If you want this to pass, don't sign the petition, and don't email or write your congresscritter. Call them. Interact with a human being in their office. Anecdotally, that has a much greater impact.
(Source: my cousin and his wife were congressional staffers for several years.)
The reason this is, BTW, is that calling isn't scalable. Any idiot can fire off emails or print petitions or print and mail letters (albeit with a budget). Fielding calls is a huge pain in the ass and can be linked - via area code+prefix, among others - to a specific district.
For someone who has never called a politician to lobby for something, what do you say when you call them up? Is it as simple as "I'd like for you back this bill?" Honest question.
I took your advice. On a related note, does anybody know how organizations promoting certain legislation decide between emphasizing calling and e-mailing? Usually I've been asked to send an email, but sometimes the same organizations that normally use that strategy ask for phone calls specifically.
Do you have any insight as to how often the congressperson has already made up their mind on an issue, seemingly for political/lobbying/cronyism reasons, versus how many are on the fence and actually swayed by the calls they receive?
Congressmen value usable research and testimony. If you can hand them a credible argument for your point, well-condensed, well-organized, well-researched, and give a solid political bottom line (they are all about getting elected, you know) then you're ten miles ahead of the pack.
Or better yet, get some like minded people together and go down to your Congress person's office and at least try and create the impression that there are actual votes at stake on this issue instead of just impotent e-rage.
That would make sense, and it's analogous to the laws in some states where it's legal to own lockpicks and use them on locks you own, but if you get caught with them while breaking & entering, the lockpicks become illegal.
If someone has information that they only want certain people to see, would circumventing a technological measure that controls access to that information be allowed under this bill? For example, internal documents, trade secrets and documents under NDAs?
If someone has information they only want licensed people to see, would circumventing a technological measure that controls access to that information be allowed under this bill? For example, publishers of stock market analysis which is released only to licensed subscribers.
> If someone has information that they only want certain people to see, would circumventing a technological measure that controls access to that information be allowed under this bill? For example, internal documents, trade secrets and documents under NDAs?
Among other things, this would generally be a violation of the CFAA.
> If someone has information they only want licensed people to see, would circumventing a technological measure that controls access to that information be allowed under this bill? For example, publishers of stock market analysis which is released only to licensed subscribers.
Depends what you mean. If an unlicensed subscriber tried to gain access from scratch, then the CFAA would be applicable; if a licensed subscriber leaked large portions of the document to an unlicensed subscriber, then it would at least be a (standard) copyright violation. (If they only leaked specific bits of information, it probably wouldn't involve circumventing a technological measure, but contract law would be applicable.)
What I really should have asked: Does the provision that allows you to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to works" allow you to circumvent network and data center security measures? I'd expect not, but I don't see where the bill draws a line between devices (phones, game consoles, dvds) and other types of information stores.
One of the most important things about this bill is that it takes care of the anti-circumvention provisions in a general way, rather than narrowly targeting cell phone unlocking.
> (3) It is not a violation of this section to use, manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or pro- duced for the purpose of facilitating noninfringing uses of works protected under this title by circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to that work, unless it is the intent of the person that uses, manufactures, imports, offers to the public, provides, or traffics in the technology, product, service, device, component, or part to infringe copyright or to facilitate the infringement of a copyright.
This is very dangerous. Just from the first paragraph of the page, it is stated that the bill will allow all types of software modification.
A bill like this will have a very hard time passing. This was originally suppose to be only about unlocking cell phones for use with other carriers. Now conditions have been added that make the bill very arguable. It is asking for more than we can take. Companies like Apple and Sony will be very likely against this.
Every part of me wants this to pass, but this bill is sadly unlikely to. ... sadface
History has taught us if you want to change something within Congress, you need a lot of lobbying cash to buy off as many key votes as possible. While it makes sense to allow cell phone unlocking (here in Australia it's legal) I have a feeling those who benefit off of locking you in will be spending some of their lobby change as well. That's not to say the bill won't pass though, there is still a chance if enough people make enough noise and ask questions, flood the airway.
