Slashdot Mirror
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."
I've always wondered this. The current DMCA, AFAIK, makes breaking encryption a questionable prospect, at best (unless you have permission from the encryption designers). Why should this even be protected? Shouldn't we just encourage people to use stronger encryption that isn't as easily circumvented (in effect, why are we legislating that the use of "weak" encryption is okay)?
Personally, I think the encryption itself should be the deterrent to the circumvention of the encryption, not legislation.
If we can break the encryption, too bad; use something besides Fisher Price's "My First Encryption Algorithm" next time.
You could be a "criminal" under the law, but not under moral principles. As the ancient Romans said, "non omne licitum honestum", which is translated as "not everything that's legal is honest".
Apart from the basic principles of "fair use", I think lawmakers should restrain from creating unenforceable laws, because they weaken the whole principle of legitimacy of the state. Violating laws that restrict copying of digital works is ridiculously easy. Even if some people try to equate copying music and films to robbing banks, if it were as easy to rob a bank as it is to copy a DVD, I would think the whole business model of banking should be reviewed before creating stricter laws against bank robbery.
There's a great quotation by Robert Heinlein about this. In his 1965 novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" his character Bernardo de la Paz said: "But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am responsible for everything I do." 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.
There's a word for introducing a bill that has no hope of being passed: grandstanding.
Instead, Boucher has produced a bill that actually has a decent chance of becoming law. That would be great since it gives a number of circumvention devices a legal way to exist and be distributed.
In two years maybe we'll have a Democratic president and then he'll be in a position to pass a more sweeping bill.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
It's also true of any copyrighted work. Fair Use implies that an exception to the copyright law is being made because the particular infringement is not damaging to the copyright holder. This decision was left to the courts to make on a case-by-case basis until DMCA became law. Now you can't argue the Fair Use defense because you obviously broke a law to obtain the copy you're arguing Fair Use for. DMCA is so evil because it claims to uphold the Fair Use defense while finding a devious means to ensure that someone who makes such an argument is already guilty.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
That's cute, but before it could be signed it was first passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Republican-controlled Senate.
And, IIRC, did so by voice votes(*), so there'd be no record of who voted what way (such as how many Democrats supported it and how many Republicans did not) nor even hard numbers of ayes and nays, only that a clear majority voted for it.
Which not only concealed how they voted from their constituents, but also whether they had enough votes to override any Presidential veto.
(*) Or was it the Communications Decency Act, or was it both of them?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
In the US we are watching a lot of small personal freedoms be legislated away. This is one of them: to do what we wish with what we purchase. I understand it isn't 'in the constitution' but it is implied in our way of life. The fact that our leaders continue to propose bills of 'fair use' that don't allow 'fair use' is more telling of who is in control. This is yet another tiny step nowhere for the 'fair use' debate.
To Be Fair.
Has anyone been successfully prosecuted for burning a personal DVD for personal use on their PSP?
It doesn't make it right that it is illegal, but at least our society doesn't enforce the fact - yet.
When the RIAA says Digitial Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) I say Fair Use (FU).
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
In fact what's owned, bought, and protected (or not) here is expression, not content.
If you learn that the Earth is round from watching that digital video, you're free to share that fact with anyone you like. The copyright holders can't do a thing about it.