Slashdot Mirror
Boucher's DMCRA To Get A Hearing On May 12
Mr. Firewall writes "It's been a long road since Slashdot first carried the story that Rep.
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) was speaking out about the DMCA's trampling of fair-use rights. Well, his bill (HR 107) gets a hearing this Wednesday and the multi-billion-dollar music and movie industries have called out their Big Guns to stop it. This morning an urgent message from the Professional Photographers of America arrived in my inbox characterizing Boucher's bill as 'A bill that would make it impossible for photographers to protect their work' and other lies (apparently, the RIAA and MPAA have recruited the PPA into their Axis of Evil). The alert finishes by saying that 'a strong grassroots effort combined with [our] recent lobbying efforts should be enough to keep this harmful bill locked in the subcommittee ... until Congress adjourns.' Let's give these folks a little taste of the slashdot effect and do a little 'grassroots' contacting of congresscritters ourselves." Of course, you can decide only for yourself what your thoughts are on the bill.
Figures that Slashdot would talk about a piece of proposed legislation without linking to the actual text of the bill in question...
Here's The bill's test on the Thomas system. and here's the list of 15 representatives co-sponsoring the bill.
Read the bill for yourself, then you can think for yourself about what it's going to do if passed.
Your letters do seem to have an effect folks. It's stopping the damn Diebold voting machines. Maybe we can pull together on this one. It is election season you know!
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
I personally think that the Congressmen would not wish to consider themselves so wrong on this; however, if the DMCA has an expiration date on it (like some legislation), there might be a chance of letting it lapse. Also, I think it far more likely that things such as signal flags and other copy protection devices have more support on the Hill.
nt
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Taking a look at the PPA's of the PPA's release...
A bill that would make it impossible for photographers to protect their work in any digital format is set for a hearing in the House on Wednesday, May 12.
It'd be still possible for photographers to protect their work using DRM. They could apply DRM until the cows come home... it's just that people would legally be able to crack their DRM in a way that's presently illegal. Security-by-encryption will still be around, but having security-by-law to back it up when it fails would go away. Okay, that's FUD.
Known as H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumer Rights Act would give hackers explicit permission to distribute software and hardware devices designed to defeat copyright protection technology.
That's exactly true. Software like DeCSS would no longer be illegal to distribute, and in fact would be specifically authorized by this law. The PPA seems to think this is a bad thing, but that's the only problem with this claim.
Other provisions of the bill would set a dangerous precedent by making copyright owners who use anti-copying technology on music discs subject to regulation and fines from the Federal Trade Commission unless they meet extensive labeling and regulatory requirements.
That's true as well, as a CD with any sort of DRM applied to it ceases to be a "Red Book" standard CD. This law would require labeling of such non-standard CDs, and that such labels not be removed until the end consumer gets the disc. There'd be fines from the FTC if such a CD is sold without being properly labeled. Again, The PPA seems to think this is a bad thing, but that's the only problem with this claim.
In short, this is a piece of legislation that undoes some of the most offensive provisions of the DMCA, which is exactly what the "groupthink" opinion of Slashdot has wanted all along...
"Let's give these folks a little taste of the slashdot effect and do a little 'grassroots' contacting of congresscritters ourselves." The problem with trying to slashdot congressmen is that writing your congressman takes a lot more effort than clicking a hyperlink. A lot fewer of us have that kind of motivation, unfortunately. Apathy, it's whats for dinner in America.
From the bill's text, if it is passed this sentance would be added to the Laws of the Land:
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.
It's the RIAA/MPAA's nightmare and the consumer's dream... the right to defeat DRM in order to make fair use of the resulting file.
here
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Ya gotta get at the roots, not just the stalk.
Weedkiller.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
This argument has long since lost any credibility. There is no point at which the "Fair Use supporters" will agree to stop wholesale infringement. No amount of legislation or agreements or anything else is going to stop people from saying "well, what's to stop me from just downloading it?"
Discussion of legislation is pointless. Nobody respects the law now. Why would any new legislation change anything?
If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight. Think the last recession was bad? Think the Great Depression was bad? The number of people who would lose jobs that depend on copyright, patent and trademarks is incredible.
Copyright is in need of reform, but it's academic unless the "we want it all for free" bullshit stops.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Just used their system to send an email in favor of HR 107.
Suck my balls MPAA, RIAA, and now PPA!
A Fatal OE Exception has occurred, Sig will now reboot.
looks like your typical slashdot geek :p
http://www.house.gov/boucher/pics/boucherpic.jpg
Looks like he also aided the early growth of the internet:
http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/tbio.htm
I work in a professional photo lab and I am angling to become a professional photographer myself. AFAIC, the PPA can go fuck themselves on this one.
