Boucher's DMCRA To Get A Hearing On May 12 305
Mr. Firewall writes "It's been a long road since Slashdot first carried the story that Rep.
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) was speaking out about the DMCA's trampling of fair-use rights. Well, his bill (HR 107) gets a hearing this Wednesday and the multi-billion-dollar music and movie industries have called out their Big Guns to stop it. This morning an urgent message from the Professional Photographers of America arrived in my inbox characterizing Boucher's bill as 'A bill that would make it impossible for photographers to protect their work' and other lies (apparently, the RIAA and MPAA have recruited the PPA into their Axis of Evil). The alert finishes by saying that 'a strong grassroots effort combined with [our] recent lobbying efforts should be enough to keep this harmful bill locked in the subcommittee ... until Congress adjourns.' Let's give these folks a little taste of the slashdot effect and do a little 'grassroots' contacting of congresscritters ourselves." Of course, you can decide only for yourself what your thoughts are on the bill.
Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's The bill's test on the Thomas system. [loc.gov] and here's the list of 15 representatives co-sponsoring the bill [loc.gov].
Read the bill for yourself, then you can think for yourself about what it's going to do if passed.
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:5, Funny)
PPA [ppa.com]
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:3, Funny)
Why not give a better link to the PPA? (Score:5, Informative)
Give them something more useful to look at, like the contact page [ppa.com]. You can tell them why this is unreasonable.
Now then, they're probably right that it would prevent them from being able to protect their works--DRM does not and has not ever worked (and hopefully will never work, since DRM working would imply that all general-purpose devices have been disabled or destroyed...)
Of course, where we disagree is whether this is a Bad Thing [TM]. Obviously, the substantial non-infringing uses (not to mention the crippling effects of DRM schemes when secure, and their futility when insecure) legitimizes the need to be able to crack DRM schemes without fearing that you might have to go to prison because you stripped out the "don't copy" bit.
I could only wish that a judge would rule, with a perverse sense of irony, that the word "effective" when discussing copyright protection devices meant that the device had to actually work (e.g. be un-circumventable), but alas, I don't think that judges are allowed to do that.
In the mean time, why don't they stick to suing people from actual copyright infringement, instead of "protecting" their works with stupidly restrictive schemes?
I mean, I'm just waiting for a "DRM Virus" which makes use of some DRM scheme or another to prevent anti-virus people from reversing or deactivating it. And lest you think I'm kidding that a provision like this could be used by the virus writer, read McClelland v. McGrath, 31 F. Supp. 616 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Even though it might be "the very definition of chutzpah," a kidnapper sued a police officer for unauthorized monitoring of his cell phone. He may not have been able to supress the evidence against him and get off of the kidnapping charge, but there were still civil penalties under 18 USC 2518(10)(a)
Re:Why not give a better link to the PPA? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've already ranted at great length on this; when DRM becomes common enough, someone is sure to write a virus that wipes out everyone's decryption keys. And you can bet your ass that the **AA is not going to allow you to keep spare copies of your keys, or unprotected backups.
Also you might have mis
Re:Why not give a better link to the PPA? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think your "DRM virus" would be protected under the DMCA since the spreading of the "virus" would probably break other laws. Of course, an effective and popular D
Re:Why not give a better link to the PPA? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Library of Congress can grant exemptions. They already have for reversing the wordlists used by netfilters (netnanny, etc.). I would imagine that they would grant an exemption for reversing malware if petitioned to do so. Of course, I don't know that anyone *has* petitioned them to do so, so it might not
DRM Virus (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:5, Interesting)
Without trying to sound like flamebait, I suspect they're a body mostly looking after the highly commercial, wealthy, and LARGE photo studios who have, ofcourse, made their money by milking wedding photography for all that can be had.
In other words they seem to have exactly the same respect and commitment towards the art of photography as the RIAA has towards the art of music.
Nill.
