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.

Comments

A small step, but in the right direction

[UltraBot2K1]

Now that one member of congress has taken a risk and stood up against the DMCA, we need to pledge our support and rally behind Rep. Boucher in order to encourage others to follow his lead. People here have good intentions, but posting your opinion on Slashdot will not make a difference, we need to contact our representatives directly and let them know that we are behind them completely. I urge everyone who reads this to send Mr. Boucher a congratulatory note to him 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!

Re:OK, what's the angle?

[eric17]

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.

Re:OK, what's the angle?

[Stonehand]

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...

People or Corporations - you decide

[Paul Bristow]

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

He's also pro-Napster...

[Misch]

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.

He's really in tune with the /. community. Take a look at his picture... He really is one of us.

This guy is great

[RandomPeon]

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.

Re:OK, what's the angle?

[SirSlud]

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.

I know thats a little bit of an obfuscated argument, and may not be the case here .. 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.

9th District Resident

[HiroProtagonist]

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".

Re:OK, what's the angle?

[Squid]

They just hadn't gotten around to paying him NOT to have this opinion. They should be remedying it soon.

Some good, some bad

[Eric Seppanen]

To be kind, I'll say that it's great to see someone from congress say clearly that the DMCA does severe damage to fair use that ought to be corrected.

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.
--

Keeping the ball rolling.

[banuaba]

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

Time for a /. Interview?

[sulli]

I bet this guy would be interested in hearing from /. members on this and other issues. Michael and Roblimo, go to it!

Re:Time for a /. Interview?

[Roblimo]

Good thought -- but politicians haven't made the best interview guests on Slashdot so far. Maybe I'll call the man's press secretary and see if I can set one up, as long as you realize that the answers we get are likely to have been written by staffers, not the Congressman himself.

- Robin

Pro-Macrovision though

[sulli]

He's not perfect, however. Read this section, emphasis mine:

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.

I'd certainly hope he's clueful....

[yankeehack]

Remember, this is the same guy who sponsored the Boucher bill which allowed the mere public onto the Internet in 1992 (the bill which changed the NSF use policy). The elder Bush signed it into law in November of 1992.

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.

FYI- how to really show him that you care

[luge]

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 :)

Re:Fair use?

[Rude Turnip]

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.

Sum up Bono's politial career

[yerricde]

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.