Slashdot Mirror


Digital Media Consumer Rights Act

irabinovitch writes "Representatives Rick Boucher and John Doolittle introduced the DMCRA which would to quote the EFF would "require labelling requirements for usage-impaired "copy-protected" compact discs, as well as several amendments to 1998's infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)." We always seem to complain about the DMCA around here now is our chance to change it! Check out this "Action Alert" at the EFF."

18 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. A very valid point... by Da+Fokka · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is good to see that at least some U.S. politicians are trying to protect the right of the consumers.
    I'm happy to say that in Holland, policies are a bit more consumer-centered.

    1. Re:A very valid point... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually Holland has a long and dismal history of protecting all sorts of cartels and anti-consumer practices, with affected markets ranging from telephony and books to odd things like prayer candles and onions. It has only been a few years since the Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit (the Dutch cartel watchdog) is trying to put a stop to that. There is actually little legislation in Holland to protect consumers, perhaps they even have less rights than in the US.

      On top of that, we will have to deal increasingly with directives from the European Commission. This body is (sadly) of low democratic alloy. John Q Public does not have easy access to them, or even have a say in who sits in that committee, but you can be sure that industry lobbyists have found their way to these people.

      But I agree, it is very good to see politicians look at the current laws and proposals with different eyes, and asking "Where are the consumer rights in all of this?".

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  2. List of Co-Sponsors of HR107 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the list, according to Thomas. Note the Rep that withdrew last week, any Slashdotters from RI might want to try to find out why?

    Rep Andrews, Robert E. - 1/29/2003 [NJ-1]
    Rep Bachus, Spencer - 1/7/2003 [AL-6]
    Rep Barton, Joe - 1/29/2003 [TX-6]
    Rep Doolittle, John T. - 1/7/2003 [CA-4]
    Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 1/7/2003(withdrawn - 1/28/2003) [RI-1]

    1. Re:List of Co-Sponsors of HR107 by 8282now · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... not wanting to bite the hand that "feeds" him and his party perhaps?...

      This is for all you democrats who CHOOSE to believe that republicans are primarily responsible for the woes of the various RIAA/MPAA actions.

      Follow the money.

      http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp? In d=B02

  3. damn, sucks to be canadian. by spd_rcr · · Score: 3, Informative

    finally something intelligent happening south of the border & nothing to do. when i sent out letters regarding out lastest tax/copyright levy on recordable media, the response was not good.

    --
    - tensions in our lives that are attacking our minds, unite themselves together to make our consciousness blind - op'ivy
    1. Re:damn, sucks to be canadian. by Zirnike · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is something you can do. Write your... Member of Parliment, is it? The equivilent of State Representitive... and ask for controls that prevent unlabeled broken CDs (i.e. copy protected, the ones that don't work in some CD players) from being imported/sold. You might not be able to apply pressure to the US Representitives, but you can sure try to apply pressure to the RIAA.

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
  4. RIAA != Government by dalangalma · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think it's worth pointing out that the RIAA isn't a government agency, they're a group that represents major record companies and is lobbying the government to turn the law to their favor.

  5. Re:More to do with by Froobly · · Score: 3, Informative

    since there is no way to know which ones are broken

    Yes there is. As the old saying goes, look for the union label. If the CD has the Philips "Compact Disc" logo, it'll work in your computer. Nowadays, it's sometimes hard to find the label on a real CD, but I figure if I'm gonna spend $15-20 on something, it's worth the extra five minutes necessary to examine the packaging.

    The CD logo is a fraction of the size, and far more meaningful than the Microsoft "certificate of authenticity."

  6. FYI: Link to the bill... by Masem · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a link to a PDF version of the bill on the HoRep's website (It's H.R. 107 in the 108th Congress): Proposed bill. Of interest is what the last two pages have (the rest is just deliniating what mislabeling of a copy-protected disk is and punishable for) -- while it goes in the right direciton for fair uses, it still leaves open the question of "significant noninfringing use" of a hardware/software product, getting us right back to the VHS case. Also, interestingly enough, note the header on the PDF file: it's based off an XML document, apparently, so I wonder how much Boucher's office has adopted to technology, or if the HoReps now has a nice XML/DocBook type of technology for building up new bills.

    --
    "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
    "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
  7. CD logo = harder than you think by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 2, Informative
    Nowadays, it's sometimes hard to find the label on a real CD, but I figure if I'm gonna spend $15-20 on something, it's worth the extra five minutes necessary to examine the packaging.

    The last few CDs my girlfriend bought (I, *ahem*, have abstained from buying lately...) had no Compact Disc logo anywhere on the exterior packaging. The logo was there, but it was stamped into the inner plasting molding of the CD tray, in the top-right/bottom-left corners. No ink was used, very small.

    It's a trend I've noticed. No way to check the actual logo until after you've opened it... which of course means you cannot return it anymore.

    I've often wondered if they (you know, they) have been minimizing the prominence of the CD logo in case they want to switch to I Can't Believe It's Not CD, or something.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  8. Don't forget my man! by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 3, Informative

    Spencer Bachus, my representative, is also cosponsoring the bill. This is a real turnaround for him, as he has usually voted for whichever side of the issue is commercial. We've had several e- and snail mail arguments about electronic freedom issues, and his cosponsorship of this bill demonstrates that he is doing just what his job title indicates - representing.

