Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Protecting Your DRM Rights 508

Posted by Hemos from the gettin'-covered dept.
A reader wrote to say:"There's an article on SiliconValley.com that talks about a new bill in Congress that will, if passed, mean that consumers can copy CDs, DVDs and other digital works for personal use, just as they now do with TV shows and audio tapes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Protecting Your DRM Rights More

Protecting Your DRM Rights

Comments Filter:

  • Finally (Score:3, Informative)

    by bucephalis ( 165674 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:16PM (#4375629)
    Someone, somewhere in congress finally gets it!
    btw, FP?

    • Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)

      by galaxy300 ( 111408 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <yenoornotlad>> on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:19PM (#4375654) Homepage
      Too bad the law won't pass until Congress is in session again next year. Let's just hope that the Democrats win a majority again this year -- they've been much more sensitive to technology issues than the Republicans.
      • Is it OK if I hope Democrats don't win a majority this year?
        I don't think the Dems are all that much more friendly to fair use/consumer privacy.
        They may have Boucher (sp?), but they also have Hollings/"the man from disney".

        • Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)

          by grumpygrodyguy ( 603716 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:30PM (#4375760)
          The poster is correct, there has been some confusion among Democrats as to what they were really doing. From the article:

          "``Lofgren's bill aims to restore what Congress thought it was doing -- preserving fair use for people who have lawful rights to use stuff,'' "

          Senators are some of the slowest people on the planet to "get" technology. It's my opinion that Democrats who've supported the DMCA in the past have been largely misinformed by the likes of the RIAA and MPAA.

          Oh, and to the original poster:
          Is it OK if I hope Democrats don't win a majority this year?
          Sure, it's ok if your trust-fund is still going strong. But for the rest of us who actually need our jobs, maybe you'll reconsider?

        • Is it OK if I hope Democrats don't win a majority this year?


          No, no it isn't ok.


          The funny thing is, that given both parties' theoretical underpinnings, an argument can be made that both parties should favor consumer rights over corporate rights.


          In a very broad sense, Republicans see themselves as a hands off, less government is better party. That means they should oppose laws restricting the rights of individuals because those laws would increase government power at the expense of individual rights. Obviously some of the positions in their party plank are at odds with this line of reasoning.


          On the other side of the spectrum, Democrats see more government as a way to help people and that people's rights flow from the government. They should be in favor of laws that enumerate consumer rights. And they should oppose laws that put corporations ahead of people. Obviously some of the positions in their party plank are at odds with this line of reasoning.


          I find it helpful when I write to my representatives in congress, with paper and pen not keyboard and pixels, to show not only why a particular bill is bad or good, but how that bill fits into the bill fits into the party's platform and philosophy, depending on what party a particular representative belongs to. So they can see 1) this isn't just a form letter and 2) how my wishes fit into their philosophy of government.

      • Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)

        by the_Bionic_lemming ( 446569 )
        Really? So Clinton was a republican? He signed it into law....

        • So Clinton was a republican? He signed [the Digital Millennium Copyright Act] into law

          The DMCA and the Bono Act were both enacted by a voice vote of both houses of Congress; the bills had so much bipartisan support that nobody opposed either measure enough to bring it to a full recorded vote. Had then-President Clinton vetoed them, Congress would havejust passed the bills over Clinton's veto with a 2/3 majority of both houses.

      • Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bnenning ( 58349 )
        Let's just hope that the Democrats win a majority again this year -- they've been much more sensitive to technology issues than the Republicans.


        Very arguable. Fritz is the obvious counterexample, but aside from that the Clinton adminstration was pushing the Clipper chip and encryption controls, and supported the CDA and DMCA. I'm not in any way suggesting that Republicans are blameless; there are good guys and bad guys on both sides of the aisle on these issues.

    • Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)

      by uncoveror ( 570620 )
      Yes! now there are two good guys! Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose and Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Virginia. We need a lot more in Congress who will stand up for our rights, instead of selling us out to big business. Tara Grubb, if elected would be a third defender of fair use.
    • Someone, somewhere in congress finally gets it!

      No, someone somewhere in Congress is displaying their utter incompetence in solving a problem. Consider:

      1. I need a 3" bolt for a task.
      2. I go to $STORE and pick up a 4" bolt.
      3. Oops, I picked up the wrong bolt.. so instead of putting this bolt back and getting the right one, I go pick up a saw to cut the bolt to 3".
      4. I go home and find out I didn't measure the hole in the first place and the bolt is too big.


