Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawmaker Revs Up Fair-Use Crusade

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the might-he-be-on-our-side dept.

peipas writes "Wired News has posted an interview with Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA). In it he defends his stance in support of fair use and against the DMCA and other measures sought by the entertainment industry. The interview also touches on universal broadband and the recent overturning of the broadcast flag."

38 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Time for a Conference Call by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bainwol to Valenti: I told you to up your allowance on him. We can't afford this.

  2. Re:Priorities by jandrese · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's a little saying I like to pull out in times like this:

    "You gotta do what you can with what you got."

    It is as true as it is ungrammatical.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  3. Lossed vs. Spent by bodester17 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone know of any figures on how much the entertainment industry has lossed due to piracy versus how much they have spent trying to stop it? My guess is that they have spent way more on trying to stop it. What a great business model.

    1. Re:Lossed vs. Spent by Strawser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Well, according to their math, every copy pirated is a sale lost, so they've "lost" trillions of dollars.

      Yes, and that's silly. They make the assumption that increases in price don't affect demand. Then again, when you're talking about monopolies, they tend to think that way.

      If the cost of the average CD went from $0.00 over a P2P network to $20.00 at the local mall, I wouldnt' buy the average CD. They don't seem to grasp the concept that demand and price have a generally inverse relationship.

      --
      The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
    2. Re:Lossed vs. Spent by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, no kidding. One thing they also don't get is that, P2P or no P2P, if a CD is $20, I simply won't buy it, and neither will a lot of other people. Entertainment is something we can do without if the price is too high. It would have to be an extremely good CD for me to go out and pay $20 for it. If the price were much higher, it could be the most sublime music in the world and I wouldn't buy it.

      I actually don't mind at all paying a reasonable price for a CD or a movie. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to have been duped into thinking and acting as though cable/satellite TV, CDs, movies and such are all absolutely essential for their existence.

      --
      Similar to the upcoming US election results
    3. Re:Lossed vs. Spent by CatMan79 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No kidding. When a new CD is $20 and a new DVD is $14, something is VERY wrong.

      How many people does it take to make a music CD? Twenty? Maybe thirty tops.

      Now how many people does it take to make a movie? Let's assume a modest 200. Now how much more does it cost to produce a movie? Well, probably on the order of many tens of millions of dollars.

      Sure people will listen to a CD over and over again, but these music companies are out of their minds with their pricing and bad "piracy math".

    4. Re:Lossed vs. Spent by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For what its worth, a wide release movie has already made money (well, most) by the time the DVD comes out.

      The CD has to pay back for the entire cost of the production, since the revenues earned on tour dont go to the studio.

      I still think its retarded tho. What the actual musicians make from the cost of that CD is tiny, and the money used to make the CDs is actually in the form of a loan the artist.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
  4. Re:Priorities by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So let media companies continue to abuse the American people and act as a de facto police force in order to expand the role of government in our lives? Funny - I want the government to protect me when large organizations are overstepping their authority. You respond by claiming the government shouldn't waste their time protecting the people but should instead expand their authority?

  5. Wow, refreshing to see a politician... by whoppers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that isn't a puppet with the industry lobbyists hands jammed up his ass. Imagine what a world we'd be in if politicians used common sense and did what's right?

    1. Re:Wow, refreshing to see a politician... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, Rick Boucher is one of a few true American heros ever to hold a seat in the House of Representatives. The bloodsuckers in Hollywood and the recording industry would make everything pay per use if they had their way. Broadcast radio and television would be gone forever, as would public libraries. Rick Boucher is one of very few in power fighting to keep that from happening. I have considered moving to his district just so I could vote for him.

      --
      How ya like dat?
  6. Boucher is not our hero... by kajoob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the guy that wants to trade the broadcast flag for our fair use rights. Our representatives shouldn't be trading one set of our rights in order to keep a right we already have. Fair use means nothing if everything is controlled with a broadcast flag and there is nothing for us to share.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    1. Re:Boucher is not our hero... by Feynman · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I was struck by this, too.