Perhaps it would also have been useful if they had addressed the pre-1972 recording issue that came up recently. I.e., they don't appear to be covered by the DMCA safe-harbor provision, leading to unintended liability. See: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/court-denies-groo...
I was with fixthedmca and grassroots.io during StartupBus and Sina works at the same office with me — the cause is important and the new design is very good!
I want to know this too. When I see thing like "This fixes the DMCA", it makes me question the intentions of the advocating website. It sounds too good to be true.
[+] [-] rosser|13 years ago|reply
(Source: my cousin and his wife were congressional staffers for several years.)
[+] [-] sachinag|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WesleyJohnson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlcx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lawnchair_larry|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davvolun|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timdorr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DigitalJack|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfraze|13 years ago|reply
Congressmen value usable research and testimony. If you can hand them a credible argument for your point, well-condensed, well-organized, well-researched, and give a solid political bottom line (they are all about getting elected, you know) then you're ten miles ahead of the pack.
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danboarder|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davvolun|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ebbv|13 years ago|reply
Copyright is some seriously fucked up shit right now. It has been dominated by big money interests for the last 50 years.
[+] [-] rhizome|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smutticus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koenigdavidmj|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Guvante|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phantom784|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmfrk|13 years ago|reply
It's easier to enshrine rights in law than to oppose every iteration of PIPA and CISPA, every time they try to let it slip through unnoticed.
[+] [-] GhotiFish|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scott_meade|13 years ago|reply
If someone has information they only want licensed people to see, would circumventing a technological measure that controls access to that information be allowed under this bill? For example, publishers of stock market analysis which is released only to licensed subscribers.
[+] [-] comex|13 years ago|reply
> If someone has information that they only want certain people to see, would circumventing a technological measure that controls access to that information be allowed under this bill? For example, internal documents, trade secrets and documents under NDAs?
Among other things, this would generally be a violation of the CFAA.
> If someone has information they only want licensed people to see, would circumventing a technological measure that controls access to that information be allowed under this bill? For example, publishers of stock market analysis which is released only to licensed subscribers.
Depends what you mean. If an unlicensed subscriber tried to gain access from scratch, then the CFAA would be applicable; if a licensed subscriber leaked large portions of the document to an unlicensed subscriber, then it would at least be a (standard) copyright violation. (If they only leaked specific bits of information, it probably wouldn't involve circumventing a technological measure, but contract law would be applicable.)
[+] [-] darkarmani|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lawnchair_larry|13 years ago|reply
If it's already illegal to have the document, that is the crime. Aggravators like these create perverse incentives and invite abuse.
[+] [-] nilsbunger|13 years ago|reply
It's not actually a copyright issue. Whether the DMCA (or something else) covers it, I don't know but would love to hear.
[+] [-] scott_meade|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plainOldText|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dlitz|13 years ago|reply
> (3) It is not a violation of this section to use, manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or pro- duced for the purpose of facilitating noninfringing uses of works protected under this title by circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to that work, unless it is the intent of the person that uses, manufactures, imports, offers to the public, provides, or traffics in the technology, product, service, device, component, or part to infringe copyright or to facilitate the infringement of a copyright.
[+] [-] metavida|13 years ago|reply
Also makes it very easy to contact your representative.
[+] [-] gluxon|13 years ago|reply
A bill like this will have a very hard time passing. This was originally suppose to be only about unlocking cell phones for use with other carriers. Now conditions have been added that make the bill very arguable. It is asking for more than we can take. Companies like Apple and Sony will be very likely against this.
Every part of me wants this to pass, but this bill is sadly unlikely to. ... sadface
[+] [-] DigitalSea|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] incompatible|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azat_co|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Grognak|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heironimus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maerF0x0|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davvolun|13 years ago|reply
Seriously? C'mon!
[+] [-] sinak|13 years ago|reply
Edit: Should be fixed now.
[+] [-] peapicker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spoiledtechie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericb|13 years ago|reply