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."

Comments

Hooray for Virginia Democrats

[RumGunner]

I guess that the RIAA contributions to campaigns to Democrats haven't been high enough lately.

.

Re:Hooray for Virginia Democrats

[rodgerd]

It was not a "damn fine compromise" with anyone. Tipper Gore, like Al's fromer running mate Joe Lieberman, is an aggresive campaigner for censorship and has been since the early eighties. Her campaign against musicians mirrored the classic bluestocking campaigns against movies in the twenties and thirties, and comics in the fifties, hoping to obtain more censorship through sdaring the industry than could possibly be obtained through legal means.

Re:Hooray for Virginia Democrats

[ceejayoz]

According to the First Amendment, neither you nor anyone else decides whether it's worth selling or whether it's really "music".

yahoo

[Patrick13]

send that man a CD Burner!!!

Re:yahoo

[uncoveror]

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

Re:yahoo

[dattaway]

the First Amendment protects your right to criticize the government...

What if the corporations become the government? After all, they wine and dine the government and go to bed together. The government used to be for the people, but its now "them and us." Unless you are them. Only in the US is the government not us. Something like that.

Re:yahoo

[cphirman]

It may or may not be a First Amendment issue, but the music companies are in violation of the Fair Use Act by using technologies that don't allow consumers to make copies for personal use.

Re:yahoo

[Jay L]

the music companies are in violation of the Fair Use Act

No, they aren't. That is exactly the problem. The fair-use exemption does NOT grant us any additional rights; it merely says that fair use is not a violation of copyright. If you make a fair-use backup, a publisher cannot sue you for violating copyright. That's all.

But nothing in the fair-use exemption prohibits publishers from using technology to inhibit fair use, and that is what Boucher is trying to address.

Google "fair-use-act"; the law is the first hit.

nice.

[7-Vodka]

He mentioned this in his last interview. It's amazing to me he's actually going through with it.

Re:nice.

[Aqua OS X]

Sometimes, people we vote for actually do things that we would like them to do... sometimes.

Makes you wonder....

[nizo]

wether he has DSL or cable at home, and how many mp3s he has on his computer? :-) Personally however I would rather they be allowed to release poor quality CDs until people get so sick of them, they stop buying them. Why force them to release a product that people can actually listen to??? (I don't know how many people have complained about not being able to listen to copy protected CDs on various players......)

Re:Makes you wonder....

[killmenow]

So, I take it you believe anyone who thinks we have a right to fair use must be a criminal?

Please...

So.

[FreeLinux]

The Honorable Mr. Boucher will be branded either a nut case or a heretic by the rest of the house.

The wispering in the halls of congress has already begun. "Didn't he get his check from the RIAA yet???"

Re:So.

[jweatherley]

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.

Re:So.

[The Creator]

The Honorable Mr. Boucher will be branded either a nut case or a heretic by the rest of the house.

I think the word is com^H^H^Hterrorist now.

Re:So.

[Alsee]

Didn't he get his check from the RIAA yet?

He sure did. He used it to buy a CD burner.
Strangely he's the only congressman who only got one.

-

Contact info for Rick Boucher?

[kupekhaize]

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...

Re:Contact info for Rick Boucher?

[hether]

http://www.house.gov/boucher/ is his web site
and Ninthnet@mail.house.gov is his email address.

Re:Contact info for Rick Boucher?

[cgleba]

I know that this does not directly lign up with his ideas, but I had to send him a word of thanks anyway. If anyone is interested this is what I sent him (it was going to be a quick thank you but as usual I went off on a writing rant):

"Representative Boucher,

Frankly, sir, you are my hero. I read about your ideas
for a fair use bill to amend current copyright code
at:

http://www.atnewyork.com/

and then subsequently your speeches and ideas at:

http://www.house.gov/boucher/internet.htm

In a world where corporate ideals, profit margins and
politician pay-offs reign you are a very refreshing
soul. The situation of the current music industry is
sad -- music, by nature, has very little productive
power and thus little value. As the economies of scale
kick in prices of records and thus music should fall
proportional to the amount that it sold. The problem
with this classic model is, however, corporate profit
margins fall too. To alleviate this the RIAA and large
labels institute 'artificial demand' by hyping and
advertising artists as well as restricting the number and
price of CDs in the market (artificial supply). The former
is completely legal and ethical and the latter is
questionable but fair.

Lately consumers have been able to seemingly bypass the
artificial supply side and record labels refuse to drop prices
to account for it (it is tough to get such things as mp3's --
they take time to find as well as cost the distributor money
in processing power, time and bandwidth and on top of that mp3s
are by definition lower quality then CDs). If CDs were cheaper
and adhered to the true supply and demand of markets, people
would have no use at all for mp3s because CDs would be cheap
enough that the processing power, time and bandwidth used for
mp3s would be far more expensive then the CD itself and the
added-value of the high-quality CD (vs. the degraded mp3) would
be realized.

The RIAA and large record labels refuse to let the market
decide the price of their CDs. Furthermore, with the advent of
the Internet artists have the ability to market directly to
consumers -- that which the RIAA despises. The RIAA needs their
artificial supply as well as their 'middle man' distributor and
marketing status to maintain their profits. To keep that, they
now lobby the government to restrict the rights of consumers
(broken CDs, DMCA) and to legalize corporate vigilantism (flood,
aka DoS, P2P networks and sue their customers) much like Carnegie's
Pinkertons against labor not too long ago. Using the government and
the restriction of the people's rights as a form of artificial supply
is unethical and should be outright illegal.

Your ideas for your proposed bill are the most logical, direct and
coherent that I have heard thus far on this issue. I congratulate
you, sir. It gives the consumers and the artists their rights and
freedoms and lets the 'middle men' freely compete as they should.
The benefactors of the RIAA should not be the center -- artists and
consumers should and the RIAA's benefactors should be hired at will
as a marketing or distributing agency just like in every other
industry. Our government is a tool of the people to ensure our
rights, freedoms and the pursuit of happiness. It is not a tool
of the corporations to ensure profits that will later "trickle down"
to the people. A corporation is legally a person but can not vote.
Too many legislators forget that but you, sir, have not and I thank
you."

America's solution.

[Steveftoth]

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.

Re:America's solution.

[Temsi]

Well, the problem is a little deeper than that. The problem is mainly unregulated corporations running rampant. If they can get away with something legally, they will, no matter how unethical it is.
So, to protect the consumer, laws need to be put in place to keep the corporations in line.
Remember what Milton Friedman said: The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
Since that's the corporate mantra, this is exactly why we have laws that prohibit certain abuses of power, such as insider trading. Corporate America has demonstrated again and again that it WILL go as far as legally possible to make a buck.
You can call Sony HQ as often as you want to, but in the end, they won't care about one guy calling them a hundred times (might even get a restraining order), but they will listen to the might of thousands of people not buying their products... or if that fails, a law forcing them to behave.

Re:America's solution.

[ErikTheRed]

Actually, the case is usually that they legislate the crap into everything, but your point it taken.

Re:America's solution.

[uncoveror]

They will go to ILLEGAL ends to make a buck! Check out Enron, Worldcom, The Erpenbeck Company, Etc.

Re:America's solution.

[kcbrown]

Well, the problem is a little deeper than that. The problem is mainly unregulated corporations running rampant. If they can get away with something legally, they will, no matter how unethical it is. So, to protect the consumer, laws need to be put in place to keep the corporations in line.

Of course, the real problem isn't that any additional laws need to be put into place to keep corps in line, but that corporations need to be subject to exactly the same laws that individuals are and with the exact same penalties, since the Supreme Court ruled that, in essence, corporations are people under the law.

So corporations need to be subject to criminal penalties, and should be forced to stand trial, exactly the same way that people are.

In the criminal justice system, there are a set of penalties and actions that are applied to individuals. Right now, actions include such things as seizure of property, arrest, etc. Penalties include fines, jail time, and death.

