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.
PPA sees problems with this bill that we don't (Score:5, Insightful)
A bill that would make it impossible for photographers to protect their work in any digital format is set for a hearing in the House on Wednesday, May 12.
It'd be still possible for photographers to protect their work using DRM. They could apply DRM until the cows come home... it's just that people would legally be able to crack their DRM in a way that's presently illegal. Security-by-encryption will still be around, but having security-by-law to back it up when it fails would go away. Okay, that's FUD.
Known as H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumer Rights Act would give hackers explicit permission to distribute software and hardware devices designed to defeat copyright protection technology.
That's exactly true. Software like DeCSS would no longer be illegal to distribute, and in fact would be specifically authorized by this law. The PPA seems to think this is a bad thing, but that's the only problem with this claim.
Other provisions of the bill would set a dangerous precedent by making copyright owners who use anti-copying technology on music discs subject to regulation and fines from the Federal Trade Commission unless they meet extensive labeling and regulatory requirements.
That's true as well, as a CD with any sort of DRM applied to it ceases to be a "Red Book" standard CD. This law would require labeling of such non-standard CDs, and that such labels not be removed until the end consumer gets the disc. There'd be fines from the FTC if such a CD is sold without being properly labeled. Again, The PPA seems to think this is a bad thing, but that's the only problem with this claim.
In short, this is a piece of legislation that undoes some of the most offensive provisions of the DMCA, which is exactly what the "groupthink" opinion of Slashdot has wanted all along...
./ congresscritters? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PPA sees problems with this bill that we don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if the smoking companies are forced to put warning labels on their cigarette packets, then why shouldnt there be large warnings saying this cd is protected by copying protection schemes and may be incompatible with your current cd player. If the person wants the music bad enough, then it shouldnt be a problem and wont detract from sales. Heck you see heaps of smokers still smoking despite the surgeon general's warning on the front!
Whats good for the goose, should be good for the gander as well is what is appropriate here. Sure cd's aint killing people but hey, if you dont adhere to a standard then you should be made to say so that its not the genuine thing and not dupe people into thinking otherwise
Re:This argument (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Care to back that number up? Why isn't it 10%, or 40%?
And anyway, very few people are talking about repealing copyright completely. Most anti-DMCA folks just want to roll back the relatively recent excesses of copyright law, not to scrap the entire concept (though there is of course a small minority who wants that.)
Re:This argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there will always be people copying movies, songs and software. It sucks, especially for small companies just trying to pay the bills (I feel less bad for monopolists and cartels, but that still doesn't make it okay to infringe their copyrights). The DMCA has been remarkably ineffective at preventing this. It has been remarkably effective at squelching free speech and killing off projects to promote interoperability. How long did the Linux platform suffer without proper DVD support no thanks to DMCA threat letters and legal extortion? I think we can safely say the vast majority of people just wanted DVD support to work and be Open Source, and aren't into ripping and pirating movies.
We don't need the DMCA. It fails to respect the balance between consumer rights and media producer rights, it is bad for Open Source and open technologies in general, and it disempowers us all.
Re:PPA sees problems with this bill that we don't (Score:5, Insightful)
The PPA's notion of extensive is ridiculous. All they need to do is put on a label like copy-protected music or encrypted music - not a CD. The regulatory requirements are almost fully contained in the text of the bill and basically just require these labels. You'd think that they were being asked to provide the kind of detailed labelling required on food, or regulated the way prescription drugs are. The requirements are very modest and entirely justifiable - they just prevent consumer fraud.
Re:This argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this is woefully incorrect. Most wholesale infringement is simply not a fair use. HOWEVER, any use is capable of being a fair use; it all depends on the specific circumstances involved. So if you foreclose an entire class of use -- e.g. reproduction -- then you are necessarily trampling on fair uses. This is the problem with DRM. It is stupid, and it cannot allow fair uses through while barring infringing uses. Given that federal judges and justices have had arguments in various cases, there is no reason to believe that any stupid, mindless machine will ever be able to do a good job of this.
Of course, since you can get the bejeezus sued out of you for infringements, who gives a rat's ass? It's always an available remedy, and it's a much better one.
Nobody respects the law now. Why would any new legislation change anything?
Well, the law right now is completely unworthy of respect. No one respected prohibition. But there's considerably more respect for the laws pertaining to alcohol that we have now. It's not perfect, but then you should be smart enough to expect that there will always be a bit of illegal activity going on, and that even what we have after reforms might not be ideal either.
