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

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: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

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...

Re:::cannot be copied::

[Nogami_Saeko]

Followed by: "The Sound Quality Of This Disc Has Intentionally Been Reduced To Prevent You From Pirating It You Thief - Now Buy It Like We Tell You To!"

Maybe when publishing companies (music and film both) start realizing that consumers are the ones who pay their salary, they'll start treating us with less contempt. Sorry to say that there are a whole lot of people who are NOT sheep content to be shorn of their hard-earned money.

At some point when faced with all of the DRM crap that companies are trying to force us into, I'll just decide to move on to other activities which are less technologically oriented.

Even now, the rise in film prices to over $12 per ticket is severely limiting the number of movies I go to. That doesn't mean I download them on the PC or anything, but I just spend my time doing other things instead...

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.

Re:No!

[Silverlock]

This is not attempting to be another law, and thereby conflicting with the DMCA. It ammends the DMCA..

"Section 5 makes the necessary changes to the DMCA to restore the historic balance in U.S. copyright law."

You can't (AFAIK) make changes to law without going through the process of sponsoring another bill, etc.. It doesn't mean we will have two sets of laws, only that the originals will be changed. They do not want to repeal the entire DMCA, just correct it.

Re:Get M$ to work for YOU

[Dot.Com.CEO]

WMA has in-built copyright management by default. When you rip an album to wma you can only play it on your computer, unless, that is, you clear the "protect content" checkbox

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.

EFF Endored Legislation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The kiss of death. It will die in committee.

How to contact your Congresscritter

[alizard]

Send a $1000 (or whatever the individual campaign contribution limit is) check via snailmail to his district office, the one LOCAL to you.

Give his office a call in a few days and let them know you'd like to discuss your concerns about the bill with your Congresscritter.

Tell him how you want him to vote and briefly, why.

If a few hundred people in your district do this, you've got yourself a new friend and a vote.

Of course, a high tech community PAC would save us all a lot of trouble in this area.

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.

Re:DMCA?!!

[afidel]

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.

A different and maybe better letter

[EmagGeek]

I am writing today to ask you to co-sponsor Rep. Boucher &
Doolittle's Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA, H.R. 5544).
I believe that recent movements in copyright law have unfairly plagued
the rights of consumers with respect to their ownership of digital
media.

Specifically, the DMCRA would require producers of digital media to
label any media that has been copy protected or otherwise crippled
in a way that would make that media unusable in certain devices, such
as personal computers, automotive stereo equipment, and other consumer
devices. I believe that consumers have the right to informed consent
with respect to purchases of digital media.

The DMCRA would also codify the right of the consumer to make fair-use
copies of any media they own. For example, a consumer who purchases a
CD should be explicitly allowed and encouraged by law to make copies of
that information for use in his/her automobile, portable diskless audio player,
or other device that may not be able to access that information on its
native media.

I also wish to convey and affirm my belief that it is absolutely wrong
to make copies of information for the purpose of avoiding paying for it.
Supporting this law is not supporting theft of intellectual property. It
is unfortunate that those who would use tools such as personal computers
and peer-to-peer networks to steal information have brought about the
changes in copyright law that have stripped the rights of law-abiding
consumers. It should be solemnly noted that personal computers don't
cause people to steal music just as peer-to-peer networks are not the cause
of piracy. We have seen many new and innovative technologies that have
a perfectly legitimate use in society, destroyed by the idea that it is
appropriate to punish everyone for the crimes of a select few who choose
to misuse those technologies.

There are other benefits to the DMCRA, both for consumers and our society
as a whole, and I emplore you to study this document for all of its merits.
I hope you will co-sponsor the DMCRA and show your support for the
public's rights in digital media. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

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).