      Did I actually 'get it?'

  • sounds like an ambush (Score:5, Funny)

    by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:19PM (#4375651) Homepage
    Hollings explains the method of copying DVDs as allowed in the bill:

    1. Get your original DVD. Look at the title. Memorize.

    2. Go to store. Buy 2nd copy.

    3. Tada! We've preserved your rights to legally copy your DVDs! I encourage you to make a 3rd copy!

  • Weird (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yeoua ( 86835 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:20PM (#4375661)
    Rather weird that we actually need yet another law to protect what was technically already there.

    • Not weird, wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jaaron ( 551839 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:50PM (#4375944) Homepage
      I know a lot of people are going to be all for this law, but I think it's a very bad precedence to set a law which tells citizens what they can do rather than what they cannot do. What this tells me is that every time a new technology emerges I need a law to tell me how to use it, otherwise my use may be construed as illegal.

      Laws for citizens should legislate what they cannot do. Laws for government should legislate what it can do. If not then the government is free to do anything that is not specifically prohibited while the people can only do that which is regulated. I'm sorry, but I always thought the idea was that the people give power to the government, not the other way around.
      • The Lofgren bill, I believe, a bill that explicitly says that consumer rights "exist and here are examples, but the rights are not limited to these examples" [my paraphrase, and I can't go look up my notes right now- heard this from an expert late last month].
      • but I think it's a very bad precedence to set a law which tells citizens what they can do rather than what they cannot do.

        it sort of sounded to me like much of its intent was to amend a part of the DMCA that told people what they couldn't do, as opposed to actually giving people any "new" legal rights...

        Anyhow, there are a lot of examples of legislation built upon telling people what they can do, such as the bill of rights... And in this particular instance: in effect by giving citizens rights they are regulating the industry's ability to otherwise trample them...

        i'm no legal counsel, just my limited interpretation, please correct me if i'm wrong...

        -tid242

  • Amending the DMCA! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Outbreak Monkey ( 581200 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:20PM (#4375663)
    The bills also would amend a 1998 law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that makes it a crime to circumvent technological protections built in to copyrighted works. Instead, consumers would be allowed to bypass the technology if the intent is to make a copy for personal use.

    This may be the best news I've heard all year! I hope this actually passes...

    • Re: Amending the DMCA! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @05:31PM (#4376756)


      > > The bills also would amend a 1998 law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that makes it a crime to circumvent technological protections built in to copyrighted works. Instead, consumers would be allowed to bypass the technology if the intent is to make a copy for personal use.

      > This may be the best news I've heard all year! I hope this actually passes...

      What we really need is a bill that makes it illegal for businesses to ship media with technology that circumvents our fair use. Fair use won't be much help if they ever get their act together and create a DRM system that's actually hard to bypass.

  • This is the type of legislation that we... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cnelzie ( 451984 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:21PM (#4375669) Homepage
    ...need to stand behind. Of course, we need to make sure that nothing silly and unrelated somehow becomes attached to it. That is what usually kills well written proposed bills/laws like this one appears to be.

    Of course, we have only been shown the "watered-down" average American version of it. Does anyone know of a lobbying group or web-site that this proposal is represented by?

    Of course, if you are an American citizen, please write your Congress person about this proposal and ask them to vote for it. Please send it to them as a well hand written letter as they will lend more weight to what you say.

  • I love Jack Valenti (Score:3, Funny)

    by Frothy Walrus ( 534163 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:21PM (#4375672)
    ``If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.''

    Whatta guy. If he could make sure he got his money without the public ever seeing the movie, he would.

    $10 to the first crazed Slashbot to stab Jackie V in the face.
    • "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
      - Jack to Congress, in 1982

      SSDD [slashdot.org]
    • $10 to the first crazed Slashbot to stab Jackie V in the face.

      Wow, I'd be careful with that sort of thing, given how litigious people have been lately regarding Internet speech. Technically, offering someone money for causing another person bodily harm is illegal, and if someone took offense (like, oh, I dunno...Jack Valenti), you could find yourself in court facing criminal charges.

    • He must have a fat pipe (Score:4, Funny)

      by cachorro ( 576097 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:41PM (#4375862)
      Let's see, a million movies at DVD quality - say 6 GBytes, ...(pencil scratching)...Hmm, that's 6e15 bytes, and in one day we have 86400 seconds, so...(more with the pencil)... looks like 69.4 GBytes/sec, so all you need is a 555 Gbit pipe.

