Slashdot Mirror
Senator Pushes Bill To Limit Anti-Copying Schemes
Brushfireb writes "Republican Sen. Sam Brownback is pushing a bill that will limit the ability of record labels, movie studios and others to use anticopying technology on their products. Most notably, this is important because it states that people will be able to resell their used DVDs, along with putting a concrete limit on this behavior of DRM/anticopying schemes by the RIAA and MPAA."
I use FreeBSD instead of Linux mainly because its userbase isn't hell bent on destroying MS. We have far more productive things to do with our time. I think it shows with each and every release.
scott
A Elected Offical trying to protect consumers as opposed to corp. rights. what a nice idea
Perhaps with Rep. Rick Boucher's DMCRA bill in the House, maybe our government isn't being as shortsighted as they have been in the past. Maybe the rumblings of consumers (read, voters) will outweigh the cash in the pocket from the **AAs.
Mike
Unfortunately, our congress has been known to pass bills that sound strong but are actually crippled. I am wondering how this bill will be crippled in conference comittee if passed. Hopefully the EFF's lobby can at least moderate the MPAA/RIAA lobbying machine.
I applaud the congressman for taking such a bold step. I guess it is time for the all of us to get out a pen and write some letters of support. Can everyone please write in support of this? We all know that email is mostly ignored, while they actually have to carry the weight of our letters.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
It's about time for the Republicans to wake up and realize that they have so few friends in Hollywood that a scorched-earth policy on the entertainment industry is in order. It would be sweet to see the left coast starved of money.
Vote for the candidate that you think is best, not if they are republican, democrat, or some other party. I am mostly republican myself, but with them backing huge monopolies...
This is extremely good news....
It's also our big chance. Take the time to write a polite letter, encouraging your Senators and Congressman to support this bill. Then print it out, sign it and MAIL it (that's right, snail mail!).
Things are still very early. There's plenty of time for it to die in committee, or be riddled with amendments (some irrelevant, some helpful, some counterproductive). Your job, if you care, is to express your support for this bill-- and those who support it.
If you're from Kansas, you should be especially supportive of Senator Brownback's position in this-- even if you disagree with him on other issues, you should take the time to publicly agree with him on IP reform.
This is a great first step. We need to remember that it isn't the only step, and there's work in here for us to do, too.
I like the idea that I can resell stuff I buy, I like the idea of less DRM, I like the idea of government-mandated warning labels.
However, all of this back-and-forth runs the risk of over-regulation.. so let's just cut to the obvious solution: REPEAL the anti-circumvention garbage in the DMCA. Then companies would be free to sell DVD-copying technology, or stream decryptors, or DRM-busters, or whatever.
You'd be free to watch to your DVD on any player. You'd be free to make backup copies of stuff you were afraid of losing.
Copyright infringement would still be illegal.
At the same time, companies would be able to take advantage of the fact that most people won't bother with cracking the DRM, if the product is *reasonably* priced and access is *reasonably* limited.
Free market principles would apply (anybody remember those? Rather quaint, I know).
Seems like the best possible solution, don't you think???? Rather than piling on law after law.
PS: This story showed up on my RSS reader a few days ago, is it me, or is slashdot way behind the curve these days? Almost every story, I've seen days before..........
These companies have a right to sell whatever product they want. If they want to make a DRM'd DVD that can only play in a special DVD player that is their right to do so. You do not have the right to force these companies to make the product that you want. You do have a right not to buy it.
Stuart Eichert
More laws to protect consumers from themselves. I'm sorry, if I want to buy a crippled product, I should have that right.
As for requiring labels, that's a bit more reasonable. "This product is rated U for useless."
because regulating large corperations[sic] is not their thing
That's a fairly recent problem, though. I'd like to see the party return to the Teddy Roosevelt trust-buster style instead of catering to the evil bastards like the RIAA, and this legislation is a good start.
Why are you surprised? When the term "Hollywood liberal" refers to members and associates of the MPAA and RIAA, and the "D" before many congressmen's names refers to "Disney", I don't particularly perceive the Democrat party as one championing my rights to listen to the music I have purchased.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yeah, but is he? Is there an IMMINENT, PRESSING NEED for this law? Isn't there just a need for a warning label? I guess what I'm saying is that we should consider whether we should allow the government to just take away the right to copy-protect CD's without an imminent need. I mean, just becuase it can be done doesn't mean it should be done. I, for one, think that the US was not created to take away liberties without societal need, and here there's no need past a warning label to the extent of "this cd can't be copied. don't buy it" or some such. Allowing the government to take away rights just because it's popular is dangerous. See DMCA, Patriot Act. And it's expensive. Consider the small record label that wants to copy-protect its CD's, but can't afford a lawyer to appear before a judge. This isn't fair. There's no reason the government should regulate this beyond a label, the forces of the market should handle this.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Actually... For all that I disagree with them on many, many issues, the Republicans do a fair bit of this sort of thing. They are all about personal rights and privacy, in theory. In practice, they have this weird (to me, and in comaprison with their stated political thought) obsession with morals and family values. But when they're not all family-valued, they often do rspect privacy, at least the more extreme members...
Wait for sending out messages to random Congressfolk until the bill is submitted and has a number. If you contact your Senators or Rep to support a bill without a number, it's not going to reflect well on your position unless you have a relationship with them to begin with or know that they're so into the issue that they might sign on to cosponsor.
