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."

Comments

No!

[mirko]

You can't fight an unlegal law by promoting its opposite : you'd end with tons of legal imbroglioes and each situation would be as messy as it could be...
I suggest people contact their representatives to cancel the DMCA instead.

Re:No!

[GnomeKing]

This is not promoting the opposite...

As much as we might not like it, the politicians feel that the DMCA does have a place in todays society - attempting to get the whole DMCA thrown out is likely to be less successful than promoting some key changes to help protect our rights

Remove the most controversial aspects of the DMCA and joe consumer gets most of his rights back... not all, but most
Fight the whole of the DMCA and the odds of success are greatly reduced

Having said that, I'm not suggesting that we accept the DMCA - just that something is a hell of a lot better than nothing

Re:No!

[andy landy]

The real advantage that the law enforcement agencies get is they can prosecute for illegal decryption.

Say you get raided and have 1000 copies of 'Snow White' on DivX. They can't get you for illegal distribution, but they could arrest you for illegal decryption, as it's more than fair use. We have something similar with Mobile Phones in the UK, it's now illegal to change the serial number (IMEI), the real reason for this is so that poeple suspected of nicking phones can be arrested on another charge.

Re:No!

[coupland]

Sorry, but I think your post is really ignorant. The DMCA is law and many consumer rights are already gone. The chances of the DMCA going away are slim to nil, anything reasonable you can do to try to reaffirm your rights is a step in the right direction. You sound like the people who preach that income tax is unconstitutional and we should be fighting to have it repealed. It ain't gonna happen, sister, so come back to reality.

::cannot be copied::

[tevenson]

So we get a label saying "Cannot be ripped and distrubuted over Kazza" on our CDs from now on?

This is all an exercise is futility it seems to me. People will find a way to copy the media, no matter what. Why not use money/technology to do something a bit more useful?

Good first step

[Moonshadow]

Both measures are good steps towards repealing the DMCA, or at least nullifying its more damning effects.

Seriously, can you tell me that you'd rather have one law and no rights than two laws and some rights?

I'll take the rights, thanks. Don't make me a criminal for ripping your CD to my computer so I can listen to it without having to swap physical CDs in and out.

Go Boucher.

Re:Good first step

[Kinniken]

Obviously it's a good start (though not as good as getting rid of the DMCA altogether)... And the right to circumvent anti-copy measures if you are not doing to steal the stuff is very welcome: It gives a legal reason for the devlopment and existence of software helping you to do it. If this pass, anyone managing to crack a new protection system will be allowed to explain how to do it and/or distribute a program doing just that...

Wrong way round

[mccalli]

I'm not from the US, so I can't support this bill anyway. However, if I was I'd still have a moral objection.

You are allowed to do anything not made illegal. In the UK, laws set out the limits to your rights, they do not enumerate them. So a law affirming that I have the right to eat cheese, to take a daft example, would be pointless because there is no law saying that I cannot eat cheese. 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.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Wrong way round

[TGK]

Ok someone has to explain this and being married to a High School government teacher is proving advantagious in this case.

The United States operates under a system called Federalism. Under this system power is divided between National, State, and Local governments. Each government is responcible for enacting its own laws. -=However=- under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution no law passed by a lower government can contradict a law passed by a higher one.

Example -- The United States Congress (and president) passes a law stating that it shall be illegal for a person to posess more than 50 gallons of Jolt cola per person in his household. The State of Vermont may not pass a law which increases that limit to 75 gallons, or rather it can, but the National limit of 50 gallons will superceed that. (I'm getting to the point here). Vermont could pass a law lowering that limit to 30 gallons, however, and there would be no conflict.

The Bill of Rights was put in place, not to define the freedoms of the people, but to constrain the power of the government. Read it. Congress shall make no law.... The right of the people to * shall not be abridged... and of course, All powers not specified in this Constitution are reserved for the States and the people of the United States.

Key point there -- The BOR does not deliminate the freedoms of the people, it sets boundaries for the government. But remember, those boundaries -=only=- apply to the National government.

The 14th ammendment incorporates much of the constitution upon the States, or rather, it created a way for the Court to do so. IIRC, the only ammendment from the BOR not so incorporated is the 2nd (right to keep/bare arms).

So yes, in the United States we assume that you have right X unless stated otherwise. It doesn't have to be explicitly stated, implied powers are a big part of our legal system, and 99% of what our National government does are things the constitution only implies it can do (establishing a National Bank for example).

The origional poster, however, had a point. Every US citizen should know one thing coming into this debate. Our legal system does -=not=- allow for conflicting laws. A law either superseeds another or it does not. Dominance is clear. If dominance is -=not=- clear it is up to the Court to determine what is meant by the two laws. That decision becomes precident, which has the force of law (in most cases).

