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.
We do have an effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it really have a chance? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, easy read. Read it! (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in a professional photo lab and I am angling to become a professional photographer myself. AFAIC, the PPA can go fuck themselves on this one.
OT: USA's Political System (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This argument (Score:3, Interesting)
PPA, what do they have to do with this? (Score:4, Interesting)
The only thing that might pertain to photographers is the section about fair use:
Not coincidentally, this is my favorite part of the bill.
Re:Send your representatives an email.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this still true? I come from the postal district of the anthrax mailing. I know for some time Congresspeople stopped handling their mail, and I wonder if it's regained its cachet. Maybe faxing is the way to go...
Re:Does it really have a chance? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like a scenerio that should be protected, not made illegal, which, since it's on DVD and Macrovisioned on VHS, it is by the DCMA - even if permission is granted we'd have to circumvent encryption to do it! But IIRC, it's distributed by Miramax, which is a division of Disney, so who know if it will be allowed.
Re:This argument (Score:1, Interesting)
So if you found out my date of birth, a piece of information, I should not be able to have you thrown in jail. If you know my date of birth, I should not be able to have you thrown in jail. If you told somebody else my date of birth, I should not be able to have you thrown in jail.
The lesson of digital technology is that all information can be treated the same - substitute "movie" for "date of birth" in the above.
I would also point out that the Bank Account Details, SSN, Credit Card/Expiry date, examples are part of the _problem_, conceived by the same establishment that gives us copyright and other intellectual slavery laws - You can't easily change your SSN or credit card number, and you can't keep it completely secret and use it at the same time. So they are (numerical) NAMES, not PASSWORDS. The fact that the establishment requires us to treat them like PASSWORDS while they simultaneously do duty as NAMES means that the _system itself_ is stacked against freedom of information!
A little reversal? (Score:3, Interesting)
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. In response, Professional Photographers of America has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill to rally opposition to the legislation.
Key emotional words (some of which are outright lies as well) are impossible and rally. Not too bad so far, though starting off with a lie in the first paragraph is a bad sign.
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. 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.
Many of us will disagree with the use of hackers here, but explicit has dirty connotations, even if it's not a dirty word. We all know what the general public thinks hacker defines, anyway. My favorite is the "dangerous precedent" -- a slippery-slope argument
PPA believes that a strong grassroots effort combined with its recent lobbying efforts should be enough to keep this harmful bill locked in the subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection until Congress adjourns. To that end, we encourage all members to contact their Representative and urge them to oppose H.R. 107 the Digital Media Consumer Rights Act.
Just a plea here, nothing too exciting.
Of course, the comments with the post of the article are just as bad but you all must be used to reading that point of view by now.
Re:PPA, what do they have to do with this? (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, there are a few legislative goals the PPA has been working for that I strongly support. They mention them in pretty much every issue Professional Photographer magazine. Mainly, it sucks that in order to get the full protection of copyright, I have to submit a print to the copyright office to register it. Well, I create about 40,000 images a year. That's waaaayy too many to print and submit. It would be nice if I could submit images I want protection on electronically. Or if I could submit a body of work...burn a couple dvds with low-res samples and ship those off, so if anybody rips off my work I can prove I submitted it to the copyright office.
But this? Who cares. PPA: get back to work on the Small Business Health Fairness Act (S. 545/H.R. 660)!!! That's what I really want! To permit small business owners to purchase true group health insurance from trade associations! However, it'll never happen...the Republicans are bought off by the big carriers (blue cross blue shield) who want to see us locked into much more expensive individual plans, and the Democrats have no interest in seeing anybody with health insurance...they want us all clamoring for government aid. So, screwed again. But hey, we gotta make sure nobody can make backup copies of their audio CDs! That'll really help us photographers...sheesh.
and this is the line they won't like... (Score:1, Interesting)
i can see where they are going to throw a fit. tis basically gives permission to reverse engineer...not that there's anything wrong with that in my view.
i'm just talking about in general
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:5, Interesting)
Without trying to sound like flamebait, I suspect they're a body mostly looking after the highly commercial, wealthy, and LARGE photo studios who have, ofcourse, made their money by milking wedding photography for all that can be had.
In other words they seem to have exactly the same respect and commitment towards the art of photography as the RIAA has towards the art of music.
Nill.