What about copyright? It'll protect their work the same as it protects the GPL and who knows what else.
C|N>K
People using PeerGuardian will not be able to go to that page.
What is this DMCA you speak of? I live in Canada where RIAA and it's cronies have no sway, and justice and reason win out over idiocy.
Go Canada!
sorry to be off-topic, but does anyone have any good links on how the American policial system works, who has what powers. These debates that involve congressmen and sub-committees are all very interesting, but for an outsider it can sometimes be difficult to understand.
PPA believes that a strong grassroots effort combined with its recent lobbying efforts should be enough to keep this harmful bill locked in the subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection until Congress adjourns.
That's a sign of trouble right there. The PPA's goal is to see Congress lock this bill in committee. That's a legislative tactic to defeat a bill by having the comittee that's been assigned the bill simply never submit a report, which denies the full House any chance to debate or vote on the bill unless there is no objection to the House substituting a favorable report to make up for the comittee's inaction. Death-by-inaction is a way to get rid of a bill you don't like without having to actually make a "nay" vote that goes on the record.
However, this May 12 hearing is not something people supporting that outcome want to see. It's even very possible that the vote to favorably recommend the bill to the full House may come out of this session...
Alot of times, when a system goes to hell, peoples first instinct is to try and 'force it' to work. After all, it took so much to set up - it would be such a waste. But I think things are different here. The system is stacked against us, and the right to copy openly available information freely exists inspite of government coercion, not because of it.
The freedom restrictions caused by copying monopolies are far more effectively addressed by defiance, encryption, and p2p.
Whoever makes an immediate decision without reading the DMCA in full and the 107 bill is a fucking idiot.
rename the bill to STFU :)
What are you talking about? Your post has nothing to do with the arguments here. Boucher's bill does not "repeal" copyright, and nobody seems to be defending that position here. The bill reverses some of the worst parts of the DMCA. The bill protects a user's fair use rights; "wholesale infringement" as you suggest is not legalized by this bill.
wget -m http://capwiz.com/ppaworld/issues/alert/?alertid=
ahh I love the flow of data into my system hehe
The only thing that might pertain to photographers is the section about fair use:
Not coincidentally, this is my favorite part of the bill.
68.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Notes:
If you're not sure what to write, you can start with my letter to my congresscritter.
If the bill link above stops working (Thomas doesn't seem to like direct-linking bills), just go to Thomas and enter bill number HR107.
Let's face it: they know a lot of things, but some of them are lucky if they can get Microsoft Word to start up. A sufficient amount, especially the ones without much seniority or facing tough election campaigns, are going to go with what big-money associations such as the RIAA and MPAA say because they a: don't see why it's worth it to fight such powerful lobbying groups and b: are only being provided information by one side.
So the long-term solution might be two-fold: a little lobbying of our own, in terms of presenting our side of the argument and why it's worth the blood and sweat programmers pour into it; and some basic coursework in Internet 101.
once again, we have chosen not to read any of the available links or articles. ;-)
also, he deserves negative mods for supporting the dmca
68.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
OK, I know it's bad form to repy to my own post. But every time defiance is sugested as a solution - someone else relpies and says something like "... self centered childish teens that would rather steal than ask mommy for the money to buy a cd ... ", I swear, it's true, or they say something like "... with civil disobedience you have a duty to accept whatever punishment the system dishes out ...(or youre just greedy coward - is often on)"
....
So let me just address it now. First off, in the information age it is no longer a copyright issue, it is a free speech issue, because there is no technology that naturally distinguish between free speech content and copyright content. Second, did Harriet Tubman deserve to be punished for forming the underground railroad, should she have gracefully accepted whatever punishment that came to her, should society have gracefully accepted her almost certain death penalty if she were caught because she knew it was against the law and did it anyhow? Just think about it
Here we have a _golden opportunity_ to change the law to favor the consumer, and argoff here wants us to turn it down and break the law instead! Why? There's no law (no pun intended) that says we have to choose one or the other -- defiance is fine when that's the only route we've got, but refusal to even _try_ to change the law demonstrates only a childish arrogance.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned or naive but i think that congressmen should vote the way that they feel is right. If we as people don't like this then we'll boot them out come election time. Now back to lobbyists I know that technically all they're supposed to do help "persuade" the lawmakers to their side. Now you would have to be incredibly naive to think that no money or other "services" are being exchanged. Which brings me to my point if these bigwig companies need lobbyists then maybe what they're doing is wrong, and they know it. So therefore i hope these lawmakers ignore the lobbyists and vote the way they feel they ought to.
