Slashdot Mirror
Lofgren's Anti-DRM Bill
blastedtokyo writes "House representative Zoe Lofgren introduced the Digital Choice and Freedom Act. Perhaps the most interesting section is the part that invalidates 'non-negotiable shrink wrap licenses' (EULAs) that limit rights. On top of this, it states that both digital and analog media need to be subject to fair use rules for backing up. The full text of the bill is also available." News.com.com.com.com and Infoworld have stories as well, which both note that there is no chance of these bills being passed this year.
All together now...Repeat. However this is such great news, I don't mind hearing about it twice. Let's hope that at the very least this bill stirs up more media attention to the DMCA, DRM, and other things that are designed to take away our rights, not protect them.
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
I'm not a US citizen (I'm from the forgotten US state, Australia :0), so I'm not sure how the whole lawmaking process works - but doesn't this law say the exact opposite of quite a few laws either previously passed or currently being debated? What happens in this case - do the laws nullify each other? Do they both apply and it gets left up to the courts to decide which has priority?
Perhaps we need some kind of legislation lottery, where the first law that gets drawn out of a barrel is passed, and the rest aren't...I can just imagine a group of senators, fingers crossed, chanting "come in DMCA!"
===
You know that guy who stole your girlfriend away from you in the summer of '95? He's going to die.
of this getting passed? How much support does this bill hold in congress?
This is what the world needs. To adapt to the new media, not to try and force the world to their standards. The RIAA is alarmed that we are not buying their music and so wants to stop the spread of other music. I agree that it can be bad for certain artists, but I believe that the spread of digital media is overall good for all.
Secondly, I really don't want DRM cancelling my ability to keep copies of my CDs and other digital media. If I had a printing press I'd make copies of some of my favorite books. I've lost one of them, and I'm really wishing I had a copy.
Bills like this are ones I expect to see almost all Slashdotters supporting!
Go digital media!
find ~your -name '*base* | xargs chown
An intelligent politician? Who'da thunk it?
Maybe a benevolent dictatorship wouldn't be such an impossibility after all. Lofgren for Emperor!
goats.com: better than
This is definitely the best news we've been hearing from YRO for a long time. Maybe there's liberty for more than the corporations alone, after all...
---
Peace, n.:
In international affairs, a period of cheating between two
periods of fighting.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Even though this is a repeat story (that never happens!) It is good to know that not everyone in D.C. is a corrupt pawn of a corporation out to make money and nothing more. So voting isn't meaningless. Find out which people aren't corrupt and get them in office.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Now all it has to do is pass. I sincerely hope that they don't water it down...
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
It looks like this guy is just fishing for votes from the tech community. Irefuse to fall for such a cynical ploy.
>which both note that there is no chance of these bills being passed this year.
Um, no they don't.
With the imminent war in Iraq, this bill will most likely become sidelined... Something about American men and women being killed being more important than copyright law and what we can do with our CD/DVDs.. If it passes, hooray, but most politicians don't understand the difference between a CD and a DVD....
this new law will protect ./'s right to copy old articles from the day before?
Delaware lost it's Slashdot stripe long ago via a click-through EULA.
Disclaimer: I'm not trolling. I'm just proposing an alternative view.
Why shouldn't companies slap whatever restrictions they want on their products? Microsoft's EULA could state that by opening the wrapper I agree to eat the contents. If I don't agree to that, I don't buy the product.
As consumers, we have no right to demand certain products. We do have the right not to buy a product we don't like. We also have the right to buy lots of products we do like.
This gives us a lot of clout in the market place.
If the product we want does not exist, then there is a niche in the market. Businesses may want to take advantage of this, as the excellent open source community has done.
I am a Karma Library.
What now? EVERYONE WRITE/CALL/PETITION your congressmen and your senators. Let them know that geeks vote too and we have the ability to get/cost them a large number of votes thanks to our prowess with all the latest communications technologies.
The legislative process only works if you involve yourself. Oh, and don't forget to vote!.
Just wondering, with all of this bashing of copyrights and EULAS, isnt the GPL itself a copyright? and that little header that is on GPled files a EULA? After all, it does say how we can use the software and how we cant.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
When a digital work is distributed to the public subject to non-negotiable license terms, such terms shall not be enforceable under the common laws or statutes of any State to the extent that they restrict or limit any of the limitations on exclusive rights under this title.
.NET subscription business model? They aren't going to be able to FORCE you into a license agreement after you've already paid for their product, correct?
This to me is one of the most important aspects of th act. Microsoft isn't stupid - they know people don't read EULAs. In effect, would this not nullify most of M$'s up-and-coming
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
Anybody know why cnet.com changed their URL to news.com.com? What's with the .com.com thing?
What kind of legal strength does a EULA have any more?
:-)
1. They are on every software product.
2. Nobody reads them.
3. Those who say they read them are lying.
Therefore, one could assume that nobody understands their rights and none of the software companies seem to enforce their stated restrictions. At least that I have seen.
So what good is a EULA these days? Should we be reading them? Are they even valid, considering they 'go into effect' upon opening of an envelope.
Can such an agreement be made without a signature?
