Boucher's DMCRA To Get A Hearing On May 12 305
Mr. Firewall writes "It's been a long road since Slashdot first carried the story that Rep.
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) was speaking out about the DMCA's trampling of fair-use rights. Well, his bill (HR 107) gets a hearing this Wednesday and the multi-billion-dollar music and movie industries have called out their Big Guns to stop it. This morning an urgent message from the Professional Photographers of America arrived in my inbox characterizing Boucher's bill as 'A bill that would make it impossible for photographers to protect their work' and other lies (apparently, the RIAA and MPAA have recruited the PPA into their Axis of Evil). The alert finishes by saying that 'a strong grassroots effort combined with [our] recent lobbying efforts should be enough to keep this harmful bill locked in the subcommittee ... until Congress adjourns.' Let's give these folks a little taste of the slashdot effect and do a little 'grassroots' contacting of congresscritters ourselves." Of course, you can decide only for yourself what your thoughts are on the bill.
Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's The bill's test on the Thomas system. [loc.gov] and here's the list of 15 representatives co-sponsoring the bill [loc.gov].
Read the bill for yourself, then you can think for yourself about what it's going to do if passed.
DMCRA = Digital Media Consumer Rights Act (Score:2, Informative)
This sentance says it all... (Score:5, Informative)
It shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute, or make noninfringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work.
It's the RIAA/MPAA's nightmare and the consumer's dream... the right to defeat DRM in order to make fair use of the resulting file.
Send your representatives an email.... (Score:5, Informative)
Rep. Boucher... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.house.gov/boucher/pics/boucherpic.jpg [house.gov]
Looks like he also aided the early growth of the internet:
http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/tbio.htm [house.gov]
Re:Does it really have a chance? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does it really have a chance? (Score:5, Informative)
Read further down in the text of the bill beyond the point it talks about CDs. The last section modifies Section 1201(c) of title 17, a section that got much of its content from the DMCA. Basically, it guts much of this section by specifically allowing the use and distribution of DRM-defeating software if the goal is to enable fair use that is otherwise legal.
If that's your goal... (Score:4, Informative)
That's a sign of trouble right there. The PPA's goal is to see Congress lock this bill in committee. That's a legislative tactic to defeat a bill by having the comittee that's been assigned the bill simply never submit a report, which denies the full House any chance to debate or vote on the bill unless there is no objection to the House substituting a favorable report to make up for the comittee's inaction. Death-by-inaction is a way to get rid of a bill you don't like without having to actually make a "nay" vote that goes on the record.
However, this May 12 hearing is not something people supporting that outcome want to see. It's even very possible that the vote to favorably recommend the bill to the full House may come out of this session...
Re:DMC-Wha? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This argument (Score:1, Informative)
Research? Semiconductors? Pharmaceuticals? Where do you suppose these industries are going? Companies (with a profit mission) will still invest in R&D to stay ahead of their competitors, and universities (with an educational mission) will still invest in R&D for the sake of progress.
Look at Intel-- how much money do they make by licensing copyrighted research? Little, if any-- they use (and patent) the processes they invent. And drug companies' work is also protected by patents, not copyrights. Pfizer doesn't make a dime off of licensing copyrighted content for viewing. You are aware that patents are distinct from and unrelated to copyright, yes? (I always hate to accuse people of this, but I feel like either you're trolling or you really just don't know what you're talking about...)
As for the content industries which are affected by this law, I fully agree that copyright shouldn't be repealed entirely, but I have no problem whatsoever with reverse-engineered decryption software being made legal once again, since I know lots of people that use it to enable legitimate fair use as defined in the Sony supreme court ruling, and not a single person who uses it to illegally crack and copy movies.
Write your representative! (Score:3, Informative)
Notes:
If you're not sure what to write, you can start with my letter [nerdnet.org] to my congresscritter.
If the bill link above stops working (Thomas doesn't seem to like direct-linking bills), just go to Thomas [loc.gov] and enter bill number HR107.
the thinkers, the doers, and the.... (Score:2, Informative)
We had in man's history the fasted growth and most advances following the most free sharing of information and when technology making knowledge transfer virtually instantenous and pervasive.