For every action or penalty that can be applied to an individual, an equivalent action or penalty needs to be created and applied to corporations:

1. The death penalty for individuals would translate to the forced permanent closure of a corporation, with the assets of the corporation seized, sold where necessary, and the resulting money evenly distributed to all citizens of the U.S. (or at least all taxpayers). The reason for distributing the assets among the people and not simply handing the corporation's assets to the owners is that there is no good equivalent for having children in the realm of corporations, so there isn't any real "inheritance" for corporations, and since much of the purpose of penalties is deterrence, corporate owners (shareholders in the case of publicly owned corporations) absolutely must not profit from the sentences resulting from a corporate conviction.
2. Jail time for an individual would translate to the forced closure of a corporation for the duration of the sentence. The corporation would be allowed to resume doing business at the end of the sentence. If the corporation happens to die in the interim, tough. People die in jail all the time, so I see no reason to treat corporations with kid gloves in this regard. Note that this would also be the equivalent of arrest: a corporation that is in the state of arrest would be forced to close up shop until no longer under arrest. And, of course, corporations would have to pay bail to get out of being in this state, just as individuals do.
3. Seizure of an individual's assets would translate to seizure of a corporation's assets, of course. Same thing for fines.

The end result is that corporate investors and owners would be forced to treat corporate criminal activity as seriously as individuals treat their own criminal activity. Some corporations still wouldn't care but at least when caught they would be subject to the same consequences as everyone else.

We can't legislate morality, but at least we can make those actions that are harmful to society costly. We already do that for individuals. I see no reason why we shouldn't do exactly the same for corporations.

Re:America's solution.

[kcbrown]

It sounds very nice, but tell the maintenance crews, janitors, receptionists, and other "lower-level" employees that they can't support their family anymore because some paper-pusher thought illegally playing with the numbers would get him the promotion he wanted. Sure, the "corporation" needs to pay, but the "corporation" has real people in it, who didn't do anything wrong.

Are the people at the bottom of a criminal organization given any more consideration when that organization is taken down? Some (perhaps many) of the people at the bottom may not have been doing anything illegal except perhaps for supporting the organization itself.

How, then is a regular, for-profit corporation any different? And why should it be?

I also find your response very amusing in light of the fact that corporations today have no loyalty at all to their employees and regularly exercise that lack of loyalty. If a corporation is penalized as I outlines previously, the employees of that corporation will go through exactly the same thing as if that corporation had decided to "downsize". The only difference is that the benefit to the society that hosts the corporation is probably greater when said corporation is punished for breaking the law than when that same corporation goes through a round of "downsizing", since in the case of punishment the corporation at least can no longer continue its criminal ways.

Re:America's solution.

[rodgerd]

If a company can't do business, others will hire away those staff and take its place.

Besides, who's to say the company shouldn't have to meet employee entitlements when its in jail? If I get sent to jail, I'm still expected to pay taxes on any income (from interest, stocks, etc), and my family will have to use our savings before they become eligible for state assitance.

Re:America's solution.

[bilbobuggins]

I'm sorry, but while what you're saying sounds good, it's completely off.

In these kinds of situations you have to fight fire with fire. Every revolution (or even minor change) is completely unremarkable if the effects are not institutionalized and systems put in place to insure that they stay around.
Yes, you should call these companies and complain but do you really think that will make any difference?
As an example, there are many people who write nice (or not so nice) little notes to spammers saying that they won't buy their products because they disapprove of their methods. /. has linked to many of these people. Have you seen any change?
As long as the _majority_ of people are complacent and go along with it, nothing will change even though quality of life is worse for everybody.
Because life would not be completely unlivable if the **AA's achieve their tyrannical goals, they have a pretty good chance of making it work, unless we throw up road blocks in a language they understand and specifically on the same avenues they themselves are trying to use.

The second part of this is that we ARE dealing with government, we ARE dealing with laws, meaning pretty much no one here has any real power to fight back or change things once they're in place (DMCA anyone?). We may have an opportunity here. We need to seize it.

Data CDs

[papasui]

While the bill indicates that this will effect the music industry is there any clause that allows other companies in the computer industry to continue their copy-protection?

Boucher for President

[MxTxL]

Sure, i don't know how he feels on a variety of other issues, but his stand on tech issues makes him president material in my book.

unfair restriction

[niloroth]

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.

Re:unfair restriction

[dalassa]

As long as the labels are clear and prominent. None of this "Sony Music Trax" in clear plastic small print on the back of the box.

Re:unfair restriction

[batkiwi]

Pre DMCA world: certainly. they can sell them, and we can try to rip them under fair use laws

Post DMCA world: ban them. If:
-you can't reverse engineer them for fair use
-fair use is still "guaranteed"
then
-they should be illegal.

Re:unfair restriction

[Titusdot Groan]

Copyright protection is a privledge extended to writers and muscians in order to incite them to create content. It is not a right.

I have no problem with record companies distribution copy protected cds if and only if the copyright protection extended to them for these works is then withdrawn.

Somewhere along the line the original intention of intellectual property laws such as copyright and patents has been lost. Somewhere along the line some people started to think of them as rights.

I really hope legislators like Boucher can restore balance and some semblance of sanity.

Re:unfair restriction

[silverhalide]

I see this fight as somewhat analogous to the Macrovision (The copy proection technology that makes copies of tapes fade in and out and make them fairly unwatchable) on VHS some years back. While I'm not familiar with the legal isses surrounding it, I do see the end result -- many video tapes are sold with Macrovision copy protection, and it's not marked anywhere. I can see this being used as a precident in terms of evaluating copy protection on CDs. Is it really worth the fight to prevent copy protected CDs from entering the marketplace? We all know they are fairly easily defeated, and sales of such CDs will suffer once word gets out about their inferior quality, so why bother?

Record companies still aren't using it on very major releases (such as the Eminem Show), which makes me wonder if they are really concerned with this hurting their sales. If so, the market has already spoken.

Re:unfair restriction

[Quarters]

One of the main tennants of his argument is the fact that the government mandated a tax on blank music recording media because the music industry was (supposedly) losing so much money to illegal copies. Now they are still collecting the blank media tax and selling copy protected CDs. Boucher feels (correctly, imho) that if the user pays the blank media tax then they should be able to make legal copies of the CDs they have purchased.

Basically, the music industry wants it both ways and he is willing to stand up and say, "Wait a second here!"

Re:unfair restriction

[Skyshadow]

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.

The problem is that you just can't produce a CD that cannot be copied -- in the end, it's all just little ones and zeros.

What you have to do is convince or force (laws, lawsuits, etc) the hardware and software people to make it hard to copy the bits using their hardware. This, in turn, means that we start dictating what innovations a very big industry (computer equipment) can make to protect the interests of a much smaller industry whose business model is on borrowed time (recording).

That makes me cringe, personally.

Re:unfair restriction

[DustMagnet]

Thomas Jefferson actually wrote that it would be wrong if people treated ideas as property. So the "original intention of intellectual property laws" seems sort of an oxymoron, but then terms like piracy and theft don't really make much sence either. I think pirates used to kill people.

Re:unfair restriction

[Chris Burke]

I know taking impressions of libertarianism from /. is like taking impressions of Christianity from a snake handling cult... But I still thought libertarians were about -freedom- and thus against excessive government regulation, not about being against government regulation for its own sake. I agree with this legislation much as I would agree with legislation which stated clearly that contract terms that remove freedom of speech (eg "if you use our product, you can't write negative reviews of our product") are unenforceable. I personally don't see preventing those with large amounts of power and money from stripping rights from those who don't to be an unreasonable exercise of governmental power...

Re:unfair restriction

[Bruce Perens]

My understanding, last time I met with Boucher, was that part of this is a truth-in-advertising bill. It would require that DRM-restricted material be clearly labeled as such. I haven't seen the text yet.

