Ask Congressman Boucher About Internet Regulations

U.S.Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) has co-sponsored an anti-spamming bill, questioned some of the DMCA, and has been asked by at least one online notable to think about a tax credit for Open Source coders. He's also a member of the Congressional Internet Caucus. We can think of no federal lawmaker more qualified to give us insight into the nitty-gritty of the legislative process, especially as it relates to the Internet. Our usual interview rules apply: post your questions below (one question per post, please), we'll forward 10 - 12 of the highest-moderated ones to Rep. Boucher, and will post his answers next week.

Comments

When will reps catch up with the lobbies?

[BOredAtWork]

Mr. Boucher, many of the political lobbies out there have slick web sites that detail bills coming up for a vote, suggest favorable candidates for upcoming elections, and allow their supporters to access all the information they could possibly want, all in one central location (ex: the NRA, the religious right, NORML, etc). Having spent many hours researching the candidates in this past November's election (local & state as well as national), I'm really discouraged by the lack of information available on the web sites of current representatives (if they exist at all). While representatives' votes are certainly a matter of public record, many representatives' web sites that I've encountered don't actually make this information available, and of those that do, even fewer publish the representative's rationalle for voting the way they did. It appears that lobbies are much, much better at using the internet to reach out to their supporters than politicians are.

The internet is quite possibly THE most cost effective way a representative has to reach their constituents, yet most hardly use it as more than a way to publish their contact information. If a rep wanted to be truly accountable, they could publish a few words about their recent votes, and why they feel they made the best decision possible for their district/state/etc. In my opinion, a representative who made decisions that were really in the best interest of their constituents - and repeatedly told them WHY those decisions where in their best interests - would be nearly impossible to defeat in reelection, yet most representatives don't do this.

My questions for you are these: Why do you feel most representatives aren't making more use of the internet to stay close to their constituents, what do you see being necessary to change this, and when do you think we can expect to see change come about?

--

Corporatism

[Tony]

Why does it seem that laws passed on technological issues favor the corporations, and not the individual? Is this just perception, or is it truth?

Technology is a great opportunity to set us free, as people, across the world. Why does our government of the people, for the people, by the people pass laws that protect corporate interest (DMCA, and UCITA on the state level)? And why isn't more done to promote public participation in discussion of this kind of legislation?

Sorry for the loaded questions-- but it does *seem* the government favors business over personal freedom.

- tony

My related question...

[Danse]

As you know, copyright term lengths have grown incredibly since they were first established. Given that copyright was intended to benefit the public by making more works available to the public, how can a term length longer than most human lives be justified? Isn't this basically as bad as a perpetual copyright, especially in light of the fact that every time the leading edge of copyrighted works are about to become public domain, major copyright holders lobby Congress to extend the terms again, even retroactively?

Constitutionality

[The G]

There seems to be more and more of an attitude in the Capitol to pass laws like the CDA, DMCA, etc. without a thought of their constitutionality -- lawmakers seem to be taking a "let the courts sort it out" approach.

The problem with this, apart from its mockery of "congress shall make no law...", is that it leaves the law in limbo for the months or years that it can take to get a final judicial ruling on the law's constitutionality. We won't have final word on which bits of the DMCA pass constitutional muster, for instance, for quite some time, even though a lot of us have projects or even livelihoods that depend on that outcome.

What can we do to discourage congress from ignoring the Constitutional import of its actions and leaving us in legal limbo waiting for the courts? What sorts of arguments can convince ppolitical parties and elected officials to listen to the Constitution as much as they listen to their donors and constituents?

--G

Free Speech and Computer Code

[IanCarlson]

Congressman Boucher--

I applaude your questioning of some of the facets of the DMCA, and as a resident of Virginia, I am quite proud that an elected official from my state is one of the first to question these overly restrictive copyright laws. Your fight for the people will not go unnoticed.

I have a question pertaining to uncompiled code and freedom of speech. My understanding is that source code is just language, like that of an essay or poem. Essays and poems cannot (for the most part) be "banned" by the government as they are First Amendment protected speech.

How is it that high-powered organizations like the MPAA have won lawsuits against web sites that have done nothing more than make a link to uncompiled code? Aren't these sites and the programmers that wrote the code protected under First Amendment free speech?

Thank you for your time, efforts, and hopefully your answer.

What can non-US citizens do?

[mav[LAG]]

As a resident of another country - also a so-called democracy - I've been watching with positive alarm as US citizens' rights get further and further eroded by big business interests. Any advice for the rest of the world's geeks? Should we just be pumping out code and documentation that makes a mockery of US Law? Or are there more direct ways of voicing our concerns?

Balancing Copyright & Consumer Interests

[Steve B]

Current policies have tended to concentrate on the protection of copyright grantees (e.g. protection from having their product undercut by counterfeiters) without regard to the fair use rights of consumers (e.g. the right to make copies of purchased recordings for backup or to use them in different devices, such as transferring CD tracks to an MP3 player). What policies would you favor to protect both?
/.

Stop the erosion of our "fair use" rights!

[klund]

I am concerned about the on-going attack against the public's rights under copyright law.

1. The Legislature recently passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, extended copyrights to far beyond the "limited times" mentioned in the Constitution. This act does not "promote... useful arts"; it promotes individual gains. Disney has borrowed greatly from the Public Domain and returned nothing. Bach's heirs didn't expect to be rich from their father's work; they wrote their own. Art and science used to belong to the people (after 28 years). Now it belongs only to the richest corporations. No works produced after 1910 have entered the public domain because the term keeps getting extended. A society with
no Public Domain art is bankrupt.