Can I just have my minor child open software to relieve me of these obligations to the software company?
These are things I would like to know. I admit that I am ignorant
-S
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
I already thought that the 'media' knew about DRM and DMCA, aren't they the ones trying to push for it?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
...which both note that there is no chance of these bills being passed this year.
...or any year, for that matter.
Granted, it's not binding anyway, but you'll probably see Hillary Rosen doing iPod commercials before companies like Microsoft et. al. give up the facade of the "enforceable" EULA.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
The issue is not that the RIAA is trying to DRM all of their products, the issue is that the RIAA is trying to legislatively force EVERYONE to DRM-cripple their products.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Neither this bill nor Boucher's will pass, because there is no huge lobby (or $$) for this cause like Hollywood has. Still, it's good to go forward anyways, since raising public awareness is the only shot we have to change the industry's mind.
Actually, introducing this now (when it might possibly be made into an election issue) is a great idea, as the public is paying a bit more attention to politics than usual and is less likely to be completely ignored by mainstream press (a la DMCA).
BTW, *two* bills that seek to accomplish roughly the same thing? Why?
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Michael sure has a fine taste in movies. I wish he would post nude pictures of himself on Slashdot. I wonder though, why are most geeks gay? Is it because we can not relate to women that we have to take it up the butt like Michael? (He is the VB you know). But anyway, another thing Slashdot should do is start a gay personals. You could rank it into tiers, low carma, medium carma, and maxxed carma. That way trolls could find love with each other and karma whores could find each other also. Remember, Karma is not just a integer in a database--it is a measure of your homosexuality. Low(negative) karma means you are the male/assertive gay and high karma means you are the woman/taker type of gay.
What gets passed, if anything, will be somewhere in between Lofgren's bill and Hollings's bill.
Granted, I no longer live in the states. But - to see such a bill introduced by a Californian Democrat is quite encouraging. Way to go, Zoe. If this passes, the rest of the world will thank you.
Stop the brainwash
If you are a regestered voter, tell your representatives what you want. If you are a citizen but not registered to vote, then move away to some backwater, third-world country where you belong. Or, of course, you could just get off of your lazy, excuse-finding a$$ and register.
And to be most effective use SNAIL-MAIL. Five letters with a return address from their home district get more attention from congressmen than 500 digital signatures from unknown locations on the internet, even if they SAY they are constituants. Slashdotting a website with 150,000 hits may be cool and all, but 150,000 leters to congress can actually make a difference.
___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
personally, i think this bill is a great idea. i like making a copy of a CD the moment i buy it, so i can keep the original in its jewel case and put the copy in my CD binder and take it along with me in my car or to my friends houses. when the copy gets too scratched, i can make a new copy from the original, unscratched version. also, i rip the songs into ogg from the CD, and enjoy what is pretty much my own personal radio station when at my computer, thanks to winamp. if the CBDTPA passes, id probably have to buy multiple copies of the same CD, and i would never get to enjoy the songs on my computer.
You know that guy who stole your girlfriend away from you in the summer of '95? He's going to die.
Good. But how do you know?
sPh
IANAJ (I am not a journalist) but it would seem more important to have all the facts than to get that proverbial "first post". It doesn't matter if someone else breaks the story first, as long as you have the better/more complete information. That makes you (and Slashdot) look more professional and less knee-jerk.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
On the off chance that there'll be people reading the comments who didn't read the full text of the bill, it contains the following definition: "A 'digital work' is any literary (except a computer program), sound recording or musical work, or dramatic, motion picture or other audiovisual work, in whole or in part in a digital or other non-analog format."
See that "except a computer program" part?
Not that it matters -- Lofgren introduced the bill far enough before the election to claim she's a backer of your right to watch movies but too close to the end of the legislative session for anything to come of it.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
got to love politics!
-- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount}
It won't get passed this year or any future year!
Three words:
World War Three!!!!
Its coming to a foreign land near you!
From the text of the bill: a work in a digital or other non-analog format ...as opposed to non-digital, non-analog formats?
-JDF [We need a few geek congresscritters]
Here's a cynical view. Every year, minority parties and candidates dredge up lost causes on nearly every controversial issue that they hope will improve the odds in upcoming elections. By being on the losing side they say "I'm sticking up for you" to those particular interests without really risking anything.
When a long-shot bill actually does get a chance due to exceptional circumstances, such as campaign reform after Enron, the process is slowly and noisily debated for the benefit of cameras. Often nothing comes of it, but each politician will swear they wanted to make something happen. If a bill actually passes, it is watered down enough to provide a symbolic victory without actually affecting the way business is done.
I think we're much more likely to have our rights protected by the courts than by Congress. Once those rights under current laws are reaffirmed, it will be politically difficult for Congress to pass new laws taking them away.
This may be true, but I have doubts over whether a letter to one's congress critters posted through the USPS is any more effective than an email sent to one's congress critters. I used to think so, until I contacted my US congressional representative last year via the house email contact form. Much to my surprise I got a snail mail response two months later informing me about a different (but related) issue.
Apparently, someone in my congress critter's office reads the feedback and keeps track (to a certain extent) of what constituents are interested in what issues.
