Slashdot Mirror
Rep. Gets It - Boucher Re-Examines Fair Use
It's nice to have a bit of good news about the DMCA every so often. Who knows, maybe ten years from now we'll be right back where we were in 1997 -- and what a victory that will be! Anyway,
Tech Law Journal
has a transcript of Rep.
Rick Boucher
(D-Va.)'s
savvy speech
arguing that the DMCA has reached too far. Surprisingly clued for a lawmaker, he calls for "Congress to reaffirm the fair use doctrine" in a variety of areas: most notably, the contentious issue of buy-once-listen-anywhere for CDs. He also addresses backups, distance learning, resale, caching, and online sampling of your music before buying. He could have said more but I'm just glad he said anything.
Forgive my cynicism, but what special-interest group is he fawning to with this? Who's paying him to have these opinions?
I'm just utterly shocked that any elected official would dare strike against the corps unless someone else more influential was convincing him to do so.
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
MOO;IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
This is a good time to call or write your congresmen and give them an intelegent opinion about the DCMA.
Virginia's 9th district rep is Rick Boucher not "Dan" Boucher.
being that not everyone lives in VA, you may not have noticed Va. race to the political right, this guy has about a smuch chance retaining his seat as i do of winning it. Va. harbors some of the counrties worst anti consumer GOP'ers in the country, remeber this was the first state in the country to pass UCTICA.
It's possible that this guy is a bona fide honest person. He's a Representative, so he doesn't have much clout and therefore he hasn't sold his soul to satan yet. Odds are he'll switch sides when he becomes a Senator. It's sad to see. Maybe he and Billy Tauzin(R-LA) can get together and actually make life in the US bearable for free speech. All I know is that unless this guy has balls of platinum, he's going to flop with the rest of the Senate whores(McCain included).
I especially like how he states that Fair Use is vital to our First Amendment rights. Corporations and Governmetn are time and time agian trying to limit the access people have to information (Mandatory Censorware, etc.). This guy almost makes me want to move to Virginia so I can vote for him. Regardless, he now gives us a precedent to write to our congressional leaders to ignore thier corporate paychecks and actually stand up for us for once.
You say you want a revolution....
As a Virginia resident, I'm happy to see our elected officials are doing their job and working for the people instead of pandering to corporate pressure. In addition to his stance against the DMCA, Rep. Boucher has also pledged himself to protecting all rights of Americans, and is an active supporter of the NRA and prayer in school. This man will certainly be getting my vote next election!
Slashdot: Open Source, Closed Minds.
What about reverse enginering? I did not see a mention of that is his speach.
Boucher was the only Democratic nominee that I voted for last year and it was precisely because of his stand on issues of IP and the internet. He has always been forward thinking about technology and fighting for what is right.
To the person who said that he has no hope at reelection obviously doesn't live in VA. He was just reelected and blew the competition out of the water. So I guess he is safe for a couple of more years anyway.
Where am I going and how did I get in this handbasket?
Senators are a much better deal for the money. Representatives are a bit cheaper, but you have to buy more of them.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
There is an urgent need an agreement that will simultaneously protect copyrights and the home recording rights of TV viewers. In the mean time, I very much hope that the content community will not attempt unilateral approaches to protecting content, which would either defeat home recording rights, or degrade the quality of digital television broadcasts.
Too late!
Renard
I don't think so. It would seem that on this one issue Senator Hatch is also right. I know that at lest part of the reason for this is that Hatch is a musician and understands these issues as a result of that. Might be something similar going on with this guy.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
OK American citizens, it is time for your to stand up and be counted.
Do you want government for the people, by the people or government for the corporations, by the corporations ?
I spend enough time in the US to know that it is getting worse, not better. Do something. Those of us outside can only watch in amazement as you let your government do this to you.
Freedom is lost by inches
- Paul
The time has come for the motion picture studios to present a proposal along these lines to the manufacturers of recording equipment.
Tellingly, he seems to view the world only in terms of the clash of corporate interests. Whatever happened to the citizens?
It's not the first time he's been mentioned on Slashdot (At least in comments.) He also made a very good statement with his Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000 propsal. Too bad this one got buried in committee.
/. community. Take a look at his picture... He really is one of us.
He's really in tune with the
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
OK, this guy is the greatest politician, since, well, anybody.
If you're a US citizen, especially from VA, email him, tell him you love him. Congresspeople notice when they get loads of email in support or opposition of their position.
