aren't about to agree to all our demands. DRM isn't going to disappear simply due to geek dislike (does your mom know what DRM is?). Instead, let's just try to get the letter of the law placed somewhere in the middle and play it by ear from there.
Re:::cannot be copied:: (Score:2, Insightful)
People have already got a way to copy the media: a well shielded audio cable. However, many feel that everything must remain in the ever-perfect digital realm until the last split second before it reaches our ears... and then they listen to it at 128kbps in MP3 format. Go figure. [Use Ogg, it's better!]
Matt
Re:::cannot be copied:: (Score:1)
Consumer Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, one of two things could possibly happen (given that most people won't buy crippled CDs if they are informed of them unless there is no alternative): 1) Alternative versions of crippled CDs are available, people buy non-crippled discs. 2) Alternative versions may or may not exist, people who buy the crippled versions become frustrated, a public backlash to the crippling scheme arises.
Mind you, these "crippled" CDs don't just entail "copy-protection", it includes (at this moment, IIRC) any hardware manufacturer that does not build the RIAA's copy protection into its circuits. If Sony decides not to give in, your discman won't play the new Ja Rule CD.
Good first step (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, can you tell me that you'd rather have one law and no rights than two laws and some rights?
I'll take the rights, thanks. Don't make me a criminal for ripping your CD to my computer so I can listen to it without having to swap physical CDs in and out.
Go Boucher.
Re:Good first step (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good first step (Score:2)
You want to get rid of the DMCA altogether? So let me get this straight... you want to make it once again illegal to install copyrighted system recovery software on someone's machine for the purposes of fixing it? You want to make it once again illegal to allow access copyrighted web content through a proxy (which before the DMCA was technically "republishing")?
It's only the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA (Chapter 12) which are even controversial. There are very good reasons to keep the rest of the DMCA.
Re:Good first step (Score:2)
The average ISP would be *OUT OF BUSINESS* if they had to filter and monitor all the email and web traffic they receive. 17 USC 512 was added as part of the DMCA, and basically says "The ISP doesn't have to monitor their users if they take action if somebody else notifies them of a copyright infringement". And as much as we Slashdotters collectively complain about the copyright nazis at RIAA and MPAA issuing 17 USC 512 takedown requests to ISPs, the alternative should scare everybody even worse:
Do you really *WANT* your ISP checking every single packet you send/receive in case it *might* contain something copyrighted? They'd want to, in order to cover their posteriors, if they didn't have the 17 USC 512 safe harbor.
It's only 17 USC 1201 (the circumvention clauses) that's *really* broken in the DMCA, and Boucher's correction is exactly correct. If the data you get out of it would be yours via "fair use", you're off the hook. If it's outside "fair use", you're still in trouble. And that's how it should be.
Re:Good first step (Score:2, Interesting)
However I want to point out a little flaw in your logic. When did you get your last "civic classes"? (We don't even have that over here in Europe) Well, for some of us here this might have been a long time ago. I don't even remember much of the Phyics and Chemestry from highschool and that stuff actually *interested me* (unlike History).
Here is an analogy: what you get in "civic classes" we usually get in History. While I don't surely didn't get the details of the code of laws in the United States, I can assure you I have completely seen how the European Union works, including the tiny horrible details you don't *want* to know. That was about 8 years ago. Today, I cannot give you more than a summary of what the EU is, nor can I tell you what the role of the European Parliament or the European Comission is. So I don't know, and yet I only saw these things eight years ago!
So tell me again? You expect every United State Citzen to remember everything they were thaught in every class they had in Highschool? I've got news for you: people forget!
Re:Good first step (Score:2)
Re:Good first step (Score:2)
Modern American public education is the result of industrial capitalists needing skilled labourers. A famous quote to this effect is: Which is an excerpt from from the first mission statement of the Rockefeller's General Education Board called Letter Number One (1906).
It simply states that public education's sole purpose is to produce human machines, capable of performing the tasks set before them. It has no mandate to create an "informed electorate".
Re:Good first step (Score:2)
Wrong way round (Score:4, Insightful)
You are allowed to do anything not made illegal. In the UK, laws set out the limits to your rights, they do not enumerate them. So a law affirming that I have the right to eat cheese, to take a daft example, would be pointless because there is no law saying that I cannot eat cheese. If a law banning cheese came in to force, then the correct action would be to repeal that law, not to introduce another one limiting it.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Wrong way round (Score:1)
Re:Wrong way round (Score:2)
I agree the point, but to my mind the answer would be to amend the DMCA, not to introduce a second bill. If it's the DMCA that isn't clear, then introduce clauses which set out its limits and applicability.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Wrong way round (Score:1)
Re:Wrong way round (Score:4, Informative)
In the United States, a law is amended by introducing another bill. The bill in question serves to amend the DMCA law.
IOW, bill HR12345 might put Law X on the books. Bill HR54321 might amend Law X with additional clarification, removed segments, and/or added text. The same bill might amend several laws at once and enact brand new ones -- all in one shot.
Getting a bit off topic, the Patriot Act bill is a great example of this. Not only did this bill put the Patriot Act on the books, it also enacted more than a dozen other things, including authorizing expenditures for highway construction and additional scientific funding on insect research.
Re:Wrong way round (Score:2)
As an example, add a bill that requires every house or dwelling to set a mouse free in it. Of course, no one would want a mouse running around their dwelling. Since you can't veto part of a bill, the entire bill gets tossed. Of course, the example is silly but proves the point just the same.
The inverse is also true. Adding funding for pet projects is also common. This is one of the reasons you see so much funding abuse and "buying" of votes. That is, things like, "you let me add this and not veto it, then I'll do x, y, z for you". This is why lobbiest are so powerful and go out of their way to have their "pocket men" to have strings to pull.
These are why laws often get passed which make no sense and are certainly not in the interest of the public, rather, they are a means to an end for someone's political agenda.
Re:Wrong way round (Score:4, Informative)
If a law banning cheese came in to force, then the correct action would be to repeal that law, not to introduce another one limiting it.
This effectively repeals the portions of the DMCA that are especially vile. IANAS...TG (I am not a senator...thank God), but I'm under the impression that it would be much harder to repeal the entire law.
In the UK, laws set out the limits to your rights, they do not enumerate them.
In the US, we do have laws that explicitly state what we can do... like the Bill of Rights. It's a form of self-limitation in which the government prevents itself from passing future bad laws. What would you do if there were suddenly a ban on cheese? I guess it's working the other way around this time, though. Again, you don't see me in the blue suit, so I won't say anything I can't eat if I'm wrong ;-)
Re:Wrong way round (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wrong way round (Score:5, Insightful)
The United States operates under a system called Federalism. Under this system power is divided between National, State, and Local governments. Each government is responcible for enacting its own laws. -=However=- under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution no law passed by a lower government can contradict a law passed by a higher one.
Example -- The United States Congress (and president) passes a law stating that it shall be illegal for a person to posess more than 50 gallons of Jolt cola per person in his household. The State of Vermont may not pass a law which increases that limit to 75 gallons, or rather it can, but the National limit of 50 gallons will superceed that. (I'm getting to the point here). Vermont could pass a law lowering that limit to 30 gallons, however, and there would be no conflict.
The Bill of Rights was put in place, not to define the freedoms of the people, but to constrain the power of the government. Read it. Congress shall make no law.... The right of the people to * shall not be abridged... and of course, All powers not specified in this Constitution are reserved for the States and the people of the United States.
Key point there -- The BOR does not deliminate the freedoms of the people, it sets boundaries for the government. But remember, those boundaries -=only=- apply to the National government.
The 14th ammendment incorporates much of the constitution upon the States, or rather, it created a way for the Court to do so. IIRC, the only ammendment from the BOR not so incorporated is the 2nd (right to keep/bare arms).
So yes, in the United States we assume that you have right X unless stated otherwise. It doesn't have to be explicitly stated, implied powers are a big part of our legal system, and 99% of what our National government does are things the constitution only implies it can do (establishing a National Bank for example).
The origional poster, however, had a point. Every US citizen should know one thing coming into this debate. Our legal system does -=not=- allow for conflicting laws. A law either superseeds another or it does not. Dominance is clear. If dominance is -=not=- clear it is up to the Court to determine what is meant by the two laws. That decision becomes precident, which has the force of law (in most cases).