Back when knowledge was locked up in some monks chambers and in a few closed guilds, we stayed mostly stagnant, productive change was painfully slow, and the bulk of the people alive lived in total misery and in helpless exploitation. You can't have it both ways. Some seek a return to the old ways by insisting on more and more to keep knowledge "all theirs", even though they get great benefit from millions of others work and knowledge-they tend to forget that all the time.
It's just historical data, and it's true facts. More knowledge shared, and the cheaper and faster, the better off things get.
Over all it would improve the over all wealth structure of society as a whole, not undermine it. short term, yes, some chaos, but medium and long term, nope, it would make it much better. It would force (they would be more free to do so actually) more and more people to become thinkers and doers in actual effect.
DMCRA strengthens DMCA in a good way (Score:4, Informative)
Re:OT: USA's Political System (Score:3, Informative)
Big corporations give them campaign donations and such. They then campaign for those corporation's interests.
Write these SubCommittee Members! (Score:5, Informative)
This is a list of the subcommittee members [congress.org].
E-mail each of these 27 members, especially if one of the members happens to be your representative. They hold the power right now. Later we'll worry about other votes and other members. For now, write these 27 reps! Here's a sample letter:
Dear Subcommittee member,
I am writing to ask you to support H.R. 107 this Wednesday and favorably recommend that it move on from your subcommittee. This bill is identical to one which Representatives Boucher and Doolittle introduced during the last Congressional session, so the time that this bill move forward has come.
H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumer's Rights Act (DMCRA), restores consumers' fair use rights by amending the DMCA to allow circumvention of copy protection for non-infringing uses of digital copyrighted material. The DMCRA also specifies that it is not a violation of Section 1201 of the DMCA to manufacture, distribute, or make non-infringing use of a hardware or software product that enables significant non-infringing use of a copyrighted work, as in making back-up copies of legally purchased DVDs or other digital media.
Several provisions of The Digital Millenium Copyright Act have harmed law-abiding citizens of this country for too long. The DMCRA is a sensible change to the law that is necessary for consumers to enjoy their rights of fair use.
The content industry that opposes this bill has cried wolf before. They opposed the VCR, likening it to the Boston Strangler. We know now that technological advances are good for both consumers and industry, and that an industry scared of change should not be allowed to impede progress or consumer's rights.
I believe that if you are truly thinking of the interests of your constituents, then you will support the DMCRA. I urge you to take a stand for the public this Wednesday.
Thank You.
Re:OT: USA's Political System (Score:5, Informative)
Sure. It's really quite simply, actually:
The middle school textbook answer would be: Congress divides itself into committees, which further subdivide into subcommittees. All legislation starts in one of these subcommittees. (A member can introduce a bill directly but it is then routed to the "appropriate" subcommittee, yielding the same practical result.) The subcommittee holds hearings, which are basically a chance for the monied stakeholders to inveigle and jeremiad about how the proposed legislation will cause The End of the World as We Know It. (That is, unless the monied interest would benefit from the bill, in which case its passage is deemed Vital to the National Security and Desired by All Right-Thinking People, in contrast to its opponents, who Eat Babies and Hate America.) From time to time, for amusement value, small groups who have the actual public interest at heart get to testify, too.
If the subcommittee likes the bill, it is reported up to the full committee, which more or less repeats the process but adds some pork for various Congressional districts, entirely coincidentally the ones from which the committee members were elected. Then, at the whim of the committee chair, the bill as amended is reported to the House or Senate for the almost mythical "straight up-and-down vote".
If the bill is unpalatable but embarassing to vote against -- if, for example, it's a bill banning the sale of contaminated milk to schoolchildren but you happen to have been heavily lobbied by SpolitMilkCo -- then you look for ways to kill it without a vote. As much as possible, you keep it "bottled up in committee", meaning that there are occasional hearings but the report is never written. If you wait long enough, the Congress will adjourn and all unreported bills will die of asphyxiation. That means that the pesky bill would have to be re-introduced at the next session by whatever pesky Congressperson introduced it in the first place -- and with any luck, the massive spending by the ticked off monied interests will have led to the demise of that Congressperson. Then everyone wins.
