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.
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.
Care to back that number up? Why isn't it 10%, or 40%?
And anyway, very few people are talking about repealing copyright completely. Most anti-DMCA folks just want to roll back the relatively recent excesses of copyright law, not to scrap the entire concept (though there is of course a small minority who wants that.)
Yes, there will always be people copying movies, songs and software. It sucks, especially for small companies just trying to pay the bills (I feel less bad for monopolists and cartels, but that still doesn't make it okay to infringe their copyrights). The DMCA has been remarkably ineffective at preventing this. It has been remarkably effective at squelching free speech and killing off projects to promote interoperability. How long did the Linux platform suffer without proper DVD support no thanks to DMCA threat letters and legal extortion? I think we can safely say the vast majority of people just wanted DVD support to work and be Open Source, and aren't into ripping and pirating movies.
We don't need the DMCA. It fails to respect the balance between consumer rights and media producer rights, it is bad for Open Source and open technologies in general, and it disempowers us all.
There is no point at which the "Fair Use supporters" will agree to stop wholesale infringement.
/. posters even would support a SANE system of copyrights. Just not what we've got right now.
Well, this is woefully incorrect. Most wholesale infringement is simply not a fair use. HOWEVER, any use is capable of being a fair use; it all depends on the specific circumstances involved. So if you foreclose an entire class of use -- e.g. reproduction -- then you are necessarily trampling on fair uses. This is the problem with DRM. It is stupid, and it cannot allow fair uses through while barring infringing uses. Given that federal judges and justices have had arguments in various cases, there is no reason to believe that any stupid, mindless machine will ever be able to do a good job of this.
Of course, since you can get the bejeezus sued out of you for infringements, who gives a rat's ass? It's always an available remedy, and it's a much better one.
Nobody respects the law now. Why would any new legislation change anything?
Well, the law right now is completely unworthy of respect. No one respected prohibition. But there's considerably more respect for the laws pertaining to alcohol that we have now. It's not perfect, but then you should be smart enough to expect that there will always be a bit of illegal activity going on, and that even what we have after reforms might not be ideal either.
If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight.
Followed by crazy-huge upsurges in the network, storage, and publishing industries, to whom the doors are wide open.
But most reformers aren't trying for a total repeal. I for one just want sensible copyright laws that more or less fit the contours of people's ordinary common sense anyhow (making it that less likely that people would even want to do something illegal). Shorter terms, strict formalities, more exemptions for ordinary people. It's a damn far cry from repeal.
The number of people who would lose jobs that depend on copyright, patent and trademarks is incredible.
Patents have their own problems of late, but really the patent system is very good. All it needs are some minor changes, chiefly in stricter examinations and easier burdens on challengers.
Same deal for trademarks, basically. Get rid of the recently introduced (and foolish) dilution laws, leaving things at infringement, and that's about all the reform that's needed. Again, a total overhaul is not necessary, and AFAIK not called for.
Copyright is the most fucked up of all of these, but I think you'll find that most
So stop exaggerating.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
And why the heck would copyright be repealed? What a ridiculous straw man. It's even in the U.S. constitution: "Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". How about making copyright laws constitutional and enforcing that "limited times" aspect?
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.
Consistently, every time I hear something about Rep. Boucher, I'm proud to say he's the only politician I'm actually proud to vote for. (I think he's in some kind or political party, but I don't hold it against him.) And boy does he ever look like a /. geek. I bet he doesn't get many dates with the ladies either (that's an inside joke for those who know about Rep. Boucher).
/dev/null. Discussions on activision are another story.)
Don't just throw your support against something like the **AA. When you're given the opportuninty, throw your support *for* something. Let your representatives know that you are for something here, not just against things. It makes you feel better as a person too. Boucher gets my support every time he comes up for re-election, and is one reason I'm against term limits. He's someone I like, and I want him to stay there damn it!
(For the record, I hate a 2 party system, can't stand disliking 95% of the choices I have to vote for, etc. Discussions that follow on the nature of politics/politicians/politicial parties will be sent to
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
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!
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.
There is no point at which the "Fair Use supporters" will agree to stop wholesale infringement.
I'm a fair use supporter. In 2000 I deleted the 30 gigs of MP3s I had downloaded via Napster, because I could not come up with an ethical justification for having them. I currently have zero infringing material. I also have over 15 gigs of digital music ripped from the more than 200 CDs that I own. Fair use gives me the right to store my CDs in digital format, which increases my ability to enjoy the product I purchased. Since my willingness to pay for a product is directly proportional to my ability to derive enjoyment from that product, this is a good thing.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I haven't looked at the DMCA for a while, but IIRC (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), one of the insidious aspects of the DMCA is that it provides for a committee that can grant exemptions. Hence, any special interest who lobbies for a change in or abolishment of the DMCA can be exempted, thereby eliminating that threat to it.
I don't think your "DRM virus" would be protected under the DMCA since the spreading of the "virus" would probably break other laws. Of course, an effective and popular DRM virus might just focus people's attention upon whose "rights" and "security" DRM and "Trusted Computing" are intended to protect.
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 suspect your question may have been rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway; they do it to maximize their profits.
--
Copyrights and Patents are optimization problems: maximize progress.