      Frankly, so what if "high-value television programming delivered over the air...[is] going to get recorded and uploaded to the internet" [TFA, 4]. It was delivered over the air. Couldn't just about anybody have recorded it anyway?

    2. Re:Boucher is not our hero... by kajoob · · Score: 5, Informative
      It actually amuses me the extent Fair Use is misunderstood on slashdot


      Yeah me too, so let me point out where you have an almost criminal misunderstanding as to what fair use is...

      You do realise that 'Fair Use' rarely if ever extends to sharing copyrighted material that you dont own copyright to?


      No I didn't realize that, but that may be because Fair Use rights only come into play when you don't own the copyright!! Fair Use is when you use a copyrighted work without having to ask permission from the copyright owner.

      You can cite statutes all you want, but unless you know the case law behind it, you don't know what it has been interpreted to mean. For instance, did you know that the Supreme Court has held that "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use;' the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 US 417 (1984).? I can tell that you didn't.

      The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use:


      Did you even read what you cited? That is a list of "EXAMPLES", and the list is not exclusive. Again, if you did any research you'd find that there is no exhaustive list for "fair uses" nor is there any bright line test for what constitutes fair use. The factor that has the most weight to ascertain whether or not a use is a fair use is "was it for commercial purposes?". That's the biggy, so if you're using it for personal use (does that include sharing? we don't know yet) then it is more likely that your use is non-infringing, but even that is not dispositive.

      So basically, unless its incidental or judicial in some fashion, Fair Use has generally been found to be not applicable to the entire item, only excerpts or quotations, and rarely the whole content.


      OK, you just contradicted yourself. You said previously that you can't copy an entire work without infringing, but now you say that Fair Use has only been generally (read: not entirely) applicable to copies of whole works? As I said before, there is no bright line test for what is inringing or non-infringing, but it is entirely legal to copy an entire cd under the doctrine of fair use. Will saving a television show and sending it to Aunt Sally fall under the auspices of "fair use"? I don't know because the case isn't in front of me, but I do know that you are completely off-base to that unequivocally that doing so is an abolute infringing act.

      I don't mean to sound harsh, but the next time you try to slap someone down, make sure your facts are correct and that you indeed know what you are talking about.
      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    3. Re:Boucher is not our hero... by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you actually RTFA that you linked?

      Part of the point of the DMCRA is to revoke the provisions of the DMCA that made it illegal to produce devices that bypassed copy protection features, as long as the uses of the content are fair (e.g., not sharing it wholesale over the Internet). Boucher wants to ensure that we can do things like time-shift television shows, skip commercials, watch it backwards or extra-fast, or keep an archival copy, not to mention all the things that libraries, journalists, and academicians in the humanities might need to do with digital media.

      He doesn't want the version of the broadcast flag that the MPAA tried to ramrod through the FCC - he wants a sane version that protects digital content from being unfairly abused while still protecting our rights as consumers. Hopefully, he can extend this concept to the 5C system that is essentially Broadcast-Flag-For-Cable, for which there is currently no moderating influence, and for which the MPAA is getting their every wish.

    4. Re:Boucher is not our hero... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No I didn't realize that, but that may be because Fair Use rights only come into play when you don't own the copyright!! Fair Use is when you use a copyrighted work without having to ask permission from the copyright owner.

      My comment on sharing copyrighted worked was directed straight at the parent comment. Fair Use is a set of exclusions from standard copyright law that the copyright owner has no control over - the parents example of sharing would struggle to come under any of the examples given of accepted fair use and based on the factors given in copyright law, it would have a hard time winning a court case based on it.

      You can cite statutes all you want, but unless you know the case law behind it, you don't know what it has been interpreted to mean. For instance, did you know that the Supreme Court has held that "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use;' the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 US 417 (1984).? I can tell that you didn't.

