Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Digital Media Consumer Rights Act

Posted by Hemos on Mon Feb 03, 2003 06:00 AM
from the changing-the-dmca dept.
News Technology
irabinovitch writes "Representatives Rick Boucher and John Doolittle introduced the DMCRA which would to quote the EFF would "require labelling requirements for usage-impaired "copy-protected" compact discs, as well as several amendments to 1998's infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)." We always seem to complain about the DMCA around here now is our chance to change it! Check out this "Action Alert" at the EFF."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Politics: Fair Use Bill Introduced To Change DMCA 152 comments
An anonymous reader tips us to a Washington Post blogger's note that Representatives Boucher (D-VA) and Dolittle (R-CA) today introduced the FAIR USE Act to update the DMCA to "make it easier for digital media consumers to use the content they buy." Boucher's statement on the bill says, "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the public's right to fair use..." The Post failed to note the history. Boucher has been introducing this bill for years; here are attempts from 2002 and 2003. The chances may be better in this Congress. And reader Rolling maul writes in to note Ars's disappointment with the bill for leaving the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions intact: "Yet again, the bill does not appear to deliver on what most observers want: clear protection for making personal use copies of encrypted materials. There is no allowance for consumers to make backups of DVDs, to strip encryption from music purchased online so that it can be played anywhere, or to generally do any of the things that the DMCA has made illegal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Digital Media Consumer Rights Act 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • A very valid point... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Da Fokka (94074) on Monday February 03 2003, @06:02AM (#5214392) Homepage
    It is good to see that at least some U.S. politicians are trying to protect the right of the consumers.
    I'm happy to say that in Holland, policies are a bit more consumer-centered.

    • Re:A very valid point... (Score:5, Informative)

      by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Monday February 03 2003, @08:01AM (#5214723) Journal
      Actually Holland has a long and dismal history of protecting all sorts of cartels and anti-consumer practices, with affected markets ranging from telephony and books to odd things like prayer candles and onions. It has only been a few years since the Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit [nma-org.nl] (the Dutch cartel watchdog) is trying to put a stop to that. There is actually little legislation in Holland to protect consumers, perhaps they even have less rights than in the US.

      On top of that, we will have to deal increasingly with directives from the European Commission. This body is (sadly) of low democratic alloy. John Q Public does not have easy access to them, or even have a say in who sits in that committee, but you can be sure that industry lobbyists have found their way to these people.

      But I agree, it is very good to see politicians look at the current laws and proposals with different eyes, and asking "Where are the consumer rights in all of this?".

      • EULA's (Score:3, Informative)

        by Aapje (237149)
        One good point about living in the Netherlands (aka Holland) is the strict rules for contracts. EULA's and such are not enforceable, unlike the US. The contract must be (clearly) shown in advance of buying a product, you cannot be confronted with it later.

  • More to do with (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2003, @06:05AM (#5214398)
    How much they can scare Joe Public into sticking with the real thing. We should all pay for music from musicians, if you don't think they deserve it, don't pay, if you don't like their music, don't pay, if you want to listen to a preview, listen to the radio, if you want to buy MP3's online, do that, if you think musicians get paid to much, don't pay, they have a right to charge what they want and to who they want.

    Now on the other hand, we should vote with our wallets and not buy copy protected music CD's that SUCK! especially in cheap ass car CD players... :-(

    TQ

    • Re:More to do with (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2003, @06:08AM (#5214413)
      if you want to listen to a preview, listen to the radio That's the problem. >90% of music never gets on to the radio because radio is under the control of the music "industry". If your band isn't one of the few being promoted this month you cannot get on the radio.

    • Re:More to do with (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LX.onesizebigger (323649) on Monday February 03 2003, @06:11AM (#5214421) Homepage
      Now on the other hand, we should vote with our wallets and not buy copy protected music CD's that SUCK! especially in cheap ass car CD players... :-(

      True, but unless something like this passes, we won't have a chance to know which discs are crippled. Personally I am already voting with my wallet. Since I got the first crippled album that wouldn't play in my computer's CD burner at the time (the only CD player I had) back in 2000, I haven't bought a single CD, since there is no way to know which ones are broken.

