Digital Media Consumer Rights Act 156
irabinovitch writes "Representatives Rick Boucher and John Doolittle introduced the DMCRA which would to quote the EFF would "require labelling requirements for usage-impaired "copy-protected" compact discs, as well as several amendments to 1998's infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)." We always seem to complain about the DMCA around here now is our chance to change it! Check out this "Action Alert" at the EFF."
A very valid point... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm happy to say that in Holland, policies are a bit more consumer-centered.
Re:A very valid point... (Score:5, Informative)
On top of that, we will have to deal increasingly with directives from the European Commission. This body is (sadly) of low democratic alloy. John Q Public does not have easy access to them, or even have a say in who sits in that committee, but you can be sure that industry lobbyists have found their way to these people.
But I agree, it is very good to see politicians look at the current laws and proposals with different eyes, and asking "Where are the consumer rights in all of this?".
EULA's (Score:3, Informative)
Civil servants... (Score:2)
That is tru for the Netherlands, China, Tonga, the US or the EU.
Stop whining like if it was a unique feature of the EU.
Re:A very valid point... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because the DMCA was introduced by some Representatives/Congressmen doesn't mean that all Representatives/Congressmen are idiotic gits.
Kierthos
More to do with (Score:3, Interesting)
Now on the other hand, we should vote with our wallets and not buy copy protected music CD's that SUCK! especially in cheap ass car CD players...
TQ
Re:More to do with (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More to do with (Score:2)
Re:More to do with (Score:2, Informative)
Re:More to do with (Score:2, Insightful)
Radio is now controlled by _radio_ marketing. Listeners drive advertising. Through marketing research ClearChannel thinks it knows what music gets people to listen to a particular station and demands conforming music.
Because ClearChannel owns so many stations it's in the game of focusing listeners to one or the other of its homogenized stations. The stations are not competing with each other really. ClearChannel just want's you to keep the radio on for as long as possible. McDonaldsization makes each station attempt to sound the same always. Thus the stations adopt music that sounds the same as what listeners already are hearing. The buzzword is 'wallpaper'.
Re:More to do with (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but unless something like this passes, we won't have a chance to know which discs are crippled. Personally I am already voting with my wallet. Since I got the first crippled album that wouldn't play in my computer's CD burner at the time (the only CD player I had) back in 2000, I haven't bought a single CD, since there is no way to know which ones are broken.
Re:More to do with (Score:2, Interesting)
I usually ask the staff at the store if I can return the album if it turns out it wasn't a CD.
If they say no, I don't buy it (and probably never go back to that store).
They can hardly claim I copied it, right?
Re:More to do with (Score:3, Informative)
Yes there is. As the old saying goes, look for the union label. If the CD has the Philips "Compact Disc" logo, it'll work in your computer. Nowadays, it's sometimes hard to find the label on a real CD, but I figure if I'm gonna spend $15-20 on something, it's worth the extra five minutes necessary to examine the packaging.
The CD logo is a fraction of the size, and far more meaningful than the Microsoft "certificate of authenticity."
Re:More to do with (Score:2)
I hate to prove you wrong, but the discs in this particular album bear the Compact Disc logo. I contacted my consumer rights person, but they never got back to me, and where I live now, there is no such person.
CD logo = harder than you think (Score:3, Informative)
The last few CDs my girlfriend bought (I, *ahem*, have abstained from buying lately...) had no Compact Disc logo anywhere on the exterior packaging. The logo was there, but it was stamped into the inner plasting molding of the CD tray, in the top-right/bottom-left corners. No ink was used, very small.
It's a trend I've noticed. No way to check the actual logo until after you've opened it... which of course means you cannot return it anymore.
I've often wondered if they (you know, they) have been minimizing the prominence of the CD logo in case they want to switch to I Can't Believe It's Not CD, or something.
Logic says it's OK to buy anyway. (Score:2)
You open the case, the CD logo is there. All is well in the world.
