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.
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.
A law that nobody respects is usually an unjust or at least ill-considered law.
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.)
What about copyright? It'll protect their work the same as it protects the GPL and who knows what else.
C|N>K
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.
You say on the one hand that nobody respects the law with respect to copyright, and yet if copyright were "repealed", 30% of the economy would vanish overnight.
They are two entirely different arguments. "Nobody" is a figure of speech referring to people who infringe. Repealing copyright would render trillions of dollars of capital in our economy worthless. The arguments refer to two different contexts.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
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.
What do research, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors have to do with copyrights? They use trade secrets and patents. Scrapping copyright would be a Bad Thing, but there's no need to outrageously state your case.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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?
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.
Utter balderdash. People pay for newspapers because they want the information in convenient form on a timely basis. The time value of information is important, and I confidently predict people would pay for newspapers in the complete absence of copyright law.
And advertising? wtf? Advertising wants to spread. The opposite of copyright! (but advertisers DO want "moral right" to prevent parody - i.e. anti plagiarism, which copyright is NOT, surprisingly enough, though americans often mix the two up, unlike europe.).
Radio and television are advertising driven. Don't need copyright there (if anything, copying the programs (which are ads these days) is free advertising)). Theatre and music were around THOUSANDS of years before copyright, and almost all the acknowledged "greats" - shakespeare, mozart, etc. didn't have copyright as we understand it!.
Pharmacuticals and semiconductors are patented, not copyrighted.
Software has only been copyrightable for a couple of decades, and all the "best" software, the compsci groundwork, happened _before_ that.
Copyright is government-enforced restriction of communication, plain and simple. Governments and corporations (same thing, these days...) LOVE copyright because it gives them an exclusive right to control information flow to their benefit.
NO MORE COPYRIGHTS! TOTAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION!
The court did give CRIA a legal-wedgie, but that was mainly because they were remote-controlled dummies of the RIAA. When they are finally ready to play by Canadian rules, I wouldn't expect the rematch to be as one-sided.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Let's start with books, newspapers, advertising, radio, television, film, theatre, music, software, research, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. All of those industries, and all the businesses that support them vanish on day one.
Research? Semiconductors? Pharmaceuticals? Where do you suppose these industries are going? Companies (with a profit mission) will still invest in R&D to stay ahead of their competitors, and universities (with an educational mission) will still invest in R&D for the sake of progress.
Look at Intel-- how much money do they make by licensing copyrighted research? Little, if any-- they use (and patent) the processes they invent. And drug companies' work is also protected by patents, not copyrights. Pfizer doesn't make a dime off of licensing copyrighted content for viewing. You are aware that patents are distinct from and unrelated to copyright, yes? (I always hate to accuse people of this, but I feel like either you're trolling or you really just don't know what you're talking about...)
As for the content industries which are affected by this law, I fully agree that copyright shouldn't be repealed entirely, but I have no problem whatsoever with reverse-engineered decryption software being made legal once again, since I know lots of people that use it to enable legitimate fair use as defined in the Sony supreme court ruling, and not a single person who uses it to illegally crack and copy movies.
Companies (with a profit mission) will still invest in R&D to stay ahead of their competitors, and universities (with an educational mission) will still invest in R&D for the sake of progress.
No they won't. They can't sell what they produce if any other company can simply copy their product. The price will drop to zero and all R&D will become worthless.
You are aware that patents are distinct from and unrelated to copyright, yes?
The original message mentioned patent trademark AND copyright.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Prefixed by "If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight". What does this bill have to do with patent and trademarks?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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
Have you ever tried to copy a product? It takes time. If anything, progress will speed up, as companies start competing on product merit again and try to beat eachother to market building on competitor's previous designs.
progress will speed up
Progress will stop. No company will be able to justify the R&D expense.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Oh ya, so that explains this picture of our current heritage minister then?
I think the source article was originally posted on slashdot a while back.
I suspect that after the next federal electrion, fair use will get its ass kicked just as badly here as in the States. The only glimmer of hope is that the Canadian public is more wired than the US and might actually care enough to stop that from happening.
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.
The publishing industry ceases on day one of no copyrights.