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:2)
-N
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Rep. Boucher... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.house.gov/boucher/pics/boucherpic.jpg [house.gov]
Looks like he also aided the early growth of the internet:
http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/tbio.htm [house.gov]
Re:Rep. Boucher... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't just throw your support against something like the **AA. When you're given the opportuninty, throw your support *for* something. Let your representatives know that you are for something here, not just against things. It makes you feel better as a person too. Boucher gets my support every time he comes up for re-election, and is one reason I'm against term limits. He's someone I like, and I want him to stay there damn it!
(For the record, I hate a 2 party system, can't stand disliking 95% of the choices I have to vote for, etc. Discussions that follow on the nature of politics/politicians/politicial parties will be sent to
Re:Rep. Boucher... (Score:2)
That said, he's still a Democrat. (I hate the party system too, but it's likely he wouldn't be in office otherwise.)
So... does this qualify for
SB
Re:Rep. Boucher... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, easy read. Read it! (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in a professional photo lab and I am angling to become a professional photographer myself. AFAIC, the PPA can go fuck themselves on this one.
Re:Wow, easy read. Read it! (Score:3, Funny)
"This gives the RIAA the power to ass rape anyone they see fit"
Of course it does. Who the hell do you think wrote it?
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
But regardless aren't cd sales declining? I mean the prerecorded kind. This bill only applies to an old technology medium, and copy protection schemes that have proven mostly ineffectual. Might as well throw in eight track and casette labeling, as long as we are concerned with correctly labeling ol
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
As other replies said, this is an easy read. Just to sum up for the lazy, though:
Most of the text relates specifically and exclusively to audio CDs. Specifically, it will require CDs with copy protection to be labeled as such.
The last bit is more general though:
We do have an effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We do have an effect (Score:2)
Re:We do have an effect (Score:5, Informative)
If you enter your state and zip code here [house.gov](you shouldn't need a +4, unless your in a really gerrymandered district. You can either send an electronic message or get your representative's name. Then take that over to this page [house.gov] and you can see their little house page which has contact info for sending a fax, phone, or snail mail message. If you write a letter be sure to address them as Hon. or Rep. [last name] and try to be respectful and logical ie. this bill protects consumers from getting discs that do not meed the CD standard, and allows research that will improve current digital security. Also try to appeal to their desire to be bipartisan if your rep is a Republican or appeal to their party if they are Democrats. Since this is a house bill, I didn't provide the look up for your Senator. You should know which state our are in and there are two senators per state.
Also, all of these house members are up for election this year, unless they are retireing, so you might want to spend a bit of time on their page to see what they are for and against.
Re:We do have an effect (Score:3, Interesting)
Dear X
My name is XX YY, and I'm writing to you regards Rep. Rick Boucher recently introduced DMCRA (HR 107) bill. I strongly support this bill, and I would humbly ask you to support it also. It allows for consumers to break digital encryption schemes in the pursuit of fair use. Whilst this may sound like a far out problem that affects a small minority of consumers, nothing could be further from the truth. The problems that the DMCA creates are far-ranging for users o
Re:Send a letter not email (Score:3, Informative)
WriteRep requires you to put in your zipcode before writing your Congressman, thereby allowing the Member to know you are a constituent.
If you would like to write to a Member of Congress who is not your Representative, write a paper letter, but also understand how little effect it may have on them.
Re:We do have an effect (Score:2)
Does it really have a chance? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Does it really have a chance? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does it really have a chance? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like a scenerio that should be protected, not made illegal, which, since it's on DVD and Macrovisioned on VHS, it is by the DCMA - even if permission is granted we'd have to circumvent encryption to do it! But IIRC, it's distributed by Miramax, which is a division of Disney, so who know if it will be allowed.
Re:Does it really have a chance? (Score:2)
Re:BoC (Score:5, Informative)
Re:BoC (Score:3, Interesting)
And here [hardylaw.net] is the rebuttal to his attempt to debunk the first set of claims.
Re:Does it really have a chance? (Score:5, Informative)
Read further down in the text of the bill beyond the point it talks about CDs. The last section modifies Section 1201(c) of title 17, a section that got much of its content from the DMCA. Basically, it guts much of this section by specifically allowing the use and distribution of DRM-defeating software if the goal is to enable fair use that is otherwise legal.
