Protecting Your DRM Rights

A reader wrote to say:"There's an article on SiliconValley.com that talks about a new bill in Congress that will, if passed, mean that consumers can copy CDs, DVDs and other digital works for personal use, just as they now do with TV shows and audio tapes."

Comments

Finally

[bucephalis]

Someone, somewhere in congress finally gets it!
btw, FP?

More Important: Next Year

[stealie72]

Anything that is introduced in Congress now isn't going to go anywhere. They're going to go home and campaign for the november elections soon.

If you really want to support this bill, write them and let them know you support it. Then, next January, assuming that Lofgren and Boucher get re-elected, write them and remind them that you'd like the bill introduced again.

Re:Nice, but....

[SquadBoy]

You *don't* understand the concept of fair use. Fair use is that I don't want to have to cary it from my house to my car and then to the office everyday I make two copies leave on in the car, one at work, and the original at home. It is already illegal for me to make a copy and give it to a friend. The point being we do not need new laws we simply need to enforce the already existing laws. And people have been copying music for a *very* long time and yet people manage to make a lot of money at it. I think if you are depending on selling cds you don't understand the business model. Selling copies of the music has always been bad for the people making the music. They make most of their money off of live shows. Selling music is just a way to get people to shows.

The ninth amendment protects you

[TomatoMan]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Unless they repeal the ninth amendment, we should be OK.

> I'd prefer to have the default be "of course we have this right, because it's not explicitly listed as a right that's not allowed".

That IS the default as I understand it. That doesn't mean that a law backing up and clarifying a grey area that's very much under assault from the other side is a bad idea. I'm all for it.

full text

[Urox]

From:"Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren"
To: <luthien3 AT juno DOT com>
Subject:Response from Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Date:Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:52:54 -0400
July 19, 2002
Mr. L. Williams <I'm female, damnit! Guess she hasn't read LOTR and heard about the female character LUTHIEN!>
<Address removed to protect me!>
San Jose, CA
Dear Mr. Williams:

Thank you for your email expressing your concerns about Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002, H.R. 3482. I appreciate the chance to hear from you about this legislation, which passed the House on July 15 and has been sent to the Senate.

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee that marked up this bill in May, I can assure that the Committee took care to ensure that civil liberties are protected in this legislation. At our hearing on the bill, Alan Davidson, Associate Director at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), a Washington non-profit seeking to protect civil liberties on the Internet testified that his organization, "commends this Committee for holding this hearing, and for the relatively measured approach taken in H.R. 3482. We agree that computer crime and security is a serious problem that requires serious Government response."

Regarding your concerns about Section 108, I would note that this section in no way changes the limitations under current law on the emergency use of pen registers and trap and trace devises. A Government official can only authorize emergency use of a "pen/trap" if there are grounds upon
which a court could enter such a pen/trap order, and only then for 48 hours, after which time continued surveillance is illegal. Please also note that H.R. 3482 does not expand use of full-content wiretaps, which are far more invasive that pen/traps. These more limited devices provide information about the destination and source of information, but not its content.

As we enhance cyber security to protect our vital infrastructure against both terrorists and the type of high-tech vandals who crashed Yahoo in February 2000, I agree with you that civil liberties must be protected. Please do not hesitate to contact me again with your concerns, as I can benefit from hearing your views.

Sincerely,

Zoe Lofgren
Member of Congress

ZL:ad

<I've since looked at her webpage and she has more information but seems to have "omitted" that she was responsible for being on the committee to help push this bill through. Now the congressman I *really* like is Mike Honda who had good explanations on his webpage such as this statement on why god shouldn't be in the pledge and why he voted against it:
http://www.house.gov/honda/InCongress/pledge. html
>

Zoe's summary of her bill

[geekotourist]

Here is the summary done by Zoe and staff. Late last month I heard a summary of this bill from a fair use expert. I don't have my notes with me. The big takeaway I got was that Zoe's bill *does* focus on consumer rights as "including, but not limited to, the ones listed in her bill" (my paraphrase). In other words, Zoe 'gets it' with respect to protecting consumers and Silicon Valley from the buggy-whip manufacturers down south.

From the press release summary:(I've added the bold...)

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS OF "THE DIGITAL CHOICE AND FREEDOM ACT OF 2002"

SECTION 1: Designates the title as "The Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002."

SECTION 2: Lists factual findings.

SECTION 3: (a) Section (a) clarifies that America's historic principles of fair use - codified in section 107 of Title 17 - apply to analog and digital transmissions...

...Section (b) seeks to restore the balance by adding section 123 to Title 17. Section 123 allows lawful consumers to make backup copies of digital works, and to use digital works on preferred digital media devices. It further protects consumers by prohibiting non-negotiable "click-wrap" licenses that limit their rights and expectations...

SECTION 4: Today, when a consumer purchases a book, they are free to lend their copy to a friend or family member, or to sell their copy to a used books store. Section 4 allows consumers to do the same thing with digital content by extending the first sale doctrine...

SECTION 5: ..."As the House Judiciary Report accompanying the DMCA stated: "[A]n individual [should] not be able to circumvent in order to gain unauthorized access to a work, but should be able to do so in order to make fair use of a work which he or she has acquired lawfully."

Section 5 reaffirms this intent, while also providing needed flexibility for the copyright owner. Under section 5, a copyright owner is free to employ technical measures to protect his or her work. However, the copyright owner must ensure that those measures allow lawful consumers to make non-infringing uses of the work... Since most consumers do not have the expertise needed to circumvent such protections, Section 5 permits tools if they are designed, produced and marketed to help consumers make non-infringing uses. Again, these tools are only permissible if the copyright owner fails to give consumers a choice by restricting legitimate uses without providing any solution for the legitimate user.

U.S. Senate can voice vote

[yerricde]

The Senate ALWAYS votes by roll call on legislation.

Are you sure? According to the bottom of this page, the U.S. Senate can voice-vote on a bill just like the House.

The Constitution also provides that one-fifth of the Senators on the floor (assuming that a quorum is present) can demand a rollcall vote ... The alternative to a rollcall vote usually is a voice vote in which the Senators favoring the bill or amendment (or whatever question is to be decided) vote "aye" in unison, followed by those voting "no." Although a voice vote does not create a public record of how each Senator voted, it is an equally valid and conclusive way for the Senate to reach a decision.

And because "a voice vote does not create a public record of how each Senator voted," it means that the bill didn't even have enough opposition (20%) to demand a roll call.