      • Then again - it's more expensive for both the record stores and the RIAA-members if you simply return the defective album to the store for a refund.

        I usually ask the staff at the store if I can return the album if it turns out it wasn't a CD.
        If they say no, I don't buy it (and probably never go back to that store).

        They can hardly claim I copied it, right? ;)
      • since there is no way to know which ones are broken

        Yes there is. As the old saying goes, look for the union label. If the CD has the Philips "Compact Disc" logo, it'll work in your computer. Nowadays, it's sometimes hard to find the label on a real CD, but I figure if I'm gonna spend $15-20 on something, it's worth the extra five minutes necessary to examine the packaging.

        The CD logo is a fraction of the size, and far more meaningful than the Microsoft "certificate of authenticity."

        • I hate to prove you wrong, but the discs in this particular album bear the Compact Disc logo. I contacted my consumer rights person, but they never got back to me, and where I live now, there is no such person.

        • Nowadays, it's sometimes hard to find the label on a real CD, but I figure if I'm gonna spend $15-20 on something, it's worth the extra five minutes necessary to examine the packaging.

          The last few CDs my girlfriend bought (I, *ahem*, have abstained from buying lately...) had no Compact Disc logo anywhere on the exterior packaging. The logo was there, but it was stamped into the inner plasting molding of the CD tray, in the top-right/bottom-left corners. No ink was used, very small.

          It's a trend I've noticed. No way to check the actual logo until after you've opened it... which of course means you cannot return it anymore.

          I've often wondered if they (you know, they) have been minimizing the prominence of the CD logo in case they want to switch to I Can't Believe It's Not CD, or something.

    • Re:More to do with (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2003, @07:15AM (#5214567)
      we should vote with our wallets and not buy copy protected music CD's

      This is about more than just CD labels, it's about regulations on both production and fair use.

      I had a big discussion with some friends the first time [slashdot.org] this bill was introduced. My friend is a liberitarian who thought we should not be introducing new industry regulations (forced labeling) in music.

      I disagree with that argument for 2 reasons. Fist of all, crippled discs that are not labeled are basically illegal anyway since they are being falsely advertized as regular CDs. This may be a new regulation, but it is a reedundant and minor 1.

      Secondly, the main focus of the bill is on deregulation (and thus should appeal to liberitarians). The DMCA currently prohibits consumers from 'unencrypting' crippled CDs. It also prohibits production of hardware or software that breaks cpoyright encryption on these CDs. This bill will remove those regulations.

      • Your friend is right in that new legislation requiring particular labeling is unjustified force, and thus not appealing to a libertarian.

        You are right in that this fraud must be prevented.

        All that this requires is existing fraud legislation be brought to bear against these bogus CDs -- libertarians do support opposing the initiatiation of force or fraud.

        Now, while legislation can provide safety from fraud allegations to those who would peddle such defective product, clearly marked, it should not require such marking. Here's why: this would lead to government "testing" of CDs to see if they were crippled and in need of such a mark, which costs the producer of the clean CD, harming them economically. Such people do not need such testing -- they know their CDs are clean, and need not fear fraud suits from their customers.

          • Re:You're both right (Score:4, Informative)

            by renehollan (138013) <rhollanNO@SPAMclearwire.net> on Monday February 03 2003, @11:40AM (#5215847) Homepage Journal
            How exactly is it fraud, Fraud would imply that somewhere on the label it said "This is a regular CD" or something to that extent, because you assume a CD is a regular CD does not make it fraud if it isn't.

            Good question. There are two answers.

            First, the Philips/Sony "CD/CompactDisk" logo (used under license) is an indication of complience to certain standards that do not support such crippled disks. To use that logo on a crippled disk is (a) a violation of the logo license (according to Philips, at least), and (b) fraud.