Re:Does it really have a chance? (Score:5, Funny)
Gee, lemme break open a fresh deck of Luckies and think that over.
PPA sees problems with this bill that we don't (Score:5, Insightful)
A bill that would make it impossible for photographers to protect their work in any digital format is set for a hearing in the House on Wednesday, May 12.
It'd be still possible for photographers to protect their work using DRM. They could apply DRM until the cows come home... it's just that people would legally be able to crack their DRM in a way that's presently illegal. Security-by-encryption will still be around, but having security-by-law to back it up when it fails would go away. Okay, that's FUD.
Known as H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumer Rights Act would give hackers explicit permission to distribute software and hardware devices designed to defeat copyright protection technology.
That's exactly true. Software like DeCSS would no longer be illegal to distribute, and in fact would be specifically authorized by this law. The PPA seems to think this is a bad thing, but that's the only problem with this claim.
Other provisions of the bill would set a dangerous precedent by making copyright owners who use anti-copying technology on music discs subject to regulation and fines from the Federal Trade Commission unless they meet extensive labeling and regulatory requirements.
That's true as well, as a CD with any sort of DRM applied to it ceases to be a "Red Book" standard CD. This law would require labeling of such non-standard CDs, and that such labels not be removed until the end consumer gets the disc. There'd be fines from the FTC if such a CD is sold without being properly labeled. Again, The PPA seems to think this is a bad thing, but that's the only problem with this claim.
In short, this is a piece of legislation that undoes some of the most offensive provisions of the DMCA, which is exactly what the "groupthink" opinion of Slashdot has wanted all along...
Re:PPA sees problems with this bill that we don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if the smoking companies are forced to put warning labels on their cigarette packets, then why shouldnt there be large warnings saying this cd is protected by copying protection schemes and may be incompatible with your current cd player. If the person wants the music bad enough, then it shouldnt be a problem and wont detract from sales. Heck you see heaps of smokers still smoking despite the surgeon general's warning on the front!
Whats good for the goose, should be good for the gander as well is what is appropriate here. Sure cd's aint killing people but hey, if you dont adhere to a standard then you should be made to say so that its not the genuine thing and not dupe people into thinking otherwise
Re:PPA sees problems with this bill that we don't (Score:2)
Actually I think this almost mirrors deceptive marketing practices. I wonder if any of the "totaly frivilous lawsuite" lawers would take it up if the bill doesn't pass. Maybe if the corect way doesn't work we can make it happen anyways using some less then ethical ways.
Re:PPA sees problems with this bill that we don't (Score:5, Insightful)
The PPA's notion of extensive is ridiculous. All they need to do is put on a label like copy-protected music or encrypted music - not a CD. The regulatory requirements are almost fully contained in the text of the bill and basically just require these labels. You'd think that they were being asked to provide the kind of detailed labelling required on food, or regulated the way prescription drugs are. The requirements are very modest and entirely justifiable - they just prevent consumer fraud.
./ congresscritters? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who wants to fix it? (Score:2)
This sentance says it all... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
It's the RIAA/MPAA's nightmare and the consumer's dream... the right to defeat DRM in order to make fair use of the resulting file.
Send your representatives an email.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Send your representatives an email.... (Score:2)
This is simply due to the fact that a member of congress has to handle physical letters (or pay a staffer to do it) and
Re:Send your representatives an email.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this still true? I come from the postal district of the anthrax mailing. I know for some time Congresspeople stopped handling their mail, and I wonder if it's regained its cachet. Maybe faxing is the way to go...
Re:Send your representatives an email.... (Score:2)
HAHAHA (Score:2, Funny)
Suck my balls MPAA, RIAA, and now PPA!
OT: USA's Political System (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:OT: USA's Political System (Score:3, Informative)
Big corporations give them campaign donations and such. They then campaign for those corporation's interests.