      Yea, that would pretty much be the same as free.

    • The traditional response would be a cream pie in the face, which is not harmful to anything but pride and the laundry bill.

      This is a long standing method of protest, which despite being considered assault, is generally not looked on (sentanced) as severely as an attack with a knife.

      It would get the point across, without bodily harm.

      I'd like as well to see Jack (and Hillary) taken down a notch, but I don't want to see blood drawn.

  • Why does this "right" need to be enumerated? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:22PM (#4375680)
    I think there's some danger here in enumerating the right to copy CD's, etc. It's the same issue that John Adams had with the Bill of Rights. If you enumerate some rights, it implies that other rights don't exist until they're enumerated. Take for example the right to privacy. The Bill of Rights doesn't list it, and therefor much debate ensues about whether or not such a right exists.

    While having a law explicitly naming the right to copy CD's is seductive, we risk having to always enumerate new rights in the future. Instead, I'd prefer to have the default be "of course we have this right, because it's not explicitly listed as a right that's not allowed".

    I realize I'm dreaming here. Given where we are as a society, I'd be willing to see this bill passed. But a guy can dream.

    • Re:Why does this "right" need to be enumerated? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shuh ( 13578 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:31PM (#4375763) Journal
      I think there's some danger here in enumerating the right to copy CD's, etc. It's the same issue that John Adams had with the Bill of Rights. If you enumerate some rights, it implies that other rights don't exist until they're enumerated. Take for example the right to privacy. The Bill of Rights doesn't list it, and therefor much debate ensues about whether or not such a right exists.
      Unfortunately this is a common misconception in America: We think the Bill of Rights enumerates our Rights. In reality, it actually puts restrictions on what the Government(tm) can do to our rights... which according to The Declaration of Independence were granted to us by a higher power, the "Creator."
    • The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
      Unless they repeal the ninth amendment [findlaw.com], we should be OK.

      > I'd prefer to have the default be "of course we have this right, because it's not explicitly listed as a right that's not allowed".

      That IS the default as I understand it. That doesn't mean that a law backing up and clarifying a grey area that's very much under assault from the other side is a bad idea. I'm all for it.

  • Anything that is introduced in Congress now isn't going to go anywhere. They're going to go home and campaign for the november elections soon.

    If you really want to support this bill, write them and let them know you support it. Then, next January, assuming that Lofgren and Boucher get re-elected, write them and remind them that you'd like the bill introduced again.

  • Rather than fix the horrible state of copyright law, let's simply add a few more, enveloping and codifying in a limited manner the rights we already have. Makes sense to me.

    • Mutually Assured Destruction, détente, whatever you want to cal it - the whole idea is to fight fire with fire, until everyone gets too tired or too scared to fight that way, and agrees to drop the flame throwers and talk reasonably about the issue.

      It does make sense to me.

      Soko
  • Not quite a duplicate but this article was already mentioned on SlashDot in the entry Slashdot | Apple Shuns DRM Efforts So Far [slashdot.org]. which is in the Apple section but also on the front page.

  • Heh (Score:3, Funny)

    by weird mehgny ( 549321 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:26PM (#4375719)
    ``If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill.

    And we all know no one will go to the cinema to see the next LOTR movie, right?

  • Wrong solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by back_pages ( 600753 ) <<back_pages> <at> <cox.net>> on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:26PM (#4375722) Journal
    The problem here is that the DMCA violates the fair use clause of the existing copyright laws. The solution is NOT a law that defeats a portion of the DMCA. The solution IS to repeal the DMCA and replace it with a non-fascist alternative.

    It is our duty as citizens to disobey unjust laws and to push them through the judicial system to the Supreme Court. It is counterproductive to that duty to prop up the unjust laws with exceptions and clarifications. Further, between the DMCA and the proposed DFCA, all that has been accomplished is a wordy reiteration of the existing copyright laws. I'm no legal eagle, but I firmly believe in having a few concise and necessary laws rather than redundant spaghetti legal code.

    • "It is our duty as citizens to disobey unjust laws and to push them through the judicial system to the Supreme Court. It is counterproductive to that duty to prop up the unjust laws with exceptions and clarifications."

      I agree with most of your post the above quote is WAY WRONG!

      It is never our duty to disobey laws. Period. End of story. It is our duty to work to change unjust laws.

