Slashdot Mirror
CNET Interviews Rep. Boucher
Eliot Van Buskirk writes "I interviewed Congressman Rick Boucher about the DMCA, copy-protected CDs, free speech, and the effects of RIAA/MPAA lobbying both in the U.S. and abroad. The transcript is available in the MP3 Insider column, and also as a downloadable MP3 , available under the EFF's Open Audio License, meaning that you can put it in your file sharing directory's upload folder completely legally. This is sort of an experiment. Boucher might be the leading defender in Washington of our right to Fair Use, so I figure it makes sense for the interview to spread around the P2P networks." Boucher's one of the smart ones.
Interview with a congressman--part one
...which is ironic because it's called the promotion of broadband and digital television, promotion of sales [Editor's note: The law is actually called the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act], it seems to me that the exact opposite is true.
By Eliot Van Buskirk
Senior editor
(4/26/02)
When a regular reader of my column e-mailed me to say that he could set up an interview with Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia), I admit that I was a bit skeptical. After all, this is the Internet, where people e-mail you with seemingly impossible opportunities everyday. But soon enough, I was on the phone for half an hour with Rep. Boucher, who called fresh from a vote on the House floor to talk with me about a variety of pressing online music issues--most specifically, our right to the fair use of the content that we buy. This constitutional right, which is closely related to free speech, has already been severely damaged by the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and could be obliterated by a new bill introduced by Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-South Carolina). Boucher thinks that you should be able to burn mix CDs, but due to the lobbying efforts by the record industry in Washington, many others in Congress don't see things in the same proconsumer light. Here's what Rep. Boucher had to say in this first of two installments.
Note: This first section of the interview can be downloaded for free as an MP3 file, under the EFF's Open Audio License. That means you can legally download this interview to a shared folder and distribute it on any file-sharing network, but you cannot alter the file itself or remove attribution.
Download and listen to the first half of MP3 Insider's interview with fair-use advocate Rep. Boucher.
MP3 Insider: So I really liked your article on CNET News.com, and it seems like we agree with each other on a lot of these issues.
Rep. Boucher: Yeah.
M: I'm wondering, just to start things off, do you use a computer to download or stream music?
I defend peoples' right to [download music from the Web] in a lawful manner, but I have not undertaken that practice myself.
B: I actually use a computer a lot. I have three computers that I use on a regular basis--one is on my desk top in my Washington office, another is at home, and I have my laptop that I use when I'm traveling. However, I'm not in the habit of downloading music from the Web. I defend peoples' right to do that in a lawful manner, but I have not undertaken that practice myself.
M: OK. So how long would you say that you've been online?
B: I have been online since the early '90s. The first legislation that I produced relating to the Internet was a bill to overturn a restriction inside of the law that prohibited the Internet backbone from being used for anything other than research and scientific and educational communication.
M: Interesting.
B: The effect of that restriction, which was known as the acceptable-use policy, prohibited electronic commerce, and the first Internet-related legislation that I sponsored, which was in 1992, repealed the acceptable-use policy and thereby enabled the Internet to be used for electronic commerce. So I have been involved in Internet-related policy for approximately one decade, and I have been using the Internet myself for almost that period of time.
M: Excellent, so you definitely know the area fairly well.
B: Yes.
M: OK, so now into some more specifics. You've gone on the record as a vocal opponent of the DMCA, the anticircumvention clause especially, and I remember Orrin Hatch, who's a Republican, making statements in support of file sharing back during the Napster hearing. I'm wondering if you could tell me, how do you think the two parties line up overall, in terms of consumers' digital rights in the Internet age?
B: Well, I think what you're seeing is that among the handful of members of Congress who are involved in intellectual-property policy today, House and Senate, you are seeing those members basically divide into two camps. One of those camps staunchly defends all of the provisions of the DMCA, staunchly defends the 20-year extension of copyright terms, staunchly defends the content community's copyright interests, against all efforts to enhance the rights of the users of intellectual property--that's one camp. The other camp is the other side of the equation, and that other camp is members who believe that the historical balance between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of the users of copyrighted material has been dramatically altered in favor of the owners of copyrights at the expense of the rights of the users of copyrighted material.
M: Right.
B: I am in that camp [the second one].
