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."

Comments

A very valid point...

[Da Fokka]

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.

Re:A very valid point...

[JaredOfEuropa]

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?".

Re:A very valid point...

[Kierthos]

You do realize that legislation is allowed to come from Representatives other then Boucher and Doolittle, right?

Just because the DMCA was introduced by some Representatives/Congressmen doesn't mean that all Representatives/Congressmen are idiotic gits.

Kierthos

More to do with

[Anonymous Coward]

How much they can scare Joe Public into sticking with the real thing. We should all pay for music from musicians, if you don't think they deserve it, don't pay, if you don't like their music, don't pay, if you want to listen to a preview, listen to the radio, if you want to buy MP3's online, do that, if you think musicians get paid to much, don't pay, they have a right to charge what they want and to who they want.

Now on the other hand, we should vote with our wallets and not buy copy protected music CD's that SUCK! especially in cheap ass car CD players... :-(

TQ

Re:More to do with

[Anonymous Coward]

if you want to listen to a preview, listen to the radio That's the problem. >90% of music never gets on to the radio because radio is under the control of the music "industry". If your band isn't one of the few being promoted this month you cannot get on the radio.

Re:More to do with

[LX.onesizebigger]

Now on the other hand, we should vote with our wallets and not buy copy protected music CD's that SUCK! especially in cheap ass car CD players... :-(

True, but unless something like this passes, we won't have a chance to know which discs are crippled. Personally I am already voting with my wallet. Since I got the first crippled album that wouldn't play in my computer's CD burner at the time (the only CD player I had) back in 2000, I haven't bought a single CD, since there is no way to know which ones are broken.

Re:More to do with

[Soul-Burn666]

So listen to those tunes on streaming radio :)

Re:More to do with

[dsmurf]

Then again - it's more expensive for both the record stores and the RIAA-members if you simply return the defective album to the store for a refund.

I usually ask the staff at the store if I can return the album if it turns out it wasn't a CD.
If they say no, I don't buy it (and probably never go back to that store).

They can hardly claim I copied it, right? ;)

Re:More to do with

[Anonymous Coward]

we should vote with our wallets and not buy copy protected music CD's

This is about more than just CD labels, it's about regulations on both production and fair use.

I had a big discussion with some friends the first time this bill was introduced. My friend is a liberitarian who thought we should not be introducing new industry regulations (forced labeling) in music.

I disagree with that argument for 2 reasons. Fist of all, crippled discs that are not labeled are basically illegal anyway since they are being falsely advertized as regular CDs. This may be a new regulation, but it is a reedundant and minor 1.

Secondly, the main focus of the bill is on deregulation (and thus should appeal to liberitarians). The DMCA currently prohibits consumers from 'unencrypting' crippled CDs. It also prohibits production of hardware or software that breaks cpoyright encryption on these CDs. This bill will remove those regulations.

Re:More to do with

[Froobly]

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."

Re:More to do with

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the music companies do not really have much control over the radio. (In fact they often complaing about their lack of power)

Radio is now controlled by _radio_ marketing. Listeners drive advertising. Through marketing research ClearChannel thinks it knows what music gets people to listen to a particular station and demands conforming music.

Because ClearChannel owns so many stations it's in the game of focusing listeners to one or the other of its homogenized stations. The stations are not competing with each other really. ClearChannel just want's you to keep the radio on for as long as possible. McDonaldsization makes each station attempt to sound the same always. Thus the stations adopt music that sounds the same as what listeners already are hearing. The buzzword is 'wallpaper'.

Re:More to do with

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What can I do...

[KDan]

I'm not american, I have no money (unemployed), but I want to support this because those laws seem to get exported along with the rest - is there any way I can support this, through sending some letters maybe?

Daniel

Re:What can I do...

[videodriverguy]

I'd like to support this too, but where I am (China) I can buy unprotected music CDs for $2, VCDs (video CDs) for $3, all legally. I can, of course, also buy from legitimate outlets pirate DVDs for $3 (like Die Another Day, with the oscar stuff over it).

There is a music/movie store here that sells real import DVDs and CDs, but at USA prices. Given that those prices exceed the monthly pay for most people here, they don't sell that many!

And, yes, I too was unemployed in the USA before I came here. I'd like to be back there, but stuff like the DMCA makes me think twice.

This is gonna be fun to watch.

[l33t-gu3lph1t3]

Oh man we're gonna see just how good the highly paid lobbyists for the content industry are this week ;)

Good Start

[kscd]

While signing the EFF letter is a great place to start, those of us with extra free time should take the time to craft our own thoughts on the issue and send those in as well. Many copies of a similar letter have a strong effect, but original letters show that you _really_ care and will probably remember around voting season.

Past that, we should also, as the EFF states, tell our families and friends about the issue. Not many people care about this currently, because not many people know, and the information sources most people rely upon are more concerned with 5 minute wheather reports than reporting on people's rights being stripped away.

Government at work...