      The problem with telling people to disobey laws that they feel are unjust is that often this is a subjective call. What I consider unjust you may not. It is truly irresponsible to suggest that people disobey laws that they don't like.

    • Re:Wrong solution (Score:4, Interesting)

      by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:54PM (#4375980) Journal

      The problem here is that the DMCA violates the fair use clause of the existing copyright laws.

      That's funny, since I thought the DMCA said that "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."

      • The DMCA does not on the face of it restrict fair use in any way. Nowhere will you find text in the DMCA that says "you may not perform any of the following acts [description of acts involved in fair use]". What you WILL find is restrictions on circumventing "copyright protection systems" (see sec. 1201 DMCA). Trafficking in circumvention devices or systems is illegal.


        New products are now on the market which embed so-called "copyright protection systems". DVDs are the most famous example. Want to make your own edit or parody of the DVDs you own? Want to rip DVD audio into MP3 or some other computer-based format? Want to cut and paste material from some "protected e-book" document? Tough shit, you can't without violating the DMCA, if a company doesn't want you to, since they can claim pretty much anything is a copyright protection mechanism (including some pseudo-obfuscation bullshit like CSS on DVDs).


        So while fair use isn't technically affected by the DMCA directly, in practice, the right to fair use has been abolished for digital materials.

  • ``If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.''

    *Wipes tears of laughter form eyes*

    Hehe, that was worth it. Jack getting bashed with the clue stick right across the forehead.

    THAT was entertainment at it's finest, and is definately worth paying for. Do I make my cheque out to Rep. Boucher now? (I hope he doesn't mind $CDN...)

    Soko

  • Jack Valenti's Cable Modem (Score:5, Funny)

    by imadork ( 226897 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:28PM (#4375740) Homepage
    ``If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.''

    Hmmm, (1 million * 4.7GB) / (24 hrs * 60 mins * 60 secs) = 54GB/sec bandwidth! Jack's cable modem must not have the download caps in place...

  • Jack Valenti is a troll (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:29PM (#4375751) Journal
    Jack Valeti said...
    "If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it."
    The law says...
    "This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends," Lofgren said in an interview Tuesday."

    All you trolls on slashdot should pay attention and learn from Jack Valenti. He dishes out FUD with statements that are unsupported and wildly speculative (and in this case a complete lie).

  • Not going to pass (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Urox ( 603916 ) <luthien3@jun[ ]om ['o.c' in gap]> on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:30PM (#4375759) Journal
    If you read the article, it says that it's not going to get through because congress is wrapping up its work for the year in the week.

    I see this as something to push Zoe Loftgren's ratings higher. She is my congresswoman and was a full supporter of Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002, H.R. 3482. I wrote to her about this and not only did she get my gender wrong (I'm female), but she also wrote, "I would note that this section in no way changes the limitations under current law on the emergency use..." which was a blatant and utter lie... or she was very mis-informed.

    She took over a month responding to my email and her web-page was far less than impressive (unlike the congressional leader one district away who voted against keeping "god" in the pledge of allegiance.. I can't dig up who it is right now).
    She's also scared by terrorism noting it first in the following closing sentence,"As we enhance cyber security to protect our vital infrastructure against both terrorists and the type of high-tech vandals who crashed Yahoo in February 2000..." and anyone who was still bothered by "terrorism" at the end of July of this year definitely is being pushed by an agenda or is pushing her own.

    I'd publish the entire email she sent to me but there was recent discussion on slashdot about publishing correspondances that has me hesitating.


    • I'd publish the entire email she sent to me but there was recent discussion on slashdot about publishing correspondances that has me hesitating


      She's an elected official writing to you while in that role to inform you of her official stance on an issue. Doesn't that mean your tax dollars are paying her to not only write those words but take that stance?


      Don't be shy!

  • Unbelivable!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lissst ( 451356 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:32PM (#4375782)
    Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. "You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it."

    I can't believe that these people actually think like this. The legislation doesn't say anything about giving the user the right to share and steal the music without punishment. There will still be punishment for stealing a movie or music (if caught). It's unbelievable how these people think that just by having the right to have "Fair Use" of a product for personal reasons equates to mass piracy being legal.
  • Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.''

    I want that bandwidth!
  • The bills also would amend a 1998 law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that makes it a crime to circumvent technological protections built in to copyrighted works. Instead, consumers would be allowed to bypass the technology if the intent is to make a copy for personal use.