You open the case, no CD logo to be found. You go back to the store and return the CD because there's no chance you duped it. It's copy-protected, remember?
Re:More to do with (Score:5, Interesting)
This is about more than just CD labels, it's about regulations on both production and fair use.
I had a big discussion with some friends the first time [slashdot.org] this bill was introduced. My friend is a liberitarian who thought we should not be introducing new industry regulations (forced labeling) in music.
I disagree with that argument for 2 reasons. Fist of all, crippled discs that are not labeled are basically illegal anyway since they are being falsely advertized as regular CDs. This may be a new regulation, but it is a reedundant and minor 1.
Secondly, the main focus of the bill is on deregulation (and thus should appeal to liberitarians). The DMCA currently prohibits consumers from 'unencrypting' crippled CDs. It also prohibits production of hardware or software that breaks cpoyright encryption on these CDs. This bill will remove those regulations.
You're both right (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right in that this fraud must be prevented.
All that this requires is existing fraud legislation be brought to bear against these bogus CDs -- libertarians do support opposing the initiatiation of force or fraud.
Now, while legislation can provide safety from fraud allegations to those who would peddle such defective product, clearly marked, it should not require such marking. Here's why: this would lead to government "testing" of CDs to see if they were crippled and in need of such a mark, which costs the producer of the clean CD, harming them economically. Such people do not need such testing -- they know their CDs are clean, and need not fear fraud suits from their customers.
Re:You're both right (Score:1)
Re:You're both right (Score:4, Informative)
Good question. There are two answers.
First, the Philips/Sony "CD/CompactDisk" logo (used under license) is an indication of complience to certain standards that do not support such crippled disks. To use that logo on a crippled disk is (a) a violation of the logo license (according to Philips, at least), and (b) fraud.
This leads to the second answer. You may be asking, "Yes, but how exactly is it deceitful?". The consumer did not contract as to what that logo meant, so why should the supplied be held to that standard? The law generally deals with what "a reasonable person" would understand, in the absence of a specific agreement (contract). After years of purchasing unencumbered CDs, a "reasonable person" would assume that something that looks like a CD, is labeled as a CD, is sold as a CD, is, in fact, a CD, as he understands it, i.e. unencumbered. The logo, in fact, is meant to butress this understanding. Selling a crippled CD without labelling to indicate that it is crippled is fraud, pure and simple. Even if the "CD/compacd disk" logo were missing, you could probably argue sucessfully that it is fraud, simply because "a reasonable person" will presume a shiny flat disk with music on it is a CD, in the absence of anything to suggest otherwise.
The danger, though, is that "a reasonable person" may not know just how encumbered or unencumbered certain future media are, and so will will be oblivious to the fact that his fair use rights are eroded further and further over time. CDs just came at a juncture where digital copying was still difficult enough that digital piracy wasn't a big issue, so little protection. DAT decks, if you recall, had to have SCMS: Serial Copy Managament System, which permitted only one copy from a digital source -- the watermarking alternative pushed by the RIAA in Congress stalled DAT introduction in th U.S. to the point that consumer DAT technology was stillborn.
Re:You have access to this license? (Score:2)
Fair enough.
I don't have the license text handy, but I do have references to published accounts of Philips being upset about copyprotected CDs not being CDs and threats to disallow permission of the logo on such disks. Sorry, best I could find on short notice.
First, look here [tecchannel.de]. Yeah, it's in German, but there was a whole Slasdot writeup and comentary on it here [slashdot.org].
As for what CDs have the logo, gee, I don't know of any that don't have it, though I have hears rumours of producers of copyprotected "CD's" being willing to drop the logo and rely on recognition of "flat, shiny disks with music" as "CDs".
Re:You have access to this license? (Score:2)
I've looked the same information up myself awhile ago. Virtually all CDs carry the official Phillips/Sony "CD" insignial. Anything that doesn't measure up to what Phillips and Sony require of their CDs cannot bear their trademark.
