Wednesday, June 29. 2005
Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005
A couple months ago I wrote a piece called, "Consumer DRM-Awareness Through Labeling", in which I argue that software and various forms of media should be outwardly and properly labeled if they contain any form of digital rights management. Such labeling should also explicitly state whether the media (movies, music, ebooks) will only play on certain proprietary devices. Although the second form of labeling (proprietary devices) often already exists as a carryover from an older habit of printing system requirements on the sides of software boxes, DRM labeling is virtually non-existant.
Physical media and software always have sinister, brightly-hued copyright warnings, but I've yet to see even one CD or DVD that warns me that it also has built-in copy protection. Nor are there labels that explain how my rightfully purchased media or new software CD can't be accessed on my computer because the DRM detects that CD burning software is also installed. Sometimes it's not even burning software (which is built into the newest operating systems and used for innocuous, legal purposes every day) that sets off the DRM alarm but another non-related program altogether. Every day I hear new horror stories about people learning too late that their new purchase had digital rights management built-in, such as one commenter's need to format his hard drive to remove the DRM software with the latest Foo Fighter's CD installed on his computer.
The reason why this information isn't advertised as much as the threats of prosecution is because some people would refuse to buy the product if they knew it contained DRM. Those who have no idea what the term DRM means should at least know that the item they're about to buy won't work in their computer, can't be transferred to their iPod, and can only be copied thrice for the lifetime of the disc, including back-ups.
Luckily I heard of some news a week ago that addresses the same concerns I'd already expressed. In early March, Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia authored a bill called the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005. Along with fellow authors Reps. Doolittle and Barton of Texas, Boucher hopes to protect consumers by requiring all CD's to have easily-visible labels that inform the potential buyers of any limitation in playability. Specifically, the bill says that it is unlawful to sell mislabeled CD's, but mislabeling is defined in a way that is greatly benficial to the consumer:
Many people argue that the government shouldn't be involved in making decisions about digital rights management at all. One such person is Declan McCullagh, political correspondent for News.com, who recently wrote an article called "Leave DRM Alone" for the Michigan State Law Review. He argues that the government shouldn't involve itself in the burgeoning industry of digital rights management. McCullagh is an opponent of HR 1201 because he believes it "would create a complex web of regulations overseen by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that would
govern DRM-enabled compact discs."
I am inclined to agree that the government shouldn't make laws that might favor or promote a certain industry winner. I generally prefer to let innovation and the market decide its fate, particularly in technology. However, the government has already involved itself by creating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) through which it made criminal acts of circumventing DRM and reverse engineering, giving companies a stranglehold on consumers' rights, effectively eliminating fair use, and forcing consumers to accept monopolistic business practices that give us less and less for our hard-earned dollar.
The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA) is an absolute necessity at this point to restore not just the tiniest fraction of consumer's rights but also to increase consumer awareness. If I wanted to get all-Homeland-Security about it, I'd argue that the record labels wouldn't have anything to fear from a little consumer awareness if they weren't afraid we'd excerise our right not to buy if we knew about the DRM ahead of time. The only thing the DMCRA is missing is a sister-bill that applies the same criteria to software and smaller devices with embedded DRM.
Author: Ginger Cox
Physical media and software always have sinister, brightly-hued copyright warnings, but I've yet to see even one CD or DVD that warns me that it also has built-in copy protection. Nor are there labels that explain how my rightfully purchased media or new software CD can't be accessed on my computer because the DRM detects that CD burning software is also installed. Sometimes it's not even burning software (which is built into the newest operating systems and used for innocuous, legal purposes every day) that sets off the DRM alarm but another non-related program altogether. Every day I hear new horror stories about people learning too late that their new purchase had digital rights management built-in, such as one commenter's need to format his hard drive to remove the DRM software with the latest Foo Fighter's CD installed on his computer.
The reason why this information isn't advertised as much as the threats of prosecution is because some people would refuse to buy the product if they knew it contained DRM. Those who have no idea what the term DRM means should at least know that the item they're about to buy won't work in their computer, can't be transferred to their iPod, and can only be copied thrice for the lifetime of the disc, including back-ups.
