Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

EFF Urges Support for Rep. Boucher's DMCRA 211

Posted by chrisd from the put-up-or-shut-up dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Urges Support for Rep. Boucher's DMCRA More

EFF Urges Support for Rep. Boucher's DMCRA

Comments Filter:

  • No! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mirko ( 198274 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:11AM (#4666793) Journal
    You can't fight an unlegal law by promoting its opposite : you'd end with tons of legal imbroglioes and each situation would be as messy as it could be...
    I suggest people contact their representatives to cancel the DMCA instead.

    • Re:No! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GnomeKing ( 564248 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:17AM (#4666804)
      This is not promoting the opposite...

      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)

        by andy landy ( 306369 )
        The real advantage that the law enforcement agencies get is they can prosecute for illegal decryption.

        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.

        • 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?

          LSKD roweiuKJf weou wrkljisuflka eorwiu ljsfoiuwerlk lwkeoiul spoaoirthgak.

          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)

      by Silverlock ( 36154 ) <kale...duncan@@@gmail...com> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:28AM (#4666824)
      This is not attempting to be another law, and thereby conflicting with the DMCA. It ammends the DMCA..

      "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)

      by vena ( 318873 )
      but you simply have no idea how the American system of law works. the law is a living work, and is ammended over time as the solutions to problems present themselves. government cannot be expected to get it right the first time, and this simple idea is the basis for the entire system of government. hence the bill of rights and the right of the courts to interpret the law.
      • The interpretation of the law is something that increasingly seems to go in favor of special interest groups.

        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)

      by rovingeyes ( 575063 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @07:12AM (#4667050)
      I suggest people contact their representatives to cancel the DMCA instead.

      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"

      • There's a quote by Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

        Unfortunatley, I think it's bullshit. The only thing that changes the world nowadays is money and weapons.

        • Re:DMCA?!! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @10:19AM (#4667798) Homepage Journal
          There's a quote by Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

          Unfortunatley, I think it's bullshit. The only thing that changes the world nowadays is money and weapons.
          Ouch.

          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 ... the world we live in is better than the world of that cynical Roman. And it's better not because of money and weapons, but because in the interstices -- while most people were concerned with making money or fighting wars or simple survival -- there were people making things happen. Between the Caesars and the Bushes came Galen, Bacon, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Newton, Rembrandt, Watt, Einstein, and thousands of others whose names don't come as readily to mind but who each made a real and lasting contribution to the way we live. The work of the artists and scientists and engineers outlives the work of the kings and generals, in the end.
          • This is one of the best posts I've seen on Slashdot in a while. In particular,

            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)

          by Tackhead ( 54550 )
          > There's a quote by Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
          >
          >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)

        by afidel ( 530433 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @10:44AM (#4667995)
        Just because other people are indifferent doesn't mean you have to be. In Washington the loudest voice gets heard, they never hear from nor care about the apathetic part of the population. Why? Because so people vote that those who are politically active make a huge difference. For instance in Ohio during the last election the average winning percentage for Republican's in state elections was ~60%, but since only 33% of registered voters voted, and only ~60% of eligible voters are even registered, only about 8% of the elibible voters elected the winning candidates!! I personally have written to my senator about 10 times on issues relating to the DMCA and CARP, and have received 8 responses including one hand written letter. It is not hard to become engaged in the process and have your voice heard, but for some reason the American public thinks it is. Do I get apathetic and say, "fuck it the corp's with the most money are heard the loudest anyway" every once in a while, sure I do. But then I see another action item from the eff or RAIN or some other group I care about and I get off my preverbial ass and write a letter, or compose an inteligent email to my representatives in Washington. Get involved, have your voice heard.

    • Re:No! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by coupland ( 160334 ) <dchase@hotmailCHEETAH.com minus cat> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @08:07AM (#4667199) Journal
      Sorry, but I think your post is really ignorant. The DMCA is law and many consumer rights are already gone. The chances of the DMCA going away are slim to nil, anything reasonable you can do to try to reaffirm your rights is a step in the right direction. You sound like the people who preach that income tax is unconstitutional and we should be fighting to have it repealed. It ain't gonna happen, sister, so come back to reality.

      • Re:No! (Score:2, Informative)

        by mirko ( 198274 )
        I guess you should carefully re-read my message, I wasn't giving some assertion but rather some comparison.
        However established a law could be, it won't resist to the crowd's anger, be it in the US or wherever else.
    • They only way the whole DMCA will be scrapped is if the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. A good test case needs to be found that will take it that far. The Edward Felten case, had it gone forward, would have been such a case. I like Boucher's bill, But I liked Zoe Lofgren's even better. It also dealt with shrink wrapped EULAs, which also are a big problem.
    • mirko wrote:

      > 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 .Net based Longhorn to simply run on top of Macs and Linux machines. Since Longhorn would run best as the primary OS, even the latter could run Apple right out of business, and marginalize Linux.