... middlemen. If CR (and patenting of intangibles)_ were to "vanish",or be re-severely restricted- primarily the middlemen's jobs would be in jeopardy,because that is where the bulk of the cash, or wealth, gets skimmed off --> to. The thinkers and doers would still work, because they want to, because they can,and because they have the motivation,because they are humans and not lazy, they want to be productive, and this "the industry" would evolve to a new model with more producing,much less skimming, and the wealth staying more where it belongs, with the thinkers and doers, who mostly realise they profit immensely from collaboration, but not with the middlemen. That's something that is basic, you "get it" or you don't, just generally speaking.
We had in man's history the fasted growth and most advances following the most free sharing of information and when technology making knowledge transfer virtually instantenous and pervasive.
Back when knowledge was locked up in some monks chambers and in a few closed guilds, we stayed mostly stagnant, productive change was painfully slow, and the bulk of the people alive lived in total misery and in helpless exploitation. You can't have it both ways. Some seek a return to the old ways by insisting on more and more to keep knowledge "all theirs", even though they get great benefit from millions of others work and knowledge-they tend to forget that all the time.
It's just historical data, and it's true facts. More knowledge shared, and the cheaper and faster, the better off things get.
Over all it would improve the over all wealth structure of society as a whole, not undermine it. short term, yes, some chaos, but medium and long term, nope, it would make it much better. It would force (they would be more free to do so actually) more and more people to become thinkers and doers in actual effect.
Why should people jump thru pre staged hoops, like a dog, when a run arround is simply more effective. You should read my reply to my reply - the about Harriet Tubman. Here too defiance causes more change then participation.
That's the rub -- the last court ruling on (I believe) the Sonny Bono copyright extension act type thingie essentially said that even life + XX years is "limited". Running with that logic, any copyright term that is not infinity must therefore be "limited". Wheee.
An interesting analysis of the DMCRA argues that the DMRCA strengthens the DMCA -- but in a good way.
Aire Libre
It's good to know there are at least somewhat reasonable people in our government, and not complete toadies of the RIAA and MPAA, and now the PPA.
If this thing gets shot down, you can be sure I'll be sending in a furious protest letter. This bill is really important, so that we as citizens can regain some of our rights taken away by the DMCA.
I don't want to be a criminal for watching DVDs that I paid for in linux.
Oh, and while we're playing make believe, I'd like a new BMW and a $1 million dollar house.
Seriously though, if this bill goes through, it will be time to re-evaluate my opinion of the government.
This hearing is before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Committee which is a subcommitte of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It is the 27 members of this specific subcommittee that need to hear from us as they will make the decision on what to do this Wednesday.
This is a list of the subcommittee members.
E-mail each of these 27 members, especially if one of the members happens to be your representative. They hold the power right now. Later we'll worry about other votes and other members. For now, write these 27 reps! Here's a sample letter:
Dear Subcommittee member,
I am writing to ask you to support H.R. 107 this Wednesday and favorably recommend that it move on from your subcommittee. This bill is identical to one which Representatives Boucher and Doolittle introduced during the last Congressional session, so the time that this bill move forward has come.
H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumer's Rights Act (DMCRA), restores consumers' fair use rights by amending the DMCA to allow circumvention of copy protection for non-infringing uses of digital copyrighted material. The DMCRA also specifies that it is not a violation of Section 1201 of the DMCA to manufacture, distribute, or make non-infringing use of a hardware or software product that enables significant non-infringing use of a copyrighted work, as in making back-up copies of legally purchased DVDs or other digital media.
Several provisions of The Digital Millenium Copyright Act have harmed law-abiding citizens of this country for too long. The DMCRA is a sensible change to the law that is necessary for consumers to enjoy their rights of fair use.
The content industry that opposes this bill has cried wolf before. They opposed the VCR, likening it to the Boston Strangler. We know now that technological advances are good for both consumers and industry, and that an industry scared of change should not be allowed to impede progress or consumer's rights.
I believe that if you are truly thinking of the interests of your constituents, then you will support the DMCRA. I urge you to take a stand for the public this Wednesday.
Thank You.
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.
I've written my Congresscritter several times and the President and all I got was a form letter in response that had nothing to do with the subject I was writing about.
I think giving campaign contributions is the only way to get the attention of C.G.s. Our appathy is well earned - thank you very much.
bill that would make it impossible for photographers to protect their work in any digital format is set for a hearing in the House on Wednesday, May 12. In response, Professional Photographers of America has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill to rally opposition to the legislation.
Key emotional words (some of which are outright lies as well) are impossible and rally. Not too bad so far, though starting off with a lie in the first paragraph is a bad sign.
Known as H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumer Rights Act would give hackers explicit permission to distribute software and hardware devices designed to defeat copyright protection technology. Other provisions of the bill would set a dangerous precedent by making copyright owners who use anti-copying technology on music discs subject to regulation and fines from the Federal Trade Commission unless they meet extensive labeling and regulatory requirements.