Luckily I heard of some news a week ago that addresses the same concerns I'd already expressed. In early March, Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia authored a bill called the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005. Along with fellow authors Reps. Doolittle and Barton of Texas, Boucher hopes to protect consumers by requiring all CD's to have easily-visible labels that inform the potential buyers of any limitation in playability. Specifically, the bill says that it is unlawful to sell mislabeled CD's, but mislabeling is defined in a way that is greatly benficial to the consumer:
Mislabeled Discs- For purposes of this section, a prerecorded digital music disc product shall be considered to be mislabeled if it--House Resolution 1201, as it is called, has been introduced on the House floor, sent to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and further sent to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. As I've stated before, other than the wheeling and dealing that goes on behind closed doors, most of all the decision-making and action-taking about bills occurs in the Committees, so there is no better time than now to make sure something actually comes of this one. Contact any of the members of the relavent subcommittee and count yourself ahead of the game in terms of digital liberty kharma.
- (1) bears any logo or marking which, in accordance with common practice, identifies it as an audio compact disc;
- (2) fails to bear a label on the packaging in which it is sold at retail in words that are prominent and plainly legible on the front of the packaging that--
- (A) it is not an audio compact disc;
- (B) it might not play properly in all devices capable of playing an audio compact disc; and
- (C) it might not be recordable on a personal computer or other device capable of recording content from an audio compact disc; or
- (3) fails to provide the following information on the packaging in which it is sold at retail in words that are prominent and plainly legible--
- (A) any minimum recommended software requirements for playback or recordability on a personal computer;
- (B) any restrictions on the number of times song files may be downloaded to the hard drive of a personal computer; and
- (C) the applicable return policy for consumers who find that the prerecorded digital music disc product does not play properly in a device capable of playing an audio compact disc.
Many people argue that the government shouldn't be involved in making decisions about digital rights management at all. One such person is Declan McCullagh, political correspondent for News.com, who recently wrote an article called "Leave DRM Alone" for the Michigan State Law Review. He argues that the government shouldn't involve itself in the burgeoning industry of digital rights management. McCullagh is an opponent of HR 1201 because he believes it "would create a complex web of regulations overseen by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that would
govern DRM-enabled compact discs."
I am inclined to agree that the government shouldn't make laws that might favor or promote a certain industry winner. I generally prefer to let innovation and the market decide its fate, particularly in technology. However, the government has already involved itself by creating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) through which it made criminal acts of circumventing DRM and reverse engineering, giving companies a stranglehold on consumers' rights, effectively eliminating fair use, and forcing consumers to accept monopolistic business practices that give us less and less for our hard-earned dollar.
The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA) is an absolute necessity at this point to restore not just the tiniest fraction of consumer's rights but also to increase consumer awareness. If I wanted to get all-Homeland-Security about it, I'd argue that the record labels wouldn't have anything to fear from a little consumer awareness if they weren't afraid we'd excerise our right not to buy if we knew about the DRM ahead of time. The only thing the DMCRA is missing is a sister-bill that applies the same criteria to software and smaller devices with embedded DRM.
Author: Ginger Cox
Comments
I agree also that the government should let the free market decide the outcome of a particular industry. Unfortunately much of the free market talk is done by the very people who manipulate government in their favor. In the end there is no such thing as a free market. Never was. Never will be.
I am deeply supportive of this bill, because not only consumers could have the freedom they had in the past, but this could lead to better security towards the industry, as well as the tech industry to promote new eras of entertainment, from new forms of gaming, to new ways we can use our media.
Do I upload copyrighted MP3s up on to the internet for thousands of others to use? Absolutely not. But preventing me for making copies for back-ups; spaceshifting (re-centeralizing, in this case from LPs to CDs or MP3s on my PC or Portibility like copying my MP3s on my hard drive to a portable music device); or User Flexibility should be unconstitutional and unfair towards consumers in the marketplace.
