Lofgren Introduces BALANCE Act to Modify DMCA 297
Infonaut writes "Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D - CA) introduced H.R. 1066, The Balance Act. It seeks to clarify 'that America's historic principles of fair use - protected under Section 107 of the Copyright Act - apply to analog and digital transmissions.' Apparently Lessig is on board, as are several associations and other organizations. If you like what you see, encourage your representative to support the bill."
What happened to the DCFA? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What happened to the DCFA? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What happened to the DCFA? (Score:5, Funny)
It had the words "choice" and "freedom" in its title. When Old White Men(tm) see that on their calendar, they think it's going to be some damn fool left-wing crusade that involves the choice to spend the government's money and the freedom to bankrupt the nation.
Sadly, this knee-jerk reaction is right about as often as it is wrong.
This time she's got the right idea, though. She's taken the Republican-friendly non-threatening acronym route and named her bill the Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations (BALANCE) Act of 2003. She'll fit right in with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, the Prosecuting Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, and the Help Advance Republicanism through Martial Law Everywhere and the Suspension of Self-determination (HARMLESS) Act of 2005.
HARMLESS (Score:2)
Re:What happened to the DCFA? (Score:4, Informative)
Let's not leave out the Reducing America's Vounerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act. Way to stereotype, Congress. I'll make sure I vote real careful next time.
Re:What happened to the DCFA? (Score:3, Informative)
-
ObSimpsons Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Duffman: "What ever happened to fair use?"
government copyright, all rights "reserved" (Score:2)
"We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq." [truthout.org]
Re:OT: Smipsons (Score:5, Funny)
Kang: "Hmm.. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others."
Crowd: (Cheers)
bout time (Score:5, Funny)
if they keep this up, I'll have to transfer all my mp3's and ogg's over to tape.
Re:bout time (Score:3, Interesting)
Usefull Information? (Score:4, Informative)
(remember it is always best to write snail mail to your reps. Email is trashed to easy.
http://www.house.gov [house.gov] or here Write your Rep [house.gov]
And here are the Senators
Senate Listings [senate.gov]
Re:Usefull Information? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Usefull Information? (Score:3, Insightful)
A sample letter to your representative (Score:5, Informative)
I would like to encourage you to support Representative Zoe Lofgren's "Balance Act" (H.R. 1066). This act seeks to balance the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and clarify consumers fair use rights for digital content.
Like Representative Lofgren, I believe that "Contrary to the intent of Congress, the DMCA has been used to legitimize...control over consumer uses. It's been used to prohibit lawful users from circumventing technical restrictions, even to pursue their fair use rights."
I believe that Fair Use is an important issue that's been overlooked in the debate, and that the long term effects of the DMCA on Fair Use are detrimental to society. Passage of this Act will be a boon preserving the Fair Use rights of your constituents.
Sincerely,
-----
Re:Usefull Information? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Usefull Information? (Score:5, Informative)
and don't forget to include (Score:2)
Re:Usefull Information? (Score:2)
Snailmail works IF it's sent to the local office. Sending mail to a DC office will take about 6 months to get through the anthrax checks, but I've sent stuff to a local campaign office and not only has it arrived quickly but I've gotten responses back within 2 weeks.
(The above statement is according to my own congressentitty, with whom I have spoken on that same issue.)
Re:Usefull Information? (Score:2)
p2p also (Score:5, Informative)
" Illegal file-sharing is a major problem. But we should not create one problem to solve another."
She'd get my vote...
we'll, if I had one over there...
Re:p2p also (Score:2)
clearly a clued up congressional representative
Congressional Representatives only get "clued up" when they're interacting with people from a diverse background. If all they hear all day are businessfolk crying about stolen profits, that's what they will understand. They don't call up other people to ask what the real story is, they take what's brought to them.
If they hear from an opposing viewpoint, they can then decide what will earn more votes: campaign money or campaign promises. At the end of the day, there are more consumers^Wconstituents than there are corporations.
Re:p2p also (Score:2, Insightful)
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
Songwriters can actually quantify their P2P piracy losses. By statute, a songwriter is both entitled and limited to collecting 8 cents for every digital phonorecord delivery of sound recordings containing her songs. Each illegal P2P download of a song robs the songwriter of that 8 cents.
Those 8 cents may not seem like much, but multiply 8 cents by the reported 3 billion monthly P2P downloads. It calculates out to $240 million a month. Even one-tenth of that amount represents real money to the 5,000 American songwriters.