Many of us will disagree with the use of hackers here, but explicit has dirty connotations, even if it's not a dirty word. We all know what the general public thinks hacker defines, anyway. My favorite is the "dangerous precedent" -- a slippery-slope argument
PPA believes that a strong grassroots effort combined with its recent lobbying efforts should be enough to keep this harmful bill locked in the subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection until Congress adjourns. To that end, we encourage all members to contact their Representative and urge them to oppose H.R. 107 the Digital Media Consumer Rights Act.
Just a plea here, nothing too exciting.
Of course, the comments with the post of the article are just as bad but you all must be used to reading that point of view by now.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight.
Straw man alert! HR 107 does not repeal copyright. It does not stop RIAA from prosecuting all those people illegally distributing copyrighted CDs. (Notice that bandwidth, not the silly DRM inhibits the illegal distribution of DVDs.) I think the RIAA's money would be better spent figuring out how to capitalize on people natural desire to share music they like - but that is their business. Copyright infringers *are* breaking the law.
The DMCA as far as I can tell by reading it says that it is only criminal to break encryption for the purpose of illegal distribution. I guess you have to be a lawyer to go from there to making distribution of a program to watch DVDs a crime.
Until I am allowed to watch any DVDs I buy (without buying a bunch of extra crap I don't want like Windoze or more single purpose boxes) - there is no point in me buying (or stealing) them.
might be interesting to see Congresses reaction too.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Just as a possible example:
//their name//,
//your state// ties, such as //companies with a presence in your state//. I too, as a private citizen, support this bill.
//your name//
Congress(wo)man
On Wednesday, May 12, 2004, there will be a congressional hearing to consider HR 107, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA). The DMCRA has been endorsed by many large corporations, including those with
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, illegalized acts that are necessary for scientific research and fair use of technology products. The DMCRA works to loosen some of these restrictions. Specifically, it informs consumers of when an audio CD does not conform to industry standards and therefore might not be able to function in their player. Furthermore, it invites scientific research by allowing products to be reversed-engineered, only so long as such use is does not infringe upon the copyright.
I encourage you to consider this bill as a first step towards reinstating the rights of citizens to be informed of the limitations of the products they buy and to use those products in whatever non-infringing ways that they see fit.
Thank you for your time,
It's interesting to note that Pat Kennedy withdrew his sponsorship of the bill. Must have been the day after the check from RIAA arrived. Sorry, I'm cynical tonight.
Most pro photographers try to own anything they shoot. This is a broken business model. If they shoot people, they have to get a model release to sell the photos. When was the last time your wedding photographer did this? (Oops) They do not have the right to sell the likeness of the people in the photos without a model release. On the other hand, photographers should simply do weddings and such as a work for hire and not own the copyright. When I hire a photographer, I bring my own contract to that effect. My works for hire buys the copyright. Many photographers won't go along. Some want sky high prices to discourage the contract. If we can't settle, then I take bids. Do expect to pay more for the service, but get the copyright in writing. Hire it for albums and web. Offer to buy a fixed number of prints to support the studio. With the current copyright issue, taking a families photo album, scanning the photos including school and sports photos, and showing them as a slide show at a wedding is a copyright violation. It's also common. Quick, can you find your friends 3rd grade school photographer to get permission to use the school photo in her wedding slide show? The business model is very broken and needs to change to adjust to the reality of how photos are shown nowdays. It shouldn't be a crime to show kid growing up photos including school and sports photos. Changing the law simply makes what is now being done legal. Is there anyone out there that put together a slide show for a wedding and actualy found and paid the school photographer to produce a slide show? (I'm guilty as anybody on this one. How do you find them?) Do you simply leave out school and sports photos? Is making a slide show not a copy but just another way of presenting the photos? If you are a school photographer and are at a family wedding, do you say anything regarding the inclusion of school photos in a slide show?
The law is broken and needs to change.
Non-works for hire such as nature photos should still be pieces of art and protected as a piece of art such as a painting, movie, or song. My wedding for hire photos should be mine, not the photographers.
The truth shall set you free!
But who am I kidding. This bill couldn't make it if you gave every member of congress a free blowjob from the Victoria Secret's model pool.
I'll just enjoy the wonderful warm fuzzy feeling it gave me to just imagine that common sense would prevail.
Not a bad idea, but there are a few simple rules to make your vote actually count...
First, read the f'ing bill. It's here
Use the telephone. You'll probably never get through to your congressman, but getting through to staff is actually more important. Call the office in DC (http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html) and ask to speak to the STAFF MEMBER who's tracking HR 107. If no one's following it, ask for the staff member who handles IP, technology, or computer issues.