      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).
    • I suggest people contact their representatives to cancel the DMCA instead.

      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)

    by tevenson ( 625386 ) <tevenson.gmail@com> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:12AM (#4666795) Homepage
    So we get a label saying "Cannot be ripped and distrubuted over Kazza" on our CDs from now on?

    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?
    • How about a label that says "You Will Not Be Able To Play This Disc" or "This Will Break Your Computer." Seriously, it makes perfect sense to have labels on products sold in nonstandard formats. I sure as hell wouldn't want to buy a cd that I couldn't rip to ogg.

      • Re:::cannot be copied:: (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Nogami_Saeko ( 466595 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:27AM (#4666821)
        Followed by: "The Sound Quality Of This Disc Has Intentionally Been Reduced To Prevent You From Pirating It You Thief - Now Buy It Like We Tell You To!"

        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)

          by gl4ss ( 559668 )
          especially when same companies dump cheap dvd's to consumers too(same amount for going to movies as to _buying_ a dvd, not to mention per person costs when you rent a movie with couple of friends, this is what makes cd prices freaky high too, you can buy the movie itself cheaper than the soundtrack, now, which costs more to produce, a full length film or a 40minute cd?ok, film was supposed to make money at the box office, but 'made for video' movies are even cheaper!).

          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)
          • If you want to know how cheap DVDs really are, I've been told that General Mills is now giving DVDs away in cereal boxes. A friend of mine has told me that boxes of Cinnamon Toast Crunch where he is have The Muppets Take Manhattan or a Jackie Chan Adventures disc packed in with them. Freaky.

        • Err....M'kay (Score:4, Interesting)

          by BrodieBruce ( 575127 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @07:47AM (#4667144) Journal
          I can only hope that the publishing companies will stop treating us like cattle (the type from Texas, not India) sometime within the next decade. But this will only happen when they can no longer get away with it. However, I don't see that happening any time soon.

          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)

      by tux0r ( 604835 )
      At least we will have the ability to determine whether our legal CDs will be playable in our equally legal car CD-players.

      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

    • Consumer Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Marc2k ( 221814 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @09:40AM (#4667532) Homepage Journal
      This is not an exercise in futility. This bill would put the freedom of choice back in the consumer's hands. Slashdot is decidedly a very small fraction of the population of the US (especially when you consider all those reading this in other countries who couldn't care less about the DMCA, unless it spreads), most people don't even *know* about the DMCA, or even what it stands for. No, my dad does not know what the DMCA is, but would he buy a CD that says "You cannot play this on some devices, including your Personal Computer"? No. Certainly not, nor I suspect would many other people.

      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)

    by Moonshadow ( 84117 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:16AM (#4666800)
    Both measures are good steps towards repealing the DMCA, or at least nullifying its more damning effects.

    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)

      by Kinniken ( 624803 )
      Obviously it's a good start (though not as good as getting rid of the DMCA altogether)... And the right to circumvent anti-copy measures if you are not doing to steal the stuff is very welcome: It gives a legal reason for the devlopment and existence of software helping you to do it. If this pass, anyone managing to crack a new protection system will be allowed to explain how to do it and/or distribute a program doing just that...

      • 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.

        • Correct. Most of the DMCA is actually quite reasonable.

          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.

  • Wrong way round (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:21AM (#4666811) Homepage
    I'm not from the US, so I can't support this bill anyway. However, if I was I'd still have a moral objection.

    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

    • All law is open to interpretation. It's helpful if a law does re-afirm your rights. A pro-sony judge may decide that ripping a cd is illegal, even for fair use, as the DMCA isnt 100% clear. This bill would tell the judge that its legal, which would at the very least cut down the 1 in 1000 cases the judge decides incorrectly.
      • A pro-sony judge may decide that ripping a cd is illegal, even for fair use, as the DMCA isnt 100% clear. This bill would tell the judge that its legal

        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

        • The question is, which is more likely to pass. Sometimes ends justify means

        • Re:Wrong way round (Score:4, Informative)

          by ShinmaWa ( 449201 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @06:04AM (#4666919)
          but to my mind the answer would be to amend the DMCA, not to introduce a second bill

          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.
          • This is a very commonly done. In fact, one of the tactics that is used to prevent a bill from passing is to add on things that they know people don't want.

