Slashdot Mirror
Rep. Boucher Outlines 'Fair Use' Fight
A reader writes "AtNewYork.com is reporting: U.S. Congressman Rick Boucher, moving to strengthen "fair use" provisions under federal copyright law, said he is introducing a bill that would essentially restrict the record industry from selling copy-protected CDs."
send that man a CD Burner!!!
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
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???"
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?
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.
I fail to see how it is a good idea to ban the sales of copy protected CDs. The record comapnies are more than free to sell them as such, and I would hate to see the even more legislation from the government telling companies what they can and can't do, especialy when it is in a situation where no harm can come to the users of the products. The Libertarian in me cringes at this idea.
However, doing something like simply mandating a truth in advertiseing plan, so that CDs that are copy protected are labled as such, and ones that aren't are the only ones that can carry the Compact Disk logo would be a fine comprimise. And would also I think let the market police itself.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I 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.
http://www.house.gov/boucher/ is his web site
and Ninthnet@mail.house.gov is his email address.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
I think it is good to see SOME sort of recognition of fair use. However this stops short of really saying fair use is a 'right', it is more along the lines of not kicking the ass of people just trying to do fair use stuff. What *I* want to see is some sort of penalty imposed on companies who take measures to restrict fair use in dominant standards, such as DVDs. All these so-called copy protection schemes make the right to exercise fair use a moot point, if successful one cannot exercise these rights. There are already laws in place to cover illegal copying. Of course, currently it isn't econmincally feasible to use that path as they should, so there is an issue... Chasing down the mechanisms that *could* be used for copying is wrong, as is trying to prevent the ability to copy altogether...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
So, I take it you believe anyone who thinks we have a right to fair use must be a criminal?
Please...
Because if 80 percent of the market is willing to buy them, the recording industry will go ahead and sell them. And when most all the music that is released comes on the copy protected format, then you are either giving in, or going without most music.
Remember, all intellectual property-based transactions are already entirely the product of legislated fictions - if it involves royalties, copyrights, patents, or the like, it is a "product" that was essentially created by legislative fiat.
Remember, RIAA and the rest of the Horsemen of the Apocalpse aren't going to stand by. They'll fight this thing with every dollar, lawyer and lying press release they can dream up.
This could be a HUGE momentum swing. Let's take advantage of it...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
"I'm just a little perplexed to understand the rationale for this. There
...It's like you don't even know what to say man... ...when they like... ...get it.
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.
FRA: STFU GTFO
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.
Specialization is for insects. - R.A.H.
Send that man some campaign contributions!
My concern is with the kind of transaction record companies are making with consumers. When you buy a CD, are you buying the physical product, or are you buying a license to listen to the music?
If we're buying the right to listen to the music, then we should be able to listen to in in other forms, MP3, etc.
If we're buying the physical product, then the RIAA shouldn't be trying to tax record stores on sales of used albums.
Basically, they can't have it both ways.
the mot disturbing thing though is the ambiguity. There's no EULA to clickthrough or read, and I doubt the average consumer knows whether they're buying a CD, or buying the music on the CD. It makes a big difference.
Kevin Fox
Although I am all for letting the users (buyers / market) to decide whether or not something is worth to be purchased, methinks it will be a VERY BAD LAW if there is any restriction on the selling of the "copy-protected" CDs.
Why ?
Simply because, in the spirit of "FAIR USE", the producers of the CDs should have the right to enjoy the "FAIR USE" of the technology employed in the "copy protected CD".
The only thing that I think is important in all these things is that THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY LAW PROHIBITING ANYONE FROM rendering the very technology that have been employed in the "copy protection" scheme useless.
And that's the gist of DCMA - it makes EVERYTHING, or EVERY IDEA of creating NEW TECHNOLOGIES making existing ones useless ILLEGAL.
Copy-protected CDs are NOT the culprit. It's the BAD LAW (DCMA and friends) that is hurting everyone.
One bad law doesn't deserve another. We have enough bad laws already.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
In the article, I found the following paragraph rather interesting:
While conceding later that copy-protected CDs aren't against existing law, he said their introduction wouldn't even impact the music piracy the music industry is trying to stop. Instead, the move will "anger millions of their best-customers who have become accustomed of making copies [of CDs] for their own use," which is allowed under "fair use" provisions of copyright law.
So, if indeed they are angering millions of their best-customers, then why does he need a law. Seems logical that by doing this they will be hurting their own bottom line, and thus will be disincented to do it. Having said that, I'm happy to see this kind of legislation because I think copyright is getting sorely out of balance.
I have been fortunate in that my obscure taste in music has kept me away from CD's with copy protection schemes. If I do someday pick up a CD with a protection scheme, then I will handle it very simply.
I will rip it as I do with every CD to 192Kbps MP3. If it fails I'll spend some time trying to find hacks that will get it to rip successfully. If no hacks solve it, then I will return the media as unusable and demand my money back. If the label doesn't want my money, I'll just go find other musicians to listen to, thanks. If they all go to unbreakable copy protection systems (hahaha!), then I'll just hum along with the voices in my head I guess.
If they don't want to sell me music in the form that I listen to I guess I just won't listen anymore.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
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"...
Copy-protected CDs don't hold up their end of the bargain because the work can't go into the public domain (more likely, it will simply become inaccessible after a few years as the DRM technology changes). Therefore, any content published on copy-protected CDs should not be subject to copyright protection: if people break the copy protection, they should be able to redistribute the content freely.