There's no more powerful statement to make than "I'm your constituent, and if this passes it's a problem for me", except for...
"This is so important that it will impact how I'm going to vote in November." But you damn well better believe it if you say it, because that's the easiest lie to detect. (Hey, if your guy's from the wrong party, but does the right thing here, why aren't you voting for him?)
Stay on message. Resist the urge to talk about Iraq, or software patents, or anything else. The point is for the staff member to say, "I got 50 calls today abut HR 107, they're mostly from people in the district, and they all said it's important that the bill gets through". Hard to believe, but if a party whip isn't demanding a position, this generally determines how somebody's gonna vote.
And don't take a lot of time. In the first three minutes, you've made your case or not. In any case, your call has already been recorded as for or against, and is going to be in tomorrow's daily brief. Once you state your case, all you can do is fuck up, unless the staff member starts asking you questions.
Follow up with a fax. It should go to the DC office, the closest district office, the sponsor (Boucher), and if you're feeling creative, all of the bill's cosponsors -- there's actually bi-partisan support. (Available from the bill link above.) Staff tally these things, and it goes into the decision matrix.
BTW, if anybody's from Rhode Island, Patrick Kennedy was a co-sponsor, but withdrew his support.
Don't bother with email. These guys get slashdotted every day (imagine a half million people knowing your email address), so the sad fact is that nobody on the hill reads email.
Follow up, part II: a personal note to the staff member. It may not help this time, but a note card saying "Thanks for taking the time to talk with me today" goes a long, long way the next time you need to talk to your representative. Tip O'Neil got to be Speaker that way, and you can make the case that George H.W. Bush got to be president that way. The legislative process is all about relationships.
Finally, Stay polite. The staff member (or the congressman) may be a pinhead, but if you get belligerent, he might vote the other way because you're seen as an asshole. Bite your tounge, especially if they're stupid.
Note: If your Congressman's a Congresswoman, use your favorite word processor to adjust the genders referenced above. Reread, lather, rinse, repeat.
You can do it!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The site favors getting small business insurance support by the government (that is your tax dollars at work), but they oppose the government giving us back the fair use that we had for 2 centuries.
Man, what a screw job that is.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm all for promoting views that run contrary to the local conventional wisdom, but ferchrissakes they should be reasonable and well-informed views, not this half-ass shit that cubicledrone is spewing.
let's see the full text of the email, including headers
Bah, why the crappy flash intro page?
... This has no bearing on a "DRM virus" but it shows that a judge might still entertain such an arguement, though I seem to remember that the DMCA has some manner of exemption that might cover such things... maybe.
Give them something more useful to look at, like the contact page. You can tell them why this is unreasonable.
Now then, they're probably right that it would prevent them from being able to protect their works--DRM does not and has not ever worked (and hopefully will never work, since DRM working would imply that all general-purpose devices have been disabled or destroyed...)
Of course, where we disagree is whether this is a Bad Thing [TM]. Obviously, the substantial non-infringing uses (not to mention the crippling effects of DRM schemes when secure, and their futility when insecure) legitimizes the need to be able to crack DRM schemes without fearing that you might have to go to prison because you stripped out the "don't copy" bit.
I could only wish that a judge would rule, with a perverse sense of irony, that the word "effective" when discussing copyright protection devices meant that the device had to actually work (e.g. be un-circumventable), but alas, I don't think that judges are allowed to do that.
In the mean time, why don't they stick to suing people from actual copyright infringement, instead of "protecting" their works with stupidly restrictive schemes?
I mean, I'm just waiting for a "DRM Virus" which makes use of some DRM scheme or another to prevent anti-virus people from reversing or deactivating it. And lest you think I'm kidding that a provision like this could be used by the virus writer, read McClelland v. McGrath, 31 F. Supp. 616 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Even though it might be "the very definition of chutzpah," a kidnapper sued a police officer for unauthorized monitoring of his cell phone. He may not have been able to supress the evidence against him and get off of the kidnapping charge, but there were still civil penalties under 18 USC 2518(10)(a)
Should I /. him?
I've found that my posts don't format quite right w/o a sig.
Of course it's short, all recent bill have a tendency to follow this pattern.
Shorter=Less ass rape Longer=Tons of ass rape
Now i wonder why that is, could it be that the longer bills are meant to be confusing, so when they pass a law like the DMCA which was meant to be used agaisnt pirates who operate for profit, instead they end up allowing the **AA to extort money from citzens. I doubt if the bill said
"This gives the RIAA the power to ass rape anyone they see fit"
It would be passed, but you never know, but the last time i checked the congressemen werent that well paid off.
SEC. 5. FAIR USE AMENDMENTS.
