A bill to fix America's most dangerous computer law

[drjenkins]

I read about this on Cory Doctorow's site, Boing Boing.

http://boingboing.net/2015/04/19/a-b...icas-most.html

Senator Ron Wyden [D-OR] and Rep. Jared Polis [D-CO] have introduced legislation in the US Senate and House to fix one of the worst computer laws on the US statute books: section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which forbids breaking digital locks, even for lawful purposes.

Wyden and Polis's Breaking Down Barriers to Innovation Act of 2015 goes a long way toward fixing this. It makes it unambiguously legal to break DRM for legal purposes -- so you could make a PVR that records your Netflix videos, a universal ebook reader that merges your Kobo, Ibooks and Kindle collections, or a drop-in replacement for Samsung's speech-to-text module that didn't record what you say in your living room and send it to third parties.

This certainly makes more sense than wating for the Library of Congress to decide, on a case-by-case basis, for which legal purposes we are allowed to break DRM.

[fjtorres]

The three examples cited are poor excuses for the law:

1- Netflix streaming videos are accessible on-demand at any time so there is no legal use that gets "solved" by letting the user make local copies of the content. They are no more in the business of providing permanent copies of digital content than they are of disk-based content; they sell nothing. They merely rent content. That does not give anybody any ownership rights.

2- Merging ebook collections into one device is already doable via legal means that don't require breaking existing law. More, few people actually need to do it anyway. Better excuses exist for breaking ebook DRM.

3- Samsung passing private info to third parties? No technical solution needed: don't buy from them. Or lobby for a law forbidding it. Sue them if you're bought one without doing your homework and reading the TOS. There might be a class action suit there.

If this is the best the anti-DRM evangelists can come up with, the IP lobbyists have nothing to fear; they can get the project canned on merit. It's a baby-with-the-bath-water proposal that kills legitimate business uses of DRM (digital rental, for starters) for no demonstrable common-good reason.

If they proponents don't come up with better justifications the lobbyists won't even have to call in favors or spend money on bribes.

[HarryT]

This bill stands how much chance of making it into law? "Private Members' Bills" in the British Parliament stand essentially zero chance unless they have the support of the government.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This bill stands how much chance of making it into law? "Private Members' Bills" in the British Parliament stand essentially zero chance unless they have the support of the government.

What is a "Private Members' Bill"?

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

What is a "Private Members' Bill"?

Shari

It's legislation introduced by a Member of Parliament, rather than by the government. There's a lottery each year in which a certain number of MPs are given the chance to introduce legislation, but unless it has the support of the government, such bills will run out of time and never make it through the legislative process.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's legislation introduced by a Member of Parliament, rather than by the government. There's a lottery each year in which a certain number of MPs are given the chance to introduce legislation, but unless it has the support of the government, such bills will run out of time and never make it through the legislative process.

Ah...I don't believe we have anything like that in the US. Bills are introduced by Senators and members of the House of Representatives, who are part of the government. So members of Parliament aren't part of the government in Great Britain?

Shari

[meeera]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The three examples cited are poor excuses for the law:

1- Netflix streaming videos are accessible on-demand at any time so there is no legal use that gets "solved" by letting the user make local copies of the content.

Ah, spoken like someone with reliable, uninterrupted internet access ... :/

[BenG]

I think all bills are introduced by members of Congress. So that would be no indication of how much support it has.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Ah...I don't believe we have anything like that in the US. Bills are introduced by Senators and members of the House of Representatives, who are part of the government. So members of Parliament aren't part of the government in Great Britain?

Shari

I should explain that "the government" in this context means the political party (or parties) that are currently in power; ie the party that the Prime Minister is the leader of. That party (or coalition) is in complete control of what legislation is introduced into Parliament; no Member of Parliament can personally introduce legislation other than as a "Private Member's Bill" which, as I say, stands virtually no chance of becoming law unless the government decides to grant it time to get through the process (which does occasionally happen).

The government lays out its programme of legislation for each session of Parliament in the "Queen's Speech", which opens the Parliamentary session. (The government writes it, the Queen reads it.)

