Lofgren's Anti-DRM Bill 322
blastedtokyo writes "House representative Zoe Lofgren introduced the Digital Choice and Freedom Act. Perhaps the most interesting section is the part that invalidates 'non-negotiable shrink wrap licenses' (EULAs) that limit rights. On top of this, it states that both digital and analog media need to be subject to fair use rules for backing up. The full text of the bill is also available." News.com.com.com.com and Infoworld have stories as well, which both note that there is no chance of these bills being passed this year.
Say it with me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't cross the beams... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Say it with me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't cross the beams... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the provisions in Rep. Lofgren's bill that conflict with existing laws are edits or clarifications -- they replace or qualify previous statements, but they don't contradict them outright. For example, it would still be illegal to distribute circumvention devices, unless they're required (no other easy way to get fair use exists) and marketed as fair-use devices. That is, cable descramblers sold as "ADV: GET FREE CABLE!!" are still illegal. Signal descramblers sold as "Tivo digital adapter" would now be OK.
Conflicts with proposed legislation are quite common. What gets passed, if anything, will be a compromise between the Lofgren bill and Sen Holling's "government-mandated DRM in all electronics" bill.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's fine if you can read the agreement before buying the product. The problem with shrinkwraps is that you often can't. You buy the nice looking box at the store, get it home, open it up and there's some sticker saying you have to take it back to the store for a refund if you don't agree. That's too much of a pain. If you want the agreement to be really binding (and I tend to agree that manufacturers should be able to put whatever terms in they want) you have to be open and make sure those terms are publicised alongside the marketing material.
Re:Finally Some Good News (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's not get too crazy here and think that the Rep is doing this out of the goodness of her heart.
"Silicon Valley Congresswoman introduces bill to respect consumer rights and expectations."
What we have here is a battle brewing between interest groups in California. Fritz Hollings is a patsy for Disney and the rest of Hollywood. I'm sure that Lofgren has some ties to Apple and other companies in the Valley that don't want DRM.
"The Semiconductor Industry Association has named her a "Congressional Leader" and the Business Software Alliance has called her one its "Cyber Champions."'
And lets not forget that the Supreme Court decided long ago that Corporations have rights as well as all citizens do.
I think this is the right idea, but don't kid yourself about heroic Representatives fighting the evil corporations for the good of the people.
Because the RIAA is trying to force it on us. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Two problems with this. First, what if Microsoft stated in their EULA that, if I want to run Windows, I have to go find a Linux-using hippy, break into his house, reformat his hard drive, and install Windows on his computer? This is fairly clearly illegal. So such a EULA would also be illegal.
Also, just try and get a copy of the EULA to software (especially from Microsoft) before buying it. It's not on the box. It's not on the website. While I've never tried myself, I've heard tell that people calling up or emailling Microsoft to ask for a copy were denied. It's not until after you've paid your money that you get asked if you want to accept the EULA. And find a software store that will accept a return of an opened box.
First vs. Complete (Score:2, Insightful)
IANAJ (I am not a journalist) but it would seem more important to have all the facts than to get that proverbial "first post". It doesn't matter if someone else breaks the story first, as long as you have the better/more complete information. That makes you (and Slashdot) look more professional and less knee-jerk.
It it real or just a stunt? (Score:2, Insightful)
When a long-shot bill actually does get a chance due to exceptional circumstances, such as campaign reform after Enron, the process is slowly and noisily debated for the benefit of cameras. Often nothing comes of it, but each politician will swear they wanted to make something happen. If a bill actually passes, it is watered down enough to provide a symbolic victory without actually affecting the way business is done.
I think we're much more likely to have our rights protected by the courts than by Congress. Once those rights under current laws are reaffirmed, it will be politically difficult for Congress to pass new laws taking them away.
Re:EULA Strength? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody knows:)
IANAL, but here's my take on things.
Agreements can be made without a signature, if they are commonly implied. Handshake deals, while legally shaky, are accepted from time to time. An EULA is similar. So an EULA may be legally binding.
However, from how I see things, the contract being made when you purchase software is a standard sales agreement. Both parties have certain rights and responsiblities. Copyright and Fair Use are examples of these. In this case, what the software companies are doing is REWRITING that contract unilaterally. I can't write up a contract with a person, then a week later just rewrite the terms, it doesn't work that way. Once it leaves the store, any additional terms are null and void. Instead of using EULAs, companies should have representitives at every store with a stack of contracts for consumers to sign when they purchase software. If the expense is too high, maybe they should just not put in an EULA, and maybe just put a small disclaimer on the box. ("This software is not to be distributed, we are not responsible for any damage to your system this may cause". is really all a software company needs for an agreement)
EULA's (Score:5, Insightful)
As a software developer, I'd like to see EULA's remain legal. I don't want to be sued because some idiot misused or ran a virus infected version of my executable and bad things happened to that PC. I don't want to be sued when the same idiot installs an older software application that overwrites a bunch of MFC and ATL DLL's and then complains that "it dunnit work no more - yee haw"
However, I'm completely opposed to the way EULA's are presented to people now... Most EULA's are presented as a step in the InstallShield installer, if you don't accept the terms you can't install the application. Problem is, if you don't accept the terms, you won't be able to take it back to the store. Best Buy, Fry's, Comp USA, etc., don't take returns on opened software, only exchanges.