(a) SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH- Subsections (a)(2)(A) and (b)(1)(A) of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code, are each amended by inserting after `title' in subsection (a)(2)(A) and after `thereof' in subsection (b)(1)(A) the following: `unless the person is acting solely in furtherance of scientific research into technological protection measures'.
(b) FAIR USE RESTORATION- Section 1201(c) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the end the following: `and it is not a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with access to, or the use of, a work if such circumvention does not result in an infringement of the copyright in the work'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(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.'.
Um, Kalak, as a teacher I hope you have done some research on Bowling for Columbine and show it in the right context in the classroom. I personally find the movie distasteful as it is primarily concocted of lies. Read here a little about it or do some research yourself: www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
I don't think congresspeople have ever handled their own mail...they get so much of it, they have staff to do it for them. And even the staff doesn't necessarily read it in depth...they'll note the issue and pro or con stance, and digest it down to tell the congresscritter "85% of the constituents who care enough to take the time and effort to sit down and write you a letter instead of just zinging a couple of keys and making phosphors glow on a screen support this bill. Given that people who care enough to go to all that extra effort and to spend almost 40 cents of their hard-earned money on top of that are more likely to care enough to rouse themselves from their comfy chair (no! not the Comfy Chair!) and go down to vote for you come election day instead of just thinking favorable thoughts toward you, how do you want to play this one, boss?"
Well, okay, they don't say all that, most of it would be taken as read. But the point is, it takes more effort to write an actual letter (though with computers these days, not as much as it used to), not to mention stamp money. It shows you're the sort of person who makes an effort, and thus would be more likely to vote. If most of their emails are pro but most of the letters they get are con, which do you think will carry the day? Not to mention letters provide a physical artifact which, psychologically, will tend to carry more impact than phosphors on a screen.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Okay, I'm ready to /. Congress. Just tell me where to click.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"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"
i can see where they are going to throw a fit. tis basically gives permission to reverse engineer...not that there's anything wrong with that in my view.
i'm just talking about in general
The last section modifies Section 1201(c) of title 17, a section that got much of its content from the DMCA. Basically, it guts much of this section by specifically allowing the use and distribution of DRM-defeating software if the goal is to enable fair use that is otherwise legal.
And the clause immediately before that similarly legalizes bypassing copy protection to make a copy if making the copy would be otherwise legal. (i.e. fair use would be legal, copy protection or no.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I doubt if the bill said
"This gives the RIAA the power to ass rape anyone they see fit"
Of course it does. Who the hell do you think wrote it?
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
That's the tricky thing about making laws - you try to help a few people out, and you step on a few others' toes, while (hopefully) serving everyone in the middle. Our lawmakers are supposed to be representing the best interests of as many citizens as possible, but the systems breaks down if all they care about is getting reelected, and satisfying those who would finance their campaigns.
For our wedding. We went looking for a photographer with one thing in mind- we wanted the rights to the pictures. We had quite a few negative reactions from photographers (even from a friend), but eventually found a good one. We had all the pictures put on CD's. All in all pretty successful. My wife has some of the pictures on her site. Since her family is into scrapbooking, CD's were cheaper to hand out that prints.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
It's too bad that the PPA wants YOU to bend over!
The "response" says nothing about:
- Osma and his 3 billion from the US (TRUE)
- 10 of thousand of gun deaths in the US vs 100's in other countries (TRUE)
- The fact the Heston is portayed as an asshole because he is an asshole (TRUE)
and the report conceded that Moores depiction of the media fear frenzy is correct
I happened to notice this at the bottom of the page. Following the link led me to Capitol Advantage's web site. Their About page tells me that:
"Capitol Advantage is the nation's premier provider of grassroots solutions for corporations, nonprofit groups, associations, educational institutions, and other organizations. Founded in 1986, Capitol Advantage provides grassroots advocacy products and services to more than 2,000 organizations, including some of the nation's largest and most respected portals and media companies as well as trade associations, nonprofit organizations and corporations.
Whether you are looking for a comprehensive online grassroots action center, personalized congressional and media print directories, or hands-on strategic and tactical consulting support, Capitol Advantage is the only source of support you will need."
Somehow their definition of 'grassroots' sounds a bit more like my definition of 'astroturf' than anything actually grassroots related.
This Capitol Advantage might just deserve watching...
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
Shorter=Less ass rape Longer=Tons of ass rape
:)
U TF -8&q=texas+representative+legislative+retirement+p ay
c le s/print/LL/mzl1.html
so what you're really saying is
Shorter=Your local state "pound-me-in-the-ass" penitentiary
Longer=Federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" penitentiary
I'm not sure what you meant by Congressmen being not that "well paid off". I think you should take another look at how much elected representatives actually make compared to the working man and the benefits that they get that you NEVER hear about. You would be shocked at some of those benefits.
