Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Boucher Responds
1) Protecting our rights
by 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?
Rep. Boucher:
There is a constant need for vigilance in the protection of the rights of Internet users. Several years ago as we were debating legislation of I co-authored to permit the export of strong encryption software from the United States, the FBI proposed an amendment which would have imposed the first restriction on the use of encryption software domestically. Specifically, the FBI's amendment would have required that every encryption product contain a back door which could be opened with a key held by a third party. This so-called "key escrow" requirement posed a major threat to freedom from the prying eyes of law enforcement for all Internet users. Working with other members of the House Commerce Committee who shared my opposition to the amendment, we succeeded in defeating the measure by the impressive vote of 30 to 10. I do not anticipate the key escrow requirement, or a similar key recovery requirement, being seriously debated by the Congress again. Nevertheless, we must continually work to protect the openness of the Internet and the rights of Internet users from attacks which may come from many directions, including law-enforcement, the copyright owning community, and those who would filter the Internet because of a variety of social concerns.
2) Copyright laws
by 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?
Rep. Boucher:
The recent extension of the copyright term by the Congress was wholly unjustified. The United States Constitution establishes a regime of intellectual property protection and specifies that exclusive rights in original works should be preserved for the creator of the works for a "limited time". I am concerned that the very wealthy copyright owning community, including motion picture studios, recording companies and publishers have seriously unbalanced the Congressional process in the creation and amendment of intellectual property laws with the result that the "limited time" concept has largely been forgotten. I'm particularly troubled by provisions of the digital millennium copyright act which threaten the long-established fair use rights of American citizens, and I am in the process of drafting broad-based legislation which will reaffirm traditional fair use rights for the users of information.
3) Why
by 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?
Rep. Boucher:
The most troublesome provision of the digital millennium copyright act is found in section 1201 (a ) (1) which makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to produce a device which is "primarily designed" for the purpose of infringing a copyright. This provision is fraught with problems, not the least of which is the impossibility of knowing at the time a device which has multiple uses is manufactured whether a judge or jury will find at a later time that the device was "primarily designed" for an infringing use. More than 20 years ago, the United States Supreme Court in the Betamax case held that if a device has both infringing and non infringing uses, its manufacture is lawful due to the presence of non infringing uses. Section 1201 adversely affects that long-standing doctrine and will hinder the willingness of equipment manufactures to introduce devices which could potentially be used to infringe copyrights even if the device has many helpful non infringing uses. Eventually, a modification of this section of the code will be required.
4) How do you keep up?
by 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?
Rep. Boucher:
Electronic mail receives the same dignity in my office that is accorded to every other communication which we receive. We prioritize our responses to incoming information based upon the urgency of the material not based upon the medium by which the communication was received. Accordingly, electronic mail has the same dignity in my office that is accorded to paper mail, faxes and telephone calls. Unlike many congressional offices which responde to electronic mail by regular mail, we respond to electronic mail over the Internet. My staff forwards to my desktop computer incoming e-mail along with a suggested response which I then edit and approve for delivery by electronic means to the constituent.
5) Taxes and the Internet
by Aggrazel
This year, in my home state of Ohio, the legislation introduced a "Voluntary" tax on Interenet purchases. That is, I can tell them that I purchased X amount of books online and they'll tax me accordingly.
Even though this tax is "Voluntary" I have been informed by my accountant that I have to pay this tax, reguardless. Thereby, my state is taxing purchases that were made "out of state" as it were.
My question is, how do you feel about taxation of the internet, specifically "Voluntary" ones like the State of Ohio has implemented?