2. The Courts have recently upheld the portions of the DMCA that prohibit "circumvention devices". In effect, these provisions remove our "fair use" rights under copyright law to produce critical reviews, parodies, and scholarly derivative works. There is also no provision for the release of protected works when the copyright expires.

3. The FCC (part of the Executive Branch) has approved the use of "content protection" as part of the broadcast HDTV specification. This ruling destroys the public right to record broadcasts and view them at our leisure (a right upheld by the Supreme Court in the Betamax case).

Is seems that all three branches of our government have turned against us. What can we do take back our rights under copyright law, without breaking the law?

--

DMCA issues

[Spyky]

First you seem to have many reservations concerning the DMCA. However, do you think we are better off with it? Candidly, would you rather see the DMCA amended in the manner you propose, or would you rather see the DMCA abolished completely?

Secondly, you support the "fair use doctrine" and also feel that methods to circumvent protection measures such as CSS should not be criminalized; at least in as much as the goal of such circumvention is within the spectrum of fair use. You also support watermarking and other methods to protect the copyrights of digital media with the reservation that the rights of home recording rights are not impeded.
However, both digital (CSS) and traditional analog (macrovision) protection schemes are fallible. Clever individuals can circumvent them, either for illicit purposes or not. Decriminalizing methods to circumvent these "protection schemes" does little to protect the copyright holder's interest outside the scope of current law (not in the DMCA). Would your proposed amendments to the DMCA protect from prosecution *any* individual who devised a circumvention method (for any purpose) and distributed it freely. A prime example of this is software such as the DeCSS.
This is of course, assuming they are not guilty of other infractions that do not fall within the scope of the DMCA with regard to creating or distributing a circumvention method.

Spyky

How to Get Representatives to Listen?

[smack.addict]

I am becoming increasingly frustrated as a citizen trying to explain technology issues to my Minnesota representatives. I never hear any responses from them, and I certainly have no indication that I will ever be heard unless I become a lobbiest. My question is, how can people who understand technology issues get in touch with, educate, and explain points of view to their elected officials?

Why

[SpanishInquisition]

in the USA is it legal to possess a piece of equipment designed to kill a human being but it's illegal to possess a piece of software designed to copy the content of a DVD?


--

Protecting our rights

[techmuse]

The general trend since the Internet became a mass public resource has been for government to attempt to find ways to monitor people using it (Carnivore for example), to listen in on their communications (Key escrow), or to use the Internet as a means to remove consumer rights in favor of total control by businesses (DCMA). How do you feel about these technologies and laws, and how do you propose to keep the Internet a place where ordinary citizens can communicate and conduct business without giving up the rights that they have in the physical world?

Region-less Representatives?

[Limecron]

The increase of free-access communication creates "virtual communities" in which a special interest group (say, Open Source Supporters) can congregate. However, since representation is distributed by district, this group has difficulty being represented since it may lie in the minority in many voting districts.

Do you think the possibility of the creation of region-less senators or represenatives exists?

Except in the case of local or state govenments, it seems unnecessarilty arbitrary to elect representatives by state.

AFAIK, it'd be easier to get region-free DVD players than representatives. ;)

How do you keep up?

[wmulvihillDxR]

With the recent story on the flooding of emails to representatives, I want to know how you deal with that flood? Do you rate snail mail a higher priority than email?

Overall cluefulness?

[update()]

A few years ago, it seemed like legislation was being passed to regulate the Inetrnet without the most basic knowledge of how it works. One got the impression that legislators thought the Net is like television and that it would be straightforward for US laws to control its content.

Today, people may argue with a lot of the laws being passed but it seems to me that at least lawmakers now understand what it is that they're trying to control - that it's not television and that it's not inside the United States. Is that perception correct? Do most members of the House and Senate at least have a rough idea of what the internet is? Do all of them at least have a high-ranking staffer who does?

Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.

Legislative guidelines

[RareHeintz]

Speaking broadly, what do you feel is an appropriate role for government in regulating a trans-national and somewhat anarchic medium like the Internet? What steps would be prudent protection of citizens and consumers, and what would represent legislative overreach?

Thanks for your time,
- Brad Heintz
--

Taking back the 'Net

[RareHeintz]

Much recent technology legislation - most notably the DMCA and UCITA - seem unreasonably skewed toward large corporate interests seeking copyright, patent, and licensing protections in the digital world they don't enjoy in the analog world. I don't think it's a secret to anyone that such legislation is all but purchased outright through campaign contributions and soft-money party donations.

Many American citizens, unfortunately, don't have sufficient education or interest to be able to assess how technology legislation affects them, their wallets, and the media they consume, and the mainstream media don't help them understand the technical issues, the legislative process, or the influence of money in politics any better.

My question related to this is: What can the more technically-aware citizenry do to steer the law back to a more reasonable course? How can we convince or coerce our elected representatives into replacing sane limits on copyright, sane policy toward retail taxation in digital markets, and a sane approach to regulating the Internet that recoginizes the opportunites and limitations inherent in the medium?

Thanks,
- Brad Heintz
--

Copyright laws

[Chakat]

Let me preface this by saying that I respect copyright, and feel that creators deserve a limited period of time to enjoy sole profits from their works. However, it's become obvious that special intrests have corrupted the copyright system to insure that they can receive sole benefits for long after our founding fathers intended. My question for you is twofold: How long do you feel is an appropriate amount of time for copyright protection, and is there legislation pending to fix the problem with copyright?