Re:OT: USA's Political System (Score:5, Informative)
Sure. It's really quite simply, actually:
The middle school textbook answer would be: Congress divides itself into committees, which further subdivide into subcommittees. All legislation starts in one of these subcommittees. (A member can introduce a bill directly but it is then routed to the "appropriate" subcommittee, yielding the same practical result.) The subcommittee holds hearings, which are basically a chance for the monied stakeholders to inveigle and jeremiad about how the proposed legislation will cause The End of the World as We Know It. (That is, unless the monied interest would benefit from the bill, in which case its passage is deemed Vital to the National Security and Desired by All Right-Thinking People, in contrast to its opponents, who Eat Babies and Hate America.) From time to time, for amusement value, small groups who have the actual public interest at heart get to testify, too.
If the subcommittee likes the bill, it is reported up to the full committee, which more or less repeats the process but adds some pork for various Congressional districts, entirely coincidentally the ones from which the committee members were elected. Then, at the whim of the committee chair, the bill as amended is reported to the House or Senate for the almost mythical "straight up-and-down vote".
If the bill is unpalatable but embarassing to vote against -- if, for example, it's a bill banning the sale of contaminated milk to schoolchildren but you happen to have been heavily lobbied by SpolitMilkCo -- then you look for ways to kill it without a vote. As much as possible, you keep it "bottled up in committee", meaning that there are occasional hearings but the report is never written. If you wait long enough, the Congress will adjourn and all unreported bills will die of asphyxiation. That means that the pesky bill would have to be re-introduced at the next session by whatever pesky Congressperson introduced it in the first place -- and with any luck, the massive spending by the ticked off monied interests will have led to the demise of that Congressperson. Then everyone wins.
Except, of course, the actual people of the United States. But really, if they can't be bothered to donate uber-millions to defend their interests, to heck with them.
Re:OT: USA's Political System (Score:2)
Re:OT: USA's Political System (Score:2)
If that's your goal... (Score:4, Informative)
That's a sign of trouble right there. The PPA's goal is to see Congress lock this bill in committee. That's a legislative tactic to defeat a bill by having the comittee that's been assigned the bill simply never submit a report, which denies the full House any chance to debate or vote on the bill unless there is no objection to the House substituting a favorable report to make up for the comittee's inaction. Death-by-inaction is a way to get rid of a bill you don't like without having to actually make a "nay" vote that goes on the record.
However, this May 12 hearing is not something people supporting that outcome want to see. It's even very possible that the vote to favorably recommend the bill to the full House may come out of this session...
Defiance is better (Score:4, Insightful)
The freedom restrictions caused by copying monopolies are far more effectively addressed by defiance, encryption, and p2p.
Oh, and so is priavcy (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me just address it now. First off, in the information age i
I knew someone would say that (Score:2)
Why should people jump thru pre staged hoops, like a dog, when a run arround is simply more effective. You should read my reply to my reply - the about Harriet Tubman. Here too defiance causes more change then participation.
PPA, what do they have to do with this? (Score:4, Interesting)
The only thing that might pertain to photographers is the section about fair use:
Not coincidentally, this is my favorite part of the bill.
Re:PPA, what do they have to do with this? (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, there are a few legislative goals the P
Re:PPA, what do they have to do with this? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, that's right and proper. First, if you want a copyright, it's important that you tell the world just what, precisely, you're trying to copyright. A sample is perfect for that. Second, the Copyright Office is a branch of the Library of Congress, and the purpose of copyright generally is to expand the scope of knowledge. If they have a copy of your photograph, they'll preserve it so that it won't be lost if at all possible. And it'll be available to the public to look at, and once the copyright expires, to copy. The LoC has a gigantic collection, and they get a lot of it through copyright deposits.
Frankly, this is just the cost of doing business. You can't reasonably expect to get something for nothing, can you? If you want a copyright, you need to submit a best copy of the work. It would be foolish of the public to give you a copyright for free, and it's hardly a notable cost. In the circumstance that a copy for deposit IS more than the copyright is worth, then your smart choice is to not get a copyright.
