Fair Use Bill Introduced To Change DMCA

An anonymous reader tips us to a Washington Post blogger's note that Representatives Boucher (D-VA) and Dolittle (R-CA) today introduced the FAIR USE Act to update the DMCA to "make it easier for digital media consumers to use the content they buy." Boucher's statement on the bill says, "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the public's right to fair use..." The Post failed to note the history. Boucher has been introducing this bill for years; here are attempts from 2002 and 2003. The chances may be better in this Congress. And reader Rolling maul writes in to note Ars's disappointment with the bill for leaving the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions intact: "Yet again, the bill does not appear to deliver on what most observers want: clear protection for making personal use copies of encrypted materials. There is no allowance for consumers to make backups of DVDs, to strip encryption from music purchased online so that it can be played anywhere, or to generally do any of the things that the DMCA has made illegal."

Comments

Non-partisan

[sharp-bang]

The party shift in Congress won't change anything regarding the DCMA or copyright. Although fair use is certainly important to many Democrats, the concentration of IP rights in the hands of a few large companies at the expense of consumer rights has been a depressingly non-partisan issue.

Re:Non-partisan

[91degrees]

Don't be too ready to dismiss this. Politicians want votes. Not money. Money is just a means to an end.

Because of the DMCA, a lot of intelligent people have become increasingly political, and represent a substantial voting block. On top of this, big corporations sueing poor people has led to quite a lot of people becoming a little negative about copyright. In the past copyright hasn't affected the ordinary guy too much. Now it looks like it might.

"The chances may be better in this Congress"

[the_skywise]

Why? Because it's "Democrat" controlled?

Who signed the DMCA bill into law, btw?

So my free software dvd player is still illegal?

[Chris Burke]

Would I still be breaking the law every time I play a legally purchased DVD on my Linux-based computer using decss-derived software?

It sounds like it. It sounds like the bill wouldn't even allow you to play a DRM-encumbered CD, unless the DRM was a Sony rootkit or other security problem. Lame.

Though on the other hand, being able to say "I am breaking the law every time I watch a DVD on my computer" is a simple and clear way to demonstrate how crazy copyright has become by outlawing what is so obviously ethical behavior. Since I will still be able to say that should this bill be passed, I have an equally simple way of expressing how copyright law is still screwed up, and how this bill completely failed to fix it.

Much better than having it partially fix the main problem so that it still isn't adequate, but becomes harder to explain. To put it another way: If you're going to suck, suck hard, so the slurping noise gives you away.

Re:Why is encryption even covered by the DMCA?

[mandelbr0t]

That's exactly the problem. In fact, this bill is a worthless waste of time. If anti-circumvention isn't addressed, then the DMCA still wins. The DMCA doesn't remove Fair Use rights, it just makes it illegal to obtain a copy which would be protected by those rights. This new bill only reinforces what is already law.

As someone cleverly pointed out, current "protections" involve distributing both lock and key in an obscured form, then using a proprietary technology to put the key in the lock. Therefore, the reason for this encryption is suspect. The end-user is provided both cryptotext and private key, but told it is illegal to use them together except through a particular device (what we're selling) for a specific purpose (to watch exactly once).

Re:Pass the bill

[Salo2112]

Remember, the last Democrat who was President signed the current bill. The Democrats get a lot of money from Hollywood, so they won't be too eager to go against Hollywood's perceived interests.

The Correct Solution

[ewhac]

There is only one form of legislative act that will correct the problems with the DMCA. It would read roughly as follows:

"Section 1201 of Title 17 of the United States Code, in its entirety, is hereby repealed."

Schwab

Re:Illegal but unenforceable

[pezpunk]

In digital works, this assertion is absolutely true everywhere. If the public does not accept the laws protecting "intellectual property", those laws will be broken.

you know, i used to agree with this. after all, look at prohibition, right? but then i saw what the RIAA did to the Napster-using grandmothers and little girls of the world. there were 24 million Napster users at one point, and later even more who used the other various p2p systems that took its place. this did nothing to stop the RIAA and its hired legal guns from waging a war of propaganda and litigation, one that they have largely won at this point.

no laws sprung up to defend this huge chunk of the populace.

in fact, if you want to know what p2p users have accomplished so far ... as the smoke clears, all i can see from here are newer, clearer, more restrictive laws with harsher penalties for the so-called thieves and pirates.

maybe back in the early 20th century politicians actually cared more about their constituants than their contributors? i don't know. but the whole "if enough of us do it, it will become legal" strategy doesn't seem to be working anymore.