M: Good.
B: I think that the balance needs to be restored, and I would note that in the camp in which I am in, one finds libraries, universities, the Internet industry, the manufacturers of digital media, and consumers.
M: Speaking of the consumers, I know the MPAA and RIAA are fairly well organized in terms of their efforts. Are there any kind of consumer-advocacy groups getting involved? I mean, I sometimes get the feeling that people--consumers--don't know what's at stake here, really.
[The MPAA and RIAA], by virtue of their long-standing knowledge of Congress and relationships with many key members of Congress, would appear to have the upper hand.
B: Well I think that's true. I think this debate is just beginning, and in the early stages of any debate, oftentimes the external stakeholders appear to be somewhat lopsided in terms of their ability to influence the process, and I would grant you that at the present time, the Motion Picture Association [of America] and the Recording Industry Association of America, by virtue of their long-standing knowledge of Congress and relationships with many key members of Congress, would appear to have the upper hand. On the other hand, I think a lot has changed since 1998, when the DMCA was passed by Congress. We now have the formation of a number of groups that are dedicated to user rights. I would include among those the Digital Media Association (DiMA), which represents Webcasters. They were not a part of the debate in 1998. I would also include the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for--what is it called, Electronic Democracy, something along that line? All of these groups have come to the scene since 1998 and are now here, expressing the concerns of people who are users of intellectual property.
M: Right.
B: I think there's also a growing body of scholarship that suggests that what I said previously is true, and that is that the balance, which we always respected in our law, between the rights of intellectual-property owners and the rights of the users of that property has now been dramatically shifted, and that the balance now lies on the side of the owners of copyright, and that that shift has occurred at the expense of the rights of copyright owners. It has certainly occurred at the expense of the fair-use rights, which underpins our right to speak freely in society. That growing body of scholarship includes a number of prominent law professors and writers on the West Coast.
M: Are you familiar with Lawrence Lessig and his work [Code & Other Laws of Cyberspace and The Future of Ideas ]?
B: Yes, I am. I've read his work, and I applaud it. I think he's exactly on target.
M: Right. I get letters from people all the time, I mean they read my column when I tell them what these laws say they can't do, and I think more people who have CD burners now, and the average person is starting to understand this a little more, maybe, we'll see...
Millions of Americans have now become accustomed to using their CD burners at home in order to perform a completely lawful act.
B: Well I think we will, and you're absolutely right in saying that the attempt by the labels to introduce copy-protected CDs into the U.S. market is going to have a profound effect on this debate. Millions of Americans have now become accustomed to using their CD burners at home in order to perform a completely lawful act. And that is to take music that they have purchased at the store and rearrange the tracks on those CDs on a CD they've compiled themselves, so that they have on that self-manufactured CD, exactly the music they want to hear in the order in which they want to hear it. And that is a classic exercise of Constitutionally protected fair-use rights.
M: Right.
B: And to the extent now that people are frustrated in being able to perform that legal act, I think you're going to see millions of Americans complain to their members of Congress that something is amiss when they go to the store, buy a CD, and then take it home and find that they can't space-shift from that CD onto another CD they want to create for their own personal use.
M: Right, do you think the Sony vs. Betamax case is going to stand up as sort of a precedent that reinforces our right to fair use?
Interview with a congressman--part one (continued)
B: Well, the Sony vs. Betamax decision is a very valuable decision. It was rendered 20 years ago. To a large extent it was reversed by the DMCA. What the Sony vs. Betamax decision held is that any time technology can be used for two purposes--a minimum of two, but two anyway, one of which is infringing, and another I have very serious problems with punishing the technology. And that is precisely what the DMCA seeks to do.
of which is noninfringing, that the technology is lawful technology as long as it has a substantial noninfringing use. And the court analyzed the Betamax and found that because it allowed time-shifting, it had a substantial noninfringing use (time-shifting is fair use), and therefore Betamax was found to be lawful technology. That's a very valuable legal principle: The presence of a substantial noninfringing use renders the technology to be lawful. Now unfortunately, the DMCA essentially reversed that, because it says that if the technology, even though it has substantial noninfringing uses, was primarily intended by the manufacturer to be used for an infringing purpose, then the technology is unlawful. Now the problem is, nobody's going to know at the outset what a court is going to rule about the intent of the manufacturer. How do you determine that extent? How does a court subsequently determine what was in the manufacturer's mind at the time that he produced technology that could be used both for infringement and also had noninfringing purposes? And so the Sony vs. Betamax principle was severely weakened by that provision of the DMCA. And then, of course, anybody who traffics in a device which is declared to be an infringing technology--such as Mr. Sklyarov from Russia--can be arrested for criminal conduct.
