Slashdot Log In
Boucher Introduces New Bill
Posted by
michael
on Fri Oct 04, 2002 06:01 PM
from the free-publicity dept.
from the free-publicity dept.
brandido writes "The Register is reporting that Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled his attempt at returning some rights to consumers. According to the Register: "As we reported yesterday, some of the biggest names in IT names were on hand to support a legislation from Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled this morning. Boucher vowed to strike out the repressive portions of the DMCA, and 'directs the Federal Trade Commission to undertake a rulemaking to assure adequate notice to the public of any lack of functionality which may attend the purchase of copy protected CDs.'" Details of the bill can be found in PDF format , as can a summary and Boucher's Statement (taken from The Reg story)." Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself. Neither of these is worth paying much attention to: Congress is about to wrap up and go home for the year, and will start afresh in January with a clean slate. Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: Fair Use Bill Introduced To Change DMCA 152 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
El Presidente? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't laugh. Having big corporate sponsors is becoming less and less important with new campaign finance laws.
Re:El Presidente? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't laugh. Having big corporate sponsors is becoming less and less important with new campaign finance laws.
except that said campaign finance laws are being gutted as we speak [salon.com].
Parent
Re:El Presidente? (Score:2)
I'd say name recognition would buy more than solid principles any day of the week and twice on Sunday. We're closer to a President Schwarzennegar than a President Boucher. With or without corporate sponsorship.
I might vote for Boucher too. Although I suppose that the issues in 2004 might still be war and economy. Dunno what his positions are on those. I'll be checking up.
Re:El Presidente? (Score:2, Insightful)
Except for the fact that Schwarzennaegar isn't an American citizen by birth, which is required by the constituition for a person to run for and be elected President.
For the real question, how did you manage to graduate from high school without knowing this?
Re:El Presidente? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, as long as the consumer doesn't happen to work for an evil corporation, or worse yet, owns his or her own evil corporation, or maybe evil corporations might pay his bills by being his or her customer.
What's the use of consumer rights after industry is hindered to the point that no one has any money left to spend?
Re:El Presidente? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Without the government protecting industry through legislation, bribes, kickbacks, etc... We would have all the consumer rights we need.
Laws are the source of the problems in almost all cases, not the solution to the problem. Have you read the green party platform? It's like 200 pages and outlines a very regulated and restricted society. Less government is the answer, not more.
Libertarians are the only people that would protect your rights by allowing the free market to work the way it was supposed to. A common myth is that Libertarians would let monopolies abuse consumers. Any true advocate of the free market realizes the damage that monopolies cause. The government wouldn't be completely impotent under a more Libertarian society, it would only be reduced to levels that would let the free market solve these problems.
Re:El Presidente? (Score:2)
The worst, however, is that the Greens are recruiting McKinney [foxnews.com] for their 2004 election. Nader is, of course, a Green, perhaps she can be his VP.
Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better (Score:5, Interesting)
Bastards. "1 million movies a day" -- Jack "Stupid" Valenti.
Re:Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, i'd rather not pay the extra fees at all...I don't want any of my money going to the ??AAs that I can avoid.
Parent
Re:Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better (Score:2, Insightful)
How about not giving them any money? I haven't bought a new RIAA label CD in about 2 years, but that doesn't mean I stopped buying music. The RIAA gets nothing if you buy from indie labels, or buy used CDs. Shopping at independent music stores doesn't hurt either. These days I buy mostly indie punk rock and ska albums. I have discovered many great bands and found some excellent music by digging around in the indie sections at Amoeba and Rasputin in Berkeley; music that is a lot better than anything they play on the radio anyhow. And not a penny of my purchase goes to a faceless corporation.
If you really must buy Metallica or whatever at least buy it used. Even though at one point money went to the RIAA from that CD purchase, at least it wasn't your money.
Fight back. Every little bit helps.
Re:Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better (Score:2)
Re:Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better (Score:5, Insightful)
You're asking too much--if the content providers want to place ridiculous restrictions, they have that right. They should of course be required to disclose that information--it goes against business ethics (which are normally near-impossible to legislate). In this case, however, it's a warning label, which has been done before.
If I want to sell a crappy product, you would agree that I have every right to do so. If a company, say McDonalds, were to take a high-selling product (let's say a Big Mac), cripple it by either raising prices or using tofu instead of beef (or whatever is really in there), they'd have every right.
The situation here is that the said crippling may not visibly worsen the product for most people (except for those who might try to play the CD on their computer--which is a lot). Also, you can't get most mainstream media without playing by *AA's rules, whereas one could go to Burger King or Wendy's instead of McDonalds.