Not to mention that events like last year's despicable mailing of anthrax to government agencies have made snail mail much less valuable as a value proposition.
Faxing is probably a good middle ground. But email uses less of my federal tax dollars.
Good day.
She's a democRAT, so she's LYING.
Don't you get it yet?
She's not concerned about your rights or the laws, she's concerned about getting ELECTED and holding POWER. See clinton, bill.
Dumbass.
National states should be dead and buried now. Dismantling borders and adapting a world government is the only way to go.
As a software developer, I'd like to see EULA's remain legal. I don't want to be sued because some idiot misused or ran a virus infected version of my executable and bad things happened to that PC. I don't want to be sued when the same idiot installs an older software application that overwrites a bunch of MFC and ATL DLL's and then complains that "it dunnit work no more - yee haw"
However, I'm completely opposed to the way EULA's are presented to people now... Most EULA's are presented as a step in the InstallShield installer, if you don't accept the terms you can't install the application. Problem is, if you don't accept the terms, you won't be able to take it back to the store. Best Buy, Fry's, Comp USA, etc., don't take returns on opened software, only exchanges.
What should happen is that companies are required to either print the EULA on the box (there is room, even on the new boxes, just print it on the large flap where there's just screenshots and marketing crap there anyways). Then, users can read the EULA before they've brought it home and started to install it, and if they don't like the terms of the EULA they can leave the box on the shelf and look at a competitor's product.
Making EULA's completely illegal as some people advocate is too extreme. Businesses and independent developers need some protection from the unwashed masses (like AOL users, har har).
I read the text of the bill, and I mostly agree with it. However, I'd like a change in this bill that says essentially the above - you want to use a EULA, fine, but the user had better be able to read it before they've purchased the software.
(And while we're suggesting changes, how about an across the board repeal of the DMCA?)
for software, anyway.
OK, so what's a digital work?
So Microsoft need not worry about this clause.
The digital first sale part seems especially cool, but it also opens the way to unlimited distribution on the web. Here's the text:
So if I want to sell CDs online, instantly, and then ship the buyer the physically copy later (or just destroy it), I can do that. This is really great, as it's what mp3.com tried to do before they got sued for it and lost.
The problem is you know there's going to be a whole new twist to the napster phenomenon, where people distribute copies to thousands of people and then claim they owned those copies and were destroying them.
There's another interesting effect on the GPL. Since it's legal to make copies of GPLed software, as long as you don't distribute those copies, you have a loophole where you can make an unlimited number of copies, and then distribute those copies under this clause without distributing the source. Right now you can already do that as long as you print actual CDs, but this clause would let you do it digitally. Basically, RIP GPL, unless they can claim that the non-negotiable license is allowed to take away this right, which, maybe they will since it's software.
Overall it looks like a great law, but it's probably way overbroad to pass. I'd love to see just about any part of it pass individually though, especially the digital first sale part.
Well its about time... Im writing a letter to my congressman as we speak telling him that if he does NOT vote for this bill, he can forget about my vote and the vote of everyone I can convince. Im sick of the digital right minimizing acts, influenced by big business lobbying to take our rights away. Im sick of these stupid companies that think they can tell us what to do because of something on a piece of paper or in a EULA. Screw that, Ive boycotted the products made by supporters of these business products (I may not have them all...) and am quickly convincing friends and family to do so also. If this was really that big of an issue most people would do the same.
.. just don't punish me for "unrestricting" the content.
It's been said before: trying to restrict copying and usage has always been legal. But it has never been effective. If it doesn't interfere with the users' experience, it's trivial to break. If it actually accomplishes its goals, it's such a pain that it is rejected in the open market.
What the DMCA did was essentially outlaw the ability to break trival protections. Technically, you can still break them and use them yourself, but telling anyone else about how you did it is like trafficing drugs or guns now.
It seems that this bill is over-reacting in the other direction by *requiring* the ability to back up data (ie. removing protections). As such, it probably does swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.
All I really want is to see the portions of the DMCA which are unconstitutional (restrict freedom of speech) to be revoked. This way, trivial restrictions would not be protected by law, media companies would have no hammer to beat on hardware manufacturers, and the market will be free to react as they did with DIVX.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Whilst this sounds nice and all, I wonder if it's been thought out fully.
On the top of it, it sounds good. Get rid of those pesky EULA's that disclaim everything. But there is a snag, what about the software that you don't go out and purchase?
I'm all for removing the legallity of a EULA after you've bought something but that puts freely downloadable programs (that you find on the web) in a rather sticky situation. If I release an application that doesn't come in a box and doesn't have to be purchased first then how on earth can I protect myself from the compensation culture that is springing up around me?
If the EULA was made illegal today, just like that, then (unless my take is wrong) free to download applications that rely on the EULA to burnproof someones backside will all end up having to be pulled. There is no way on earth companies (let alone individuals) who provide products this way are going to accept legal liability for software. They want people to agree to certain restrictions otherwise they could be in a horrible situation.
To be honest, I don't think that EULA's are really inheriantly bad. It's just that companies have been abusing them to an extent that they've become rotten.