Rep. Boucher:
Most states impose a "use tax" on purchases made by residents of the state from out-of-state retailers. The use tax is at the same rate as the sales tax imposed by the state on products purchased within the state. Accordingly, we all have an obligation to pay to the state in which we reside a use tax on all the items we purchase from out-of-state. The use tax applies whether we purchase the item over the telephone, through a catelogue order or over the Web. The State of Ohio through the device mentioned in the question is attempting to assert a collection mechanism for its use tax. There are no congressional proposals pending which would prohibit states from collecting use taxes on purchases made from out-of-state retailers. In fact, I doubt that such a proposal at the federal level would be constitutional. We are presently having a debate on the extension of the moratorium which expires this coming October on the imposition of taxes on Internet service providers and the imposition of any tax which has a discriminatory effect with respect to the Internet. I support the extension of the Internet tax moratorium. Some members of Congress are now urging that legislation be adopted which would facilitate the escrow of sales taxes on all out-of-state purchases, whether the purchases are made over the Web, by telephone or by catalog order. The proposal is supported by many states and by traditional brick and mortor retailers who do not have an interstate business. I seriously doubt that the Congress will give active consideration to this proposal at the present time; however, in future years, as electronic commerce occupies a greater percentage of all commerce, the proposal may gain added currency.
6) Taking back the 'Net
by 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?
Rep. Boucher:
I am in the process of drafting comprehensive legislation which will reaffirm the fair use rights of the users of information and create a better balance between the copyright owners, who currently dominate the Congressional debates on intellectual property measures, and the users of copyrighted information. My measure will be strongly supported by universities and libraries throughout the nation. It will be strongly opposed by motion picture companies, the recording industry and book publishers. Our only chance of enacting our proposal into law will be through the formation of a broad grassroots effort nationwide. As a part of our grassroots effort, I am collecting the electronic mail addresses of individuals who will serve as "activists" on behalf of our measure. From time to time, we will call on these individuals to contact their member of Congress and encourage the legislator to support the passage of our bill or to assist us in defeating hostile amendments which are being offered by those who oppose us. I would encourage anyone interested in assisting our effort to send their electronic mail address to jody.olson @mail.house.gov
Jody is one of my staff members, and he will treat all information we receive in accordance with the privacy policy posted on my WebSite. I would also encourage interested individuals to contact their friends who share our goals and encourage them to forward their electronic mail addresses to Jody.
7) Overall cluefulness?
by 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?
Rep. Boucher:
In 1996, I was one of two cofounders of the Congressional Internet Caucus. We founded the Caucus in the wake of the disastrous debate on the so-called communications decency act which was made a part of the telecommunications act of 1996. Those of us who opposed the communications decency act argued that it was impossible to implement given the architecture of the Internet and that it was unconstitutional on its face as an abridgment of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech. By a very narrow vote, the communications decency act was approved, and predictably the United States Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional by a unanimous vote of 9 -- 0. It was apparent from an observation of the debate on the communications decency act that most members of Congress did not understand the fundamental structure of the Internet and its capabilities and limitations. Accordingly, we formed the Internet Caucus as an educational forum to provide information about Internet functionality to members. We wanted to make sure that when future policy debates affecting the Internet are before the Congress that members would make their decisions with a sound foundation of knowledge about the Internet's capabilities and limitations. Today, the Internet Caucus has more than 145 members. It is the largest and most active Caucus in the Congress, and I am pleased to serve as one of two House cochairs of the Caucus. Each year, we host a variety of seminars on the current policy challenges affecting the Internet, and we present knowledgeable speakers who offer views, both pro and con, on the most important information technology policy matters we are considering. Our sessions well attended by members of Congress , and I believe that we have achieved the goal of ensuring that members make their decisions with adequate knowledge about the Internet's functionality.
8) Free Speech and Computer Code by 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?
Rep. Boucher:
I need to learn more about the precise circumstance in which links to Web sites that contain uncompiled code have been taken down pursuant to requests from the copyright owners. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient information to answer this question of the present time.
9) Government playing catch-up, and losing.
by plastickiwi
DISCLAIMER: I am one of Rep. Boucher's constituents here in the ninth congressional district of Virginia. I've also voted for him five times. Consume the appropriate volume of NaCl.
Rep. Boucher,
Professor Clay Shirky spoke at length in a recent Slashdot interview about the desperate efforts being made by corporate interests to hobble the Internet. He noted that companies are so loathe to change their business models that they would rather bolt the existing business infrastructure onto the Internet than create a new business environment better suited to the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the online world. For example, Napster sent the recording industry into a tailspin because, despite billions in "e-tailing" investment, that industry still deals primarily in physical artifacts (i.e. compact discs) instead of pure data.