Now whether or not the concept that anyone who sells a crippled CD is commiting fraud, because everyone knows what a CD looks like (and doesn't bother checking for the "CD" logo, because they know it's there) is debateable. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to use the arguement to hang the people trying to manufacture the crippled disks to dry. their lawyers and the courts may have a different opinion, though.
Re:You have access to this license? (Score:2)
Yes, of course. But, "the law" is subject to interpretation all the time, with regard to determining things like what a "reasonable person" would think. That's what judges are for.
Of course, it's risky placing significant wealth at risk over what some judge would consider what a "reasonable person" would think. That's why we have contracts... to spell things out ever so precisely, carefully, dotting the t's and crossing the i's, or, er, whatever.
But, it is impractical to write contracts for everything. When I buy a chocolate bar at a convenience store, I do not draw up a contract with the store owner over the price, have both of us sign it, pay, take the bar, and leave. I drop the appropriate amount of money on the counter, note that he acknowledges this, take the bar and leave. It would do him no good to charge me with theft because the chocolate bar listed at $1.00 was really offered at $1.25. I acted as a reasonable person, and, for the amount of the cost of a chocolate bar, I am willing to risk that a judge would agree. Even if he didn't, I'd doubt that a criminal charge of theft would stick.
Re:You're both right (Score:2)
What can I do... (Score:5, Interesting)
Daniel
Re:What can I do... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a music/movie store here that sells real import DVDs and CDs, but at USA prices. Given that those prices exceed the monthly pay for most people here, they don't sell that many!
And, yes, I too was unemployed in the USA before I came here. I'd like to be back there, but stuff like the DMCA makes me think twice.
DMCA vs. China (Score:2)
Sorry, the DMCA has some good provisions, and some horrid provisions. However, all-in-all, the US human rights record is pretty solid, despite what some anti-American lefties seem to think.
Alex
Re:What can I do... (Score:2)
but using tanks to stop a demonstration is doesn't ?
Re:What can I do... (Score:2)
Hell, even your local lobbying groups can have an affect, even if they're not affected by the foreign laws. For example, the nosey LDS (Mormon) church heavily lobbied in several states (I want to say Hawaii and Alaska) a few years ago to try to defeat state laws that would legitimize same-sex marriages. I forget what the outcome was, but ut illustrates my point.
Do civil disobedience ! ! ! (Score:2)
Civil disobedience will do more to end the DMCA and the abuse of copyrights than all the other stuff combined. I really love the EFF, but they are wrong - the system will not change unless we force it to from the outside.
For real results we must do everything in our power to ignore, blow-off, disobey, disrespect, and encourage others to not accept copyright monopolies inspite of all the cheezy guilt trips and threats that they have laid on us.
This is gonna be fun to watch. (Score:4, Funny)
Needed (Score:1)
Re:Needed (Score:2)
there's a lot of great music out there, and most of it's not on the radio, and doesn't come on broken discs.
Good Start (Score:5, Insightful)
Past that, we should also, as the EFF states, tell our families and friends about the issue. Not many people care about this currently, because not many people know, and the information sources most people rely upon are more concerned with 5 minute wheather reports than reporting on people's rights being stripped away.
It's easy to get them to care (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's easy to get them to care (Score:2)
Re:It's easy to get them to care (Score:1)
Capitalism implies market forces, and they fear those.
So what do you call a Nelson-like bunch of thugs that enslave artists with work for hire contracts, criminalize their customers, and invoke the fury of the government on those who would "interfere with private enterprise"?
"Mothra's Song" called them "tong yu", which means, in English: "barrel of sharks". That's exactly what they are, just a bunch of greedy sharks.
"Look at this story! I want a retraction!"
Nelson, Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)
Re:It's easy to get them to care (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's easy to get them to care (Score:2)
Let's face it, the media companies are largely obsolete and are looking to the government to protect them despite their irrelevancy rather than pursuing a business strategy not developed in the 19th century.