If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight.
Followed by crazy-huge upsurges in the network, storage, and publishing industries, to whom the doors are wide open.
But most reformers aren't trying for a total repeal. I for one just want sensible copyright laws that more or less fit the contours of people's ordinary common sense anyhow (making it that less likely that people would even want to do something illegal). Shorter terms, strict formalities, more exemptions for ordinary people. It's a damn far cry from repeal.
The number of people who would lose jobs that depend on copyright, patent and trademarks is incredible.
Patents have their own problems of late, but really the patent system is very good. All it needs are some minor changes, chiefly in stricter examinations and easier burdens on challengers.
Same deal for trademarks, basically. Get rid of the recently introduced (and foolish) dilution laws, leaving things at infringement, and that's about all the reform that's needed. Again, a total overhaul is not necessary, and AFAIK not called for.
Copyright is the most fucked up of all of these, but I think you'll find that most
So stop exaggerating.
Re:This argument (Score:5, Insightful)
And why the heck would copyright be repealed? What a ridiculous straw man. It's even in the U.S. constitution: "Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". How about making copyright laws constitutional and enforcing that "limited times" aspect?
Defiance is better (Score:4, Insightful)
The freedom restrictions caused by copying monopolies are far more effectively addressed by defiance, encryption, and p2p.
Re:This argument (Score:1, Insightful)
And advertising? wtf? Advertising wants to spread. The opposite of copyright! (but advertisers DO want "moral right" to prevent parody - i.e. anti plagiarism, which copyright is NOT, surprisingly enough, though americans often mix the two up, unlike europe.).
Radio and television are advertising driven. Don't need copyright there (if anything, copying the programs (which are ads these days) is free advertising)). Theatre and music were around THOUSANDS of years before copyright, and almost all the acknowledged "greats" - shakespeare, mozart, etc. didn't have copyright as we understand it!.
Pharmacuticals and semiconductors are patented, not copyrighted.
Software has only been copyrightable for a couple of decades, and all the "best" software, the compsci groundwork, happened _before_ that.
Copyright is government-enforced restriction of communication, plain and simple. Governments and corporations (same thing, these days...) LOVE copyright because it gives them an exclusive right to control information flow to their benefit.
NO MORE COPYRIGHTS! TOTAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION!
Re:This argument (Score:2, Insightful)
No they won't. They can't sell what they produce if any other company can simply copy their product. The price will drop to zero and all R&D will become worthless.
You are aware that patents are distinct from and unrelated to copyright, yes?
The original message mentioned patent trademark AND copyright.
Re:This argument (Score:3, Insightful)
The View From Washington (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's face it: they know a lot of things, but some of them are lucky if they can get Microsoft Word to start up. A sufficient amount, especially the ones without much seniority or facing tough election campaigns, are going to go with what big-money associations such as the RIAA and MPAA say because they a: don't see why it's worth it to fight such powerful lobbying groups and b: are only being provided information by one side.
So the long-term solution might be two-fold: a little lobbying of our own, in terms of presenting our side of the argument and why it's worth the blood and sweat programmers pour into it; and some basic coursework in Internet 101.
Re:Rep. Boucher... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't just throw your support against something like the **AA. When you're given the opportuninty, throw your support *for* something. Let your representatives know that you are for something here, not just against things. It makes you feel better as a person too. Boucher gets my support every time he comes up for re-election, and is one reason I'm against term limits. He's someone I like, and I want him to stay there damn it!
(For the record, I hate a 2 party system, can't stand disliking 95% of the choices I have to vote for, etc. Discussions that follow on the nature of politics/politicians/politicial parties will be sent to
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
But regardless aren't cd sales declining? I mean the prerecorded kind. This bill only applies to an old technology medium, and copy protection schemes that have proven mostly ineffectual. Might as well throw in eight track and casette labeling, as long as we are concerned with correctly labeling old technologies.
So, I agree that this makes sense and in politics it is good to fight on consistent grounds. But it seems like congress, as usual, would be a few years late to the game on this one. Or maybe after the game.
Oh, and so is priavcy (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me just address it now. First off, in the information age it is no longer a copyright issue, it is a free speech issue, because there is no technology that naturally distinguish between free speech content and copyright content. Second, did Harriet Tubman deserve to be punished for forming the underground railroad, should she have gracefully accepted whatever punishment that came to her, should society have gracefully accepted her almost certain death penalty if she were caught because she knew it was against the law and did it anyhow? Just think about it
Re:This argument (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Progress will stop. No company will be able to justify the R&D expense.