If they're talking about banning EULA's that you have to agree to after PURCHASING a product then I'm all for it. But if they're talking about ALL licence agreements then I'm a little wary.
I hope I've got the wrong take on this whole EULA situation. If so, please correct me!
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
The worst part is there is no button to PRINT the damn thing, so you can't even have a record of what you supposedly agreed to - and who's to say that some other program won't surreptiously change the text while you're not looking, and take away more of your rights>
Again, this last is to further restrict your rights, as you now don't have any text to search for loop-holes - or wave in my defence in court.
Glad to see some sanity for a change!
Writing your Congressman/woman/Senator helps on issues, but if you notice, bills that get passed usually have big lobbys behind them (special interests).
Topics like these are OUR special interest and we have a lobby for it, the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
I'm a paying member myself and I would strongly encourage you to join also. Unfortunately, it's a fact in today's politics, money talks. Let your dollars start squawking.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
You agree both of these are in the same section, right?
I am a straight guy, but reading so much gay banter (pun intended) on Slashdot has made me curious about trying sex with another man. If it works out, that would give me more chance to get laid when I go out in the weekends.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
all i can say is that it's about time that these issues are being talked about in areas where it really matters. i am especially impressed that EULA's are mentioned.
even though the bill won't pass this year and there's always the chance it won't pass next year either, i think it is great that the subject will be highlighted. i urge everyone in the US to contact their representatives and let them know that this issue is very important. this is the time to get the ball rolling before it sinks back into the mud.
Technically they would have to appeal the DMCA first. If they don't appeal the DMCA, then this law would be useless, that is unless the bill has a section that would designate the appeal of the DMCA.
The bill doesn't ban licenses on software, it bans the EULA as the word means today -- a license that pops up during installation, after you've bought the product and brought it home.
In short, it does exactly what you want -- it gets rid of the crap license you don't like, but keeps the ability to have the all-important disclaimer.
The enemies of Democracy are
Referring to this as an "Anti-DRM" bill is not the way have any hope of getting it (or a similar bill) passed. Better to present it as a bill that supports DRM by clarifying consumer rights within a DRM regime.
Well that bit of the ELUA is never valid, if your software kills me you can be sued for neglagance NO MATTER WHAT the ELUA says.
ELUA's are more or less non-applicable especially in Europe.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
While the bill shows lots of effort. Has anyone noticed that nowhere does it actually prevent companies from protecting their material from copying in any way they so chose. It says yes, you have the right to this. Yes you have the right to that. You even have the right to try and circumvent any protection they put in place, but it never says such things cannot be put in place! What good is a bill that says we have the right to copy the material, but companies can distribute the material in a way that makes it uncopyable.
That's right, doomed. And I think we all know it.
It was dead before it was written. It had no chance to survive and made its time. It's not pining, it's it's passed on! This Act is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late Act! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If Zoe hadn't nailed it to the perch it would be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an EX-ACT!
That said, I'm both surprised and overjoyed at it - because when this one fails, there *will* be more. And at that point, the people making the decisions will be more educated. And more educated for the one after *that* when it fails. And then - just as the RIAA is trying to convince consumers that DRM is "normal" by slowly introducing it, the idea that consumers should have rights as well will slowly work its way into the minds of legislators. I approve.
Last post!
LawMeme has a pretty good analysis of the bill here.
The second should be addressed to your congressperon's Chief of Staff, c/o Committee to Re-Elect Congressperson XYZ, at the reelection campaign's address (but not not not at a US Government address). The letter should be more or less the same. But stapled to it should be a check for $20, $30, $50, or whatever you think reasonable. Check made out to the re-election committee natually.
I think 20 or 30 thousand such letters would start to get the attention of Capitol Hill.
sPh
Guys, I hope this becomes a law too but the cynic in me is troubled. Congress recesses on Oct 11 and when it returns it's a lame duck session.
I'm just afaid that this bill is being put up to shake some cash out of the Movie and Music lobby.
I have no
When it comes to legislation it mostly boils down to what the congress critters believe will keep them in their jobs. If they believe that enough of public opinion is going to come down on them for going one way or another with a vote, they'll follow the opinions most of the time. In the absense of a clear public mandate they will go toward that which tends to promote their long term job stability, that being the big piles of cash from lobbyists.
Given that, in an environment where we've got an economy in the toilet, an active war on terrorism, and a soon to be war against Iraq, people as a whole have much better things to worry about than DRM. If you have to pick your next congressman based on their stand on war in Iraq vs. their stand on DRM, which is the higher priority? So, in the absense of a direct link between a congress critter's stand on DRM and their job security they'll go where the money is.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that congress critters do acutally make ethical decisions based on their personal belief. That sometimes in spite of money and public opinion they'll make a choice because they believe it to be the right one. But in order for legislation to make any real headway, you need more than just the ethical stand of a conscience possessing minority.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The RIAA has sued radio stations for pirating music
~ now you know
If you want this bill (or something like it) passed, you have to let your House Rep. and Senators know that you consider it important. A short email or, better yet, snail-mail message will work wonders; here's the one I sent off to the Ohio congresscritters:
"My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
Actually, the most interesting part of this bill (to me) is that it modifies the worst part of the DMCA (17 USC 1201) concerning circumvention devices. Paraphrasing ...