M: Right.
B: And I have very serious problems with punishing the technology. And that is precisely what the DMCA seeks to do. We should punish people who engage in acts of piracy. We should not punish the technology which can be used for infringing purposes but also for substantial noninfringing purposes.
M: So along those lines, I just came across a very interesting quote from John Ippolito of the Guggenheim, and he's talking about Senator "Fritz" Hollings's bill, the CBDTPA, and Ippolito says about that bill, "To disable the Internet to save EMI and Disney is the moral equivalent of burning down the library of Alexandria to ensure the livelihood of monastic scribes."
B: (laughs) Well, it's artful...(laughs) Well, without being quite that eloquent, let me endorse the general idea that he expresses. I think that Senator Hollings's bill is wrongheaded. It is inappropriate for the government to establish technical standards to be applied to digital media. The government is not a very good standards-developing body.
M: Mmm-hmm.
B: I do agree that we need to take some steps to assure that material which is, for example, broadcast across digital-television equipment should be protected in such a way as to disallow unauthorized copying and disallow uploading to the Internet. I actually endorse the idea of doing that. But I think that should be done in a collaborative process that involves the manufacturers of equipment and also involves the motion- It is inappropriate for the government to establish technical standards to be applied to digital media. The government is not a very good standards-developing body.
picture studios. And that very process is underway. That group has already achieved an agreement that will protect television content--broadcast and digital format--and received in the home by either cable television or by satellite. What they have not achieved is an agreement in regard to material that is broadcast over the air for receipt by an antenna or by "rabbit ears." But they're working to do that, and we expect that within another six weeks there will be a private-sector agreement that produces a standard for protecting that content as well. Now, at the end of that process, after the equipment manufacturers are satisfied that the standard is workable, after the motion-picture studios are satisfied that it offers sufficient protection, after the various consumer groups that are also working in this process are content that the employment of that standard will enable people to continue to exercise their fair-use rights for appropriate home recording of the material--after all of those tests are met, there may be a role for Congress to require that equipment respond to that particular standard, and all of the external stakeholders will have endorsed the standard and say that this technology works, and that consumer rights are protected. Now, at that point, I would be willing to entertain a proposal that Congress act and require that equipment respond. The Senator Hollings's bill is way ahead of all of that. Senator Hollings's bill would require that all digital media immediately respond to a standard that the government would wind up setting. There would be no assurance that consumer rights would be protected. There would be no assurance that the fair-use right to home recording of digital content would be preserved. There would be no assurance that the technology as applied to consumer-electronics products and information-technology products would allow those products to function effectively. And I'm convinced that if his bill becomes law, which I don't think it will, but if it were to become law, I think it would probably inhibit the introduction of a lot of useful new technology.
M: Exactly. I mean it seems to me that in fact it would incent people to buy used computer equipment from before the legislation were enacted...
B: Absolutely.
M:
B: I think that's right.
M: Right. OK, so since the Internet is international, then there's the aspect of will the DMCA become the basis for worldwide copyright law, and do you think that's realistic?
B: Well, that's a big problem. You put your finger on a major concern there.
Note: Check back in two weeks for the second half of the MP3 Insider's interview with Rep. Boucher.
Interview with a congressman--part one (continued)
...which is ironic because it's called the promotion of broadband and digital television, promotion of sales [Editor's note: The law is actually called the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act], it seems to me that the exact opposite is true.