Even if copyright laws were repealed, most people would still buy books, read newspapers, etc. The information may be free, but most people will not instantly start reading books and the news online.
I can read the New York Times' articles online for free, but they are still operating.
There are many good tutorials on programming on the web, but there is still a sizable section for programming in most bookstores.
I fail to see how the publishing industry would fail overnight if copyright laws were repealed.
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.
And millions use the software legally. Are you saying because "thousands" of people might engage in wholesale copying, we should lock everything down in a draconian information control system the likes of which even Stalin would have drooled over?
And before you whip me for extremism, my image is about as unreasonable as your contention that fixing the DMCA is the same as "repealing" copyright.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
... 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.
That is rubbish. America gained its industrial might by IGNORING british patents which were causing british industry to stagnate. History has proven you wrong time and again - patents exist to protect existing companies against new innovators. New innovators would do better if patents didn't exist - patents are used by existing players in a market to bar new players from market entry by erecting barriers via cross-licensing agreements.
That is why the american empire is pushing so hard for patents to be enforced in the developing world - it is trying to protect itself against third-world innovators, just as the british empire did in its time.
Expect india, china and brazil to band together to ignore american patents and copyrights as soon as they have assembled enough nukes.
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
Who is going to publish worthless information?
Everybody, basically. Not everyone has broadband. Not everyone has, or knows how to use a computer. Not everybody wants to read, listen to music, or watch videos on a computer.
The printing press was invented in about 1454. The first copyright law didn't appear until 1710. Historically, publishers have hated copyrights, which were passed despite them.
The trick is, you have to be more responsive. Whenever something comes out that there is a demand for, you print 'em up fast and get as much of the initial market as possible, before it's a commodity. Witness paperback copies of the Starr Report that were in stores within days of its release. Then, the other half is to print somewhat smaller runs of works that are commodities, but which are priced accordingly. I can walk into about any bookstore and buy copies of Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, Melville, and so forth. Their works have been in the public domain for ages, if not forever, but continue to be mildly steady sellers.
The fact that there are pirates that SELL copies of the things they've pirated should attest to the fact that there's always a buyer for damn near anything, even when you can get it from anywhere. Just because something is universally available doesn't mean you automatically have one already.
Would they stop wholesale flagrant infringement?
Probably. If for no other reason than that the wholesale flagrant activities going on right now would probably be legalized. The repeal of Prohibition sure as hell stopped people from drinking illegally. Didn't stop drinking itself, though.
I think that at this point, any reasonable copyright reform is going to require that any otherwise infringing acts which are not for commercial gain, which are performed by natural persons, is not infringing.
Which is probably your largest bit of flagrant infringement right there. At least, it certainly is in terms of people involved, and so fewer people would be acting lawlessly, anyhow.
-- 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.
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.
I guess you would argue that mechanizing the workforce was a bad idea too. Imagine all the employment if crops were grown by hand and thread spun with a manual spinning wheel. Or what about all the jobs that useless government pork generate.
Jobs are a liability, not an asset, for a country. The goods and services that they produce are the asset. If those goods and services can be attained using less labor, than it is good for the economy as wages can be raised without raising unit labor costs, which means that either the workweek can be shortened for the same pay (more leisure time), or additional goods and services can be made (more stuff).
Copyright is horribly inefficient (over 80% of labor in copyright industries can be considered waste, lost either in the marketing and legal departments, in the losses attributable to proprietary and closed development and a tiny public domain, or in losses related to selling (as oposed to giving) works such as cashiers and security gaurds). Why not replace it with a more efficient system.
Information anarchy would work quite well for many copyright industries (music, many books, much softwarem, painting). In some cases, people create plenty of quality works without expecting compensation, like music and open source software. In other cases, like university textbooks, organizations would make sure that new books are made even if there are no copyrights, since they are critical to their organizations.
Perhaps the gaps could be filled in by philantrophy and government grants. The internet and digital technology greatly reduce the raw distribution cost, and without megabucks to drive up salaries for stars, movies would not take a huge amount of money to make. Government organizations like PBS would survive any transition intact, since they don't rely on copyrights for their revenues.
I'm not sure of the best way to encourage the production of useful works without copyrights, but considering their cost to society (over 80% of the dollars put into the industry, plus the social and moral costs), most any other way would be better.
