Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Boucher Introduces New Bill 138

Posted by michael from the free-publicity dept.
brandido writes "The Register is reporting that Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled his attempt at returning some rights to consumers. According to the Register: "As we reported yesterday, some of the biggest names in IT names were on hand to support a legislation from Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled this morning. Boucher vowed to strike out the repressive portions of the DMCA, and 'directs the Federal Trade Commission to undertake a rulemaking to assure adequate notice to the public of any lack of functionality which may attend the purchase of copy protected CDs.'" Details of the bill can be found in PDF format , as can a summary and Boucher's Statement (taken from The Reg story)." Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself. Neither of these is worth paying much attention to: Congress is about to wrap up and go home for the year, and will start afresh in January with a clean slate. Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boucher Introduces New Bill More

Boucher Introduces New Bill

Comments Filter:

  • El Presidente? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spazntwich ( 208070 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:09PM (#4390808)
    You know, I would seriously consider voting for Boucher, were he to run for president. I wonder if his recent slew of bills that are geared towards more consumers/against big businesses could be his beginning of a big PR campaign.

    Don't laugh. Having big corporate sponsors is becoming less and less important with new campaign finance laws.

    • Re:El Presidente? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nononono ( 594444 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:39PM (#4390970)

      Don't laugh. Having big corporate sponsors is becoming less and less important with new campaign finance laws.

      except that said campaign finance laws are being gutted as we speak [salon.com].

      • That's because the campaign finance laws are incredibly unconstitutional. In a country where the first amendment says that "congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," congress somehow made a law abridging a candidate's freedom of speech within 30 days of the election.
    • Boucher is a sweetheart, but what makes you feel that good ideas are going to carry instead of corporate sponsorship?

      I'd say name recognition would buy more than solid principles any day of the week and twice on Sunday. We're closer to a President Schwarzennegar than a President Boucher. With or without corporate sponsorship.

      I might vote for Boucher too. Although I suppose that the issues in 2004 might still be war and economy. Dunno what his positions are on those. I'll be checking up.

      • Re:El Presidente? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Mikeytsi ( 186271 )
        We're closer to a President Schwarzennegar than a President Boucher.

        Except for the fact that Schwarzennaegar isn't an American citizen by birth, which is required by the constituition for a person to run for and be elected President.

        For the real question, how did you manage to graduate from high school without knowing this?

        • Of course, the U.S. Constitution also prohibits the president and vice president from being from the same state. The Constitution seems to be less and less relevant these days (one of the few areas in which I imagine the average gun nut would agree with me :-).
        • "Except for the fact that Schwarzennaegar isn't an American citizen by birth, which is required by the constituition for a person to run for and be elected President."

          You obviously haven't seen "Demolition Man"
        • Except for the fact that Schwarzennaegar isn't an American citizen by birth, which is required by the constituition for a person to run for and be elected President.

          I don't understand why you would have birthright in the constitution. If people would vote for a "foreigner", why can't they?

          • You have to be of native birth to run for president; the constitution was writen specifically with this limitation so that Alexander Hamilton could not run for president.
            • the constitution was writen specifically with this limitation so that Alexander Hamilton could not run for president.

              The relevant clause is Article I, Section 1.
              No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
              So Hamilton could have become president. Nice try, though.
        • Yeah, as someone pointed out, I was refering to Demolition Man. Don't let that stop you from being a fucking dick.
      • We're closer to a President Schwarzennegar than a President Boucher.

        Funny thing, there has been some rumblings about a write in campaign for Scwarzennegar for Governor of California. Given the two craptacular main party candidates we have running I would gladly vote for him.
        • My friends and I have all been discussing that exact issue. Not that we'll write in Schwarzennegar, but we're trying to think of something to do to express our disgust with the two available candidates.

          We're all liberals, and feel like Gray Davis has been a useless lapdog. But Simon is too evil. So we're gonna stick with Davis.
    • In that case why not vote Nader? He's always for the consumer rights and won't take donations from corpatations.

      • Re:El Presidente? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by GigsVT ( 208848 )
        He's always for the consumer rights

        Yeah, as long as the consumer doesn't happen to work for an evil corporation, or worse yet, owns his or her own evil corporation, or maybe evil corporations might pay his bills by being his or her customer.

        What's the use of consumer rights after industry is hindered to the point that no one has any money left to spend?
        • What's the use of industries making us crap and giving us paychecks if we've got no consumer rights?

          • Re:El Presidente? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by GigsVT ( 208848 )
            What's the use of industries making us crap and giving us paychecks if we've got no consumer rights?

            Exactly. Without the government protecting industry through legislation, bribes, kickbacks, etc... We would have all the consumer rights we need.

            Laws are the source of the problems in almost all cases, not the solution to the problem. Have you read the green party platform? It's like 200 pages and outlines a very regulated and restricted society. Less government is the answer, not more.

