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.
MOO;IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
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.
I used to live in boucher's district, and basically there is no big tech there for him to be heholden to. He's just an intelligent guy with a backbone.
As usual, opensecrets.org has a per-sector breakdown.
He gets a decent amount of money from communications people (and Verizon, SBC, and BellSouth rank high on his list), but more from energy and finance. Virgina... hrm.
Here is his home page. He doesn't list his committee memberships, but he's member of the Energy and Commerce one, which explains the energy and banking money.
Here we see PAC contributions from computer equipment/services manufacturers. AOL, Intel, and so forth show up -- but these contributions are fairly minor. The National Assn. of Broadcasters did give him $7k via a PAC, interestingly. Whereas the MPAA didn't give much at all...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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
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.
I think we're going to start seeing the backlash soon whereby the words 'well, c'mon, we gotta make money, so can you blame us' coming from the mouth of a corperation does not neccessarily gel with people. Something like Napster, which could be argued acts as a (probably over-engineered) sampling tool to determine what to buy, is used by everyone. I have a hard time believing that employees of the very compnies that are trying to deny fair use to the consumer dont use Napster (and consequently, will miss it dearly?). So, while historically we've seen big business types promoting the asshole-argument, those same bigwigs havn't been in the position of suffering thanks to their business decisions. (Eg: for drug companies, the people jacking the prices of the drugs arn't dependant on the drugs to save their lives). Now, if you work at a record company, or content provider, those very people go home, and their wife/kids/neighbours, and even possibly themselves, are bitching because they cant store a copy of something they OWN online, such that they can listen to it elsewhere without the bulk of having to carry the CD around.
.. but eventually you get to a point where so many people are affected by unsportsmanlike or uncivil big business practices that even those in the position of making the decisions have a first hand view of what they are really doing.
I know thats a little bit of an obfuscated argument, and may not be the case here
"Old man yells at systemd"
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
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.
They just hadn't gotten around to paying him NOT to have this opinion. They should be remedying it soon.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
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.
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:
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.
If I still had moderator points, I'd move this one up. :)
Every once in a while, politicians do actually take stands on things that they really believe in, especially when their constituencies don't really care one way or the other. (I mean, it's not like he is Sonny Bono and depends on entertainment industry votes for re-election.) I say kudos to Rep. Boucher... I'm sending his re-election campaign a check as soon as I can find an address to send it to
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
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.
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!!!
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
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?
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
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