... " such act is necessary to make a non-infringing use under this title; and "
... " such means are necessary to enable a non-infringing use ..." ..."
Circumvention is not a violation if:
" the copyright owner fails to make publicly available the necessary means to perform such non-infringing use without additional cost or burden to such person. "
Providing a circumvention device is not a violation if:
" such means are designed, produced and marketed to enable a non-infringing use
" the copyright owner fails to make available the necessary means referred to "
This is great! With those in place, the DMCA becomes a mere annoyance rather than a real impediment to software development.
My own DMCA Battle...
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
The President can't actually propose laws, although it's easy enough for him to find a congresscritter to forward one from him.
1/2 of both houses is required to pass the law; 2/3 is required to override a presidential veto.
And amending the constitution requires approval by 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the State legislatures (IIRC), and is next-to-impossible.
"No refunds or returns of open software, music or DVDs. Exchanges Only!"
We've already figured out how to handle this, in the various articles about not-really-CDs: buy, open, find defect, exchange, open, same defect, rinse and repeat, until we deplete the store's stock of that item.
Will I retire or break 10K?
yerricde has answered that question here.
As a former practitioner of the dark arts, I always got a chuckle out of comparing the lofty, legal definition of a "contract" with its language-tortured-within-an-inch-of-its-life doppelganger, the shrink-wrap license.
The only way left to screw consumers any further is to put the license inside the shrink-wrap. I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't tried it.
But, hey, I guess it's just another example of the Golden Rule: they who have the gold, make the rules
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
The box states that there are conditions defined inside. If you don't want to take the chance, don't buy the box.
If there is a chance involved, that's gambling, and running a gambling establishment without a license is illegal in almost all U.S. states. You may be able to use that theory as part of a case against software stores that don't take returns.
Another possible theory is that when you handed over your cash to the store, the store agreed to the EULA as well, which means that it must take returns of software whose outer box has been opened but whose inner shrinkwrap (the one with the EULA booklet glued to it) has not.
You were given fair warning.
No I wasn't. As far as I know, only the complete terms constitute fair warning under contract law in most states.
You must realise that the "product" is both the software *and* the vendor's terms.
But without having the full terms available before the exchange of consideration (the cash for the copy of the software), do you even have a contract?
Will I retire or break 10K?
For clarification, most contracts do _not_ need to be signed to be legally binding. Examples of those that must be signed are contracts for the sale of goods $500 or more and prenuptial agreements. Also, minors can bind contracts and enforce them against adults. However, the contract is voidable at the option of the minor.
Most EULAs do stipulate that the software can be returned if you reject the EULA. While this may not be entirely feasible, that does not give you the right to agree and subsequently break your agreement. For the legality of EULAs to be fully known, they will have to be tested in the courts or a supervening law (or administrative regulation) must be passed. I suspect that exactly _what you are purchasing when you buy software_ will have to be determined first. If you are purchasing the right to use the software, the imposition of an EULA ex post facto may lack consideration and thus be found unenforceable.
I am not a lawyer but have studied law. However, do not rely on the above information as legal advice.
sm
1. Find out who your Representative is at www.house.gov/writerep . The form wants your zip+4, and they give you the link to the USPS to find your 4 digit extension.
2. The next form will tell you who your Representative is, and let you send a text message to your Representative, -or-
3. Go to clerk.house.gov/members/index.php and find the office of your Representative and give them a call. They have nice people there to take down exactly these types of calls. Tell the person that you want to express your support for "Zoe Lofgren's Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002", and they will ask for your name and there you go.
So don't just sit there, call/write/email your Representative and let them know how you feel.
I'd really like to see a "forward this email" campaign with information about why this bill/proposal is so good, and including the information on how to contact your Representative. I'd start one but I don't know the best way to phrase the rest of the information.
is that she is from California. Isn't this going to make her enemies in Hollywood with all the liberals there? Isn't she shooting herself in the foot?
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
Don't forget large companies, as part of the "unofficial" government model. They can pass large amount of bribes... "assisting" government and other officials in coming to more "benefial" decisions for corporations.
It's cynical, but in today's government, unfortunately true - phorm
Filibuster...
Whatever man, I spelled it write!
So, is this good or bad for the small developer? How does this bill relate to UCITA? Is it generally against the provisions of UCITA or for them? *confused*
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
BlackSnow Interactive took Mythic Entertainment to court in order to challenge the EULA and lost.
For details, go to Google and search on "BlackSnow Mythic EULA"
The rights of the individual are more valuable than the rights of business. As a society we give up some of our rights(copyright being the best example of this) for the good of businesses, but we only do this in so far as it's a greater benefit to society(copyright inspires more creative works).
Also in many cases you can't legally give up your individual rights so agreeing to a EULA means nothing.
Clearly, radio as well an legal internet radio and download services are a different class of licensing than consumer purchase, but I think this area needs some work as well. The current situation is that they can pretty much ask what they want (dollars and terms).