It's the same as the inevitable pressure that the oil companies will apply if and when fuel-cell-powered cars become a reality. I would have liked to see Bush create an Apollo like program to develop a cost-effective fuel-cell (or other alternative energy source) automobile in the next 10 years. It would take a small fraction of the money sunk into Apollo (or the current space program), I would bet, and bolster opinion on Bush's environmental record, and have real and positive impacts if acheived.
Re:It's easy to get them to care (Score:2)
What do "monopoly" and "enforced by law" have to do with socialism? Under socialism, the people that work a resource commonly own it. For example, mine workers would collectively own a mine and its equipment. If they discovered a new huge gold vein, they'd all gain from it.
There's nothing socialist or psuedo-socialist about it. In fact, it's rather anti-socialist and elitist.
Re:It's easy to get them to care (Score:2)
Regardless, I think we are trying to say the same thing with different words.
Re:It's easy to get them to care (Score:2)
That's the problem with terms like socialism and communism that have such wide-ranging interpretations and uses. What most people refer to as socialsm -- state-owned and controled resources and methods of production -- others call state-socialism.
Socialism to them is when the tools of production are owned by the people who actually use them. For example, in a typical factory everyone -- workers, managers, office personnel, janitors -- would share ownership and control of the factory as a syndicate. Having the best knowledge of how to run a factory, they would manage its utilization as well as exist in a larger market of other syndicates, all working together.
The state would exist on a much more limited scale, performing basic civic services such as courts and law enforcement. It would not be involved in the market at all. This has not existed in a large society to my knowledge. That's why most people don't associate it with "socialism." Rather, they think of the various "evil" state-socialist countries throughout history, Germany being the prime example.
In any case, rereading the posts, I would view "attempting to get their distribution monopoly enshrined and enforced by law" to be protecting the capitalist interests, not psuedo-socialist or socialist.
To tie them together, look at the labor struggles at the end of the 19th through the beginning of the 20th centuries. The state governments were protecting corporate profits by sending in militia and federal troops to violently break strikes (killing women and children in tents during a night attack on a striker encampment). The socialist movement grew out of this period of severe state oppression. They certainly weren't asking for the government to take control of production.
Along come World Wars I and II and socialism becomes synonymous with Nazi Germany and is "no better than communism" which is subjected to the same cultural effects.
[Note: I'm exactly at this period in A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present, so it's on my mind. :) ]
Re:It's easy to get them to care (Score:2)
I wish you could mod up others' replies to your own posts.
Thanks!
Re:It's easy to get them to care (Score:2)
Right, they want fascism (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA, and other business groups looking for help really want our government to slowly become a bit more fascist.
Such a shame that few people understand and respect liberty, and are willing to eliminate personal liberty to do what they think is right. The GOP tends to slip towards fascism when they run out of ideas, the Democrats slip towards socialism... the Libertarians speak out for liberty, but they keep letting cooks talk...
Alex
Re:It's easy to get them to care (Score:2)
Simple enough: Ask them if they feel they should have the right to take apart their car to fix something. How about dismantling two cars you bought and building a new one one out of the parts? How about tinkering with any physical object you have purchased? Once you buy an object, it's yours to do with as you please. Once you buy music, it should be yours to play/listen to how you please. It should not be illegal to tinker with YOUR car, just as it should not be illegal to tinker with YOUR CDs/music.
Re:It's easy to get them to care (Score:2)
Wishful thinking (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:2)
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't send email. Send a paper letter!
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:2)
Also, after the Anthrax letter incident, it is becoming exceedingly hard to get paper letters to your pols. Send a fax.
WARNING: He is right! There are better ways (Score:2)
I really love the EFF, but we are crazy to think that this can be solved from within the system. For God sake, it is the RIAA's abuse of the system that has gotten us here to begin with. Nothing has changed. They are the ones inside the pocket, not us; they are the ones who are masters of playing the game, not us; If we play on their turf, we'll be screwed.
