Slashdot Mirror
Another DMCA Attack Looms
ndege writes "In this Wired article, Rep. Rick Boucher is finally ready to try and dismantle a key part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Boucher, a Virginia Democrat, said last July that he wanted to amend the DMCA to permit certain 'fair uses' of digital content, such as backing up an audio CD by bypassing copy protection technology. In an interview on Thursday, Boucher said he now has sufficient support from the tech industry, librarians, and Internet activists."
The only thing the DMCA did was make it hard on cryptographers, security analysts, and researchers to do their jobs and report their results. You want unbreakable crypto? (Well, that will likely never happen, but do you want it to be so hard that it isn't worth the effort?) Then honest people have to try to break it and report on it's strengths and weaknesses. If you pass a million laws saying you can't circumvent encryption, someone in another country where our laws don't apply can still do it. People in America who aren't going to obey the laws anyway can still do it. And people who wouldn't steal the music, but just want to break it for the challenge will still do it.
It is illegal to steal cars, but "slim-jims" are legal, why? Because they can help you get your car open if you lock your keys in. Shouldn't it be legal for me to make a backup copy of my CD in case I drop the original in the lake while on my boat? With the DMCA as it stands, if that disk is copy protected, it is ILLEGAL for me to do that.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
The inherent issue here is not actually copyright law, but the failure of the political system.
Here we have an issue that is disliked by everyone that knows about it, and fundamentally runs against several precepts of the constitution (and the original idea behind copyright law).
Yet it is law. Why? Because it allows media companies to increase their profits. Yet even that is debatable. A better description of the DMCA is that it allows media companies to think that they are increasing their profits.
And because of the money involved, these companies have a bunch of cash to blow on lobbyists. Media companies are very very large, and, as a result, have an enormous financial intrest in Washington.
So only the little guys are left. Librarians, Internet activists, and some tech companies (some. Microsoft seems to back the DMCA. Most try to be DRM neutral.). The problem is that the little guys don't have enough cash to buy the best politicians. Yes, buy politicians. So we have to find semi-honest politicians who agree with the cause. Which is near-hopeless.
Of course, the ban on soft money should help, but the underlying problem is the same. Washington is dominated by corporate interests. The only real fix is to make digital rights management and the abhorration that is the DMCA a public issue. Only then will people look at a politicians record vis a vis copy protection come november. And only then will justice finally be done.
Ammend the constitution. Make it part of our bill of rights. And for the love of God, REPEAL the DMCA!
Probably not a very good idea. Because
a) It dosn't need ammending, so much as being applied as written
b) The most likely ammendments the current corporate backed bunch would make would include the removal of "limited times" from the IP clause and removal of the first ammendment.
In the US of A, it is perfectly legal for any American to purchase any politician. You don't need to be from Virgina to contribute to Mr. Boucher's reelection efforts. I'm sure certain nefarious organizations will fund his opponents. Do your part and keep this guy from getting crushed for standing up to legalized racketeering.
Party affiliations are getting pretty twisted around with the DMCA. Sure, there's Mr. Boucher (D-VA), but there's also Mr. Hollins (D-Disney). The House still has a Republican majority. I vaguely recall Tom DeLay (R-TX) not letting an xxAA bill out of comittee recently.
It's true that the Republicans are largely responsible for screwing up this country lately, but with this issue you need to pay attention to the person, not the party.
I agree. That the DMCA was made into law in the first place, is a travesty.
The clearest wrong is the limitations it places on our 'fair use' rights. Fair use, to me, means I *did* pay for the right to use some licensed work, let's say, an album of music. For that price, I expect to be able to listen to it; after all, that's why I paid for it. I would like to be able to listen to it indefinitely. In that case it seems obvious that I should protect the CD by copying it, shelving it, and listening to the copy. With my 3 year old around, the copy will probably be destroyed in short order, but I've still got the original, safely shelved.
What is less obviously (to the common folk) a wrong and, infinitely more sinister, is that the DMCA has made it illegal to produce a 'circumvention technology'. And as poor Dmitry has discovered, it's very real. I take serious exception to the idea that a software technology should be deemed illegal. Certainly a person can do illegal things with software, but so can they with a small rock. Without exception, it is *not the tool* that commits the crime.
All things in moderation.
That'd be a huge mistake. Laws last longer than technologies do. There will come a time when "CD" is extremely primitive and inefficient. Meanwhile, the rest of the law remains in place?
It would be amazing to see "Fair Use" in the law books instead of being merely a part of court precedence though.
It's time to flood congress with intelligent opinions. I think this political activism thing is actually working for us. I think even politicians WANT to do the right thing if only they people they represent show they care and are watching.
So, 100 people showing up in person is worth a LOT more than 10,000 people sending in e-mail.
/.'s lousy search system. Something about "modem tax" and "chain letters" and such, to try to get "normal people" inflamed and calling their representatives. Does anyone know of a way to search *all* of one person's postings?
Yes, except that 100,000 people getting an inflammatory chain letter, espeically if it gets press coverage, can have a strong "chilling effect" on any legislation even remotely related.
A while back, there was some consideration about changing US coin designs (something that's way overdue in many collectors' opinions, including mine). An incorrect rumor got started that congress was going to remove "In God We Trust" from coins, a call-in and letter-writing campaign ensued, and the legitimate legislation (which NEVER contemplated removing any of the currently mandated legends or devices) died a swift and silent death.
I've often wondered about whether some of the chain letters out there weren't deliberately placed. Maybe taking a page from Ayn Rand or Ender's Game (Demosthenes, etc.) would be an effective way to get stuff done. After all, it's all about public opinion, and the best way to sway that is with FUD, as we all know too well.
Of course, it's sort of stooping to "their" level, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
I wrote a nice rant about this some time ago, but I can't manage to find it with
You're cutting them slack they don't deserve. They want you to have to buy an extra copy if the first one is damaged/stolen/whatever. If this were not the case, they would replace first copies at cost when presented with proof of original purchase.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
> How are they supposed to allow copies for
> legitimate uses but not for piracy? Today's DRM
> technology cannot make this distinction.
> Telling them to remove all protection is
> equivalent to saying "ignore me, please,
> because I don't have constructive input."
No, absolutely not. The companies need to be told that if THEY want the benefits of the technology, THEY have to develop it first. Breaking people's rights to get one without the other is wrong.
Suppose I want to be able to defend my house against burglars. I have the right to do that and to use reasonable force in doing so. I would like to build a machine that would club burglars on the head. By your logic, it is ok for me to set up a machine which attacks EVERYONE who comes within range of my house. After all, I have the right to protection, and I cannot help the fact that innocents get attacked because the technology to distinguish them from burglars doesn't exist.
Furthermore, unless legislation that forces companies to adopt technologies that will permit fair use is created, then a) no money will go into developing it, and b) even if it is developed nobody will use it. Why should they? They would far prefer that there was no fair use.