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."

Time for a Conference Call

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

Lossed vs. Spent

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.

Wow, refreshing to see a politician...

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?

Re:Wow, refreshing to see a politician...

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.

Boucher is not our hero...

This is the guy that wants to trade the broadcast flag for our fair use rights [com.com]. 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...

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?

Re:Boucher is not our hero...

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.

Who's on our side?

Besides this guy and the EFF who is really fighting for fair use rights these days? The MPAA and RIAA and billions of dollars and high paid lobbyists. What do we have on our side? We can complain all we want but until we have some cold hard cash and some good organization our rights will continue to go down the toilet.

Re:Who's on our side?

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.

Restoring fair use rights?

Might this mean that the DVD X Copy people can go back into business again? Say what you will about the quality of the software and all (it sucks, "#####" is better anyway, etc) they represent a legitimate software product that did a good job for consumers who wanted to protect their media purchase. It was simple and effective and definitely provided the tools necessary for people to exercise their fair use rights.... rights that still exist even while the tools to make use of them are illegal.

Mixed up?

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.

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

...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.

Quick, Update the Diebolds!

I'd bet on this incumbent.

A reversal in the Democratic and Republican roles.

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.

think so?

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

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

"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

Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol

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

Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol

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.

So would you trade?

The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act for the Broadcast Flag?

Boucher is a name everyone should remember

I will assert that, without Boucher's efforts as a legislator, the Internet that we know, love, hate and use it would not exist. I will also assert that because of his current and future efforts as a legislator the Internet will be a more useable, free and valuable Internet than it would otherwise be. Everyone who wants to understand how the Internet became a part of our lives should go do their homework. Start with a search for "Boucher Virginia Representative"

I just wrote to my congressman

And asked him to supprt this guy. My letter was slightly off topic - copyright terms rather than fair use so much, but the main point being copyright reform with the original intent of a copyright system(which was NOT abject greed) in mind. Those of you in the US that vote and care abou this, I suggest doing the same. Your tax dollars paid for http://www.house.gov/writerep/ [house.gov] and I highly suggest using it. Your email probably be ignored and responded to by some intern political science flunkie, but they do make a difference, especially in volume. Here's my letter - feel free to copy it, use it, abuse it, or even claim authorship: To the Honorable Jay Inslee: Please support Rep. Rick Boucher in his fight for consumer rights in digital media. I would even be willing to actively campaign for anyone who defends the public domain and fair use. As my representative, I would ask that you remember that the founders of this great nation intended any copyright system you the congress may choose to enact to ultimately *enhance* the public domain. Our current system only serves to decimate it. A copyright term of 20 years past the creator's death should be MORE than sufficient, but now we're up to what.....95 years?!?!? This is insane. Nobody should have a monopoly on our culture, but that's exactly what we have with massive media consolidation and what effectively amounts to perpetual copyrights. This is wrong and you know it. Repeal the Sonny Bono copyright extension act. Thank you and good day.

Fair use is too scary to use.

Fair use is a great idea, and is worth fighting for. But frankly, in the present legal and political environment, anybody who tries to use it has a hole in his head. If you look at the rules [wikipedia.org], they're extremely vague. It's virtually impossible to predict whether a particular instance of fair use will be upheld in court. And do you really want to go to court, and fight against the kind of legal team Disney can afford? No, realistically you will cave in to their demands as soon as they send you a nastygram.

A case in point is Wikipedia. Although there are images on Wikipedia that are there under fair use, it's highly discouraged. A big problem is that Wikipedia wants to be truly free-as-in-speech, and that means it has to be legal to distribute it commercially. For instance, if you look in this [wikipedia.org] article on South Africa, a lot of the photos from the apartheid era are used under a license that doesn't permit commercial use, and that's a big problem; Wikipedia has recently announced a policy of eventually getting rid of all such images. Fair use presents a similar problem: since commercial versus noncommercial use is one of the criteria for fair use, taking advantage of fair use may cause your project to be impossible to use commercially.

If I was dictator of the U.S., I'd shorten the copyright term to what it used to be for a long time: 28 years, renewable for another 28. That would be a much better balance between public and private interests. (Something like 95% of the stuff that was copyrighted in that era was not renewed.)