What, if anything, should the federal government be doing to assist the transition from "meatspace" business models to networked models? Should Congress, as Senator Hatch recently mused in the Napster hearings, actually go so far as to compel this transition through legislation (e.g. mandatory licensing of intellectual property)?
Rep. Boucher:
Every farsighted business will adopt a Web strategy both to enhance its own profitability and to assure its survival. The question relates to the music industry, and I will offer my views regarding the much-publicized debate about the availability of music over the Internet. I have long urged the recording industry to create its own Web sites upon which the most popular music will be made available for download over the Internet for a reasonable fee. Today, most of the music that is available for a fee on line is exotic. The popular songs are generally not available. The recording industry is still clinging to its traditional practice of selling music as a part of an album and making the CD which contains the album available through physical record stores or by mail delivery. The industry's strategy of attempting to sue out of existence every Web based music delivery service is doomed to long-term failure. The industry is simply going to have to go beyond its traditional practices and start making its highest value music available over the Internet. The failure of the record labels to do so has driven millions of American music lovers to Napster. When the music industry makes its most popular music available over the Internet for download for a reasonable fee, either through its own sites or by a licensing of Napster, it will enjoy a dramatic expansion in the market for music. The industry will be significantly enriched, and Internet users will have the convenience of being able to obtain immediately the most popular music for a reasonable fee. It is too early to predict the response the Congress may provide if the music industry continues to resist the Internet as a delivery mechanism. I can say however, with certainty that there are a number of members of Congress who share my view that the music industry whas been shortsighted in failing to realize the many benefits of the Internet as a delivery mechanism for music.
10) Just who is answering these questions?
by washirv
Rep Boucher,
I am interested in knowing who the actual person replying to these questions is. Does the representative answer the questions? Or does it go to his staff and come back with canned answers from his staff? Does Rep Boucher at least read the questions so he knows what Slashdotters want to know? Thanks
Rep. Boucher:
I have personally answered these questions through the use of the Dragon NaturallySpeaking software which I use on the computer at my home when composing text.
It has been tried, mainly in Israel, it works poorly. The Kennest (Parlament) is made up of a multitude of small factions which get much more power than they really deserve. A party with 5 seats (Out of 120) can have huge power becuase if they can leave the PM high and dry on a vote.
I'll take our (the US) system. Its not perfect but its the best I've seen so far. (And I've looked)
Erlang Developer and podcaster
This man needs a big, heavy, spiky clue-stick, to whack the other representatives and other government officials with. Internet Caucus doesn't seem to be doing a very good job.
I guess we missed another very important question. For US, the problem is, finding like-minded politicians to support. If Rep. Boucher is the ONLY one, well, that's kind of a desperate situation. We need to find or sway others. But if there ARE others, it would be nice to know who they are, so we know to whom we should lend our support.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Let me summarize -- "This law sucks." "Don't worry, I'm writing a NEW law that sucks differently!"
I must say, I wasn't terribly impressed with the Rep's answers, and I understood when I read the last question's answer. I wondered why the pablum I was reading sounds so much like the junk I hear from Washington, and now I know why -- Boucher was giving a campaign speech, as if he forgot that Slashdot is read by an international audience and not by constituents.
Don't get me wrong -- every now and then there was a nugget of clue found in his answers, but for the most part I was not filled with confidence.
Let me tie this in to the current D.C. obsession, Campaign Finance Reform. Our jackleg elected representatives in the Senate are arguing over who gets to give money to political candidates. They have successfully dodged the question of "Wait a minute. Big corporations may be giving you guys money, but I don't see you people turning it down. Mostly, I see you standing around like toilets with the lid up!"
Let me tie this back to the DMCA and UCITA -- Congress passed these abortions and certain groups caught on fire over it. Now, we've got people like Boucher saying that they'll pass new laws to make it better. What I don't hear, though, are people saying that Congress had no right to pass these laws in the first place, except for the occasional 10th Amendment nut.