Now another fact: If piracy profiteers were truly concerned about security and privacy threats to P2P users, they would address the security and privacy threats posed by the P2P networks themselves. A recent white paper by the University of Tulsa Center for Information Security details how KaZaA, Gnutella, and other popular P2P networks expose P2P users to spyware, Trojan horses, system exploits, denial of service attacks, worms, and viruses. A joint paper by Hewlett-Packard labs and the University of Minnesota details how the vast majority of P2P users are exposing personal information, such as credit card numbers, to every other P2P user. In fact, the United States courts, the House, and the Senate all block the use of public P2P networks because of the security concerns they pose.
So, they had to block p2p because they USED p2p programs. The madmen of washington.
Re:p2p also (Score:3)
However, in the real world, P2P downloads (even if they were legal) have an intrinsic value somewhere less than a track on a CD and somewhere more than a song heard over the radio*. IIRC, artists royalties per radio listener per song are measured in millicents. That leaves a lot of room for downward adjustment for what they're really losing.
*Why can I make this claim, notwithstanding what record companies want to charge? Because MP3s are more disposable. (Radio songs are totally disposable, for example.) I've still got LPs that I bought 30 years ago; I've bought some used LPs that are now 40 years old, and my mom has some records that are 80 years old. How many people are going to still have any of their MP3s around a few decades from now? Or even after they upgrade to their next computer? An MP3 is a piece of throwaway trash, like the cheap Radio Shack C60 casettes that "pirates" used to use in the 1970s. Nobody's going to pay very much for either.
(Disclaimer: no, I've never used any P2P network. I did have a box full of casettes at one time though...)
Re:p2p also (Score:5, Funny)
we'll, if I had one over there..."
Since when has that been a problem with Democrats? Heck, tell 'em you're an illegal alien and they might let you vote twice.
(Woah, easy people. It was a joke...)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Balance Act (Score:5, Informative)
- Let's add the following to the DMCA:
- You are allowed to back up the stuff you've bought legally, as long as you don't perform it or infringe on the rights of the owners by selling it
- You cannot sell media covered by the DMCA with a non-negotiable license because said license is unenforceable as of now.
- You can do whatever you need to do in order to watch the media, as long as you don't go against #1.
- If you don't have a way to see/hear/whatever the media is, you can do what you need to in order to see/hear it as long as you don't sell/perform it
Is that about right?Re:Balance Act (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyhow, I think that is right...IANAL...
Re:Balance Act (Score:5, Funny)
As a 4th-year pre-law undergrad, you have as much legal training as my cat. And the last time I took my cat's legal advice, I ended up pleading manslaughter to a parking ticket.
Re:Balance Act (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Balance Act (Score:3, Insightful)
robi
Re:Balance Act (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Balance Act (Score:2)
Anyway, is a good first step, in the case if its not enough.
Re:Balance Act (Score:5, Insightful)
1. You are allowed to make a copy of the stuff you've bought legally: (a) for archival purposes, as long as you destroy any such copies when you no longer legally own the work, or (b) in order to "perform or display" the work, as long as it is not a public performance or display.
2. If a work is distributed subject to a non-negotiable license, that license is not enforceable to the extent that it infringes on fair use rights.
3. You are allowed to make a copy of a work and sell the copy, if you destroy the original and all copies you kept.
4. It is not illegal to circumvent copy protection if you need to do so in order to make any use of the work that is not copyright infringment, and if the copyright owners did not provide a method for such use "without additional cost or burden."
5. It is not illegal to manufacture, distribute, or market means of circumventing copy protection for purposes of enabling non-infringing uses of the work if the copyright owners did not provide such a means themselves.
All in all, this is a very big step in the right direction, IMHO, which also means that it has very little chance of actually getting anywhere.
Re:Balance Act (Score:2)
Re:Balance Act (Score:3, Informative)
By combining digital first sale with the ability to crack the copy protection it is possible to forsee a new type of P2P infrastructure. A digital second-hand store (dss) if you will.
I buy my digital music and simply break the copy protection as this is legal now. I then participate in the dss. I only keep the songs I am currently using on my computer, any I don't want at the time I make available for upload. The program then deletes the song after someone uploads it. Of course, I can select from a pool of available songs.
Another way. I could take my digital copy and run it through some company's cracking program and then sell it to them for time on their service. The program audits the transaction. They keep track of the 2nd hand music they've gotten and only give out whatever many copies of the song they have in inventory. Again, I listen to said song and when done send it back to the dss.
I also wonder if I could do this with steaming audio. Basically I lock a copy of the song for my use and then unlock it when I'm done and want another song.