Re:Wrong way round (Score:2)
but what about the first amendment - the right to brie speech?
Re:Wrong way round (Score:1)
Re:Wrong way round (Score:1)
Re:Wrong way round (Score:2)
Plus, after passing the DMCRA we should ??? and then profit!
Re:Wrong way round (Score:1, Interesting)
Your post is unclear.
Are you saying that it is poor strategy to limit bad laws? Or are you saying that it is not possible to change a law without repealing it first?
If either is the case, I disagree.
Re:Wrong way round (Score:2, Informative)
Neither - it is good strategy to limit (or remove) bad laws, and it is possible to change a law without repealing it.
The passing of new law to limit existing is the problem. The amendment of existing law is the more sensible way of going about it.
Cheers,
Ian
Technology is used as a shield. (Score:2, Funny)
"affirming the right of scientific research into technology protection measures"
This reminds me of all the people who use shadow, md5 passwords yet use something realy obvious as their root login. Does guessing their pets' name count as research?
Sounds Good, But... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this bill were passed, people would be allowed to legally circumvent copy protection. That would go completely against the whole principle of the DMCA which is to restrict access to copyrighted works.
The same people that fought to get the DMCA passed will fight to get this stopped. The problem is that these people are very powerful and have a lot of money. Don't hold your breath...
Unintended consequences (Score:2, Insightful)
While I'd be the first to admit that our elected leadership aren't exactly the brightest lights in the harbor and that the RIAA/MPAA leadership aren't really rocket scientists (it doesn't take a genius to buy Congress, nor to pay people to create media campaigns), I have a certain amount of trouble believing that when Hilary Roseh was shown that one could download copyrighted content from labels belonging to one of her member organizations off the RIAA Web site, she immediately took everyone in the office out for drinks to celebrate.
Re:Sounds Good, But... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sounds Good, But... (Score:2)
In 1998, it was hardly a "fight". Nobody lobbied against it (in any effective manner). It's hard to fault lawmakers for passing a law that they only heard good thigns about and nobody seemed to object (at the time).
The problem is that these people are very powerful and have a lot of money.
True, but the likes of Intel, HP/Compaq, Apple, Sun, Oracle, Dell, Gateway have MUCH MORE MONEY and they're rapidly catching up to the political savvy of the entertainment industry.
You didn't think this bill was introduced because of slashdot, did you?
Industry Poison. (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad fact is that both the music industry and the negligent baby formula company will find more success by not telling the public about their product's flaws. Without government intervention, the music industry WILL slip copy-protected CDs into the market without notice, as they already have started doing.
Re:Industry Poison. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Industry Poison. (Score:1)
(-1, cliche)
Re:Industry Poison. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Industry Poison. (Score:2, Insightful)
-Craig
Re:Industry Poison. (Score:3)
Labels (Score:1)
Get M$ to work for YOU (Score:1)
Re:Get M$ to work for YOU (Score:5, Informative)
Imho opinion, this attitude would be the one the record companies should pursue. By allowing you to make one copy for yourself that is, for all intents and purposes, undistributable, they at least show some respect for your rights.
I am not being a Microsoft fanboy here, btw, Dolby's ATRAC codec (as used in Minidiscs and Sony Clies) offers exactly the same capabilities, long before MS thought of it.
Re:Get M$ to work for YOU (Score:3, Informative)
Copy protection wont work until microphones and speakers are banned. Why bother trying?
Re:Get M$ to work for YOU (Score:2, Interesting)
DMCWho? (Score:1)
EFF Endored Legislation? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe this is good Re:EFF Endored Legislation? (Score:3, Funny)
However, it could be a bad thing if the only song we can listen to in the future is "Yub Yub"
Anyone notice that Yub Yub is "Buy Buy" backwards?
--Joey
How to contact your Congresscritter (Score:5, Interesting)
Give his office a call in a few days and let them know you'd like to discuss your concerns about the bill with your Congresscritter.
Tell him how you want him to vote and briefly, why.
If a few hundred people in your district do this, you've got yourself a new friend and a vote.
Of course, a high tech community PAC would save us all a lot of trouble in this area.