Broadcast is well established and somewhat competetive. The problems relate to content providers pushing certain content (payola, etc.), and restricting outlets and such. This can be monopolisting and anti-competetive, and as we have seen with Napster, they don't want to sell the appropriate licenses at a reasonable price because they want to monopolize their own outlets.
Not only is this unfair, it is stupid because it looses them money in the long run. It is very similar to the recent drug patents story. If you could get access to the intermediate patents at a reasonable price, it would serve to make the ideas more valuable and useful. Instead, a legal framework that was meant to promote the sharing and exchange of ideas is being used to lock them up and maintain monopolies.
The law (this one or another one) needs to provide for setting reasonable fees. The constitutional foundation of IP law isn't supposed to give the author/inventor a monopoly power, just fair value.
...trying to explain to congress the notion of bill to PROTECT freedoms.
This bill appears to cover fair-right usage to create backups of music CDs and DVDs, and if I read it right, would also allow you to circumvent DVD copy protection if you wanted to play the DVD on your "preferred format"... so if you prefer video tape or DivX, you'd have every right to record it to that format, provided it was for personal use and not public consumption.
Hmm, I wonder if this would make DeCSS legal?
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Okay, I never write "mod this guy up" posts, but MOD THIS GUY UP. I decided to write this instead of posting a redundant message. He/she said what I wanted to say. We've talked about writing our congresspersons to gripe about bad laws, here's a chance to write to support a (fairly) good one.
Oh, yeah. Go ahead and write to Zoe Lofgren if you live in the state and district that Zoe represents. If not, write the letter to your congressperson, and your state's two senators. Be sure to identify the bill. According to the Congresswoman's web site, the bill doesn't have a calendar number yet (HR-somenumber), so be sure to write that you are supporting the "Digital Choice and Freedom Act."
Do make the contribution to the campaign of each. True, they might not vote as you'd like. But believe me, even a hundred checks coming in all saying they support the Digital Choice and Freedom Act will make them think about it seriously.
So here's our chance to get the public back in the Republic. Do it!
(Oh, yeah -- and like the parent of the previous poster said, join the EFF. I did. I feel good and I got nice sticker for my laptop lid!)
Honestly, when companies can post things like this:
...the law really needs close scrutiny.
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faqs/legal.html
(The basic gist of the page being that "Yes, consumers have a right to make backups, but no, they don't have the right to own, manufacture, or use the -means- to make backups)
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
How thats a Rep I would like to f*ck
>> For clarification, most contracts do _not_ need to be signed to be legally binding.
...and therefore are not a lawyer. I, on the otherhand, while not a lawyer myself, have worked extensively with various legal teams to ascertain the legality, enforceability and consequences of EULAs.
Contracts are bound by the laws of the state in which they are drawn. Your generalization that contracts do not need to be signed is inaccurate. Furthermore, likening a EULA to a handshake as am implied agreement is also false. A handshake contract, which is tenuous at best, is recognized by some as binding because it is based on a custom that actually pre-dates written contract law. The laws pertaining to contracts varies by the state in which they are written. Enforceability of a contract in implied terms is also subject to the local customs where the agreement is made. EULAs are not based on custom, nor are they based on commonly accepted terms of negotiation. They are ex post facto and, as the courts will eventually show, invalid.
Also, minors can bind contracts and enforce them against adults. However, the contract is voidable at the option of the minor.
In general, the courts consider a minor to lack the capacity to enter into a binding agreement. The contract is voidable at the option of the minor because it isn't legally enforeable in the first place. Rights and limitations on minors and their involvement in binding agreements varies from state to state.
Most EULAs do stipulate that the software can be returned if you reject the EULA
As you stated, this is not feasible. The contract of sale of a software package exists between the retail seller and the customer and is subject to the terms of sale agreed upon between the two prior to the point of sale. This is why you see return policies posted at a store's cash registers. With very few exceptions (e.g. Electronics Boutique), stores will not allow you to return a software package if it has been opened. As the EULA invariably is not posted on the outside of the packaging for the customer's review prior to the point of sale, this is not a valid recourse.
does not give you the right to agree and subsequently break your agreement.
I wasn't aware that this was stated as an option.
I am not a lawyer but have studied law
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
Unfortunately I was hoping the act would cover:
"It's ok for consumer's to copy and trade music because the record companies have been overcharging people for years."
It's a good thing to update the DMCA, but it would be really nice if it covered the whole playing field, not just restrictions on digital practices.
Looking back on the recording companies illegal practices of MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) that they've been doing for years, this article states:
"The FTC estimates that U.S. consumers may have paid as much as $480 million more than they should have for CDs and other music because of these policies over the last three years."
It is finally being settled, article here.
Considering that this was brought to court in 2000, you can probably tack on another
(480 million / 3 years) * 2 years = $320 million
So basically the RIAA owes you and me about $800 million.
Considering that they say they've lost $600 million in record sales because of digital piracy, and they are being fined another $143 million for MAP, they just owe us another $57 million dollars and we can call it even.
Will you marry me, Mrs. Lofgren, just kidding, but seriously, it is nice to see that some politicians are actually spending the time to pay attention to shit rather than try to just say "everything digital should have copy protection', coughhollingscough, lets hope our "friends" in Washington take this approach toward our freedoms.