B: Well, the Sony vs. Betamax decision is a very valuable decision. It was rendered 20 years ago. To a large extent it was reversed by the DMCA. What the Sony vs. Betamax decision held is that any time technology can be used for two purposes--a minimum of two, but two anyway, one of which is infringing, and another
I have very serious problems with punishing the technology. And that is precisely what the DMCA seeks to do.
of which is noninfringing, that the technology is lawful technology as long as it has a substantial noninfringing use. And the court analyzed the Betamax and found that because it allowed time-shifting, it had a substantial noninfringing use (time-shifting is fair use), and therefore Betamax was found to be lawful technology. That's a very valuable legal principle: The presence of a substantial noninfringing use renders the technology to be lawful. Now unfortunately, the DMCA essentially reversed that, because it says that if the technology, even though it has substantial noninfringing uses, was primarily intended by the manufacturer to be used for an infringing purpose, then the technology is unlawful. Now the problem is, nobody's going to know at the outset what a court is going to rule about the intent of the manufacturer. How do you determine that extent? How does a court subsequently determine what was in the manufacturer's mind at the time that he produced technology that could be used both for infringement and also had noninfringing purposes? And so the Sony vs. Betamax principle was severely weakened by that provision of the DMCA. And then, of course, anybody who traffics in a device which is declared to be an infringing technology--such as Mr. Sklyarov from Russia--can be arrested for criminal conduct.
M: Right.
B: And I have very serious problems with punishing the technology. And that is precisely what the DMCA seeks to do. We should punish people who engage in acts of piracy. We should not punish the technology which can be used for infringing purposes but also for substantial noninfringing purposes.
M: So along those lines, I just came across a very interesting quote from John Ippolito of the Guggenheim, and he's talking about Senator "Fritz" Hollings's bill, the CBDTPA, and Ippolito says about that bill, "To disable the Internet to save EMI and Disney is the moral equivalent of burning down the library of Alexandria to ensure the livelihood of monastic scribes."
B: (laughs) Well, it's artful...(laughs) Well, without being quite that eloquent, let me endorse the general idea that he expresses. I think that Senator Hollings's bill is wrongheaded. It is inappropriate for the government to establish technical standards to be applied to digital media. The government is not a very good standards-developing body.
M: Mmm-hmm.
B: I do agree that we need to take some steps to assure that material which is, for example, broadcast across digital-television equipment should be protected in such a way as to disallow unauthorized copying and disallow uploading to the Internet. I actually endorse the idea of doing that. But I think that should be done in a collaborative process that involves the manufacturers of equipment and also involves the motion-
It is inappropriate for the government to establish technical standards to be applied to digital media. The government is not a very good standards-developing body.
picture studios. And that very process is underway. That group has already achieved an agreement that will protect television content--broadcast and digital format--and received in the home by either cable television or by satellite. What they have not achieved is an agreement in regard to material that is broadcast over the air for receipt by an antenna or by "rabbit ears." But they're working to do that, and we expect that within another six weeks there will be a private-sector agreement that produces a standard for protecting that content as well. Now, at the end of that process, after the equipment manufacturers are satisfied that the standard is workable, after the motion-picture studios are satisfied that it offers sufficient protection, after the various consumer groups that are also working in this process are content that the employment of that standard will enable people to continue to exercise their fair-use rights for appropriate home recording of the material--after all of those tests are met, there may be a role for Congress to require that equipment respond to that particular standard, and all of the external stakeholders will have endorsed the standard and say that this technology works, and that consumer rights are protected. Now, at that point, I would be willing to entertain a proposal that Congress act and require that equipment respond. The Senator Hollings's bill is way ahead of all of that. Senator Hollings's bill would require that all digital media immediately respond to a standard that the government would wind up setting. There would be no assurance that consumer rights would be protected. There would be no assurance that the fair-use right to home recording of digital content would be preserved. There would be no assurance that the technology as applied to consumer-electronics products and information-technology products would allow those products to function effectively. And I'm convinced that if his bill becomes law, which I don't think it will, but if it were to become law, I think it would probably inhibit the introduction of a lot of useful new technology.
M: Exactly. I mean it seems to me that in fact it would incent people to buy used computer equipment from before the legislation were enacted...
B: Absolutely.
M:
B: I think that's right.
M: Right. OK, so since the Internet is international, then there's the aspect of will the DMCA become the basis for worldwide copyright law, and do you think that's realistic?
B: Well, that's a big problem. You put your finger on a major concern there.
Note: Check back in two weeks for the second half of the MP3 Insider's interview with Rep. Boucher.