Hitting Sen. Brownback's website, there's no mention of this bill at all. My guess is that we're ahead of the curve on this. The work to do now is going to be more along the lines of organizing the effort to work this bill. It's going to take time and commitment (not to mention attention span). If the bill's not submitted yet, selected calls to the right senators can help collect cosponsors. After it's been submitted, it's a good idea to contact the committee staff and committee members of the appropriate committee (especially if they're from your state) to encourage their support in scheduling the bill for a hearing and their vote to report it out of committee. This process is slow and long (review "I'm Just a Bill" from Schoolhouse Rock for a brief reminder).
It is good to contact Congressfolk to tell them what you want them to do. It's very good to be polite, succinct, and thoughtful in your presentation. It's very important to have the right message at the right time -- they get so much mail and email and phone comments every day that asking for their support for something that won't need their attention for months (or years) can seem to them an annoying waste of time.
Contacting Sen. Brownback's staff to thank them for this bill is a very good idea, especially for Kansans. Asking how you could help would also be a good idea.
Take care,
Blain
You got it. When the DVD Consortium sets a DRM standard, the DVD Player producers must follow suit or they lose business to Media/Hardware conglomerates who will support the new standard. This costs them a lot of money to keep up with constantly changing DRM standards. It cuts into their profits. And no matter what the MPAA says, DRM will not increase the sales of DVD's or the sales of DVD players. Everyone who really wants a DVD player already owns one. The only way to get consumers out there to buy new players is if they *have* to. They will have to piggyback DRM on new players with value-adding features for a while before requiring it. To alienate your consumers is to kill yourself fiscally.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
So, just a friendly reminder...
WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN!
Cache Rules Everything Around Me
We need to let the market drive the mechanism for backups, resale, time shifting, format shifting, etc. Otherwise, consumers lose because certain companies don't see a profit in making those things convenient. This bill attempts to substitute a government beaurocracy for market forces, which is inefficient and ineffective.
On the other hand, these items are all great:
I wouldn't support this particular bill because it's a band-aid when stiches are needed.
I used to be a narrator for bad mimes. (wright)
I am from and currently reside in Kansas. Several months ago I wrote Senator Brownback a letter requesting such a Bill! The form letter I recieved as a reply didn't make me too enthusiastic, but apparently he has recieved enough requests or he was just morally compelled to create such a bill.
I encourage all of you to write your senators and get this thing passed!
I intend to write this man a simple 'thank you' e-mail. I would encourage other slashdotters to do the same. Most politicians want to be popular. Thank you emails would express that what he's doing is a popular idea (amongst us anyways)
Copyright is a limited monopoly, both limited in time, and in extent (read: Fair use).
Copy prevention takes away both. Under the excuse of enforcing the rights granted by copyright law, they use it to leverage complete and utter control, something the law was never intended to do.
And the law makers fell for it with the DMCA, essentially granting both eternal copyright, the right to revoke a work out of existance, and to deny all fair use rights.
I, for one, think that the US was not created to take away liberties without societal need
I agree completely. So when you see that corporations have taken away the liberties of the Private Citizen using US law as a puppet, you work to restore those rights. Or did I completely misunderstand your subject line? Corporations have no interest in the public domain nor in fair use, those are your liberties. Protect them indeed.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Finally, the voice of reason: someone who understands what copyright is really about.
Copyright is a temporary period of exclusivity granted to authors, in return for a promise eventually to release the work into the public domain. In other words: releasing material into the public domain is the price you pay for having the law protect your exclusivity. As an author, you get a short-term assurance that nobody is going to make money by pretending that your work was actually theirs {which, I am sure, some people are nasty enough to do}. Or at least, if they try, the law will be on your side. As a consumer, you get an assurance that you will - eventually, at any rate - be able to obtain the works you are entitled to {for, as I have stated before; no person is an island, and all the fruits of all human endeavour belong to all humanity} for only a nominal cost.
The compromise is determined by the duration for which exclusivity is provided. It should be long enough to permit authors to make a reasonable amount of money, but short enough to allow consumers reasonable access to material. This is, by definition, a highly subjective matter and I don't believe it improper for government to attempt to define some guidelines as to what is "reasonable".
The corollary of this is: if an author has no intention of ever releasing a work into the public domain, then they have no right to expect anyone - least of all the taxpayer - to assist in the maintenance of their exclusivity. Put it like this; either you make your work available to everybody (sooner or later), or you don't make it available at all. There is nothing in between.
There should also be a requirement for anyone wanting to use technological measures to prevent copying of a copyrighted work, to have an unencumbered copy kept in escrow, in order to ensure that when the time comes for it to be released into the public domain, this actually can be done. Any author who does not wish to comply with this measure, and who does not wish to release their work into the public domain after a fixed, non-extensible {though I would not say it shouldn't be shortenable -- this is analogous to the defence being allowed to appeal against a conviction but the prosecution not being allowed to appeal against an acquittal} term, should be denied the protection of the law; and, if they use technological measures to attempt to prevent people from copying their work, then no action should be taken against those who circumvent such measures {cf. reasonable force -- when polite requests fail, less benign methods may legitimately be employed in pursuit of one's rights}.
But the law should never protect any excess of authority, not even one achieved through the (mis)use of technological copy-restriction measures.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!