I hate sigs.
Wars pass, DRM is forever if it gets a foothold.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Contract law is based in common law and the Uniform Commercial Code. The variations between states are minor (but not inconsequential).
First, "handshake agreements" are not implied. They are express (like written contracts). If the terms of an express contract, written or oral, can be ascertained by the court, the court will usually enforce the oral agreement.
Second, I stand by my assertion that minors can enforce contracts against adults. For example, if little Billy makes a contract to provide a service for Mr. Smith, the court will order compliance on the part of Mr. Smith at Billy's option. Since the agreement is enforceable, it is a contract.
Finally, you willingness to claim that EULAs are unenforceable when you admit that they are largely untested in the courts is irresponsible. If EULAs are unenforceable, as you claim, because there is no agreement between the software provider and the customer then, by your reasoning, the GPL is equally unenforceable. EULAs are a recognized trade practice and I think it is a bit premature to dismiss them.
sm
I think this bill is exactly what is needed, in fact, we needed this 20 years ago. Unfortunately, I believe the sway of the copyright companies will probably see this bill neutered, if it passes at all.
Hopefully the Congressional soft money restrictions (starting next year) will actually work to bring government back to the people.
and many democrats receive huge sums of money(for campaigning) from Hollywood, including Fritz the ditz, I applaud her for breaking party lines.
Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
Whatever. I'll contribute after to their (re)election campaign after they state their support for my issue in public, not before. Otherwise I may well be donating to the campaign coffers of a candidate I would never consider voting for.
But if the congressperson's stands on your key issues are neutral or unknown, you have a dilemma. The problem is that a legislator can afford to take strong stands (particuarly stands which offend orgs with bags of cash such as the RIAA) on only a few issues. She must maintain her position in the "gray zone" on everything else, carefully maintaining spin control until the last minute (or forever if possible). In this way she avoids making premature committments, avoids offending too many people, and keeps her options open.
So - unless your congressperson has taken a strong stand one way or another - to get his attention you will have to contribute cash "blind". That's why I suggest making a micropayment of $10 or $20 on each letter, rather than 1 or 2 big payments every year.
sPh
It only makes unenforcable any provisions in the EULA that would limit the rights granted in the bill.
Nothing to see here, move along.
As the saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. I won't hold my breath for this one.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I interpret "You may copy and distribute the Program..." to mean "You may copy the program, and you may distribute the program..."
I see how your interpretation could be valid, though.
Blastedtokyo (article submitter) translated 'non-negotiable shrink wrap licenses' into EULAs. The text of the DCFA as it exists right now, states " "(c) As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings: A 'digital work' is any literary (except a computer program)" (emphasis added). As I read this, EULAs on computer programs would not be affected, and copyright holders could easily circumvent this act entirely be wrapping a digital work in a computer program, such that the work is inaccessable except by said program - 'proprietary format', anyone?
I actually wrote a letter to my (UK)MP about the issue of the EULA. It's early days yet, the reply I got was that I'd be contacted again after he'd talked to the secretary of state for trade and industry (Patricia Hewitt I believe). For those that care, I've pasted the letter below. (Please, slate the content, not the grammer
... "You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE"
"This e-mail regards the EULA, End User License Agreement. The legal documents that control the use of software. Since you may not be familiar with this subject please pardon a basic explanation of what a EULA should reasonably be.
Software is a commercial product as is hardware, and a EULA should afford legal protection to the owner of copyright to make software similar in property to hardware. That is I cannot make a copy of my laptop without putting in effort, and therefore I should not reasonably be able to make a copy of a software product that I do not own. When sold a piece of commercial software I am sold the media containing the product any other physical goods that come with it (manuals, documentation etc.) and a license to use the software included on the media. That license is what I have been sold, it is then my property to do as I wish with. I was in that case distressed to find the following clause in the EULA for the OEM (software that comes with hardware) version of Microsoft's Windows XP Home edition:
"Software as a Component of the Computer"
I cannot attach the full EULA in this e-mail as I cannot attach it in this form, I shall gladly send it to you at your request.
It is crystal clear from this statement that Microsoft are selling me a product and then imposing conditions on what I do with it. It would clearly be unreasonable for me to be sold a television that exploded if I removed it from my house, or in a better context if I were to have a component of my computer which ceased to function if I removed it from my computer to sell to someone else. The EULA is not being used to protect Microsoft's reasonable rights, it is being used to violate those of the consumer. I propose that if this behaviour is legal, it should not be.
Some action must be taken on this matter, Microsoft are attacking basic property rights (media mine, software theirs, license to use software mine). Specific law should be in place enshrining the right of both end users and the creators of commercial software. The law should define the terms on which software should be sold and what terms the manufacturer can and cannot place on the use of this product (reasonable things such as copying and limitation of liability).
I would very much like to hear what action can be taken on this matter."
It requires ratification by 3/4 of the state legistlatures, not 2/3.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
1) It doesn't *always* require your ZIP+4, it worked just fine for me with only my 5 digits. YMMV.