Slashdot, come for the goatse, stay for the trolls.
"However, I'm not in the habit of downloading music from the Web." - I mean seriously - even if they did do this do you think they'd admit it in an interview?
Video Game cheats, hints a
Maybe geeks should be more activists in elections and campaign vigorously for politicians who have positive views about rights in the digital age.
We cannot expect to have them all but doing our share would give them a better chance of being elected. We can whine but unless we do our share in getting them elected we will will always be on the losing end.
Return the bells of Balangiga.
It is inappropriate for the government to establish technical standards to be applied to digital media. The government is not a very good standards-developing body.
Absolutely. Why leave the technical specifications of standards to a group of people who largely do not have a clue to the technology involved?
I never understood why the government gets involved in these technical matters at all.
I am the evil aardvark!
Why do I get the feeling that in this case, "Boucher's one of the smart ones" is really just a synonym for "Boucher Agrees with Me."
Oops!!! Wrong guy, he's on our side ;o) . I was talking about Hollings. Sorry.
And I have very serious problems with punishing the technology. And that is precisely what the DMCA seeks to do. We should punish people who engage in acts of piracy. We should not punish the technology which can be used for infringing purposes but also for substantial noninfringing purposes. Finally a man that understands that! With all of the talk about digital rights management stuff coming out of washington and MPAA/RIAA it is a refreshing change of pace to see at least one person in a place of authority with a little intelligence.
Please join me in welcoming Rep Boucher to the fold. To quote former President Kennedy regarding Pinochet: "He may be an asshole, but he's our asshole."
illegitimii non ingravare
I've always wondered why it was that we've let Congress decide on technological standards, when we already have a government body chartered to do just that.
The National Institute for Standards and Technology has done a fair job in the past of qualifying and quantifying standards in the past, why aren't we using them now? I don't believe that we need to regulate standards in this case at this time, but if others feel so inclined, then why aren't we, the voters, telling Congress to do their jobs?
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Presumeably Mr. Boucher is refering to upcoming HDTV encryption. I do agree that we need to take some steps to assure that material which is, for example, broadcast across digital-television equipment should be protected in such a way as to disallow unauthorized copying and disallow uploading to the Internet. I actually endorse the idea of doing that. I wonder if he knows that this could render thousands of pieces of HDTV equipment nationwide obsolete, icluding TVs and set top boxes, that were not built with the new standard. Don't jump on this guy's boat too fast. It may be tempting to hear someone in Congress saying some things we want to hear, but we have to be careful. There is always the chance that he doesn't understand the reprecussions of the proposed standard.
hooray for him!
But the converse is also true: he is responsible for the dotcom bust and many repo'd BMWs.
boo!
I think it's great that there is at least one representative that seems to understand technology and its inherent risks and opportunities.
Fair Use should be a right accorded along the lines of the right to privacy. It's not mentioned in the Constitution directly, but it's still defended in the courts.
"Are you on some kind of medication?"
"No"
"Well, you should be."
--Bean
Which is exactly why this post needs to be modded to flamebait. It must be nice to live in such a simple world.
sPh
"B: The effect of that restriction, which was known as the acceptable-use policy, prohibited electronic commerce, and the first Internet-related legislation that I sponsored, which was in 1992, repealed the acceptable-use policy and thereby enabled the Internet to be used for electronic commerce. So I have been involved in Internet-related policy for approximately one decade, and I have been using the Internet myself for almost that period of time. "
So this is the bastard that ruined the internet?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I do agree that we need to take some steps to assure that material which is, for example, broadcast across digital-television equipment should be protected in such a way as to disallow unauthorized copying and disallow uploading to the Internet.
This is interesting. Boucher does seem to be very clueful, but how in the heck can he say all of these things about being pro-fair use and then say something like this?
What, exactly, are they planning on doing to prevent this? There is no way to "disallow uploading to the Internet" without something like the CBDTPA. Everyone who owns a copyright would like to "disallow unauthorized copying" why is digital television different? Are routers supposed to be intellegent enough to know that you're uploading a "Friends" episode? What if I digitize a VCR recording and upload that, do we need to prevent that too?