Would that be legal?
Re:Balance Act (Score:2)
To start with, once the major labels get their online song stores set up, get some sort of file hash on all of the songs, so that you can garantee that these are the correct files.
Next, create a P2P app which allows you to post a file (which matches a known hash). When you post it, it gets placed on a portion of your HD which is encrypted and inaccessable. Also, when you post a song you have to digially sign an agreement which states that this is the only copy of the file in your possesion, and that you take responsibility in the event that you are lying.
Now, when someone else downloads the file from you, you lose access to it, it is erased from your drive. And if you download from somone else they lose access. As such you only have 1 copy floating around for every copy put into the system. Also, even after you download the song, it remains inaccessable except through the P2P app, which can be used as a player.
Further implement a system of payment. If you download a song, your credit card gets charged $0.50, if you upload your credit card gets paid $0.50.
Lastly, at the central server (yes, I would propose having one, to control the charges.) Implement a policy that watches for leeches. If somone downloads say, more that 10 songs in a week, without uploading any, their account gets frozen.
Anyhow, its just an idea if this bill passes, I hereby cast it into the public domain.
Re:Balance Act (Score:2)
Depends on who is steaming who.
Re:Mildly disturbing... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey now, you don't want us to give up on copyright inspectors do you? If he doesn't disarm his weapons of mass P2P, then we will disarm him.
Re:Balance Act (Score:2)
What is "pre-law," exactly?
Re:Balance Act (Score:2)
Its kind of like Pre-Med
Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind here (Score:5, Interesting)
But let's not forget that there are legitimate concerns about the pirating of software and music. It's not just the RIAA and other large organizations. The widespread pirating of software does, in fact, have the ability to cripple businesses that produce it. As I recall, the guys that made Thief made next to nothing on Thief 2 (and are no longer in business as a result), but everyone I knew had a copy.
So I'm Asking Slashdot <dramatic music>: What should companies be doing to prevent the loss of income from pirating while leaving inviolate the right of the consumer to make copies of materials to which we own legal license?</dramatic music>
I know, I know, we talk about this all the time, but I don't think anyone's offered a suggestion that would really work; this is a tough nut to crack.
Peace,
~SL
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:5, Insightful)
These laws are primarily a control issue, and those that bought these laws (and bought they certainly were, there is no evidence at all that the general voting constituency clamored for these laws), want to have complete control over how (and where and on what) you experience their content, and the concept of fair use is anathema to them.
The vast majority of piracy can be addressed by directly targeting the major pirating organizations that distribute in a mass production fashion.
I fully support the right of copyright owners to have the limited rights granted to them, and fully support targeting anyone who actively violates copyright law. But none of these laws, nor any of the other copyright protection schemes do anything but inconvenience the general user and attempt to criminalize legitimate fair use behaviour. The actual copyright violators out there are not detrimentally affected by these issues, at all.
In addition, laws such as the DMCA are far more often being used to hamper and threaten legitimate competition, rather than address real copyright violations.
The suggestion that has the most chance of working is to target the actual violators, and stop treating the general population as criminals simply because they actually bought the product.
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that I see on here all the time. It's insightful from the perspective that it points out that it's detrimental to society to have restrictions in place that prevent the free flow of art and information. I wholeheartedly agree. On the other hand, this kind of argument fails to address the real question here.
The main reason I have a problem here is that I can't imagine a boardroom full of executives coming to the conclusion that free use is anathema. "Yes," they say, "if we were to prevent our product from being sampled and redistributed for educational purposes, we'd make millions!" In my mind, there's simply no way that's the case.
Remember that the people behind these corporations are exactly that; people. They're not monsters hell-bent on destroying civilization, they are simply under pressure from their constituents (anyone who owns stock) to make money doing what they do. That's the way it should work; capitalism is about profit motive. If owners of copyright all over the country want to prevent the reproduction and distribution of their intellectual property from being so easy that an autistic chipmunk could figure it out, they probably have a genuine fear of losing real customers.
Don't get me wrong here, I hate copy protection. All I'm saying is that you haven't provided an answer to my question. Given that copy protection is both worthless and harmful to the consumer, how should a copyright owner go about preventing their information from being spread all over the world and enjoyed without their being recompensed? Peace, ~SL
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, many of the apologists or spokespersons for the industries, such as Valenti, have stated outright that they don't consider fair use to be a valid concern for digital media. Bear in mind, that many of these people do see fair use as a threat to their bottom line, or their control of their content
I'm definitely all for capitalism, and I do understand the circumstances under which many of these decisions are made, but they are the wrong decisions, nonetheless, if for no other reason that treating your customers like criminals is most assuredly contrary to the profit motive, no matter how good it looks on paper. In addition, such methods are FAR more likely to result in the loss of customers than otherwise.