            This leads to the second answer. You may be asking, "Yes, but how exactly is it deceitful?". The consumer did not contract as to what that logo meant, so why should the supplied be held to that standard? The law generally deals with what "a reasonable person" would understand, in the absence of a specific agreement (contract). After years of purchasing unencumbered CDs, a "reasonable person" would assume that something that looks like a CD, is labeled as a CD, is sold as a CD, is, in fact, a CD, as he understands it, i.e. unencumbered. The logo, in fact, is meant to butress this understanding. Selling a crippled CD without labelling to indicate that it is crippled is fraud, pure and simple. Even if the "CD/compacd disk" logo were missing, you could probably argue sucessfully that it is fraud, simply because "a reasonable person" will presume a shiny flat disk with music on it is a CD, in the absence of anything to suggest otherwise.

            The danger, though, is that "a reasonable person" may not know just how encumbered or unencumbered certain future media are, and so will will be oblivious to the fact that his fair use rights are eroded further and further over time. CDs just came at a juncture where digital copying was still difficult enough that digital piracy wasn't a big issue, so little protection. DAT decks, if you recall, had to have SCMS: Serial Copy Managament System, which permitted only one copy from a digital source -- the watermarking alternative pushed by the RIAA in Congress stalled DAT introduction in th U.S. to the point that consumer DAT technology was stillborn.

  • What can I do... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KDan (90353) on Monday February 03 2003, @06:05AM (#5214402) Homepage
    I'm not american, I have no money (unemployed), but I want to support this because those laws seem to get exported along with the rest - is there any way I can support this, through sending some letters maybe?

    Daniel

    • Re:What can I do... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by videodriverguy (602232) on Monday February 03 2003, @07:11AM (#5214553) Homepage
      I'd like to support this too, but where I am (China) I can buy unprotected music CDs for $2, VCDs (video CDs) for $3, all legally. I can, of course, also buy from legitimate outlets pirate DVDs for $3 (like Die Another Day, with the oscar stuff over it).

      There is a music/movie store here that sells real import DVDs and CDs, but at USA prices. Given that those prices exceed the monthly pay for most people here, they don't sell that many!

      And, yes, I too was unemployed in the USA before I came here. I'd like to be back there, but stuff like the DMCA makes me think twice.
      • Clearly, when I think of the choices between forced abotion via a one child policy, and a DMCA, I just think of China as a bastion of freedom and human rights. Hell, when I realize that the US system had trouble breaking a tie in 2000, I often think that China's system of government seams appealing...

        Sorry, the DMCA has some good provisions, and some horrid provisions. However, all-in-all, the US human rights record is pretty solid, despite what some anti-American lefties seem to think.

        Alex
    • Donate money to a campaign fund or an organization that supports your ideals. I'm sure the EFF will take non-US money.

      Hell, even your local lobbying groups can have an affect, even if they're not affected by the foreign laws. For example, the nosey LDS (Mormon) church heavily lobbied in several states (I want to say Hawaii and Alaska) a few years ago to try to defeat state laws that would legitimize same-sex marriages. I forget what the outcome was, but ut illustrates my point.

  • Oh man we're gonna see just how good the highly paid lobbyists for the content industry are this week ;)

  • Good Start (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kscd (414074) on Monday February 03 2003, @06:09AM (#5214415)
    While signing the EFF letter is a great place to start, those of us with extra free time should take the time to craft our own thoughts on the issue and send those in as well. Many copies of a similar letter have a strong effect, but original letters show that you _really_ care and will probably remember around voting season.

    Past that, we should also, as the EFF states, tell our families and friends about the issue. Not many people care about this currently, because not many people know, and the information sources most people rely upon are more concerned with 5 minute wheather reports than reporting on people's rights being stripped away.