      I dont see any mention of redistribution of the reproduction being allowed under that ruling and fair use certainly doesnt give you the sort of redistribution rights that slashdotters seem to think. I did know about that ruling tho.

      Did you even read what you cited? That is a list of "EXAMPLES", and the list is not exclusive.

      I did read that, tahnkyou. That is a list of EXAMPLES that courts have found to be fair use. Note the distinct lack in that short list of examples where the item has been redistributed in entirety, but I do agree that its a non exhaustive list.

      Again, if you did any research you'd find that there is no exhaustive list for "fair uses" nor is there any bright line test for what constitutes fair use.

      Equally that can also mean that theres no exhaustive uses against fair use - as each case of fair use is decided upon its own merits, this will always be the case. You cant look at a usage and immediately claim its fair use or not, but based on past cases, predominently the thing which has been found to be Fair Use is partial reproduction, not full reproduction and distribution.

      The factor that has the most weight to ascertain whether or not a use is a fair use is "was it for commercial purposes?". That's the biggy, so if you're using it for personal use (does that include sharing? we don't know yet) then it is more likely that your use is non-infringing, but even that is not dispositive

      No, there are four (4) weights attached when deciding if a use is fair or not and these are laid out in section 107:

      1. Commercial or non commercial

      2. Nature of copyrighted work

      3. Size and substantiality of portion used

      4. The effect of reproduction on the marketability or value of the work

      The section places NO WEIGHT on any single one of those, each is as equal when determining whether the usage is fair use or not. The fiar usage exclusions within copyright law all use language which leans toward partial redistribution and now redistribution of the entire work.

      OK, you just contradicted yourself. You said previously that you can't copy an entire work without infringing, but now you say that Fair Use has only been generally (read: not entirely) applicable to copies of whole works

      No you misread my sentance, I say that Fair Use has generally found to be not applicable to entire works except under certain exceptions such as incidental copying or judicial copying.

      To reply to your final point, I never ever said in my post that an action such as sharing is 'an abolute infringing act', my wording was very carefully put across to ensure that all I said was that it didnt certainly and definately fall under Fair Use like most slashdotters seem to believe it does. You have no immediate right to redistribute copyrighted material anyway you like, and that is the belief most slashdotters seem to think they have a right to.

    5. Re:Boucher is not our hero... by kajoob · · Score: 2, Informative
      I don't want to get into a pissing contest and rebut everything you say point by point all night long because it's obvious you're not an attorney, but you said the following:


      The section places NO WEIGHT on any single one of those, each is as equal when determining whether the usage is fair use or not. The fiar usage exclusions within copyright law all use language which leans toward partial redistribution and now redistribution of the entire work.


      Those are indeed the factors, but like I said before, a statute is nothing by itself - you have to check your case law. There isn't any weight listed for those 4 factors you mention because you're not going to find anything like that in the statute itself, it's in the damn CASE LAW!! And courts have held over and over that the most important factor is if it's a commercial or non-commerical use. I don't have any cases in front of me and I don't feel like digging on lexis, but I'm sure somebody else here can cite some cases for me that back this up.

      Not only that, but those factors CAME FIRST, before the statute. It even says that in the statute that you cited!! Have a look....


      Sec. 107:
      Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.


      "Codified" means that a judge made law existed (you may know this as "common law"), and then the legislature then took the rules that the judiciary made and wrote them down into a statute. The common law was written into the code, hence the term "codified". The case law is still valid though, that is why the 4 different factors have differing weights - it's in the cases.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
  7. Re:Priorities by Nagatzhul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cause Universal Health care sucks rocks?

    --
    "All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
  8. Reply by ravenspear · · Score: 2, Funny

    Glickman to Rosen: You seemed to have better luck with this. Should be just keep pouring in money or appeal to the children?