This I think is a great argument for mandatory disclosure (like the one in this bill). Let people see that they're buying an inferior product, and they will start looking for other options. At that point people will still be willing to pay for music (again, I'm talking about average Joe here, not techies), and a new business model can emerge. Up until recently, the media companies haven't changed business models because they haven't had to--they think that after eliminating Napster, and (hopefully) P2P, things can return to normal. If the masses find out that they're getting sold crippled cd's, I think (and maybe I'm being overly optimistic) that they'll respond in such a way that things will change in a positive way.
Parent
Re:Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better (Score:3, Insightful)
Or if the thing was already illegal, of course. I don't think anyone has ever sold a Baby Blender, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be illegal.
But that's not the point. He didn't say they shouldn't have the right to sell the product -- he asked why does not giving them copyrights for those products take away their right to make them? He saying what if it were still perfectly legal to make a DRM-device that could not be legally circumvented, but the content delivered in such a way could not be protected by copyright? They could still -make- it, they just wouldn't get one benefit under the law for it.
And this is not as radical as it sounds, either. Copyright is not an inherent right, but is in fact a bargain between the people and the producers of art, presided by the state. The producer get a monopoly on reproduction of their work, and in counterbalance the people get a set of rights called "fair use".
If the entertainment industry doesn't want to hold up its end of the bargain by letting us exercise our rights, then they don't get theirs.
Either we both can do whatever we want, or we both have to abide by some rules. They can still sell their DRM devices, but they won't get legal protection above and beyond.
Which if you ask me is how it should be. Can you think of another industry (other than software) where the seller has more rights than the consumer?
Re:Zoe Lofgren's bill sounds better (Score:3, Interesting)
Minor my ass.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds pretty major to me, but, then, IANAL.
- A/C
Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it's not going anywhere in this Congress. But advocates for freedom can push for an expanded version to be introduced now, while giving Boucher credit for at least proposing a step in the right direction.
On the floor and off (Score:2)
Let's see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Beats Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is more than useful if the warnings disclose *everything* that the CD's "copy-protection" does, like preventing you from playing or copying it with your PC, PS2, mp3-cd player/discman, or consumer CD recorder. Getting the prominent warning on the CD case in front of Joe Public instead of being buried on my site [fatchucks.com] where most people *won't* see it is a great step.
We all know this proposal will not pass during this session, but it's a warning shot for (hopefully) more substantial legislation which will occur at the beginning of next term.
Peace.
Great... (Score:3, Funny)
JUST what we need, more vagueness in the DMCA... First felt tip markers, what will be made illegal now, cheese poofs? Cartman will be mad.
Interview with Congressman Boucher (Score:3, Informative)
This bill is dead. (Score:3, Informative)
Historically, any bill that is still on the floor when Congress leaves for the winter never gets brought up again. Boucher is doing this in an attempt to gain some votes. The really sad aspect is that the joke bill doesn't even have any teeth. The least he could have done was submit a joke bill that would do something.
Re:This bill is dead. (Score:4, Insightful)
Boucher is a pretty sharp guy, and his bill has some big names supporting it (if you consider Intel, Verizon, Philips, Sun and Gateway big names). There is a major copyright fight brewing in Congress next term, and what you are seeing now is some early positioning. For example, Boucher's bill will be worked in the Commerce Committee and not the Judiciary Committe, which normally handles IP. That's because Coble, the chair, loves the DMCA.
By the way, according to Declan's Article [com.com]Boucher's bill is co-sponsored by John Doolittle, R-Calif. It's nice to see bipartisan support.
Parent
Gee. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad for one big thing here: there is now a debate between the rights of an individual and Fair Use and the rights of a corporation to protect their assets. As Michael said, in what I believe to be one of his more well-informed and insightful commentaries, this bill won't have direct impact considering November is just around the corner. Still, before now it seems like there have been few voices in opposition to Jack Valenti, Hilary Rosen, Fritz, etc. I hope this opens the floor for serious thought and action regarding the DMCA.
It's amazing how we grant corporations rights as if they were individuals in some cases, but not in others. A corporation isn't guaranteed the 5th amendment rights by any stretch of the imagination (or constitution), but it has been held many times that a corporation can excersize the first amendment rights as much as anyone. This of course in turn brings in issues of who can afford the larger microphone, hence making free speech only available to those who can pay for it.
I am struck by the above quote because it puts the situation exactly in the context of the way many of us that are both geeks and are outraged by the DMCA see it--Fair Use is no longer defined by an individual owners terms but by the providers; hence, the real "owner" becomes the provider.
Too bad it's too late.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then how about this bill... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is from her website [house.gov]...