As an example of poorly paid elected reps, witness where I live (Texas). They make less than $10,000 for the work they do (5 months of labor every 2 years). However, their retirement pay is something else altogether. Their retirement pay is linked to the number of years of elected rep service but is linked to the payscale of state judges. You ought to check that one out. I'm too lazy to Google so I'll just send you here.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/arti
http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/house/news5608.htm
"Texas legislators contribute 8% of their salary toward their retirement, but their benefits are tied to the pensions of district judges. Consequently, one legislator who was never paid more than $7,200 per year in salary during his 39 years of legislative service retired with a pension of $92,704 annually.
You should see those retirement paychecks after just 10 years of elected rep service!
I'm good with numbers -
If I had a mod point I'd make some body... uh, laugh? Dunno.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I agree. I voted for Boucher twice and I don't even live in Virginia!
I wish there were more like him... at least on this issue.
Man, this is ridiculous. The first 4 parent comments I see are from LostCluster. The first 3 were posted 7 minutes apart. Doesn't help that he gets a +1 bonus b/c he's a Friend of a Friend. But this kind of pointless quick-posting is reducing the signal/noise ratio of Slashdot. No, it's not noise, it's just that LostCluster's weak signal is drowning out more thoughtful poster. One more story like this and he's a foe.
Yeah, I know it's off-topic and will be modded down within minutes. Just as long as 1st minute posters keep getting 50% of the moderation points, Slashdot will survive in it's current form. Wonderful.
**grumble grumble**
Here they are fighting as
b il l=1372526
"Protect Fair Use"
http://capwiz.com/protectfairuse/issues/bills/?
Would be better if someone wrote a 'virus' that looked through people's harddrives for DRM-protected music and then stripped the DRM from them silently. That way, when people start getting subpoenas for DMCA violations, they can just say they had a virus, but removed it later. I don't think it would stand to reason that people should find some way to put the DRM back in place on the files that lost it, hm?
First off, their contracts with performers read like an indentured slave agreement -- an artist's copyright is transferred to the marketing firm; she loses the rights attached. Look closely at any music media, the songs will have author recognition, but the copyright is usually attached to the recording company. Why do you think the Beatles created APPLE? That's why an artist can't easily change recording companies and bring their past recordings with them.
These contracts should also be required to define how long the recording company can hold these exclusive rights to market a song and reap almost 100% of the profits from it.
We already have such a mechanism to determine that...Depletion allowances, as is used in the oil industry (I'm not advocating the oil barons, only pointing out the depletion allowance methodology as a fair way of setting time frames for exclusive rights to skim profit off an artist's copyrighted works).This would force recording companies to determine at the inception of the contract just how long they will have this exclusive right, then it reverts 100% back to the artist, who can then do as she pleases with it...market it herself, sell it to another recording company, or make it public domain, or GPL.
FPOTwo years ago I attended an industry conference and one of the topics presented was communication with our Representatives. We were told that in the eyes of vast majority of Congressmen they preferred letters over email and that emails are usually deleted unread.
Why? The reps have no way of knowing where the emailer lives!
When writing your Congressman, *always* write a letter, it's not that hard.
Take 5 minutes to go to the house of representatives and write your rep about your feelings on this topic (only if you hate the DMCA, that is).
Note: Name and Address blanked with X's prior to posting to Slashdot.
Subject of the E-Mail was: Please Support H.R. 107
Thank you for using Photo Central Mail System
Message sent to the following recipients:
Representative Snyder
Message text follows:
XXXXXXX XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Little Rock, AR 72204
May 9, 2004
[recipient address was inserted here]
Dear [recipient name was inserted here],
I am writing to ask you to support H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumer
Rights Act.
I am a consumer and DRM technology aims to limit my choice and rights as
a consumer. Private industry special interest groups should not be allowed
to dictate the rights of the citizens of this country.
Please support H.R. 107.
Thanks,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(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.
As others have pointed out, this is by far the most important part of the bill. It amends section 1201 of the copyright code, which is better known as the DMCA. This innocent-sounding clause effectively repeals the entire DMCA!
The reason is because any device which is presently illegal under the DMCA because it allows for infringing copyright, would now become legal. Anything which allows for "infringing" copyright uses will also, by its very nature, allow for "non-infringing" uses. For example, DeCSS, which is widely used for infringement, also can be used for fair use purposes.
The net result is that this provision would remove all restrictions on the manufacture, distribution or sale of devices which completely and utterly defeat copyright protection. The only remaining restriction would be on the private usage of the devices for that purpose - technically that would still be illegal, but since it is done in the privacy of the home, this part would be unenforceable.