    • It's easy to get them to care (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ShatteredDream (636520) on Monday February 03 2003, @06:47AM (#5214500) Homepage
      My parents used to think I was a lefty because of this issue. They couldn't be convinced of why it should be a right to make your own mp3s/oggs, etc. So I started barraging them with story after story of the media interests being unethical and eventually they understood why I feel the way I do. For my dad, a staunch conservative, the CBDTPA was the real catalyst because of its mandate on the entire computer industry. That's when he said enough is enough, the media cartels are socialist parasites.
      • socialist?? hardly... very much capitalist, thinking only about their own profits. that's not socialist. socialist and oppressive are 2 very seperate things, which can occur together as often as not.
          • there is no, nor has there ever been any pure socialist, capitalist or communist states.

          • Right, they want fascism (Score:5, Informative)

            by alexhmit01 (104757) on Monday February 03 2003, @10:05AM (#5215375)
            Originally, fascism was the unification of the government and business. While the Communists nationalized industry, the fascists left it in private hands but supported it with the government.

            The RIAA, and other business groups looking for help really want our government to slowly become a bit more fascist.

            Such a shame that few people understand and respect liberty, and are willing to eliminate personal liberty to do what they think is right. The GOP tends to slip towards fascism when they run out of ideas, the Democrats slip towards socialism... the Libertarians speak out for liberty, but they keep letting cooks talk...

            Alex

  • Government at work... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Motherfucking Shit (636021) on Monday February 03 2003, @06:10AM (#5214418) Journal
    This reminds me of the old quote,

    "If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress?"

    If nothing else, I have to laugh at the proposed name (DMCRA). It's a poignant acronym, with just the right amount of "ha-ha" expected. Once again we have the pols battling it out against each other, with the target result being to counteract each other. For once, I hope this is achieved. To counter the DMCA with the DMCRA would raise my spirits for sure.

    Thank you, Rep. Boucher, for raising a subtle yet interpretable middle finger to the DMCA (and for your other clueful work). If ever I meet you, I owe you a drink, and that's a promise :)

    • Re:Government at work... (Score:5, Funny)

      by BabyDave (575083) on Monday February 03 2003, @07:07AM (#5214542)
      If nothing else, I have to laugh at the proposed name (DMCRA). It's a poignant acronym, with just the right amount of "ha-ha" expected. Once again we have the pols battling it out against each other, with the target result being to counteract each other. For once, I hope this is achieved. To counter the DMCA with the DMCRA would raise my spirits for sure.
      But don't you see? Then they'll introduce the Digital Monopoly - Can't Rip Mp3s Act (DMCRMA), so we'll have to fight back with the Digital Manumission - Civil Rights, Media Freedom Act (DMCRMFA), which they'll counter with the Digital Moguls Control, Rule, Manipulate Federal Law Act (DMCRMFLA), and before you know it, we'll need 42-inch plasma screens just to fit the acronyms
    • I'll bet he can't wait to get a drink from Mr. Motherfucking Shit, too!

  • List of Co-Sponsors of HR107 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2003, @06:14AM (#5214426)
    Here's the list, according to Thomas. Note the Rep that withdrew last week, any Slashdotters from RI might want to try to find out why?

    Rep Andrews, Robert E. - 1/29/2003 [NJ-1]
    Rep Bachus, Spencer - 1/7/2003 [AL-6]
    Rep Barton, Joe - 1/29/2003 [TX-6]
    Rep Doolittle, John T. - 1/7/2003 [CA-4]
    Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 1/7/2003(withdrawn - 1/28/2003) [RI-1]
  • This worries me

    We have one section of government (RIAA) working one set of laws to take away digital rights

    And now we have another working to attempt to bring them back. Does that make sense?