Except, of course, the actual people of the United States. But really, if they can't be bothered to donate uber-millions to defend their interests, to heck with them.
My Letter (Score:3, Informative)
Congress(wo)man
On Wednesday, May 12, 2004, there will be a congressional hearing to consider HR 107, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA). The DMCRA has been endorsed by many large corporations, including those with
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, illegalized acts that are necessary for scientific research and fair use of technology products. The DMCRA works to loosen some of these restrictions. Specifically, it informs consumers of when an audio CD does not conform to industry standards and therefore might not be able to function in their player. Furthermore, it invites scientific research by allowing products to be reversed-engineered, only so long as such use is does not infringe upon the copyright.
I encourage you to consider this bill as a first step towards reinstating the rights of citizens to be informed of the limitations of the products they buy and to use those products in whatever non-infringing ways that they see fit.
Thank you for your time,
Re:We do have an effect (Score:5, Informative)
If you enter your state and zip code here [house.gov](you shouldn't need a +4, unless your in a really gerrymandered district. You can either send an electronic message or get your representative's name. Then take that over to this page [house.gov] and you can see their little house page which has contact info for sending a fax, phone, or snail mail message. If you write a letter be sure to address them as Hon. or Rep. [last name] and try to be respectful and logical ie. this bill protects consumers from getting discs that do not meed the CD standard, and allows research that will improve current digital security. Also try to appeal to their desire to be bipartisan if your rep is a Republican or appeal to their party if they are Democrats. Since this is a house bill, I didn't provide the look up for your Senator. You should know which state our are in and there are two senators per state.
Also, all of these house members are up for election this year, unless they are retireing, so you might want to spend a bit of time on their page to see what they are for and against.
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:5, Informative)
Why not give a better link to the PPA? (Score:5, Informative)
Give them something more useful to look at, like the contact page [ppa.com]. You can tell them why this is unreasonable.
Now then, they're probably right that it would prevent them from being able to protect their works--DRM does not and has not ever worked (and hopefully will never work, since DRM working would imply that all general-purpose devices have been disabled or destroyed...)
Of course, where we disagree is whether this is a Bad Thing [TM]. Obviously, the substantial non-infringing uses (not to mention the crippling effects of DRM schemes when secure, and their futility when insecure) legitimizes the need to be able to crack DRM schemes without fearing that you might have to go to prison because you stripped out the "don't copy" bit.
I could only wish that a judge would rule, with a perverse sense of irony, that the word "effective" when discussing copyright protection devices meant that the device had to actually work (e.g. be un-circumventable), but alas, I don't think that judges are allowed to do that.
In the mean time, why don't they stick to suing people from actual copyright infringement, instead of "protecting" their works with stupidly restrictive schemes?
I mean, I'm just waiting for a "DRM Virus" which makes use of some DRM scheme or another to prevent anti-virus people from reversing or deactivating it. And lest you think I'm kidding that a provision like this could be used by the virus writer, read McClelland v. McGrath, 31 F. Supp. 616 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Even though it might be "the very definition of chutzpah," a kidnapper sued a police officer for unauthorized monitoring of his cell phone. He may not have been able to supress the evidence against him and get off of the kidnapping charge, but there were still civil penalties under 18 USC 2518(10)(a)
BoC (Score:2, Informative)
Re:BoC (Score:5, Informative)
EFF has an easy way to write to Congress on this (Score:3, Informative)
Re:/.ing Congress (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a little skeptical of this statement. I occasionally email my Senator and have received a personalized response via postal mail every time. The relevant bills were referenced in those replies and the Senator signed each one. Although there is room for a little bit of suspicion (a staff member may have ghostwritten them), the senator must have read my letter and the reply since he signed it, right?
Re:BoC (Score:2, Informative)
I take it you've never actually been to an American high school south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Re:Send a letter not email (Score:3, Informative)
WriteRep requires you to put in your zipcode before writing your Congressman, thereby allowing the Member to know you are a constituent.
If you would like to write to a Member of Congress who is not your Representative, write a paper letter, but also understand how little effect it may have on them.