Slashdot Mirror
Boucher Introduces New Bill
brandido writes "The Register is reporting that Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled his attempt at returning some rights to consumers. According to the Register: "As we reported yesterday, some of the biggest names in IT names were on hand to support a legislation from Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled this morning. Boucher vowed to strike out the repressive portions of the DMCA, and 'directs the Federal Trade Commission to undertake a rulemaking to assure adequate notice to the public of any lack of functionality which may attend the purchase of copy protected CDs.'" Details of the bill can be found in PDF format , as can a summary and Boucher's Statement (taken from The Reg story)." Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself. Neither of these is worth paying much attention to: Congress is about to wrap up and go home for the year, and will start afresh in January with a clean slate. Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.
"It shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute, or make non-infringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work."
Sounds pretty major to me, but, then, IANAL.
- A/C
Of course it's not going anywhere in this Congress. But advocates for freedom can push for an expanded version to be introduced now, while giving Boucher credit for at least proposing a step in the right direction.
sulli
RTFJ.
This will actually give us some rights back... I fully expect this to be crushed like a bug in that case...
Quote: "Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major)."
Actually, this is more than useful if the warnings disclose *everything* that the CD's "copy-protection" does, like preventing you from playing or copying it with your PC, PS2, mp3-cd player/discman, or consumer CD recorder. Getting the prominent warning on the CD case in front of Joe Public instead of being buried on my site where most people *won't* see it is a great step.
We all know this proposal will not pass during this session, but it's a warning shot for (hopefully) more substantial legislation which will occur at the beginning of next term.
Peace.
"I'd much rather pay additional fees in my media and components (as I already do) than be prevented (in some way someone will break) from making a copy."
Personally, i'd rather not pay the extra fees at all...I don't want any of my money going to the ??AAs that I can avoid.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I'm glad for one big thing here: there is now a debate between the rights of an individual and Fair Use and the rights of a corporation to protect their assets. As Michael said, in what I believe to be one of his more well-informed and insightful commentaries, this bill won't have direct impact considering November is just around the corner. Still, before now it seems like there have been few voices in opposition to Jack Valenti, Hilary Rosen, Fritz, etc. I hope this opens the floor for serious thought and action regarding the DMCA.
It's amazing how we grant corporations rights as if they were individuals in some cases, but not in others. A corporation isn't guaranteed the 5th amendment rights by any stretch of the imagination (or constitution), but it has been held many times that a corporation can excersize the first amendment rights as much as anyone. This of course in turn brings in issues of who can afford the larger microphone, hence making free speech only available to those who can pay for it.
I am struck by the above quote because it puts the situation exactly in the context of the way many of us that are both geeks and are outraged by the DMCA see it--Fair Use is no longer defined by an individual owners terms but by the providers; hence, the real "owner" becomes the provider.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Since alot of the posters seemed to miss this, the bill is being introduced as congress is about to close this session. In case you don't know, forgot, et cetera, when congress closes session, all bills on the floor do not get resolved. So, unless this bill magically gets voted on and passed really quickly, the best we can hope for is for someone to bring this issue up again, next year. Otherwise, it's somewhat of a publicity stunt to introduce a bill this late in the session.
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
I'd disagree in saying that this in not worth paying attention to, instead I'd say it's a good first step.
If someone goes in there all gung ho about repealing the DMCA it's easy to make inflametory comments like "Don't you care about the rights of artists?". Rather a lot like those who respond to any objection to the way an investigation is carried out could be met with "Don't you want to stop kiddie porn?", nor more commonly these days "Don't you want to stop terrorism?". While without merrit, these comments can really count against you.
Instead, start poking holes in the other side. Attack in bits and pieces, showing how this part 'here' or 'there' is contrary to existing rights/laws. Do this enough and the other side starts looking pretty bad... soon you can change everything without a petty argument stopping you.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Small changes such as this are the best we can hope for at this time. Slowly eat away at the restrictions of the DMCA rather than attack it head-on.
You're asking too much--if the content providers want to place ridiculous restrictions, they have that right. They should of course be required to disclose that information--it goes against business ethics (which are normally near-impossible to legislate). In this case, however, it's a warning label, which has been done before.
If I want to sell a crappy product, you would agree that I have every right to do so. If a company, say McDonalds, were to take a high-selling product (let's say a Big Mac), cripple it by either raising prices or using tofu instead of beef (or whatever is really in there), they'd have every right.
The situation here is that the said crippling may not visibly worsen the product for most people (except for those who might try to play the CD on their computer--which is a lot). Also, you can't get most mainstream media without playing by *AA's rules, whereas one could go to Burger King or Wendy's instead of McDonalds.
This I think is a great argument for mandatory disclosure (like the one in this bill). Let people see that they're buying an inferior product, and they will start looking for other options. At that point people will still be willing to pay for music (again, I'm talking about average Joe here, not techies), and a new business model can emerge. Up until recently, the media companies haven't changed business models because they haven't had to--they think that after eliminating Napster, and (hopefully) P2P, things can return to normal. If the masses find out that they're getting sold crippled cd's, I think (and maybe I'm being overly optimistic) that they'll respond in such a way that things will change in a positive way.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
If I own something, it should do what I tell it to. It shouldn't act as a watchdog for large media corporations.
That is totally bunk. Bills are introduced late in the session with the express purpose of staking out ground for the next session. All of the copyright bills good and bad are basically trial balloons.
Boucher is a pretty sharp guy, and his bill has some big names supporting it (if you consider Intel, Verizon, Philips, Sun and Gateway big names). There is a major copyright fight brewing in Congress next term, and what you are seeing now is some early positioning. For example, Boucher's bill will be worked in the Commerce Committee and not the Judiciary Committe, which normally handles IP. That's because Coble, the chair, loves the DMCA.