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) today introduced legislation designed to protect consumer's ability to enjoy digital copyrighted material. Lofgren's bill, the "Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002," gives lawful consumers the ability to make personal uses of digital entertainment such as music, movies, and books. In addition, the bill recognizes that digital piracy will never be truly solved until consumers are given an affordable, reliable, legitimate and secure alternative.
"Consumers need a voice in this debate. Right now, it is the entertainment industry versus the technology industry, and the consumers are watching from the sidelines," said Lofgren. "Consumers have rights and expectations that cannot be ignored by industry goliaths."
A step in the right direction... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A step in the right direction... (Score:2)
If there was one guy in the House who symbolizes all that is wrong with IP, it is Coble. I really would like to see him ousted. There are major problems with IP in the US and Coble is the chief legislative obstacle in the House to solving them. The man obviously loves IP because it gives him a big vacuum to suck money from the IP interests with.
Be nice to Boucher (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Be nice to Boucher (Score:2)
From a non-partisan perspective, I find it interesting that bills for and against DRM and really any security or technical issue tend to come from both sides of the spectrum. The debate for civil liberties vs. safeguarding against terrorism has been fairly divided amongst party lines. That's a bad thing (err, Bad Thing (TM)), since because debates traditionally follow the two-party system, it really becomes tougher to come to a rational middle ground when there is no such dividing line. Right now DRM is not an issue that splits Congress in half--there are just a few members of Congress that have proposed and (in the case of the DMCA) hacked bills to the Oval Office. Boucher has brought in an opposing view, which has been much needed, but a real debate will be difficult because of the above reasons.
Re:Be nice to Boucher - or not (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted it was a nice gesture, but let me play devils advocate here.
What we NEED is somebody who's doing to do something *useful*.
He knows (and we know) that this bill has absolutely ZERO chance of going anywhere with elections weeks away. None. Zilch. It's so dead it's already stinkin up the place.
So why does he do it? For political reasons of course. Make himself look good - fighting for the little guy - but there's zero chance that he'll actually need to put his neck on the line and accomplish anything. Nice gig.
Give me a call when he actually starts doing something USEFUL. Not when he's doing political grandstanding and grubbing for votes (which is all this REALLY is).
I know this gesture raises his stature around here. But for me, he's dropped a few notches becuase it's the same old political bullshit. If he had introduced this a year ago I'd be right on board with the rest clapping and cheering. Introducing it now -- just playing manipulative politics and mugging for the cameras.
It's like writing a check but postdating it for the year 5000. A nice gesture, but you'll never have to worry about it being cashed. That doesn't make u cool in my book. It makes you a weasel.
Sorry Boucher - no better than the rest of them.
Re:Be nice to Boucher - or not (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Be nice to Boucher - or not (Score:2)
In this case I don't think so. (Score:2)
He has a consistent record of supporting electronic freedoms, and I believe he deserves credit.
I think the issue you, me and everyone in general are so jaded by political scandals, backdoor dealings, etc., that when there seems to be a genuinely honest guy in washington, we are by default skeptical.
These are some of the posts about Boucher I found interesting:
1 [slashdot.org]
2 [slashdot.org]
3 [slashdot.org]
4 [slashdot.org]
BTW, I am not Rick Boucher
damn (Score:2, Funny)
Good First Step (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd disagree in saying that this in not worth paying attention to, instead I'd say it's a good first step.
If someone goes in there all gung ho about repealing the DMCA it's easy to make inflametory comments like "Don't you care about the rights of artists?". Rather a lot like those who respond to any objection to the way an investigation is carried out could be met with "Don't you want to stop kiddie porn?", nor more commonly these days "Don't you want to stop terrorism?". While without merrit, these comments can really count against you.
Instead, start poking holes in the other side. Attack in bits and pieces, showing how this part 'here' or 'there' is contrary to existing rights/laws. Do this enough and the other side starts looking pretty bad... soon you can change everything without a petty argument stopping you.
(OT) Entertainment Exports (Score:2)
[W]e import more entertainment than we export.
True, but the stuff we have been exporting from Omaha the past few years is pretty good stuff. There's The Faint, Anchondo, Mandown, Grasshopper Takeover, Bright Eyes (if you're into emo), Five Story Fall, and the much-missed Blue Moon Ghetto. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say a vast majority of the music Saddle Creek Records is producing is good quality. Bringing things back on topic, most of the local bands are very big supporters of their fans' rights to listen how they want.
Besides, even if the town didn't have a good local indie scene, I'd still rather listen to it than the latest overproduced, subliterate megapop arena sell-out teen sensation.
One Step at a Time (Score:4, Insightful)
Small changes such as this are the best we can hope for at this time. Slowly eat away at the restrictions of the DMCA rather than attack it head-on.