No To Government Broadband

From TFA:

Most other countries in the developed world have made it a national priority to deploy broadband and they are putting public resources behind the effort. I think we should.

So this guy wants the gov to rollout broadband. And his justification for this? Because others have done it. Because other countries have more broadband thus. Wah wah wah. Suddenly "keeping up with the Jonses" (or in this case South Korea?) has become a reason to nationalize an industry? What country do we live in? Was this guy alive in the 80's when everybody from England to Russia to China conceded that socialism was a failure and that they had to embrace free markets? Just listen to this guy talk about how he would get the government to back "universal" broadband:

One of those is to redefine universal service so as to make broadband an eligible subject for universal service support. Where at the moment it just makes telephone service affordable and that's something that it needs to continue to do ... we should add broadband deployment (to that mission).

So telephone service is his model for this? Has this guy ever heard of VOIP? One of the reasons that VOIP is so much cheaper than traditional telephone lines is because its consumers do not have to pay the huge litany of regulatory fees and taxes. Why are there all these regulatory fees and taxes? So that telephone service can be "universal"... But wait it gets worse:

And I think where that happens, the local government has a legitimate role to play in providing the services, exactly analogous to what happened 100 years ago with municipal electric utilities. Where the investor-owned utilities didn't want to provide the service, the local government stepped in, and today, 100 years later, we still have municipal electric utilities. And this is a service every bit as essential in this century as electricity was in the early days.

So he wants to create government backed monopolies for selling broadband services (that's what municipal utility companies are.) I'm sure he would also demand regulation of these monopolies so they don't overcharge people. We don't have to look too far to see what happens in such situations. Just go back a few years to the California energy crisis and the rolling blackouts of 2001. Of course to prevent such a situation, you can regulate the companies providing service to the local municipal broadband comapny -- but then we're back at nationalizing the entire industry.

I have been card-carrying Democrat since I turned 18, but sometimes I really hate Democrats. If the US is behind in broadband usage, well maybe that's because there are a lot of people in the US who do not need it. When people need it, then they will demand it enough to pay for it. If their dial-up connection is good enough for them, why do we need the government telling them that they are wrong? If somebody wants to move to somewhere very rural, well they are probably getting a lot financial benefits by doing this. No broadband is a potential part of this trade-off. Why is it the gov's job to provide them broadband? Is it also the gov's job to put a Cheesecake Factory or an Apple Store down the street from them too? Should that be a universal right as well?

oddly enough...

Mark Cuban just commented on Macrovision [blogmaverick.com], and wondered what its purpose was. Obviously the answer is: copy protection, however bad, exists so you can sue people who make things that allow consumers to circumvent it and exercise their fair use rights.

Distraction tactics

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.

Waterboy

Please tell my this guy is not related to Bobby Boucher [nitrateonline.com]

The same old BS

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.

I think Rep Boucher understands the issues but...

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.

Defending Fair Use

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?

a few words about this kind of issue

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

55 good men signed
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

Steamboat Willie

Nice to see he thinks the right way, but Mr. Boucher should check his facts. Steamboat Willie [wikipedia.org] was created by Disney. The character was later renamed Mickey Mouse, but it is certainly their original creation.

For a far better example, compare Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island [ukoln.ac.uk] and Disney's Treasure Planet [imdb.com].

We need to tell him, "thanks! now go to hell"

I think at this point it is way too late for such token consessions that will only serve to distract us while our freedoms are taken away. At this point the copyright/DMCA/DRM issue is nothing other than an all or nothing battle. Renember those fools at the birth of the industrial revolution that thought that the free states could peacfully get along with the slave states? Well that's what the people who want to cling to copyrights are like today. They just don't get it. Copyrights are going to die, there supposed to die, and there is no place for them in the information age or the people who wish to impose them.

Why I voted against Boucher

I have a perspective most Slashdotters will never have, as I grew up in the county where Mr. Boucher's office is located. While he talks a great talk in favor of fair use rights, and thus makes all of us feel warm and fuzzy, you don't know the rest of the story. You don't know that the man with the silver tongue is only effective when it comes to doing just what it takes to get himself re-elected.