Why is this moderated "Funny"? (Score:2)
Re:How to contact your Congresscritter (Score:2, Insightful)
Every candidate needs people to do phone calling. Every candidate needs people to go door-to-door. Every candidate needs people to wave signs. Candidates really need help in the technical department. Set up and administer a mailing list for them. Switch their webserver over to Linux and save them real money. Set up an office file server with Samba. Help them keep their computers running efficiently and securely. There is a lot you can do that will help them more than giving them money.
The best part about helping is that you get to actually meet the candidate, and who knows? You might become their friend. "Congresscritters" are more likely to ask for and act on your opinion if you are a personal friend. You may even find yourself in a technical role in the party of your choice, and you may find other candidates coming to you for answers. Just think of how much of a voice you will have then.
Just a personal example, I speak Korean fluently and I understand the Korean issues in my neighborhood (which is 10% Korean). I helped a candidate in my area understand the Koreans and their issues, and guess what? He changed his campaign message to reflect that. I had my opinions show up on billboards and flyers, and even on TV. It was incredible to realize that all of a sudden I wasn't just one voice -- I was the voice of a community. And I didn't give a red cent to the candidate, just my time.
Re:How to contact your Congresscritter (Score:2)
The reason I said LOCAL office is because they're still running paper mail for DC through anthrax, etc. scans and it can take months for mail to get to Congressional offices.
How about a law... (Score:2, Interesting)
How about a law that would basically protect DRM systems, but *only* if these systems are designed to release their contents without further limits once the copyright of the work has expired (with an emphasis on the release part, i.e. if in doubt, release, because it finally belongs to the public domain, and to keep the information locked is only a temporary exception)?
This would all be right- and lawful to both sides of the copyright, but I consider an acceptable technical implementation of such a system is not feasible, therefor it would be impossible to protect a DRM system by law, because it cannot fulfil the demand of releasing the work once the copyright has expired.
Along with E-mailing... (Score:2, Insightful)
FAX your Congresspeople everyone! (Score:2)
PACs (Score:4, Interesting)
I can tell you from experience that my father successfully got congresspeople elected with a PAC and he is no politician. Just a doctor (now retired, this was some years ago) who was fighting to keep his practice alive despite being told by insurance companies what to prescribe. He got thousands of doctors in three states to act (the purpose was to build a doctors' HMO and hospital, and they got pretty far before some sharks took over) and I believe they got a lot of attention (up to the president) and helped get a congressman elected. An anti-bigmusic/anti-closedsource PAC might be interesting if you could convince geeks to 1) put up money and 2) speak out. Of course maybe just sending the money to the EFF is best, not an expert about politics myself.
Re:GEEKPAC is available, last I heard. (Score:2)
What GeekPAC needs is marketing. I hate to say it, but it's true. This needs to be wrapped up in some way that doesn't use the word "geek." I know, I can use the word to describe myself when I'm in a self-deprecating mode, but I don't think it will make a great impression on Congresspeople - imagine - "Congressman Smith, the geeks are hear to speak with you again." I mean, I know we as a community have taken the negative connotations of the word and tried to turn them around, but that's not reflected in the common understanding.
Maybe something like Technological Progress and Liberty PAC. Anything but GeekPAC.
Funny sound to it (Score:2)
Labeling proposal (Score:4, Funny)
The label must be at least 120mm in diameter, and consist of full-size reproduction of the image presently located at http://goatse.cx and a black text "J4ck v413n7i 0wnz joo!" in 20mm high and 12mm wide letters in Helvetica font with at least 1mm wide lines, repeated three times 5mm from the rim of the label.
A different and maybe better letter (Score:5, Interesting)
Doolittle's Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA, H.R. 5544).
I believe that recent movements in copyright law have unfairly plagued
the rights of consumers with respect to their ownership of digital
media.
Specifically, the DMCRA would require producers of digital media to
label any media that has been copy protected or otherwise crippled
in a way that would make that media unusable in certain devices, such
as personal computers, automotive stereo equipment, and other consumer
devices. I believe that consumers have the right to informed consent
with respect to purchases of digital media.
