Lawmaker Revs Up Fair-Use Crusade

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."

Comments

Boucher is not our hero...

[kajoob]

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.

Re:Boucher is not our hero...

[kajoob]

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.

I made Fair Use of my friend's girlfriend...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Re:Who's on our side?

[Znork]

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.

think so?

[BitterAndDrunk]

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.

Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol

[PrimeNumber]

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.

Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol

[LetterJ]

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.

Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol

[demaria]

"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