Re:This argument (Score:2, Insightful)
That is why the american empire is pushing so hard for patents to be enforced in the developing world - it is trying to protect itself against third-world innovators, just as the british empire did in its time.
Expect india, china and brazil to band together to ignore american patents and copyrights as soon as they have assembled enough nukes.
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
As other replies said, this is an easy read. Just to sum up for the lazy, though:
Most of the text relates specifically and exclusively to audio CDs. Specifically, it will require CDs with copy protection to be labeled as such.
The last bit is more general though:
It seems this allows certain kinds of research, in addition to making it legal to use and make products that circumvent copy protection if the purpose is not copyright infringement. It seems that breaking a copy protection technology for the purposes of copyright violation is still illegal under both the DMCA and plain old copyright law (but someone correct me if I'm wrong).
I'd also like to point out (because I like to pick nits) the shortage of details in the 321 studios press release:
It would have been a simple matter to explain how the DMCRA would re-affirm fair use and balance. You'd think people these days were afraid of using concrete facts in the things they write for fear of educating their readers.
-jim
limited copyrights (was: Re:This argument) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Everybody, basically. Not everyone has broadband. Not everyone has, or knows how to use a computer. Not everybody wants to read, listen to music, or watch videos on a computer.
The printing press was invented in about 1454. The first copyright law didn't appear until 1710. Historically, publishers have hated copyrights, which were passed despite them.
The trick is, you have to be more responsive. Whenever something comes out that there is a demand for, you print 'em up fast and get as much of the initial market as possible, before it's a commodity. Witness paperback copies of the Starr Report that were in stores within days of its release. Then, the other half is to print somewhat smaller runs of works that are commodities, but which are priced accordingly. I can walk into about any bookstore and buy copies of Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, Melville, and so forth. Their works have been in the public domain for ages, if not forever, but continue to be mildly steady sellers.
The fact that there are pirates that SELL copies of the things they've pirated should attest to the fact that there's always a buyer for damn near anything, even when you can get it from anywhere. Just because something is universally available doesn't mean you automatically have one already.
Would they stop wholesale flagrant infringement?
Probably. If for no other reason than that the wholesale flagrant activities going on right now would probably be legalized. The repeal of Prohibition sure as hell stopped people from drinking illegally. Didn't stop drinking itself, though.
I think that at this point, any reasonable copyright reform is going to require that any otherwise infringing acts which are not for commercial gain, which are performed by natural persons, is not infringing.
Which is probably your largest bit of flagrant infringement right there. At least, it certainly is in terms of people involved, and so fewer people would be acting lawlessly, anyhow.
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DMCRA strengthens DMCA in a good way (Score:1, Insightful)
The horror!
Joking aside, it certainly appears to strengthen the ideas set forth by the DMCA. I think it'll be hard for anyone to argue against the DMRCA, unless they hate citizens of the United States.
Photographers broken business model (Score:5, Insightful)
The law is broken and needs to change.
Non-works for hire such as nature photos should still be pieces of art and protected as a piece of art such as a painting, movie, or song. My wedding for hire photos should be mine, not the photographers.
/.ing Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a bad idea, but there are a few simple rules to make your vote actually count...
First, read the f'ing bill. It's here [loc.gov]
Use the telephone. You'll probably never get through to your congressman, but getting through to staff is actually more important. Call the office in DC (http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html [house.gov]) and ask to speak to the STAFF MEMBER who's tracking HR 107. If no one's following it, ask for the staff member who handles IP, technology, or computer issues.
There's no more powerful statement to make than "I'm your constituent, and if this passes it's a problem for me", except for...
"This is so important that it will impact how I'm going to vote in November." But you damn well better believe it if you say it, because that's the easiest lie to detect. (Hey, if your guy's from the wrong party, but does the right thing here, why aren't you voting for him?)
Stay on message. Resist the urge to talk about Iraq, or software patents, or anything else. The point is for the staff member to say, "I got 50 calls today abut HR 107, they're mostly from people in the district, and they all said it's important that the bill gets through". Hard to believe, but if a party whip isn't demanding a position, this generally determines how somebody's gonna vote.
