DeepLinks Archives, November 2005
Noteworthy news from around the internet.
Bloggers Sign up for Safer E-Voting
Posted by Danny O'BrienRep. Rush Holt's non-partisan
e-voting reform bill, H.R. 550
continues to gather support and momentum among individual members of Congress.
And rightly so: it's a well-considered package of fixes to the vulnerabilities
of electronic voting machines, requiring voter-verified paper ballots, manual
audits to confirm that voting machines are operating correctly, better
security requirements, full software disclosure, and more. Thousands of EFF
supporters have lobbied for the bill; many have joined us in visiting Washington to lobby
for the bill in person.
The bill is now waiting its turn in the House Administration Committee. To
urge matters along, bloggers
are joining with Rep. Holt to petition the committee to vote and pass it onto
the House. Add your name to
the chorus of politicians and citizens calling for better e-voting. Then
write to your own
representative using our Action Center, and ask him or her to lobby on
your behalf. If you write a blog, add your own link to the petition and explanation of how important verified e-voting will be. Every little push the Holt Bill gets moves us closer to safe and
secure e-voting.
DMCA Triennial Rulemaking: Failing Consumers Completely
Posted by Fred von LohmannDecember 1 is the last day to submit proposals (by 5p EST) to the Copyright Office seeking a 3-year DMCA exemption for noninfringing activities that are otherwise squelched by "digital rights management" (DRM) restrictions.
As we mentioned back in October, Congress has instructed the U.S. Copyright Office to consider every three years whether we need temporary exemptions to the DMCA's blanket ban on circumventing "technological protection measures" (aka DRM) used to lock up copyrighted works.
EFF has participated in each of the two prior rulemakings (in 2000 and 2003), each time asking the Copyright Office to create exemptions for perfectly lawful consumer uses for digital media that are encumbered by DRM restrictions. For example, we asked that DVD owners be allowed to skip those "unskippable" ads at the beginning of DVDs. We asked that people who bought copy-protected CDs be allowed to get them to play on their computer. We asked that consumers be allowed to bypass region coding to play a DVD purchased in another part of the world. The Copyright Office rejected all of these proposals.
This year, we are not submitting any proposals. Where consumer interests are concerned, the rulemaking process is simply too broken. For example:
- No Tools. You can get an exemption for acts of circumvention, but the Copyright Office lacks the power to legalize circumvention tools. So, unless you are an engineer, a computer scientist, or can afford to hire them, you're not likely to be able to take advantage of any exemptions granted.
- Impenetrable Complexity, Impossible Burdens. In order to effectively participate in the rulemaking, you need to wade through >200 pages of bureaucratic legalese and have graduate level understanding of copyright law. You have to persuade the Copyright Office that your activity is noninfringing and gather evidence that demonstrates a "substantially adverse effect" on noninfringing uses beyond "mere inconveniences or individual cases."
- "Mere Inconvenience" = Ignoring Consumers. Where consumers are concerned, the Copyright Office discounts their concerns as "mere inconveniences." So region coding is no problem, according to the Copyright Office, because you could just buy a separate DVD player from every region. Copy-protected CDs are no problem because you can play them on CD players, even if they won't work in your computer. Where the copyright industries are concerned, in contrast, the Copyright Office presumes that DRM is the only thing that stands between them and financial ruin.
We have assembled a short report documenting why we believe the process is so broken that we have decided not to propose any exemptions this time. (We may support narrower, non-consumer proposals made by others during the reply period, which closes on Feb. 2, 2006.)
If you want to see meaningful DMCA reforms intended to protect the kinds of fair uses that consumers care about, it will have to come from Congress. Fortunately, the DMCRA, H.R. 1201, is pending before Congress right now and would go a long way toward fixing the DMCA/DRM mess (although not all the way, as it fails to address the ban on circumvention tools). Be sure to write your member of Congress urging her to cosponsor it!
North Carolina Judge Throws Out Diebold E-Voting Case
Posted by Rebecca JeschkeEFF helped score a big win for election transparency in North Carolina today, convincing a North Carolina judge to dismiss Diebold's attempt to evade the state's tough electronic voting regulations.