I got to introduce Boucher and RMS.

Bruce

Re:unfair restriction

[Chris Burke]

No, pirates used to board ships and (without any violence) make copies of any original manuscripts they found aboard, then sail off with their booty to the nearest printing press to sell copies in every port. The sea-bound authors, realizing they wouldn't have exclusive access to their works any more, would then kill themselves. Pirates killing people is a just a myth, and the current usage is completely acurate. No really. :)

Nice link, by the way. I like the way that Jefferson man thinked. Maybe he could write up a few guidelines on how to run a democracy? That would be helpful. :)

Re:unfair restriction

[alizard]

situation where no harm can come to the users of the products

If you don't consider being ripped off harm, why don't you post your real name, social security and bank account numbers?

Didn't you hear what happens when you shove an RIAA special into a Mac? I've heard scattered reports of other kinds of damage to audio systems as well from the noise bursts. The Libertarian in me cringes at this idea.

Well, tell him to pull out and get lost, and I hope for your sake he was wearing a condom. And listen to people with common sense, not Libertarians in the future.

With respect to use of the Compact Disk logo, that's a matter of convincing Phillips to enforce the use of its trademarks... because they've said publically that they do NOT consider copy-protected CDs to be CDs within the use of that trademark. For that, a law isn't necesary.

You should check into the rest of the law as described. Modifying the DMCA and restoring "fair use" to something that can't be circumvented via new technology is a very good idea.

Re:unfair restriction

[seaan]

I fail to see how it is a good idea to ban the sales of copy protected CDs.

One simple reason, copy protected CDs make a mockery of the 1992 Digital Recording act. The RIAA already got the benefits (SCM added to DAT etc., blank media tax), and now they are trying to get away with not living up to their side of the bargain -- consumers have the right to make digital recordings of digitally recorded music.

This is also the reason they should amend section K of the DMCA - the MPAA clearly broke the spirit of the deal. Both laws were written without anything to enforce the industry to live up to their side of the bargain, and they naturally want to fully exploit the law as it is currently written (I'll forgo detailing both industry's lack of ethics).

Since both parties have clearly shown loopholes in the existing laws (making a killing in the process), it is time to close these loopholes and force them to observe their side of the bargain. What have you got against closing loopholes?

PS: The subtext of this comment is a mock-libertarian stance, the record companies ought to be able to do what they want, and the market should deal with it. This ignores the fact that government regulations and rules are already very, very, involved (like the definition of copyright). This thinking that the current laws we have now are "natural", and the market can correct any problems with them is at best simplistic.

I don't see why the poster does not remember libertarianism applies to individuals as well! The companies have already rigged the games with rules and regulations that take away individual rights. Where does he get off that this is a totally natural process. If you scrap the current copyright laws, and (somehow) manage to design them fairly, than I could appreciate a "let the market take care of it" stance. Meanwhile, I'm glad Rep Boucher is not waiting for this mythical time and is taking steps to close loopholes that rob the citizenry!

Re:unfair restriction

[DavidTC]

Exactly. That's my entire issue with all of this.

The record companies exist because of laws. Laws saying people can't copy their stuff, laws saying they get percentages of all DAT and music CD-Rs, even, indirectly, laws saying that only certain companies can broadcast in a certain radio spectrum. (Yes, that's not technically the 'record' companies, but anyone who believes they aren't in bed together is crazy.)

If they don't want laws controlling them, fine. I don't want any laws controlling me, and I'll copy all their stuff, broadcast on my now legal 'pirate' radio station, etc.

They are a government created business, with a government created monopoly on their content. If they don't want to have government created 'ownership', then I will stop calling for them to be regulated. Otherwise, I will call for laws to protect my rights, just like they have laws to protect their business. The laws were created to 'balance' things so people would have an incentive to produce content, not to control every person or even to protect a business model.

Re:unfair restriction

[1010011010]

I agree with this. If they want to place legal restrictions on us, it's fully reasonable for us to impose restrictions on them in return. When they complain about it, someone in power should point out that it's only fair, and they always have the option of asking for the DCMA to be repealed.

Re:unfair restriction

[Darby]

especialy when it is in a situation where no harm can come to the users of the products.

Then you should be very happy about this proposal, since without it much harm will come to the customer.

No backup copies means you have to pay again if your cd gets scratched. This is bad for everybody except the record company.

No ripping your legally purchased CDs. This is also harmful. When you purchase the CD, you purchase the right to listen to that music in any way you see fit (short of in public performances).

Companies exist to provide benefit to citizens. Everybody seems to forget this. People start companies to make money, but the only reason to allow this is that it provides benefits to society at large.

Re:unfair restriction

[Darby]

At least the government is theoreticaly under public supervision.

They are fighting that tooth and nail though.
Did you know that Bush wants his Department of Homeland Security to be immune from both the Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Whistleblowers Act?
Could he state any more absolutely that he intends it to engage in anti-American, unconstitutional, and illegal actions?

Re:unfair restriction

[1010011010]

Libertarians are not anarchists. They're for government, but just the smallest government possible that still protects citizens from force and fraud. So, yes, they are "about freedom" and against excessive government regulation, but not all government regulation. In fact, they are explicitly for some government regulation, but only to prevent and punish force and fraud -- not to make sure you don't eat too much fried food, or other social-engineering pap. Think of Libertarianism as standing up for your right to be left alone.

I like your analogy, about snakehandlers ...

Re:unfair restriction

[Bruce Perens]

Yes, I introduced RMS and Rep. Boucher. RMS did fine.

It does strike me that we don't wield our power effectively.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:unfair restriction

[alizard]

Why should an audio CD labeled with the CD logo from Phillips crash a computer running an audio CD application?

However, I will say that... cool handle... but why S instead of another 74xx00 series family?

Re:unfair restriction

[Alsee]

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

I agree with you an acceptable solution would be to let the companies use any DRM they like WITHOUT legislative enforcement, dropping all the DMCA/SSSCA/CBDTPA/EUCA/etc crap.

The problem is that they are pushing hard for insane laws. Legislators often go for compromise, and when someone ask for something ludicrious it is NOT reasonable to meet them half way.

They are waging a war on fair use. I see nothing wrong with strengthening fair use protections. And that's what the relevant part of the law is about. You have a right to make fair use, and the law basicly says that they can't infringe your right to fair use. What's wrong with a law saying they can't sabotage my computer/walkman/CDs?

I'm sick of hearing about infringement/violation their copyrights. What about infringement/violation of my fair use rights?

-

Re:unfair restriction

[Steve B]

I wouldn't ban copy protected CDs, provided that they were clearly labeled as such (and that any known risk of screwing up equipment is prominently disclosed).

However, I would require publishers to choose between copyright protection and anti-copying barriers, just as maufacturers have to choose between patent protection and trade secrecy. Either obtain government enforcement of a limited-time monopoly in exchange for full disclosure to the public domain when the time runs out, or else protect your monopoly by yourself and take your chances on how long it survives -- not both.

Re:unfair restriction

[Ioldanach]

I agree with this. If they want to place legal restrictions on us, it's fully reasonable for us to impose restrictions on them in return. When they complain about it, someone in power should point out that it's only fair, and they always have the option of asking for the DCMA to be repealed.

I'm not exactly sure if I agree... Personally, I figure copyright protection is extended to the works already. If they want to put their own use prevention schemes on them, then they should forfeit copyright protections. After all, obviously they don't think copyright's good enough for them. Let them fight it out on a case by case basis, and if anyone *does* manage to crack the protections, make sure they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Re:unfair restriction

[jonnythan]

There were certainly other social and political factors that need to be part of that test. There is no right to free speech in those communist countries.. suppression of ideas is the norm.