[Motherfucking Shit]

This reminds me of the old quote,

"If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress?"

If nothing else, I have to laugh at the proposed name (DMCRA). It's a poignant acronym, with just the right amount of "ha-ha" expected. Once again we have the pols battling it out against each other, with the target result being to counteract each other. For once, I hope this is achieved. To counter the DMCA with the DMCRA would raise my spirits for sure.

Thank you, Rep. Boucher, for raising a subtle yet interpretable middle finger to the DMCA (and for your other clueful work). If ever I meet you, I owe you a drink, and that's a promise :)

Re:Government at work...

[BabyDave]

If nothing else, I have to laugh at the proposed name (DMCRA). It's a poignant acronym, with just the right amount of "ha-ha" expected. Once again we have the pols battling it out against each other, with the target result being to counteract each other. For once, I hope this is achieved. To counter the DMCA with the DMCRA would raise my spirits for sure.

But don't you see? Then they'll introduce the Digital Monopoly - Can't Rip Mp3s Act (DMCRMA), so we'll have to fight back with the Digital Manumission - Civil Rights, Media Freedom Act (DMCRMFA), which they'll counter with the Digital Moguls Control, Rule, Manipulate Federal Law Act (DMCRMFLA), and before you know it, we'll need 42-inch plasma screens just to fit the acronyms

Re:Government at work...

[indiigo]

I'll bet he can't wait to get a drink from Mr. Motherfucking Shit, too!

List of Co-Sponsors of HR107

[Anonymous Coward]

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]

Re:List of Co-Sponsors of HR107

[eightball01]

Because he's a Kennedy

Re:List of Co-Sponsors of HR107

[8282now]

... 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

Re:List of Co-Sponsors of HR107

[FireBreathingDog]

He realized this bill wouldn't help him get drunk or get laid, so he...pulled out.

This is a secondary soluytion

[amigaluvr]

This worries me

We have one section of government (RIAA) working one set of laws to take away digital rights

And now we have another working to attempt to bring them back. Does that make sense?

Putting all the effort into having one continuously working against the other in the hope there's a middle ground that is safe doesn't seem sensible

working departments together would be the best option. I don't see why this can't be done

damn, sucks to be canadian.

[spd_rcr]

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.

Re:damn, sucks to be canadian.

[Zirnike]

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.

RIAA != Government

[dalangalma]

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.

Re:Uncharted Territory...

[svwolfpack]

Ok well obviously a singular voice isn't likely to happen, but, should a true singular voice emerge, it would be the ideal situation. The closer a society gets to sharing the same mindset, the better off it is. And I'm not talking control or limited freedom, I'm talking about a purest form democracy, where the elected (not appointed) leader accurately represents the will of the people.

It's easy to get them to care

[ShatteredDream]

My parents used to think I was a lefty because of this issue. They couldn't be convinced of why it should be a right to make your own mp3s/oggs, etc. So I started barraging them with story after story of the media interests being unethical and eventually they understood why I feel the way I do. For my dad, a staunch conservative, the CBDTPA was the real catalyst because of its mandate on the entire computer industry. That's when he said enough is enough, the media cartels are socialist parasites.

Re:It's easy to get them to care

[killmenow]

So what do you call a Nelson-like bunch of thugs that enslave artists with work for hire contracts, criminalize their customers, and invoke the fury of the government on those who would "interfere with private enterprise"?

PLUTOCRACY: SEE HERE!

Not yet anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they are trying to fix this...

Re:Uncharted Territory...

[Rhinobird]

Right now, it's sort of like this huge country, with stores, residents, jobs, basic laws etc... but no real government to speak of

What? You want to change this? Why?

Right now, many things are illegal, but the laws are deemed unfair, so these things are socially acceptable

Damn straight. And once those absurd laws are gone things will balance out.I don't want the internet to speak with a singular voice. What a horrible thought. That would turn it into network TV or a clear channel radio station.

Link to EFF

[Heem]

Make sure to write your representatives. It's the only recourse we have left in this 'democracy' that has gone afoul - The only reason it has gone afoul is that WE (American Citizens, not slashdotters) have allowed it to but NOT writing our representatives. Their title 'REPRESENTative' should say it all. Their SOLE purpose is to represent YOUR opinion to the people that make the laws that govern how our lives are lived. If you don't write - LAWS WON'T CHANGE. The EFF has made this task incredibally easy - They've even written a nice letter and will auto-lookup your representative based on your address. Get your opinion out there. It's our only chance to change the laws of the land we live in.

I'll give you the link again in case you missed it the first time.

Re:Uncharted Territory...

[GigsVT]

The closer a society gets to sharing the same mindset, the better off it is.

Yeah, like after Sep 11. What are you thinking man?!?