Whatever state you're from, you can make donations to his reelection campaign. The evil double AA's are probably already cutting a check to the GOP in Virginia to get this guy blown out of the water. But if the RIAA and MPAA can buy legistlation, we can too.
He talked about circumvention to infringe would be illegal, but it needs to be detailed.
We need reverse engineering or there would be no way to have fair use in many cases.
Fight Spammers!
what was that about fair use again?
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
If a person purchases over the Internet copyrighted material, whether it is music or a video clip or text of some kind, and if there is the absolute assurance that upon transfer of that material to another party, that the original version of it which was purchased is destroyed. If that condition is met, then the first sale doctrine, in my view, should apply as certainly in the online world as it does in the physical world today.
In a digital world, though, it is precisely the case that such assurance can never be offered...
At least, not without just the sort of intrusive fair use-infringing infrastructures that he (thank heavens) has the courage to speak out against.
-Renard
I am a resident of Boucher's district, and let me tell you, if I could nominate this guy for President I would. He is the most honest, sane, forward thinking politician that I have ever run across.
I feel privileged to have been able to vote for him twice!
In short, every time I've written to him in regards to a civil liberty issue, a consumer rights issue, or a woman's right issue, not only has he given me an opinion (something I have NEVER gotten from another one of my congresspersons) usually he agrees with me!
It's true, he does "GET IT".
--Remove chicken to e-mail
Orrin Hatch is also an "actor". He appeared (as himself) in the movie Traffic.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Try snail mail instead. E-mail is nearly always completely ignored.
This last election he won by a landslide.
And he will continue to do so, because he actually is intelligent & protects the rights of his constituents.
--Remove chicken to e-mail
I used to think so too, but in a recent Hatch speech (was in a /. article not too long ago, use search), the language Hatch used was more along the lines of that he supports strong IP laws, and it was more of an appeasement measure, as in, we can't totally quash Napster, because if we do we'll drive the buggers underground, and won't be able to supplant it with a legitimate pay-per-use model.
Hatch is not our friend.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Boucher has yet to even be tightly contested for his seat. He's popular in his district...oh wait..that's my district and I actually know what I'm talking about. This district is fairly liberal for VA, as it holds a large university and has a university culture. Boucher's not going anywhere anytime soon.
The law correctly recognizes this difference, which is (I think) why "fair use" exists.
After all, isn't throwing a fence up around an idea, and making sure that the fence also surrounds subsequent ideas stimulated by the original idea, also theft of a sort? That's the kind of thing that "fair use" is designed to prevent.
That is incorrect. IP is actually not property at all; it is only afforded limited protection under the law by the good graces of the government. If there has been an overextension of government authority, it is more likely in the direction of too much protection for IP, rather than too little.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" (Article 1, Section 8).
There are two key points here: The first is what I put in bold. The purpose for intellectual property is to encourage it's creation, because there's a broader benefit for society. We all benefit from the creation of art, and if we can make a way so artists (and scientists, for that matter) can make a living.
The second point is the 'limited time' part. Copyright currently (I believe) life plus one hundred years. That is, effectively, a 180 year copyright. That's in no way limited. Copyright has gotten out of hand.
---------
Unfortunately, he doesn't even touch on some of the more important parts of the DMCA, and he seems to live in a fantasy-land when it comes time to suggest actual alternatives.
When he speaks of section 1201 (the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA), he only speaks about the part that makes it illegal to circumvent, and he arrives at the correct conclusion: it's stupid to make circumvention illegal without looking at the underlying purpose.
But he completely misses the fact that even if circumvention itself were legal, it would be impossible in a practical sense as long as circumvention devices are illegal. If the device-ban remains in place, it matters not whether fair use is allowed as a defense: the tools will be illegal to distribute, so they will remain out of reach for institutions such as libraries and schools.
And suggesting that Macrovision is the correct model for digital content protection doesn't make any sense. Either devices will be able to copy content or they won't. Only devices that allow copying will allow fair-use copying, and devices that won't allow copying will harm fair use. His view that including watermarking recognition code in all digital recording devices will somehow permit fair use is illogical. How is a recording device supposed to determine whether I am copying "The Matrix" for ten of my friends, as opposed to recording five movie scenes for my college special-effects class?
Mr. Boucher: technology cannot determine whether a user's copying is fair use or not. Let's not pretend that it can. You have to decide whether you're going to support the media giants' control of the end-use of their content, or support unimpeded fair use by the public. The two are not reconcilable, not by technology, and not by law.