Re:unfair restriction

[seaan]

There is no need to mark a video tape with a Macrovision label. If you use the tape *legally*, Macrovision does not affect the performance of the tape or VCR.

This is an absolutely false statement. It is perfectly legal to make a back-up copy of a VHS tape. MacroVision prevents me from performing this action with newer VCRs (now that the government has mandated that all VCRs respond to MacroVision in section K of the DMCA).

My child has worn out several VHS tapes of his favorite programs. It was when I tried to make back-up copies of those tapes that I found out JVC snuck copy-protection into their product with no notification to the consumer (nothing on the box, in the manual, or on the website)! We really need a truth in advertising law, so consumers can make informed decisions about products that limit legal actions. Meanwhile JVC will not get any more of my money, or any more recommendations.

I've tried contacting Sony about replacing the Elmo tapes, but they have not answered me. This was a normal purchase, not a rental tape, which means Sony had no reason to activate the MacroVision signal on this tape. Since they did turn-on the copy protection flag on the tape (not to forget helping get a law passed that stopped me from making back-up copies), they should be responsible for replacing the worn-out tape. I figure hell will freeze over first.

I love him

[Rogerborg]

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.

Re:I love him

[uncoveror]

There is no law against a citezen giving a campaign donation. You may donate up to a certain limit, I think it's $1000, but he can take limitless money under the table from corporations. The "gifts" corporations give our legislators are bribery, pure and simple.

Re:I love him

[Rogerborg]

• There is no law against a citezen giving a campaign donation

Uhhh, head hurts. I'm. Not. A. US. Citizen. It's technically illegal for US politicians to accept campaign contributions from non-US sources. But it's perfectly legal fo them to accept unlimited bribes from corporations with any sort of US arm, even if the company is international or based outside the US.

I'll give the RIAA credit for one thing...

[jerkychew]

I recently renewed my drivers license, and was asked if I wanted to register to vote. My first instinct was to decline, because I don't feel like I'm informed enough to make a good enough decision regarding my elected officials.

I changed my mind, however, and registered. I'm glad I did. The whole mess with DRM has really opened my eyes to how much big business controls politics nowadays. Representative Boucher is a breath of fresh air in this soap opera, and I applaud his efforts.

A little out there...

[sheepab]

But...
I love you Sen. Boucher.

Good step, but ultimately...

[Junta]

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...

Re:Good step, but ultimately...

[Lemmy Caution]

Fair use isn't a "right." It's a doctrine which restricts a restriction on rights: that provided by copyright. IANAL, but who cares.

Re:Good step, but ultimately...

[Chris Burke]

That's a very good point. Fair use is just part of the bargain that is copyright law, which also isn't a right. It's a deal between content authors (or the megacorps that own them) and the people. But it's a deal that is ultimately supposed to benefit the people, and only them. The benefit to the authors is only in the context that making money off content in theory causes more content to be produced, which is good for the people.

Re:Good step, but ultimately...

[Chris Burke]

Yes. And you can be sure of that, because I went around the country and killed every other Chris Burke. It took a while due to the commonality of the name, but I did it. You might wonder how I stopped people from naming new babies, but I forgot about that. Give me a break! I have Down's Syndrome!

Re:Good step, but ultimately...

[fishbowl]

If it's expressly guaranteed by law, doctrine, or jurisprudence, then it is a right.

It may not be an inalienable right, but it is still a right. That's what having the force of
law protecting you MEANS.

Re:A Bill?

[Lemmy Caution]

Yes.

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.

So get off your @SS

[rutledjw]

and write your Reps and Senators! Remember that a massive letter writing campaign kept Hollings' bill from getting out of committee. If we get going on the same response with this bill, all the better. We may help provide a backbone to our "elected officials" to stand up to the big corporate dollars.

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...

Re:So get off your @SS

[joepa]

This could be a HUGE momentum swing. Let's take advantage of it...

Excellent point... if the 'Slashdot Effect' can bring most websites to their knees, we might be able to actually get some attention from the US Congress (or most any other major decision-making body) if the community would just initiate and follow-thru on a letter-writing/e-mail campaign (for this and/or another worthwhile cause).

I suppose that the follow-thru always seems to be the difficult part, though.

Re:So get off your @SS

[ctar]

Also Agreed! I recommend Congress Watch at citizen.org. They have no shame in their progressive bias', but its a great resource for finding your representatives, and seeing summaries of current legislation, and voting history.

I wonder..

[olman]

If this guy's some kind of changelin'

Copy protected CDs only?

[erroneus]

You can't really write law that restricts only a single technology. Even if they did, there is a matter known as the "spirit" of the law which is often more far reaching. This is why we can't restrict the right to free speech of unpopular opinions without endangering our own free speech.

So if they are successful at the "copy protected CD" legislation, the DVDCCA issues are also in danger under such law guaranteeing 'Fair Use' in law. I honestly don't think this action will get too far. The politicians are far too well paid by interests who would prefer to deny Fair Use to their consumers.

If. by some miracle, something preventing such protection is enacted, it could grow into something quite powerful indeed.

Re:Copy protected CDs only?

[PhxBlue]

You can't really write law that restricts only a single technology. Even if they did, there is a matter known as the "spirit" of the law which is often more far reaching.

Sure you can. Simply prohibit companies that violate the Red Book standard CD format from using the term "Compact Disc" or "CD" to describe their wares.

Re:Copy protected CDs only?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

I think Phillips has already done that.

Call Them Something Else!

[saddino]

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?

Damn owned politians!

[The Creator]

"I'm just a little perplexed to understand the rationale for this. There
will be a very heavy cost that the industry will pay when copy-protected CDs
are introduced," Boucher said.
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,"

Aha! so his legislating against copy protection to PROTECT the industry. Dammit when are we gonna get some politians who are on our side?

On a more seriours note:

which is allowed under "fair use" provisions of copyright law.
He said he would introduce legislation that would essentially codify
"fair use" provisions of copyright law (that have been implied but not necessarily guaranteed). He also wants to ease up some of the more copy-restrictive provisions of the 1998 Digital Milennium Copyright Act, whose pay-per-use provisions on copies he has criticized as a threat not only to "fair use," but to innovation, idea exchange, even First Amendment guarantees on free speech. ...It's like you don't even know what to say man... ...when they like... ...get it.

More Legal Issues?

[Caradoc]

I don't think any new laws are going to fix any of the problems. Look at what's going on with Microsoft lately... Slashdot published a story about the meeting scheduled between the Phoenix Linux Users Group and the Maricopa County CIO to talk about the purchasing guidelines and potential for Open Source, but it looks like Maricopa County won't be "disbarring" Microsoft as a supplier, despite the clear legality of doing so after Microsoft's lost legal battles on the "monopoly" front.

After about two hours (8:30AM to 10:30AM) I left the meeting with a much better feeling about my local County government - at least in the IT/IS groups.

Linden Thatcher, the CIO for Maricopa County, struck me as quite literate in the issues that were raised.

About 5% of the County IT/IS budget goes to Microsoft products, a vast majority of those being the 12,000 desktops they support. According to the statements Mr. Thatcher made, most of their "server-side" applications run on a mix of HP-UX and System V, with some apps running on Websphere.

There are currently a couple of internal projects running Linux/Apache to provide document publishing.

Mr. Thatcher has read "Ender's Game," and met Orson Scott Card (thank goodness we've got SOMEONE in the hierarchy who is not only literate, but READS!)

The Phoenix Linux Users Group people who showed up were very polite, and there was only one person in the crowd who seemed to be almost violently "anti-Microsoft."

Good meeting. But I still don't have any hopes that new laws are going to fix any of these problems.

Re:More Legal Issues?

[Caradoc]

Already did. Submitted and rejected twice.

I guess I'm just not enough of a karma whore to actually get a submission posted.

Re:A Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Better still

[Fast Ben]

Send that man some campaign contributions!

Rights

[KFury]

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.