    Putting all the effort into having one continuously working against the other in the hope there's a middle ground that is safe doesn't seem sensible

    working departments together would be the best option. I don't see why this can't be done

  • damn, sucks to be canadian. (Score:3, Informative)

    by spd_rcr (537511) on Monday February 03 2003, @06:19AM (#5214438) Homepage
    finally something intelligent happening south of the border & nothing to do. when i sent out letters regarding out lastest tax/copyright levy on recordable media, the response was not good.

  • Link to EFF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Heem (448667) on Monday February 03 2003, @07:34AM (#5214627) Homepage Journal

    Make sure to write your representatives. It's the only recourse we have left in this 'democracy' that has gone afoul - The only reason it has gone afoul is that WE (American Citizens, not slashdotters) have allowed it to but NOT writing our representatives. Their title 'REPRESENTative' should say it all. Their SOLE purpose is to represent YOUR opinion to the people that make the laws that govern how our lives are lived. If you don't write - LAWS WON'T CHANGE. The EFF has made this task incredibally easy - They've even written a nice letter and will auto-lookup your representative based on your address. Get your opinion out there. It's our only chance to change the laws of the land we live in.

    I'll give you the link [eff.org] again in case you missed it the first time.

  • If you're not with us, you're against us. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sin(theta) (609000) on Monday February 03 2003, @08:24AM (#5214842) Homepage
    By legislating standards by which fair-use impaired proudcts are created, aren't we then giving fair-use impaired products our blessing?
  • I live in the UK and until two weeks ago boycotted DVDs - I didn't own a single one. I broke my boycott for reasons unrelated to this argument.

    What is pertinent is that DVDs are labelled in this country - they have logos on the rear of the covers that indicate region protection, macrovision etc. and people still buy them.

    I don't know what you guys in the US have on your packaging, but over here ours are labelled already and the consumers don't care.
    • most people don't care until they find out that they can't do what they want with the media they bought.

      i'd guess most people who buy dvds buy dvds for the region they live in, which is the same region their dvd players are set up for. they don't look at the packaging other then to see if it's widescreen or not because they don't know (and don't need to know) that there are dvd players that don't play it.

      crippled cds on the other hand, are more likely to not play in a randomly selected player than dvds are -- i think we've reached a point where all but the most clueless have realized that their computer did NOT come with a retractable cup-holder.

  • FYI: Link to the bill... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Masem (1171) on Monday February 03 2003, @09:20AM (#5215101)
    Here's a link to a PDF version of the bill on the HoRep's website (It's H.R. 107 in the 108th Congress): Proposed bill [house.gov]. Of interest is what the last two pages have (the rest is just deliniating what mislabeling of a copy-protected disk is and punishable for) -- while it goes in the right direciton for fair uses, it still leaves open the question of "significant noninfringing use" of a hardware/software product, getting us right back to the VHS case. Also, interestingly enough, note the header on the PDF file: it's based off an XML document, apparently, so I wonder how much Boucher's office has adopted to technology, or if the HoReps now has a nice XML/DocBook type of technology for building up new bills.

  • Don't forget my man! (Score:4, Informative)

    by stinky wizzleteats (552063) on Monday February 03 2003, @09:43AM (#5215242) Homepage Journal

    Spencer Bachus [arl.org], my representative, is also cosponsoring the bill. This is a real turnaround for him, as he has usually voted for whichever side of the issue is commercial. We've had several e- and snail mail arguments about electronic freedom issues, and his cosponsorship of this bill demonstrates that he is doing just what his job title indicates - representing.

    A big attaboy to my man Bachus for pitching in on this! Let this be an inspiration to anyone else out there who believes that getting involved is hopeless - if you speak, they will listen.

  • They've missed out an important bit! (Score:5, Informative)

    by hyphz (179185) on Monday February 03 2003, @11:18AM (#5215739)
    One of the points they mention in their act is the modification of the DMCA so that it allows copy protection to be broken for fair use purposes.

    I vaguely recall, during one of the DVD cases, that it was stated in court that the DMCA does NOT forbid breaking copy protection for fair use at the moment.