They are still witch hunting and fear mongering millions of teens who listen to music on the one hand, and still going full blast to toss out the 1st and 4th amendments on the other. Sorry, but these are not people who play by the rules. Yep, Their ways have made it quite clear that we only have one real option, and that is for all of us to ignore, disobey, and blow off copyrights whenever possible. These people are playing an all or npothing game, if we don't accept that and act accordingly we will only hurt ourselves.
Government at work... (Score:5, Interesting)
"If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress?"
If nothing else, I have to laugh at the proposed name (DMCRA). It's a poignant acronym, with just the right amount of "ha-ha" expected. Once again we have the pols battling it out against each other, with the target result being to counteract each other. For once, I hope this is achieved. To counter the DMCA with the DMCRA would raise my spirits for sure.
Thank you, Rep. Boucher, for raising a subtle yet interpretable middle finger to the DMCA (and for your other clueful work). If ever I meet you, I owe you a drink, and that's a promise
Re:Government at work... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Government at work... (Score:1)
DeMoCRAcy.
Re:Government at work... (Score:2)
Barter Your Time and Energy for Media Exchange.
Re: Acronym? (Score:2)
Re:Government at work... (Score:3, Funny)
List of Co-Sponsors of HR107 (Score:5, Informative)
Rep Andrews, Robert E. - 1/29/2003 [NJ-1]
Rep Bachus, Spencer - 1/7/2003 [AL-6]
Rep Barton, Joe - 1/29/2003 [TX-6]
Rep Doolittle, John T. - 1/7/2003 [CA-4]
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 1/7/2003(withdrawn - 1/28/2003) [RI-1]
Re:List of Co-Sponsors of HR107 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:List of Co-Sponsors of HR107 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:List of Co-Sponsors of HR107 (Score:2, Informative)
This is for all you democrats who CHOOSE to believe that republicans are primarily responsible for the woes of the various RIAA/MPAA actions.
Follow the money.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp
Re:List of Co-Sponsors of HR107 (Score:1, Interesting)
info..
http://www.commoncause.org/laundromat/
Do a search for 'recording' on that site and you get some interesting results..
Those stats seem to suggest the opposite of yours..Who's right? heh..
This is a secondary soluytion (Score:2, Interesting)
We have one section of government (RIAA) working one set of laws to take away digital rights
And now we have another working to attempt to bring them back. Does that make sense?
Putting all the effort into having one continuously working against the other in the hope there's a middle ground that is safe doesn't seem sensible
working departments together would be the best option. I don't see why this can't be done
RIAA != Government (Score:4, Informative)
Not yet anyway (Score:2, Funny)
Re:RIAA != Government (Score:2)
In further news, that kid who swiped your lunch money wasn't really collecting a "Lunch Tax".
StuP
This is natural (Score:2)
Presumably, in a perfect government the executive branch should act harmoniously to implement the decisions made by the lawmakers. That doesn't seem achievable, however, and I think it's healthy that there's some resistance to implementing controversial decisions. I don't think I would ever want to live under an efficient government :-)
May be the only one? (Score:1)
To be more precise: if someone, You for instance, can supply solution that will cease lobbyists activity and in the same time make community happy - offer it.
Meanwile all we can do is to apply our force so that oscillation move in our favor.
damn, sucks to be canadian. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:damn, sucks to be canadian. (Score:2, Informative)
Link to EFF (Score:5, Insightful)
Make sure to write your representatives. It's the only recourse we have left in this 'democracy' that has gone afoul - The only reason it has gone afoul is that WE (American Citizens, not slashdotters) have allowed it to but NOT writing our representatives. Their title 'REPRESENTative' should say it all. Their SOLE purpose is to represent YOUR opinion to the people that make the laws that govern how our lives are lived. If you don't write - LAWS WON'T CHANGE. The EFF has made this task incredibally easy - They've even written a nice letter and will auto-lookup your representative based on your address. Get your opinion out there. It's our only chance to change the laws of the land we live in.
I'll give you the link [eff.org] again in case you missed it the first time.