Re:Rights

[chefmonkey]

Amen.

I've always been a bit miffed that I can drop $16 on a CD (or, back in the day, $8 on a tape), and then have it scratched (or eaten) the following day, and need to essentially purchase another license for it.

Of course, if I'm just buying the media itself, and not merely a license, then I must be free to distribute the music as I see fit. :)

(Certainly, this isn't what the record companies intended.)

Re:Rights

[Sangui5]

I've always viewed it like this: when you get media, there is a "basic" license intrinsically and inseparably tied to that media. The basic license grants you certain rights, including but not necessarily limited to:

1. the right to use
2. the right to resell/lend
3. the right to backup
4. the right to "space-shift" (legalese for changing the format)

The official view of the courts is that if the transaction has the quality of a sale, then it isn't licensing at all (they've also pretty much said that everything that's happened in any consumer store thusfar has had the quality of a sale). Thus, if it "feels" like a sale, then you have, if nothing else, the right of resale, lending, and space shifting (these rights have all been ruled on).

The courts have not specifically ruled on any of the other rights *I* feel you have (that I know of), but (so far as I know) a pertinent case hasn't come up. It would seem pretty silly that you didn't intrinsically have the right to listen to a CD you've bought, though. And I'm also pretty sure that copying for archival purposes is protected by copyright law as well. So, 2 of my 4 are official, one is common sense, and, well, look # 4 up.

In any case, by the doctorine of first sale, the RIAA can't restrict by legal means the used CD market. Nothing has been said about technological means, though, and it sounds like Rep. Boucher wants to restrict the use of technology to limit such things.

Interesting note, but the doctorine of first sale stems from a case where a book publisher included a "EULA" in the front of their books, forbidding their sale on the secondary market. The court ruled that the interest of the publisher in that particular copy of a protected work ended after they sold it the first time, and that they couldn't limit what happened to it afterwards. So, by some stretch, there is precident for EULA's not having legal force.

Re:Rights

[crimoid]

You're right on. Perhaps a few modifications:

1.) the right to use for any means persuant to the remaining rules
2.) the right to resell/lend the original as long as backups do not exist
3.) the right to duplicate as backup in any format
4.) the right to use the backup as long as the original is not in use

I think that would satisfy any "fair use" issues for all parties that care....

Re:Rights

[Sangui5]

I sort of intended my list to be a set of irrefutable minimums. So, it only included things that either a) there's explicit precendent for, or b) are utterly common sense. While I'd agree that your 4 are more complete and palletable to me, finding arguments to restrict them is easier.

I like to think about how the "intrinsic" license can interact with other, separate license agreements. The GPL, for example, somewhat assumes my 4. Nobody at the FSF is going to be mad at me if I use GPL software without agreeing to the GPL (although they'll be pissed if I redistribute it).

Consider some piece of commercial software with a EULA. I believe that I can refuse to accept the terms of the EULA, and use the software under the intrinsic 4. However, there may be some benefits to accepting the EULA (much as you must accept the GPL in order to copy GPLed software). Consider StarCraft. I'd be willing to admidt that use of the official BattleNet services is conditional on accepting the EULA. However, single player, LAN games, and games hosted on 3rd party sofware (bnetd) are, IMHO, fair game even without accepting the EULA.

Now, as to the validity of giving up any of the intrinsic 4 in exchange for extra rights, I don't know. That seems to me to be one of those things where the lawyers will tell you it's "very interesting" (lawyerspeak for $1000 a day plus expenses), and probably rightly so. I'd like to think that the intrinsic 4 are irrevokable and can't be signed away (just as you can't sign away the right to bring a malpractice suit against a doctor, for example). But it isn't as clear-cut to me.

Just some random musings.

Re:Rights

[Andrewkov]

Yeah, I've got thousands of dollars worth of tapes I bought over the years, which are basically useless now. They sound like crap compared to CD's, and I can't even play them in my car. Is it wrong for me to download these same songs and burn CD's so I can listen while I drive? Or will record companies sell me CD versions for the cost of the media (less the license cost which I already paid)? And now with copy protection, will I be able to buy a CD and play it on my computer while I work?

Re:Rights

[Baki]

I agree with 1,2, but 3 and 4 are questionable and not 'automatic'.

It is not as if you may/can backup any product you buy. If you buy a book, you can read it and read it, but if you're not careful then the book shall wear and in time you won't be able to read it (you'd have to buy a new copy). For a TV, you cannot make a backup. You have warranty (say 1 year) if the TV dies after that, you're out of luck and shall have to repair it or buy a new one, that's normal.

Re:Rights

[chefmonkey]

Is it wrong for me to download these same songs and burn CD's so I can listen while I drive?

Legally? Probably. Morally? That's a personal issue, but I'd say it's probably not.

About "Fair Use"

[Taco Cowboy]

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.

Re:About "Fair Use"

[Fnkmaster]

We need both. The only way to counteract the DMCA is by legislative means - and a law like this will supercede at least some of the worst parts of the DMCA. But it sure will be nice to have Fair Use codified in the law, rather than just residing in common law judicial decisions where it was before the most ill-conceived piece of legislation ever knocked it out of the water.

Re:About "Fair Use"

[PhxBlue]

Copy-protected CDs are NOT the culprit.

Two items of correction:

First, a "copy-protected CD" isn't a CD, as it violates the standard which governs what is or is not a CD. Second, these copy-protected musicdiscs are the culprit, at least so far as anyone who's had one trash their CD-Rom drive or CD Player can tell.

Do the big boys have a right to protect their copyright? Yeah, sure--but they don't have the right to break innocent people's hardware doing it.

Re:Simple reaction to this news

[0x0d0a]

This guy's had a pretty good history of being a pro-tech advocate. He's kind of the Slashdot "dream representative", and has had a bunch of stories about him on here before.

Re:Man.....

[Takeel]

The surprising thing is that Boucher is from one of the less technologically inclined corners of Virginia (i.e. not NOVA and not near Jefferson Labs...).

I wonder if some Slashdotters realize just *how* technologically uninclined Rep. Boucher's district is.

The "Fightin' Ninth's" major issues include assistance for tobacco farmers, improving transportation (only one major highway runs to the district), and getting *any* sort of information technology industry to locate in the area. A large portion of Virginia's ninth Congressional district is virtually impoverished, with unemployment rates in some areas being as high as *13 percent*. The region receives very little attention from Virginia's state government, being overshadowed by the fast-paced, high-tech, (incredibly fortunate) Northern Virginia/Washington DC area.

Geographically, the ninth Congressional district in Virginia stretches from the western edge of Roanoke county to the western-most area of Virginia, commonly referred to as "Southwestern Virginia." Major industries include trucking, coal mining, farming, and service businesses.

So, keeping this in mind, it truly is a considerable wonder that Rep. Boucher is interested in these issues.

Re:Information on the Congressman?

[Computer!]

D-Virginia.

Hopefully, you browse at -1 like I do.

Kudos, but is this necessary...

[sterno]

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.

RIAA/MPAA donations

[LordNimon]

Does anyone know where I can learn how much money my elected representatives have received from the RIAA, MPAA, and other pro-DMCA companies? I'd like to write letters to my Congressmen asking them to support Boucher's bill, but I want to include this financial information to let them know that I know.

Re:RIAA/MPAA donations

[mcfiddish]

http://www.opensecrets.org/

Re:RIAA/MPAA donations

[SiliconEntity]

A great resource for finding donors is www.opensecrets.org. You can find out who gave the most money to Sen. Hollings over the past 5 years (surprise - Disney is 16th!), or which members of Congress received the most from the tv/movies/music industries (Howard Berman, D-CA is number one), and lots of other goodies like this. It's an amazing collection of information.

Congressman Boucher's statement on Fair Use

[Phoenix-kun]

We need to support this man!