2) I just did so; I also made sure to encourage them to reply *before* the upcoming election... Hopefully, that will get more attention. That & the fact that I'm registered in the party of the incumbant will hopefully give my message a bit more weight.
3) While you're at it, why not take the time to address that "Hollywood Hacking Bill"? Be sure to tell them that you know that some of the descriptions of it are FUD, but that the attacks they describe are impossible--you can't just DoS people and not accidentally affect anyone else.
Remind them that that bill can affect two very important things:
A) DoSing users like that has a huge economic cost. The economy is hurting right now. We can't afford it (and will blame whoever passes such a stupid thing as that for any further downturn in the economy)...
B) They seem to want to DoS people in other countries. What they're doing is ILLEGAL over there (more likely than not). This will turn international sentiment AGAINST us. The USA *NEEDS* all the international support it can get right now; doing something like this would be just plain stupid.
Given those two points, if they can be put before congress in that light, I really don't think the bill will have a chance.
does anyone who is not a programmer ever nest parenthese like in the example above? - i would guess not (it amuses me whenever i see it (i do it myself)).
btw right on with yr comment
Honestly none of the canidates given as options are even remotely okay in my opinion. I will not vote for any of them. If I were old enough or well off enough I'd consider running myself but I'm not. If I could find somebody, even if they had no chance of winning, that was okay to me I'd vote for them. I've seen a couple such canidates but none of them within a district I lived in. Find me the person and I'll sign my name, punch the dot, or whatever for them.
Also the last time I tried to register to vote they returned my application as invalid the day before the election without explanation. Given I had nobody I wanted to vote for I just shrugged it off. I really had no idea what to do about being denied my vote anyway.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
It is rude to quote, or in this case, wholly transcribe someone else's work without proper credit.
Granted, a large portion of the USA audience knows where to place the credit, but this post was directed to an Australian reader, yes?
The text of the parent post is the script for a segment of Schoolhouse Rock, which appeared on the television network ABC in the United States in the 70's and early 80's.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
> Its a really clean system, if more americans voted ( and did not just vote the party line ) it would actually work.
One of the reasons for representative democracy was how long it took to communicated between states in in 18th century: so we needed a central place where folks delegated power by their state's could make quick decisions.
The otther, more hidden reason, was simply to perpetuate the power of the moneyed and landed elite (recall that the revolution contained many folks who's lands had been granted by the king, who needed to be assured that their 'rights' would be protected from the masses by the new govt. system). Sadly, it still does (funny that Bush is attacking "elites" in his new book: this son of a president who's daddy bought him company after company is calling college profs. the "elite"...), even though the lessons of history are clear that passing on power through inheritance is a bad idea.
Modern technology could eliminate the first problem: electronic referenda could let the entire nation vote on new laws, no need for the decision making power to be concentrated in a few folks in Washington. The people could debate, research, and vote as fast if not faster than Congress, and no one honestly blame "the gummint" or corrupt congress if things didn't go their way (or if a decision turned out bad).
The second problem I have no idea what to do about...
Then write letters to your representative and senators, include copies of the checks, and tell them who you are supporting and why. Tell them you will write them a check also if they become co-sponsors of this bill, or a bill that kills the DMCA, and so on.
Make your money talk. Spread the word.
If EULAs are unenforceable, as you claim, because there is no agreement between the software provider and the customer then, by your reasoning, the GPL is equally unenforceable.
You have misunderstood the GPL. The GPL gives the user MORE rights than copyright law. Under copyright law, you cannot make as many copies of the software as you want and distribute them. GPL allows you to distribute an unlimited number of copies, as long as certain conditions are met such as releasing the source code. If you don't accept the GPL, the copies you distribute of GPL'd software would be illegal.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
EULAs seek to take away rights that your normally have under the law, and seek to do so with no contract. The GPL seeks to give you additonal rights that you do NOT normally have under the law, but places conditions on those rights.
Copyright is an inherant thing, if you create an orignal work, you possess the copyright to it. Proving it can be another matter, but registration is not required, the right is inherant. Now, as copyright law states, you cannot redistribute or make derivative works of copyrighted material without the copyright holder's consent. So when I release a peice of software, being my orignal work, I possess the copyright to it. You may not modify and give it to others without my permission.
Well, with the GPL, what I am saying is that ok, you may modify and redistribiute my copyrighted work BUT only if you meet these conditions. If you don't like my conditions, that's fine, you can still use or modify the software for your personal use, but you can't distribiute it, that's illegal under copyright law. The only way you can get around that is to get my permission and to get my permission you must meet my conditions.
Just because something includes the sourcecode doesn't mean that you are magically allowed to do what you want with it. Inprise (Borland) includes almost all of their source code for their C-Builder and Delphi software with the professional versions so you can modify the built in libraries to meet your needs. That doesn't mean you can distribute it though, that's prohibited by copyright law (and they remind you of that fact in their docs), it is for your use only.
Planning ahead, in the event that Big Media comes up with some OTHER "non-analog" format (such as quantum recording, to make one up). Even tho the statement *presently* makes zero tech sense, it makes perfect legal sense, if the object is to protect FUTURE rights.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?