And don't take a lot of time. In the first three minutes, you've made your case or not. In any case, your call has already been recorded as for or against, and is going to be in tomorrow's daily brief. Once you state your case, all you can do is fuck up, unless the staff member starts asking you questions.
Follow up with a fax. It should go to the DC office, the closest district office, the sponsor (Boucher), and if you're feeling creative, all of the bill's cosponsors -- there's actually bi-partisan support. (Available from the bill link above.) Staff tally these things, and it goes into the decision matrix.
BTW, if anybody's from Rhode Island, Patrick Kennedy was a co-sponsor, but withdrew his support.
Don't bother with email. These guys get slashdotted every day (imagine a half million people knowing your email address), so the sad fact is that nobody on the hill reads email.
Follow up, part II: a personal note to the staff member. It may not help this time, but a note card saying "Thanks for taking the time to talk with me today" goes a long, long way the next time you need to talk to your representative. Tip O'Neil got to be Speaker that way, and you can make the case that George H.W. Bush got to be president that way. The legislative process is all about relationships.
Finally, Stay polite. The staff member (or the congressman) may be a pinhead, but if you get belligerent, he might vote the other way because you're seen as an asshole. Bite your tounge, especially if they're stupid.
Note: If your Congressman's a Congresswoman, use your favorite word processor to adjust the genders referenced above. Reread, lather, rinse, repeat.
Re:This argument (Score:2, Insightful)
"Progress will stop. No company will be able to justify the R&D expense."
No, both of these statements are wrong, because they are oversimplified. First off I am assuming that you are both talking about what would happen if both patents and copyrights were gone.
Progress would not stop. there would still be some bennifit to R&D. Even if it is gaurenteed that your competitors will copy your researsh fast enough to deny you any market advantage, both of you would still bennifit from, say, 50% cheaper CPU's, as the overall market would expand 'cause more people and applications can afford them. However the bennifit of R&D in this case is a lot less than it would be with patents, as you lose advantages over competitors. So here progress would slow, not speed up.
For other things progress would speed up, if for no other reason than that you could fire all your lawyers and hire 3x more engineers for the same price, and save a few forests (less paperwork) in the bargin.
The real result here would be that progress would be different. I think given our current technological situation that progress would net a fair gain, but some areas would slow drastically.
Re:This argument (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a fair use supporter. In 2000 I deleted the 30 gigs of MP3s I had downloaded via Napster, because I could not come up with an ethical justification for having them. I currently have zero infringing material. I also have over 15 gigs of digital music ripped from the more than 200 CDs that I own. Fair use gives me the right to store my CDs in digital format, which increases my ability to enjoy the product I purchased. Since my willingness to pay for a product is directly proportional to my ability to derive enjoyment from that product, this is a good thing.
Re:Why not give a better link to the PPA? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think your "DRM virus" would be protected under the DMCA since the spreading of the "virus" would probably break other laws. Of course, an effective and popular DRM virus might just focus people's attention upon whose "rights" and "security" DRM and "Trusted Computing" are intended to protect.
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 suspect your question may have been rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway; they do it to maximize their profits.
--
Copyrights and Patents are optimization problems: maximize progress.
Re:Why not give a better link to the PPA? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the "he was breaking the law [spreading the virus], so I'm allowed to break the law [decrypting the virus]" defense is invalid. That doesn't mean that original virus spreader is not a criminal, though. It just means that the antivirus people also become criminals. (There might be a specific exemption for this in the DMCA though. Don't know it all that well since I live on the other side of the pond).
Instead of flaming /. flame your rep! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why not give a better link to the PPA? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Library of Congress can grant exemptions. They already have for reversing the wordlists used by netfilters (netnanny, etc.). I would imagine that they would grant an exemption for reversing malware if petitioned to do so. Of course, I don't know that anyone *has* petitioned them to do so, so it might not be that bad an idea...
DMCRA (Score:2, Insightful)
A VP of NASCAR has been brought in from out-of-state to run against Boucher, with appropriate funding. Nothing would make copylock industires happier than to defeat Boucher. After 20 years, his seniority and incumbent status is crucial on the Judiciary, Commerce, Internet, and Satelllite House committees. And you should take a look at his letters to Michael Powell on the Broadcast Flag.
We will be hosting fundraisers immediately. Hopefuilly, we can re-schedule San Francisco meet 'n greets with Lessig and the folks at EFF.
Please take a look at http://www.boucherforcongress.com Donate if you will!