--
314-15-9265
I actually just called his office in DC, to express my delight with his statements. When I asked the chick who answered the phone if she knew where I could get some warez and shit, she gave me an url. This dude is hard core.
Seriously, tho, I did call his office to express my satisfaction, and the chick who answered the phone was quite nice. The Rep used to be a lawyer and she says that he is quite interested in fair use and the DCMA. This URL is a lit of his technology significant statements, letters and bills. Interesting reading.
If you are a constituent of Rep. Boucher's (Live in Southwest VA, 9th District) it is even more important that you call, as he doesn't work for us, he works for you.
Brant
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
And the corps dont like it. Well, when they cut off ppl's rights, or what they perceive as their rights, then ppl will ignore them. I mean really, are the big companies going to go into every computer in the world and try to limit what is on them. No. It is too late to build the tech with limitations in it. We already know how to encode and transport sound, text, and video. We have the technology. Realistically, they cannot stop what is out there, only slow it. Sure they can shut down napster, they can kill sites, but can they kill all of the ftp's? can they really stop it? No, they can limit it. Make it a little harder to get. They can not stop it.
IMHO the laws are stupid and take our rights away in the courtroom, but in the real world it does not matter if they pass laws now. Except maybe to corporations that want to capitalize on the popularity of these things. Maybe if they had defined the limits before the digitizing and transport tech was out there. But it is like building a dam after the entire plain is flooded already. What are you going to do? Pump the water back out?
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
Under the terms of the DMCA, isn't Rep. Boucher a circumvention device himself, attempting to undermine the law the content providers bought, which effectively controls access to their goodies? I'm concerned that Judge Kaplan may restrict our access to this guy.
--blob
All sweeping generalizations suck.
I bet this guy would be interested in hearing from /. members on this and other issues. Michael and Roblimo, go to it!
sulli
RTFJ.
Now, I realize that UTICA was at the state level, DMCA at the federal level, so he most likely never saw word of UTICA's passage through Virginia's state gov't, much less participate in it. But this would seem to strike at a higher level in that beyond those of us that care, UTICA hasn't made a blip on the federal radar.
It's odd that software companies took the state-by-state route to pass 'their' law, while Hollywood went at the federal level. Both DMCA and UTICA, in the end, are doing the same thing: limiting valid rights of the end user by restricting fair use. Maybe it was just a timing issue...
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Aha! There's the catch: he's hoping to be kept in office indefinately by college students. IIRC, college age voters are one of the most active (if not most numerous) voting brackets in the country. Plus they usually vote democratic. So he will probably run on the platform of "I kept napster open" and be in office forever (or as long as Strom Thurmon).
Of course, these are just my paranoid ramblings, I could be wrong.
Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
There is a way to protect copyrights in digitally broadcast TV programs, and to permit TV viewers to make copies TV programs for home use. The model is contained in the current law. It is Section 1201(k) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And that provision was adopted with respect to recording of analog television broadcasts. The section requires VCRs to respond to macrovision, copy protection technology, and to block copying of rental movies that are encoded with the macrovision marking. In exchange for this statutory mandate, TV viewers are granted the right to make unlimited copies of broadcasts that are made over the air, and one copy for time shifting purposes, of premium television programming, which may only be aired one specific time.
So he IS in favor of at least some MANDATORY copy protection. To me this seems like a violation of certain fair-use rights! Still, he's otherwise on target.
sulli
RTFJ.
So, if anyone is supposed to be clueful about these sorts of things, I would expect that it would be Congressman Boucher from VA.
Before I forget, there is also another Boucher in Congress (Missouri? I think), which is why the references to a DAN Boucher came about.
This is another view of the world.
It is interesting to observe that Rick Boucher who represents Virginia's 9th district - home of hillbillys, country music, and coal mining - has a clue, while "sophisticated" California cool guys like Sonny Bono are completely void. It should come as no surprise that Sonny Bono represents the Hollywood corporate interests, while Rick Boucher represents the people's interest.
Could it be that Hollywood propogates self-serving stereotypes? I'm shocked! Shocked! Lest we forget, on Arbor Day, don't forget to plant a tree in Sonny Bono's memory. Preferably near a ski slope.
Boucher seems to be more clueful than most. I wish that there were more Congressmen that were at least at that level.
But he's not entirely palatable.
He has a misconception that Congress granted the right to make recordings of TV shows, and that there was a string attached in the requirement that VCRs have Macrovision. He is of course wrong - that right was already present, and definitively stated as such by the Supreme Court.