The DMCRA would also codify the right of the consumer to make fair-use
copies of any media they own. For example, a consumer who purchases a
CD should be explicitly allowed and encouraged by law to make copies of
that information for use in his/her automobile, portable diskless audio player,
or other device that may not be able to access that information on its
native media.
I also wish to convey and affirm my belief that it is absolutely wrong
to make copies of information for the purpose of avoiding paying for it.
Supporting this law is not supporting theft of intellectual property. It
is unfortunate that those who would use tools such as personal computers
and peer-to-peer networks to steal information have brought about the
changes in copyright law that have stripped the rights of law-abiding
consumers. It should be solemnly noted that personal computers don't
cause people to steal music just as peer-to-peer networks are not the cause
of piracy. We have seen many new and innovative technologies that have
a perfectly legitimate use in society, destroyed by the idea that it is
appropriate to punish everyone for the crimes of a select few who choose
to misuse those technologies.
There are other benefits to the DMCRA, both for consumers and our society
as a whole, and I emplore you to study this document for all of its merits.
I hope you will co-sponsor the DMCRA and show your support for the
public's rights in digital media. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
If you use this: it's "implore", not "emplore" .. (Score:3, Informative)
"I emplore you to study this document for all of its merits."
other than the misspelling, though, it's a well thought-out and well written letter...
Nice little system the EFF set up there (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to mail an actualy snail mail letter (Score:2, Insightful)
1. They get way too much of it.
2. There is NO WAY to know if the email came from a person in their district. Its so easy to go to a place like this site and just enter in each and every member of congress' address.. and send it to everyone. A rep from one state does not and should not give a pooey what some freak from some other state with a web browser and too much time on his hands wants him to vote for.
Spend the $.37 and the little bit of toner and print the letter and mail it. It WILL get read by someone.. your email PROBABLY will not.
Snail mail has anthrax (Score:2)
Spend the $.37 and the little bit of toner and print the letter and mail it. It WILL get read by someone
Or be discarded as an anthrax spore delivery vehicle.
Send a fax.
Re:Snail mail has anthrax (Score:2)
Re:You need to mail an actualy snail mail letter (Score:2)
Most congressmen do not even read or have anyone on their staff read email messages...
Not so.
You are right that it's hard for Congressmen to know if an email comes from their district, but that's usually because the sender doesn't include their home address. As long as you include your name and home address, you've got a good chance that your email will be read and considered as seriously as all the postal mail your Congressman receives.
I have sent quite a bit of email to both my Senators and my Representative and I know it's getting read (at least by someone) because I get a response every time. Most of the time I get two responses, one by email and another by snail mail.
So I say email your Congressmen. Include the all-important home address so they'll know you're a constituent. Email early and often. Email weekly. Email daily. Email every time you update your journal. Just never let them forget that you're out there.
Re:You need to mail an actualy snail mail letter (Score:2)
I never received ANY responses to emails to my representatives regarding the USA Patriot Act, only from snail mail and that wasn't until many, many months later. I wonder if they even received them.
Lame Duck Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lame Duck Law (Score:3, Interesting)
You should be more worried about the pocket veto though. That could be annoying.
End of Session (Score:2, Insightful)
Phone your rep! (Score:3, Informative)
Instead of writing your congressman e-mail through the EFF's webpage, pick up your phone and call him or her. Politicians respond much more strongly to physical letters and phone calls than they do to e-mails. My Senate rep, Dick Durbin, won't even reply to your e-mail except in snail-mail form, and only if you attach your address to the e-mail when you send it.
You can find your House Rep's phone number by putting in your ZIP code at vote smart's website [vote-smart.org]. Pick up the phone and give him your view on the bill - the person there will write that information down and let him or her know.
whats going to happen: (Score:3, Insightful)
ironic: action.eff.org running on Window$ (Score:2, Informative)
Better options (Score:2)
1) Affirm the right of the consumer to receive a full refund for any intellectual property which utilizes technological impediments to fair use. The right extends for 30 days from the date of purchase, cannot be voided by contract, and does not apply to media which contain no intentional impediments to duplication.
Skip the labelling stuff; just guarantee a refund and let the sellers determine which producers they're willing to sell for.