    The PROBLEM is that it forbids distribution of tools for breaking copy protection, regardless of what they will be used for. Having permission to break the protection for fair use is no good unless you are actually able to do it, and unless the tools are distributable very few people who wish to make fair use will be able to.

    This is exactly the problem that came up in one of the appeals in the DVD case; that it is not sufficient to simply ensure that people are permitted to make fair use, because even if they have permission, "nothing in law obligates manufacturers to make it easy for people to exercise fair use rights" (paraphrased from the appeal verdict). Thus, they can simply make it so hard that the vast majority of people can't do it, and the tools distribution clause will prevent people who CAN do it from helping others do so.

    To ensure fair use, the proposed act would have to include a specification that no IP owner must unduly impede the exercise of fair use rights, technologically or otherwise. If technology is too restricted at the moment to do this without losing protection against illegal use then, well, they're big companies with big bucks: they can innovate new technology, or at least sponsor others to do so. (At the moment, such technology is unlikely to ever get developed because it's actually to the firms' advantage for it not to be - they can carry on getting away with blocking everything.)

  • Not a good enough name... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonvmous Coward (589068) on Monday February 03 2003, @12:36PM (#5216151)
    The DMCRA is just a little too close to DMCA. I mean seriously, the r key is right above the a key. It looks like a typo!

    What it needs is another couple of letters on the end. How about c and k? C could stand for 'concerning' and the k could stand for... well shit, I'm not that intelligent so I'll get to the point. I just want the acronym to be 'DMCRACK'.

    • Hell, even names that had no real significance on their own (Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act = COBRA) are memorable with the right acronym. And everyone wants to be patriotic.

      So maybe we need the United Support of Artists via Free Legal Access to Great music act. Then its opponents can be easily bashed as unpatriotic. You don't want to be a FLAG burner, do you? Fox News would love it.

    • Re:Uncharted Territory... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rhinobird (151521) on Monday February 03 2003, @06:53AM (#5214513) Homepage
      Right now, it's sort of like this huge country, with stores, residents, jobs, basic laws etc... but no real government to speak of

      What? You want to change this? Why?

      Right now, many things are illegal, but the laws are deemed unfair, so these things are socially acceptable

      Damn straight. And once those absurd laws are gone things will balance out.I don't want the internet to speak with a singular voice. What a horrible thought. That would turn it into network TV or a clear channel radio station.

      • Re:Uncharted Territory... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by svwolfpack (411870) on Monday February 03 2003, @06:44AM (#5214497) Homepage
        Ok well obviously a singular voice isn't likely to happen, but, should a true singular voice emerge, it would be the ideal situation. The closer a society gets to sharing the same mindset, the better off it is. And I'm not talking control or limited freedom, I'm talking about a purest form democracy, where the elected (not appointed) leader accurately represents the will of the people.
        • The closer a society gets to sharing the same mindset, the better off it is.

          Yeah, like after Sep 11. What are you thinking man?!?

          "The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."--Thomas Jefferson to P. Dupont, 1816.

          "Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the
          majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be
          reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws
          must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

          "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of it's victims may be
          the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than
          under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
          sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
          that torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do
          so with the approval of their own conscience."
          - C.S. Lewis
    • If no one even tries it will certainly not get passed. Rather than giving up before even beginning, we would do better to see how we can support this, and urge our representatives to look after our rights.
    • You can actually do more to make a difference than you think. Write your congress(wo)man a well-worded physical letter stating why you support this legislation and why they should as your representative sign-on to support it and help ensure it passes. The legislators must look at each letter as representing a larger portion of their consitituents than just yourself, based on the statistics of per-capita letter writing. If everyone on /. that believed in this legislation did the same, we'd probably have enough overlap that it would get something done.

      Don't send email. Send a paper letter!
    • i see this whole crippled disc thing as yet another reason to support the indies and undies.

      there's a lot of great music out there, and most of it's not on the radio, and doesn't come on broken discs.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.