He's in favor of extending Macrovision-like controls throughout most consumer electronics. This is generally not a great idea, as those of us who have had legitimate need to copy content from Macrovisioned media, or who have even simply wanted to use VCRs as pass-throughs know. Automated systems cannot accomodate the wide range of legitimate needs that are out there. (e.g. musicians that want to copy songs they hold the copyright to, parodies, quoting, etc.)
Congress hasn't got the right to take them away, and then pretend to grant reduced versions of them back again. Such rights are inherent at a lower level than Congress can operate at. Whether they claim to recognize the existance of Fair Use is irrelevant; it derives from the Constitution.
How he thinks that his first sale system would be implemented is beyond me. It's totally unrealistic, and clearly recognizable as such. Next we'll be defining pi as 3 again....
He doesn't seem to be thoroughly familiar with a statutory exception to copyright that Congress DID grant: 17 USC 117. Incidental copies of media that are necessary to the operation of a computer program probably are covered by this. Given that there's no difference between programs and data anyway, it would be a nightmare to try to draw a line. I think that determining the legalities of caches is not very difficult, and is best left to the courts.
As for the backup thing (the other half of that section of law) I can't even figure out the reason for it.
And he'll have to be careful on his mp3 law. Making mp3s and retrieving them across a network is already legal. Making them for other people for that purpose is where a law needs to step in, and I'm not sure from what he said that he realizes this.
Like I said, he's a lot better than most government officials. But let's not get complacent. Copyright law is thorny just to think about, given the principles, rights, grants and balances involved. I think that in trying to do good, he's very likely to do ill, and very strict attention and a lot of thought needs to go into any bills that actually get into Congress. I'm not seeing enough of that here for me to feel comfortable.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Quick! Call someone! The government's not working!
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
With regards to this statement:
"As a fourth matter, current law permits a computer user to make backup copies of software, so that the program can be restored in the event of a hard disk crash. But current law does not prevent an archival copy to be made with data that is associated with that program. A change in the law would be required to allow the back up copy of data associated with the program to made. Often times the data is the most valuable component, and a complete back up by a prudent person would encompass the data as well as the software. In fact, it might encompass the data in lieu of the software. That is the more typical example."
This should be expanded, in my opinion, to include MANY generations of backups of that data, NOT a SINGLE COPY. I, for one, backup all critical and personal data that is on my hard drive on a weekly basis, and those weekly backups are archived. I keep four generations of these weekly backups (one for each week in the month), and a PERMANENT monthly backup for each month. Am I breaking the law?
Oooo. A lawyer with some brains and some integrity?
:-)
Nah, can't be.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
First, I know that copyrights are valid for the life of the original creator plus 50 years, if the creator is who files the copyright. (I've had opportunity to copyright a couple of things, so I do know that little bit. Not much, but sufficent for my needs at the time.)
My question regarding this...what if a corporation is the filing and holding entity? Major corporations don't suffer from mortality the same way individuals do; it's conceivable that they could exist for five or six lifetimes. So, since IANAL, what's the lifetime of a corporation-held copyright? My own paranoid mind says it's theoretically indefinite...any attorneys out there care to comment?
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
I agree. If you live in this man's district read some of his papers and let him know what you think.
:)
Its amazing to see a congressman who actually DOES get it.
Can we clone him and have the clones run for the rest of the seats in Congress?
(Yes... I know that we would have to find some way of transfering his brain-patterns also... but just go with it for now)
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
I've already sent off my email of thanks, but if you really want to make the point- you want to go here and make out a check to the man. It doesn't have to be big- mine will probably only be 10 or 20 bucks. But you can bet that the RIAA will be bankrolling his next opponent- so the time to support him is now, not just with words, but by putting your money where your mouth is. :)
BTW... this isn't just for VA residents. Any American who cares for and agrees with what this guy thinks should send in at least a token donation, and make it clear exactly why you are donating. It is sort of sad that this is how the process works, but it is, and complaining about it is useful but not not change things until it is too late for this particular cause. So... go write that check, and write it now.
~luge
P.S. Hiro, this isn't aimed at you but at others. Make sure you vote for him in 2002, though
IAAL,BIANLY
I'll assume that you're trolling. There are many different opinions expressed on Slashdot. Reading and posting to Slashdot does not mean you're necessarily some kind of hippy communist/anarchist/socialist *nix guru who wants to free all the information. If so, you wouln't have made your post in the first place.
