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."
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Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 1/7/2003(withdrawn - 1/28/2003) [RI-1]
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.
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...
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
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.)