Its about time (Score:1)
Though I am not a US citizen, I am very much interested in this as most of the laws get exported from the US to other countries.
Sadly (Score:1)
The RIAA/MPAA lobby machine will start working against this bill and one of two things will happen, it will fail miserably or it will be so watered down as to be unrecognizable and worse will do exactly opposite of its original intent.
If you're not with us, you're against us. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you're not with us, you're against us. (Score:1, Insightful)
> impaired proudcts are created, aren't we then
> giving fair-use impaired products our blessing?
But they already exist, and have substantial legal protection. Having already tried to prevent the DMCA, this is our next line of defense.
Supporting the DMCRA doesn't undermine your anti-copy-protection stance, because you've already spoken up against copy-protection. What this is about is how things ought to be if the DMCA is allowed to persist.
Re:If you're not with us, you're against us. (Score:2)
Labelling Won't Work (Score:2, Interesting)
What is pertinent is that DVDs are labelled in this country - they have logos on the rear of the covers that indicate region protection, macrovision etc. and people still buy them.
I don't know what you guys in the US have on your packaging, but over here ours are labelled already and the consumers don't care.
Re:Labelling Won't Work (Score:1)
It's not the fact that they are "copy-protected" but rather the fact that they only work with some playback devices.
Re:Labelling Won't Work (Score:2)
i'd guess most people who buy dvds buy dvds for the region they live in, which is the same region their dvd players are set up for. they don't look at the packaging other then to see if it's widescreen or not because they don't know (and don't need to know) that there are dvd players that don't play it.
crippled cds on the other hand, are more likely to not play in a randomly selected player than dvds are -- i think we've reached a point where all but the most clueless have realized that their computer did NOT come with a retractable cup-holder.
Re:Labelling Won't Work (Score:2)
Re:Labelling Won't Work (Score:2)
The copy restriction, while "reading restriction" might be a better term, on CDs consists of deliberate infringements on the CD standard, aiming to confuse drives that have to deal with the full CD specification (PC drives), while hopefully not confusing drives that just want to play audio.
Therefore, a "copy-restricted" CD doesn't comply with the standard and may not be advertised as "CD Digital Audio". That's what the whole labelling discussion is about.
DVDs, on the other hand, were conceived with copy-restriction in mind. Playback devices know about encryption and region coding. When you buy a DVD, you don't have to care whether it is restricted or not because it won't harm your playback. When you make a copy, you can just copy the DVD with encryption and everything - the restriction doesn't try to interfere with the reading of the data.
FYI: Link to the bill... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget my man! (Score:4, Informative)
Spencer Bachus [arl.org], my representative, is also cosponsoring the bill. This is a real turnaround for him, as he has usually voted for whichever side of the issue is commercial. We've had several e- and snail mail arguments about electronic freedom issues, and his cosponsorship of this bill demonstrates that he is doing just what his job title indicates - representing.
A big attaboy to my man Bachus for pitching in on this! Let this be an inspiration to anyone else out there who believes that getting involved is hopeless - if you speak, they will listen.
Re:Don't forget my man! (Score:1)
Already legally required (Score:2)
If it says it's a CD, it doesn't have copy protection. If it says it's a CD and has copy protection, then they're violating Philips' trademark, and can expect a call from the lawyers. Very simple, and no new legislation needs be introduced.
Unfortunately, nobody reads labels like that anyways.
Re:Already legally required (Score:2)
Do you have any examples? Not that I'm discounting what you're saying, I'm just not aware of Philips going after anyone...
They've missed out an important bit! (Score:5, Informative)
I vaguely recall, during one of the DVD cases, that it was stated in court that the DMCA does NOT forbid breaking copy protection for fair use at the moment.
The PROBLEM is that it forbids distribution of tools for breaking copy protection, regardless of what they will be used for. Having permission to break the protection for fair use is no good unless you are actually able to do it, and unless the tools are distributable very few people who wish to make fair use will be able to.