As before, the correct solution to these problems is to actually address the violations (and the violators) of the law, to treat your customers as though you really want their business (instead of begrudgingly treating them like a commodity), and to convince the general public that your product has enough value to justify their purchase.
The legal framework of copyright had sufficient strength to address actual copyright violators prior to the DMCA.
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:2)
Bad laws and active hatred for the users will directly engender the type of behaviour that leads to the violations.
That said, there will always be those who have no respect for the rights and property of others, and they are the ones we should penalize.
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:2)
I don't know where you get that from. I think the DMCA was exactly intended to counter the piracy of Kazaa and its relatives. The content industry is hoping to retain complete control over how its files get copied, through technical means, and it needs the DMCA to prevent people from breaking those locks.
Although I'm sympathetic to the industry's problems (how to make money creating content when anyone can share it for free), I think that the solution (the DMCA etc) are worse that the problem they try to fix. But, it's weird to argue that the DMCA is completely unrelated to this problem...
The vast majority of piracy can be addressed by directly targeting the major pirating organizations that distribute in a mass production fashion.
What are you talking about? The vast majority of piracy is via P2P file sharing networks, which are as popular as ever, despite all the lawsuits.
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:3, Informative)
The point being that the DMCA, and the various forms of copy protection don't actually DO anything to stop this behaviour. Copyright law prior to the DMCA had all the necessary legal footing to pursue copyright violators.
My original point still stands, pursue the violators (p2p or otherwise), don't make laws that penalize valid use, and don't treat legal users as criminals (which is what these mechanisms do in practice, if not in principle).
More importantly, don't penalize the technology (p2p, etc.) to address the problem.
The irony is. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Go figure.
This is always a good sign that a bad law was written for the wrong reasons. The Lexmark case is a real life example of a reductio ad absurdum argument agains the DMCA. I believe the correct Latin term of legalese for this is "doofey."
Another irony is that the very existence of the DMCA serves to retain VHS as the major consumer media. People like to copy shit. They will continue to use whatever medium is available to them to do so freely. Thus, VHS will also remain a valid market for pirates.
But think of this. I have a DVD legally purchased. I have a legal DVD player as well. I am thus licensed to output the content *without any violation of the DMCA.*
So, I use this to pump output to a VHS recorder and BINGO! I'm in the VHS pirate business, each VHS tape a first generation copy of the digital source, with perferctly legitimate licenses for everything but the final VHS.
The DMCA isn't an antipiracy tool. It *enhances* the output of analog piracy. Legally.
What's wrong with this picture? As you so eloquently show, the DMCA is *not* an antipiracy measure. It is a control of the legitimate licensee measure, and one step on the road to pay per view/read/listen.
I keep buying books, on paper. I advise you do the same. It beats the hell out of trying to memorize them on a pay per read basis.
KFG
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind (Score:3, Interesting)
I know, I know, we talk about this all the time...
And the reason we talk about it all the time is that these two desirable things can't be reconciled without ever-greater levels of technological evil stuff materializing (Paladium, anyone?). Give me the technological ability to have my fair use rights, and I've also got the technological ability to pirate.
The world is messy.
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:2, Informative)
That's because their publisher (Eidos) never paid them their royalties for Thief 2. Looking Glass went under before they were due. Eidos was having its own financial difficulties at the time (overfunding Daikatana didn't help there), and was unable to rescue them.
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:2)
You're thinking of Apple. Microsoft has an 80 percent profit margin [zdnet.co.uk] on products like Windows and Office.
Let's remember the biggest trampler of those rghts (Score:4, Informative)
As for software, honestly I can't address that other than to say you're the first person I've ever heard claim that Thief 2 was so heavily pirated it ran them out of business. They certainly didn't claim that. I certainly bought my copy legitimately. What more do you want?
Most people are reasonable and law abiding and recognize the value of paying others for the entertainment they provide. If the value proposition of the entertainment was good, piracy would only infect the segments of society that either 1) simply can't afford much of anything (who arguably aren't likely to have internet access anyway) or 2) would be pirating for the fun of it regardless.