By the way, according to Declan's ArticleBoucher's bill is co-sponsored by John Doolittle, R-Calif. It's nice to see bipartisan support.
How about not giving them any money? I haven't bought a new RIAA label CD in about 2 years, but that doesn't mean I stopped buying music. The RIAA gets nothing if you buy from indie labels, or buy used CDs. Shopping at independent music stores doesn't hurt either. These days I buy mostly indie punk rock and ska albums. I have discovered many great bands and found some excellent music by digging around in the indie sections at Amoeba and Rasputin in Berkeley; music that is a lot better than anything they play on the radio anyhow. And not a penny of my purchase goes to a faceless corporation.
If you really must buy Metallica or whatever at least buy it used. Even though at one point money went to the RIAA from that CD purchase, at least it wasn't your money.
Fight back. Every little bit helps.
We're closer to a President Schwarzennegar than a President Boucher.
Except for the fact that Schwarzennaegar isn't an American citizen by birth, which is required by the constituition for a person to run for and be elected President.
For the real question, how did you manage to graduate from high school without knowing this?
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself.
I couldn't disagree more. Anyone familiar with the FTC Act is aware how fiercely labelling legislation is opposed -- and how powerful its impact ultimately is on the marketplace. RIAA vendors will NOT WANT their customers to have to compare CDs with "the big red label" or whatever indication is there with CD's without it -- Customers will be quickly educated by the media that the "big red label" is a bad thing -- and ultimately the pressure will more readily deter the proliferation of copy protection in a competitive marketplace.
The changes are not "few" or "vague" -- they virtually defang the entirety of the DMCA -- as you will hear RIAA and MPAA whine fiercely about in the months to come.
This legislation, and Zoe's earlier proposal is an excellent beachhead -- not so much because it will likely become law, but so much that the RIAA and MPAA will finally get the word that "enough is enough" with their stupid technology regulation bills. Eventually, the pendulum had to swing too far, and this is the harbinger that it has swing.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. Since coming to Washington, I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." Ronald Reagan (Which is ironic given how corrupt the Reagan administration was.)
Please don't be lulled into believing that reform of these stupid laws will happen just because a new session will be starting. Now is the time your representatives should be coming home to get back in touch with those they supposedly represent. Contact them, get out to town hall meetings and meet them, give them some viewpoint other than the paid one.
Everyone here who is moaning about how this bill was introduced too late and how Boucher is just another political drone and how this bill doesn't have any teeth, etc etc... PLEASE stop and think. Where we had no voice before, we now have Boucher. Boucher has just given us an inlet into places where the content-control industry reigned. I wouldn't care if this bill did nothing to repeal the draconian portions of the DMCA or require labels on DRM-protected music. The point is that there is now a DEBATE on the floor of the U.S. Congress! A debate where we have a fighting chance.
So please, everyone, support this bill rather than denounce Boucher, because he's the only one we've got. I'd bet that Boucher knows that introducing this bill will allow him to get feedback on it, so he can re-introduce another one in the next Congress that is more apt to pass.
For all of you ingrates dismissing Boucher as just another politician, put away your ego for a second and realize that we're in a lot better of a position than we were six months ago. This one's not in the pockets of the media, he's in *our* pockets (for lack of a better term.)
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
From the article post:
Neither of these is worth paying much attention to.
Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.
These comments are pretty harsh towards Rep. Boucher. I'm glad to see many of the user posts supporting Boucher and this bill. Anything in Congress going against the DMCA to great to see, even if it's small changes for now. If these changes or something like them goes through, then Congress will being going in the right direction against the DMCA.
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
What's the use of industries making us crap and giving us paychecks if we've got no consumer rights?
Exactly. Without the government protecting industry through legislation, bribes, kickbacks, etc... We would have all the consumer rights we need.
Laws are the source of the problems in almost all cases, not the solution to the problem. Have you read the green party platform? It's like 200 pages and outlines a very regulated and restricted society. Less government is the answer, not more.
Libertarians are the only people that would protect your rights by allowing the free market to work the way it was supposed to. A common myth is that Libertarians would let monopolies abuse consumers. Any true advocate of the free market realizes the damage that monopolies cause. The government wouldn't be completely impotent under a more Libertarian society, it would only be reduced to levels that would let the free market solve these problems.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
It's part of the right to create a product and sell it. The only time that right is not allowed is when, after having created and sold the item commercially, the said thing becomes illegal to sell.
:P
Or if the thing was already illegal, of course. I don't think anyone has ever sold a Baby Blender, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be illegal.
But that's not the point. He didn't say they shouldn't have the right to sell the product -- he asked why does not giving them copyrights for those products take away their right to make them? He saying what if it were still perfectly legal to make a DRM-device that could not be legally circumvented, but the content delivered in such a way could not be protected by copyright? They could still -make- it, they just wouldn't get one benefit under the law for it.
And this is not as radical as it sounds, either. Copyright is not an inherent right, but is in fact a bargain between the people and the producers of art, presided by the state. The producer get a monopoly on reproduction of their work, and in counterbalance the people get a set of rights called "fair use".
If the entertainment industry doesn't want to hold up its end of the bargain by letting us exercise our rights, then they don't get theirs.
Either we both can do whatever we want, or we both have to abide by some rules. They can still sell their DRM devices, but they won't get legal protection above and beyond.
Which if you ask me is how it should be. Can you think of another industry (other than software) where the seller has more rights than the consumer?
The enemies of Democracy are