            Libertarians are the only people that would protect your rights by allowing the free market to work the way it was supposed to. A common myth is that Libertarians would let monopolies abuse consumers. Any true advocate of the free market realizes the damage that monopolies cause. The government wouldn't be completely impotent under a more Libertarian society, it would only be reduced to levels that would let the free market solve these problems.
            • Libertarians are the only people that would protect your rights by allowing the free market to work the way it was supposed to. A common myth is that Libertarians would let monopolies abuse consumers. Any true advocate of the free market realizes the damage that monopolies cause. The government wouldn't be completely impotent under a more Libertarian society, it would only be reduced to levels that would let the free market solve these problems.

              Heh, I don't think I've heard a Libertarian actually ask for government intervention in a situation in which there is currently very little, such as monopoly regulation.

        • What's the use of consumer rights after industry is hindered to the point that no one has any money left to spend?

          Ya, but it works both ways. Over the last two years the spending power(and the very existence) of the middle class has been decimated. You've heard the economists worry about will happen if consumer spending falls? Well it's happening, wallstreet is scared because quarterly earnings are dismal, because noone can afford to buy stuff anymore. Unless consumers have spending power, private industry doesn't work.

          Henry Ford was sensible enough to pay his workers well so that they could afford to buy cars. They were happy, and he was happy. Until this country can go back to some semblance of balance, noone will be happy. Except people like Bill Gates.
          • Well, these things generally go in cycles, if companies get too tight, they will fail, and more progressive companies will take their place as industry leaders. The market does work in large part.

            We just need proper enforcement of laws that are already widely established. Fraud was always illegal. Fraud on a national scale is still something the federal government would have to be involved in. The constitution gives the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce.

            If you look at the cause of a lot of the problems of the last two years, you will find rampant fraud on many levels. If it weren't for the criminal actions of thousands of businessmen, we wouldn't be in nearly as bad a situation right now.

            The great thing about Libertarianism isn't just freedom, it's personal responsibility. A Libertarian government wouldn't be letting these CEOs and investment advisors go with a slap on the wrist, as some of them seem to be getting away with (however in the last few months, they have finally decided to come down hard on certain ones).
        • Whats the user of corperation rights (Copyright anyone?) if the consumer is hindered to the point no one has any money left to spend?

          It's all a balance, most of the "rights" corperations enjoy today are artifical, therefore must carefully be goverened in scope as their goal is to make money, not help the consumer or anything else.
      • Oh, numerous reasons not to vote for Nader. Maximum allowed income. Destruction of the economy. "Every business except mine is bad." "Every rich white man except me is bad." I could go on

        The worst, however, is that the Greens are recruiting McKinney [foxnews.com] for their 2004 election. Nader is, of course, a Green, perhaps she can be his VP.
        • Here's what I gathered from some of his stuff that I don't get.

          Increase the tax on corporations.... ...who will just pass it on to the consumer.

          Why do we even tax US corporations at all?
    • Don't laugh. Having big corporate sponsors is becoming less and less important with new campaign finance laws.

      http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp ?cycle=2002&CID=N00002171 [opensecrets.org]

      HAHAHAHAHAHA!
    • Don't. I'm from the SW Virginia area (college years).

      Boucher's district remains mired in poverty, as much because of the government programs he supports, as anything. And the poorer his district gets, the wealthier he gets.

      Before you vote for him, go down to his district, and talk to the poor people there.

      I did. I wouldn't.

      He'd be as bad as Clinton (from another war zone, I have heard).

      And yes, Clinton was bad. That isn't to say that George Bush is worth mentioning, but Clinton prepared the country for Bush. Don't do it again.

      Vote Libertarian. Or Green, if you must. Just don't vote for yet another Dem Publican.

  • Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ooglek ( 98453 ) <(beckman) (at) (angryox.com)> on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:09PM (#4390809) Homepage Journal
    I don't want to know that the disk is copy-protected, I want a disk that IS NOT copy-protected, DRMed or screwed in any way to attempt to prevent me from making a copy for personal use. I also don't want DRM or copy-protection schemes built into the hardware I buy to play my copies on. I'd much rather pay additional fees in my media and components (as I already do) than be prevented (in some way someone will break) from making a copy.

    Bastards. "1 million movies a day" -- Jack "Stupid" Valenti.

    • Re:Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better (Score:4, Insightful)

      by intermodal ( 534361 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:15PM (#4390847) Homepage Journal
      "I'd much rather pay additional fees in my media and components (as I already do) than be prevented (in some way someone will break) from making a copy."

      Personally, i'd rather not pay the extra fees at all...I don't want any of my money going to the ??AAs that I can avoid.
      • I don't want any of my money going to the ??AAs that I can avoid

        How about not giving them any money? I haven't bought a new RIAA label CD in about 2 years, but that doesn't mean I stopped buying music. The RIAA gets nothing if you buy from indie labels, or buy used CDs. Shopping at independent music stores doesn't hurt either. These days I buy mostly indie punk rock and ska albums. I have discovered many great bands and found some excellent music by digging around in the indie sections at Amoeba and Rasputin in Berkeley; music that is a lot better than anything they play on the radio anyhow. And not a penny of my purchase goes to a faceless corporation.

        If you really must buy Metallica or whatever at least buy it used. Even though at one point money went to the RIAA from that CD purchase, at least it wasn't your money.

        Fight back. Every little bit helps.