  9. Mixed up? by Tezkah · · Score: 3, Informative

    Skype is a file-sharing application and that's used by millions of people. (Universities) are using file sharing as a way to disseminate research papers and other legitimate items. Getting away from centralized servers and going to peer-to-peer communications all across the map means the communications are faster and much more user-friendly. I will predict that within a number of years, most of the uses of file sharing are going to be legitimate.

    I think you mean Peer to Peer, not "File Sharing", which is one kind of P2P. Using Skype for internet telephony and downloading legit files from bittorrent are completely different things. The first is at risk from phone companies, the second is at risk from **AA organizations.

  10. I made Fair Use of my friend's girlfriend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and he's still pissed at me. I don't see what the problem is. I only used her for one night while he was at a family dinner, I did not intend to permanently deprive him of use of her, and she still loves him and everything.

    But he's still all hung up about the whole issue. Jeez, some people are so narrow-minded. Guy's as bad as the RIAA. I guess I should be glad he isn't litigating.

  11. A reversal in the Democratic and Republican roles. by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think we have seen a reversal in the roles of the Democratic and Republican parties within the United States. Traditionally this sort of thing would have been done by a true (ie. not neoconservative) conservative Republican, fighting for the individual rights of the American citizenry. Indeed, I find it odd that a Democrat is now the one leading the charge for individual rights.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  12. Re:Who's on our side? by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With the damage that intellectual monopoly rights cause to the economy, consumers and taxpayers it shouldnt be too hard to recruit supporters provided one uses the correct arguments.

    Remember, intellectual monopoly rights are, in fact, monopoly rights and nothing else. They cause the same economic damage by diverting economic resources into inefficient organizations as any other monopolies.

    Organizations that can fail to make a profit on a product that costs $10k to produce and will sell a million copies at $15 a pop shouldnt exist in a free market economy.

  13. think so? by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 4, Informative
    I don't really think it's much of a role reversal for the dems . . . historically they've championed rights of the individual over rights of businesses. After all, what do you think most social programs revolve around?

    Individual assistance to those who otherwise may fall through the cracks.

    Plus, both parties at this point seem to bow to their corporate masters rather than champion anything based on their ethical/moral considerations.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  14. Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol by PrimeNumber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Traditionally this sort of thing would have been done by a true (ie. not neoconservative) conservative Republican, fighting for the individual rights of the American citizenry.

    I call BS.

    Not since the 19th century has the republican party given hardly any thought to the individual rights or welfare of citizens.
    I sure as hell dont remember hearing about the republican party being particularly active protecting civil rights of disenfranchised minorities during the sixties.

    More accurately, Bouchers actions represent the type of actions that gave the Democratic party a reputation of being the champion of the 'little guy' in the first place.

    Its too sad he is the exception rather than the rule, IMHO both the Republican and Democratice parties are essentially corporate whores these days.

  15. Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol by LetterJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given that the Clinton administration brought deficits under control, oversaw a huge increase in GDP, etc. and the current Republican administration has introduced some of the largest military spending increases in US history (new levels are higher than at ANY point during the Cold War),

    "Conservative" as a political label used to mean (among other things), that "the way things are" is good. That meant that conservatives tended to reject radical changes in policy, spending habits, etc. Combined with some of the only tax cuts EVER put forth during a "time of war" (during previous wars, like WWII, the upper tax bracket was increased to 90%, not dropped), the current set of conservatives in power are hard to describe as traditionally conservative. I've even heard some of these conservatives complain that people who are concerned about the current war aren't making the sacrifices needed during a time of war. Maybe if they hadn't exempted the wealthy from sacrifice, those folks would be complaining too.

    Over time, the meaning of conservative has morphed into "morally uptight" and has more to do with a politician's stance on 2-3 social issues than on any sort of fiscal conservation.

    --

    The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
  16. Distraction tactics by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Boucher is the free-speech side's token politician. He never actually manages to get anything through committee, and certainly never gets it passed, and he never actually intends to.