            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)

      by magicslax ( 532351 ) <frank_salim.yahoo@com> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:33AM (#4666839)

      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)

        by gowen ( 141411 )
        -- 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
        Hmm...
        "If we list a set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others." -- Georgia delegate during the framing of the Bill Of Rights [1787]
        I believe the newly formed state of Georgia just called you a fool...
      • 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?

        but what about the first amendment - the right to brie speech?
    • Although the DMCA was passed in 1998, particularly as of Sept. 11, 2001, it seems everything here in the US is the wrong way round, especially the law. So many people are so dependent on the system that they would fight to defend it (paraphrasing from The Matrix), so the only way to try to improve the situation in this case is to take the same approach (wrong way round) as those who created the previous laws.
    • Ah, but in America, we must actually put in writing (amend) that the previous law (eating cheese = crime) is no longer in effect. We have this great system in which laws are never taken off, but rather amended as to create a continuous stream of legal precedent and loop-holes. Should the idea ever come into play that some laws could be Deleted (as some should), the would as our lawyers know it would stop, and peace (common sense) would reign down like snow.
    • While I do agree that defining what one can do instead of defining of what one should not do, I support this bill full heartily. The DMCA is a set of rules which are out of bounds and the first step to remedy this is to remove the vague and just plain wrong parts of the law. And, as other posters have pointed out, some things should be explicitly defined, like basic human rights.

      Plus, after passing the DMCRA we should ??? and then profit! :-)

    • Re:Wrong way round (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.

      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)

        by mccalli ( 323026 )
        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?

        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

  • Quote:

    "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)

    by Hasie ( 316698 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:26AM (#4666820)
    We must never forget that the DMCA is doing exactly what it was supposed to. There are no unintended consequences.


    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...

    • The law was intended to prevent system administrators, including the ones working for Congress and for the RIAA and MPAA and their member organizations from finding out that exploits exist targeting the web servers and operating systems their own sites run on so they can get the exploits before Congress or the MPAA or the RIAA get their systems r00ted and 0wn3d?

      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.

    • Don't hold your breath ... but do write your congressman and your local newspaper. Fighting and loosing is much better than rolling over. If we can't just overturn DCMA in one fell swoop, then we should chip away at it incrementally. Writing a letter to your congressman will have more impact than posting here.
    • The same people that fought to get the DMCA passed will fight to get this stopped.

      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)

    by Quaoar ( 614366 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:28AM (#4666823)
    By labeling a CD as copy-protected, you exclude a great portion of your audience. If I sold baby food with rat poison in it, and I label the jar specifying that this product is probably lethal, you think more people will buy it? Of course not.

    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)

      by psavo ( 162634 ) <psavo@iki.fi> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:59AM (#4666911) Homepage
      Please, please don't use Copy Protected , but rather Copy Prevented term when talking about shit like this.

    • Re:Industry Poison. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <{slashdot} {at} {monkelectric.com}> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @06:25AM (#4666960)
      I agree with you 101%; For me, copy protected music will be the *REASON* to stop buying music. My cd collection lives under my bed, everything gets transfered to mp3 then stowed. I have 4 mp3 players, and I pretty much dont leave the house without one of them. I like things this way, I like my mp3 players. I'm not buying new hardware for sony, I'm gonna find new artists who aren't protected. If theres something I can't live without [ie a sting album, and he's a media whore so I know he'll be the first guy out there with copy protection], I'll download the MP3 and be a pirate :D.
  • I bet they will get a warning label listing the various ripping progs that are nullified by the copy-protection, a la WARNING: This CD can NOT be ripped by: MusicMatch, Winamp, Windows Media Player (boy would MS sue over that), CDEx, etc...
  • What if M$ decided to oppose the DMC bill because it would limit the ability of consumers to rip music to their propritary .WMA format?

    • Re:Get M$ to work for YOU (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dot.Com.CEO ( 624226 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:44AM (#4666874)
      WMA has in-built copyright management by default. When you rip an album to wma you can only play it on your computer, unless, that is, you clear the "protect content" checkbox

      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.

      • One copy eh? So if I want to play it on my laptop/car/mp3 player I have to rip it again and again and again?

        Copy protection wont work until microphones and speakers are banned. Why bother trying?
    • Remember, you're talking about the company whose EULA states that your right to use the operating system that you paid for when you bought your computer ends when you no longer own the hardware. Ain't no way they'd back anything like this bill.
  • Anyone have the feeling that the same people who voted for the DMCA will vote for this, the DMCRA, thinking they already voted for it once? I don't know any congresscriters personally, but either this is their thinking or they vote the party line if they have no clue.