This is exactly the problem that came up in one of the appeals in the DVD case; that it is not sufficient to simply ensure that people are permitted to make fair use, because even if they have permission, "nothing in law obligates manufacturers to make it easy for people to exercise fair use rights" (paraphrased from the appeal verdict). Thus, they can simply make it so hard that the vast majority of people can't do it, and the tools distribution clause will prevent people who CAN do it from helping others do so.
To ensure fair use, the proposed act would have to include a specification that no IP owner must unduly impede the exercise of fair use rights, technologically or otherwise. If technology is too restricted at the moment to do this without losing protection against illegal use then, well, they're big companies with big bucks: they can innovate new technology, or at least sponsor others to do so. (At the moment, such technology is unlikely to ever get developed because it's actually to the firms' advantage for it not to be - they can carry on getting away with blocking everything.)
Re:They've missed out an important bit! (Score:2, Informative)
SEC. 5. FAIR USE AMENDMENTS.
(5) It shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute, or make noninfringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work.
Isn't DECCS a software product that helps significant noninfringing use (i.e. watch my _own_ DVDs on Linux)?
First it was cigarettes... (Score:2, Funny)
In another few years, there'll be so many warning labels we'll have to play 20 questions with the clerk to figure out what's in the box.
Is it known in the state of California to cause drowsiness?
No.
Is it car headlights?
No, that would be known in the state of Hawaii to cause blindness.
Oh yeah. Umm...
Not a good enough name... (Score:3, Funny)
What it needs is another couple of letters on the end. How about c and k? C could stand for 'concerning' and the k could stand for... well shit, I'm not that intelligent so I'll get to the point. I just want the acronym to be 'DMCRACK'.
Clearly to pass it they need a more hokey name. (Score:3, Funny)
So maybe we need the United Support of Artists via Free Legal Access to Great music act. Then its opponents can be easily bashed as unpatriotic. You don't want to be a FLAG burner, do you? Fox News would love it.
The best way to get this passed... (Score:2, Interesting)
For those in the crowd who are uncomfortable with these tactics, just remember, the other side has been doing this for years, and have no problem with continuing. We didn't start this war, but if we don't start getting in the trench and fighting the battle as they are, we are sure to lose it.
Don't use their form letter; use mine! (Score:2, Insightful)
Congress has a responsibility to right this situation and the Digital Media Consumer's Rights Act (DMCRA, H.R. 107) is a step in the right direction. I hope you will co-sponsor the DMCRA and show your support for the public's rights in digital media.
Thank you for your time.
Wish Rick's campaign took PayPal (Score:2)
Re:Uncharted Territory... (Score:1)
there are already enough places where you can't speak your mind and are flooded with regulations bordering the ridiculous.
Re:Uncharted Territory... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Uncharted Territory... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, like after Sep 11. What are you thinking man?!?
"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."--Thomas Jefferson to P. Dupont, 1816.
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the
majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be
reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws
must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of it's victims may be
the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than
under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
that torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do
so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
Re:Uncharted Territory... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but I must strongly disagree with you on this one. When a society shares the same mindset, that society no longer has individuals capable of seeing other viewpoints, much less thinking about them. This scares me. I want a diversity of mindsets so that any question/problem/idea can be tackled from as many directions as is humanly possible. Makes for much more interesting and fruitful discussion, IMHO.
"And I'm not talking control or limited freedom, I'm talking about a purest form democracy, where the elected (not appointed) leader accurately represents the will of the people."
IMHO, the best possible situation in our current system of government is a leader that, while everyone may not *agree* with, they respect and support their leadership because they know that the leader accurately represents the *interests* of the people, not necessarily their will.
Catch y'all later,
-cajunfj40
Re:Uncharted Territory... (Score:5, Insightful)
What? You want to change this? Why?
Right now, many things are illegal, but the laws are deemed unfair, so these things are socially acceptable
Damn straight. And once those absurd laws are gone things will balance out.I don't want the internet to speak with a singular voice. What a horrible thought. That would turn it into network TV or a clear channel radio station.