Fixing bad legislation with more legislation is as stupid (and backward) as, oh, I dunno... letting lawyers make laws?
Please remember this: When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Have you ever read 1984 by George Orwell? Do you know how recently the last 2 definitions came into use and who coined the usage?
My point being that "piracy" is a propagandist's term that is used to subconciously influence a person's thinking about copyrights and fair use. Likening the sharing of copyrighted information to murder, rape, and armed robbery is just a little over the top, IMHO. I'm trying to undo some of that damage. With the short absurdist rant I hope to awaken readers into questioning the usage of the term piracy in the context of sharing information. It probably doesn't work but it serves to amuse me (I'm easily amused).
Carry on.
I was also very pleased by his statements about needing to educate other congressmen about the internet and technology. I get the impression that a lot of politicians gain support for their measures either by PR manuevering or by interesting backroom tactics (witness some of the trickery surrounding campaign finance reform). Education is power, especially in issues surrounding technology. We just need to "empower" more reps.
Even though he may be a politician, I get the impression there's at least one person on the Hill that's slightly clued in. Good luck, Congressman.
-jdm
That's because that's what he does. People are asking questions about political topics, and about how the internet and the law intersect. It's one thing for me or you or T. J. Rodgers or George Gilder to say "the law should say this". Rep. Boucher ought to be telling us what he's done about it, not just what he thinks about it. Otherwise, he's just another pundit. He's authored this bill, gotten that one passed, and educated a bunch of his fellow Representatives about the internet. Gosh, that's pretty useful stuff to know, and it's what I'd want to hear from a Congressman in this forum.
Piracy is only piracy if copying is necessarily stealing. I have no time for arguing with people of the gimme gimme gimme generation who believe everything should be cost-free, but it's so easy to see how you could solve the on-line music distribution problem that it's frankly not funny. In a recent column, Robert X. Cringely pointed out that it would be a comparatively trivial matter to end up charging for music copying by just slapping a tax onto every blank CD-R and CD-RW sold that could be distributed to artists and recording labels according to their total "burning share", which you could estimate via reasonable statistical sampling of on-line traffic or polling. Yes, there are always weirdos who will buy an extra 80 gig of disk just for the sheer thrill of not paying for what they use, but they aren't going away in any event.
But for the vast majority of cases, everybody can get paid, if everybody agreed to do this. The problem, of course, is that record labels probably have zero long-term incentive to participate in this, since a world that distributes music primarily on-line is a world that really doesn't need the value-added services of record companies. Music retailers could be in an even worse bind.
And I don't know how you solve the political problem to get the recordables tax passed in the first place.
Babar
I agree, that's a lousy idea. It assumes that the only use for blank CDs is to burn music.
Actually, I don't give a shit about music. I have about 20 MP3s.
This system is obviously designed to enrich the already wealthy, the musicians who are easy to find in the stores. The payments (in countries where this is already in place) are based on the number of CDs sold. This doesn't help the small artists whose CDs aren't available and whose fans often turn to piracy from lack of decent alternative.
If the music-centered assholes would pull their heads out of their butts for a minute, they'd realize that not much of the copyrighted material being burned to CDs is music. Most, I'd imagine, because CD burners work on computers, is computer software. Certainly, when I look at my circle of friends 90% of the copied CDs are software, 80% games, 20% OSes and Apps. Maybe 5-6 CDs each are music, tops. (With MP3s so small, a person can have their whole collection on a few CDs and still have 100 CDs worth of music.)
So for this system to even begin to be fair, it'd have to pay producers of software, of clip-art CDs, etc. Music is such a small part of it that I'd be tempted to leave them out of it.
And even if we did do this system, the 'obvious' answer would be to just give all this money to Microsoft. After all, they claim more in losses to piracy each year than any other software company makes.
But that doesn't help any of the companies actually hurt by piracy. Microsoft makes $900 office suites, no kid I know if going to buy one, if they copy MS Office it doesn't cost MS a potential sale. But small companies sell software from $10 to $50, the range where unauthorized copying could replace a sale, even for starving students.