        • I already do buy it all used/indy (mostly indy). He was implying that there were monies from the players going to the AA's too, which is true for example on DVD chips and in many places CDR media. I do buy all my music from sources which do not supply the RIAA, particularly indy/local groups. Amoeba has wonderful selections on Haight, too, btw.

    • Re:Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:37PM (#4390957) Journal
      I don't want to know that the disk is copy-protected, I want a disk that IS NOT copy-protected, DRMed or screwed in any way to attempt to prevent me from making a copy for personal use. I also don't want DRM or copy-protection schemes built into the hardware I buy to play my copies on. I'd much rather pay additional fees in my media and components (as I already do) than be prevented (in some way someone will break) from making a copy.

      You're asking too much--if the content providers want to place ridiculous restrictions, they have that right. They should of course be required to disclose that information--it goes against business ethics (which are normally near-impossible to legislate). In this case, however, it's a warning label, which has been done before.

      If I want to sell a crappy product, you would agree that I have every right to do so. If a company, say McDonalds, were to take a high-selling product (let's say a Big Mac), cripple it by either raising prices or using tofu instead of beef (or whatever is really in there), they'd have every right.

      The situation here is that the said crippling may not visibly worsen the product for most people (except for those who might try to play the CD on their computer--which is a lot). Also, you can't get most mainstream media without playing by *AA's rules, whereas one could go to Burger King or Wendy's instead of McDonalds.

      This I think is a great argument for mandatory disclosure (like the one in this bill). Let people see that they're buying an inferior product, and they will start looking for other options. At that point people will still be willing to pay for music (again, I'm talking about average Joe here, not techies), and a new business model can emerge. Up until recently, the media companies haven't changed business models because they haven't had to--they think that after eliminating Napster, and (hopefully) P2P, things can return to normal. If the masses find out that they're getting sold crippled cd's, I think (and maybe I'm being overly optimistic) that they'll respond in such a way that things will change in a positive way.

    • On the other hand, if this bill is passed, it will make it legal for people to distribute tools (even GPL'd or gratis) to un-copy-protect things if there is a substantial non-infringing use. (I think burning an MP3 CD so I can carry 150 songs in my portable instead of 15 is fair use.) Personally, I think this bill addresses a lot (most?) of the serious things I found wrong with the DMCA.

      If copy protection can be easily defeated by anyone who wants to defeat it for infringing purposes, and is only a major inconvenience for nontechnical music fans, people will learn to shun the "This CD is messed up" label on a CD and the market for them will tank.

      Laissez faire is what it's all about.

    • Zoe Lofgren's bill is much better, but due to its more conservative language, Bouchers's may be more passable in the Republican House. It's a shame it includes nothing about shrinkwrap EULAs. Since the two bills are different in many aspects, Maybe both could pass. That would be like eliminating the DMCA all together. It would be great.
    • Then dont buy them.

      Seriously.
    • I agree with GreyWolf 3000. I whole-heartedly support labeling/notication of copyrighted media. If I know a disc is completely copy protected, I simply will not purchase it. The good old fashioned law of supply and demand will take care of the market and the price. Owners of copyright have the right to license their intellectual content in whatever manner they choose and customers have the right to choose to purchase or not to purchase the license. It's really that simple and knowledge / disclosure is one of the key components that free-markets are based on.

  • Minor my ass.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:09PM (#4390810)
    "It shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute, or make non-infringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work."

    Sounds pretty major to me, but, then, IANAL.

    - A/C
      • "It shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute, or make non-infringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work."

      This was the only section of this otherwise quite reasonable bill that I took exception to. The whole point of the **AA is that making a personal copy is an infringing use of a copyrighted work, so this clause does nothing. He needs language to spell out what we want: that making copies is to be legal, but that distributing them is still reserved to the copyright holder.

  • Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:09PM (#4390812) Journal
    It adds a "substantial non-infringing use" exception to the anti-circumvention rule. This is a good thing as it would legalize many of the tools (e.g. DeCSS) that are currently barred, n'est-ce pas?

    Of course it's not going anywhere in this Congress. But advocates for freedom can push for an expanded version to be introduced now, while giving Boucher credit for at least proposing a step in the right direction.

  • Well, that's some nice work we're seeing from Capitol Hill. But what can the average citizen do without relying on a trustworthy congressman? I think that it is possible for average citizens to have some kind of influence. Supply and demand might drive this. I'm surprised some smart rich guy hasn't put a bounty on the head of Senator Hollings yet. Of course, the rest is up to us...

  • Let's see... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Goldberg's Pants ( 139800 )
    This will actually give us some rights back... I fully expect this to be crushed like a bug in that case...

  • Beats Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anonicon ( 215837 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:12PM (#4390834)
    Quote: "Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major)."

    Actually, this is more than useful if the warnings disclose *everything* that the CD's "copy-protection" does, like preventing you from playing or copying it with your PC, PS2, mp3-cd player/discman, or consumer CD recorder. Getting the prominent warning on the CD case in front of Joe Public instead of being buried on my site [fatchucks.com] where most people *won't* see it is a great step.