    A big attaboy to my man Bachus for pitching in on this! Let this be an inspiration to anyone else out there who believes that getting involved is hopeless - if you speak, they will listen.

  9. Right, they want fascism by alexhmit01 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Originally, fascism was the unification of the government and business. While the Communists nationalized industry, the fascists left it in private hands but supported it with the government.

    The RIAA, and other business groups looking for help really want our government to slowly become a bit more fascist.

    Such a shame that few people understand and respect liberty, and are willing to eliminate personal liberty to do what they think is right. The GOP tends to slip towards fascism when they run out of ideas, the Democrats slip towards socialism... the Libertarians speak out for liberty, but they keep letting cooks talk...

    Alex

  10. They've missed out an important bit! by hyphz · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the points they mention in their act is the modification of the DMCA so that it allows copy protection to be broken for fair use purposes.

    I vaguely recall, during one of the DVD cases, that it was stated in court that the DMCA does NOT forbid breaking copy protection for fair use at the moment.

    The PROBLEM is that it forbids distribution of tools for breaking copy protection, regardless of what they will be used for. Having permission to break the protection for fair use is no good unless you are actually able to do it, and unless the tools are distributable very few people who wish to make fair use will be able to.

    This is exactly the problem that came up in one of the appeals in the DVD case; that it is not sufficient to simply ensure that people are permitted to make fair use, because even if they have permission, "nothing in law obligates manufacturers to make it easy for people to exercise fair use rights" (paraphrased from the appeal verdict). Thus, they can simply make it so hard that the vast majority of people can't do it, and the tools distribution clause will prevent people who CAN do it from helping others do so.

    To ensure fair use, the proposed act would have to include a specification that no IP owner must unduly impede the exercise of fair use rights, technologically or otherwise. If technology is too restricted at the moment to do this without losing protection against illegal use then, well, they're big companies with big bucks: they can innovate new technology, or at least sponsor others to do so. (At the moment, such technology is unlikely to ever get developed because it's actually to the firms' advantage for it not to be - they can carry on getting away with blocking everything.)

    1. Re:They've missed out an important bit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      But they DO address it!

      SEC. 5. FAIR USE AMENDMENTS. ...
      (5) It shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute, or make noninfringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work.


      Isn't DECCS a software product that helps significant noninfringing use (i.e. watch my _own_ DVDs on Linux)?

  11. Re:You're both right by renehollan · · Score: 3, Informative
    How exactly is it fraud, Fraud would imply that somewhere on the label it said "This is a regular CD" or something to that extent, because you assume a CD is a regular CD does not make it fraud if it isn't.

    Good question. There are two answers.

    First, the Philips/Sony "CD/CompactDisk" logo (used under license) is an indication of complience to certain standards that do not support such crippled disks. To use that logo on a crippled disk is (a) a violation of the logo license (according to Philips, at least), and (b) fraud.

    This leads to the second answer. You may be asking, "Yes, but how exactly is it deceitful?". The consumer did not contract as to what that logo meant, so why should the supplied be held to that standard? The law generally deals with what "a reasonable person" would understand, in the absence of a specific agreement (contract). After years of purchasing unencumbered CDs, a "reasonable person" would assume that something that looks like a CD, is labeled as a CD, is sold as a CD, is, in fact, a CD, as he understands it, i.e. unencumbered. The logo, in fact, is meant to butress this understanding. Selling a crippled CD without labelling to indicate that it is crippled is fraud, pure and simple. Even if the "CD/compacd disk" logo were missing, you could probably argue sucessfully that it is fraud, simply because "a reasonable person" will presume a shiny flat disk with music on it is a CD, in the absence of anything to suggest otherwise.

    The danger, though, is that "a reasonable person" may not know just how encumbered or unencumbered certain future media are, and so will will be oblivious to the fact that his fair use rights are eroded further and further over time. CDs just came at a juncture where digital copying was still difficult enough that digital piracy wasn't a big issue, so little protection. DAT decks, if you recall, had to have SCMS: Serial Copy Managament System, which permitted only one copy from a digital source -- the watermarking alternative pushed by the RIAA in Congress stalled DAT introduction in th U.S. to the point that consumer DAT technology was stillborn.

    --
    You could've hired me.
  12. Re:More to do with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    execpt the riaa has tried /is trying to get rid of streaming radio too with high royalties that have pushed many streaming stations off the air. great examples are 100.7 in cleveland and 98 rock in tampa bay. It became too expensive AND too much of a legal headache to have a streaming station.

  13. EULA's by Aapje · · Score: 2, Informative

    One good point about living in the Netherlands (aka Holland) is the strict rules for contracts. EULA's and such are not enforceable, unlike the US. The contract must be (clearly) shown in advance of buying a product, you cannot be confronted with it later.

    --

    The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
  14. Re:Logic says it's OK to buy anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    > You open the case, no CD logo to be found. You go back to the store and return the CD because there's no chance you duped it. It's copy- protected, remember?

    No, you go back to the store and attempt to return it, but since the store has a no-refunds policy, they don't accept the disc regardless of your reasons/outraged statements. Congratulations on your purchase of an $18 coaster.