So these systems are fatally flawed because they measure losses by CD sales. I know six people who have unpayed copies of 4Dos, a shareware util than afaik you can't even buy on CD; the company wouldn't make a dime from this scheme. Ditto with music. B. Spears would get a bit richer, nobody else except the RIAA would see a dime.
And this would all be subsidised by people like you who write your own data to CDs. I wonder if the people who advocate this idea would support you sending in a directory listing (to show that it's your content on the CD) and sending you a check for the CD-tax that you're entitled to...
No, the MPAA vs. 2600 case is all about DMCA and the clauses relating to circumvention devices. No trade secrets were involved. You are probably thinking of the several DVDCCA vs. Doe cases.
--
--
E_NOSIG
I need to learn more about the precise circumstance in which links to Web sites that contain uncompiled code have been taken down pursuant to requests from the copyright owners. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient information to answer this question of the present time.
Could the interview organizer please send Rep. Boucher some links to the MPAA vs. 2600 case? Given the high level of clue he displayed in his other answers, I would like to hear his informed opinion on this one.
--
--
E_NOSIG
Iceland had a similar system in the middle ages. Citizens were able to choose their chieftain (gothar). Gothar were able to vote in the council, and could transfer their authority as they wished. Citizens were able to choose the gothar they were allied to with few obligations. For more on Medieval Iceland, see David Friedman's writings. His article Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: a Historical Case is a little dense (as a journal article) but readable. You can also check out some usenet responses he wrote at http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ice land_Anarch_FAQ1_reply.html. Also, Danny Yee has a review of the book Medieval Iceland.
P. E. de Puydt suggested a similar system of government in the 1800s, which he called "panarchy". De Puydt envisioned a system of non-physical political divisions which people could "emigrate" between without changing physical location. De Puydt was suggesting a blueprint for the government of Belgium. You can read his tract "Panarchy" online (also here. You can read introductions by contemporary authors here and here. Roderick Long of the Free Nation Foundation wrote a piece on Virtual Cantons influenced by panarchy and the Swiss government.
In case you're wondering, I would love such a system! I wish I could vote for Mr. Boucher.
Unfortunately, while this gentleman has said all the right things, he has come off as being a little too biased towards the Slashdot community. I felt like I was listening to a "typical politician", even if that politician is perhaps refusing lobbies from entertainment corporations (it sure sounds like it).
Take a look at the roll calls for the DMCA. There really are no "typical politicians" taking the view Boucher espoused.
Before you can make a change in the Congress, you need to get some foothold, any foothold for your ideas. Kudos and hats off to Rep. Boucher, who not only seems to espouse the correct view, but is already taking meaningful action in support of those views.
Funny, when I'm in Chinatown, I see no black market CDs that are also available in stores. Most of the "piracy" is movies not on video yet, and a few grey market DVDs (i.e. legally released elsewhere, legal to resell here, even if they don't like it, e.g. Crouching Tiger). To me this is perfect proof that the best defense against "piracy" is value.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Here's some ideas I'd like to add to this:
- The music industry is all about making money - too much money. The reason why they won't put music on the Internet isn't that they were waiting for a control system for what would be a profitable distribution method... it's because it would turn upside down their entire system of ripping off everyone. First of all, too many middlemen in the business would be left out of the picture with Internet sales, and if they ever took off, there would be murder among current bedfellows. Second, considering the ways that the money is currently distributed to certain parties, it would be ultimately very hard to replicate that with MP3 downloads: let's assume that you're cutting out the unnecessary middlemen and that only the people who are actually involved in every step of the recording and distribution process are getting paid. There's still a lot of pieces of the pie to cut up, and it would be more difficult to do it with MP3s - considering that now we have downloads tracked, transactions recorded, and people to be paid. The math is the same, but the payments are more difficult to make. Third, the market for online downloads is smaller than you think. All those people on Napster who say "Well, I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway" wouldn't be buying it for cheap online either. Piracy is still a tiny fraction of real-life sales, but that means so would be online purchases - so they haven't been missing out on a big market, but they're trying to squash out anything that might be up and coming. And finally... they charge so friggen much for a CD nowadays, that to match the profitability of real-life sales, MP3's would be ridiculously expensive. And that's for something that's of lesser quality, of less convenience (you need to sit at your computer and play them on crummy speakers... and MP3 portable/car players are not ubiquitous or cheap like CD and cassette players are), and that has less added value (a CD has liner notes and a case, at least).