    We all know this proposal will not pass during this session, but it's a warning shot for (hopefully) more substantial legislation which will occur at the beginning of next term.

    Peace.

  • Great... (Score:3, Funny)

    by 403Forbidden ( 610018 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:17PM (#4390859)
    and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself.

    JUST what we need, more vagueness in the DMCA... First felt tip markers, what will be made illegal now, cheese poofs? Cartman will be mad.

  • Interview with Congressman Boucher (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dotnaught ( 223657 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:19PM (#4390868) Homepage
    Here's an interview with Congressman Rick Boucher [lot49.com], for those who can't get enough of him.

  • This bill is dead. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bartab ( 233395 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:20PM (#4390872)
    It was born dead, the entire timeframe of its submission was planned for its death.

    Historically, any bill that is still on the floor when Congress leaves for the winter never gets brought up again. Boucher is doing this in an attempt to gain some votes. The really sad aspect is that the joke bill doesn't even have any teeth. The least he could have done was submit a joke bill that would do something.

    • Re:This bill is dead. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bwt ( 68845 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:48PM (#4391022)
      That is totally bunk. Bills are introduced late in the session with the express purpose of staking out ground for the next session. All of the copyright bills good and bad are basically trial balloons.

      Boucher is a pretty sharp guy, and his bill has some big names supporting it (if you consider Intel, Verizon, Philips, Sun and Gateway big names). There is a major copyright fight brewing in Congress next term, and what you are seeing now is some early positioning. For example, Boucher's bill will be worked in the Commerce Committee and not the Judiciary Committe, which normally handles IP. That's because Coble, the chair, loves the DMCA.

      By the way, according to Declan's Article [com.com]Boucher's bill is co-sponsored by John Doolittle, R-Calif. It's nice to see bipartisan support.

  • Gee. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:20PM (#4390873) Journal
    The Fair Use doctrine is threatened today as never before. ... Even people who have purchased and paid for copyrighted material would be liable if they bypass the technical protection for the purpose of making Fair Use of the work they have lawfully acquired.

    I'm glad for one big thing here: there is now a debate between the rights of an individual and Fair Use and the rights of a corporation to protect their assets. As Michael said, in what I believe to be one of his more well-informed and insightful commentaries, this bill won't have direct impact considering November is just around the corner. Still, before now it seems like there have been few voices in opposition to Jack Valenti, Hilary Rosen, Fritz, etc. I hope this opens the floor for serious thought and action regarding the DMCA.

    It's amazing how we grant corporations rights as if they were individuals in some cases, but not in others. A corporation isn't guaranteed the 5th amendment rights by any stretch of the imagination (or constitution), but it has been held many times that a corporation can excersize the first amendment rights as much as anyone. This of course in turn brings in issues of who can afford the larger microphone, hence making free speech only available to those who can pay for it.

    I am struck by the above quote because it puts the situation exactly in the context of the way many of us that are both geeks and are outraged by the DMCA see it--Fair Use is no longer defined by an individual owners terms but by the providers; hence, the real "owner" becomes the provider.

  • Too bad it's too late.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mdechene ( 607874 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:20PM (#4390875)
    Since alot of the posters seemed to miss this, the bill is being introduced as congress is about to close this session. In case you don't know, forgot, et cetera, when congress closes session, all bills on the floor do not get resolved. So, unless this bill magically gets voted on and passed really quickly, the best we can hope for is for someone to bring this issue up again, next year. Otherwise, it's somewhat of a publicity stunt to introduce a bill this late in the session.

  • Then how about this bill... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DevNova ( 24921 ) <info2@ne[ ]rk23.com ['two' in gap]> on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:22PM (#4390888) Journal
    I submitted this to /., but it was rejected...

    This is from her website [house.gov]...

    Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) today introduced legislation designed to protect consumer's ability to enjoy digital copyrighted material. Lofgren's bill, the "Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002," gives lawful consumers the ability to make personal uses of digital entertainment such as music, movies, and books. In addition, the bill recognizes that digital piracy will never be truly solved until consumers are given an affordable, reliable, legitimate and secure alternative.

    "Consumers need a voice in this debate. Right now, it is the entertainment industry versus the technology industry, and the consumers are watching from the sidelines," said Lofgren. "Consumers have rights and expectations that cannot be ignored by industry goliaths."

  • A step in the right direction... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cowculator ( 513725 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:23PM (#4390896) Homepage
    Aside from the content of the Boucher-Doolittle bill, this C|NET article [com.com] mentioned something else important about it: Rep. Boucher had it introduced not in the House Judiciary Committee, where Intellectual Property subcommittee chairman Howard Coble would be a fierce opponent to it, but in the friendlier world of the Commerce Committee. Whether or not you like what the bill actually says - and that doesn't even matter, since it won't happen this year - Boucher's strategical move is an extremely useful tactic in getting such legislation passed (or, for that matter, even acknowledged) in the future.
    • Yes, that was a brilliant move. He's obviously been building up a lot of support for it quietly.

      If there was one guy in the House who symbolizes all that is wrong with IP, it is Coble. I really would like to see him ousted. There are major problems with IP in the US and Coble is the chief legislative obstacle in the House to solving them. The man obviously loves IP because it gives him a big vacuum to suck money from the IP interests with.