Do I support the Supreme's court decision for shutting off MP3 sites? Yes. But the DMCA is flawed and needs to be changed. I don't want to buy a CD that, when I put the CD in the drive, it either won't play, have restrictive use that I can't break off for more flexibility, or it adds software that alters my CPU's functionality, such as, no longer able to edit my music for listening pleasure, or converting a file for compatibility; such as; alteing that WMV file so it's an MP3 file that I want to play as a soundtrack in "The Sims 2" game, or put that soundtrack in "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater" for playback.
I believe that pirates should be shut down, but I think that we need a different approach for compating piracy. Jail time should be served for people breaking the lock on the disk for the purpose of infringement, but people who break the lock for the purpose of either compatibility, back-ups, or other means, as long as they arn't giving that copyrighted material to several friends or for filesharing, should not be punished.
This resteration of Consumer-Copyright Balance not only gives consumers freedom on how they want to use their products, it could be benificial for the recording industry and the consumer electronics departments, opening the doors to new eras of technology and perhaps, a new fronteer, while preserving the value of our older collection of our media.
So Please, support this H.R. 1201 Digital Media Consumer Rights Act of 2005. If this pass, this would be a great benefit to not only the economy and consumers, but the tech industry and the future.
Thank you.
Do I upload copyrighted MP3s up on to the internet for thousands of others to use? Absolutely not. But preventing me for making copies for back-ups; spaceshifting (re-centeralizing, in this case from LPs to CDs or MP3s on my PC or Portibility like copying my MP3s on my hard drive to a portable music device); or User Flexibility should be unconstitutional and unfair towards consumers in the marketplace.
Do I support the Supreme's court decision for shutting off MP3 sites? Yes. But the DMCA is flawed and needs to be changed. I don't want to buy a CD that, when I put the CD in the drive, it either won't play, have restrictive use that I can't break off for more flexibility, or it adds software that alters my CPU's functionality, such as, no longer able to edit my music for listening pleasure, or converting a file for compatibility; such as; alteing that WMV file so it's an MP3 file that I want to play as a soundtrack in "The Sims 2" game, or put that soundtrack in "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater" for playback.
I believe that pirates should be shut down, but I think that we need a different approach for compating piracy. Jail time should be served for people breaking the lock on the disk for the purpose of infringement, but people who break the lock for the purpose of either compatibility, back-ups, or other means, as long as they arn't giving that copyrighted material to several friends or for filesharing, should not be punished.
This resteration of Consumer-Copyright Balance not only gives consumers freedom on how they want to use their products, it could be benificial for the recording industry and the consumer electronics departments, opening the doors to new eras of technology and perhaps, a new fronteer, while preserving the value of our older collection of our media.
So Please, support this H.R. 1201 Digital Media Consumer Rights Act of 2005. If this pass, this would be a great benefit to not only the economy and consumers, but the tech industry and the future.
Thank you.
#2
James Donahue on Jul 3 2005, 19:58
It is refreshing that a bill is in the works to give rights back to consumers. I personally believe that the decline in revenues for record companies are based more on the state of the economy and lack of appeal for new artists to larger demographic. I agree illegal downloading has had a part of this but I wouldn't be surprised if the true numbers equate to normal retail shrinkage. I tried the legal downloading web site and it does not work for me. Since I occasionally reformat my computer it wipes out all my licenses and Walmart.com refuses to restore them again. I tried backing up the licenses before I reformatted assuming I could restore after the reformat. However, the restore didn't work and I was left holding the back of 50.00 worth of worthless WMA files. Microsoft does not provide help or assistance when the technology fails. The retailers are catering more to their product supplier than their customer. DRM would be fine if someone could come up with something seamless for the customer. Right now it involves too much jockeying with compatibility and user rules. Frankly to end my rant it is very anti consumer and hopefully the removal of the piracy sites will provide the doorway for more consumer friendly legislation with media.
The author has not allowed comments to this entry
