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.
I know we've mentioned it before, but we didn't have the text of the bill. IMHO, it's worth reading - always better to actually read source material instead of relying on second- or third- or fourth-hand reporting.
What this bill does is add some sorely needed wording to the current law that protects such things as the First Sale doctrine for digital items.
Another quote from the bill:
As you can see, it redefines parts of the law (specifically the paragraph numbering) and then adds "notwithstanding the providions..." to clarify and interpret other parts.
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!.
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.
Putting a disclaimer on the box is all that's really needed. I agree with you that some protection is needed. But all you really need is two lines or so. Do not distribute and we are not responsible for damage. That's it.
Anything else is just lawyer-happy fluff.
No. The GPL is not in any way an EULA. If you want to use the software, the GPL does nothing. Accepting the GPL or not has no effect whatsoever on your use of the software. If you don't accept the MS EULA, you can't use the software. With the GPL, it doesn't matter. This of course doesn't include making derivative works from or distributing. These are not usually considered End User uses, because they are prohibited by copyright, not by a EULA. If no EULA existed, you still wouldn't be able to modify or distribute a program.
:)
The GPL grants rights to modify and distribute, and yes there are terms for that, but that doesn't make it an EULA. It's as much an EULA as the contracts Microsoft presents when they grant someone access to -their- source code, and believe me they don't stick that in a little window with an "OK" button.
That's the deal -- the GPL is a -license- but not an End User License Agreement.
The enemies of Democracy are
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
Rep. Lofgren does have an varied list of top contributors -- perhaps most relevant would be the American Intellectual Property Law Association, and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.
If you check the list of Top Industries that support Zoe Lofgren with money, the #1 item is... "Computer Equipment & Services", followed by "Lawyers/Law Firms". "TV/Movies/Music" pays her some (not much for the 2002 cycle, only $7.7K), but quite a bit less (about 10:1 for combined computer/law vs TV/movies/music).
That ratio would be rather consistent with this stance, although it's not indicative of a quid-pro-quo as people are going to give money mostly to reps who vote favorably if there's a danger of getting somebody who would vote the other way.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
LawMeme has a pretty good analysis of the bill here.
Section 5 of the GPL says...
"You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."
Because RMS knew this could/would happen.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I think it's reasonable to rely on disclaimers, and if our law makes EULAs necessary because disclaimers do not have enough force, then perhaps the disclaimers should be given legal wieght in the same bill that pre-empts EULAs.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
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
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"
It's not new regulations. It's re-asserting of basic contract law. If you do not sign a contract before you plunk down your money, it is a SALE not a lease/contract/whatever.
If it looks like a sale, and smells like a sale, it is a sale, no matter what the producer of the good says.
EULA's are no different than a car manufacturer putting a sticker on your gastank saying "By breaking this seal, I agree to only buy gas at Esson stations." It is clearly illegal, despite the money software manufactureres have thrown at politicians to get them to say otherwise.
You want a disclaimer of warranty, which is separate from the use-controlling and rights-removing aspects of a EULA. You don't need a EULA, you just need a notice that says "This software is provided as is, with no express or implied warranty, the publisher is not responsible for any loss or damage, etc, etc".
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I don't think it's gone. I would guess that the warnings are simply painted with a broad brush for the sake of simplicity; e.g. "anything containing peanuts" or "anything over X degrees" must carry a warning. In 90% of cases, the warnings are helpful, because the danger might not be obvious (e.g., something cooked in peanut oil). When you see the warnings on a cup of coffee or a jar of peanut butter, it's not because people are stupid, or lack common sense. It's simply because it costs nothing to add the warning, and if they decided to leave it off of some products, they would find themselves in the business of defining the line between when a danger is obvious enough for common sense, and when it's not. This would be a complete waste of time, as there is nothing to be gained by drawing that line, but plenty to lose if they drew it in the wrong place. So they just apply the warning across the board to save themselves the trouble.
Now, for the conspiratorial version: Corporations are trying to drum up popular support for tort law reform. They put these warnings on their products deliberately, because the warnings create the impression that they are being plagued by lawsuits from people who lack common sense. (This is a popular meme, because it also leads to a feeling of superiority in the person who believes it.) Tort law reform suddenly seems like a great idea to your average Joe. Average Joe votes....
I don't know about that. Here's the response I got to an e-mail I sent Rep. Lofgren. Please note, I am NOT one of her constituents and yet I got a response. This is one unusual Congresscritter
Impromptu Open Standards Adherence Test:
I might also point out that the page linked to above does not render at all in Netscape 4.79 under Solaris even though MOST of the House's webservers are running Netscape Enterprise on Solaris (per Netcraft). It renders perfectly in IE6,in (blush) KFM under RH 6.2, in Mozilla 1.0.0, Konqueror, and even in Lynx, all under Debian sarge
utter rubbish