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.
You know, I would seriously consider voting for Boucher, were he to run for president. I wonder if his recent slew of bills that are geared towards more consumers/against big businesses could be his beginning of a big PR campaign.
Don't laugh. Having big corporate sponsors is becoming less and less important with new campaign finance laws.
I don't want to know that the disk is copy-protected, I want a disk that IS NOT copy-protected, DRMed or screwed in any way to attempt to prevent me from making a copy for personal use. I also don't want DRM or copy-protection schemes built into the hardware I buy to play my copies on. 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.
Bastards. "1 million movies a day" -- Jack "Stupid" Valenti.
TossableDigits.com: Temporary Phone Numb
"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.
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.
and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself.
JUST what we need, more vagueness in the DMCA... First felt tip markers, what will be made illegal now, cheese poofs? Cartman will be mad.
Here's an interview with Congressman Rick Boucher, for those who can't get enough of him.
It was born dead, the entire timeframe of its submission was planned for its death.
Historically, any bill that is still on the floor when Congress leaves for the winter never gets brought up again. Boucher is doing this in an attempt to gain some votes. The really sad aspect is that the joke bill doesn't even have any teeth. The least he could have done was submit a joke bill that would do something.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
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 submitted this to /., but it was rejected...
This is from her website...
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) today introduced legislation designed to protect consumer's ability to enjoy digital copyrighted material. Lofgren's bill, the "Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002," gives lawful consumers the ability to make personal uses of digital entertainment such as music, movies, and books. In addition, the bill recognizes that digital piracy will never be truly solved until consumers are given an affordable, reliable, legitimate and secure alternative.
"Consumers need a voice in this debate. Right now, it is the entertainment industry versus the technology industry, and the consumers are watching from the sidelines," said Lofgren. "Consumers have rights and expectations that cannot be ignored by industry goliaths."
Aside from the content of the Boucher-Doolittle bill, this C|NET article mentioned something else important about it: Rep. Boucher had it introduced not in the House Judiciary Committee, where Intellectual Property subcommittee chairman Howard Coble would be a fierce opponent to it, but in the friendlier world of the Commerce Committee. Whether or not you like what the bill actually says - and that doesn't even matter, since it won't happen this year - Boucher's strategical move is an extremely useful tactic in getting such legislation passed (or, for that matter, even acknowledged) in the future.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
If I own something, it should do what I tell it to. It shouldn't act as a watchdog for large media corporations.
>>Boucher is one of very few people on the hill >>who will give us the time of day. We need him.
Granted it was a nice gesture, but let me play devils advocate here.
What we NEED is somebody who's doing to do something *useful*.
He knows (and we know) that this bill has absolutely ZERO chance of going anywhere with elections weeks away. None. Zilch. It's so dead it's already stinkin up the place.
So why does he do it? For political reasons of course. Make himself look good - fighting for the little guy - but there's zero chance that he'll actually need to put his neck on the line and accomplish anything. Nice gig.
Give me a call when he actually starts doing something USEFUL. Not when he's doing political grandstanding and grubbing for votes (which is all this REALLY is).
I know this gesture raises his stature around here. But for me, he's dropped a few notches becuase it's the same old political bullshit. If he had introduced this a year ago I'd be right on board with the rest clapping and cheering. Introducing it now -- just playing manipulative politics and mugging for the cameras.
It's like writing a check but postdating it for the year 5000. A nice gesture, but you'll never have to worry about it being cashed. That doesn't make u cool in my book. It makes you a weasel.
Sorry Boucher - no better than the rest of them.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Boucher and Lofgren are well aware of the fact that these bills will not pass this year. That isn't why they introduced them. They're trying to stake out their position, line up their supporters, and show that this is a major issue. If they had just waited until next year and introduced them cold, they might not get much reception. As it stands now, when the bills (or maybe it'll be down to one by then, I'm not really sure) get brought up again next session, people will be expecting them and the fight will be on.
Furthermore, they are limiting this to just music for two reasons. First of all, these sorts of fair use rights don't have the same force when applied to your standard computer software that they do when applied to music and movies. Yes, I'm aware (are so are Boucher/Lofgren) that many people want to make backup copies of software. However, most people (especially those in Congress) see less of a coorelation between copying software and fair use than they do between copying software and piracy. Music is different. With music, I can rip my music from a CD and keep it as an MP3 (or Ogg, if you will) on my computer and listen to it there, transfer it to my MP3 player, mix and burn my own CD's (like the tape compilations we all made before CD burners became widely available), etc. These are rights that have a waiting market to exploit them, and the markets have been working for years. Boucher/Lofgren can cast their arguments in terms of simply keeping consumers with the same rights they've always had. These uses don't really exist in the same way with software because no one needs to be able to rip a program from a CD in order to install it to their Palm Pilot. However, they do need to be able to copy it do distribute it online. By limiting the operation of the bill to only music (I think Lofgren's also includes movies and other media), it's easier to keep the focus where it should be: on consumers and off of pirates.
Another thing to consider is that Boucher/Lofgren need the backing of tech companies right now. There has to be a powerful lobby behind this thing, because I can guarantee you that unless some big money makers get into the fight these bills will die a cold, hard death. You are never going to get big tech companies (at least not tech companies that put out any kind of computer software) to support a bill that specifically tells consumers they can break the tech companies' copy protection. We can keep the tech companies happy for the moment by leaving them out, and then make the argument after the bill passes that software should be included as well. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Hell, Valenti and Rosen might even back something like that as a retaliation for tech companies backing the Boucher/Lofgren bills. The more we do to keep them fighting against each other, the more we win.
Just something to think about.
Tuck
Tuck's Journal.
"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.
Here is the article which I submitted but was rejected. Sacramento Bee Article I wonder if it would have helped Lik Sang (which provided hardware to use circumvented copy protection), as opposed to personal use copying devices (which the bill focuses on)