    That's not good enough. Hopefully they really will admend it to allow for other uses, like using bits of data acquired and used (fairly) in published works, like critical articles or scientific papers. If we're going to amend the DMCA, let's go ahead and get more of it, I say.

    Then again, if too many legislators are going to balk, then I'll take as much as we can get passed. Getting the law off the books this way would be even better than having to deal with the Supes striking it down.

  • Rights and Responsibilities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pete-classic ( 75983 ) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:43PM (#4375888) Homepage Journal
    I've said it before, but it bears repeating.

    The issue to me is that they (being the movie and record companies) want to have it both ways. They want to sell me a package that includes a piece of physical media (which I own) and a license to view/listen to what is recorded on that media.

    I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the fact that 1. I legally can't back that medium up and 2. if that medium becomes damaged my license to view/listen seems to evaporate.

    Case in point. I irreparably scratched a DVD from Fox (The Phantom Menace). My only recourse is to buy replacement media and a second license to view the movie. Clearly that license is the expensive part. I don't see how this is "fair."

    Bottom line is that IMO when we lost the right to make copies for backup the copyright holders took on the responsibility to do at-cost media replacement, but they aren't living up to that responsibility.

    Of course the bills mentioned in the article would turn the tide back, but neither seem to have any real chance of even coming to a vote.

    -Peter

    • Case in point. I irreparably scratched a DVD from Fox (The Phantom Menace). My only recourse is to buy replacement media and a second license to view the movie. Clearly that license is the expensive part. I don't see how this is "fair."

      So if we had a DRM system, something like Palladium, you could download that movie, then if your file got corrupted or accidentally deleted, the system could be designed so that you could download it again. You'd only have to pay for it once. That's how some of the music download services work.

      The DRM controls would prevent you from making copies of the movie for other people, so the studio's rights would be protected, while you could be protected against problems like you describe.

      Does this mean you would endorse a DRM system like Palladium?
    • I have a problem with that. I don't want a license. I want to simply own the entire copy. There's little that I cannot do under the auspices of personal property rights that I would need (or be likely to get) a license for.

      Licensure is a really, really, REALLY crappy idea that seriously subverts the policy behind copyright. It should NEVER be supported save under extremely rare circumstances.
  • As said earlier something similar to this exist in Denmark, but the "right" to copy your own material comes at a cost. All media capable of copying digital music movies etc. has now been taxed, you can not obtain a quality cd-r for less then $1 and mostly it's up about $1.5, also the hardware has rissen in price due to this. Now the irony in this is those who copy music etc. for own use arent stealing anything, they already bought the cd dvd or whatever, however the extra taxes are for compensating the loss in music sales (which would happen anyhow), and this money should (at some expenses of course) be given to the artists.
    (strangely enough none of this money is send to programmers, go figrue)
  • Just called Representative Lofgren's [house.gov] office to say thanks. Even if you don't vote for her directly you can say thanks too :)

    JOhn
  • Anyone happen to have the text of either proposed bill? Or at least the bill number, so when I write my congresscritter, he'll know what I'm talking about?
  • Here's a question that I've been pondering for a little while:

    Since we are so forcefully asserting our right to space-shift music from CDs to mp3s, DVDs to mpeg files, etc, what about books? If you own a physical copy of a book, then why can't you also have an electronic copy to read on breaks while at work, etc?

    On the "copyright page" of all new books, they are stating that you can't make any copy of the book, even for archival purposes.

    If I can convert music tracks on a CD to mp3, then why can't I scan in a book and have an electronic copy (space shifting) to keep on my laptop's hard drive?

    Just a question.

  • "This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends," Lofgren said in an interview Tuesday. Instead of creating new rights for consumers, she said, her bill would ensure that "the rights they have in the analog world, they have in digital."

    That's funny, I thought I had the right (under the audio home recording act) to take my audio casette and share it with a milion of my best friends.

  • Valenti's twisted logic (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gosand ( 234100 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @03:58PM (#4376011)
    ``This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends,'' Lofgren said in an interview Tuesday. Instead of creating new rights for consumers, she said, her bill would ensure that ``the rights they have in the analog world, they have in digital.''

    Jack Valenti sees this as:

    ``If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.''

    I think it is still illegal to distribute copyrighted works. The difference is, the DMCA makes fair-use illegal. This bill is to make fair-use legal (which should be legal anyway, but the DMCA is so vague it disallows it). The purpose of this bill is not to address the illegal uses of digital media, but to ensure the legal uses remain legal. The problem with Jack Valenti is that he has sold his soul and cannot see these things clearly. He does not want the public to have any fair-use, he and the big companies want to abolish fair-use.