I can only imagine what he means by this is more complex than he's letting on. OTOH It's discouraging for me to see this coming from our side of the fence. The whole problem with "digital rights management" is that it threatens to turn our society into some sort of copyright police state.
You can't have it both ways, it's either allowing technology to run its course and people to generally obey the law or you have to regulate everything. Regulating everything is distasteful, if not entirely unrealistic. What's worse is that it will prevent above the board people (e.g. libraries) from doing what just about anyone will be able to do covertly (with black market equipment and so forth).
...to move to VA just to be able to vote for this guy?
Who was the Senate sponsor of that legislation.
Best Slashdot Co
Boucher's PowerRanking is 77 of 437 in Congress. Semi-high, but not high enough to make a difference without help...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
"I do agree that we need to take some steps to assure that material which is, for example, broadcast across digital-television equipment should be protected in such a way as to disallow unauthorized copying and disallow uploading to the Internet. I actually endorse the idea of doing that. But I think that should be done in a collaborative process that involves the manufacturers of equipment and also involves the motion-picture studios."
Let them create content and sell it to me, but don't let these greedy bastards control what I can do with it in the privacy of my own home once I've paid for it!
"And like that
HAHAHAHA!! Clarke isn't going anywhere. Just be prepared for 27 more years of futility.
is there a place where we can email our support to him? if he gets enough letters, word of mouth can spread amongst the repersenitive community without having to go through a mediary (such as an anal retentive secertary)
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
Boucher seems to have his values in the right place, but no where does he say anything for the right of the consumer to make his own music, movies, or software.
if a standard is reached by private industry that is endorsed by consumer groups, what assurences do people have that they will have the ability to use their home grown media and programs?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
That was a rather sexist comment! I would say there are plenty of men (myself included) whom fully understand and agree with the stated postion on the DMCA...
In fact...aren't YOU a man?
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
"Boucher's one of the smart ones".
Personally, I believe this editorial comment reflects a common and popular myth in Slashdot folklore. I believe there is a tendency to assosciate a politicians' intelligence with his or her stance on issues. This myth strikes to the heart of a fundamnetal misunderstanding of how our political system works.
When a Congressperson is interviewed, they speak the words that they believe will win them the most soft money contributions. Being intelligent does not make one moral, in fact many very intelligent people disagree with the viewpoints of the Slashdot audience. This does make them stupid. Senator Hollings is probably very intelligent. He may or may not believe that what Hollywood orders him to do is good. But by representing Disney he is ensuring a rich flow of political lifeblood: soft money. Soft money that can overpower and drown out a hundred thousand screaming geeks that society has already marginalized into triviality.
Personally I'd love to know what Boucher's plans for financing his re-election campaign are, and who's funding his current viewpoint. If he's actually speaking from the heart, then he may actually be one of the stupid ones.
"I would say there are plenty of men (myself included) who fully understand and agree with the stated postion on the DMCA."
Oh yeah, I happen to know you are an Avalanche fan. YOU better prepare for ... for ... nevermind.
Your going to download anyway, right?
To me, passing laws that punish everybody because a few people are pirates would be morally equivalent to wiping the whole population of Afghanistan off the planet to get rid of the terrorists.
Everybody agrees that we must be careful to avoid damage to civilians in our little war on terror. Everybody agrees that hurting civilians is wrong. Why, then, are people willing to tolerate the same sort of strategy when it comes to other issues? Just because it isn't a matter of life or death doesn't make the strategy any less wrong. There's no justification for punishing the innocent along with the guilty.
If Hollings has his way:
Dark Ages (old definition)
1. the period in European history from about a.d. 476 to about 1000.
2. the whole of the Middle Ages, from about a.d. 476 to the Renaissance.
3. (often l.c.) a period or stage marked by repressiveness, a lack of enlightenment or advanced knowledge, etc.
Dark Ages (new definition)
1. the period in World history from about a.d. 2002 to 2100.
2. the whole of the Binary Age, from about a.d. 2000 to the Open Age
3. (often l.c.) a period or stage marked by repressiveness, a lack of enlightenment or advanced knowledge, a lack of advanced knowledge except for those who finance political campaigns.
Hmm.. one thing that kind of bothered me about this interview was that he is in support of protecting television broadcasts. Anybody else see problems with this? I mean, I don't have a problem with HBO doing this. But if I can't record That 70's show, well that just sucks.
