Slashdot Mirror
Lofgren Introduces BALANCE Act to Modify DMCA
Infonaut writes "Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D - CA) introduced H.R. 1066, The Balance Act. It seeks to clarify 'that America's historic principles of fair use - protected under Section 107 of the Copyright Act - apply to analog and digital transmissions.' Apparently Lessig is on board, as are several associations and other organizations. If you like what you see, encourage your representative to support the bill."
I'm all for the government taking the technology that prevents me from making backup copies of games and music and reducing it to a pile of smoldering dung. Smoldering dung is, in my book, way cooler than an irreplaceable copy of Unreal 2003 that my sister rolls over with my computer chair (hypothetically speaking... grr...)
But let's not forget that there are legitimate concerns about the pirating of software and music. It's not just the RIAA and other large organizations. The widespread pirating of software does, in fact, have the ability to cripple businesses that produce it. As I recall, the guys that made Thief made next to nothing on Thief 2 (and are no longer in business as a result), but everyone I knew had a copy.
So I'm Asking Slashdot <dramatic music>: What should companies be doing to prevent the loss of income from pirating while leaving inviolate the right of the consumer to make copies of materials to which we own legal license?</dramatic music>
I know, I know, we talk about this all the time, but I don't think anyone's offered a suggestion that would really work; this is a tough nut to crack.
Peace,
~SL
Interesteing reference in Section 4 of the legislation:
SECTION 4:
Today, when a consumer purchases a book, they are free to lend their copy to a friend, or to sell their copy to a used books store. Section 4 allows consumers to do the same thing with digital content by extending the first sale doctrine - codified in section 109 of Title 17 - to digital transmissions. At the same time, it protects copyright holders by restricting such transmissions to a single recipient and requiring consumers to transmit their copies with copy-control restrictions in place. Consumers also have to get rid of their copy after they transmit the work to someone else. (underline added by me)
This is good, legal, and just. If only people would do that. Sure it is a pain to delete your copy when you lend it out, or to remember who has it and if they "gave it back" (by deleting their copy or by sending/ftping it back to you).
The real important part of this law is the extension of the fair use to digital works, even if it shouldn't be obviously there by default. Having something expressly writting rather than implied is necessary.
(Simpson's quote regarding illegal practices performed in international waters)
"Over there is a ship re-broadcasting major league baseball with implied oral consent instead of express written consent."
robi
Per Zoe Lofgren's own summary , yes, you pretty much got it right.
The proposed title 17 section 123(b) is crippled in that it doesn't apply to barring licensure of software in ways that would impede limits on copyright in title 17. Nice as this generally is, it's still not going far enough in protecting customers and promoting science.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I know, I know, we talk about this all the time...
And the reason we talk about it all the time is that these two desirable things can't be reconciled without ever-greater levels of technological evil stuff materializing (Paladium, anyone?). Give me the technological ability to have my fair use rights, and I've also got the technological ability to pirate.
The world is messy.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Everybody needs to support the Balance act, and not buy any CDs.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
I don't picture the executives saying literally, 'Let's counter fair use', but what they do say is, 'How can we make more money off of our content'? And in some cases, they come up with the idea that making it difficult or illegal to engage in fair use activities might make someone buy an extra copy, etc.
In addition, many of the apologists or spokespersons for the industries, such as Valenti, have stated outright that they don't consider fair use to be a valid concern for digital media. Bear in mind, that many of these people do see fair use as a threat to their bottom line, or their control of their content
I'm definitely all for capitalism, and I do understand the circumstances under which many of these decisions are made, but they are the wrong decisions, nonetheless, if for no other reason that treating your customers like criminals is most assuredly contrary to the profit motive, no matter how good it looks on paper. In addition, such methods are FAR more likely to result in the loss of customers than otherwise.
As before, the correct solution to these problems is to actually address the violations (and the violators) of the law, to treat your customers as though you really want their business (instead of begrudgingly treating them like a commodity), and to convince the general public that your product has enough value to justify their purchase.
The legal framework of copyright had sufficient strength to address actual copyright violators prior to the DMCA.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
Storm Clouds Rise Over H-1B
"Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, introduced a bill this week to lift all limits on foreign workers "
She deleted this press release, but it's in the Google cache
She was among 26 House members (14 Democrats and 12 Republicans) who achieved perfect scores for their votes in the 105th Congress on encryption, securities litigation, patent reform, fast track, MFN, export controls, H1-B visas, and Y2K issues.
and she takes money from Microsoft!
(click on expand all).
Dump this wench!
What I'd like to know is why we (in the form of our government) should even grant a copyright for material that is only released in a copy restricted format?
After all the point of a copyright is that the material belongs to the public and is "leased" back to the author for a period of time. But if the public can't access the material once the copyright term has expired...?
In my experience, it's usually better to take incremental improvements rather than insist on perfection or nothing. The "perfection or nothing" attitude usually results in nothing. Congresswoman Lofgren's bill is way better than what we have now. Like everything, this bill can be improved, and by participating in the process, we can help implement those improvements. But if we walk away from the table, we lose all influence in the process.
Many posters also seem to assume that they have little or no practical influence. In my experience, that is quite untrue. It's the small actions you take every day that make the difference. Do something every day to support freedom on the Internet. Make it a habit. Do it even if it's only sending a single email. Put it in your calendar so that you are reminded every day to do one thing, no matter how small, to support freedom on the Internet. Many days, you will do a great deal to support the cause. Every day, you will do at least a little something. By spending five minutes a day supporting something you care about, you can multiply your influence by a factor of at least 365, more as you gradually learn which actions are the most effective.
Give it a try for a couple months. Once you get used to it, it's easy, quick and pleasant. Focus on creating the right causes, and the effects will take care of themselves. Do the right thing without worrying about the eventual outcome, or how much progress you're making. It's like walking to a far-away city: put one foot in front of the other, and sooner or later you'll wake up and see the city gates in the distance.
That's debatable.