Me, I think that being able to download music, check it out, THEN decide if I want to buy it is a Good Thing[tm]. Given that ClearChannel controls so much of the radio market that I hardly hear anything I give a damn about on the airwaves any more (to get me excited to go buy stuff), and given that the labels as a general rule are releasing so much crap, and given that the resale value of a CD is insignificant (I'm lucky to get $5 for a new CD I bought for $18 and listened to once? Insane), I don't see any other avenue to go through. All the MP3's I've downloaded fall into three broad categories:
- things I thought I might like, but didn't (the new Massive Attack, the new Tori Amos both qualify here)
- things I thought I might like, and did, and then went and bought the cd
- things that I'd buy if they were available from the labels, but they don't deign to release (e.g. The Boomtown Rats _Fine Art of Surfacing_)
None of these is a case where I am stealing from the artist. If anything, the labels, by refusing to release older work that is still of interest to me, is denying the artists the chance to make more royalties from me. If I were forced to spend $13 net on albums I didn't like, I just wouldn't spend anything. That's not a value proposition I can live with, and the industry ought to think hard about how much less they'd be making if everyone made that judgement.Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:2)
Communist Russia jokes aside...this nut is so tough that it's cracking us.
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that the purpose of copyright law is to build an intellectual commons by leasing the commonly owned intellectual property back to their contributors. The emphasis needs to be on fair use and the transition to the public domain rather than the sort of perpetuity of ownership and control over these things that are now the focus of the law (remembering that the CTEA was passed because Disney was about to lose copyright on the Mickey Mouse character).
So rather than asking "how can publisher's protect their investment" we need to be asking "How can we entice publishers to release material so that it can eventually become public domain?"
This is not an easy question to answer, so most people have answered simply by not asking.
My proposal would do as follows:
1: Reduce the copyright term for digital works back to 28 years.
2: Require DRM-free versions to exist in an escrow service provided by the US Copyright Office. When the copyright term expires, anyone can, for cost of copying and shipping, requiest a copy of the DRM-free content.
3: Allow total restriction for the duration of the copyright term including any DRM and overriding first sale.
4: If software is the content being protected, require that the *source code* be escrowed, not just the binaries.
Then we can try to reduce the copyright term of print items too.
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:2)
1: No digital restrictions on their works
2: They could access all digital works over 28 years old!
And most of the money gained by publishers happens in that time anyway.
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:2)
Simple. Realize that these companies are not losing money to piracy.
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:2)
No, seriously. I appreciate the fact that you went out of your way to post something that acknowledges that we are trying to balance two different sets of interests here: on the one hand, the rights of the artists and publishers, and on the other hand the liberty of everybody else. Both of them have to give up something. The only question is who has to sacrifice what.
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:2)
DOOM (Score:2)
Surely that had to have had some effect, and wasn't in any way annoying. You could copy DOOM all you wanted as far as I know (I've changed hard drives, installed my copy on multiple computers, and haven't ever had any problems with it), but the exit message was vaguely threatening to people who didn't buy their product. IdGames put trust in their consumers, and was only in any way menacing to people who had illegally copied their big game. Quite frankly, I'd like to see more of that, because it's funny and poignant at the same time.
Re:Let's keep the rights of the artists in mind he (Score:3, Funny)
I want more for less. And the fact that I can't have it is somehow indicative of a fatal flaw in our economic or political system. Waa.
EFF's info on contacting legislators (Score:5, Informative)
Not whorin', just informin'.
Hmm (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmm (Score:3)
Send one anyway. Even if it is just an attaboy, it still shows your congrescritter that you are watching and that you approve and support this sort of thing. If the old saying that, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" holds any water, then going silent because you approve of something is a bad idea, send an email voicing your support and thanking her for trying to work for the benifit of her constituents. As for me, I'll be writting an email to Jerry Lewis tonight.
Is the EFF asleep at the wheel (Score:2)
As of 7pm CST, their front page newest items are:
March 7-11
Cory Doctorow at SWSX
Norwegian Appeals Court to Hear "DVD Jon" Case
Related: EFF media advisory, Johansen case archive, Free Jon mailing list
I don't really want to nitpick, but as a member of the EFF I expect to hear about something as seemingly as important as BALANCE from them ASAP. Where is the free fax page? I think Rep Lofgren can use all the support she can get.
I'm also uncomfortable using the "write your rep" system. A real phonecall or a physical fax is much harder to ignore than a bunch of emails. Not to mention email is routinely abused by special interest groups with fake addresses voicing fake concerns.
Time to bust out the fax modem I guess. Anyone know of free fax over IP that will fax to Washington?