  • Be nice to Boucher (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:26PM (#4390913) Homepage Journal
    Boucher is one of very few people on the hill who will give us the time of day. We need him. He's been talking about this bill for some time, and has run into resistance - no surprise - but we want it introduced again. He also plans more than one bill, and the next one will have more of what you want.

    Thanks

    Bruce

    • It's amazing how people here are so skeptical about things like this--I'm frankly overjoyed that finally there is a contender in the Fair Use v. Bloody Pirates debate instead of the "bad guys" getting their way. I seriously think it may be the Rep. bit before his name--the crowd here tends to be very liberal. Ok, here comes a rant:

      From a non-partisan perspective, I find it interesting that bills for and against DRM and really any security or technical issue tend to come from both sides of the spectrum. The debate for civil liberties vs. safeguarding against terrorism has been fairly divided amongst party lines. That's a bad thing (err, Bad Thing (TM)), since because debates traditionally follow the two-party system, it really becomes tougher to come to a rational middle ground when there is no such dividing line. Right now DRM is not an issue that splits Congress in half--there are just a few members of Congress that have proposed and (in the case of the DMCA) hacked bills to the Oval Office. Boucher has brought in an opposing view, which has been much needed, but a real debate will be difficult because of the above reasons.

    • >>Boucher is one of very few people on the hill >>who will give us the time of day. We need him.

      Granted it was a nice gesture, but let me play devils advocate here.

      What we NEED is somebody who's doing to do something *useful*.

      He knows (and we know) that this bill has absolutely ZERO chance of going anywhere with elections weeks away. None. Zilch. It's so dead it's already stinkin up the place.

      So why does he do it? For political reasons of course. Make himself look good - fighting for the little guy - but there's zero chance that he'll actually need to put his neck on the line and accomplish anything. Nice gig.

      Give me a call when he actually starts doing something USEFUL. Not when he's doing political grandstanding and grubbing for votes (which is all this REALLY is).

      I know this gesture raises his stature around here. But for me, he's dropped a few notches becuase it's the same old political bullshit. If he had introduced this a year ago I'd be right on board with the rest clapping and cheering. Introducing it now -- just playing manipulative politics and mugging for the cameras.

      It's like writing a check but postdating it for the year 5000. A nice gesture, but you'll never have to worry about it being cashed. That doesn't make u cool in my book. It makes you a weasel.

      Sorry Boucher - no better than the rest of them.
      • Well, one of the issues that may have delayed the bill is a wait for certain corporate sponsors to jump on. A few very large corporations that vend Linux systems were asked, and apparently declined. I happen to have been in the room when Boucher asked them to sign on, and I guess they either didn't reply positively, or just didn't reply.

        Bruce

      • So why does he do it? For political reasons of course. Make himself look good - fighting for the little guy - but there's zero chance that he'll actually need to put his neck on the line and accomplish anything. Nice gig.
        Indeed. Actions like this, and the ensuing positive media coverage, are great for his campaign, and cost him exactly $0. Candidates not already IN office don't get this kind of opportunity. So they have to spend money to get name recognition. Good thing campaign spending restrictions have passed, otherwise incumbents might get challenged once in a while.
      • You reading any of the rest of this discussion? Introducing a bill late in the session positions it to be handled early in the next session.
      • I have followed this guys career, ever since he was interviewed here [slashdot.org] on Slashdot.

        He has a consistent record of supporting electronic freedoms, and I believe he deserves credit.

        I think the issue you, me and everyone in general are so jaded by political scandals, backdoor dealings, etc., that when there seems to be a genuinely honest guy in washington, we are by default skeptical.

        These are some of the posts about Boucher I found interesting:
        1 [slashdot.org]
        2 [slashdot.org]
        3 [slashdot.org]
        4 [slashdot.org]

        BTW, I am not Rick Boucher :) , but I wish he would move to my district.
      • Granted it was a nice gesture, but let me play devils advocate here.

        You do a nice job, except you try to make the point that he's not sincere because he isn't doing something useful. This fails because if he's sincere, what he's doing is useful. That's circular logic.

        Of course my argument relies on the eventuality that the bill could be useful. But I think it can. What does he get now that he wouldn't get before? He gets prolonged public exposure for the ideas in his bill. It gets stories written about a bill that wants to "protect your fair use rights". Rights that people may not have realized are being taken away, because they've only thought of it in terms of piracy. It gives a chance for tech companies to come out in favor of the bill, and in doing so give others the courage to do likewise. With any luck, it will become a medium-sized campaign issue, meaning exposure all the way through the campaign (and maybe winning a few more seats for possible supporters of the law). When the next session opens, he or someone else can raise the issue again without it being a surprise. There'll be a large block of popular and corporate support for the bill from the moment it is proposed.

        Oh, it also gets Boucher a lot of good press just prior to his campaign. I can't imagine that he minds this. Yet I don't think that's a bad thing at all, unless he's only doing it for that reason. But that depends on knowing whether he would do it just for the press, even if doing it had no value, and we can't answer that. Since proposing the bill now is useful, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that's at least part of why he's doing it.