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."--Thomas Jefferson to P. Dupont, 1816.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the
majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be
reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws
must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of it's victims may be
the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than
under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
that torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do
so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis

Re:Wishful thinking

[HeelToe]

You can actually do more to make a difference than you think. Write your congress(wo)man a well-worded physical letter stating why you support this legislation and why they should as your representative sign-on to support it and help ensure it passes. The legislators must look at each letter as representing a larger portion of their consitituents than just yourself, based on the statistics of per-capita letter writing. If everyone on /. that believed in this legislation did the same, we'd probably have enough overlap that it would get something done.

Don't send email. Send a paper letter!

If you're not with us, you're against us.

[sin(theta)]

By legislating standards by which fair-use impaired proudcts are created, aren't we then giving fair-use impaired products our blessing?

Labelling Won't Work

[Afty0r]

I live in the UK and until two weeks ago boycotted DVDs - I didn't own a single one. I broke my boycott for reasons unrelated to this argument.

What is pertinent is that DVDs are labelled in this country - they have logos on the rear of the covers that indicate region protection, macrovision etc. and people still buy them.

I don't know what you guys in the US have on your packaging, but over here ours are labelled already and the consumers don't care.

FYI: Link to the bill...

[Masem]

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.

CD logo = harder than you think

[thatguywhoiam]

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.

You're both right

[renehollan]

Your friend is right in that new legislation requiring particular labeling is unjustified force, and thus not appealing to a libertarian.

You are right in that this fraud must be prevented.

All that this requires is existing fraud legislation be brought to bear against these bogus CDs -- libertarians do support opposing the initiatiation of force or fraud.

Now, while legislation can provide safety from fraud allegations to those who would peddle such defective product, clearly marked, it should not require such marking. Here's why: this would lead to government "testing" of CDs to see if they were crippled and in need of such a mark, which costs the producer of the clean CD, harming them economically. Such people do not need such testing -- they know their CDs are clean, and need not fear fraud suits from their customers.

Re:You're both right

[renehollan]

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.

Don't forget my man!

[stinky wizzleteats]

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.

Re:Uncharted Territory...

[cajunfj40]

"Ok well obviously a singular voice isn't likely to happen, but, should a true singular voice emerge, it would be the ideal situation. The closer a society gets to sharing the same mindset, the better off it is."

I'm sorry, but I must strongly disagree with you on this one. When a society shares the same mindset, that society no longer has individuals capable of seeing other viewpoints, much less thinking about them. This scares me. I want a diversity of mindsets so that any question/problem/idea can be tackled from as many directions as is humanly possible. Makes for much more interesting and fruitful discussion, IMHO.

"And I'm not talking control or limited freedom, I'm talking about a purest form democracy, where the elected (not appointed) leader accurately represents the will of the people."

IMHO, the best possible situation in our current system of government is a leader that, while everyone may not *agree* with, they respect and support their leadership because they know that the leader accurately represents the *interests* of the people, not necessarily their will.

Catch y'all later,
-cajunfj40

Right, they want fascism

[alexhmit01]

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

They've missed out an important bit!

[hyphz]

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.)

Re:They've missed out an important bit!

[Anonymous Coward]

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)?

Not a good enough name...

[Anonvmous Coward]

The DMCRA is just a little too close to DMCA. I mean seriously, the r key is right above the a key. It looks like a typo!

What it needs is another couple of letters on the end. How about c and k? C could stand for 'concerning' and the k could stand for... well shit, I'm not that intelligent so I'll get to the point. I just want the acronym to be 'DMCRACK'.

The best way to get this passed...

[CorprateSlave]

Call the office of your rep, indicate that you would like to make a donation to his next campaign, in person. You will likely get an appointment, especially for anything over $500, but even $100 should do. At the appoinment, make the donation and be prepared to briefly discuss the merits of the bill in question. (This goes for any bill, actually). Be sure to insinuate that there is more money where that came from, if you decide that they are someone that you would like to support. Lather, rinse, repeat.

For those in the crowd who are uncomfortable with these tactics, just remember, the other side has been doing this for years, and have no problem with continuing. We didn't start this war, but if we don't start getting in the trench and fighting the battle as they are, we are sure to lose it.

Clearly to pass it they need a more hokey name.

[sulli]

Hell, even names that had no real significance on their own (Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act = COBRA) are memorable with the right acronym. And everyone wants to be patriotic.

So maybe we need the United Support of Artists via Free Legal Access to Great music act. Then its opponents can be easily bashed as unpatriotic. You don't want to be a FLAG burner, do you? Fox News would love it.

Don't use their form letter; use mine!

[semios]

"I can find a lot of fault with what Congress did," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said. "This flies directly in the face of what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, but is it unconstitutional?" Although the Supreme Court did not find retroactive copyright extension unconstitutional, there is no doubt that Congress strayed from the spirit of constitution. Copyright has become extremely unbalanced and biased towards monied interests. Many of whom have made their most valuable content off of the ever shrinking public domain.

Congress has a responsibility to right this situation and the Digital Media Consumer's Rights Act (DMCRA, H.R. 107) is a step in the right direction. 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.

EULA's

[Aapje]

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.