Virginia's "Fighting Ninth" district is composed of mainly tobacco farmers, coal miners, and blue collar workers. The public school systems there are for the most part, woefully inadequate. Every two years he strings along his constituants with ads of elderly people who endorse him because "When my Social Security claim was denied, I turned to Rick Boucher. He fought for my rights and got me my Social Security. He truly cares about all of us." Tobacco farmers proclaim what a great guy he is because he "fights" for them too.

Oddly enough, the local economy keeps getting worse and worse. People are losing their jobs, and there's nothing to keep the area's best and brightest students around when they get back from college. He votes the way he needs to to make his less-perceiving constituants think he cares about them by trying to preserve an economic base that is doomed to ultimately collapse, while doing nothing to move the region into the 21st century. I mean, heck, the area is at least 10 years behind the rest of the country in so many areas it's not funny. While trying to preserve tobacco farming and coal mining as the region's major economic base is unsustainable, it gets votes.

Oddly enough, most of the people in southwest VA are very religious, ultra-conservative Christians, who would be shocked at the way Mr. Boucher votes on the so-called "moral issues". But it's amazing what a person desperate not to lose his/her job in an area where finding another one is nearly impossible without any kind of skills or education will overlook if he/she foolishly thinks that voting for Mr. Boucher will mean 2 more years of employment. And when you can't read, or else don't read very well, it's far too easy to fall for the crafty lies of such a gifted speaker. Trust me, this man is the epitome of a slick politician. When you consider that (assuming others are correct) he voted for the DMCA, and given that he indicated that he has something the RIAA/MPAA want and they have something he wants, I'm willing to bet that all this talk is just a bargaining chip to get what he really wants--broadband for southwest VA. Most of his constituants probably don't even have computers, much less even $20/month to spend on broadband, but if he can get that for the voters, it will assure yet another term. Did anyone notice how he indicated that broadband is as essential to survival as electricity? (It's not) No, mark my words, this is all about deceiving the less-educated voter base into thinking he really cares about making their lives better, while ignoring the underlying causes of the region's economic woes. I am positive that his position will change as soon as it gets him what he really wants--2 more years in Washington. Just wait and see.

A new way to fight back

What we need is some sort of "Fair Use" or "User Friendly" certification that can be applied to any piece of consumer electronics, when can then be posted on product review websites. Only products which are DRM free could carry the certification label and/or sticker. This will both raise public awareness, and for those in the know, steer them towards products that work. It will also provide sales and grass roots marketing to companies that refuse to knuckle under to the content cartels.

Fairuseday

A group of us is trying to spread the word on fairuse rights and set up a day to celebrate these rights on July 11th. More info at http://www.fairuseday.com/ [fairuseday.com] . We also maintain a chat on freenode at #fairuseday if you care to come and join us. The best way is just through word of mouth though. Contact local represenatives and such and celebrate in your own way.

Re:Priorities

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.

Re:Priorities

Universal healthcare is nonsense - most of the people NOT covered by healthcare in the US are not covered by choice: nearly all people not covered make enough money and CHOOSE not to pay for it.

Re:Priorities

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?

Re:Priorities

You must be new here. Don't you know that the way we solve problems here in the US of A is to divert attention. What, social security is gone? Hey, look over there, illegal immigrants are comming over from mexico, we need a few million dollars to stop them. Politicians keep a number of issues which will never be resolved for the purpose of calling attention to them when other things start going badly. It's the American way, when things stop working, blame something else and never try to fix the problem.

Re:Priorities

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?

Yuk another scat image

I just got a little sick in my mouth :)

Re:Priorities

Viva la corrupcion!

This isn't an issue of the resources not really being there. It's more an issue of the free market having gone awry, and needing a correction which our country is apparently unable to accomplish.

Re:Priorities

Cause Universal Health care sucks rocks?

Mods On CRACK

This was only modded troll because it got first post. How is asking how spending on Universal Broadband better than other spending a troll? Damn do people not even read the summary at the top of the story anymore.

Re:Priorities

So then spend on Universal Broadband of course??

Re:Priorities

Ok, great. Just just ignore important issues like digital rights until everyone has healthcare, poverty has been eliminated and Bush and friends have been kicked out of Washington. Yeah...that's the ticket.

'Universal' healthcare will cost trillions over the next few decades...I'm not saying we shouldn't do it...but it's a huge undertaking for sure. Telling the record companies where they can stick it costs virtually nothing to the American taxpayer...it only takes a politician with the cojones to do it.