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The three examples cited are poor excuses for the law:

1- Netflix streaming videos are accessible on-demand at any time so there is no legal use that gets "solved" by letting the user make local copies of the content. They are no more in the business of providing permanent copies of digital content than they are of disk-based content; they sell nothing. They merely rent content. That does not give anybody any ownership rights.

2- Merging ebook collections into one device is already doable via legal means that don't require breaking existing law. More, few people actually need to do it anyway. Better excuses exist for breaking ebook DRM.

3- Samsung passing private info to third parties? No technical solution needed: don't buy from them. Or lobby for a law forbidding it. Sue them if you're bought one without doing your homework and reading the TOS. There might be a class action suit there.

If this is the best the anti-DRM evangelists can come up with, the IP lobbyists have nothing to fear; they can get the project canned on merit. It's a baby-with-the-bath-water proposal that kills legitimate business uses of DRM (digital rental, for starters) for no demonstrable common-good reason.

If they proponents don't come up with better justifications the lobbyists won't even have to call in favors or spend money on bribes.

I believe those are Corey's personal examples. I agree he could have used better examples but I can understand each of them.

1) If you've paid a monthly fee for access to the Netflix content why is it any different than broadcast TV where personal recording and time shifting is allowed? Not everyone has internet access everywhere they go. Trains, planes, automobiles, camping etc... I can understand why cable cutters feel they should be able to PVR streamed video just like broadcast video.

2) It's clear that he's talking about a single ereader rendering engine and you can't do that today with DRM ebooks. Yes you can have separate DRM rendering engines on the same tablet but launching different applications with different settings and features is not what he's talking about.

3) If you spent $4K for a new TV and then found about the issue later I can understand why you'd want to fix the problem yourself.


As more and more companies get greedy and abuse DRM I think the general attitude will sway towards support of this type of law. Landfills are filled with the results of the print cartridge business model and soon they'll be filled with coffee makers.

[drjenkins]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

2- Merging ebook collections into one device is already doable via legal means that don't require breaking existing law. More, few people actually need to do it anyway. Better excuses exist for breaking ebook DRM.

This is actually at the whim of the Library of Congress. If they do not extend an exception to the DMCA to allow breaking e-book DRM (typically to allow access for the blind, etc.) then breaking the DRM is illegal even if the end result is perfectly legal. That is what this bill is intended to correct. If the DRM is blocking a legal activity, then it should not be illegal to overcome the DRM to engage in that activity. The current law says that it is illegal to overcome DRM unless a specific exception is approved by the Library of Congress.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by drjenkins

If the DRM is blocking a legal activity, then it should not be illegal to overcome the DRM to engage in that activity.

That has already been ruled on in the US courts. In the "RealDVD" case, the judge ruled that the fact that it's legal to make a backup copy of a DVD does not mean that you have the right to break the DRM to allow you to do so.

[drjenkins]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That has already been ruled on in the US courts. In the "RealDVD" case, the judge ruled that the fact that it's legal to make a backup copy of a DVD does not mean that you have the right to break the DRM to allow you to do so.

Yes, that is why I said "it should not be illegal" because in reality it is illegal. That is what the bill intends to correct.

Here's a pertinent article for ebook DRM:

U.S. Copyright Office Publishes Final Rules With DMCA Exemptions/

The list of exceptions was released today, and there is both good news and bad news for ebooks.

The good news is that the disabled readers can still remove DRM which would inhibit their ability to use the content. The bad news is that there are no other exceptions which would allow you to remove the DRM.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by drjenkins

This is actually at the whim of the Library of Congress.
.

No. It is not.
It is being done today all over *without* breaking DRM.
I'm not the only one reading Kindle books on the same device as Nook epubs or as Apple iBooks for those that lean that way.
There might even be more people doing that than reading on eink devices.

If the goal is one-stop reading instead of an Anti-DRM crusade there is no need for a new law.
Now, if the goal is being able to move licensed ebook across walled gardens, and probably put the rest of Amazon's competition out of the ebook retail business...


As I said, poor choice of justification.

Any law that attacks DRM has to allow for secure loans and rentls or it won't make it out of committee.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

As I said, poor choice of justification.

Any law that attacks DRM has to allow for secure loans and rentls or it won't make it out of committee.

Precisely. Not allowing libraries to use DRM, for example, would probably mean the end of ebooks in libraries.