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.

Comments

Elect more representative like him

[cholokoy]

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.

Re:Elect more representative like him

[Drachemorder]

I agree with this in principle, but the problem is that there are many other issues I care about besides this one. No two people will agree completely about anything, much less so if one of them happens to be a politician.

I wind up voting for whoever seems to best fit my perspective in the big picture instead of simply on one or two issues. As an example (and one that many people here will probably disagree with, but that's ok), I'm happy with the way President Bush has performed in office, although I do disagree with him on several issues I consider important (Microsoft being a key one). Sure, if Gore were President, he might have thrown the book at Bill Gates. But in the big picture, I disagree with Gore on far more issues than I agree with him on, so I couldn't vote for him, regardless of the Microsoft issue.

Copyright issues are important. But they're not the only issues that are important to me when deciding who to support in an election.

Amen!

[Black Aardvark House]

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.

Boucher's one of the Smart Ones

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Boucher's one of the Smart Ones

[cscx]

Boucher's one of the smart ones.

I guess Hemos didn't see "The Waterboy."

intelligence!! i think i am having a heart attack

[GutBomb]

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.

warm welcome.

[rodentia]

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."

Re:warm welcome.

[Mr_Perl]

Indeed. The honorable gentleman could only become geekier through the use of a propeller hat.

Congress vs. NIST

[southpolesammy]

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?

Digital Television

[EtoDemerzel]

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.

Re:Digital Television

[FreeUser]

that's the price you risk paying when you are an early adopter of a technology in which the standards aren't even close to being agreed upon.

First, I'm not an early adopter, so I have no vested interest beyond that of a potential consumer who might consider purchasing HDTV equipment in the future, provided it hasn't been crippled to disallow recording and archiving material I wish to put in my video library, like I've been doing with my VCR sinc e the 80s.

The standard in the United States was agreed upon and legislated into law. Not everyone agreed, that is true, but not everyone ever agrees on any standard. As with virtually every other standard in place a consensus was reached and the appropriate standard stamped out.

Now the copyright cartels of Hollywood want to rewrite the standard specifically to shortchange consumers and deny them the capabilities with which they've grown accustomed, such as the ability to tape on-air broadcasts and either time-shift the show or stick the tape on the shelf as part of a collection, to watch again a few years later (or quite possibly never again, as with most 'home videos').

Having an agreed upon, legislated standard changed midstream, after consumer hardware is shipping, is not "a risk early adopters take," and if industries are going to be allowed to begin making such the order of the day you can kiss the entire phenominon of early adoption goodbye. There was a social, and in some facets legal, contract in place that people were buying equipment that complies with the HDTV standard as laid out by the FCC. Make all that equipment obsolete and you stand a good chance of killing the entire HDTV standard (in whatever form) dead, irrespective of whatever other merits it may have, and irrespective of how draconian the FCC becomes in trying to push it.

No one with a shred of sense is going to spend a sizeable amount of money a second time to chase a standard that should not have been changed in the first place, and there aren't enough people with the pocketbook or desire to sustain a second wave of early adopters needed to finance such a change.

Unless Hollywood is going to stard demanding government subsidized distribution of copy crippled HDTV equipment to the masses (who are unlikely to be interested at any price ... even $0 ... when they discover their $100 VCR does what that expensive equipment cannot), the change these fools are demanding is simply going to kill the medium dead, a la consumer DAT audio tape.

Which may, in fact, be their goal to begin with, so they can start offering 10 channels of lowres, lowgrade tripe on the public airwaves congress criminally stole from us and granted them as part of this whole move to HDTV to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, I lust after a good 1920x1080 image as much as the next person, but the price they are demanding in terms of relinquishing my rights as an A/V consumer just simply aren't worth it, by orders of magnitude. Nor to is the price of the equipment they are about to make obsolete, but that's another story.

Smart meaning....?

[sphealey]

"Smart" in this case equalling "agrees with the average opinion expressed on Slashdot"?

sPh

Mostly there, but...

[bperkins]

Boucher Sez:

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).

I am still a littel worried

[the_2nd_coming]

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?

Smart?

[sllort]

"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.

Re:Smart?

[danro]

If he's actually speaking from the heart, then he may actually be one of the stupid ones.

Or he might be a intelligent man with morals... but I guess that is considered stupid in american politics.
In politics anywhere when I come to think about it.

I think we just hit the real issue here.
Thanks, now I am really depressed.

Enter the Dark Ages II

[afferoman]

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.

Re:support

[GutBomb]

you can send him email at Ninthnet@mail.house.gov or you can contact him via phone or mail at:

188 East Main Street
Abingdon, Virginia 24210
276-628-1145

112 North Washington Avenue
Pulaski, Virginia 24301
540-980-4310

1 Cloverleaf Square, Suite C-1
Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219
276-523-5450

2187 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-3861

finally, you can visit his web site at http://www.house.gov/boucher