2) Create a "self-help discouragement" rule which says that the right to statutory damages for infringement is voided by the use of any technological self-help measures applied to prevent duplication. That way, producers which copy-protect their intellectual properties can only collect real damages for infringement.
When a producer employs copy protection to prevent unlawful distribution, what they're really doing is taking the law into their own hands. Its like a vigilante street patrol, only the casualty is our rights instead of our lives. The law should discourage vigilanteism in all its forms.
Re:You Need an Overthrow (Score:1, Funny)
Hey, I've got a question for you - Does the shiny side of the foil point inward to keep the brainwaves in your head, or outward to reflect the government mind-control rays?
Re:EFF Has Gone Naderite! (Score:3, Interesting)
2. If you think requiring CD labels is anti-freemarket, then you should be SHITTING YOUR PANTS about the DMCA (The Horrible law this new law is trying to fix)
Why you ask?
The DMCA currently makes it a criminal offense (5 years, $250,000 fine) to create, distribute, or sell any technology that might get around a copyprotection mechanism.
Let me further explain...
Say Sony comes out with a new CD format that's encrypted and can only be played on sony equipment, which doesn't allow you to burn copies, convert to MP3, etc.
Let's say, Phillips engineers figured out how to decrypt this new CD format, and they wanted to a sell player for this CD format.
Before the DMCA, this would have been ok.
Now, It's a criminal offense...
That's what happened when some 16 year old Norwegian kid wrote a program to play DVDs on Linux.
According to the courts, THIS is illegal. If you give a copy of this program to your friend, or sell it, you *COULD* be jailed 5 year and fined up to $250,000 in fines...
So far, the MPAA and the courts haven't enforced this part of the DMCA. They've taking a shit load of people to court, even got a lot of injunctions barring people from spreading the Linux DVD player, but no criminal convictions to date. There was a close call with a Russian programmer who wrote a program allowing eBook users to convert thier eBooks to other formats, but the DOJ dropped it.
I don't know about you, but making legitimate technology illegal is about as anti-freemarket as it gets.
Which do you consider more statist, forcing some silly label, or outlawing an entire legitimate technology sub-sector?
BTW, As a libertarian, I'm about as free-market as it gets.
Re:EFF Has Gone Naderite! (Score:2)
Say Sony comes out with a new CD format that's encrypted and can only be played on sony equipment, which doesn't allow you to burn copies, convert to MP3, etc.
Let's say, Phillips engineers figured out how to decrypt this new CD format, and they wanted to a sell player for this CD format.
Before the DMCA, this would have been ok.
Now, It's a criminal offense...
Nope, it's still fine, as long as you can't make copies of the thing. If your device doesn't allow copying or weaken the protection, you're fine. It's just another playback device.
That's what happened when some 16 year old Norwegian kid wrote a program to play DVDs on Linux.
This misconception has been overused to death. He was involved in the writing, but he was certainly not the main author. He just happened to be the only one dumb enough to take credit for it. DeCSS was not a Linux program, and not a player. It's purpose was to let Windows users rip DVDs. Now, I'll grant that it helped along the Linux DVD playback world, but it's hardly the innocent lamb that you're portraying it as.
There was a close call with a Russian programmer who wrote a program allowing eBook users to convert thier eBooks to other formats, but the DOJ dropped it.
Again, pretty much bogus. Yes, this *would* let eBook users convert their eBooks to other formats. There were some legitimate issues. However, this is a fricking Russian software company -- the point of the thing was to let people make copies of eBooks. Sure, *after* the accusations all sorts of innocent, wonderful-sounding applications were waved around.
BTW, As a libertarian, I'm about as free-market as it gets.
Drug money sponsers terrorism? Who's laundering the drug money? (Click on homepage)
Libertarians would be much more appealing if they'd stick to straighforward things like free speech infringements, and knock off lame issues like drug legalization, IMHO. (Another great example of an area where people's primary goal is to abuse something, but they can come up with corner cases of something being useful "those poor, poor glaucoma sufferers". Christ. Why do 90% of libertarian arguments sound like this?)
Re:EFF Has Gone Naderite! (Score:2)
You're STILL circumventing the copy protection device, and the law STILL criminalizes technology. What if Sony decides to add copying features, could Philips add those same copying features? Why should the government mandate the limit our industry's innovation to protect one that's becoming increasing irrelevant?