        Not that I mind a good batch of cynicism, I just don't want to let it blind me to someone who may in fact be on my side.

  • damn (Score:2, Funny)

    by mrpuffypants ( 444598 )
    i wish I could "wrap up and go home for the year" in early October
    • To be fair to Congress, that does mean going home to one's constituents. Not all constituents can hop on a plane to Washington as easily as an RIAA lobbyist. :-)

  • Good First Step (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Myriad ( 89793 ) <(myriad) (at) (thebsod.com)> on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:27PM (#4390918) Homepage
    Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself. Neither of these is worth paying much attention to: Congress is about to wrap up and go home for the year, and will start afresh in January with a clean slate. Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.

    I'd disagree in saying that this in not worth paying attention to, instead I'd say it's a good first step.

    If someone goes in there all gung ho about repealing the DMCA it's easy to make inflametory comments like "Don't you care about the rights of artists?". Rather a lot like those who respond to any objection to the way an investigation is carried out could be met with "Don't you want to stop kiddie porn?", nor more commonly these days "Don't you want to stop terrorism?". While without merrit, these comments can really count against you.

    Instead, start poking holes in the other side. Attack in bits and pieces, showing how this part 'here' or 'there' is contrary to existing rights/laws. Do this enough and the other side starts looking pretty bad... soon you can change everything without a petty argument stopping you.

    • I think it is very major. It would go a long way towards enabling the fair use that we should have but is prohibited by the DMCA.

      My congressman is up for re-election so this issue is important whether this bill itself or one like it is on the table.

      My congressman (Lee Terry, Nebraska) seems to be more of a supporter of artist's rights than consumer rights. This gives me the impression he is not truely representing Nebraska as, from what I gather, we import more entertainment than we export.

      • [W]e import more entertainment than we export.

        True, but the stuff we have been exporting from Omaha the past few years is pretty good stuff. There's The Faint, Anchondo, Mandown, Grasshopper Takeover, Bright Eyes (if you're into emo), Five Story Fall, and the much-missed Blue Moon Ghetto. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say a vast majority of the music Saddle Creek Records is producing is good quality. Bringing things back on topic, most of the local bands are very big supporters of their fans' rights to listen how they want.

        Besides, even if the town didn't have a good local indie scene, I'd still rather listen to it than the latest overproduced, subliterate megapop arena sell-out teen sensation.

  • One Step at a Time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by skap20 ( 604100 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:30PM (#4390928)
    Repealing the whole DMCA would be too much to ask right now. I don't agree with it at all, but congress will not repeal a law so soon after it was passed. No one likes to admit to his or her mistakes, congress is going to act the same way. Especially at a time when the legitimacy of the political system is starting to be questioned.

    Small changes such as this are the best we can hope for at this time. Slowly eat away at the restrictions of the DMCA rather than attack it head-on.

  • Too specific (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:38PM (#4390960) Homepage Journal
    Why is this specific to music disks? Why not have a general requirement that software and hardware which contains Digital Restrictions Management technology must be labeled as such, so that people are aware that they are paying for something that will serve to restrict their abilities to exercise their fair user rights under copyright law?

    If I own something, it should do what I tell it to. It shouldn't act as a watchdog for large media corporations.

    • ... Digital Restrictions Management ...

      That's Digital Restriction Mechanisms (DRM).

      • Speaking of DRM (Score:2, Informative)

        by sconeu ( 64226 )
        I know it's not really on topic, but on the subject of DRM, MS has changed the root access licence (at least for the WMP 6.4 security upgrade). Here's the new text:
        * Digital Rights Management. Content providers are using the digital rights management technology contained in the applicable OS Product ("DRM") to protect the integrity of their content ("Secure Content") so that their intellectual property, including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated. Portions of the applicable OS Product and third party applications such as media players use DRM to play Secure Content ("DRM Software"). If the DRM Software's security has been compromised, owners of Secure Content ("Secure Content Owners") may request that Microsoft revoke the DRM Software's right to copy, display and/or play Secure Content. Revocation does not alter the DRM Software's ability to play unprotected content. A list of revoked DRM Software is sent to your computer whenever you download a license for Secure Content from the Internet. YOU THEREFORE AGREE THAT MICROSOFT MAY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUCH LICENSE, ALSO DOWNLOAD REVOCATION LISTS ONTO YOUR COMPUTER ON BEHALF OF SECURE CONTENT OWNERS. Microsoft will not retrieve any personally identifiable information, or any other information, from your computer by downloading such revocation lists. Secure Content Owners may also require you to upgrade some of the DRM components in the applicable OS Product ("DRM Upgrades") before accessing their content. When you attempt to play such content, Microsoft DRM Software will notify you that a DRM Upgrade is required and then ask for your consent before the DRM Upgrade is downloaded. Third party DRM Software may do the same. If you decline the upgrade, you will not be able to access content that requires the DRM Upgrade; however, you will still be able to access unprotected content and Secure Content that does not require the upgrade.
        Opinions?
  • ..at least they can get the flag right.
    I guess between creating polls that have cowboykneel in them, repeating stories, and not spell checking, they're to busy to take 10 minutes to correct it.
  • i have to say, this is good news for mac users

  • Very important legislation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @07:12PM (#4391124) Journal
    Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself.