You can find his statement on Fair Use here

And his official web site can be found here

Anyone actually check this congressman out?

[BrookHarty]

Rick Boucher - Virginia-9th, Democrat

Committess
* Committee on Energy and Commerce
* Committee on the Judiciary

Sub-committees
* Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property (Judiciary)
* Energy and Air Quality (Energy and Commerce)
* Telecommunications and the Internet (Energy and Commerce)

I never even heard of the NetCaucus but he seems to be majorly involved with Internet and Government. Wonder who else is belongs to this caucus and "Gets It"...

legal status of copyprotected CDs should be simple

[g4dget]

Copyright was created to encourage the dissemination of creative works, works that would fall into the public domain after some period.

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.

Hardly

[FreeUser]

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.

Re:Hardly

[FreeUser]

They do desing gas inlets so you can't put leaded gas (from a standard leaded gas pump) into a car with an engine for unleaded gas.

The "whateveritcalledinenglish" on the unleaded gas pump is smaller than the one on the leaded pump and so is the gas inlet of the unleaded car.

At least in Norway they are.

In the United States leaded gasoline for automobiles hasn't been sold (legally) for a number of years, but back in the day, during the transition to unleaded gas, we had the exact same discrepency in nozzle size you describe. You could put leaded gas into a car that took unleaded fuel with no trouble, but the other way around and you either needed a funnel, or did without.

There are literally thousands of examples of this kind of thing, where regulations are in place to protect consumers from costly, common, all too human mistakes that can occur even when the seller isn't trying to deceive the customer. I suspect the idiot you responded to is in fact trolling for just those examples, so he can whine about how much better things would be if the libertarians were in power and corporations could run roughshod over the rest of us with absolutely no restraints, rather than the minimalistic ones they have today.

Of course, the rest of us have the entire 19th and a good portion of the first half of the 20th century to learn from, in which the fallacy of lassaiz-faire capitalism, and all the suffering it results in, is exposed for all to see, along with all the countless corporate and marketing excesses of the day that led to consumer protection legislation (which has since been severely weakened) in the first place.

Consumer protection is a legitimate role for government to play, and one that is explicity allowed for in the constitution via the interstate trade clause. Interstate Trade is one area the government is constitutionally empowered to interfere in, even by the most conservative interpretation of the constitution, and consumer protection is certainly one of the more appropriate manifestations of such interference.

The reality is that extremists like that don't want constitutional government, so much as they want no government at all, at least when it comes to doing business. But of course nature abhors a vacuum, so where democratic rule is removed, despotic corporate rule is almost certain to set in.

Re:Good *enough* step

[Junta]

But playback is not the only issue, what about copying for backup?

The Basis of US Copyright Law

[Infonaut]

There seems to be a fundamental misinterpretation running through many of these threads. The gist of it is that the US government shouldn't be legislating in copyright-related areas, as the marketplace should sort things out on its own.

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.

My Email --- Send yours yet?

[peterdaly]

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-

Re:My Email --- Send yours yet?

[ShavenYak]

Have you considered copying this letter and sending it to your representative, so they know your feelings on the issue? It doesn't do Mr. Boucher much good to know he has support from folks that aren't his constituents. Now, if he knows where you are, and knows that you've copied his letter to your rep, next time they play golf he might bring up the issue.

Support politicians on our side

[dmarcov]

I just wanted to point out that here's someone that looks like a decent individual, who is not beholden to the RIAA, and since we know that he won't be getting a big check from them, he could probably use some campaign support. I don't live in his district, but you can contribute to Congressman Boucher's re-election campaign at http://www.boucherforcongress.com

CDs and the War on Terrorism

[gdyas]

It's obvious Sen. Boucher fails to understand that the RIAA's undertaking steps to protect American CDs from copyright infringment is a thoughtful action by the responsible corporate sector of our economy toward preventing terrorists from profiting from the piracy trade. They're acting in our best interests, can't you all see that? Boucher and the rest of you rabble-rousers should get out of the way and let our congress, the administration and the corporate sector protect our country before another attack occurs.

license for 'that' cd

[oliverthered]

If it were the case that they are selling you a license to listen to a particular CD(whithout the ability to backup) then the price of CD's is FAR TO HIGH.

Did you know.....

A major record lable(mgm) is withdrawing music in the UK charts~(elvis Vs JXL in order to increase the chart raiting of a new release(kiddy pop)

Well here's the story

BGM in Major record fix

[oliverthered]

I don't know how this didn't make /. but BGM are apparently withdrawing stock of 'Elvis V JXL' (currently high in the UK charts) to boost a 'kiddie pop' record in the charts.

Fair use law?

[alizard]

Keep an eye out for it and post when you find out the bill number and perhaps the name. We can't tell our Congressmen and Senators how to vote if we can't tell them what it is we want them to vote for.

Sweet. Now let's hope this works.

[mesozoic]

I wrote Rep. Boucher a while back to tell him how pleased I am that a Congressman is finally standing up for consumer's fair use rights. While some have argued in the past that explicitly defining 'fair use' may open up some loopholes later down the road, as technology progresses, leaving it undefined right now makes it legal for the recording industry to continue to sandbag its customers.

However, I've taken a look at what Boucher is proposing, and it's ambitious. It covers a lot of ground. Admittedly, these are topics that do need to be addressed, but the more you cram into one piece of legislation, the more ammunition you give its opponents. I worry that a select few pieces of this bill might face such strong opposition that the bill itself gets plowed into the dirt.

Of course, I'm just being rationally pessimistic. I truly hope this goes through; it will be a step in the right direction.

Not wasting your vote

[dada21]

No. A vote for a Democrat or a Republican is a wasted vote. Why?

You know that a Democrat or a Republican will only vote for a few things you want, and a bunch of things that you don't want. They never follow a strict regiment of careful voting.

When you vote for a Libertarian, you are saying "I WANT LESS GOVERNMENT." "I WANT LESS TAXES." "I WANT MORE RIGHTS, MORE PRIVACY, AND MORE RESPONSIBILITY."

Libertarians swing votes in local elections, even at the state level (the governor's race in Illinois is highly contested, and the Libertarian may swing that vote). Our vote counts because it scares the bejesus out of the party who lost, as well as the party who won. The vote says there are people out there who want smaller government. With time, and with more voters, it'll make both parties stand up and realize that big government will help them lose elections.

Last year I met an average of 30 people a week who say "I won't vote Libertarian because its a wasted vote." I started a mailing list of these people. I also asked them to get their friends on the mailing list who said the same thing. In less than 9 months, we're 6000 strong. That's just people who were afraid to vote Libertarian because they were afraid of wasting their vote. Now, we're finding that we're much stronger together than we ever were apart.
I recommend the same for you. Afraid of wasting your vote? Get together at the local libertarian meetings. Bring your friends. You'll see its not a wasted vote.

Voting for the status quo is a wasted vote. Both only make government bigger, more intrusive, and cater to big business. Even the greens do that! Only one party wants to take the axe to government spending and growth.

I would like to nominate

[oldstrat]

Boucher for UberGeek (aka President)

Rick Boucher?

[Dolly_Llama]

This guy wouldn't happen to be related to Jello Biafra (aka Eric Boucher) would he?

This guy inspires me so...

[MsGeek]

...I've changed my .SIG.

And his campaign website is. . . .

[Salgak1]

www.boucherforcongress.com. There's even a web-printable contribution form. . . (sorry, he can't take PayPal...)

I've met him. A politician with a clue is a rare thing. Let's not lose him . . . .

Um, how about good packaging?