- In terms of the business, the music industry is a very slow moving beast... and a very willful one at that. They already have a successful (albeit highly immoral) distribution system, they do have complete control, and their main business is their PROMOTION monopoly as well as their distribution monopoly. Online downloads are very bad for them in a number of ways. First of all, yes they would lose control... but as long as you make money, that's okay I guess. That's what the movie industry had to settle for, and although they profited greatly from more convenient content distribution methods (VHS, DVD, even television), they still fight those battles every step of the way. Remember, they tried to sue VCRs out of existence... half the studios wanted to go with DiVX instead of DVD... and they fought television with a number of technical methods (widescreen, 3D, giant rumbling theaters, etc.). Next, if the current distribution system (of price gouging) is doing great for them, not only would they not do anything to defeat it (offer MP3s as well), but they'll fight anything on the outside that tries to. That's good business, except when you're paying off Congress to pass laws to kill off competitors... which has been happening since the days of payola and the beginning of rock and roll. However, assuming they sucked it up and assumed loss of control a bit, and if they found out that they would make more money with MP3s... here's where they get killed. The record industry is all about promotion. They do not just sit there and press CDs all day and sell them to the stores... the clothing industry does that. The record industry, however, takes someone like Britney Spears and puts her on billboards, on the radio, in magazine articles, on MTV, on Saturday Night Live, etc. It's what they offer in exchange for being a slimy business. Online distribution methods may lead to mass online promotions, however... and there's nothing that kicks them in the gut more than to see N'Sync lose sales to a talented artist on an indie label. What they really want to do is keep people offline altogether... I mean, the porn industry is massively available and present online, and they've embraced computers every step of the way. The music industry? Well, unless the artist knows enough about the web to insist on a really good website, all you'll get is a fluff homepage with a few images and tour dates for any given artist. Usually such sites are way out of date, as well. They can't control online promotions like they can in real-life (cause Joe Shmoe can't build anything like the Virgin Megastore, but he can make an online store and info site that looks and feels much better than anything the record industry can cook up) and they'd rather not see people get into the act of getting online for any aspect of music.
The problem now is that they control the distribution by law, they control the music by contract, and they control promotions through massive amounts of money and ability. If the general public really catches onto digital online music, they lose distribution control, they may not be the promotions juggernaut that they are currently, and subsequently no one will want to sign recording contracts with them because it would be better for artists and consumers alike to distribute and promote the music online. Therefore, their entire business would collapse, and either they would have to change their business or get out of business. You think any of those fat cats want to risk that?
Granted, it's a risk, not a certainty. Online movie distribution isn't taking off anytime soon... it's not feasible. The movie industry has a very strong prescence online (better than the music industry anyway) and they're making more money from it. But they can't sell movies online because no one can download them.
Then again, at this point we definitely have proof-of-concept. Music is feasible to pass around online... look at Napster... and the value of real-life legit music distribution products just plain sucks. It costs more to listen to a one-hour CD than it does to go see a two-hour movie in a theatre (or similarly, for two times the price of a CD, you get a DVD movie that is twice as long, has pictures and sound, is of high quality, and has extra features - deleted scenes, director commentary, trailers, soundtrack videos, etc. That's still a better value). Never mind if you buy something that sucks... the fact that you paid for it at all is still frustrating. Thinking about what you enjoy alone, the value is always greater. Having "American Beauty" (favorite movie released last year) on DVD is still ultimately more satisfying for me than having "The Marshall Mathers LP" (favorite album released last year). And I paid the same amount for both. In comparison, downloading "The Marshall Mathers LP" on MP3 (about a week before it came out, might I add) was great for me; downloading a VCD rip of "American Beauty" (which took HOURS) wasn't really worth it at all, and I deleted it. For the record, I downloaded BOTH before I owned either one; but I still have the MP3s for "The Marshall Mathers LP", which shows you how the legit copy/online value ratio is tremendously greater for full albums than movies. Don't get me started on singles, even...