North Carolina has enacted one of the most robust laws in the country, requiring that e-voting companies put their source code in escrow and release the names of all the programmers. But earlier this month -- on the day that voting equipment bids to the state were due -- Diebold said it could not comply. In a last-minute filing to a North Carolina superior court, Diebold was granted a temporary restraining order that would allow it to continue with the bidding process without criminal or civil liability.
Sounds like a classic case of a big corporation getting to set its own rules, right? But EFF intervened in the case, and today the judge agreed with our arguments. He ruled that Diebold must follow the law if it wanted to continue the bidding process in North Carolina. Score one for election transparency and integrity.
SonyBMG's Secret Recall
Posted by Cindy CohnLike many, EFF was pleased when SonyBMG announced that it would stop production on its dangerous XCP CDs. Yet announcing a recall seems to be all that SonyBMG intends to do.
As holiday purchases kicked off over the past week, the damaging disks are still being sold in stores. Customers writing to SonyBMG to complain about the disks are still not being told that they can exchange their disks. Most importantly, SonyBMG has taken no steps to affirmatively notify the public other than a notice on their website (when was the last time you casually browsed the SonyBMG website?) and responding to press calls.
Surely SonyBMG has other means at their disposal to notify the over 2 million purchasers of XCP-loaded CDs that SonyBMG has sold them a defective product. How much did they spend promoting that Celine Dion disk anyway? EFF and others have already suggested that Sony notify customers using the "messaging system" capability of the XCP software, but Sony rejected that suggestion. There have been no ads, no information available at concerts, no notices posted at retail outlets, much less on sides of buses that routinely promote new albums. The websites of most of the affected artists contain no mention of the risks associated with the disks or the exchange program.
SonyBMG likes to say that these technologies represent only a "speedbump" to prevent casual piracy. Now that it turns out they loaded music CDs with a landmine instead of a speedbump, they need to take more aggressive steps to tell their customers that they can exchange their CDs before the viruses hit.
Jane Siberry Opens a Window On a Better Download World
Posted by Fred von LohmannAt a time when the music industry appears intent on pitting itself against digital music fans, at least one artist is staking out the opposite end of the spectrum.
Jane Siberry is a Canadian singer-songwriter, probably best known for the song "Calling All Angels," which featured kd lang and appeared on soundtracks for Wim Wenders' Until the End of the World and, later, Pay It Forward. She's enjoyed considerable success in both Canada and the US, has more than 10 albums to her name since 1981, and is often compared to Kate Bush and Joni Mitchell.
Her new download store, recently unveiled at her site, is a model of what the music downloading world could be. All of her songs are available as plain MP3s, which means they will play on your iPod and are not loaded with DRM restrictions (much less evil rootkits).
And you pay whatever you like for them. Yes, you set whatever price you like. Options include:
- free ("gift from Jane");
- a standard price (CAN$0.99);
- self-determined price - pay now; or
- self-determined price - pay later (to facilitate try-before-you-buy).
When you purchase the song, moreover, you can select up to 5 people to whom you can email a link to the song.
I just saw her perform in concert here in SF, and she summed it up this way: "I want to treat people the way I'd like to be treated. I don't like being treated like a child, so I won't be doing that to other people."
This is so blindingly, obviously right on so many levels, it demonstrates how far the "authorized music services" like iTunes Music Store and eMusic have yet to come.
If you're interested, let me suggest a sampler of Jane's music -- thanks to her download store, you can try them all for free:
Calling All Angels (w/ kd lang) (from When I Was a Boy)
All the Candles in the World (from When I Was a Boy)
Hockey (from Bound by the Beauty)
Everything Reminds Me of My Dog (from Bound by the Beauty)
Angel Voyeur (from Teenager)
The Walking (and Constantly) (from The Walking)
The White Tent the Raft (from The Walking)
See the Child (from Maria)
Mimi On the Beach (from No Borders Here)
Or, if you'd rather just download an entire album, I'd recommend When I Was a Boy.
Blogging WIPO: The New Internet Treaty
Posted by Gwen HinzeThe UN's World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has just finished another round of deliberations on a new treaty. Although the draft treaty is nominally about Broadcasters' rights, most of the discussion focused on proposals to create new rights over Internet transmissions: the US's proposal to extend the treaty to "webcasting", and the European Union's pitch for "simulcasting" rights, covering retransmission of broadcasts and cablecasts over the Internet.
