Slashdot Mirror
EFF Urges Support for Rep. Boucher's DMCRA
DarkSparks writes "The EFF is urging everyone to contact their Representatives and ask them to co-sponsor Representative Rick Boucher and John Doolittle's recently introduced Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA, H.R. 5544), which would introduce labelling requirements for usage-impaired "copy-protected" compact discs, as well as make several key amendments to the DMCA, including affirming the right of scientific research into technology protection measures and affirming the right of citizens to circumvent technology measures to gain access to copyrighted works they've purchased."
If a law banning cheese came in to force, then the correct action would be to repeal that law, not to introduce another one limiting it.
This effectively repeals the portions of the DMCA that are especially vile. IANAS...TG (I am not a senator...thank God), but I'm under the impression that it would be much harder to repeal the entire law.
In the UK, laws set out the limits to your rights, they do not enumerate them.
In the US, we do have laws that explicitly state what we can do... like the Bill of Rights. It's a form of self-limitation in which the government prevents itself from passing future bad laws. What would you do if there were suddenly a ban on cheese? I guess it's working the other way around this time, though. Again, you don't see me in the blue suit, so I won't say anything I can't eat if I'm wrong ;-)
but you simply have no idea how the American system of law works. the law is a living work, and is ammended over time as the solutions to problems present themselves. government cannot be expected to get it right the first time, and this simple idea is the basis for the entire system of government. hence the bill of rights and the right of the courts to interpret the law.
Imho opinion, this attitude would be the one the record companies should pursue. By allowing you to make one copy for yourself that is, for all intents and purposes, undistributable, they at least show some respect for your rights.
I am not being a Microsoft fanboy here, btw, Dolby's ATRAC codec (as used in Minidiscs and Sony Clies) offers exactly the same capabilities, long before MS thought of it.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
but to my mind the answer would be to amend the DMCA, not to introduce a second bill
In the United States, a law is amended by introducing another bill. The bill in question serves to amend the DMCA law.
IOW, bill HR12345 might put Law X on the books. Bill HR54321 might amend Law X with additional clarification, removed segments, and/or added text. The same bill might amend several laws at once and enact brand new ones -- all in one shot.
Getting a bit off topic, the Patriot Act bill is a great example of this. Not only did this bill put the Patriot Act on the books, it also enacted more than a dozen other things, including authorizing expenditures for highway construction and additional scientific funding on insect research.
The
Seriously, can you tell me that you'd rather have one law and no rights than two laws and some rights?
Why on earth do some many people on Slashdot think this would introduce "two laws"?
Do you even have any idea what the United States Code is and how it is modified? I sincerely hope that you are not a US citizen. Anyone who has graduated from high school in the US really ought to know this. It is basic civics.
ps., if you're actually interested in copyright law, I'll make this even easier for you: Title 17.
That is copyright law as it stands today. This bill would change that law. Any questions?
Neither - it is good strategy to limit (or remove) bad laws, and it is possible to change a law without repealing it.
The passing of new law to limit existing is the problem. The amendment of existing law is the more sensible way of going about it.
Cheers,
Ian
One copy eh? So if I want to play it on my laptop/car/mp3 player I have to rip it again and again and again?
Copy protection wont work until microphones and speakers are banned. Why bother trying?
I guess you should carefully re-read my message, I wasn't giving some assertion but rather some comparison.
However established a law could be, it won't resist to the crowd's anger, be it in the US or wherever else.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Just because other people are indifferent doesn't mean you have to be. In Washington the loudest voice gets heard, they never hear from nor care about the apathetic part of the population. Why? Because so people vote that those who are politically active make a huge difference. For instance in Ohio during the last election the average winning percentage for Republican's in state elections was ~60%, but since only 33% of registered voters voted, and only ~60% of eligible voters are even registered, only about 8% of the elibible voters elected the winning candidates!! I personally have written to my senator about 10 times on issues relating to the DMCA and CARP, and have received 8 responses including one hand written letter. It is not hard to become engaged in the process and have your voice heard, but for some reason the American public thinks it is. Do I get apathetic and say, "fuck it the corp's with the most money are heard the loudest anyway" every once in a while, sure I do. But then I see another action item from the eff or RAIN or some other group I care about and I get off my preverbial ass and write a letter, or compose an inteligent email to my representatives in Washington. Get involved, have your voice heard.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I wrote to all of my representatives about the RIAA vs. webcasters issue. I used e-mail, but I wrote a nice, in-depth letter, and presented my opinions thoughtfully. All except Senator Smith (who lost re-election) replied -- including John Sununu, who replaced him. I suppose it may depend on which congressional district you're in as to how much e-mail your representatives get, but some -- the good ones, at least -- are listening, and reply. John Sununu's reply was even in-depth, and included a copy of a Wall St. Journal article with which he (and I) agreed.
Bottom line: write your reps, however you do it. Just use good English, present your case well, and DON'T FLAME -- you'll just get tossed.
Oh -- one last thing: _do_ include your snail mail address. That way they can
a) get back to you with dead-tree stuff, and
b) know that you _are_ one of their constituents.
I just finished calling my local Congressman to tell him that I support this bill and want him to as well.
Instead of writing your congressman e-mail through the EFF's webpage, pick up your phone and call him or her. Politicians respond much more strongly to physical letters and phone calls than they do to e-mails. My Senate rep, Dick Durbin, won't even reply to your e-mail except in snail-mail form, and only if you attach your address to the e-mail when you send it.
You can find your House Rep's phone number by putting in your ZIP code at vote smart's website. Pick up the phone and give him your view on the bill - the person there will write that information down and let him or her know.
I have saved some of my Starcraft replays here
"I emplore you to study this document for all of its merits."
other than the misspelling, though, it's a well thought-out and well written letter...
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
Funny how a site advocating electronic freedom is running on a Micro$oft platform. Micro$oft is going out of their way to develop DRM technologies.