    I couldn't disagree more. Anyone familiar with the FTC Act is aware how fiercely labelling legislation is opposed -- and how powerful its impact ultimately is on the marketplace. RIAA vendors will NOT WANT their customers to have to compare CDs with "the big red label" or whatever indication is there with CD's without it -- Customers will be quickly educated by the media that the "big red label" is a bad thing -- and ultimately the pressure will more readily deter the proliferation of copy protection in a competitive marketplace.

    The changes are not "few" or "vague" -- they virtually defang the entirety of the DMCA -- as you will hear RIAA and MPAA whine fiercely about in the months to come.

    This legislation, and Zoe's earlier proposal is an excellent beachhead -- not so much because it will likely become law, but so much that the RIAA and MPAA will finally get the word that "enough is enough" with their stupid technology regulation bills. Eventually, the pendulum had to swing too far, and this is the harbinger that it has swing.
  • Boucher vowed to strike out the repressive portions of the DMCA

    So he's vowed to completely eliminate the DMCA then?

  • Slow down, people (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tuckdogg ( 550113 ) <jswhite.atty@gAUDENmail.com minus poet> on Friday October 04, 2002 @07:24PM (#4391167) Homepage Journal
    Boucher and Lofgren are well aware of the fact that these bills will not pass this year. That isn't why they introduced them. They're trying to stake out their position, line up their supporters, and show that this is a major issue. If they had just waited until next year and introduced them cold, they might not get much reception. As it stands now, when the bills (or maybe it'll be down to one by then, I'm not really sure) get brought up again next session, people will be expecting them and the fight will be on.

    Furthermore, they are limiting this to just music for two reasons. First of all, these sorts of fair use rights don't have the same force when applied to your standard computer software that they do when applied to music and movies. Yes, I'm aware (are so are Boucher/Lofgren) that many people want to make backup copies of software. However, most people (especially those in Congress) see less of a coorelation between copying software and fair use than they do between copying software and piracy. Music is different. With music, I can rip my music from a CD and keep it as an MP3 (or Ogg, if you will) on my computer and listen to it there, transfer it to my MP3 player, mix and burn my own CD's (like the tape compilations we all made before CD burners became widely available), etc. These are rights that have a waiting market to exploit them, and the markets have been working for years. Boucher/Lofgren can cast their arguments in terms of simply keeping consumers with the same rights they've always had. These uses don't really exist in the same way with software because no one needs to be able to rip a program from a CD in order to install it to their Palm Pilot. However, they do need to be able to copy it do distribute it online. By limiting the operation of the bill to only music (I think Lofgren's also includes movies and other media), it's easier to keep the focus where it should be: on consumers and off of pirates.

    Another thing to consider is that Boucher/Lofgren need the backing of tech companies right now. There has to be a powerful lobby behind this thing, because I can guarantee you that unless some big money makers get into the fight these bills will die a cold, hard death. You are never going to get big tech companies (at least not tech companies that put out any kind of computer software) to support a bill that specifically tells consumers they can break the tech companies' copy protection. We can keep the tech companies happy for the moment by leaving them out, and then make the argument after the bill passes that software should be included as well. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Hell, Valenti and Rosen might even back something like that as a retaliation for tech companies backing the Boucher/Lofgren bills. The more we do to keep them fighting against each other, the more we win.

    Just something to think about.

  • will start afresh in January with a clean slate (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Parsec ( 1702 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @07:29PM (#4391190) Homepage Journal

    "Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. Since coming to Washington, I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." Ronald Reagan (Which is ironic given how corrupt [americanpresident.org] the Reagan administration was.)

    Please don't be lulled into believing that reform of these stupid laws will happen just because a new session will be starting. Now is the time your representatives should be coming home to get back in touch with those they supposedly represent. Contact them, get out to town hall meetings and meet them, give them some viewpoint other than the paid one.

    • Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century. The left hates him because to this day he is right.

      • Wow, my very own troll!!

        Seriously, your first error is assigning feelings and thoughts to a group without knowing anything about it. The "left" does not have an agenda to hate those who disagree with it. The "right", though, has made many public statements of hate and intolerance. You should pick up a book on "cognitive therapy", I think you'll find it very helpful.

        I won't cite examples here because you're an ignorant troll and I shouldn't be feeding you anyway. The first thing you need to do is start questioning the sources of your "facts". Ask what they have to gain by feeding you their brand of shit. You may find that they have quite a bit to gain in wealth and power. What do I have to gain by convincing you? Nothing, actually, in fact I have wasted precious minutes of my life here.

  • Is this where some congressperson announces a bill just to collect some campaign funding by watering it down?