Now, I would say that it's possible that the LoC needs to start thinking about accepting digital best copies for deposit, but since they are interested in preserving works for as long as possible, and since computer media and formats change all the damn time, I'm willing to bet that they have a good reason for wanting prints. I sincerely doubt that it is intended to annoy you.
Write your representative! (Score:3, Informative)
Notes:
If you're not sure what to write, you can start with my letter [nerdnet.org] to my congresscritter.
If the bill link above stops working (Thomas doesn't seem to like direct-linking bills), just go to Thomas [loc.gov] and enter bill number HR107.
The View From Washington (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's face it: they know a lot of things, but some of them are lucky if they can get Microsoft Word to start up. A sufficient amount, especially the ones without much seniority or facing tough e
DMCRA strengthens DMCA in a good way (Score:4, Informative)
Just for the record.. (Score:2)
It's good to know there are at least somewhat reasonable people in our government, and not complete toadies of the RIAA and MPAA, and now the PPA.
If this thing gets shot down, you can be sure I'll be sending in a furious protest letter. This bill is really important, so that we as citizens can regain some of our rights taken away by the DMCA.
I don't want to be a criminal for watching DVDs that I paid for in linux.
Write these SubCommittee Members! (Score:5, Informative)
This is a list of the subcommittee members [congress.org].
E-mail each of these 27 members, especially if one of the members happens to be your representative. They hold the power right now. Later we'll worry about other votes and other members. For now, write these 27 reps! Here's a sample letter:
Dear Subcommittee member,
I am writing to ask you to support H.R. 107 this Wednesday and favorably recommend that it move on from your subcommittee. This bill is identical to one which Representatives Boucher and Doolittle introduced during the last Congressional session, so the time that this bill move forward has come.
H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumer's Rights Act (DMCRA), restores consumers' fair use rights by amending the DMCA to allow circumvention of copy protection for non-infringing uses of digital copyrighted material. The DMCRA also specifies that it is not a violation of Section 1201 of the DMCA to manufacture, distribute, or make non-infringing use of a hardware or software product that enables significant non-infringing use of a copyrighted work, as in making back-up copies of legally purchased DVDs or other digital media.
Several provisions of The Digital Millenium Copyright Act have harmed law-abiding citizens of this country for too long. The DMCRA is a sensible change to the law that is necessary for consumers to enjoy their rights of fair use.
The content industry that opposes this bill has cried wolf before. They opposed the VCR, likening it to the Boston Strangler. We know now that technological advances are good for both consumers and industry, and that an industry scared of change should not be allowed to impede progress or consumer's rights.
I believe that if you are truly thinking of the interests of your constituents, then you will support the DMCRA. I urge you to take a stand for the public this Wednesday.
Thank You.
A little reversal? (Score:3, Interesting)
bill that would make it impossible for photographers to protect their work in any digital format is set for a hearing in the House on Wednesday, May 12. In response, Professional Photographers of America has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill to rally opposition to the legislation.
Key emotional words (some of which are outright lies as well) are impossible and rally. Not too bad so far, though starting off with a lie in the first paragraph is a bad sign.
Known as H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumer Rights Act would give hackers explicit permission to distribute software and hardware devices designed to defeat copyright protection technology. Other provisions of the bill would set a dangerous precedent by making copyright owners who use anti-copying technology on music discs subject to regulation and fines from the Federal Trade Commission unless they meet extensive labeling and regulatory requirements.
Many of us will disagree with the use of hackers here, but explicit has dirty connotations, even if it's not a dirty word. We all know what the general public thinks hacker defines, anyway. My favorite is the "dangerous precedent" -- a slippery-slope argument
PPA believes that a strong grassroots effort combined with its recent lobbying efforts should be enough to keep this harmful bill locked in the subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection until Congress adjourns. To that end, we encourage all members to contact their Representative and urge them to oppose H.R. 107 the Digital Media Consumer Rights Act.
Just a plea here, nothing too exciting.