This misconception has been overused to death. He was involved in the writing, but he was certainly not the main author. He just happened to be the only one dumb enough to take credit for it. DeCSS was not a Linux program, and not a player. It's purpose was to let Windows users rip DVDs. Now, I'll grant that it helped along the Linux DVD playback world, but it's hardly the innocent lamb that you're portraying it as.
DeCSS was the source code used to decrypt a DVD, WHO'S PURPOSE was to play DVD's on Linux. It wasn't a digital lockpick, and CSS wasn't a digital lock. CSS was a system designed to get license revenues from electronics manufacturers who wanted to make DVD players. DVD's were being copied long before DeCSS. The MPAA got pissed when they realized:
A) Someone made a player bypassing paying the CSS license.
B) DeCSS could also be used to convert DVD's to smaller formats (Allowing DVD's to be Napsterized).
It was THEN, when the MPAA started publicizing CSS as a copy-protection scheme.
You may want to read back a little...
Again, pretty much bogus. Yes, this *would* let eBook users convert their eBooks to other formats. There were some legitimate issues. However, this is a fricking Russian software company -- the point of the thing was to let people make copies of eBooks. Sure, *after* the accusations all sorts of innocent, wonderful-sounding applications were waved around.
Explain this to me:
1. How is it supposed to convert the eBook without making a copy? Do you really want your software to delete your original eBook so you can read it in Word?
2. If this was the big pirating tool you're suggesting, why would such a pirating tool restrict the user from only converting *THIER* eBooks?
3. Being a fricking Russian software company, where they don't have these crazy copy-protection laws, don't you think they have the RIGHT to make this software in thier own country?
4. Just where should US law stop anyway?
5. Considering thier company is under NO legal obligation to abide by our laws, don't you think they should DESERVE SOME CREDIT for restricting thier software so as it only converts legally purchased eBooks?
Libertarians would be much more appealing if they'd stick to straighforward things like free speech infringements, and knock off lame issues like drug legalization, IMHO. (Another great example of an area where people's primary goal is to abuse something, but they can come up with corner cases of something being useful "those poor, poor glaucoma sufferers". Christ. Why do 90% of libertarian arguments sound like this?)
* Why do 90% of Republicans sound like naive Christians who actually believe thier politician's goal is to protect thier economic opportunies, and not giving exclusive lucritive deals to thier corporate sponsers.
* Why do 90% of Democrats sound like naive Hippies who actually believe thier politician's goal is to protect thier welfare, and not giving exclusive lucritive deals to thier corporate sponsers.
Who makes YOUR political affiliation look bad?
Re:EFF Has Gone Naderite! (Score:2)
No, you are not. You are not allowing a single copy to be made that the device was intended to prevent. This is why you don't see the DMCA applied against region-free players (granted, the DVD Consortium attacks these in other ways, but it isn't through the DMCA).
What if Sony decides to add copying features, could Philips add those same copying features?
Hasn't been hashed out in court yet. No one knows, though I doubt a judge would accept a claim made by Sony against Phillips on those grounds.
Why should the government mandate the limit our industry's innovation to protect one that's becoming increasing irrelevant?
Let me prefix this by saying that I have major issues with the DMCA, and don't want to defend the thing entire in its current form. That being said, the DMCA hardly protects solely the traditional music distributors. An e-distributor, the primary "new competition" benefits from the same protections.
DeCSS was the source code used to decrypt a DVD, WHO'S PURPOSE was to play DVD's on Linux.
No. It was/is a Windows program designed to rip movies. It may certainly have *helped* the Linux DVD movement, but the original DeCSS authors weren't A'rpi types.
As for the eBook issues, my concern was with the intent behind what the program was going to be used for. If someone had written a to-Braille converter, not only would I have probably not said anything, and I doubt Adobe would have either. That doesn't mean I think the authors should have been prosecuted -- I just get pissed off when they start getting portrayed as stainless heroes advancing Knowledge, Truth, and Justice after enough retellings of the story on Slashdot.
Perhaps I'm a bit biased toward the intent of Russian software companies (though given the history of Russia and software, I don't think I'm *that* far off the mark).