  • EFF Endored Legislation? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:54AM (#4666898)
    The kiss of death. It will die in committee.
    • If it is Endored by the EFF, I assume that means that Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti will end up blowing on the second deathstar. That could definitely be a good thing...

      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)

    by alizard ( 107678 ) <alizard&ecis,com> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @06:43AM (#4666995) Homepage
    Send a $1000 (or whatever the individual campaign contribution limit is) check via snailmail to his district office, the one LOCAL to you.

    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.

    • I read it as absolutely down-to-earth serious?
    • If you don't have a thousand bucks to spend, you might want to try and give some of your time next election cycle.

      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.

  • How about a law... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by treczoks ( 64329 )
    Basically, American copyright law is a temporary excemption of the right of the public for the promotion of culture and science.

    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)

    by Anyd ( 625939 )
    I suggest people take action for themselves. We live in a capitalist society, use it! Don't buy the subject CDs, and don't buy CDs from that company. Tell your friends not to. Use your $14 as influence!
  • Don't bother with email; most won't even look at it. Send a fax; jam their fax machines up with swarms of requests if you want to get their attention.

  • PACs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mattr ( 78516 ) <mattr&telebody,com> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @07:43AM (#4667132) Homepage Journal
    About the above post from alizard about Community PACs (give your rep a kilobuck and call them) this is really interesting and it works.


    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.

  • Labeling proposal (Score:4, Funny)

    by Alex Belits ( 437 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @07:43AM (#4667133) Homepage
    Subsection (c) establishes new labeling requirements for these non-standard compact discs. Among other things, a label prominently affixed to the front of the packaging must notify a consumer that the disc might not play properly in ordinary consumer electronics products and might not be recordable to the hard drive of a personal computer.
    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)

    by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @07:45AM (#4667139) Journal
    I am writing today to ask you to co-sponsor Rep. Boucher &
    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,

  • Nice little system the EFF set up there (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @09:01AM (#4667367) Homepage Journal
    Sweet! Autogenerate a message to my rep with an easy to use web interface. Only if all legislation would be so simple, we'd be onto something here. Too often the steps needed to follow up on something like this are a) unspecified b) much more difficult than this. Kudos EFF.
  • Most congressmen do not even read or have anyone on their staff read email messages because of a couple of reasons.

    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.

    • 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.

      • YES!!! After talking to my congresscritter this summer I can tell you that they really do NOT like snail mail anymore. It takes up too much room, is time consuming to open, and is harder to read (unless typed of course). Faxes take no time to open, they generally use thin paper so they take up less room, are not anthrax vectors etc. Email responses depends on the senator and his aids, some are very up on it, others don't ever read their official email address.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        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)

    by ThatTallGuy ( 520811 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @10:04AM (#4667667)
    So why the **** has this been introduced _now_, when it has next-to-no chance of passing? There's about a two week session with the lame duck congress and then any bills that haven't been passed by then are trashed and have to be resubmitted...

    • Re:Lame Duck Law (Score:3, Interesting)

      by parliboy ( 233658 )
      Because this is the pork session, when everyone kisses each others' asses, since the elections are over anyway. This is the sort of thing that gets slipped in the back door while noone is looking.

      You should be more worried about the pocket veto though. That could be annoying.

  • End of Session (Score:2, Insightful)

    by geistbear ( 51242 )
    Nice idea, but honestly Congress is in a lame duck session for the 107th Congress, waiting until January and promote it's passage in the 108th Congress would have greater impact at this stage of the legislative calender it won't go anywhere.

  • Phone your rep! (Score:3, Informative)

    by MobileOak ( 80258 ) <slashdot@orbitalitu[ ]om ['s.c' in gap]> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @11:45AM (#4668541) Homepage
    I just finished calling my local Congressman to tell him that I support this bill and want him to as well.

    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)

    by cybercuzco ( 100904 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @12:46PM (#4669072) Homepage Journal
    The same thing will happen that happened to the bill that was going to get rid of webcaster fees for small webcasters. Sen. Disney (TM) and Sen. TimeWarner (tm) will amend the bill to do exactly the opposite of what it was originally intended to do. Then theyll have the gall to say "vote for this bill, its EFF sponsored" neglecting to mention that by this time EFF will haveremoved its sponsorship.
  • Funny how a site advocating electronic freedom is running on a Micro$oft platform. Micro$oft is going out of their way to develop DRM technologies.
  • IMHO, some better (or at least more creative) options might be:

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close