Slashdot Mirror
Rep. Boucher Outlines 'Fair Use' Fight
A reader writes "AtNewYork.com is reporting: U.S. Congressman Rick Boucher, moving to strengthen "fair use" provisions under federal copyright law, said he is introducing a bill that would essentially restrict the record industry from selling copy-protected CDs."
Hmm.. anyone know Rick Bouchers district/contact info? I would love to write that man a letter.. and I dont mean a bad one, either.
With all the negative feedback congressmen normally get from us, I think it would be a nice change if we actually wrote them something thanking and encouraging them for once...
One of these days i'm going to find this 'peer' guy and reset HIS connection!
I guess that the only solution that americans believe in anymore is to legislate the crap out of everything. Making sure that no independent thought occurs anywhere.
Not that this is all bad, but do we have to legislate what should be common practice by the record companies. The real solution is simple, if you buy a cd that you cannont play and cannot return, call the company that you bought it from and annoy them.
I fail to see how it is a good idea to ban the sales of copy protected CDs. The record comapnies are more than free to sell them as such, and I would hate to see the even more legislation from the government telling companies what they can and can't do, especialy when it is in a situation where no harm can come to the users of the products. The Libertarian in me cringes at this idea.
However, doing something like simply mandating a truth in advertiseing plan, so that CDs that are copy protected are labled as such, and ones that aren't are the only ones that can carry the Compact Disk logo would be a fine comprimise. And would also I think let the market police itself.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I love him, and I want to have his babies. I want to be his meat puppet of love.
And the scary bit? I am not joking. This is the one elected representative who gets it, who's prepared to stand up and say so, and is not buying the line that what's good for big shareholders isn't necessary good for us.
The worst part? I'm not a US citizen, and so I'm not supposed to be allowed to donate campaign contributions. And yet, strangely, Hollings can take money from any US business that he likes. I despair.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I think it is good to see SOME sort of recognition of fair use. However this stops short of really saying fair use is a 'right', it is more along the lines of not kicking the ass of people just trying to do fair use stuff. What *I* want to see is some sort of penalty imposed on companies who take measures to restrict fair use in dominant standards, such as DVDs. All these so-called copy protection schemes make the right to exercise fair use a moot point, if successful one cannot exercise these rights. There are already laws in place to cover illegal copying. Of course, currently it isn't econmincally feasible to use that path as they should, so there is an issue... Chasing down the mechanisms that *could* be used for copying is wrong, as is trying to prevent the ability to copy altogether...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
So, I take it you believe anyone who thinks we have a right to fair use must be a criminal?
Please...
Because if 80 percent of the market is willing to buy them, the recording industry will go ahead and sell them. And when most all the music that is released comes on the copy protected format, then you are either giving in, or going without most music.
Remember, all intellectual property-based transactions are already entirely the product of legislated fictions - if it involves royalties, copyrights, patents, or the like, it is a "product" that was essentially created by legislative fiat.
Remember, RIAA and the rest of the Horsemen of the Apocalpse aren't going to stand by. They'll fight this thing with every dollar, lawyer and lying press release they can dream up.
This could be a HUGE momentum swing. Let's take advantage of it...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
The Honorable Mr. Boucher will be branded either a nut case or a heretic by the rest of the house.
Sad but true I'm afraid. However it is nice to see there is at least one US politician that knows the difference between copyright protection and copy protection; pity he won't make a difference. Even more of a pity for us Europeans who seem to be a test bed for all these copy^H^H^H^Hfair rights protected CDs. All power to him but I fear that the RIAA will get their way in the US and then force it on everyone else - and let's not even mention Palladium.
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
A better solution is to restrict the RIAA from using the term "CD" for these so-called "copy protected" discs that break from the red book specification. Pass laws to force the industry to call them "PDs -- protected discs" and let the market forces decide. Maybe Joe Consumer is willing to forego fair use for the right price point?
They can stack them as high as they want. I wont be buying any of them :D
Do we need a bill to help me decide what to purchase?
That attitude reminds me of this quote:
"First the Nazis came for the Communists; and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews; and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. When they came for the trade unionists I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a trade unionist. And when they came for the Catholics I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me... and by that time there was no one left to speak for anyone."
Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoeller
Basically what I mean is that it is FAR easier to fight to keep a right than it is to regain it after losing it. Sitting on the curb and boycotting isn't going to help one damn bit unless you can get more than a handful of people to do it, which you won't. The teeny-bopper clueless fuckwits are too brainwashed by MTV to think for themselves and their rights as individuals.
Send that man some campaign contributions!
My concern is with the kind of transaction record companies are making with consumers. When you buy a CD, are you buying the physical product, or are you buying a license to listen to the music?
If we're buying the right to listen to the music, then we should be able to listen to in in other forms, MP3, etc.
If we're buying the physical product, then the RIAA shouldn't be trying to tax record stores on sales of used albums.
Basically, they can't have it both ways.
the mot disturbing thing though is the ambiguity. There's no EULA to clickthrough or read, and I doubt the average consumer knows whether they're buying a CD, or buying the music on the CD. It makes a big difference.
Kevin Fox
It is great that fair use, the public domain, and consumers have a friend in Congress. Rick Boucher is a great public servant who deserves our support. It's a shame that we need a new law to secure what should be protected already by the First Amendment, though. An idea, once expressed, belongs to the public domain, and is only loaned to copyright holders to promote creativity and innovation. Fair use is a natural right. It is part of free speech.
I especially liked how he would have royalties sent directly to the artists, and not to the robber barons who are ripping them off. The RIAA will really hate that! p.s. check out www.dontbuycds.org
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Although I am all for letting the users (buyers / market) to decide whether or not something is worth to be purchased, methinks it will be a VERY BAD LAW if there is any restriction on the selling of the "copy-protected" CDs.
Why ?
Simply because, in the spirit of "FAIR USE", the producers of the CDs should have the right to enjoy the "FAIR USE" of the technology employed in the "copy protected CD".
The only thing that I think is important in all these things is that THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY LAW PROHIBITING ANYONE FROM rendering the very technology that have been employed in the "copy protection" scheme useless.
And that's the gist of DCMA - it makes EVERYTHING, or EVERY IDEA of creating NEW TECHNOLOGIES making existing ones useless ILLEGAL.
Copy-protected CDs are NOT the culprit. It's the BAD LAW (DCMA and friends) that is hurting everyone.
One bad law doesn't deserve another. We have enough bad laws already.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
In the article, I found the following paragraph rather interesting:
While conceding later that copy-protected CDs aren't against existing law, he said their introduction wouldn't even impact the music piracy the music industry is trying to stop. Instead, the move will "anger millions of their best-customers who have become accustomed of making copies [of CDs] for their own use," which is allowed under "fair use" provisions of copyright law.
So, if indeed they are angering millions of their best-customers, then why does he need a law. Seems logical that by doing this they will be hurting their own bottom line, and thus will be disincented to do it. Having said that, I'm happy to see this kind of legislation because I think copyright is getting sorely out of balance.
I have been fortunate in that my obscure taste in music has kept me away from CD's with copy protection schemes. If I do someday pick up a CD with a protection scheme, then I will handle it very simply.
I will rip it as I do with every CD to 192Kbps MP3. If it fails I'll spend some time trying to find hacks that will get it to rip successfully. If no hacks solve it, then I will return the media as unusable and demand my money back. If the label doesn't want my money, I'll just go find other musicians to listen to, thanks. If they all go to unbreakable copy protection systems (hahaha!), then I'll just hum along with the voices in my head I guess.
If they don't want to sell me music in the form that I listen to I guess I just won't listen anymore.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Copy-protected CDs don't hold up their end of the bargain because the work can't go into the public domain (more likely, it will simply become inaccessible after a few years as the DRM technology changes). Therefore, any content published on copy-protected CDs should not be subject to copyright protection: if people break the copy protection, they should be able to redistribute the content freely.
The legal power and protection of copyright should be reserved for content that is actually published and that will eventually be able to fall into the public domain.
I fail to see how it is a good idea to ban the sales of copy protected CDs. The record comapnies are more than free to sell them as such, and I would hate to see the even more legislation from the government telling companies what they can and can't do, especialy when it is in a situation where no harm can come to the users of the products.
For the same reason the electronics industry is restricted from selling equipment which blacks out the radio reception in an entire building or neighborhood, or will tend to overheat wiring and start fires.
Copy protected CDs destroy expensive equipment, such as Macintosh computers and some high-end CD players. Banning their sale is minimalistic Consumer Protection, something is country is in sore need of, and something which is utterly appropriate for the government to be doing. Not everyone can be an expert on everything.
However, doing something like simply mandating a truth in advertiseing plan
I too would very much like to see a return to Truth in Advertising. Unfortunately, the courts have ruled the corporations are the same as living, breathing human beings, with all of their rights (but none of their vulnerabilities). This has been explicitly extended to include freedom of speech that is no more restricted than individual speech (go figure), so there is little if anything that can be done to coerce a company, much less a cartel, into not misrepresenting their incompatible disks as CDs.
If they want to sell a new, incompatible medium, they should be required to change its physical format such that it cannot accidentally be put into equipment it will damage. Requiring such disks to be 6" in diameter, instead of 4.5", for example, woud probably be sufficient.