Maybe my imagination is a little overactive, but surely these guys would encrypt their shows, forcing me to buy the DVD...
"Derp de derp."
Now, maybe he'll actually do something? Hollings has introduced two shitty pieces of legislation and I'm still waiting on the Anti-DMCA one from Boucher. Where the hell is it? I don't give a rat's ass what he's for if all he does is sit on his hands.
Mod me down if you want, but have the balls to face the truth.
Isn't it a bit ironic that download.com forces users to register their name, email, job function, etc to download this MP3?
Free speech, not a free download...
Kennedy died long before Pinochet came to power. Maybe you're confusing Kennedy/Pinochet with Lincoln/Noreiga?
Rep. Boucher will hold a town meeting at the Blacksburg town hall on Sat June 15, 9:30am. I'll be there to make sure he's aware of MS' habit of extorting our schools with audit threats. Feel free to join in.
Miko O'Sullivan
Miko O'Sullivan
Who says that companies are the only copyright holders.
Every person alive has created lots of Intellectual Property. We do consume others, but we do generate our own, if only the discussions with other people.
This information belong to us, and we should also get a say in how the law acts.
Mailing list/usenet archives are wealths of information that WE created only due to the ease of copying and transmission.
I think that the restrictions of discussion boards or mailing lists could prevent the creation of more useful content then comes out of the MPAA and RIAA.
That isn't even factoring the small bands music, or amateur movies (Troops anyone)
I just think the focus should be on the people who create the majority of the worlds IP, not the few companies who make a small sliver of it.
Holy shit! An intelligent politician? Please, please don't follow up with a rational Christian -- it'll fsck my whole worldview.
I can't find any good links which explain it in detail. But essentially the equipment makers have worked together with the media producers to create HDCP(High-Bandwidth Digital Copy Protection)... or essentially another encrypted signal sort of like how DVDs are encoded. They are now promoting that future devices such as HDTV enabled video tape recorders, new HD versions of DVD, and so forth will only output a HDCP signal. They are even talking now of replacing the HDTV OTA receivers with new models that will only output true HD content using HDCP, the current receivers will be somehow limited to like a 480p signal.(not sure how they accomplish this)
:(
Currently most HDTV televisions and monitors sold over the past several years have Component Video inputs(three RCA jacked cables on the back of the set). They don't support HDCP. This new standard will be supported by yet a different cabling standard using DVI connectors.
So what's this mean?
Everybody who currently owns a HDTV, essentially all of the early adopters, will never be able to receive High-Definition content on them. The best you can hope for is the 480p signal like that which is output by Progressive scan DVD players. The hardware makers will not be allowed to output high-def signals to component video, nor will they be allowed to build conversion boxes to convert DVI to Component Video, despite the sets being capable of displaying that image.
Anyway, I think it's pretty bloody stupid. Especially since it will probably severely cripple the introduction of those newer technologies like the video tape and HD-DVD, etc. since the earlier adopters won't adopt it.
BTW, I own a HDTV set I purchased back in January. This news came out just a few weeks after I made my purchse.
"And I have very serious problems with punishing the technology. And that is precisely what the DMCA seeks to do. We should punish people who engage in acts of piracy. We should not punish the technology which can be used for infringing purposes but also for substantial noninfringing purposes."
Is this an instance where the government is scared of technology sipmly because they don't get a piece of the pie? You can look anywhere and get stereos which allow you to record tapes from the radio, copy tapes, cd to tape, and even radio to cd!!! You have dual deck VCR's , VCR/DVD combos, and no one is shutting down the manufacturers? No one has mentioned that these devices essentially perform the same function!!!! However, there are taxes paid on theses items, so that makes them ok? just my $0.02!!
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ - A form to find out who your representatives are.
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.htm - U.S. Representatives by State
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html - Representative's Websites
The transcript is available in the MP3 Insider column, and also as a downloadable MP3
:)
I love the CNET registration you have to go through to get the MP3. My entry says that I'm a database admin for the Albanian government which has over 10,000 people.
The coolest voice ever.
"Everybody agrees that we must be careful to avoid damage to civilians in our little war on terror."
...