Too specific (Score:3, Insightful)
If I own something, it should do what I tell it to. It shouldn't act as a watchdog for large media corporations.
say what you want about the RIAA and MPAA, but (Score:2)
I guess between creating polls that have cowboykneel in them, repeating stories, and not spell checking, they're to busy to take 10 minutes to correct it.
I don't own one but... (Score:2)
Very important legislation (Score:4, Insightful)
I couldn't disagree more. Anyone familiar with the FTC Act is aware how fiercely labelling legislation is opposed -- and how powerful its impact ultimately is on the marketplace. RIAA vendors will NOT WANT their customers to have to compare CDs with "the big red label" or whatever indication is there with CD's without it -- Customers will be quickly educated by the media that the "big red label" is a bad thing -- and ultimately the pressure will more readily deter the proliferation of copy protection in a competitive marketplace.
The changes are not "few" or "vague" -- they virtually defang the entirety of the DMCA -- as you will hear RIAA and MPAA whine fiercely about in the months to come.
This legislation, and Zoe's earlier proposal is an excellent beachhead -- not so much because it will likely become law, but so much that the RIAA and MPAA will finally get the word that "enough is enough" with their stupid technology regulation bills. Eventually, the pendulum had to swing too far, and this is the harbinger that it has swing.
Let me see if I've got this straight (Score:2)
So he's vowed to completely eliminate the DMCA then?
Slow down, people (Score:4, Interesting)
Furthermore, they are limiting this to just music for two reasons. First of all, these sorts of fair use rights don't have the same force when applied to your standard computer software that they do when applied to music and movies. Yes, I'm aware (are so are Boucher/Lofgren) that many people want to make backup copies of software. However, most people (especially those in Congress) see less of a coorelation between copying software and fair use than they do between copying software and piracy. Music is different. With music, I can rip my music from a CD and keep it as an MP3 (or Ogg, if you will) on my computer and listen to it there, transfer it to my MP3 player, mix and burn my own CD's (like the tape compilations we all made before CD burners became widely available), etc. These are rights that have a waiting market to exploit them, and the markets have been working for years. Boucher/Lofgren can cast their arguments in terms of simply keeping consumers with the same rights they've always had. These uses don't really exist in the same way with software because no one needs to be able to rip a program from a CD in order to install it to their Palm Pilot. However, they do need to be able to copy it do distribute it online. By limiting the operation of the bill to only music (I think Lofgren's also includes movies and other media), it's easier to keep the focus where it should be: on consumers and off of pirates.
Another thing to consider is that Boucher/Lofgren need the backing of tech companies right now. There has to be a powerful lobby behind this thing, because I can guarantee you that unless some big money makers get into the fight these bills will die a cold, hard death. You are never going to get big tech companies (at least not tech companies that put out any kind of computer software) to support a bill that specifically tells consumers they can break the tech companies' copy protection. We can keep the tech companies happy for the moment by leaving them out, and then make the argument after the bill passes that software should be included as well. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Hell, Valenti and Rosen might even back something like that as a retaliation for tech companies backing the Boucher/Lofgren bills. The more we do to keep them fighting against each other, the more we win.
Just something to think about.
will start afresh in January with a clean slate (Score:3, Insightful)
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. Since coming to Washington, I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." Ronald Reagan (Which is ironic given how corrupt [americanpresident.org] the Reagan administration was.)
Please don't be lulled into believing that reform of these stupid laws will happen just because a new session will be starting. Now is the time your representatives should be coming home to get back in touch with those they supposedly represent. Contact them, get out to town hall meetings and meet them, give them some viewpoint other than the paid one.
Is this a fund raisning compaign? (Score:2)
For all you naysayers... (Score:4, Insightful)
So please, everyone, support this bill rather than denounce Boucher, because he's the only one we've got. I'd bet that Boucher knows that introducing this bill will allow him to get feedback on it, so he can re-introduce another one in the next Congress that is more apt to pass.
For all of you ingrates dismissing Boucher as just another politician, put away your ego for a second and realize that we're in a lot better of a position than we were six months ago. This one's not in the pockets of the media, he's in *our* pockets (for lack of a better term.)
Maybe this will help Lik Sang vs MSFT (Score:3, Informative)
Ouch michael (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither of these is worth paying much attention to.
Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.
These comments are pretty harsh towards Rep. Boucher. I'm glad to see many of the user posts supporting Boucher and this bill. Anything in Congress going against the DMCA to great to see, even if it's small changes for now. If these changes or something like them goes through, then Congress will being going in the right direction against the DMCA.
Re:Big deal... (Score:2)