The Compact Disk logo is a trademark issue, but frankly it is too subtle for most consumers to recognize, so while Phillips will likely not allow such copy protected CD-resembling media to bear their logo, the customer will likely only become aware of that discrepency after their incompatible drive has refused to play the music they purchased (at best), or has been damaged or destroyed by the disk.
This is not acceptable, and I am frankly amazed that anyone could argue that caveate emptor would be at all an acceptable standard of behavior, much less regulation, for something like this.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The correlary to this view is that copyright law (which extends all the way back to the US Constitution) was established primarily to protect those who create and distribute creative works. In fact, it was created as a compact between average citizens and those citizens or organizations that were provided with copyright protections.
The underlying goal of this compact was to strengthen the culture of the United States for all its citizens. The underlying goal was never to provide special protections for copyright holders in some sort of vacuum of privelege.
Interestingly, in their primer on copyright, the RIAA neglects this vial information. As usual, they cite the rights of the copyright holder, without pointing out that those rights are mirrored by specific and explicit rights given to the general public as part of the copyright compact.
The RIAA essentially constitutes a cartel, and as such when they decide to endorse computer-damaging CDs or other nonsense, it's not simply a matter of consumer choice. Unopposed, the RIAA will get what it wants. What it wants in this case is to deny you and me the right to exercise our end of the copyright compact.
As we're seeing now with WorldCom, Enron, et. al., even though the Congress is generally overly-lenient with big business, from time to time the politicians realize that it's in nobody's best interests for these people to be given free rein.
I for one am happy to see at least one member of Congress who is willing to stand up and make this an issue. Cynics will call it grandstanding, or proof that he didn't get enough money from the music industry, and so on. But I see it as proof that the American political system can work.
As others have pointed out, it's not enough to steal songs via Limewire all day in a "protest" against the RIAA. Sometimes you have to *gasp* get to know the issues, vote *double gasp* and stop whining that the system doesn't work.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Here is my email to him, have you sent one yet?
--------
I am a computer professional who lives in Central Upstate New York. I just wanted to let you know I have been very impressed with the views you have expressed recently regarding fair use of recorded music, and CARP.
In addition, I am strongly against many of the restrictions imposed by the DMCA, and am in favor the the modifications you propose. The current DMCA has very little to do with protecting copyright and very much to do with having absolute and complete control over the consumer. Without correction, I believe we are on a course to a world where we are unable to possess a copy of any digital IP, and will be charged every time we want to access it. This is very anti-consumer, and has nothing to do with the reasons "limited" copyright was ever granted.
I would like to thank you for the views you are expressing, and would like to let you know I support you in what I have heard so far. I look forward to reading your soon to be proposed legislation. I will most likely be writing my representatives in support when the bill is released and numbered.
I wish you represented my district so that I could give you my vote next time around.
-signature with complete mailing address-
Soccer Goal Plans
I've met him. A politician with a clue is a rare thing. Let's not lose him . . . .
If I lived in Virginia, I would vote for this dude, even tho he IS a democrat.
If anyone has any links to previous stories on this guy, feel free to post.
Most people here seem to agree that this is "a good thing" and I second that opinion. I wonder, though, if by extention of this one can hope that they'll "get it" when it comes to the subject of encrypting DVDs and (as they'd like to do) HDTV transmissions? One can hope. It's odd that he's focusing on copy protected CDs, which is a relatively recent development, where as copy protected DVDs have been around since day one (5 years). What's the difference, logically? For that matter, what about copy protected VHS tapes (ala Macrovision)? Why, suddenly, does it matter that they're doing it to CDs? I'm not sure I get it, but that's our government for ya!
It's pretty simple from a plain economic view. People make bootleg copies when the legit ones are too expensive. Stop the price-fixing and so-called "piracy" will evaporate overnight. Would Napster ever have become popular if full-length albums were $4 on CD and $2 online in a lossless format? Not likely. Would street vendors be peddling movies if legit copies were $5? Heck, would anybody even rent movies if they were that cheap to buy? And imagine if all profits from album sales went to the artists. This is what we need to aim for--not a half-hearted set of fair-use guidelines for the current overpriced content that exists today. Furthermore, we need a sort of "anti-DMCA" that requires all copyrighted works to be plaintext and entirely unprotected by copy controls. But alas, hollywood has decided that they should set ridiculously high prices to make room for several unneeded middlemen. And in defense of these high prices, they've pushed for more legislation in attempt to rein in control of the disgruntled masses. This is not what copyright was intended to be.
According to the First Amendment, neither you nor anyone else decides whether it's worth selling or whether it's really "music".