Quote: "The fact is, intellectual property is a form of property, and any law that gives strangers usage rights to one's property over-extend legitimate government authority."
You're looking at it backwards. Intellectual property is an artificial construct. Heck, the idea of all "property" is artificial when you get down to it. In the jungle, property is whatever you can hold on to and defend. In the jungle, you can't do a darn thing about someone using your ideas, stealing your livestock or freely copying your jungle music. (Although you could steal the livestock back if the theif didn't kill you and your family.) Heck, the United States wouldn't have existed unless it was fought for. We gained independence with bullets and blood, not with a nice table setting, tea, biscuits and a handshake.
Nowadays, we live in a civilisation. Governments define what rights individuals have wrt property and subsequently help you out with defending it (land records, deeds, police, armies, copyrights, patents, etc.)
Let's look at fair use. First of all, fair use is not stealing. In fact, when you really do violate copyright laws you're not stealing, you are technically "infringing" on the creator's copyright.
The idea behind fair use is that we acknowledge that copyright laws grant artists a (supposedly) limited time monopoly on the distribution of their works. This allows them to recoup their costs and make a living. However, we, as patrons of the artist, are able to enjoy the art/music in any way and place as we see fit (so long as we are not violating copyright laws and mass distributing the works).
This is why it's ok for someone to copy a CD to a tape and listen to it in their car, or rip the tracks to one's mp3 home stereo. You're doing it for your own convenience and personal use.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Was it a violation of the DMCA to reproduce that audio recording in a textual format? hmm..
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Given that there's no difference between programs and data anyway, it would be a nightmare to try to draw a line.
:)
Maybe... but does anyone know of a program that takes the data from an ordinary CD and produces music from it? If it can convert a Data CD into a WAV format and then play it, so much the better (since it would presumably play Audio CDs as is, and therefore argue that all CDs are the same. They are all programs/music.) Might backfire though and have all CDs banned via the RIAA
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
If I recall correctly, the timespan of a copyrighted work originated by a corporation (a "work for hire" like a Hollywood movie) is now 90 years, recently extended by the Sonny Bono Act from 70. The fate of the company has no bearing on the duration of copyright.
IP laws really ought to take into account the difference between executables and data, as well as subdividing original and interpretted data. Writing a document using Corel Wordperfect doesn't give Corel copyright of your document (example of original data). Ripping an MP3 from a CD doesn't give you the copyright of the resulting MP3, nor does it give the writer of the program any rights over either the original or the derived work. Reverse engineering of data formats should IMHO be legal, but reverse engineering of executables shouldn't be. If any thing deserves to be protected it's closed source executables whose authors wish them to remain closed. Executables in their device-like nature should be protected as the author sees fit. (Bad Analogy Time) Suppose someone patents a better can opener, do they have the right to restrict the invention of a recloseable can? Owner of the new can opener to the consumer: I'm sorry, but you're only allowed to open that can once with our product, and you're not allowed to put anything back into the can, and you're not allowed give anyone else use of the can or the can opener. Owner of the new can opener to the inventor of the currently fictional recloseable can: You're going to have make all of your cans break after a certain number of uses, further you can't make them openable without our product. Also, you must make the food spoil if the can is opened with an obsolete can opener. *end semi coherent rant for lack of more info* Summing up what I tried to get across... Copy control of commercial IP that eliminates the rightful use of personal IP using common devices is both intollerable and unjust.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
What he said was that the average /.ers desire for fair use, "file sharing" is IP piracy. This is certainly true. You are allowed to copy your CD's, however don't wax poetic about losing your copies and needing Napster to get another copy, or independent artists using it to distribute (Napster is the last place that I as an independent artist would distribute), as that usage is statistically insignificant compared to the infringing usage.
Kindly leave your prejudice by the door. Yes, the Borg Collective, excuse me, the Xtian Coalition, have sunk their claws into the GOP. But no more than other pressure groups on the other end of the ideological spectrum have sunk THEIRS into the Democrats.
And they wonder why I'm Libertarian. . .
"... the interests of information consumers ..."
The whole point of fair use is that we are not 'consumers,' but rather engaged participants in the larger dialog which constitutes our society and civilization. Because engagement is hindered if we cannot quote from other participants, thus we derive the doctrine of fair use.
This guy may be hip to mp3.com's lobbyist, but never trust anyone who uses 'consumers' as if it were a neutral term. There's always the implication that we're the baby and they're the teat, or worse. It's not just infantalizing, but contemptuous, a language of serfdom rather than free-and-equal engagement.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I hope others do the same....