These proposals would give webcasters, broadcasters and cablecasters the right to control Internet transmissions irrespective of the copyright status of the transmitted material. EFF believes that this is likely to stifle technological innovation on the Internet, restrict the public's access to knowledge, and change the nature of the Internet as a medium of communication. Here's why.
Many countries expressed concern or outright opposition to including webcasting when the WIPO Copyright Committee last met, one year ago. Even WIPO acknowledged the lack of support for webcasting. Despite that, three proposals for granting webcasting rights were the focus of discussions this week. As the Nigerian delegate eloquently stated, the Working Paper's 3 options were like three doors that could all open to the same room.
This week most countries again expressed opposition to including webcasting in the draft treaty. Brazil, Iran (on behalf of the Asian Group), India, Argentina, Australia, China, Egypt, New Zealand, Nigeria, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Cameroon, Kenya, Uruguay and Morocco all stated that it shouldn't be part of this treaty. The US, Japan, Norway and Bulgaria want it included. And three countries expressed support for including simulcasting: Switzerland, Benin and Colombia. It appears that the European Union is moving towards supporting webcasting.
The treaty also includes broadcaster technological protection measure (TPMs) provisions that would require countries to enact technology mandates (like the US Broadcast Flag regulation) over televisions, radios and personal computers. This is particularly worrying because the treaty goes beyond broadcast signal protection and would grant broad new rights in fixations of transmissions, after a signal is received. (See the international NGO coalition recommendations for a more targeted signal protection approach.) Using TPM laws to enforce the treaty's broad new rights is likely to stifle Internet innovation and competition, and override consumers' existing personal use rights.
There was good news here: Brazil and Iran (on behalf of the Asia Group) repeated the call for their removal; Chile, Nigeria and Colombia expressed concerns about the potential impact of TPM laws on exceptions and limitations that protect the public.
The meeting ended in a deadlock with no real agreement on the scope of the treaty or the rights it should grant. The Chair recommended convening two further meetings in April and June 2006, to consider new exceptions proposals put forward by Brazil and Chile before the WIPO General Assembly votes on moving the treaty to a 2007 Diplomatic Conference.
Although the treaty occupied most of the limelight, the Committee did take time for some substantive discussion on Chile's important proposal for mandatory international copyright exceptions for libraries and archives, the disabled and educational uses. The discussions on these topics, on days 1-2, focused on current problems (including the impact of TPMs) and possibilities for using new technologies to benefit all humankind. They make for truly uplifting reading. (Here's EFF's statement.)
WIPO Member States may not agree often, but there was widespread support for further discussion of Chile's expanded proposal and the World Blind Union's call for a study of barriers to making works accessible to the disabled and recommendations for changes to international law to rectify that. Good news indeed.
Read the international NGO coalition's notes from the meeting.
All Quiet on the PATRIOT Front
Posted by Kevin BankstonLast Friday we blogged the news of a revolt in Congress against the latest draft of the PATRIOT renewal bill coming out of the House/Senate conference committee. That draft lacked many of the civil liberties reforms that were in the Senate version, and a bipartisan coalition of concerned senators and representatives vowed to oppose the bill unless those checks and balances were put back in.
At the time, we wondered: "Will the conference leaders bow to pressure and rewrite the conference report to better protect our rights, so that they can get a vote on it before the holiday? Or will they stand firm and risk a drawn-out public debate on PATRIOT and civil liberties, which can only weaken their position? We don't know yet."
Well, we know now, and the news is good. As reported in Friday evening's EFFector, the negotiators threw up their hands and went home for Thanksgiving, putting off the PATRIOT bill until December. This turn of events, though seemingly anticlimactic, represents a real and somewhat surprising victory for those seeking to curb the PATRIOT Act. Last week, everyone expected the conference to issue a report that would be adopted by Congress before the holidays. The administration and its allies on the conference committee overplayed their hand, circulating a draft full of sham reforms and lacking some of the most important checks and balances in the Senate bill. As a result, the bill is still stalled in conference, a stunning defeat for the pro-PATRIOT camp.