Of course, the comments with the post of the article are just as bad but you all must be used to reading that point of view by now.
My Letter (Score:3, Informative)
Congress(wo)man
On Wednesday, May 12, 2004, there will be a congressional hearing to consider HR 107, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA). The DMCRA has been endorsed by many large corporations, including those with
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, illegalized acts that are necessary for scientific research and fair use of technology products. The DMCRA works to loosen some of these restrictions. Specifically, it informs consumers of when an audio CD does not conform to industry standards and therefore might not be able to function in their player. Furthermore, it invites scientific research by allowing products to be reversed-engineered, only so long as such use is does not infringe upon the copyright.
I encourage you to consider this bill as a first step towards reinstating the rights of citizens to be informed of the limitations of the products they buy and to use those products in whatever non-infringing ways that they see fit.
Thank you for your time,
Photographers broken business model (Score:5, Insightful)
The law is broken and needs to change.
Non-works for hire such as nature photos should still be pieces of art and protected as a piece of art such as a painting, movie, or song. My wedding for hire photos should be mine, not the photographers.
/.ing Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a bad idea, but there are a few simple rules to make your vote actually count...
First, read the f'ing bill. It's here [loc.gov]
Use the telephone. You'll probably never get through to your congressman, but getting through to staff is actually more important. Call the office in DC (http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html [house.gov]) and ask to speak to the STAFF MEMBER who's tracking HR 107. If no one's following it, ask for the staff member who handles IP, technology, or computer issues.
There's no more powerful statement to make than "I'm your constituent, and if this passes it's a problem for me", except for...
"This is so important that it will impact how I'm going to vote in November." But you damn well better believe it if you say it, because that's the easiest lie to detect. (Hey, if your guy's from the wrong party, but does the right thing here, why aren't you voting for him?)
Stay on message. Resist the urge to talk about Iraq, or software patents, or anything else. The point is for the staff member to say, "I got 50 calls today abut HR 107, they're mostly from people in the district, and they all said it's important that the bill gets through". Hard to believe, but if a party whip isn't demanding a position, this generally determines how somebody's gonna vote.
And don't take a lot of time. In the first three minutes, you've made your case or not. In any case, your call has already been recorded as for or against, and is going to be in tomorrow's daily brief. Once you state your case, all you can do is fuck up, unless the staff member starts asking you questions.
Follow up with a fax. It should go to the DC office, the closest district office, the sponsor (Boucher), and if you're feeling creative, all of the bill's cosponsors -- there's actually bi-partisan support. (Available from the bill link above.) Staff tally these things, and it goes into the decision matrix.
BTW, if anybody's from Rhode Island, Patrick Kennedy was a co-sponsor, but withdrew his support.
Don't bother with email. These guys get slashdotted every day (imagine a half million people knowing your email address), so the sad fact is that nobody on the hill reads email.
Follow up, part II: a personal note to the staff member. It may not help this time, but a note card saying "Thanks for taking the time to talk with me today" goes a long, long way the next time you need to talk to your representative. Tip O'Neil got to be Speaker that way, and you can make the case that George H.W. Bush got to be president that way. The legislative process is all about relationships.
Finally, Stay polite. The staff member (or the congressman) may be a pinhead, but if you get belligerent, he might vote the other way because you're seen as an asshole. Bite your tounge, especially if they're stupid.
Note: If your Congressman's a Congresswoman, use your favorite word processor to adjust the genders referenced above. Reread, lather, rinse, repeat.
Re:/.ing Congress (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a little skeptical of this statement. I occasionally email my Senator and have received a personalized response via postal mail every time. The relevant bills were referenced in those replies and the Senator signed each one. Although there is room for a little bit of suspicion (a staff member may have ghostwritten them), the
I have one thing to say to Mr Boucher... (Score:2)
Houmourous (Score:2)
Man, what a screw job that is.
But... but... Boucher is my congressperson (Score:2, Funny)
EFF has an easy way to write to Congress on this (Score:3, Informative)
DMCRA = Digital Media Consumer Rights Act (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This argument (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Care to back that number up? Why isn't it 10%, or 40%?
