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"
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.
The full text says that people now could break DRM for non-infringment uses.
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.
The bill doesn't really appear to have anything to do with the DMCA. All it appears to do is require cds labeled as audio cds to actually be valid audio cds. This would just prohibit copy-protected cds from being advertised as audio cds.
Read further down in the text of the bill beyond the point it talks about CDs. 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.
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?
Gee, lemme break open a fresh deck of Luckies and think that over.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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.
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
I've been asked to perform what could be considered DCMA prohibited activities for *my job* and in the name of *fair rights*. I work for an educational instution, and we have been contacted by an instructor who wants to use a part Bowling for Columbine in their humanities course, delievered over the net. Since the copy the professor owns is on DVD, DCMA would have to be violated for it to be used, even within the educational use guidelines for fair use. From talking with my co-workers, one of whom owns BfC on DVD also, it's a good movie, and he's going to loan it to me next week so I can watch it. We're waiting on permission / legal advice of the school to act on this content being brought into the course. Just what I need to have added to "duties as required". Personally, I think this could be a great addition to the course, and it should be well within normal fair use guidelines. (Streaming it, so it's not easily savable, quality will be crap so it can go over a modem, and a student may want to go buy/rent the movie after discussing part of it in class.) The movie even has a Teacher's Guide!
Sounds like a scenerio that should be protected, not made illegal, which, since it's on DVD and Macrovisioned on VHS, it is by the DCMA - even if permission is granted we'd have to circumvent encryption to do it! But IIRC, it's distributed by Miramax, which is a division of Disney, so who know if it will be allowed.
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
An interesting analysis of the DMCRA argues that the DMRCA strengthens the DMCA -- but in a good way.
Aire Libre
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.
Sure. It's really quite simply, actually:
The middle school textbook answer would be: Congress divides itself into committees, which further subdivide into subcommittees. All legislation starts in one of these subcommittees. (A member can introduce a bill directly but it is then routed to the "appropriate" subcommittee, yielding the same practical result.) The subcommittee holds hearings, which are basically a chance for the monied stakeholders to inveigle and jeremiad about how the proposed legislation will cause The End of the World as We Know It. (That is, unless the monied interest would benefit from the bill, in which case its passage is deemed Vital to the National Security and Desired by All Right-Thinking People, in contrast to its opponents, who Eat Babies and Hate America.) From time to time, for amusement value, small groups who have the actual public interest at heart get to testify, too.
If the subcommittee likes the bill, it is reported up to the full committee, which more or less repeats the process but adds some pork for various Congressional districts, entirely coincidentally the ones from which the committee members were elected. Then, at the whim of the committee chair, the bill as amended is reported to the House or Senate for the almost mythical "straight up-and-down vote".
If the bill is unpalatable but embarassing to vote against -- if, for example, it's a bill banning the sale of contaminated milk to schoolchildren but you happen to have been heavily lobbied by SpolitMilkCo -- then you look for ways to kill it without a vote. As much as possible, you keep it "bottled up in committee", meaning that there are occasional hearings but the report is never written. If you wait long enough, the Congress will adjourn and all unreported bills will die of asphyxiation. That means that the pesky bill would have to be re-introduced at the next session by whatever pesky Congressperson introduced it in the first place -- and with any luck, the massive spending by the ticked off monied interests will have led to the demise of that Congressperson. Then everyone wins.
Except, of course, the actual people of the United States. But really, if they can't be bothered to donate uber-millions to defend their interests, to heck with them.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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.
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)
Micheal Moore debunks these claims on his website.