  • For all you naysayers... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hkhanna ( 559514 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @07:43PM (#4391235) Journal
    Everyone here who is moaning about how this bill was introduced too late and how Boucher is just another political drone and how this bill doesn't have any teeth, etc etc... PLEASE stop and think. Where we had no voice before, we now have Boucher. Boucher has just given us an inlet into places where the content-control industry reigned. I wouldn't care if this bill did nothing to repeal the draconian portions of the DMCA or require labels on DRM-protected music. The point is that there is now a DEBATE on the floor of the U.S. Congress! A debate where we have a fighting chance.

    So please, everyone, support this bill rather than denounce Boucher, because he's the only one we've got. I'd bet that Boucher knows that introducing this bill will allow him to get feedback on it, so he can re-introduce another one in the next Congress that is more apt to pass.

    For all of you ingrates dismissing Boucher as just another politician, put away your ego for a second and realize that we're in a lot better of a position than we were six months ago. This one's not in the pockets of the media, he's in *our* pockets (for lack of a better term.)

  • Maybe this will help Lik Sang vs MSFT (Score:3, Informative)

    by joeflies ( 529536 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @07:47PM (#4391251)
    Here is the article which I submitted but was rejected. Sacramento Bee Article [sacbee.com] I wonder if it would have helped Lik Sang (which provided hardware to use circumvented copy protection), as opposed to personal use copying devices (which the bill focuses on)

  • Ouch michael (Score:2, Insightful)

    by travdaddy ( 527149 )
    From the article post:
    Neither of these is worth paying much attention to.
    Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.

    These comments are pretty harsh towards Rep. Boucher. I'm glad to see many of the user posts supporting Boucher and this bill. Anything in Congress going against the DMCA to great to see, even if it's small changes for now. If these changes or something like them goes through, then Congress will being going in the right direction against the DMCA.
  • Although this bill does not mean much to geeks and others who actually care about these matters, it nevertheless is a step in the right direction. Good job, Boucher.
  • The "copy-protected" logo, in the tradition of catering to stupid^H^H^H^H^H^H the less adept of consumers, will have to be something recognizeable. I would suggest having a silhouette of a pair of rabbits, one atop the other, with the traditional circle-and-slash combo over it, with text captioning underneath that indicates the disk (theoretically) cannot be copied.

    The only problem I see is with dense customers asking, "why would rabbits want to copy compact discs?"

  • Huh (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 )
    Neither of these is worth paying much attention to: Congress is about to wrap up and go home for the year, and will start afresh in January with a clean slate. Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.

    Oh, thanks great god of everything. You are so much smarter then all of us, thanks for comming to our conclusions for us. Doing that is so much work.
  • Wow this was a hard one to decide Mod or reply...

    In case you haven't noticed this is the first time we actually have two consumer related bills relating to the DMCA.

    As John Perry Barlow of the EFF stated at the O'Reilly Conference last year "Rep. Boucher is the only person in DC who gets it." Write your congresscritter and tell them to support the bill. Make them aware that there is a ground swell of support. After Nov 5th when the campaign finance laws take effect they will need your vote more than ever. Send a letter to Rep Bouchers office to show your support. Give him some tools to work with.

    Every journey begins with a single step. What has your Rep. done for you lately?
    • What has my rep done for me lately? Well, my current representative is just to the north of Boucher: Goodlatte.

      Back in 93/4, I found a bunch of newspaper articles about how our ATF, FBI, and National Park Service was gunning down innocent Americans, essentially Nazi SS style. It was only in local newspapers, but not in the national news (one reason I abandoned the national news, and don't believe they give us squat). I took these to Goodlatte, and asked him to "wrist slap" the ATF and the FBI, to let them know that this kind of thing was not acceptable.

      Well, first of all, he actually listened to me. Second of all, after a town meeting just *after* the Waco McVeigh bombing, I went in and repeated my request.

      While all the rest of the country was enmired in an attitude "we gotta show those terrorist American gunloving ... ... ...", Goodlatte actually did sponsor, then cosponsor, then get passed a bill that gave the ATF and the FBI substantial wrist slaps for their own part in terrorism.

      The raids and murders stopped, for about 5-6 years.

      That wasn't too bad, in my opinion.

      I've been in Boucher's district too, and I can't say that I have anything substantially good to say about him. If you think you can use him here, all well and good. But I can't say a lot positive about him.
      • I happen to live in Roanoke, in Goodlattes District. Mr G has taken more than $30,000 for this years election(which is $4000 more than the average income in his district) in campaign donations from the "copyright industries" (Oh did I mention he's running UNOPPOSED?) has written Op-ed peices for the RIAA called "Stealing Entertainment".

        When Boucher introduced the Music Online Competition Act "Moca" Last year Mr G and 5 others sent a letter to all of the representatives opposing it.

        I've voted for him in the past, it won't happen again. As for me come November fifth. I'm writing in "Anybody but Bob".
  • What we really need is a technology protection amendment to the US Constitution that prevents a technology from being outlawed just because it can also be applied illegally.

    As long as we keep trying to fight the problem with individual laws, corporations will respond by throwing more money at the problem than we can, eventually overwhelming us by buying out all everyone working on Capitol Hill. By striking preemptively with an amendment to clearly protect all technology, we can shut the corporations down before they mobilize at a level we cannot handle.
  • It cracks me up that this article on the US CONGRESS is on theregister.co.uk...

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close