And anyway, very few people are talking about repealing copyright completely. Most anti-DMCA folks just want to roll back the relatively recent excesses of copyright law, not to scrap the entire concept (though there is of course a small minority who wants that.)
Re:This argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This argument (Score:3, Insightful)
the thinkers, the doers, and the.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This argument (Score:2, Insightful)
No they won't. They can't sell what they produce if any other company can simply copy their product. The price will drop to zero and all R&D will become worthless.
You are aware that patents are distinct from and unrelated to copyright, yes?
The original message mentioned patent trademark AND copyrigh
Re:This argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Progress will stop. No company will be able to justify the R&D expense.
Re:This argument (Score:2, Insightful)
That is why the american empire is pushing so hard for patents to be en
Re:This argument (Score:2)
SB
Re:This argument (Score:2)
Progress will stop. No company will be able to justify the R&D expense.
OK, let's get back to the article here. Do you believe that the current bill being discussed would cause this? Are you against any change of copyright based on a "slippery slope" theory? And oddly (yes this is mild sarcasm), in the days before copyright and patent and trademark, companies were still able to produce. But again, your argument above is a complete red herring. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at ha
Re:This argument (Score:2, Insightful)
"Progress will stop. No company will be able to justify the R&D expense."
No, both of these statements are wrong, because they are oversimplified. First off I am assuming that you are both talking about what would happen if both patents and copyrights were gone.
Progress would not stop. there would still be some bennifit to R&D. Even if it is gaurenteed that your competitors will copy your researsh fast enough to deny you any market advantage, both of you would still bennifit
Re:This argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there will always be people copying movies, songs and software. It sucks, especially for small companies just trying to pay the bills (I feel less bad for monopolists and cartels, but that still doesn't make it okay to infringe their copyrights). The DMCA has been remarkably ineffective at preventing this. It has been remarkably effective at squelching free speech and killing off projects to promote interoperability. How long did the Linux platform suffer without proper DVD support no thanks to DMCA threat letters and legal extortion? I think we can safely say the vast majority of people just wanted DVD support to work and be Open Source, and aren't into ripping and pirating movies.
We don't need the DMCA. It fails to respect the balance between consumer rights and media producer rights, it is bad for Open Source and open technologies in general, and it disempowers us all.
Re:This argument (Score:2)
They are two entirely different arguments. "Nobody" is a figure of speech referring to people who infringe. Repealing copyright would render trillions of dollars of capital in our economy worthless. The arguments refer to two different contexts.
Re:This argument (Score:2)
I don't know where you are getting your "figures" from, but copyright law does not guarantee trillions of dollars of capital in our economy.
If you were arguing patents, I might understand - tho I'd have a problem with your figures being around an order of magnitude too big - but WTF.
Why do I feel like IHBT? By an RIAA industry rep?
Many humble apologies, sir, but you are full of shit.
SB
Re:This argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this is woefully incorrect. Most wholesale infringement is simply not a fair use. HOWEVER, any use is capable of being a fair use; it all depends on the specific circumstances involved. So if you foreclose an entire class of use -- e.g. reproduction -- then you are necessarily trampling on fair uses. This is the problem with DRM. It is stupid, and it cannot allow fair uses through while barring infringing uses. Given that federal judges and justices have had arguments in various cases, there is no reason to believe that any stupid, mindless machine will ever be able to do a good job of this.
Of course, since you can get the bejeezus sued out of you for infringements, who gives a rat's ass? It's always an available remedy, and it's a much better one.
Nobody respects the law now. Why would any new legislation change anything?
Well, the law right now is completely unworthy of respect. No one respected prohibition. But there's considerably more respect for the laws pertaining to alcohol that we have now. It's not perfect, but then you should be smart enough to expect that there will always be a bit of illegal activity going on, and that even what we have after reforms might not be ideal either.
If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight.
Followed by crazy-huge upsurges in the network, storage, and publishing industries, to whom the doors are wide open.