    Rather, he's there to maintain the fiction of balance, and the hope of possibility of change for the better through the established political process. By doing so, he siphons off efforts which would be better put towards forcing change through other means, AND provides an excuse for fans of the system to tell those who are violating the laws to just simmer down and work through the political process.

    Remember, he voted for the DMCA.

  17. Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Informative

    The war of intellectual property versus fair use seems to be fairly non-partisan. Of the current federal legislators endorsed by IPac, two are Democrats and three are Republicans. The chief enemies of fair use (Ernest Hollings {retired}, Howard Berman, Orrin Hatch) also come from both sides of the aisle.

  18. Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol by demaria · · Score: 5, Informative

    "I sure as hell dont remember hearing about the republican party being particularly active protecting civil rights of disenfranchised minorities during the sixties"

    Civil Rights Act of 1964:
    House Republicans 138-34
    House Democrats 152-96
    Senate Republicans: 6 against
    Senate Democrats: 21 against

    Voting Rights Act of 1965
    Senate Democrats: 47-17
    Senate Republicans: 30-2

    Civil rights Act of 1968
    Senate Democrats: 42-17
    Senate Republicans: 29-3

  19. The same old BS by Anita+Coney · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rick Boucher seems pretty smart about the issues until the very end, when he repeats the same industry bullshit lie, namely that "the only way that I think we are going to have high-value television programming delivered over the air in digital format is if the motion picture industry has some level of confidence that it's not going to get recorded and uploaded to the internet."

    That is PURE bullshit for one simple reason: Broadcasters ARE currently delivering "high-value" content in HD format "over the air"!!!! You can't say that broadcasters won't do something unless we take action, WHEN THEY ARE FUCKING DOING IT RIGHT NOW!!!

    That bullshit lie is just a ploy to get broadcast flags in place to make sure we have absolutely no fair use rights left.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  20. Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol by snullbug · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Throwing your own cup of water into the passing flood hardly counts as "being particularly active". Neither does jumping on a bandwagon whose time has come.

    --
    .......Ya doesn't has to call me Johnson!
  21. Re:Priorities by Fareq · · Score: 3, Informative

    Or 4) he's right.

    Go look it up. The average American who is uninsured makes more than $50,000/year. That is enough to buy perfectly adequate health insurance.

    It is not enough income to drive a 7 series BMW, live in a large house overlooking the ocean, eat out at gourmet restaurants twice a week, send the kids to private school *and* buy health insurance, however.

    You've just got to decide what's important.

    Certainly you don't think I should be paying for the health insurance of those who'd rather drive a more expensive car?

  22. Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol by Enry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yea, and the Democrats that voted against said bills switched parties. Remember the Dixiecrats?

  23. I think Rep Boucher understands the issues but... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why don't you put your entire inventory up on the web and make it available in a user-friendly format for a reasonable price per track and get away from clinging to this old, outdated business model of selling the whole CD?"

    Well I can see a couple of problems. First the music industry currently sells the entire CD as if each song had value. Unfortunately most albums have a couple of good songs bundled with crap. Twenty songs for fifteen bucks sounds reasonable but fifteen bucks for two songs doesn't. Never mind that eighteen of the songs are unwanted.

    Allowing people to pay only for the content that they really wanted would only be possible, from a corporate point of view, if the content industry could be sure that a few legitimately purchased copies would not be given away to the masses thus reducing their profit. This might be possible with the use of DRM. However DRM, if unchecked, could completely destroy fair use. If a corporation can eek out even a little profit by denying consumers their fair use rights they will. It's in the corporate nature to do whatever increases their profit margins.

    "Do I have sympathy for them? Not when they're clinging to a relic and when that's getting in the way of making good current business decisions.... They can make a fortune if they do that."