Re:PPA, what do they have to do with this? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, that's right and proper. First, if you want a copyright, it's important that you tell the world just what, precisely, you're trying to copyright. A sample is perfect for that. Second, the Copyright Office is a branch of the Library of Congress, and the purpose of copyright generally is to expand the scope of knowledge. If they have a copy of your photograph, they'll preserve it so that it won't be lost if at all possible. And it'll be available to the public to look at, and once the copyright expires, to copy. The LoC has a gigantic collection, and they get a lot of it through copyright deposits.
Frankly, this is just the cost of doing business. You can't reasonably expect to get something for nothing, can you? If you want a copyright, you need to submit a best copy of the work. It would be foolish of the public to give you a copyright for free, and it's hardly a notable cost. In the circumstance that a copy for deposit IS more than the copyright is worth, then your smart choice is to not get a copyright.
Now, I would say that it's possible that the LoC needs to start thinking about accepting digital best copies for deposit, but since they are interested in preserving works for as long as possible, and since computer media and formats change all the damn time, I'm willing to bet that they have a good reason for wanting prints. I sincerely doubt that it is intended to annoy you.
Re:Rep. Boucher... (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at the Dean campaign, most of the media buzz came from the fact that he got lots of small donations over the internet from across the country. While common sense to us, this was huge to the political world, which generally counts two major democratic fund raising areas (Wall St and Hollywood).
Re:We do have an effect (Score:3, Interesting)
Dear X
My name is XX YY, and I'm writing to you regards Rep. Rick Boucher recently introduced DMCRA (HR 107) bill. I strongly support this bill, and I would humbly ask you to support it also. It allows for consumers to break digital encryption schemes in the pursuit of fair use. Whilst this may sound like a far out problem that affects a small minority of consumers, nothing could be further from the truth. The problems that the DMCA creates are far-ranging for users of a variety of materials, but mostly music and movies. It prevents people from circumventing digital restrictions for fair use.
If I may, let me give you an example to ground this: all the iPods that are walking round New York, the music that is played on most of these originates from CDs. With the next-generation of music delivery devices - DVD-Audio and Super Audio CDs - being able to get the music off these formats and put them on an iPod would be next to impossible, without breaking the encryption that the Recording Industry has mandated.
I would argue that this causes inconvenience to consumers, it holds back the US electronics industry; and without realizing it, does damage to the content industries as well. People are more likely to buy music and movies if they are able to watch or listen to them how and when they choose to. Instead, the content industries are deciding how consumers can listen to music and watch movies. I was always of the belief that this was a consumers choice once they paid for the media.
Finally, I would like to point out that the DMCA as it stands threatens both academic research (researchers have been threatened with the DMCA for breaking encryption in research in the past); and, as the US is the only major industrialized country to have laws like the DMCA, that Americans are the ones that suffer. The pirates will still be able to get pirated materials, and hardware that will allow them to pirate, overseas. The legitimate consumers, and electronics companies that make our lives easier and more enjoyable (like TiVO and Apple with the iPod) will be the ones that suffer.
Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
XX YY
Re:Why not give a better link to the PPA? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've already ranted at great length on this; when DRM becomes common enough, someone is sure to write a virus that wipes out everyone's decryption keys. And you can bet your ass that the **AA is not going to allow you to keep spare copies of your keys, or unprotected backups.
Also you might have missed it, but it's been mentioned several times on Risks already; WindowsXP has a restore feature which restores some of the system files from a 'backup' copy that normal software can't write to. A few times already viruses have managed to infect these backups, which results in Windows faithfully restoring the virus every time the AV software 'damages' it.
DRM Virus (Score:3, Interesting)
Transforming copyright law (Score:2, Interesting)
First off, their contracts with performers read like an indentured slave agreement -- an artist's copyright is transferred to the marketing firm; she loses the rights attached. Look closely at any music media, the songs will have author recognition, but the copyright is usually attached to the recording company. Why do you think the Beatles created APPLE? That's why an artist can't easily change recording companies and bring their past recordings with them.
These contracts should also be required to define how long the recording company can hold these exclusive rights to market a song and reap almost 100% of the profits from it.
We already have such a mechanism to determine that...Depletion allowances, as is used in the oil industry (I'm not advocating the oil barons, only pointing out the depletion allowance methodology as a fair way of setting time frames for exclusive rights to skim profit off an artist's copyrighted works).This would force recording companies to determine at the inception of the contract just how long they will have this exclusive right, then it reverts 100% back to the artist, who can then do as she pleases with it...market it herself, sell it to another recording company, or make it public domain, or GPL.
FPORe:BoC (Score:3, Interesting)
And here [hardylaw.net] is the rebuttal to his attempt to debunk the first set of claims.