It's still a troll even if you repost it. And you'd certainly have fair use of my car if A) I sold it to you, and B) it was easily replicable. The easily replicable bit is why there's a need for IP specific legislation. It never occured to people to come up with a law banning personal duplication of cars, or apples, for good reason... it's just not practical. If anyone comes up with a way for making backup copies of pizza please let me know.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Put your money where your mouth is. Donate!
White-collar conservative flashin' down the street
None of this is new, it just needs to be kept alive.Pointin' his plastic finger at me....
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
If I sold you a copy of my car, then you should be allowed to do with that copy whatever you like.
/.ers. If I buy a copy of your music or movie, I want to be able to enjoy it wherever I am on whatever equipment I have available.
Fair use means just that to me, and I'm sure, to many other
--blob
All sweeping generalizations suck.
This guy says most of the things I've wanted to say, in a far more concise manner than I could ever put it.
Now I think I finally will write that letter, with a printout of this speech attached. I want to make sure they read it and know that I (along with others in their districts) think this speech is filled with Good Ideas.
If you think comparing licenses is hard, wait until you try to decipher whether or not you can loan your DVD to a friend.
-sk
No, corporations in America are most certainly not people, and should not be confused with them. Chief Justice Marshall, in his 1919 decision of Dartmouth vs. Woodward gave U.S. law its definition and perception of corporations. To paraphrase, they are nothing more than a creature composed of law, and as such should have no rights greater than even the most common of human lives, nor should they be permitted to threaten or dominate those lives. (Full decision here While it is true that corporations have, in effect, been discovered to act as a "single immortal entity" (thus avoiding some nasty tax issues when the CEO dies, etc), they do NOT have the rights of people. Falling into the state where you assume that your government has already forgotten about you is going to result in just that. You, as a human being, still have rights, but they will be ignored by corporate-payrolled politicians until such a time as enough people stand up and say that "This is enough". So, start standing. Apathy isn't going to do anything except make your life worse. You won't be heard unless you speak. Speak. Write congress, join initiatives such as the ACLU or any of the sattelite organisations surrounding it. Take an active part in your community. Read about the law. Understand what's happening, and do it in a more informative way than reading a Newspaper. Everything you need is out there, you just have to be willing to find it. This includes other people who feel exactly the same as you do. When enough people yell, they can make the world shake. -l
Statistically insignifact enough to make the RIAA 1.4Billion richer. I have serious doubts you're an artist.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I don't like the idea that if I record a program for time shifting I can only view the copy one time. Yeah, I record it and later sit down to watch it only to have to break up a fight between my childern. I better be able to rewind the tape and replay what I missed. Or I watch it and then my wife comes home later and wanted to see it. I better be able to play it again. And if I record off a pay per view, well it better be mine forever, since I paid for it.
You used a ton of copyrighted porn to create those images yet you talk about fair use.
It's obvious you're trolling, I just hate seeing trolls on issues like this.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Not to point out the obvious, but choosing not to prosecute people for copying a page of a textbook etc. is something the government can do without exercising any authority whatsoever. You may disagree with fair use, but it's hardly an aggressive extension of government authority.
Your car example is not analogous. Someone whose intellectual property rights are violated is not denied the use of that property. So I would obviously be very unhappy if you took my car. However I am not ungenerous. I won't let you have my car, but I will grant you the right to quote selected portions of this post if you wish to post a reply. Ain't fair use grand?
http://www.latimes.com/print/techtimes/20010301/t0 00018087.html
This is a brief int'vu with Boucher re his computer setup. This guy had the phone company run fiber optic lines to residential homes for $35 a month! Man I wish I lived in his town!
I don't really know anything else about Bono's career as a politician.
Six words: Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Has anyone read DMCA Section 1201(f)? I just recently noticed it, and it appears to claim that it is legal to reverse-engineer software products that you have legaly obtained a copy of, for the use of interoperability.
What this means to Linux DVD Players: If someone is willing to find the CSS decryption routine in PowerDVD, we can link it as a .so, and legally distribute a method to interoperate PowerDVD and LiViD. (Or your favorit Linux DVD player)
Actually, gridlock is great--it keeps them busy so they can't do much harm. And I'm not just being cynical; gridlock is *supposed* to be there.
that's on my personal "top ten most misspelled words list." oh well, you get the idea.
Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
If schools are going to allow students to lead prayers and such on school grounds and/or during school hours, then they had damn well better be prepared to defend the rights of students practicing minority religions from the less tolerant students. Schools have a VERY bad track record of preventing violence and harrassment of "different" students.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
imagine being slashdotted with checks :)
Sorry this is NOT what average /.er believes that fair use should be, they believe that "trading" files via Napster should be fair use. Calling this guy a troll weakens your own argument merits.
That my friend is the DEFINITION of fair use. Using other art to create a larger work.
You have a problem understanding the concept of cause and effect. That 1.4 billion number where does that come from, maybe a fucking great economy, without Napster it could have been much higher. There was also a study which showed that sales at record stores near colleges plummeted about the same time that napster came on the scene.
What do you think of New.net and their plans to "circumvent" ICANN?
What's funny is that I just wrote to a congress-man (Orrin Hatch) about an idea regarding Fair Use.
The crux of it went like this:
Since Fair Use is laid out in the US Code, people know what people have a right to do with a work. However, there's no companion legislation saying that the people MUST have the right to be able to do that. I pointed out that without that little bit, you get the mess we're in now, where in people have all sorts of rights to take sections and criticize etc., but that there are artificially induced technical limitations that prevent them from doing so.
Has anyone else had this thought? Has anyone else voiced this to their Congress Critters?
Write him a polite, respectful letter explaining what you believe to be the flaws in his reasoning. Then suggest alternatives. Don't be antagonistic, we need allies in Congress if we're going to have a real chance of fixing copyright laws anytime soon.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If that's the case, he needs your contributions.
We should get the EFF to donate funds to representatives who display such obvious enlightenment. If they get elected, they can spread that enlightenment far and wide, particularly within the government where it is so badly needed. That means we should donate more to the EFF so that they can support representatives in this manner.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
"Rickaaayyy!!!"
Rich
http://www.boucherforcongress.com/contribute.htm
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Dem. gets it?
sulli
RTFJ.
Ok, I reread the post. I'm guessing I missed the point the first time through. I assumed that the post was on topic and read it as such. I missed that he was saying the term "fair use" is being misused on /. My apologies for calling it a troll. Accurate or not it's off topic, and looks like a troll if read as being on topic.
On the other hand, I'd still pay well for anyone who comes up with a way of duplicating pizza. ;)
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
How can you create a larger work if by your previous statements you're not allowed to make copies?
Christ, give it up.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
The issue of rentals, however, is a thorny one. The existance of a rental market implies that there is some impediment to you making a copy of the thing you rented. If it is trivial to make the copy, then the rental market is likely to destroy the purchase market. Imagine for a moment that Blockbuster rented audio CD's for $1.00 a day or something. What do you think it would do to the market for CD's? It would probably completely destroy it. Some people would still buy the CD for the printed materials. But, a lot of folks would rent the CD and rip it to MP3 for a buck instead.
So what is the tradeoff that needs to be made here? One answer is that manufacturers should be allowed to employ copy protection in their products ala Macrovision. This would probably lead to most media products having some form of copy protection. This road seems to be where we are headed at the moment. Unfortunately, this path seems to result in a loss of fair use rights on the part of the consumer.
Another possibility is to only allow copy protection on products which are produced for rental purposes. So, the tape you rent from the video store has macrovision, but if you buy it from a retail outlet you get an unprotected version. This seems like it could be an OK balance. Unfortunately, it could lead to products which are not available or are prohibitivly expensive in their non-rental form. I can see the media giants moving all of their inventory into some sort of "rental" scheme and dropping the non-copy protected purchase version entirely. I'm not sure I like that possibility.
The third possibility is to ban copy protection which in any way infriges on fair-use rights. Works which are released in a form which denies fair-use rights have, IMNHSO, no right to any protection under copyright law. This would probably have the effect of prohibiting all copy protection because, as others have mentioned, it is possibly (probably?) impossible to mechanically determine if a copy is a fair use copy.
Of these three, I myself prefer the third. But that's because I'm largly a consumer of IP, not a producer or distributer. The reality is that option 3 is not going to come to pass unless something is done to reassure the media giants that they are getting something out of it. The question is, what could they be offered? We have to realize that the best we can hope for is that our Congress-critters will listen to both sides in the debate. One possibility would be to allow and encourage the watermarking of media files with serial numbers. The watermarks couldn't be used to prevent copying. But, if a song was being distributed illegally the watermark could be used to try and track down the original purchaser. Another idea would be to make it easier to track down and prosecute anyone who was making copyrighted material available illegally. Perhaps a light but significant fine could be levied against people who put Metallica songs up on Napster. Sort of like photo-radar driving tickets. Pay your $50 or whatever if you get caught leaving your Dr. Dre songs on your anonymous FTP server.