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.
total freedom of information does not mean I _have_ to supply information, just that if YOU come by information, say because I have been careless, you should NEVER be penalised for (a) finding out that information, (b) knowing that information, (c) passing on that information.
So if you found out my date of birth, a piece of information, I should not be able to have you thrown in jail. If you know my date of birth, I should not be able to have you thrown in jail. If you told somebody else my date of birth, I should not be able to have you thrown in jail.
The lesson of digital technology is that all information can be treated the same - substitute "movie" for "date of birth" in the above.
I would also point out that the Bank Account Details, SSN, Credit Card/Expiry date, examples are part of the _problem_, conceived by the same establishment that gives us copyright and other intellectual slavery laws - You can't easily change your SSN or credit card number, and you can't keep it completely secret and use it at the same time. So they are (numerical) NAMES, not PASSWORDS. The fact that the establishment requires us to treat them like PASSWORDS while they simultaneously do duty as NAMES means that the _system itself_ is stacked against freedom of information!
I think there are two clarifications in order that I see.
First, there isn't any need to "repeal copyrights", but there is a clearly seen requirement to allow unrestricted redistribution, especially in digital form. This would eliminate the problems with giving a copy of a song to a friend. You can get all weasely with notions like restricting to non-commercial redistribution, but I think that would restrict things that GPL allows, for instance. So, I think a goal that a lot of people have in mind is indeed unrestricted redistribution.
The "collapse of the economy" is perhaps overstated, but what a lot of people do not understand is until everyone is using the Internet for music, movies and books there will be a substantial amount of physical media being sold. Once you allow "unrestricted redistribution" that means I can make my own Elton John albums and sell them. Similarly, I can take a relatively unknown band's CD and resell it.
The problem there is this is a game that will be won by the very largest corporations with huge distribution channels. This will not open the market for common people - it will just mean stuff gets snatched up by megacorporations and resold with their name on it. How do you prevent that?
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,
Since you're using iTMS as an example, here's a post describing real, non-infringing uses for applications which strip Apple's DRM. In the end, the fact is that despite the tiresome repetition of the strawman, any fool can see that Apple's DRM does not permit all reasonable uses.
To bring this back around to the original topic, I for one will be glad if the DMCA insanity is rolled back so that useful applications like playfair can be developed without being gagged by the legal system.
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
Oh, horseshit. If patents were grandfather removed, perhaps you might have an argument there. But copyrights? No. Most R&D results in patents, not copyrights.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
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.
This argument has long since lost any credibility. There is no point at which the "Fair Use supporters" will agree to stop wholesale infringement.
So you're lumping all who disagree with you into a single category of those who do wholesale infringement? Wow. Yes, there are such people, but it's pretty silly to suggest that Fair Use supporters ALL are wholesale infringers.
Discussion of legislation is pointless. Nobody respects the law now.
Again, wow! There are many who do respect the law, which is why those people are interested in changing it. The "wholesale infringers" are the ones who ignore the law and won't care what it says. The rest of us support changing the law to support fair use while still allowing companies to protect their products from unfair use.
If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight.
OK, this is an amazing belief. Where do you get this idea from? 30%? Really? And anyway, this argument is a red herring even if true. No-one is suggesting REPEALLING copyright. You took a ridiculous extremist version of what people are arguing for and pointing out it would be a Bad Thing. Well, yeah, it would be. I think your 30% number is ridiculously high, but still, no reasonable person argues to repeal copyrights or patents. Reasonable poeople argue for reform of current law. That's exactly what this story is about, eh?
All of your arguments above are extremist. Yes, there are people who believe that all digital content should be free. I know some such people. With a few exceptions, I generally think they're idiots who want something for nothing, but I do know such people. However, the vast majority of people I know respect the rights of content creators and want fair use to be preserved at the same time. Do you just not believe that such positions are possible?
Repealing copyright would render trillions of dollars of capital in our economy worthless.
I don't know where you are getting your "figures" from, but copyright law does not guarantee trillions of dollars of capital in our economy.
If you were arguing patents, I might understand - tho I'd have a problem with your figures being around an order of magnitude too big - but WTF.