Now the editorial pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post have piled on, criticizing the the draft conference report and demanding the Senate bill reforms. As the Times said,
There are many things Congress should be doing to protect the nation from terrorism. None of them involve dismantling the freedoms of ordinary Americans. There is still time to fix the many problems with the PATRIOT Act.
Indeed, it looks like we have more time -- and more support in Congress -- than we ever expected. Stay tuned for more news on the PATRIOT battle when Congress returns in December.
Blogging WIPO: Information Meeting on Educational Content and Copyright in the Digital Age
Posted by Gwen HinzeToday, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the UN's copyright/patent/trademark body, hosted a "Information Meeting on Educational Content and Copyright in the Digital Age" -- a meeting where representatives of libraries, Creative Commons, publishers, and science organizations vied to convince representatives from WIPO's 182 member national governments about the need for laws that balance the rights of creators and educational users of copyrighted works. Representatives from the governments of Chile and Canada gave inspirational presentations about the education-friendly copyright exception proposals currently being considered in their national legislatures.
The content and timing of this meeting is no coincidence. It took place the day before the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights reconvenes for the first time in over a year. At the top of its agenda are two important items: (1) the proposed WIPO Broadcasting/ Webcasting Treaty, and (2) the Chilean government's proposal for mandatory international copyright exceptions for libraries and archives, educational uses, and the disabled.
Why are exceptions so important? Because the parts of the international copyright bargain that benefit rightsholders are "harmonized" and mandatory, while the protections for the rest of us (called "exceptions and limitations" by the lawyers) are not. This leaves libraries, distance educators, students, the disabled and others seeking access, with patchwork and discretionary protection. It means that developing countries, whose citizens could most benefit from reasonable exceptions, often do not have the sorts of protections for users that developed countries have. What might be lawful use by a library or teacher in one country may be infringement in another. As one of the national delegates eloquently noted today, this is not just about enforcement, but how to create a copyright system that society can live with.
These are truly international problems in need of an international solution. It would be a welcome first step for WIPO members to explore ways to develop a harmonized set of international exceptions that protect students, educators, libraries and archives, and the disabled.
Read the notes after the jump to hear what the experts said today.
Revolt in Congress Against PATRIOT "Compromise"
Posted by Kevin BankstonEarlier this week, when the legislative conference tasked with reconciling the House and Senate versions of the PATRIOT renewal bill started circulating drafts of its so-called "compromise", a vote seemed certain by the end of the week. But the civil liberties community recognized the conference report for what it was: the same old PATRIOT with illusory reforms.
Luckily, several dedicated and patriotic Senators and Representatives--yes, Virginia, they do exist!--recognized it too and have revolted, promising to oppose the conference report if more real checks and balances from the Senate version of the bill aren't put back in.
Will the conference leaders bow to pressure and rewrite the conference report to better protect our rights, so they can get a vote on it before the holiday? Or will they stand firm and risk a drawn-out public debate on PATRIOT and civil liberties, which can only weaken their position? We don't know yet. So keep the pressure on and call Congress today!
PATRIOT Update: Civil Liberties Concerns Have Stalled the Bill, For Now
Posted by Kevin BankstonThanks to everyone who called Congress yesterday to voice opposition to the draft PATRIOT renewal bill, which we expect a vote on soon. It looks like our voices were heard--the Associated Press is reporting that because of civil liberties concerns, the draft conference report was *not* filed last night as expected, and won't be hitting the House floor today. Instead, based on the objections of civil liberties groups and opposition by a bipartisan group of Senators, the contents of the final conference report are still being fought over.
We still expect the conference to file it's official report shortly, and a vote is still likely before the end of the week--but hopefully, if we keep the pressure on, the next version of the bill will be an improvement over the draft we saw yesterday. So, if you still haven't let your Senators and Representative know how you feel about renewal of the PATRIOT Act, do it now!
UPDATE: We've gotten the latest and presumably final draft of the conference report (in three parts: one, two, three). Unfortunately, it's essentially the same as yesterday's, with no new major reforms added. Current word from the grapevine is that the House is still shooting for a vote tomorrow, with a Senate vote possible on Saturday. So let's keep the pressure on--call Congress and tell them to vote "no"!