In short, this provision effectively repeals the DMCA by eliminating all of its enforceable provisions. As a result, its chances of passage in this form are approximately... let's see... carry the 2... divide by 10... oh, yes. It's chances of passage are approximately zero.
Not getting sued doesn't say anything about whether or not you're telling the truth. There have been high-profile libel suits i the U.S. before and not many have been successful. Basically, if you have the money to pay for lawyers and any kind of claim to being a serious journalist, you can beat just about any kind of libel suit. Which means people won't even try.
If I hear or see or in any other way is able recieve information for processing in thought it is also within my power to reproduce this information for someone else to digest.
Ex. I hear a fun joke at job. It is within my power to retell the same joke to a friend when I get home.
I argue that this power is a god given right and should be protected by the state. In fact the only way to take that right from me is to dieable my ability to receive or reproduce information. Which in efect would diable my ability to be human.
I also belive that the representation of the information has nothing to do with my right to reproduce the information.
I refuce to accept that you can ever sell the right to reproduce information. As that right should be mine to begin with. If you don't want me to reproduce information, don't give it to me.
I am, however, prepared to pay for the representation.
I am a resident of Virginia 9th. I am satisfied that my dealings with Boucher indicate that representative democracy does work. The simple lines defining Fair Use at the end of the DMCRA legislation will have powerful effect on stopping the RIAA's attempts to lock down culture.
A VP of NASCAR has been brought in from out-of-state to run against Boucher, with appropriate funding. Nothing would make copylock industires happier than to defeat Boucher. After 20 years, his seniority and incumbent status is crucial on the Judiciary, Commerce, Internet, and Satelllite House committees. And you should take a look at his letters to Michael Powell on the Broadcast Flag.
We will be hosting fundraisers immediately. Hopefuilly, we can re-schedule San Francisco meet 'n greets with Lessig and the folks at EFF.
Please take a look at http://www.boucherforcongress.com Donate if you will!
How to battle the PPA: 1.Go to anti-HR 107 section 2.Type zip code into box 3.Modify e-mail to encourage your rep to support the bill 4.Laugh
There are parts which strongly indicate a form letter, such as the reference to the BALANCE act, but he seems generally disposed to common-sense.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
The one cosponsor of the bill that matters - Rep. Joe Barton. He's the chairman of the full Energy and Commerce committee, and he's got complete control of what happens in his committee. While having a hearing in this subcommittee is a great first step, the bill can't progress without Barton's support - the fate of HR 107 is up to him. He NEEDS to be /.ed!
You can contact him here
I do not purchase any product which the manufacturers presume is only used by criminals.
Strangely enough, although this allows me to use DeCSS (no presumption of criminal intent on the part of the software authors), I do not purchase DVD's or HDTV's. I do not run Windows XP.
It is not without sacrifice, though I do say that on ballance, it is better to live free. I have a wife and child, and my wife does not yet understand this position. Perhaps this is why this approach will never succeed in changing the marketplace--- there are simply too many people who will never understand the value of these things.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
As an author and software engineer I understand a lot of the concerns surrounding copyright, trademark, and patent law. Since you might be under a flood of feedback for your institution's position just now, I will attempt to be susinct.
The DMCA essentially assures that your work will die with the technology under which you released it. That is the express purpose of the law. Were this the case before today, the great artists of the past would be lost to us. A. Adams work would be unknown and probably wouldn't have enven been done, since the techniques developed by Kodak and Eastman and such would have died in secret with their developers.
Even as you read this message, the great motion pictures of the twenties, thirties, and forties are turning into dust as the celuloid they are printed on breaks down. These movies cannot be copied because massively extended copyrights cannot be cleared. The loss of movie history is purpitrated on us all by the MPAA, the supposed custodians of film, in a desprate attempt to make sure that you can only buy a dvd player from someone who has paid them a license fee. I know, it seems like a stretch, but it is true if you look beneath behind the retoric.
Consider this, the DMCA makes it illegal to even try own the tools necessary to get a photograph off of a Picture CD(tm). That seems like fine business today. But ten years from now, when Kodak decides to stop supporting this format, what happens to your work? Nothing at first, I suppose. But ten years later, when nobody hast the reader and nobody has the tools, your pictures are trapped. And when the disk itself oxidizes in 25 years?...
If things carry on as they are, in thirty years or so, You yourself won't even be able to compile a retrospective of your own work.
Your legacy will be gone.
How sad would it be if our entire culture only harkened back to the eighties?
This is the empty legacy of closed copy-protected technologies. It is the legacy of eating the chicken today instead of having a lifetime of eggs.
Support what you want, but understand the cost.
Robert white,
Newcastle, WA.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press