Anyway, one day I'll have a DVD burner and a OC-3 connection to the Net, and things may change. But not greatly so. Assuming I had that now, and I downloaded "American Beauty" in 20 minutes in DVD format before it came out in theaters, and burned to DVD... I believe I still would have bought the DVD as well. Because I did that with "Marshall Mathers", and no one got screwed. But the point is, I still would have gotten more for my money in that situation. Which is why the movie industry won't really be in trouble... but the record industry is in BIG trouble if anyone gets a leg up on them in any way.
And I think that time has almost come... the revolution isn't too far away, condsidering once they shed some blood, it'll stir up the appetites of the artists (who hate them), the consumers (who hate them passionately), the lawmakers (who are annoyed with them), and their business competitors (who REALLY want them DEAD, considering all the shit they've had to deal with for the last century). Once it starts, it'll be over pretty quickly. And, everyone else will be left standing, but they won't be. Everyone's had enough of them.
Sheesh, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" and all. Be grateful this guy is up there dispensing clue instead of mongering legislature for campaign contributions.
Would *you* vote for an ambivalent politician? "Every day I will fight for you, unless of course somebody persuades me not to!"
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Blame Al Gore for the blank tape tax. It has nothing at all to do with the BetaMax decision.
When Tipper wanted to have her little kangaroo court about "obscenity" in rock and roll lyrics, (which she did, in Al's committee room), the RIAA rolled right over and traded freedom of speech for the blank tape tax. If people were PAYING ATTENTION, that should have ended Al's career right then and there.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Well, first off - yeah, this is how reps start talking after a while.
But with respect to Rep. Boucher - "Getting It" isn't his job - his votes on bills and his committees he's chaired, and the legislation he's worked on - that's his job.
And if he continues to vote and make law in a way that's consistent with Getting It (and if his answers to the Slashdot piece are any indication, he does indeed Get It), then he's doing things about the problems we plebes are only able to rant about on /.
> if he'd just answered the questions, instead of trying to show us how hard he's working at every opportunity.
I'll play Devil's Advocate here for a minute - there are plenty of people in the world who Get It. But there are very few out of the 600-odd folks on the hill whose actions actually form the basis of the laws about which we rant who Get It.
I'd much rather have him Getting It and influencing the direction of those laws through committee work than saying "All Your Base Are Belong To Us!" to impress the Slashdot crew ;)
Its not that the music industry has failed to realize this. Its that they will not take advantage of it until they can assure they will have utmost control in the new medium. They could've started sellign MP3s years ago, but they feared thatw ithout control, piracy would run rampant (and it probably would).
Their flaw is in seeking ultimate and flawless control. It doesn't exist. They might think they will find it, but when they do, and they use it, it will be defeated. Then they'll be even more sore because theyw asted all of their R&D dollars on a gate that is now swinging wide open. Furthermore, they'll hen kick themselves for all of the revenues they missed out on while they were holding out for the fabled flawless control system.
As I've said many times before, the best way to defeat piracy is in a battle of value. Make the legit content more valuable (by value-added features and services and affordable cost and easy access) than the pirated content (difficult to track down, unreliable quality, no value-added features and services).
In the same way that businesses are feeling the effects of the global audience that the 'net brought into existence, isn't it possible that governments are going to have to deal with the same contraction?
That is to say, how much longer will we have to pick our representatives in government based on geographical location? Sure, I live in a specific city in a specific county in a specific state in a specific country, but I don't feel completely connected to the government here.
I would feel much more connected with a representative in government that shared my background and outlook based not on my location on the Earth's surface but rather on philosophical and moral grounds.
Then maybe I wouldn't have to cringe every time I think about Jesse Helms being one of my Senators. ;^)
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
The gentleman voted against the 'back door' requirement from the FBI. That's the important thing for me. Export of encryption restrictions are BS as well.
