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.
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
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!.
That's fine if you can read the agreement before buying the product. The problem with shrinkwraps is that you often can't. You buy the nice looking box at the store, get it home, open it up and there's some sticker saying you have to take it back to the store for a refund if you don't agree. That's too much of a pain. If you want the agreement to be really binding (and I tend to agree that manufacturers should be able to put whatever terms in they want) you have to be open and make sure those terms are publicised alongside the marketing material.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
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
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?
What gets passed, if anything, will be somewhere in between Lofgren's bill and Hollings's bill.
Why shouldn't companies slap whatever restrictions they want on their products?
There are really two reasons against this.
The first, and more important one, is that these agreements are not agreements. There is no contractual process going on here. There is only a sale. To make matters worse, the contents of the "agreement" is hidden from the purchaser until AFTER the sale has been completed. The fact is, the "contract" is attempting to force a consumer to abrogate rights that the consumer doesn't have the right to give away. Only a court of law can decide these things.
Second is that there are laws that companies have to follow. When Microsoft signed the papers that made them a Corporation they traded a certain amount of "freedom" for a certain amount of protection. Specifically the process of incorporating a company allows the owners and investors to be shielded from the actions of the company to a great extent. So, they have to take the bad (consumer protection laws) with the good (corporate shield laws).
Finally (thirdly, something about the Spanish Inquisition...), the companies make no effort to ensure that they are actually entering into a legally binding contract with these EULA's. Think about it. In most homes it is the kids that know the most about the computers and thus do the software purchasing and installation. So, if the 16 year old son is opening and installing all of the software on the box then how can the EULA be binding? (After all, the kid can't legally enter into a contract at that age.) Also, there's no effort on the company's behalf to obtain proof of the person who actually entered into the contract. Finally, there is patently illegal language in those contracts that violate both the first amendment (the no benchmarking clauses) and the doctrine of first sale (the no resale clauses).
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
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?)
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
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."
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
It's more than just a pain. Most retail stores prominently post something to the effect of "No refunds or returns of open software, music or DVDs. Exchanges Only!"
According to the EULA, you're supposed to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund if you don't agree, except they've already informed you that they refuse to abide by that agreement. The EULA not only attempts to force the customer into a contract with no explicit agreement, it also attempts to force the retailer into the agreement by requiring it to act as an agent of the manufacturer.
So you can return it if you don't agree, except you can't return it except to exchange it for another copy. Somewhere in here is a consipiracy to defraud, whether it's intentional or not.
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.
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
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
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
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!
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"
First off, the product is not just the software. The product is the software *and* the regulations.
Unsigned stipulations from a vendor do not constitute "regulations." The product is just the software.
Secondly, The Box clearly states that there are conditions defined inside. It may not state what the conditions are on the outside, but it does let you know that you are making a gamble by buying it. If you don't want to make that bet, dint buy the product.
Then I hope to some day sell you software with a EULA that states that, by opening the package, you agree to deed all of your real property to me and that you will send me nude photos of your wife/girlfriend (so that I don't have to download them from newsgroups).
It might not be what we want from a product, but life is tough.
That's why we have consumer protection laws. It's so that manufacturers can't pawn of any non-functional junk they want on the American public. If anyone ever deserved to be screwed over by a company, it's you with your whole macho "life is tough" mentality.
Please explain to everyone why you believe that software should be treated differently than cars, microwave ovens, and dishwashers. What is it about software, as a product, that makes you believe it should be exempt from truth in advertising laws? Why should they be able to disclaim responsibility when their product fails? Why should they be able to limit how you use it (did you ever buy a rake and find the manufacturer limiting its use to leaves and prohibiting its use to clean up grass clippings?)
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.
An AC wrote:
> of this getting passed? How much support does this
> bill hold in congress?
I don't think it even matters if it ever gets passed. The real value of this bill is to make Congress stop and think.
The sergeant of the senate recently had to shut down the senate's P2P network because of all the file sharing going on. These congress critters aren't very tech savy, but they apparently share the public's interest in file sharing. Holling's bill would put a stop to that. DRM would keep them and us from even rip/mix/burning our legally bought CDs. I doubt Hollings and his cohorts even realize that - they've been fed a line by the media sharks.
What this bill will do is *education*. It will make them *think* about what they are doing and how it will affect their lives and ours. Hopefully it will keep them from ruining our future by passing the Hollings bill. If it does that, I will be happy.
If by some miracle this bill passes as well, I will be thrilled!
"Mothra, you are Life Eternal! Hear the prayers of your servants.
Come back to us from out of the legend.
Come and save us with your power of Life!"
From the US release of "Mothra" May 10, 1962
G Countdown: 26 days (www.godzillaoncube.com)