Fair use item transfer (Score:5, Interesting)
SECTION 4:
Today, when a consumer purchases a book, they are free to lend their copy to a friend, 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 - codified in section 109 of Title 17 - to digital transmissions. At the same time, it protects copyright holders by restricting such transmissions to a single recipient and requiring consumers to transmit their copies with copy-control restrictions in place. Consumers also have to get rid of their copy after they transmit the work to someone else. (underline added by me)
This is good, legal, and just. If only people would do that. Sure it is a pain to delete your copy when you lend it out, or to remember who has it and if they "gave it back" (by deleting their copy or by sending/ftping it back to you).
The real important part of this law is the extension of the fair use to digital works, even if it shouldn't be obviously there by default. Having something expressly writting rather than implied is necessary.
(Simpson's quote regarding illegal practices performed in international waters)
"Over there is a ship re-broadcasting major league baseball with implied oral consent instead of express written consent."
robi
Surprising (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Surprising (Score:2)
Acronym Abuse (Score:5, Funny)
BALANCE is The Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations Act.
Obviously, we need legislation to keep our representatives from wasting too much time thinking up clever acronyms. I would like to propose a bill entitled Legislation Insulated from Acronyms by Representatives.
Oh, wait...
Still not good enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Still not good enough (Score:3, Funny)
Tell you what. You go on ahead and find a good place to set up, and drop the rest of us a line when you get things started. We'll be right behind you.
Re:Still not good enough (Score:2)
A generic adhesive EULA though.... I see no reason to permit such things on as wide scales as we've been seeing it.
New laws and copy protection (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone knows that people will violate copy protection algorithms anyway, whether it is legal or not. And, the people who break the protection are not (in most cases) the average Joe. What I see this law doing is allowing enterprising individuals, who are the ones most commonly blocked by the DMCA's restriction of fair use, to continue to go about their business, in a legal fashion. This legislation just strips off the layer of rules that prevented currently legal activities from continuing, without weakening any of the rules for violation of copyrights.
Finally, a Congresscritter who "gets it" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a very well-written and fine-tuned attempt to swing the balance of copyright back toward the public again. It's not overreaching (as was the DMCA) and seems to be able to do only what it was intended to do - restore Fair Use - and no more.
It also supports things like DeCSS by making legal the disemmination of tools to allow Fair Use to be exercised IF the copyright holders do not make such means availalbe. This is tantamount to telling the RIAA and MPAA and BSA (Business Software Alliance), "Fair Use is here to stay - so you'd best figure out a way to deal with this issue technologically right now (something they have been VERY reluctant to attempt), instead of beating it to death with legislation. You have your choice - you may choose to find a solution you like - but if you don't/can't/won't address the problem, someone else can now fix it for you whether you like it or not."
Applause for Zoe!
Now, I'm off to write my congresscritter - or perhaps (since her local office is right across the street from where I work), visit in person to make my views on this matter known.
--Posted by myself.
I don't like it (Score:4, Insightful)
(c) Circumvention for Noninfringing uses -
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a person who lawfully obtains a copy or phonorecord of a work, or who lawfully receives a transmission of a work, may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to the work or protects a right of a copyright holder under this title if -
(A) such act is necessary to make nonifringing use of the work under this title; and
(B) copyright holder fails to make publicly available the necessary means to make such noninfringing use without additional cost or burden to such person.
I don't agree with (A) "and" (B); I think it should be (A) *or* (B) there. Why should anyone's fair use be impacted by any "means" that copyright holders may or may not provide? In fact, this word "means" is not defined anywhere. Since when is it *fair use* that everyone has to use the "means" that copyright holders provide for consumption of their content?
They should have a copyright only on content, and, as long as I don't violate any other laws, I should be able to use whatever "means" I want to enjoy that content, whether or not similar "means" already exist from the copyright holders.
Re:I don't like it (Score:2)
It'd be good for consumers in that you wouldn't be locked into a particular platform (eg. Linux eBook reader, Linux DVD player software, etc), however, you could still silence someone from publishing a report on how weak the security method is, because you can offer a junky client for each environment to silence any possible "I was just trying to make a Linux DVD player" defence.
Good point (Score:2)
Excellent point... and consider the rest of "B"..
copyright holder fails to make publicly available the necessary means to make such noninfringing use without additional cost or burden to such person.
So, if this passes, does that mean that I'm allowed to break the CSS on my copy of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" if Albert Broccoli doesn't give me a free DVD player?
Cool.
