Boucher's DMCRA To Get A Hearing On May 12

Mr. Firewall writes "It's been a long road since Slashdot first carried the story that Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) was speaking out about the DMCA's trampling of fair-use rights. Well, his bill (HR 107) gets a hearing this Wednesday and the multi-billion-dollar music and movie industries have called out their Big Guns to stop it. This morning an urgent message from the Professional Photographers of America arrived in my inbox characterizing Boucher's bill as 'A bill that would make it impossible for photographers to protect their work' and other lies (apparently, the RIAA and MPAA have recruited the PPA into their Axis of Evil). The alert finishes by saying that 'a strong grassroots effort combined with [our] recent lobbying efforts should be enough to keep this harmful bill locked in the subcommittee ... until Congress adjourns.' Let's give these folks a little taste of the slashdot effect and do a little 'grassroots' contacting of congresscritters ourselves." Of course, you can decide only for yourself what your thoughts are on the bill.

Comments

We do have an effect

[jasonbrown]

Your letters do seem to have an effect folks. It's stopping the damn Diebold voting machines. Maybe we can pull together on this one. It is election season you know!

Wow, easy read. Read it!

[Max Threshold]

I always thought there was some law that bills had to be 80 pages long and composed of unintelligible lawyer gibberish. That one is actually an easy read, and the ideas proposed are sensible.

I work in a professional photo lab and I am angling to become a professional photographer myself. AFAIC, the PPA can go fuck themselves on this one.

PPA, what do they have to do with this?

[Chr1s-Cr0ss]

After reading the entire text, i have to say i have no clue why a photographers association would have anything to do with this. Pretty much the entire thing is about mislabelled CDs.
The only thing that might pertain to photographers is the section about fair use:

SEC. 5. FAIR USE AMENDMENTS. (a) SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH- Subsections (a)(2)(A) and (b)(1)(A) of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code, are each amended by inserting after `title' in subsection (a)(2)(A) and after `thereof' in subsection (b)(1)(A) the following: `unless the person is acting solely in furtherance of scientific research into technological protection measures'. (b) FAIR USE RESTORATION- Section 1201(c) of title 17, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the end the following: ` and it is not a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with access to, or the use of, a work if such circumvention does not result in an infringement of the copyright in the work'; and (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: `(5) It shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute, or make noninfringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work.'.

Not coincidentally, this is my favorite part of the bill.

Re:Does it really have a chance?

[Kalak]

I've been asked to perform what could be considered DCMA prohibited activities for *my job* and in the name of *fair rights*. I work for an educational instution, and we have been contacted by an instructor who wants to use a part Bowling for Columbine in their humanities course, delievered over the net. Since the copy the professor owns is on DVD, DCMA would have to be violated for it to be used, even within the educational use guidelines for fair use. From talking with my co-workers, one of whom owns BfC on DVD also, it's a good movie, and he's going to loan it to me next week so I can watch it. We're waiting on permission / legal advice of the school to act on this content being brought into the course. Just what I need to have added to "duties as required". Personally, I think this could be a great addition to the course, and it should be well within normal fair use guidelines. (Streaming it, so it's not easily savable, quality will be crap so it can go over a modem, and a student may want to go buy/rent the movie after discussing part of it in class.) The movie even has a Teacher's Guide!

Sounds like a scenerio that should be protected, not made illegal, which, since it's on DVD and Macrovisioned on VHS, it is by the DCMA - even if permission is granted we'd have to circumvent encryption to do it! But IIRC, it's distributed by Miramax, which is a division of Disney, so who know if it will be allowed.

Re:Why depend on other's readings of the bill?

[mr i want to go home]

From their home page it looks like your PPA is just like your RIAA - vocal supporters of mediocrity. Atleast half the photo's flashing up on PPA homepage are cheesy wedding photo's.

Without trying to sound like flamebait, I suspect they're a body mostly looking after the highly commercial, wealthy, and LARGE photo studios who have, ofcourse, made their money by milking wedding photography for all that can be had.

In other words they seem to have exactly the same respect and commitment towards the art of photography as the RIAA has towards the art of music.

Nill.