So, I ask everyone, what is the tradeoff that we are willing to make? We can't really expect the media giants to give up anything if we aren't willing to give up something also.
I really can't disagree with that. It is a pretty sad statement. At the same time, while working to change it (you could contribute to Common Cause, for example) one also has to play within the rules. I mean... if we wait until campaign finance reform is enacted to take action on copyright reform, guess what- the MPAA will already be leasing you your own soul.
To put it another way: yeah, the system sucks. But it is our system: hating it doesn't change the way it works, nor does it change the fact that it has very serious consequences for the way we live our lives. So... we'd better work with it, even while trying to change it.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
I'm assuming EFF is a 501(c)3 (read 'your contributions are tax deductable') organization. They'd instantly piss away their tax-exempt status if they start giving money to political campaigns, or even just strongly advocating one candidate over another. (Education on the issues, though, is another matter.)
However, donating to the EFF is always a good thing.
-- Alastair
I didn't say anywhere that copies where not allowed. Look at the definition on fair use (see www.benedict.com), read what I wrote carefully. To Paraphrase.... I said that to most /.ers fair use means Napster, which will cause legislation that will infringe on artistic fair use. Home copies are fine, just make your own, before you lose your CD, hell I don't even care if you take the time to make a copy of the CD for your friend. However distributing straight copyrighted work without authorization is NOT covered under fair use, nor should it be.
Well, the problem is that case law has established that the preamble "To promote the progress of science and useful arts.." doesn't constitute a limit on the Congress's power to grant copyrights. IANAL but I take this to mean that the preamble may state the purpose of the provision, but apparently Congress is empowered to grant copyright for other reasons in situations that don't promote the progress of the useful arts. In fact, Congress can apparently grant copyrights in a manner which is clearly detrimental to science and the useful arts. That this power makes a travesty of the Constitution is evidently not a constitutional issue.
The only solution, therefore, is political, not legal, short of a constitutional amendment. The question is whether you will be on the side of James Madison and the framers on this one, or on the side of the supporters of DMCA who are cracking the Constitution.
In any case, the poster is making a more fundamental assertion which is independent of legal or constitutional issues -- that there is a fundamental human right to intellectual property, and this includes the right to limit the ways which people benefit from your ideas. The only way to deal with such radical viewpoints is at their root. You either believe this, in which case the fact that the irrelevance of the preamble to the copyright clause is a fortunaate accident, or you don't, in which case it is a grave misfortune.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Isn't that the same study that didn't take into account how college students are more likely to buy from online stores, like CDNow et al?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Kid yourself all you want to. Lets look at the stores near univesities that blocked napster ports (I would assume that opennap servers are running internally though.)
For those of you who may have had trouble accessing the speech, he mentions that the fair use doctrine should be reaffirmed extended into the digital realm in six areas. He says digital copies should be allowed to facilitate:
1) distance learning
2) reselling of digital material
3) incidental reproduction (e.g. browser cache)
4) backup copies
5) in-store exemption (listening to samples)
6) my.mp3.com (or as he calls it:___________)
However, he left out the most important area of all:
7) "Slashdot Effect" mirror sites!!!
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Rep. == Representative, not Republican.
Why do you people even worry about it so much. Oral and Anal sex are illegal in VA too. It doesn't stop anyone from doing it, same with any stupid restrictions like this. They just won't work, because no one cares if your wife views the tape or not.
-
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Recall Section 1201 in the DMCA, which states that it is a crime to circumvent the encryption of a copyrighted work. The senator wants to change that so that it's only illegal if you want to infringe on someone's copyright. So pirating is still illegal, but it's legal for everything else.
Now, recall that Aimster is using encryption to protect itself from RIAA's snooping of Aimster's network. Basically, Aimster is using the DMCA to its advantage. Well, if Section 1201 is changed, Aimster cannot use the DMCA to protect itself anymore. RIAA would be able to break the encryption and monitor Aimster's network as long as the RIAA does not steal Aimster's encryption code. And, once the RIAA starts monitoring Aimster, it has a clear path to shut it down.
I always wondered who -RepRick- was on Napster.....
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Where exactly do you live? I'm graduating in April and looking for work all over the country. (my wife wants to move) That sounds like one of the happiest places on earth.
this sig is deprecated