    Nobody is really saying "people should be able to illegally distribute media" they are saying "don't deny us our legal rights just to enforce these laws". If there was some magic technology that would allow me fair-use to my digital media yet not allow me to illegally distribute it, I would be all for it. I don't have a problem paying for things, I have a problem with companies making me pay for things when I shouldn't have to, or preventing me from using things I have already paid for.

  • Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, plans today to introduce the ``Digital Choice and Freedom Act,'' Silicon Valley's response to a host of Hollywood-backed bills tilted in favor of copyright holders.

    Lofgren's bill would ensure consumers can copy CDs, DVDs and other digital works for personal use, just as they now do with TV shows and audio tapes.

    ``This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends,'' Lofgren said in an interview Tuesday. Instead of creating new rights for consumers, she said, her bill would ensure that ``the rights they have in the analog world, they have in digital.''

    Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., plans to introduce similar legislation Thursday.

    First of all, it's been said before and I'll say it again: Boucher and Lofgren really have their heads screwed on right. Second, I feel very insignificant with a circle of friends ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE fewer than the "millions" of friends movie swappers are purported to have.

  • Will programmers still be thrown in jail? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HillClimber ( 530465 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @04:05PM (#4376059)
    Supposedly consumers will be allowed to circumvent copy protection for fair use. Great! But what about the programmers? Does each consumer have to write their own software cracker? Will creating a decoder or unlocker designed for fair use still get you thrown in jail?
  • I haven't been on this planet for very long, but I've experienced quite a bit of piracy in the past 30 years and here's a quick recap of some of those experiences.

    Age 12 - My mother, never one to be really interested in music at all, acquires an 8-track tape player. She soon discovers that there is a store - yes a legitimate business here folks - where you can walk in, select the 8-track of your choice and bring it to the counter and for a meager $4 they will make you a copy in less than 2 minutes. Did I say copy, damn right! They had several high speed 8-track duplicators sitting right behind the counter. These guys were printing money and you had to shove your way to the counter on several occaisions we visited. There was nothing like getting that crappy Neil Diamond record for only $4.00 and my mom was hooked.

    This lasted for several months before they were shut down - hmm...wonder how that happened. But not before the whole town was rocking and rolling with these illegal copies. So let's go skip to the next track here.

    Age 16 - Mom finally breaks down and let's me get a stereo - receiver, big ass speakers and record player. A few months later I discover cassette tapes, man I gotta get one of those!! So I acquire a cassette tape recorder and some blanks. Hey guys, can I borrow your LP of Styx or that new Van Halen. I hear they're smoking! We traded LP's and cassettes back and forth for years - I think if I opened all the boxes of tapes I have laying around there must be at least 500 blanks I recorded at one time or another.

    Fast forward to 1984, CD's are looking like the next big thing, great sound, compact, portable, wow. So I get a CD player! Guess what, I still have that tape deck too. Ooh that Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon CD sounds so much better on CD (wonder if they'd really have ever sold anymore of that one if it hadn't been remastered on CD) gotta borrow it and tape it off.

    We really hadn't thought of duplicating a CD onto another CD at that time, PC's just couldn't deal with the amount of data and commercial duplicator's were way too expensive. But boy those record companies were really raking it in! $17 bucks for Dark Side of the Moon and guess what - they don't have to spend any more on art work, the artist, recording or any of that crap, but they can sell it to you all over again! Now who was printing the money. They were laughing all the way to the bank!

    About this time, I walk into my neighborhood video store and guess what - yeah that's right I can rent the latest audio CD's from them for $1.00 a day. I did a double take and thought to myself - I want that one and that one and hey that looks good too. I taped like there was no tomorrow. Why spend $17 on a new CD when I could get 13 on tape after buying the blanks. I had more music than I could possibly listen to - still do for that matter. And now the record companies were starting to feel the pinch from home taping so they got Congress to enact the taping tax on blanks. The bastards!

    About this time I started working at a radio station - reviewing records. "Hey, Sire how about sending out copies of that new Talking Heads album for us to give away and anything new you might have going so we can play it out here." I was in taping heaven - a direct fix from the record companies on an almost daily basis. I didn't have to rent it anymore because they would just send it to me and pay the postage too. I was taping things almost 12 hours a day, there was always something laying around that looked interesting. God I loved that job!