[jcsehak]

Geez, they've got this simple, completely legal method of copy-protection that works well and also improves their product. People buy CDs, not music. It feels good to spend your money on something you can hold in your hand. Just make the packaging cool, and people will be way more likely to buy a CD rather than copy it. For instance, Kid Koala's CD "Karpal Tunnel Syndrome" comes with a goddam comic book! You don't even have to go all out. Kruder & Dorfmeister's "K & D Sessions" has beautiful photography and a gorgeous fold-out mini poster of a sunflower field. Why don't the record companies issue a memo to all the artists that says "Put some freakin effort into your packaging. No more will we accept a few glamour shots of the band. We need to make the physical CD a work of art, like the music inside, so the public will buy it."

Re:Um, how about good packaging?

[jcsehak]

Yeah, contrast that to Rhino/Atlantic's reissues of Mingus albums, which include a cool informative booklet and a cardboard sleeve made to look like the original vinyl cover, all in a nifty cardboard case. Or those Stones albums reissues, with all the zippers and die cuts. Or the White Album re-release, which was exactly like the original vinyl, including the 4 glamour photos of the beatles. It's almost like a matter of pride owning these wonderful things.

Before you fully support Boucher...

[MagPulse]

you should know he supported the DMCA in 1998.

"...I am pleased to rise today in support of the passage of H.R. 2281, which will extend new protections against the theft of their works to copyright owners."

To see the full text of his DMCA speech:

1. Click here
2. Click on the link for #14
3. Do a browser search for "boucher", click on the link

Will Orrin Hatch by an ally of Rick Boucher?

[dh003i]

As Lessig has pointed out in "The Future of Ideas," Sen. Orrin Hatch has his head screwed on right when it comes to intellectual property issues. So, will Orrin Hatch join Boucher in supporting this measure? I'd certainly hope so.

That would give the bill two sponsors, one from each party, which is good.

Also, for those of you "Libertarians" saying that banning the sale of copy-protected CD's is bad, I think you're forgetting that the public has rights too. Fair use is a right. The government shoud act so as to preserve our rights. In some cases, it is necessary for the government to interfere with business in order to protect the public's rights and consumer's rights. This is not a violation of the libertarian principal.

What amazes me about some so-called "Libertarians" is how much they despise it when the government disrespects our rights, but how easily and readily they are willing to allow businesses to violate our rights.

The Amendments to the constitution may have been designed by the Founders with concern that the government may violate our rights. However, they didn't mean for the Amendments to only apply to the government. They couldn't have predicted a time when companies would be able to violate our rights just as easily as the government, but they would not have approved. Nor would they approve any-more of individual's violating other individual's rights. The Amendments should protect us from actions by the government, businesses, and other citizens.

Certainly, the founding father's would not approve of our current bounty-hunter system, whereby simply because a bounty-hunter is not "part of the government," (s)he can violate the rights of the suspect.

Nor would they approve of companies and corporate organizations like the RIAA/MPAA/BSA violating our rights.

Re:Will Orrin Hatch by an ally of Rick Boucher?

[dh003i]

My statement was not at all slanderous towards Libertarians.

I myself am a Libertarian.

My statement was slanderous against self-proclaimed Libertarians who think its OK for corporations and citizens to trample all over our rights, but its only not OK when its the government. These people are not Libertarians. They're just anti-government, or possibly anarchist; it should be noted that, in practice, anarchy is not a Libertarian ideal, but rather the opposite thereof, as anyone can violate anyone elses' rights.

Now, lets clear up something. Libertarian in and of itself does not necessarily mean minimizing the number of laws. Minimizing the number of laws is a minimalist, Orwellian, pragmatic, practical, etc practice. Minimizing laws is not necessarily a Libertarian move (i.e., eliminating laws against murder is hardly Libertarian. However, there is a large degree of overlap in that people have the right to know exactly what laws govern them, and they can only reasonably be expected to know all the laws governing them if there are few laws, and if those laws are clear. This ties into another principal that is partly necessary for Libertarianism, which is clarity of the law. People have the right not only be able to know all of the laws (hence, there should be few laws), but also the right to be able to understand all of them (hence, they should be understandable to anyone who's not mentally retarded).

So, regarding the volume and understandability of laws, a few things should be done. Firstly, poor and bad laws should be reppealed. In this case, I agree with you in that the DMCA certainly should be reppealed. Other laws on the to-go list should be anti-sodomy laws, anti-prostitution laws, some anti-drug laws, TRIPPS laws, and any Copyright Act extending copyright protection beyond 20 years. Secondly, unnecessary or poor provisions of laws should be eliminated. Thirdly, redundancy in the laws should be eliminated. Redundancy is a good thing in the internet, but not in laws. For example, hate-crime laws are redundant to other laws against rape, murder, torture, and assault; thus, they should not exist. Once these three things are done, 90% of all existing laws today would be gone. Of the laws left, most would be dramatically reduced in legnth. Fourthly, of the laws remaining, all should be revised for clarity. Laws should be clearly interprettable by any person with an IQ above 70. There should be no ambiguity in laws. Fifthy, when there is ambiguity in a law in that lawyers can quibble about its meaning seriously affont a judge, no one should be punished: we do not use people as test-subjects for laws. Sixthly, and as an extension of the fifth point, there should be theoretical challenges to a law and cases deciding its meaning; we should not wait until a problem presents itself to deal with a flaw. Seventhly, of the remaining *clear* laws, all should be revised to be of minimal length. Unnecessary words should be removed, and long words replaced with short ones whenver possible. In short, that means no "the fact that"s, no thous, no thees, no whereupons, no henceforths, no thys, and none of that other British BULLSHIT. Furthermore, no words should be used which are not widely recognizeable and defineable; "prurient interests" is elitist bullshit language.

In short, the rules for writing laws should be the same as those for writing good English. 1. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, shut the fuck up. In other words, don't pass bad laws. 2. Above all else, be clear as to exactly what the laws mean. 3. Once clarity is secured, work on minimalism: that is, reducing the length of a document. 4. Do user-testing. Go out and ask someone who flunked out of high school to tell you what a law means; if he can't tell you exactly what your law means, your law is poorly written.

Ok, back to Libertarianism.

Libertarian means a strong belief in people's rights. Libertarian also does not necessarily mean blind adherance to the constitution -- that's constitutionalist. Libertarians happen to be the strongest supporters of the constitution, but Libertarian doctrine does not necessarily mean blind adherance to the constitution (though it does mean strong adherence, though not blind, to the Amendments).

It is possible for Constitutionalism and Libertarianism to conflict. The Constitution itself is not a Libertarian doctrine; rather, it is an authoritarian doctrine speaking of how the power to control our lives is to be divided up among various government branches. The Amendments, however, are Libertarian doctrines.

Now, your proposed laws, "No manufacturer or distributor of content may use technological measures to limit the exercise of Fair Use by legal licensees of said content," is exactly the kind of lack of clarity I'm talking about. Corporate lawyers can quibble ad-infinitum about what does and does not limit the exercise of Fair Use. There's a common, though flawed, argument that DRM protections do not limit fair use because people can always still use "technologies other than the cutting edge to get fair use". What you stated is a principal, not a law. Its precise meaning is questionable. What you need to do is state that as the guiding principal of a law, then explain exactly what your law prevents, then include a fail-safe catch-all to close loop-holes. Rep. Boucher's bill does in fact state exactly what companies can't do, though it doesn't, imo, go far enough.

I do agree with you that we should make an amendment clarifying the fact that the Amendments were not meant just to protect us from the government, but also from corporations, organizations, and other people; though there are some exceptions. I.e., not promoting any one religion obviously should not be forced on people, organizations, or some companies (though it should be forced on public companies, where the public owns stock).

Re:Will Orrin Hatch by an ally of Rick Boucher?

[markmoss]

That's a good explanation of how libertarian principles apply to lawmaking. About the bill of rights and businesses: the issue is not that corporations and citizens should be held by law to respect these rights, but that they should not be able to use the courts to violate them. For example, your employer should be able to require that you refrain from public speech embarassing to them, but a company should not be able to restrict the free speech of others by threatening lawsuits except in clear cases of slander and libel...