Too bad your NOT being carful
Straight up, I'm fairly certain that any elected pres. would have pursued a vigorous war on terrorism. Other than that, what has Bush done to agree with?
I'm not trying to be 'anti' about this... it just seems like a neat place to ask the question. Would you like to have seen drilling in the Alaskan Natl. Wildlife Refuge? Do you think that Cheny+Bush's ties to the oil industry give them unbiased insite into how to best meet the nation's energy needs? Are you in favor of a general roll-back of environmental laws? Does the idea of a brokered treaty on environmental issues offend you (Quito)? Have you been in favor of Bush's 'hands off' treatment of Israel&the Palenstinians until recently? Are you in favor of missile defence? Do you have feeling either way about deficit spending?
And, to look at the other motivation, what stance of Gore's did you disagree with so strongly?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, based on your email address, some of this might have to do with general preference for overt Christions to prefer the republican right over the democrat left. If I am correct, could I get you to take a moment and explain to me why that is? And, if you feel qualified to answer, why aren't Christins more concerned with the environment?
So true
C. Montgomery Burns
666 Mammon Lane
Springfield , USA 12345
044-171-555-1212
Job: Evil Centenarian
Political Affiliation: Republican
Sex: Requires Drugs
Marital Status: Single
Comment: "I have billions of dollars, save on energy costs because I glow in the dark, and enjoy being bathed by my sensitive male Executive Assistant."
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
everything he says should be modded down. since when do we slashdot C|Net anyway? page wideners suck.
The whole notion that slashdot readers, particularly slashdot readers who are part of the moral community, should vote for a democrat is rediculous. Yes lots of slashdot readers dislike copyright and all that, and maybe some companies such as the RIAA go to far. But most slashdot readers, expecially democrat-leaning ones, are in favor of total piracy. Which would be disastrous for the economy.
If hemos wants to vote democrat that is his cross to bear, but he should know that the rest of us don't have to vote with him. I for one will not be voting for this man.
If you do move to Virginia, be sure to campaign to get this reversed.
And if you can't manage that, try to get amendments embedded that will sanitise it. (If there is too much disagreement between the versions that the various states enact, it will be considerably weakened.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You're idea of a perfect America might be a socialist slave state but it sure as heck is not mine!!!!
Just for the record, the case which Rep. Boucher and the MP3 Insider guy repeatedly refer to as Sony v. Betamax is actually Sony v. Universal, and is required reading for anyone interested in our fair use rights as consumers.
Repeat after me. Fair use is NOT a Constitutional right. It's barely even a legal right; as far as I know, its only explicit legal standing is in the Audio Home Recording Act. What it IS is a doctrine that is generally respected by the courts but as far as I know, there have been no rulings stating that Congress cannot take away fair use if they so choose. We have fair use today because Congress has so far not done so, and has codified fair use in the AHRA and perhaps a couple other laws. If it were a Constitutional right, Congress wouldn't be able to take it away or severely restrict it like they seem bent on doing.
You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
Does anyone else feel that zipping an mp3 is redundant, seeing how mp3 is an effective audio compression method? Wow, I saved 16K by downloading a zip instead of an mp3, yippee!
Congress makes the laws and budgets that guide the NIST. If Congress wants the NIST to create the standards then the NIST will create the standards.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
I suppose it would be hypocritical for me to criticize the author pimping his own work to Slashdot (disclosure: as a tech writer, I've submitted stories that other authors on the site have written) though it's still disturbing. However, I'm a little concerned when a journalist/columnist starts trying to position himself as a man of the people. Submitting an interview is one thing, but this comes off as a guy trying to market himself as an insider, rather than letting his work speak for itself.
I'm also amused by the restrictions put on the audio format (just one section, please, and register!) but I'll let that go.
Think of how powerful media corporations are. They are truely the ones that make or break a politician.
And how hard would it be to arrainge a few hookers, some hidden cameras, etc. and then save it 'til the next election. Or worse, blackmail him now.
And how hard would it be to just digitally fake the whole thing with blue screens and some graphics people.
Scary these days. It's hard to know who's really telling the truth. Then again, it's always been this way. You just have to have blind faith that everything's going to work out.
Look at AOL-TW. Hahaha
Cool! Amazing Toys.