So, I wonder if he really is for the common use of encryption with personal e-mail, personal web pages etc.
It seems he has not looked into the whole DCMA thing though but tries to give generalities about it's use and incorporation. Let's keep on him for positive ability to decompile for fair use.
Watch his voting record before you take any of this interview to heart though, remember he IS a politician.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
While I enjoyed seeing the responses of someone who understands the problems involved with our current copyright situation, I would really like to see a supporter of the DMCA answer questions on this site. I want to see someone respond to the questions this law has created from a perspective out side the standard slashdot "DMCA SUCKS!". Considering that most major news outlets are owned by companies that are strongly pro-DMCA, the debate about it in the mainstream was woefully lacking, and the coverage here was definately skewed toward the anti-DMCA stance.
On the other hand, asking a pro-DMCA person to respond to questions on slashdot is a bit like inviting Ghandi over for a steak dinner. The invitation wont be accepted. I think the DMCA is a piece of garbage, but I still would like to see a different perspective on it.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
While this peer-review process may have merit, I've noticed many of the chosen questions overlap (how do you feel about the DMCA, corporate influence...), in addition to being quite nebulous.
What I find peculiar is that, despite Mr. Boucher's pioneering efforts to reform the patent practices of the U.S. PTO (including co-sponsoring the Business Method Patent Improvement Act of 2000), none of the questions chosen even mentioned software or business method patents. At least one of the potential questions from the +5 pool specifically focused on these topics (allright, I admit I wrote it).
Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell
Insects and Grafitti Photos
But it seems like Representative Boucher was more interested in garnering some votes than anything. Don't get me wrong, this guy's obviously more in touch with these issues than 90% of the rest of Washington, and we need more reps like him up there, but all his answers read like so much political-speak. Almost every answer has some reference to a way he's voted on a bill, a committee he's chaired, a piece of legislation he's working on, etc. In other words, constant reminder's of the work he's doing in Washington.
Maybe this is just how representatives start talking after a while, I don't know. I do know that I would have been more impressed if he would have just answered the questions, instead of trying to show us how hard he's working at every opportunity.
What we need is to get congressmen who are divided. People who don't know which way to vote on the issues, and gradually change their minds through clever arguing and factual information. This gentleman is a first good step, but he sounds like the nerd who's always been a nerd. Has never really been introduced to the "revelations" involved with thinking outside corporations when it comes to the internet. Only then, when we can sway the fence-riders, will we make a stand.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
I don't know if he will read this, but I, for one, am pleased that he took the time out of his busy schedule to address a few of the concerns of the Slashdot community. Come what may, it's nice to see American-style representative democracy at work.
----------
Something cleverAbove, Rep. Boucher refers to Jody as a "he," not a she. :) Also, Rep. Boucher obviously knows that the online community is one worth standing up for. But this is one way to demonstrate the power that community has. A representative from Virginia, in the space of a few hours, getting a pledge of support from people of all 50 states is a pretty incredible prospect. Talk about grassroots democracy-- demonstrate here that a representative in any state can post his views online, gather a group of like-minded individuals, and send them off to gather their like-minded friends so that there are people in every state lobbying their local representatives. Behold, the power of the Internet.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
Send to her! Get your LUGs and UUGs and SAGEs and whatever else computer group (we'll even take the MUG people) in for this! We're much better off if we get several million people in on this, it'll be much more obvious by the numbers alone that we actually have a position and are not some group of apathetic weaklings that are willing to be tromped over!
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
Jody Olson, staff member for Congressman Boucher, had his email listed on the popular site, Slashdot. Along with the email, the site was told they can change the world by emailing Jody and signing up to be an activist. Immediately, Jody received tens of thousands of emails, which are automatically printed for archival purposes.
Jody was subsequently buried under 3 tons of papers, making him the first know fatality from the Slashdot effect.
But seriously, I would hate to be in his shoes right now. In addition to lots of email addresses, I am sure he will get a couple of those goatce links...
=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.