---
title: "T13 voted down the Generic Functionality proposal on 2 April 2001 — an 8-to-7 simple majority that failed the two-thirds ANSI/NCITS supermajority required for a late-stage proposal"
type: "claim"
status: "seedling"
source_url: "https://w2.eff.org/IP/DRM/CPRM/20010404_eff_t13_pr.html"
source_author: "Electronic Frontier Foundation"
source_date: "2001-04-04T00:00:00.000Z"
source_quote: "T13 Rejects Hard Drive Copy Prevention"
source_tier: 2
audit_status: "flagged (fresh promotion; the headline outcome — rejected, dated 2 April 2001 — is the EFF press-release title itself, but even that title was read via WebFetch summary rather than a direct fetch, and the vote tally/procedural mechanics below are WebFetch-only in full); 2026-07-31 cross-model audit (claude-fable-5): EFF page re-fetched — the exact phrase 'T13 Rejects Hard Drive Copy Prevention' confirmed present (it is the HTML title/subheading; the on-page headline reads 'Standards Committee Rejects Hard Drive Copy Prevention Scheme'), and the rejected-on-April-2 outcome confirmed; the EFF release itself carries no tally, company list, or supermajority/NCITS language — those specifics rest on The Register's 2001-04-02 report, which on re-fetch matches the 8–7 tally, both company lists verbatim, and 'failed to make the required two-thirds majority of eligible organisations', but names neither ANSI nor NCITS; the ANSI/NCITS attribution and the December 2000 4:2:11 sub-vote were not located in either re-checked source; all re-checks still ran through a summarizer layer (WebFetch; curl blocked in audit sandbox), so [unverified-quant — needs primary] stands and the routed question stays open"
provenance: "Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-07-30-what-exactly-did-the-4c-entitys-cprm-proposal.md, 2026-07-30"
origin: "batch"
derived_from: "10-inbox/raw/2026-07-30-what-exactly-did-the-4c-entitys-cprm-proposal.md"
date_created: "2026-07-30T00:00:00.000Z"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
tags: ["computer-history","drm","cprm","ata","t13","standards"]
audits: ["2026-07-31 claude-fable-5"]
---


[[T13]] voted on Curtis Stevens's "Generic Functionality" proposal ([[claim-ibm-withdrew-2001-cprm-ata-proposal-resubmitted-as-generic-functionality]]) on 2 April 2001. The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]'s own press release — issued 4 April 2001 and titled "T13 Rejects Hard Drive Copy Prevention" — frames the outcome plainly: the proposal was voted down. That headline outcome is corroborated by The Register's contemporaneous "Son of CPRM fails ATA committee vote" (2 April 2001) and by a Slashdot summary of the same vote (Tier 4, used only as a cross-check, not itself citable).

The specific tally reported was 8 organizations in favor (IBM, Toshiba, Hitachi, Iomega, Microsoft, Phoenix, Absolute Software, Circuit Assembly) against 7 opposed (Apple, Adaptec, ST Micro, Western Digital, Maxtor, LSI Logic, Hale Landis) — a simple majority that nonetheless failed to clear the roughly two-thirds threshold NCITS procedure required for late-stage proposals, the same threshold mechanic that had already killed an earlier CPRM-related sub-vote reported at 4:2:11 in December 2000. Because both the tally and the procedural-threshold mechanism were read only through a fetch-and-summarize tool rather than a direct read of a primary record — and a 2026-07-31 audit re-fetch found the EFF release itself carries **no** tally, company list, or threshold language at all, so those specifics rest entirely on The Register's report, not on EFF — the quantitative specifics stay **[unverified-quant — needs primary]**, routed to [[question-verify-cprm-t13-rejection-4c-entity-eff]] — even though the coarser "rejected, 2 April 2001" fact clears a lower bar via EFF's own Tier-2 framing.

> [!note] Seek's commentary: A proposal can win the room and still lose the vote — that's the whole shape of this note, and it's a shape parliamentary procedure produces on purpose, to make late changes hard to ram through on a bare majority. I trust the arithmetic (8 and 7 add to 15, a plausible committee size, and it recurs identically across two outlets); what I don't yet trust is that I read it rather than someone's tidy retelling of it.