What should happen is that companies are required to either print the EULA on the box (there is room, even on the new boxes, just print it on the large flap where there's just screenshots and marketing crap there anyways). Then, users can read the EULA before they've brought it home and started to install it, and if they don't like the terms of the EULA they can leave the box on the shelf and look at a competitor's product.
Making EULA's completely illegal as some people advocate is too extreme. Businesses and independent developers need some protection from the unwashed masses (like AOL users, har har).
I read the text of the bill, and I mostly agree with it. However, I'd like a change in this bill that says essentially the above - you want to use a EULA, fine, but the user had better be able to read it before they've purchased the software.
(And while we're suggesting changes, how about an across the board repeal of the DMCA?)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more than just a pain. Most retail stores prominently post something to the effect of "No refunds or returns of open software, music or DVDs. Exchanges Only!"
According to the EULA, you're supposed to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund if you don't agree, except they've already informed you that they refuse to abide by that agreement. The EULA not only attempts to force the customer into a contract with no explicit agreement, it also attempts to force the retailer into the agreement by requiring it to act as an agent of the manufacturer.
So you can return it if you don't agree, except you can't return it except to exchange it for another copy. Somewhere in here is a consipiracy to defraud, whether it's intentional or not.
Good to hear but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that, in an environment where we've got an economy in the toilet, an active war on terrorism, and a soon to be war against Iraq, people as a whole have much better things to worry about than DRM. If you have to pick your next congressman based on their stand on war in Iraq vs. their stand on DRM, which is the higher priority? So, in the absense of a direct link between a congress critter's stand on DRM and their job security they'll go where the money is.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that congress critters do acutally make ethical decisions based on their personal belief. That sometimes in spite of money and public opinion they'll make a choice because they believe it to be the right one. But in order for legislation to make any real headway, you need more than just the ethical stand of a conscience possessing minority.
Re:A little short of the mark (Score:2, Insightful)
If the data can be loaded into a PC, it can be cracked.
If nothing else, there is always the "analog hole".
So don't sit there, contact your representative. (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Find out who your Representative is at www.house.gov/writerep [house.gov]. The form wants your zip+4, and they give you the link to the USPS to find your 4 digit extension.
2. The next form will tell you who your Representative is, and let you send a text message to your Representative, -or-
3. Go to clerk.house.gov/members/index.php [house.gov] and find the office of your Representative and give them a call. They have nice people there to take down exactly these types of calls. Tell the person that you want to express your support for "Zoe Lofgren's Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002", and they will ask for your name and there you go.
So don't just sit there, call/write/email your Representative and let them know how you feel.
I'd really like to see a "forward this email" campaign with information about why this bill/proposal is so good, and including the information on how to contact your Representative. I'd start one but I don't know the best way to phrase the rest of the information.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
This post has conditions inside.
By reading this post, you agree to send me $15,000 in small unmarked bills within 24 hours, and you also agree to any other terms I can think up that I will put in my Post Reader License Agreement (PRLA) (that you didn't agree to, by the by.)
What? That's unfair and probably illegal? Then why is it OK for software companies to do it?
Point of law (although IANAL): You cannot modify the terms of sale after the sale has occured. Saying "HEY, THERE IS A CONTRACT IN HERE" does not bind you to said contract, just as buying a car and finding a slip of paper in the glove box that said "No warranty, ha ha!" would invalidate your warranty, because, again it is ILLEGAL to modify the terms of a sale after the sale has occured. Companies know these are bullshit. If they thought otherwise, everything would start shipping with EULAs. "This crib not warranted for holding babies. May grow tentacles and eat them." "This Pizza User License Agreement hereby requires that you eat no more than 3 slices at a sitting and must give a positive testimonial if asked about the quality of it." etc etc ad infinitum.
Just because the software companies want to will something into existence doesn't mean it's legal (or even sensical.)
Re:What I find interesting... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What are the chances... (Score:4, Insightful)
> of this getting passed? How much support does this
> bill hold in congress?
I don't think it even matters if it ever gets passed. The real value of this bill is to make Congress stop and think.
The sergeant of the senate recently had to shut down the senate's P2P network because of all the file sharing going on. These congress critters aren't very tech savy, but they apparently share the public's interest in file sharing. Holling's bill would put a stop to that. DRM would keep them and us from even rip/mix/burning our legally bought CDs. I doubt Hollings and his cohorts even realize that - they've been fed a line by the media sharks.
What this bill will do is *education*. It will make them *think* about what they are doing and how it will affect their lives and ours. Hopefully it will keep them from ruining our future by passing the Hollings bill. If it does that, I will be happy.
If by some miracle this bill passes as well, I will be thrilled!
"Mothra, you are Life Eternal! Hear the prayers of your servants.
Come back to us from out of the legend.
Come and save us with your power of Life!"
From the US release of "Mothra" May 10, 1962
G Countdown: 26 days (www.godzillaoncube.com)