Why do I feel like IHBT? By an RIAA industry rep?
Many humble apologies, sir, but you are full of shit.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
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)
The cracking of the iTunes encryption is more of an exercise than anything else; Apple allows you to put the tunes on warez-r-us simply by burning to CD and encoding to MP3 (and what warez-d00d would use unencrypted AAC anyway?) That's hardly a bolster for your case.
However, even if your arguments and implications were true, it wouldn't matter. If it's the choice between the entire publishing industry dying or getting sent to a Federal pound-me-in-ass-prison for flipping a bit, well, I'm sorry Jim (Baen), but it's time for you to die.
Should I /. him?
I've found that my posts don't format quite right w/o a sig.
Progress will stop. No company will be able to justify the R&D expense.
OK, let's get back to the article here. Do you believe that the current bill being discussed would cause this? Are you against any change of copyright based on a "slippery slope" theory? And oddly (yes this is mild sarcasm), in the days before copyright and patent and trademark, companies were still able to produce. But again, your argument above is a complete red herring. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. Unless you believe that allowing free use -- just allowing free use -- will cause your predictions to come true.
Again, yes, there are those who totally disregard the law and who steal digital content. I am absolutely 100% for RIAA and MPAA and others going after those people. That is the correct target -- go after the people who are infringing. But please don't sacrifice fair use on the alter of preventing unfair use.
I believe that most reasonable people would agree that it's fair to take measures to prevent unfair use. The problem people have with the DMCA is that it prevents fair use also. That's really it. I don't hear people saying copyright should be repealed. Except for a few, I don't hear people saying information and content all should be free.
"Progress will stop. No company will be able to justify the R&D expense."
No, both of these statements are wrong, because they are oversimplified. First off I am assuming that you are both talking about what would happen if both patents and copyrights were gone.
Progress would not stop. there would still be some bennifit to R&D. Even if it is gaurenteed that your competitors will copy your researsh fast enough to deny you any market advantage, both of you would still bennifit from, say, 50% cheaper CPU's, as the overall market would expand 'cause more people and applications can afford them. However the bennifit of R&D in this case is a lot less than it would be with patents, as you lose advantages over competitors. So here progress would slow, not speed up.
For other things progress would speed up, if for no other reason than that you could fire all your lawyers and hire 3x more engineers for the same price, and save a few forests (less paperwork) in the bargin.
The real result here would be that progress would be different. I think given our current technological situation that progress would net a fair gain, but some areas would slow drastically.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
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.
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
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 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
Well, there are really a lot of areas that need work. Copyright, unlike, say, trademarks or patents, needs to be redone from scratch.
I think that one reform that would be desirable would be to make any otherwise infringing activity by natural persons, that is noncommercial, noninfringing.
This would allow Alice to copy something and give it to Bob. It would not allow Alice to sell it to Bob (even at cost), nor would it allow Carolcorp to copy it at all, even if only to give it away.
I don't think that it would particularly interfere with the GPL (though EULAs are going to have to go, for the most part). True, Alice could modify a GPLed work and not have to honor the GPL, since her personal actions, more or less, wouldn't be bound by copyright. OTOH, Microsoft would still be stuck having to abide by the GPL if it came up.
The problem there is this is a game that will be won by the very largest corporations with huge distribution channels. This will not open the market for common people - it will just mean stuff gets snatched up by megacorporations and resold with their name on it. How do you prevent that?
Aside from the above? (which is rather similar to the existing 17 USC 1008, incidentally)
Mostly I wouldn't care all that much. So long as the public is being left better off than otherwise, I really don't care how it happens. My ideas are just methods that I think will result in the desired outcome, but I'm open to alternatives that seem more assured of public benefit.
-- 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.
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
american copyright law fails to distinguish copyright and "moral right" like european law does
Well, other errors aside, that's because there is no such thing as moral rights, and the concept is unconstitutional, non-utilitarian, and thoroughly disgusting. In sum: moral rights are bullshit.
-- 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.
Perhaps the 30% are the lawyers who are really making money off the cases.