The legal power and protection of copyright should be reserved for content that is actually published and that will eventually be able to fall into the public domain.
I fail to see how it is a good idea to ban the sales of copy protected CDs. The record comapnies are more than free to sell them as such, and I would hate to see the even more legislation from the government telling companies what they can and can't do, especialy when it is in a situation where no harm can come to the users of the products.
For the same reason the electronics industry is restricted from selling equipment which blacks out the radio reception in an entire building or neighborhood, or will tend to overheat wiring and start fires.
Copy protected CDs destroy expensive equipment, such as Macintosh computers and some high-end CD players. Banning their sale is minimalistic Consumer Protection, something is country is in sore need of, and something which is utterly appropriate for the government to be doing. Not everyone can be an expert on everything.
However, doing something like simply mandating a truth in advertiseing plan
I too would very much like to see a return to Truth in Advertising. Unfortunately, the courts have ruled the corporations are the same as living, breathing human beings, with all of their rights (but none of their vulnerabilities). This has been explicitly extended to include freedom of speech that is no more restricted than individual speech (go figure), so there is little if anything that can be done to coerce a company, much less a cartel, into not misrepresenting their incompatible disks as CDs.
If they want to sell a new, incompatible medium, they should be required to change its physical format such that it cannot accidentally be put into equipment it will damage. Requiring such disks to be 6" in diameter, instead of 4.5", for example, woud probably be sufficient.
The Compact Disk logo is a trademark issue, but frankly it is too subtle for most consumers to recognize, so while Phillips will likely not allow such copy protected CD-resembling media to bear their logo, the customer will likely only become aware of that discrepency after their incompatible drive has refused to play the music they purchased (at best), or has been damaged or destroyed by the disk.
This is not acceptable, and I am frankly amazed that anyone could argue that caveate emptor would be at all an acceptable standard of behavior, much less regulation, for something like this.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The correlary to this view is that copyright law (which extends all the way back to the US Constitution) was established primarily to protect those who create and distribute creative works. In fact, it was created as a compact between average citizens and those citizens or organizations that were provided with copyright protections.
The underlying goal of this compact was to strengthen the culture of the United States for all its citizens. The underlying goal was never to provide special protections for copyright holders in some sort of vacuum of privelege.
Interestingly, in their primer on copyright, the RIAA neglects this vial information. As usual, they cite the rights of the copyright holder, without pointing out that those rights are mirrored by specific and explicit rights given to the general public as part of the copyright compact.
The RIAA essentially constitutes a cartel, and as such when they decide to endorse computer-damaging CDs or other nonsense, it's not simply a matter of consumer choice. Unopposed, the RIAA will get what it wants. What it wants in this case is to deny you and me the right to exercise our end of the copyright compact.
As we're seeing now with WorldCom, Enron, et. al., even though the Congress is generally overly-lenient with big business, from time to time the politicians realize that it's in nobody's best interests for these people to be given free rein.
I for one am happy to see at least one member of Congress who is willing to stand up and make this an issue. Cynics will call it grandstanding, or proof that he didn't get enough money from the music industry, and so on. But I see it as proof that the American political system can work.
As others have pointed out, it's not enough to steal songs via Limewire all day in a "protest" against the RIAA. Sometimes you have to *gasp* get to know the issues, vote *double gasp* and stop whining that the system doesn't work.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Here is my email to him, have you sent one yet?
--------
I am a computer professional who lives in Central Upstate New York. I just wanted to let you know I have been very impressed with the views you have expressed recently regarding fair use of recorded music, and CARP.
In addition, I am strongly against many of the restrictions imposed by the DMCA, and am in favor the the modifications you propose. The current DMCA has very little to do with protecting copyright and very much to do with having absolute and complete control over the consumer. Without correction, I believe we are on a course to a world where we are unable to possess a copy of any digital IP, and will be charged every time we want to access it. This is very anti-consumer, and has nothing to do with the reasons "limited" copyright was ever granted.
I would like to thank you for the views you are expressing, and would like to let you know I support you in what I have heard so far. I look forward to reading your soon to be proposed legislation. I will most likely be writing my representatives in support when the bill is released and numbered.
I wish you represented my district so that I could give you my vote next time around.
-signature with complete mailing address-
Soccer Goal Plans
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
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
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.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
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.
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've met him. A politician with a clue is a rare thing. Let's not lose him . . . .
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!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why bother.
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.
It's pretty simple from a plain economic view. People make bootleg copies when the legit ones are too expensive. Stop the price-fixing and so-called "piracy" will evaporate overnight. Would Napster ever have become popular if full-length albums were $4 on CD and $2 online in a lossless format? Not likely. Would street vendors be peddling movies if legit copies were $5? Heck, would anybody even rent movies if they were that cheap to buy? And imagine if all profits from album sales went to the artists. This is what we need to aim for--not a half-hearted set of fair-use guidelines for the current overpriced content that exists today. Furthermore, we need a sort of "anti-DMCA" that requires all copyrighted works to be plaintext and entirely unprotected by copy controls. But alas, hollywood has decided that they should set ridiculously high prices to make room for several unneeded middlemen. And in defense of these high prices, they've pushed for more legislation in attempt to rein in control of the disgruntled masses. This is not what copyright was intended to be.
According to the First Amendment, neither you nor anyone else decides whether it's worth selling or whether it's really "music".