    It really wasn't until about '98 that CD-burners and the internet caught up with the record companies technology. While they were too busy counting their profits to invent new technology to prevent this, THE PEOPLE got tired of paying the same $17 for a cd they now know costs about a quarter to make. Now we could make a perfect digital copy - in the privacy of our own homes. Hey dude, can I borrow that Floyd disc again - I just got a burner. It was no different with software and porn - burning night and day, while asleep, while at work. And by the way, where are the porn and game developer people in this debate, how come they aren't right up there on the front row screaming with the rest of them, "They're stealing my god damn avi's of Brittany naked!!"

    Now with the advent of compression schemes like MP3, we can steal that song in seconds. Ooh there's that Dark Side of the Moon track on MP3. Yeah I know I own 3 copies (lp, cassette, CD and soon to be DVD video) of the damn record already and I'm too lazy to rip it, just download it and be done with it.

    You know where I'm getting most of my CD's to burn these days? The freakin' public library!! Oh yeah and there's that cool DVD I've been wanting but didn't want to shell out $25 for, I think I'll check it out and rip that over to VCD too. I can keep it for a week, no problem, thanks. And now with shn, you can compress the tracks and not worry about quality loss like with MP3. Watch out BMG, I'm coming for your whole damn catalogue next!

    I guess the point of this whole rant is that we've been stealing your music for years and you're still making plenty of money. Get over it! We will find a way to do it. It's human nature to rise to that challenge. It's the little kid in all of us that likes to do exactly what he's told not to do just to be rebelious. And besides, 90% of the stuff I taped was CRAP. I listened to it maybe once. I look through it now and it's like, "man why did you tape that shit."

    The record moguls need to worry less about us copying their music and more about coming up with a replacement for the CD. And besides, me and millions of others that have been downsized/layed off and otherwise unemployed think there is currently a recession going on - that couldn't be the cause of a drop in cd sales now could it??? They got themselves into this mess with their new technology and that's the only way they are going to get out. Like Janis Ian said, they need to come up with something that is so far beyond our computer's power to duplicate, so far beyond consumer electronics and so superior to compact discs that we can't say no. That's the only way out for them.

    Laws are made to be broken. And besides, I bet they find that they are going to get hacked a whole bunch more than they will ever be able to hack us consumers. What a pea-brained idea anyway! This was probably the second great idea of the guy who thought up the copy protection scheme you can defeat with a sharpie!

    Sorry, the mail man just delivered those VCD's of the Rush - Vapor Trails tour show on 8/24/02 in Colorado I traded for, gotta go check it out. Oh yeah, and what are they going to start doing now, checking my mail? Give me a break and get a life you RIAA idiots!

  • that doesn't even mean anything!

    "Protecting your digital rights management rights."

  • According to the article, when describing the bill, Rep. Lofgren says "This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends."

    Then later in the article Jack Valenti is quoted as saying "If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie. You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it."

    Is Valenti just an idiot? Why would someone in such a public position such as his make a statement like that without knowing the facts first? Good job, Jack, you have just now officially proven what we speculated all along, that you are not above LYING to sway the public to your cause.

  • Fair Use Ammo... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @04:39PM (#4376363)
    I think Hollywood has the idea that if one can copy a DVD, they're just going to give it away bla blah blah. I don't think they've considered that their own talent pool makes good use of copying technology i.e. ripping.

    I'll give you an example: I know some peeps who are learning to do 3D rendering and animation. One test of their skills is to see how convincing they can recreate a scene from a movie. For example: Star Trek First Contact. That movie had some scenes shot using studio models of the Enterprise and other ships. One of these guys had a nice mesh of the Enterprise, then he wanted to perfectly recreate the lighting used on the studio model in the movie.

    What he did was he bought a copy of the First Contact DVD, then he did a few screen-grabs on his PC. He had very clean pictures to use as reference. Using these images, he started figuring out where the studio lights were placed, and what effects he needed to achieve to minimize the differences. He gained some serious experience in learning how to realistically light a CG model to imitate a 3D model.

    Is this an important skill in Hollywood? Oh most definitely! It is a frequent thing to cut from motion control model rigs to CG models. The better the lighting on the mesh, the less startling it is to go from model to CG. (Lost in Space comes to mind...)

    This guy was legitimately copying from DVD to improve his talent, and Hollywood may one day hire him for it. However, if Hollywood had their way, he'd have no way to take screen grabs or download the video to his computer for further study. I don't think they have any idea how much damage they may end up doing to the next generation of their talent pool.

