Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Piracy Labeling Bill in Works
Rinisari writes "Just posted on news.com.com is an article with more on the bill that could make all digital consumer products be required to be labeled with information regarding any anti-piracy technology within the device. Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR, will be the primary sponser of the bill (he's also got a text-only site)."
it says he is "close" to releasing a bill that "might" require labeling.
On the face of things, this sounds like a good step. Companies are certainly free to incorporate DRM or other anti-piracy features, but consumers should be equiped with all the information they need to make a sound choice. That will make it easier for people to vote with their wallets.
Unfortunately, it probably won't stop most of the unwashed masses from buying the latest [fill in the name of the flavor du 'jour] CD.
It's about time somebody stepped up to the plate. This kind of legislation is necessary if we are to even maintain the concept of consumer rights. How can a consumer make a decision on what to buy if it isn't labelled sufficiently?
Good luck on this bill!
At first I thought this was a terrific idea. But you know that the majority of buyers are people who don't understand what the consequences are.
And further, as the technology becomes more and more popular, eventually, won't EVERY product have one of these labels on it?
Although this act seems like it could be a step in the right direction, I think it should be cut down before it wastes (American) tax-payers dollars.
See, this kind of thing I think is a lot more benificial then some of the rabit anti-anti-copy thought that has been growing recently. Manufacturers should be allowed to so whatever they want with their product, and on the other side consumers should know what they are getting. No need to start spewing that DRM is evil, just allow everyone the information they need to make a good decision.
Yes, I am aware of the irony of using that case for DRM, for the information people may need to use for good judgement can be hidden using DRM. I believe it is a weak arguement though.
Opponents of Hollywood's drive to strengthen copyright law are mounting a new strategy: Require anything that has antipiracy technology built in to be clearly labeled and let consumers decide at the cash register.
So, they aren't trying to pass a law to require digital copyright protection on devices, they are trying to legislate disclosure of "anti-piracy" technology that might otherwise silently sit on that new CD player you are ready to buy from Circuit City.
Why are we bitching at the Democrats? Oh, because it was on slashdot and the genius editor posted it "from the compromising-freedom dept", so we don't have to actually read the the article before kicking into full knee-jerk mode.
"I want people to walk into every store in America and see that the product they're about to buy has restrictions," Wyden said. "Let's take this to the marketplace."
Uh, that's what we want, isn't it? (well, short of making the whole copyright BS go away, I mean).
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Even though Sony explains clearly in little print on the back of the Memory Stick packaging that Magic Gate is a DRM technology, it doesn't stop people from thinking that it's something new and cool. They look at the label and figure it must be better than normal non-Magic Gate Memory Sticks.
Labels like these are not the solution and only restrict manufacturer's rights and put a crimp on their profits for no reason whatsoever. Of course, Wyden is from Oregon and may have a small stake in the paper manufacturing increase that will necessarily occur if such a bill is passed.
I have been pwned because my
But you know that the majority of buyers are people who don't understand what the consequences are.
And part of that is because nobody TOLD them there are consequences.
But as soon as warning labels start showing up, some of 'em will start to wonder what they're being warned about
So some will ask, or look around on the net, and maybe find out. Then they'll be able to make an informed decision about whether it matters to them enough to affect their purchase decision.
And others will just avoid products with the warning label in favor of those without - which will create pressure on the providers to stop using technologies which require a warning label. B-)
Don't underestimate joe sixpack. Just because he isn't an expert on the things YOU'RE expert on doesn't mean he's dumb or lazy. He may be quite the genius, and just focussed on other interests.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The difference is that the Tipper Gore wanted things labelled based on something that is not clearly definded (i.e. what is offensive or innapropriate for children) whereas does this cd have copy-protection is a clear cut technilogical question. In addition it is generally accepted that the ultimate goal of Tipper's group was to force retailers to refuse to sell music marked objectionable to minors whereas copy-prevention labeling would be strictly for the purpose of informing potentional buyers, what they can or can't do with a cd (without cracking the protection, of course).
This technology should never be called anti-piracy technology; it's very strange to see Slashdot use such a deceptive term. This is anti-copy technology. It prevents fair use as well as piracy. It prevents users from doing things with the music they buy that the Supreme Court has already declaired as totally legal. There is no technology that just prevents piracy but allows legitimate use by users, just the opposite, many of these technologies hardly slow pirates at all, but present serious problems for legitimate users.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Using the language of the enemy means we've bought into their argument. Anyone with a positive bank account is against piracy, so let's please try to use language that best expresses our reasoned opinions.
-dameron
The point about who controls the creative potential of society is much more sophisticated than this - the argument is outlined very well in Lessig's "The Future of Ideas".
First, art does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it draws on previous experience and the public domain. Renaissance artists admiried Greek art; Disney borrows fairy tales. Countless classical composers wrote fantasies on folk songs. The erosion of the public domain harms all artists by eliminating the ability to borrow from the past.
Second, the zealous defense of copyright has the ability to unreasonably restrict what an artist may use in the course of their work. Say, for example, that you want to make a short film of a play you wrote. Hope you made the costumes yourself; the storebought dress your lead actress is wearing is probably a copyrighted design. Does she sit down in a chair in one scene? Better clear it with the furniture designer before you distribute your film.
Noone's saying, of course, that you can't make a home movie to send to grandma. But what about, say, a group of high school students who just want to put their rendition of a Shakespeare play on the web? Or a computer-programmer-by-day who's itching to share a monologue he wrote? The promise of the Internet (and cheap electronics) was that now _anyone_ could try their hand at being creative, and possibly be heard.
The main harm of this concentration of copyright is not to a "mainstream" artist with the backing of a studio and corporate lawyer. It is, rather, to the individual who wants to go out and make something new - just because. And that's just sad.
Anyway, that's my understanding of (that part of) Lessig's book. It's good, go read it. (though I'm not sure I agree with his proposal for radio spectrum...)