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."
A Petition to the European Parliament. After you read all about it, of course, as the site provides.
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!"
Boucher believes that people should be allowed to circumvent technological protection for research...
What sort of research? That which shows the actual encryption schemes to be worthless (ala Edward Felton), or the type of research that requires circumvention so that work can be done?
In my case, my research as an academic partly relies on downloading anime from the Net since my topic concerns how anime fan subculture interprets it. This requires some circumventing of "anti-piracy" devices somewhere down the pike. I'm not intending to be thrifty through illegal activities. Rather, there is just no way I as a broke grad student can afford to even rent, let alone buy the anime without going into the hole to do a good research project. Hopefully, Boucher's amendment will cover cases such as mine as well as those the 1992 Fair Use Act intended to cover.
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
As a constituent of Boucher's, I sent an e-mail to him after his CNet interview a couple of months ago thanking him for his support of fair use for digital media. He sent a very nice response detailing how fair use rights for digital media is one of his highest priorities. His fair-use rights included custom compilation CDs and circumventing technological protection measures in order to archive or excerpt material. The last part really covers almost anything we've been worried about.
He also stated that the potential to penalize and prosecute individuals who excercise such rights is an affront to First Amendment protections, a harm to consumers, and inhibits the creation and public use of intellectual property!
To say I'm glad to be represented by him is an understatement.
Jason
"FORMAT C:" - Kills bugs dead!
The best thing you could do for the DMCA, and copyright law in general, is to go down the hall and beat the crap out of Senator Fritz Hollings!
What follows is the thank you letter that I received from Congressman Boucher for writing him about this subject.
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Rick Boucher
9th District, Virginia
NINTHNET@mail.house.gov
HTTP://www.house.gov/boucher/
May 3, 2002
Thank you for your kind expression of support for my efforts to prevent the erosion of fundamental fair use rights in the digital era.
Please be assured that reaffirming the rights of consumers to exercise legitimate fair use rights is among my highest priorities. From such routine practices as making custom compilation CDs of lawfully-acquired songs for personal use to more advanced actions such as circumventing technological protection measures in order to archive or excerpt material for research and educational purposes, the American public traditionally has enjoyed the ability to make convenience and incidental copies of copyrighted works without obtaining the prior consent of the copyright owner. The potential to penalize or prosecute individuals who exercise such rights, or who create or publish software and devices which facilitate the exercise of individual fair use rights, affronts First Amendment protections, harms consumers, and ultimately inhibits the creation and public use of intellectual property.
As Co-Chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus, my work in Congress focuses on the intersection of the Internet and other technologies with our nation's intellectual property laws. I intend to introduce various legislative measures which will protect fair use rights, and your expression of support for these efforts with your Congressional representatives will be most welcome.
I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me. With kind regards and best wishes, I remain
Sincerely,
Rick Boucher
Member of Congress
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
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.
I remeber a couple years ago there was a chain-type email going around warning people that congress was going to start charging $ to send email or something like that. It was pretty inflamatory, but looked somewhat legitimate by naming people and bill numbers (even though they were fake if I remember). I believe congress got tons of calls and mail about this issue.
So someone needs to write up an inflamatory email about not being able to listen to your CDs anymore, due to Senator Smith and his bill S.9876. Then we just start forwarding it to everybody, and let them get on their congresscritters.
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.
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.