Re:Good point (Score:2)
The idea is, if you want to, you could build your own DVD player from scrap, and the law must allow you to circumvent the copy protection inherent in the DVD so that your player can give you access to the media you rightfully paid for.
If the copyright holder doesn't want you doing that, they are obligated to provide you with a free DVD player, or the equivalent.
Re:I don't like it (Score:2)
The way I read it, this article would allow the copyright holder to make a really crappy tool for copying, but copies into all formats. Basically, they could create a bootable CD (you could download the ISO for free, or email them for a copy.) Which then boots you into a difficult to use environment, but will, in fact, copy a song onto your harddrive, in pretty much any format. And will only rip at say
While I don't think that changing the "and" to an "or" is the right solution, this clause could probably benifit from adding in the phrase " and reasonable" after the word "necessary", to combat this sort of abuse.
Re:I don't like it (Score:2)
"You must use a Sony CD-Player/PC to rip Sony CDs, since they provide such a player."
Let's look again at clause B:
(B) copyright holder fails to make publicly available the necessary means to make such noninfringing use without additional cost or burden to such person.
So no, they can't just say "for $10,000 you can buy this device to make backups of our protected CDs". They either provide it for free, or some clever hacker out there can provide it for them. They can provide a free tool to rip the content in a lower quality format. It is hard to say just how "low" the quality could be before arguments are made that the rip is substantially different.
Re:I don't like it (Score:2)
Vote No! (Score:2, Funny)
Please, leave me this last consolation in an otherwise gloomy existence
of being shunned by my peers. I beg you, vote against this monstrosity.
Balancing the DMCA (Score:3, Insightful)
Next step: (Score:2)
My letter (Score:4, Insightful)
As a software developer AND digital content consumer, I strongly believe in striking a balance between both content consumers' and producers' digital rights. HR 1066 does just this by addressing some of the more onerous effects the DMCA has (and will continue to have, if unchecked) on our future in the Information Age.
I am a strong believer in the power of the free exchange of information, and many content producing corporate media groups and organizations (at their worst embodied by organizations such as the BSA, the MPAA, and the RIAA) have so far shown absolutely no concern for the content consumer's Fair Use Rights OR the content producer's (in the form of artists, programmers, musicians, etc). rights of control over their own creations.
A balance MUST be struck, and thus far no organization or group has had the resources to combat the huge amount of money that corportate lobbiests have used to further their own profit-driven goals.
Copyright and intellectual property rights exist for the Public Good, not an unlimited, government-guaranteed revenue stream. HR 1066 is a start to bringing those ideals back to what our founding fathers had in mind when they established this great country.
I would like to close with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
" If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
Please SUPPORT HR 1066, and oppose any further laws that seek to erode our Fair Use Rights.
Congresswoman Lofgren kinda cracks me up (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this isn't strictly on-topic; my point is just that you conclude from the fact that Congresswoman Lofgren has the same position you have on this issue that she's the greatest leader our nation has ever seen. Keep an eye on her, and judge her by her entire record, not just her most recent bill.
Adobe (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anyone else find irony in the fact that the bill is distributed in Adobe PDF format? I seem to recall them bringing a certain Sklyarov character running afoul of them and the DMCA a few years ago....
The government needs to at least provide the option of PostScript, text-only or other non-corporate formats for bills and laws.
Re:Adobe (Score:3, Insightful)
Any law geeks aware of such an effort?
What is the point of 1201 after this? (Score:3, Insightful)
If this is passed, I can't imagine a situation where someone will be found guilty of breaking the circumvention law, where their action wouldn't have already been a crime in 1997.
Can anyone think of a situation where the circumvention provisions won't be useless?
Write the correct people (Score:5, Informative)
Everybody ought to lick the stamp and write there Rep. but if you vote in the districts of any of the following it is especially important.