But most reformers aren't trying for a total repeal. I for one just want sensible copyright laws that more or less fit the contours of people's ordinary common sense anyhow (making it that less likely that people would even want to do something illegal). Shorter terms, strict formalities, more exemptions for ordinary people. It's a damn far cry from repeal.
The number of people who would lose jobs that depend on copyright, patent and trademarks is incredible.
Patents have their own problems of late, but really the patent system is very good. All it needs are some minor changes, chiefly in stricter examinations and easier burdens on challengers.
Same deal for trademarks, basically. Get rid of the recently introduced (and foolish) dilution laws, leaving things at infringement, and that's about all the reform that's needed. Again, a total overhaul is not necessary, and AFAIK not called for.
Copyright is the most fucked up of all of these, but I think you'll find that most
So stop exaggerating.
Re:This argument (Score:2)
First, there isn't any need to "repeal copyrights", but there is a clearly seen requirement to allow unrestricted redistribution, especially in digital form. This would eliminate the problems with giving a copy of a song to a friend. You can get all weasely with notions like restricting to non-commercial redistribution, but I think that would restrict things that GPL allows, for instance. So, I think a goal that a lot of people have in mind is ind
Re:This argument (Score:2)
And millions use the software legally. Are you saying because "thousands" of people might engage in wholesale copying, we should lock everything down in a draconian information control system the likes of which even Stalin would have drooled over?
And before you whip me
Re:This argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Everybody, basically. Not everyone has broadband. Not everyone has, or knows how to use a computer. Not everybody wants to read, listen to music, or watch videos on a computer.
The printing press was invented in about 1454. The first copyright law didn't appear until 1710. Historically, publishers have hated copyrights, which were passed despite them.
The trick is, you have to be more responsive. Whenever something comes out that there is a demand for, you pri
Re:This argument (Score:2)
However, even if your arguments and implications were true, it wouldn't matter. If it's the choice between the entire publishing industry dying or getting sent to a Federal pound-me-in-ass-prison for flipping a bit, well, I'm sorry Jim (Baen)
Re:This argument (Score:5, Insightful)
And why the heck would copyright be repealed? What a ridiculous straw man. It's even in the U.S. constitution: "Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". How about making copyright laws constitutional and enforcing that "limited times" aspect?
limited copyrights (was: Re:This argument) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This argument (Score:2)
I guess you would argue that mechanizing the workforce was a bad idea too. Imagine all the employment if crops were grown by hand and thread spun with a manual spinning wheel. Or what about all the jobs that useless government pork generate.
Jobs are a liabil
I don't want anything for free. (Score:2)
If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight.
Straw man alert! HR 107 does not repeal copyright. It does not stop RIAA from prosecuting all those people illegally distributing copyrighted CDs. (Notice that bandwidth, not the silly DRM inhibits the illegal distribution of DVDs.) I think the RIAA's money would be better spent figuring out how to capitalize on people natural desire to share music they like - but that is their business. Co
Re:This argument (Score:2)
This argument has long since lost any credibility. There is no point at which the "Fair Use supporters" will agree to stop wholesale infringement.
So you're lumping all who disagree with you into a single category of those who do wholesale infringement? Wow. Yes, there are such people, but it's pretty silly to suggest that Fair Use supporters ALL are wholesale infringers.
Discussion of legislation is pointless. Nobody respects the law now.
Again, wow! There are many who do respect the law, which i
Re:This argument (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a fair use supporter. In 2000 I deleted the 30 gigs of MP3s I had downloaded via Napster, because I could not come up with an ethical justification for having them. I currently have zero infringing material. I also have over 15 gigs of digital music ripped from the more than 200 CDs that I own. Fair use gives me the right to store my CDs in digital format, which increases my ability to enjoy the product I purchased. Since my willingness to pay for a product is directly proportional to my ability to derive enjoyment from that product, this is a good thing.
Re:DMC-Wha? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Lobbyists bad (Score:2)
It also helps to use a
PS I'm a veteran and I vote.