    I'm not sure which "good current business decisions" Rep. Boucher is talking about. I would like to think that making their content available at a reasonable price would be wildly profitable for the music industry while giving consumer's value for their dollars. The model is, however, largely untested and counter intuitive. Remember that corporations want profit. The more the better. If they can sell their product while grossly over pricing that product all the better. In a normal market supply, demand and competition keeps prices bearable for the consumers. It is only when the economic environment can be controlled that corporations can get away with grossly inflated pricing. Many times this can occur if a corporation can obtain some kind of monopoly, mostly through the use of copyrights, patents or laws tailored for this purpose.

    The business model that I think Rep. Boucher is talking about would threaten the monopoly that the recording industry has on distribution and is therefore a very scary model for them, I'm sure.

    At the end of the article Rep. Boucher seemed to be talking about cutting a deal with the MPAA. He suggests that he may support the broadcast flag if they support the Media Consumers' Rights Act.

    "The circuit court for D.C. has invalidated broadcast flag rulemaking, saying that the FCC lacked statutory authority (to create the broadcast flag). Not surprisingly, the MPAA has now come to us and said, "We want you to legislate."

    I don't think we are going to do that. I have been waiting for a long time for Hollywood to come to us and say, "Here's something we want" because there is something I want. And it's called the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act."

    I haven't read the Digital Media Consumers' Act but I'm smart enough to know that many times the name can be deceiving. For example the "Patriot Act" which is anything but patriotic if one would take the time to actually read it. I also know that legislation that start out good can be perverted at the last minute by congressmen who are not acting in the public best interest.
    Call me a radical but I think we should legalize the killing of lawmakers who act against the public interest. Not random killing, of course. What we should do is have a vote every five years or so for the politician that has done the public the most harm and then take that person out into a public square and hang him/her by the neck until dead. Just a thought.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  24. Defending Fair Use by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    To defend Fair Use, you have to defend concept of the Public Domain.

    To defend the concept of the Public Domain, you have to be against insane copyright extensions.

    To be against insane copyright extensions you have to not take money and favors from those seeking to kill the Public Domain through insane copyright extensions.

    What did you say your job was again, Sir?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  25. Re:So would you trade? by Hamfist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reasonably speaking, yes. The Digital Media Consumers Rights Act allows me to remove the broadcast flag for fair use.

  26. Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol by orgelspieler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think that's a fair statement to make, though I sorta wish it were true. It implies that "traditional" Democrats don't/didn't fight for individual's rights. I think that most political parties have had their shining moments and great leaders. They also have their turkeys, who think that protecting rights involves things like PATRIOT act and arresting people for taking pictures of bridges. I'm just glad that *any* politician has the guts to stand up for what he believes is right. I wish there were more of them.

  27. Re:I think Rep Boucher understands the issues but. by Alsee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I haven't read the Digital Media Consumers' Act but I'm smart enough to know that many times the name can be deceiving.

    In this case it isn't. I've read it. It says three things:

    (1) You no longer go to prison for defeating DRM (unless you actually commit copyright infringement).

    (2) You no longer go to prison for offering a product to defeat DRM that enables the above noninfringing uses.

    (3) DRM crippled CDs must be labeled.

    Rep. Boucher seemed to be talking about cutting a deal with the MPAA. He suggests that he may support the broadcast flag if they support the Media Consumers' Rights Act.

    I agree, I was not thrilled with that notion myself. However note that with the DMCRA it would be perfectly legal for people to sell products to strip the flag and it would be perfectly legal to use those products so long as you don't actually infringe.

    So the MPAA would 'get' it's broadcast flag, but it would be pretty well worthless.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  28. Re:Restoring fair use rights? by JThundley · · Score: 2

    I'm still angered over the lawsuit against 321 Studios that forced them out of business. I watched a report on G4 or something, where they explained everything and did interviews, and it was the interviews that pissed me off the most:

    DVD X Copy lady: "Our software lets people make backups of movies that they have already bought."

    MPAA guy: "Making a copy of a DVD that you bought is OK, that's fair use. What's not OK is when someone shares that DVD with a thousand of his closest friends."

    I'm paraphrasing, but after hearing that I headbutted the wall.