Thank you,
JFMILLER
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) [Chair]
Lamar Smith (R-TX) (Sub Committee chair)
John Conyers, Jr (D-MI) * [Ranking Democrat]
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) *
Henry J Hyde (R-IL) *
Richard Boucher (D-VA) *
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) *
Robert C Scott (D-VA)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)*
Jerrold Nadler (D NY)
William L. Jenkins (R-TN) *
Melvin L. Watt (D-NC)
Spencer Bachus (R-AB) *
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) * [Bill's Sponcer]
Mark Green (R-WI)*
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Rick Keller (R-FL)*
Maxine Waters (D-CA) *
Melissa Heart (R-PA) *
Martin T Meehan (D-MA) *
Mike Pence (R-IN) *
William Dalahunt (D-MA) *
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) *
Robert Wexler (D- FL) *
John Carter (R-TX) *
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) *
John Hostettler (R-IN)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY) *
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Adam B Schiff (D-CA)
Chriss Cannon (R-UT)
Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA)
Steve King (R-IA)
Howard Coble (R-NC)
Steve Cabot (R-OH)
Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Chris Cannon (R-UT)
* -- Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Mailed to: Jim McDermott (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish to express my support of California Representative Zoe Lofgren's Balance Act (H.R. 1066). It promises to fix the gross injustice imposed on consumers with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that inhibits fair use and ultimately restrains trade. It makes illegal the circumvention of technological restrictions in any case, even that which involves fair use such as the compression of a copyright-protected CD for use in an MP3 player or the burning of a "mix" CD of licensed songs. When a consumer buys a CD, they do it not for the media that a song is recorded on, but rather the song itself. The DMCA unreasonably limits the consumer's rights over their own property and makes criminals out of those who attempt to regain them.
Furthermore, the DMCA fails in its original intention of addressing the very real problem of Internet piracy. Draconian restrictions do not fix the problem, but rather exacerbate it by alienating consumers by effectively requiring illegal activity for fair use. It places special and unreasonable restrictions on digital recordings; someone can sell a used book or lend it to a friend but cannot with a digital recording that is lawfully obtained.
Please vote for H.R. 1066 and encourage your fellow representatives to do likewise.
Right. (Score:3, Funny)
I don't have that much money.
The Representative from Silicon Valley (Score:4, Insightful)
So rather than being a rare honest and insightful figther for What's Right, she is just another politician running the errands of the corporations in her district. These just happen to be corporations whose agenda is aligned with the average Slashdot reader.
That doesn't mean this legislation isn't "right". But it's naive to believe that is why she is pushing for it.
Better Some Than None, Better Late Than Never (Score:3, Interesting)
Many posters also seem to assume that they have little or no practical influence. In my experience, that is quite untrue. It's the small actions you take every day that make the difference. Do something every day to support freedom on the Internet. Make it a habit. Do it even if it's only sending a single email. Put it in your calendar so that you are reminded every day to do one thing, no matter how small, to support freedom on the Internet. Many days, you will do a great deal to support the cause. Every day, you will do at least a little something. By spending five minutes a day supporting something you care about, you can multiply your influence by a factor of at least 365, more as you gradually learn which actions are the most effective.
Give it a try for a couple months. Once you get used to it, it's easy, quick and pleasant. Focus on creating the right causes, and the effects will take care of themselves. Do the right thing without worrying about the eventual outcome, or how much progress you're making. It's like walking to a far-away city: put one foot in front of the other, and sooner or later you'll wake up and see the city gates in the distance.
Re:Gasp! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Gasp! (Score:2)
Nah, this bill probably won't even get out of committee...
hey! three points offtopic w/o any notification (Score:2)
Editors?
Perhaps the moderators missed the first line:
Dear Mr. Stewart (Score:2, Funny)
Clearly one of us has been ignoring his doctor's advice to stop sniffing glue.
Had your post been moderated down as "Overrated" or perhaps even "troll," I wouldn't have agreed, but I would have let it slide without comment, even in metamoderation.
Not being one to care overmuch about protecting my karma, however, I feel it behooves me to make this gesture in your behalf and beg your indulgence in not holding the single act against an entire class.
Now *this* post, in the limited sense, is offtopic. Of course that's only if you take the limited view and don't see the validity of comments on the topic as being on topic. Personally I believe a certain amount of metatopical discussion only adds to the depth and intelligence of the overall base, but clearly there are those who differ.
Or sniff glue.
Yours,
KFG
Actually, yes they will (Score:3, Insightful)
If I told someone that they owned a house, but then said they couldn't sell it, rent it, go inside it, use it, or even take a loan out on it - it would be a fraud. Either they own the house or they don't, and the same is true with copyrights today. We cant keep crying out that copyrights are some type of glorious rights that will help artists, and expect people never to try and transfer, sell, or secure them from new technologies that threaten them, like the internet.
That is why this whole compromize debate is pitifull. It reminds me of the people who insisted and desperately believed that the free states could peacefully get along with the slave states in the 1850's. Then as today, they just couldn't see that the root cause of the problem was people trying to exercise rights that they've been told they have, but didn't.
IMHO, the sooner we get to the point that copyrights are not really a just right - and get rid of them, the sooner we will be able to get on with the information age and make everyone happy.