And why the heck would copyright be repealed? What a ridiculous straw man. It's even in the U.S. constitution
Well... the Constitution doesn't create copyright laws, nor does it even require there to be any. Congress could shut everything down tomorrow if they wanted to. It just EMPOWERS Congress to pass such laws.
The reason is that prior to the Constitution, each state had their own copyright laws -- or none at all -- and it wasn't working out well. It was just one of those things that the rather loose Articles of Confederation United States wasn't good at. So, like post offices, interstate commerce, money minting, and so forth, the federal government was given power over it. (And even then, there were some residual state copyright laws for a long time, and you still see just a few)
-- 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.
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.
Damn right. As we all know, there was no progress in the human race whatsoever before the beginning of patents a few hundred years ago. The human race idly sat in the status quo for thousands of years with no technological advancement whatsoever. Then one day patents were created and we began to advance beyond cave men.
With that kind of track record it is clear that progress will stop of patents ceased to exist.
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.
The claim that you were supposedly backing up was that "If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight."
Your general position is actually a reasonable one. Why undermine it by being dishonest in your arguments? You were talking about job losses from copyrights, not from patents and trademarks. Pretending otherwise is silly and really diverts attention away from your actual point.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
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 $92,704 annually.
You should see those retirement paychecks after just 10 years of elected rep service!
I'm good with numbers -
If I had a mod point I'd make some body... uh, laugh? Dunno.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I agree. I voted for Boucher twice and I don't even live in Virginia!
I wish there were more like him... at least on this issue.
The number of people who would lose jobs that depend on copyright, patent and trademarks is incredible. .. so what's so bad about a crapload of IP lawyers having a hard time? :-)
(as for the true creative people, yes, I can see how it would effect them)
Here they are fighting as
b il l=1372526
"Protect Fair Use"
http://capwiz.com/protectfairuse/issues/bills/?
This is how it used to be. I believe it was more a matter of judicial precedent, but I could be mistaken. I do clearly remember hearing about people being taken to court for infringement and being found not guilty because they didn't do it for monetary reasons, or on a large scale.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Stupid argument. R&D is FOR making BETTER products. BETTER products ends with BETTER sales. How is that so hard so swallow? Yes, there WON'T be BILION income in such case, but there will be big income, certanly. I repeat, R&D is for making your products better than competitor's ones, so it will result in bigger sales. Where's there patents stand?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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?
What can I say? Copyright is, and always has been for centuries, a utilitarian construct.
The Statute of Anne of 1710 styled itself as an act for public learning. The Constitution empowers Congress to pass copyright laws, for the promotion of progress of science. It's been well-recognized by pretty much everyone who matters in this country, all the way back to Jefferson at least.
And to be honest -- the notion of private property basically has utilitarian roots as well, though it worked out organically, before anyone really knew why it tended to shape itself the way it did.
Copyright simply doesn't make sense, doesn't work, and is intolerable, when it isn't utilitarian. And hell, that should be obvious: if an author wants the right to tell me not to do something, then the first thing out of my mouth is going to be "well, what's in it for me if I agree?"
-- 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.
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
MP3 Pirating issues as a "civil right"
"Pirating" is never fair use.
Fair use is never "pirating".
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Only thing I have against your post is that jobs are NOT a liability!
Jobs are what keeps the citizens of the country fed and happy.
Actually Yartrebo had a very good point. Re-read what he said:
Jobs are a liability, not an asset, for a country. The goods and services that they produce are the asset.
Jobs do not keep people fed and happy. The goods and services produced by jobs keep people fed and happy.
We could change the law such that every time you buy a car you must hire a lawyer to sue the car dealer, and the car dealer must hire a lawyer to counter-sue you.
That would certainly keep those two lawyers fed and happy, but that is a liability, not an asset for a country and for an economy. Pure drain.
So each and every job is a liability to an economy unless and untill that job actually produces enough beneficial goods and/or services to overcome that liability.
"Creating jobs" is not a GoodThing if those jobs turn out to be a liability. Those jobs tie up people would would otherwise move to or create other positions in the economy.
Of course whether or how that would be relevant to copyright is a more complex matter not addressed in this post.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
(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.
Well, yes, mutually exclusive assertions are necessarily different from one another.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Haven't been on this "Internet" thing for very long, have you?
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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