As for copyright & copy protection:

1) Copyright is not a natural property right; someone copying your work does not take anything away from you. It might reduce the market value of your creative work, but if you claim that violates a natural right, you must also claim that McDonalds can bar Burger King from building a restaurant across the street...

2) Copyright (and patents) are _artificial_ property rights, a monopoly granted for a limited time in exchange for putting your ideas out to the public. This exchange makes sense only if the ideas and creative works become public domain after a while.

3) The expiration time should be no longer than the length of time in which future income is a significant factor in deciding whether to do work now. That is, no one at all decides to write the great American novel in hopes that 75 years after his death, his greatgrandchildren can retire on the royalties, so the present copyright length is utterly ridiculous. (It's also unconstitutional, but that's a separate issue.) I think that to determine the proper length, one should look at common business practices and see how businesses look at future income. Many corporations barely look past the next quarterly report and will not invest at all unless the payoff is within three years. OTOH, banks regularly sell 30 year mortgages - but mortgages are an exceptionally safe investment, while the future value of a book, movie, or song is highly speculative. I figure that for the average present-day best-seller, there is a less than 10% chance that it will be worth anything in 20 years, and a 10% chance at a dollar in 20 years is worth less than one cent today. Many authors are looking only for a quick sale so they can pay the rent, but some might also be hoping that someday Hollywood will pick up their work and make them rich, so if I was picking a single number for the length of copyrights, it would be 20 years.

However, a multistage system would make more sense: You get a 2-year automatic copyright just by publishing the work with a statement including first publication date and, "This is an original work, all rights reserved." By filing with the copyright office, paying a fee, and sending them the work in a permanent and copyable electronic form, you get 14 years from the date of publication; this fee covers the cost of running the copyright office, storing the work for 14 years, and posting it so anyone can copy it after the copyright expires. If you desire, you can pay 10 times as large a fee and extend the copyright another 14 years (28 total); this large fee is to discourage the maintenance of copyrights on out-of-print works.

4) If you copy-protect your published work in such a way as to restrict fair-use rights, you should give up copyright. No redundancy, right? And copy-protected works (if the protection is effective) are violating the implicit contract that you get a copyright in exchange for the work being be free to copy someday.

5) The DMCA should be repealed in entirety. If someone wishes to go the copy-protection route, they must rely on their own technical superiority, not the government restricting technological developments by others. (I think in practice this will mean no copy protection, but I don't see a problem with that - while another vague and poorly enforceable law is a bad thing, and restricting technology is a very bad thing.)

Encryption of DVD and HDTV

[mr_zorg]

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!

What a guy...

[keller999]

Makes me want to switch to Democrat...almost... =) Check out a letter that he wrote to the RIAA... http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/riaaletter.htm

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A Supportive Open Letter To Congressman Boucher

[Lethyos]

I figured one way to help this along would be to at least write in and voice my support. Here's a letter that I composed to him this evening...

I read this article: http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/1381471 this evening and learned about your move towards increasing fair use rights. I wanted to write and voice a show of support for this action!

In recent years, media technologies have become increasingly advanced, with content spreading to more and more people through a variety of channels. With this progress, we have seen greed-driven corporations work hard to deprive consumers of fair use rights. Their lobbyists have pushed legislation like the DMCA that cripples technological development. Subtle mechanisms such as CD copy protection, CSS for DVDs, and so forth, limit legitimate consumers from using the content they rightfully own in legal ways. Recently, we have seen Microsoft rally corporate support for its Palladium initiative, which will stifle innovation and fair use with nearly unbreakable DRM technologies (not to mention shattering the choice of what software can run on new computers).

All of this paints an image of a bleak future. While much effort is being put forth by advocates of freedom, little has been accomplished in blocking these attacks on fair use. It's exciting to see a law maker take a stand against assaults. While I live in <Insert Your State Here> it's still in my interests and the interests of many other people to support your cause. What is the best way that I - and perhaps others outside the state of Virginia - can support your bill?

Thank you once again for your efforts!

It may not be much, but it's a little bit. If a lot of people send in letters like this (and then actually follow up with money, time, whatever), it will produce a great message for Washington.

This proposal doesn't go far enough.

[Ogerman]

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.

Re:A Bill?

[amRadioHed]

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.

Unfortunatly, most of the copy protected cd's have trouble playing in computer and car players. Those are all I have for reading CD's, so even if I wanted to give in, I would still be without most of my music.

This is good news though. I would definatly vote for this guy if I could.

PiggyBack

[AftanGustur]

Anyone want to bet a 100 dollars that a horrible freedom-limiting clause will be piggybacked along the law-making process ?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Photocopy him and send us one!

[Interrobang]

I think we need a copy of Rep. Boucher around. Up here in Canada, we already have a far too restrictive levy on blank media which benefits our equivalent of the RI/MPAA, and it's kind of a pain to be paying these folks so I can put my files on CD-R to send them to my project boss... grr...

We could also use a copy of Dennis Kucinich around, although (to me) an imperfect copy that would respect the law here in Canada that keeps religious ideology off people's reproductive organs would be better.

But you can't have everything, so the least I can do is hope some people grow spines in the near future.

On the other hand, had I US citizenship (they don't, for some reason, seem to listen to foreign nationals), I would be writing to all the appropriate people. I'm nevertheless concerned, because US policy seems to be a bellweather for trends here at home.

A politician to respect... finally.

[sinnergy]

I realize this is a little off-topic, but I felt it necessary to try to showcase a little better who the man behind the article is.

Not many of you may really know who Boucher is, heck, I admit that I would be unable to write even a small biography on the man without a lot of hard work. However, this guy is perhaps one of the few folk in Congress who really understands and cares about what the Internet is and what it can become.

While most politicians can be seen as either paying lip service about Internet freedoms or attacking outright the freedoms guaranteed to us, Boucher has proven time and time again that there politicians out there who, for the most part, look out for us.

Now, I'm not in his district and I couldn't vote for him even if I wanted to. He's never seen a dime of my money and I have never even so much have written an email or letter to him. Hell, I'm not even a Democrat. However, this man is perhaps one of the few people whom we need to encourage to continue to fight for our rights. Likewise, we need to begin encouraging our own representatives to follow his lead.

It may sound like I'm bullshitting you about this and that I have some ulterior motive. I don't. I'll let his record speak for itself,

http://www.house.gov/boucher/internet.htm

Anyway, I don't post on Slashdot anymore unless I really have something to say. All I'm trying to say now is, "take a look at this guy, see what he's about, what he's done and decide for yourself."

As a closing thought as to what kind of vision this guy has, he was the one back in 1992 that allowed the NSF (National Science Foundation) network to carry non-educational or scientific traffic... i.e., commodity Internet traffic. This effectively made the Internet what it is today. Al Gore and others may claim they invented the Internet. Boucher makes no such claim, but could largely be credited with the one that made it legal to become what it is today.

Anywho, I'll get off the podium now... but when someone does something right by me I want to make sure everyone who has an interest knows so. This guy is the real deal. Support him and tell your representatives to support him. He is truly "our man on the inside".

Re:A Bill?

[Lemmy Caution]

I listen to classical and 'serious' contemporary music as well, and there are some pieces that haven't been recorded or recorded well in some time. Also, new compositions are being written all the time - if you care about anything written after the 19th century, you should take heed. The established record companies do hold onto a lot of smaller, more outre recordings too. Most jazz artists are likewise on labels that would go the same route.

Thinking that only the Brittney Spears of the world are going to go this way is naive and, ultimately, unhelpful.

Re:Argh, Matey!

[Chris Burke]

It's a living language, but it's also used by living people who have living agendas. People didn't start using the term "geek" for us computer types because they wanted to use the negative connotation of chicken-head-bitters against us to make the act of being a little strange and socially maladjusted seem worse than it really is, now did they? :)