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'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
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.
It's not a repeat if it provides more information. It's called a "follow-up."
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
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!.
What gets passed, if anything, will be somewhere in between Lofgren's bill and Hollings's bill.
Actually, I read them. As a developer, I have to be concerned with what provisions companies put into their EULAs regarding distribution and use of their tools. I'm much too lazy to go digging for the references, but there are many examples of frivolous restrictions being placed in the EULA. For example, Microsoft's specification that its tools may not be used in open source development.
In addition to this, as a consumer, I look through the EULA for clues that there might be trojan processes in the software. Microsoft's Media Player is a good example of this whereby they reveal in their EULA that they can remotely access your machine and install arbitrary "updates." This has been covered here before so there is really no need to retread it again.
As for the legality of the EULA, no, it is not enforceable. The EULA is supposed to be a precursor to the purchase and subsequent use of the software. However, as you cannot view the EULA before purchasing, and as the software is invariably non-returnable, the agreement is non-binding.
By law, you have a set term to review a contract before signing it. In most states, this is three business days. A contract cannot be introduced and imposed ex post facto (after the fact). Typically, a contract is not legally binding unless it is signed by both parties and in the presence of at least one witness. Further, a contract is not binding to a minor unless that minor's parent or guardian also signs. So the whole notion of EULAs in video games is nonsense.
Ultimately, the enforceability of a EULA relies on the ignorance of the parties involved. The consumer who believes that it is binding and the vendor who finds comfort in the mistaken belief that an enforceable contract has been executed.
I personally do not know of a single court case where a EULA has been tested, which suggsests to me that the software manufacturers and their legal teams realize that a EULA is nothing more than a facade.
With respect to the inclusion of EULA legistlation in Lofgren's bill, I would suspect that that was put there as a bargaining chip. In negotiations, you always ask for more than you expect to receieve and you always ask for things that you don't care too much about. This way, you have something that you can concede to the other parties without actually losing something that you want.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
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
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
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...