Sounds Good, But...

[Hasie]

We must never forget that the DMCA is doing exactly what it was supposed to. There are no unintended consequences.

If this bill were passed, people would be allowed to legally circumvent copy protection. That would go completely against the whole principle of the DMCA which is to restrict access to copyrighted works.

The same people that fought to get the DMCA passed will fight to get this stopped. The problem is that these people are very powerful and have a lot of money. Don't hold your breath...

Industry Poison.

[Quaoar]

By labeling a CD as copy-protected, you exclude a great portion of your audience. If I sold baby food with rat poison in it, and I label the jar specifying that this product is probably lethal, you think more people will buy it? Of course not.

The sad fact is that both the music industry and the negligent baby formula company will find more success by not telling the public about their product's flaws. Without government intervention, the music industry WILL slip copy-protected CDs into the market without notice, as they already have started doing.

Re:Industry Poison.

[psavo]

Please, please don't use Copy Protected , but rather Copy Prevented term when talking about shit like this.

DMCA?!!

[rovingeyes]

I suggest people contact their representatives to cancel the DMCA instead.

Recently there has been so much out cry against DMCA on slashdot, I thought I shall talk to my dad and convince them to talk to our constituents representatives. You know what my dad said "forget it son, there are lot more pressing issues than copying a cd".

I thought may be he was just being indifferent to me, but guess what none of my friends bother either. When I talked to them about this issue and even pointed to all the disadvantages, none of them were even winked. They said "dude right now my immediate concern is whether I'm going to get a job when I graduate, not whether I'll be able to copy a cd".

Now is this mere isolated instance of indifference or ignorance (well 99% of people I talked to never heard of DMCA)? So I think DMCA or corporate America is not the problem the, problem is plain ignorance and indifference. Doesn't matter if this article gets about 1000 comments and every one feels the same way. We've got to do something and by something I don't mean talking to representatives, I mean educating people. Only then can our voice have some effect.

Remember those anti-tobacco ads - "Knowledge is contagious"

Re:DMCA?!!

[Daniel Dvorkin]

There's a quote by Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Unfortunatley, I think it's bullshit. The only thing that changes the world nowadays is money and weapons.

Ouch.

I'd argue that money and weapons -- particularly the latter -- generally don't change the world; instead they act to keep it as it is, to keep it going through the same depressing cycles of destruction that the world has always known. There's nothing about, e.g., the situation in the current Middle East that would have seemed unfamiliar to a Roman of the late Empire. "Oh, having trouble with the Persians again, eh? What a surprise ..."

And yet ... the world we live in is better than the world of that cynical Roman. And it's better not because of money and weapons, but because in the interstices -- while most people were concerned with making money or fighting wars or simple survival -- there were people making things happen. Between the Caesars and the Bushes came Galen, Bacon, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Newton, Rembrandt, Watt, Einstein, and thousands of others whose names don't come as readily to mind but who each made a real and lasting contribution to the way we live. The work of the artists and scientists and engineers outlives the work of the kings and generals, in the end.

Nice little system the EFF set up there

[sielwolf]

Sweet! Autogenerate a message to my rep with an easy to use web interface. Only if all legislation would be so simple, we'd be onto something here. Too often the steps needed to follow up on something like this are a) unspecified b) much more difficult than this. Kudos EFF.

Consumer Freedom

[Marc2k]

This is not an exercise in futility. This bill would put the freedom of choice back in the consumer's hands. Slashdot is decidedly a very small fraction of the population of the US (especially when you consider all those reading this in other countries who couldn't care less about the DMCA, unless it spreads), most people don't even *know* about the DMCA, or even what it stands for. No, my dad does not know what the DMCA is, but would he buy a CD that says "You cannot play this on some devices, including your Personal Computer"? No. Certainly not, nor I suspect would many other people.

That being said, one of two things could possibly happen (given that most people won't buy crippled CDs if they are informed of them unless there is no alternative): 1) Alternative versions of crippled CDs are available, people buy non-crippled discs. 2) Alternative versions may or may not exist, people who buy the crippled versions become frustrated, a public backlash to the crippling scheme arises.

Mind you, these "crippled" CDs don't just entail "copy-protection", it includes (at this moment, IIRC) any hardware manufacturer that does not build the RIAA's copy protection into its circuits. If Sony decides not to give in, your discman won't play the new Ja Rule CD.

whats going to happen:

[cybercuzco]

The same thing will happen that happened to the bill that was going to get rid of webcaster fees for small webcasters. Sen. Disney (TM) and Sen. TimeWarner (tm) will amend the bill to do exactly the opposite of what it was originally intended to do. Then theyll have the gall to say "vote for this bill, its EFF sponsored" neglecting to mention that by this time EFF will haveremoved its sponsorship.