  • Zoe's summary of her bill (Score:5, Informative)

    by geekotourist ( 80163 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @05:08PM (#4376568) Journal
    Here is the summary done by Zoe and staff. Late last month I heard a summary of this bill from a fair use expert. I don't have my notes with me. The big takeaway I got was that Zoe's bill *does* focus on consumer rights as "including, but not limited to, the ones listed in her bill" (my paraphrase). In other words, Zoe 'gets it' with respect to protecting consumers and Silicon Valley from the buggy-whip manufacturers down south.

    From the press release summary: [house.gov](I've added the bold...)

    SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS OF "THE DIGITAL CHOICE AND FREEDOM ACT OF 2002"

    SECTION 1: Designates the title as "The Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002."

    SECTION 2: Lists factual findings.

    SECTION 3: (a) Section (a) clarifies that America's historic principles of fair use - codified in section 107 of Title 17 - apply to analog and digital transmissions...

    ...Section (b) seeks to restore the balance by adding section 123 to Title 17. Section 123 allows lawful consumers to make backup copies of digital works, and to use digital works on preferred digital media devices. It further protects consumers by prohibiting non-negotiable "click-wrap" licenses that limit their rights and expectations...

    SECTION 4: Today, when a consumer purchases a book, they are free to lend their copy to a friend or family member, or to sell their copy to a used books store. Section 4 allows consumers to do the same thing with digital content by extending the first sale doctrine...

    SECTION 5: ..."As the House Judiciary Report accompanying the DMCA stated: "[A]n individual [should] not be able to circumvent in order to gain unauthorized access to a work, but should be able to do so in order to make fair use of a work which he or she has acquired lawfully."

    Section 5 reaffirms this intent, while also providing needed flexibility for the copyright owner. Under section 5, a copyright owner is free to employ technical measures to protect his or her work. However, the copyright owner must ensure that those measures allow lawful consumers to make non-infringing uses of the work... Since most consumers do not have the expertise needed to circumvent such protections, Section 5 permits tools if they are designed, produced and marketed to help consumers make non-infringing uses. Again, these tools are only permissible if the copyright owner fails to give consumers a choice by restricting legitimate uses without providing any solution for the legitimate user.

  • I wish Rick Boucher were my rep (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gregoyle ( 122532 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @07:54PM (#4377715)
    I wish Rick Boucher were my representitive so I could vote for him.

    ``The laws that have passed in recent years have imbalanced the historical balance between owners of copyrighted works and users of copyrighted works,'' Boucher said in an interview Tuesday. ``The balance has been tilted dramatically in favor of owners at the expense of users.''

    This guy actually gets it! There really need to be more representitives and senators like him. I just wish that there were even any running in my district so I could put in my vote.

  • Perfect digital copies, NOT! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by seaan ( 184422 ) <seaan@NoSPam.concentric.net> on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @08:30PM (#4377910)
    Here is an excerpt of my letter of support sent to my congressman:

    I have one little quibble with the bill as it stands. In section 2. FINDINGS, paragraph (2), it states "Perfect digital copies of songs and movies...". This is an exaggeration that has been used by both the RIAA and MPAA to justify draconian copyright protection measures. They purposely confuse two different concepts: "digital copies" and "digital distribution". The reality is:

    (1) Digital copies are far from perfect
    (2) The quality of a copy has little impact upon non-commercial copyright infringers

    Take an example from ten years ago, the mandating of copy-protection on Digital-Audio-Tape recorders. The only people who cared about quality enough to be effected by the copy-protection measures were audiophiles (who, by the, way effectively killed the format because of the restrictions imposed by congress). The irony is that audiophiles were also the least likely people to make illegal copies; on the contrary, many purchase multiple versions of a single recording. The more typical non-commercial copyright infringement was young teenagers buying $50 boom-boxes with abysmal sounding cassette duplication. The quality of the duplication was of minimal importance (you can't hear the poor quality on a $50 boom-box), as it had minimal impact on their decision to make illegal copies vs. buying legal copies.

    I'd recommend striking the word "perfect", and putting to rest the urban legend that digital copies are somehow different from other method of copying. This is not meant to diminish the importance of digital distribution, which obliviously has had an impact on non-commercial copyright infringement. Confusing "digital copies" with "digital distribution" is how we got lousy laws like the DMCA in the first place.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close