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.

Comments

El Presidente?

[Spazntwich]

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.

Re:El Presidente?

[nononono]

Don't laugh. Having big corporate sponsors is becoming less and less important with new campaign finance laws.

except that said campaign finance laws are being gutted as we speak.

Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better

[ooglek]

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.

Re:Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better

[intermodal]

"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.

Re:Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better

[GreyWolf3000]

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.

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.

Not so bad

[sulli]

It adds a "substantial non-infringing use" exception to the anti-circumvention rule. This is a good thing as it would legalize many of the tools (e.g. DeCSS) that are currently barred, n'est-ce pas?

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.

Beats Nothing

[anonicon]

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.

Then how about this bill...

[DevNova]

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."

Be nice to Boucher

[Bruce Perens]

Boucher is one of very few people on the hill who will give us the time of day. We need him. He's been talking about this bill for some time, and has run into resistance - no surprise - but we want it introduced again. He also plans more than one bill, and the next one will have more of what you want.

Thanks

Bruce

One Step at a Time

[skap20]

Repealing the whole DMCA would be too much to ask right now. I don't agree with it at all, but congress will not repeal a law so soon after it was passed. No one likes to admit to his or her mistakes, congress is going to act the same way. Especially at a time when the legitimacy of the political system is starting to be questioned.

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.

Re:This bill is dead.

[bwt]

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.

Very important legislation

[werdna]

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.

Slow down, people

[Tuckdogg]

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.

For all you naysayers...

[hkhanna]

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.)