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???"
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
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.
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
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
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion