Rep. Gets It - Boucher Re-Examines Fair Use 204
It's nice to have a bit of good news about the DMCA every so often. Who knows, maybe ten years from now we'll be right back where we were in 1997 -- and what a victory that will be! Anyway,
Tech Law Journal
has a transcript of Rep.
Rick Boucher
(D-Va.)'s
savvy speech
arguing that the DMCA has reached too far. Surprisingly clued for a lawmaker, he calls for "Congress to reaffirm the fair use doctrine" in a variety of areas: most notably, the contentious issue of buy-once-listen-anywhere for CDs. He also addresses backups, distance learning, resale, caching, and online sampling of your music before buying. He could have said more but I'm just glad he said anything.
OK, what's the angle? (Score:2)
I'm just utterly shocked that any elected official would dare strike against the corps unless someone else more influential was convincing him to do so.
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:2)
Umm... (Score:3)
MOO;IANAL.
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:1)
Sean
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:1)
--
We should push the ball and keep it rolling (Score:2)
Rick, not Dan (Score:2)
he's a gonner next election cycle anyway (Score:1)
Even the Sun shines on a Dog's Ass once in a while (Score:1)
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:1)
So if you're selling PC's, hard drives, home LAN's, Broadband Crap, etc., or even operating systems, the wins that the entertainment industry have been chalking up are coming out of your hide. You want people to be trading big files over the internet -- it's in your interest.
Re:We should push the ball and keep it rolling (Score:1)
Fair Use (Score:2)
A small step, but in the right direction (Score:4)
As a Virginia resident, I'm happy to see our elected officials are doing their job and working for the people instead of pandering to corporate pressure. In addition to his stance against the DMCA, Rep. Boucher has also pledged himself to protecting all rights of Americans, and is an active supporter of the NRA and prayer in school. This man will certainly be getting my vote next election!
What about... (Score:1)
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:5)
This is why I voted for him last year (Score:2)
To the person who said that he has no hope at reelection obviously doesn't live in VA. He was just reelected and blew the competition out of the water. So I guess he is safe for a couple of more years anyway.
Re:Even the Sun shines on a Dog's Ass once in a wh (Score:2)
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:2)
If Boucher doesn't get votes, he can't get relected. Money only goes so far (xref Perot and Forbes' presidential bids).
Re:Even the Sun shines on a Dog's Ass once in a wh (Score:2)
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:5)
He gets a decent amount of money from communications people (and Verizon, SBC, and BellSouth rank high on his list), but more from energy and finance. Virgina... hrm.
Here [house.gov] is his home page. He doesn't list his committee memberships, but he's member of the Energy and Commerce [house.gov] one, which explains the energy and banking money.
Here [opensecrets.org] we see PAC contributions from computer equipment/services manufacturers. AOL, Intel, and so forth show up -- but these contributions are fairly minor. The National Assn. of Broadcasters did give him $7k via a PAC, interestingly. Whereas the MPAA didn't give much at all...
People or Corporations - you decide (Score:4)
Do you want government for the people, by the people or government for the corporations, by the corporations ?
I spend enough time in the US to know that it is getting worse, not better. Do something. Those of us outside can only watch in amazement as you let your government do this to you.
Freedom is lost by inches
I hate to sound like an anti-capitalist, but (Score:2)
Tellingly, he seems to view the world only in terms of the clash of corporate interests. Whatever happened to the citizens?
He's also pro-Napster... (Score:5)
He's really in tune with the
This guy is great (Score:5)
If you're a US citizen, especially from VA, email [mailto] him, tell him you love him. Congresspeople notice when they get loads of email in support or opposition of their position.
Whatever state you're from, you can make donations to his reelection campaign. The evil double AA's are probably already cutting a check to the GOP in Virginia to get this guy blown out of the water. But if the RIAA and MPAA can buy legistlation, we can too.
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:4)
I know thats a little bit of an obfuscated argument, and may not be the case here
Reverse engineering (Score:2)
He talked about circumvention to infringe would be illegal, but it needs to be detailed.
We need reverse engineering or there would be no way to have fair use in many cases.
Re:Rick, not Dan (Score:2)
Jamie McCarthy
"first sale": the devil in the details... (Score:2)
If a person purchases over the Internet copyrighted material, whether it is music or a video clip or text of some kind, and if there is the absolute assurance that upon transfer of that material to another party, that the original version of it which was purchased is destroyed. If that condition is met, then the first sale doctrine, in my view, should apply as certainly in the online world as it does in the physical world today.
In a digital world, though, it is precisely the case that such assurance can never be offered...
At least, not without just the sort of intrusive fair use-infringing infrastructures that he (thank heavens) has the courage to speak out against.
-Renard
9th District Resident (Score:5)
I feel privileged to have been able to vote for him twice!
In short, every time I've written to him in regards to a civil liberty issue, a consumer rights issue, or a woman's right issue, not only has he given me an opinion (something I have NEVER gotten from another one of my congresspersons) usually he agrees with me!
It's true, he does "GET IT".
Archived on... what? (Score:2)
Re:We should push the ball and keep it rolling (Score:2)
He said intelligent. That means no "fuck da MPAA", no l33t sp33k, no "all your base" references, and whatever you do, ues a sppel cjecker.
Seriously, let's keep in mind that whether or not a congressman is in someone's pocket, he won't appreciate being treated as though he is. Take a chance that yours wasn't bought in bulk, and be civil, intelligent, and do your best to sound like you're a white male Republican in your mid-40s, since that seems to be the tone of voice they're most likely to respond to.
Re:I hate to sound like an anti-capitalist, but (Score:2)
So you missed the whole rest of the speech, where he was talking about how important fair use was to consumers? Even the proposal that you mention above is ultimately to the benefit of consumers, not big industry.
Re:Even the Sun shines on a Dog's Ass once in a wh (Score:3)
Hatch is not our friend.
speak only when you know what you speak of (Score:2)
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:4)
Re:This guy is great (Score:2)
Our Canadian laws are often directly influenced by lawmakers south of the border. Just because you can't vote for him doesn't mean that you can't encourage him.
Re:Fair use? (Score:2)
The law correctly recognizes this difference, which is (I think) why "fair use" exists.
After all, isn't throwing a fence up around an idea, and making sure that the fence also surrounds subsequent ideas stimulated by the original idea, also theft of a sort? That's the kind of thing that "fair use" is designed to prevent.
Re:Archived on... what? (Score:2)
Probably the transcriber couldn't understand the word.
Re:Fair use? (Score:2)
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" (Article 1, Section 8).
There are two key points here: The first is what I put in bold. The purpose for intellectual property is to encourage it's creation, because there's a broader benefit for society. We all benefit from the creation of art, and if we can make a way so artists (and scientists, for that matter) can make a living.
The second point is the 'limited time' part. Copyright currently (I believe) life plus one hundred years. That is, effectively, a 180 year copyright. That's in no way limited. Copyright has gotten out of hand.
---------
Some good, some bad (Score:5)
Unfortunately, he doesn't even touch on some of the more important parts of the DMCA, and he seems to live in a fantasy-land when it comes time to suggest actual alternatives.
When he speaks of section 1201 (the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA), he only speaks about the part that makes it illegal to circumvent, and he arrives at the correct conclusion: it's stupid to make circumvention illegal without looking at the underlying purpose.
But he completely misses the fact that even if circumvention itself were legal, it would be impossible in a practical sense as long as circumvention devices are illegal. If the device-ban remains in place, it matters not whether fair use is allowed as a defense: the tools will be illegal to distribute, so they will remain out of reach for institutions such as libraries and schools.
And suggesting that Macrovision is the correct model for digital content protection doesn't make any sense. Either devices will be able to copy content or they won't. Only devices that allow copying will allow fair-use copying, and devices that won't allow copying will harm fair use. His view that including watermarking recognition code in all digital recording devices will somehow permit fair use is illogical. How is a recording device supposed to determine whether I am copying "The Matrix" for ten of my friends, as opposed to recording five movie scenes for my college special-effects class?
Mr. Boucher: technology cannot determine whether a user's copying is fair use or not. Let's not pretend that it can. You have to decide whether you're going to support the media giants' control of the end-use of their content, or support unimpeded fair use by the public. The two are not reconcilable, not by technology, and not by law.
--
Keeping the ball rolling. (Score:4)
Seriously, tho, I did call his office to express my satisfaction, and the chick who answered the phone was quite nice. The Rep used to be a lawyer and she says that he is quite interested in fair use and the DCMA. This URL [house.gov] is a lit of his technology significant statements, letters and bills. Interesting reading.
If you are a constituent of Rep. Boucher's (Live in Southwest VA, 9th District) it is even more important that you call, as he doesn't work for us, he works for you.
Brant
Possesion is 9/10ths (Score:2)
IMHO the laws are stupid and take our rights away in the courtroom, but in the real world it does not matter if they pass laws now. Except maybe to corporations that want to capitalize on the popularity of these things. Maybe if they had defined the limits before the digitizing and transport tech was out there. But it is like building a dam after the entire plain is flooded already. What are you going to do? Pump the water back out?
-CrackElf
Rep. Rick Boucher, circumvention device? (Score:2)
--blob
Time for a /. Interview? (Score:5)
UTICA? (Score:3)
Now, I realize that UTICA was at the state level, DMCA at the federal level, so he most likely never saw word of UTICA's passage through Virginia's state gov't, much less participate in it. But this would seem to strike at a higher level in that beyond those of us that care, UTICA hasn't made a blip on the federal radar.
It's odd that software companies took the state-by-state route to pass 'their' law, while Hollywood went at the federal level. Both DMCA and UTICA, in the end, are doing the same thing: limiting valid rights of the end user by restricting fair use. Maybe it was just a timing issue...
Pro-Macrovision though (Score:4)
There is a way to protect copyrights in digitally broadcast TV programs, and to permit TV viewers to make copies TV programs for home use. The model is contained in the current law. It is Section 1201(k) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And that provision was adopted with respect to recording of analog television broadcasts. The section requires VCRs to respond to macrovision, copy protection technology, and to block copying of rental movies that are encoded with the macrovision marking. In exchange for this statutory mandate, TV viewers are granted the right to make unlimited copies of broadcasts that are made over the air, and one copy for time shifting purposes, of premium television programming, which may only be aired one specific time.
So he IS in favor of at least some MANDATORY copy protection. To me this seems like a violation of certain fair-use rights! Still, he's otherwise on target.
I'd certainly hope he's clueful.... (Score:4)
So, if anyone is supposed to be clueful about these sorts of things, I would expect that it would be Congressman Boucher from VA.
Before I forget, there is also another Boucher in Congress (Missouri? I think), which is why the references to a DAN Boucher came about.
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:3)
Every once in a while, politicians do actually take stands on things that they really believe in, especially when their constituencies don't really care one way or the other. (I mean, it's not like he is Sonny Bono and depends on entertainment industry votes for re-election.) I say kudos to Rep. Boucher... I'm sending his re-election campaign a check as soon as I can find an address to send it to
~luge
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:2)
I doubt the Republicans will be able to throw Boucher out anytime soon, he's been representing that area for a long long time and wins in landslides every two years. He's also fairly conservative for a Democrat, and has brought a lot of stuff home to his district (of course, we all know that bringing home the pork trumps party lines most of the time). I'm a conservative Republican and I've always liked Boucher, actually. I don't agree with a lot of his views, but he's got tech issues nailed better than just about anybody in Congress right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Slow down there, Hoss (Score:3)
But he's not entirely palatable.
He has a misconception that Congress granted the right to make recordings of TV shows, and that there was a string attached in the requirement that VCRs have Macrovision. He is of course wrong - that right was already present, and definitively stated as such by the Supreme Court.
He's in favor of extending Macrovision-like controls throughout most consumer electronics. This is generally not a great idea, as those of us who have had legitimate need to copy content from Macrovisioned media, or who have even simply wanted to use VCRs as pass-throughs know. Automated systems cannot accomodate the wide range of legitimate needs that are out there. (e.g. musicians that want to copy songs they hold the copyright to, parodies, quoting, etc.)
Congress hasn't got the right to take them away, and then pretend to grant reduced versions of them back again. Such rights are inherent at a lower level than Congress can operate at. Whether they claim to recognize the existance of Fair Use is irrelevant; it derives from the Constitution.
How he thinks that his first sale system would be implemented is beyond me. It's totally unrealistic, and clearly recognizable as such. Next we'll be defining pi as 3 again....
He doesn't seem to be thoroughly familiar with a statutory exception to copyright that Congress DID grant: 17 USC 117. Incidental copies of media that are necessary to the operation of a computer program probably are covered by this. Given that there's no difference between programs and data anyway, it would be a nightmare to try to draw a line. I think that determining the legalities of caches is not very difficult, and is best left to the courts.
As for the backup thing (the other half of that section of law) I can't even figure out the reason for it.
And he'll have to be careful on his mp3 law. Making mp3s and retrieving them across a network is already legal. Making them for other people for that purpose is where a law needs to step in, and I'm not sure from what he said that he realizes this.
Like I said, he's a lot better than most government officials. But let's not get complacent. Copyright law is thorny just to think about, given the principles, rights, grants and balances involved. I think that in trying to do good, he's very likely to do ill, and very strict attention and a lot of thought needs to go into any bills that actually get into Congress. I'm not seeing enough of that here for me to feel comfortable.
Backup Generations (Score:2)
With regards to this statement:
"As a fourth matter, current law permits a computer user to make backup copies of software, so that the program can be restored in the event of a hard disk crash. But current law does not prevent an archival copy to be made with data that is associated with that program. A change in the law would be required to allow the back up copy of data associated with the program to made. Often times the data is the most valuable component, and a complete back up by a prudent person would encompass the data as well as the software. In fact, it might encompass the data in lieu of the software. That is the more typical example."
This should be expanded, in my opinion, to include MANY generations of backups of that data, NOT a SINGLE COPY. I, for one, backup all critical and personal data that is on my hard drive on a weekly basis, and those weekly backups are archived. I keep four generations of these weekly backups (one for each week in the month), and a PERMANENT monthly backup for each month. Am I breaking the law?
Someone shield him from RIAA & MPAA hit men! (Score:2)
Nah, can't be.
Re:Time for a /. Interview? (Score:5)
- Robin
Dolly + Boucher = Bolly? Bouchy? Dollcher? (Score:2)
Its amazing to see a congressman who actually DOES get it.
Can we clone him and have the clones run for the rest of the seats in Congress?
(Yes... I know that we would have to find some way of transfering his brain-patterns also... but just go with it for now)
FYI- how to really show him that you care (Score:5)
BTW... this isn't just for VA residents. Any American who cares for and agrees with what this guy thinks should send in at least a token donation, and make it clear exactly why you are donating. It is sort of sad that this is how the process works, but it is, and complaining about it is useful but not not change things until it is too late for this particular cause. So... go write that check, and write it now.
~luge
P.S. Hiro, this isn't aimed at you but at others. Make sure you vote for him in 2002, though
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:2)
The executives of big businesses are living in a reality *completely* disconnected from the one that you and I are familiar with.
--
Re:People or Corporations - you decide (Score:2)
Re:9th District Resident (Score:2)
Vote early, vote often!
Re:Fair use? (Score:4)
Quote: "The fact is, intellectual property is a form of property, and any law that gives strangers usage rights to one's property over-extend legitimate government authority."
You're looking at it backwards. Intellectual property is an artificial construct. Heck, the idea of all "property" is artificial when you get down to it. In the jungle, property is whatever you can hold on to and defend. In the jungle, you can't do a darn thing about someone using your ideas, stealing your livestock or freely copying your jungle music. (Although you could steal the livestock back if the theif didn't kill you and your family.) Heck, the United States wouldn't have existed unless it was fought for. We gained independence with bullets and blood, not with a nice table setting, tea, biscuits and a handshake.
Nowadays, we live in a civilisation. Governments define what rights individuals have wrt property and subsequently help you out with defending it (land records, deeds, police, armies, copyrights, patents, etc.)
Let's look at fair use. First of all, fair use is not stealing. In fact, when you really do violate copyright laws you're not stealing, you are technically "infringing" on the creator's copyright.
The idea behind fair use is that we acknowledge that copyright laws grant artists a (supposedly) limited time monopoly on the distribution of their works. This allows them to recoup their costs and make a living. However, we, as patrons of the artist, are able to enjoy the art/music in any way and place as we see fit (so long as we are not violating copyright laws and mass distributing the works).
This is why it's ok for someone to copy a CD to a tape and listen to it in their car, or rip the tracks to one's mp3 home stereo. You're doing it for your own convenience and personal use.
Re:I hate to sound like an anti-capitalist, but (Score:2)
Spin those (data) CDs! (Score:2)
Maybe... but does anyone know of a program that takes the data from an ordinary CD and produces music from it? If it can convert a Data CD into a WAV format and then play it, so much the better (since it would presumably play Audio CDs as is, and therefore argue that all CDs are the same. They are all programs/music.) Might backfire though and have all CDs banned via the RIAA
Re:Fair use? (Score:2)
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:2)
Re:Hillbilly Boucher vs. Beverly Hills Bono (Score:2)
Re:Spin those (data) CDs! (Score:2)
What I meant was a more overall restatement of the fact that any set of data may be acted upon as data or as instructions. Most people here might not consider C to be executable without being compiled into a binary in the way that Perl is. But there's nothing that prevents people from writing software that does that. Or from designing a processor that uses C as a machine language. It's just difficult and inefficient. Someday it will no longer be difficult or inefficient, and our rules should not assume that this will not be the case.
If, for instance under the DMCA, DeCSS programs are treated as verboten, but source is not, what happens when someone eventually writes a program that accepts English as instructions and doesn't need to compile? Saying the instructions becomes illegal.
Programs are currently special in that they are very clear, precise and formal instructions. The predefined vocabulary and grammar are intended to help make it precise, often with the added benefit of being terse. This is no different than mathematics or physics. Indeed, it's quite similar to law itself. (wherein ambiguities are there often to function as ORs)
Trying to draw lines around these is futile, and will have seriously detrimental effects on society. Alternatives need to be developed, and we must reexamine the need for such systems, in whole and in part, altogether.
Re:Archived on... what? (Score:2)
David Carney
dcarney@techlawjournal.com
While I agree with his stance... (Score:2)
If you think comparing licenses is hard, wait until you try to decipher whether or not you can loan your DVD to a friend.
-sk
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:2)
In my mind, a vote for any third-party candidate is a waste, (I voted for Nader anyway) because, in the minute chance that they DID get elected president, they still have a bunch of pissed off Republican and Democratic congressmen and governors to contend with. You think gridlock is bad now? Basically, not only would Perot have had to buy his way into office, he would also have to buy enough congressional seats.
I don't think even Bill Gates is *that* rich. You can buy lots of legislation, but a wholesale revolution and uprooting of the two-headed monster is much more costly than that. you can fight the system, but truly winning?
Misinformation (Score:3)
Re:Fair Use (Score:2)
He brings up an interesting point, one that always makes for an excellent argument in the class [wayne.edu] I teach:
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:2)
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Gridlock is good. It means that the politicians aren't messing things up.
If only we'd had total gridlock when the DMCA was voted on...
-S
time shifting, fair use. Close.... (Score:2)
Re:He's also pro-Napster... (Score:2)
You can find the original text for the bill here: http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d106query.html [loc.gov] Look up the phrase "music owners listening rights" (Sorry about that.)
Re:A small step, but in the right direction (Score:2)
Copyright Law needs to be completely overhauled; the law's concepts were formed at a time when the Printing Press was a huge capital investment. Today's "Printing Presses" (e.g. the Web) are common place. Current Copyright Law cannot deal with this notion of creating (copying) value for virtually nothing.
Consider the article at LWN - here [lwn.net].
In as much (or little) as his proposed changes do, they endorse the current Copyright Code - staked out by IP Lawyers for IP Lawyers.
I repeat: we do not need new exceptions to current Copyright Law, we need new Copyright Law.
Cheers,
Slak
Re:Some good, some bad (Score:2)
I became quite worried when he started mentioning Macrovision and endorsing some kind of Digital Rights Management. Devices cannot determine intent, certainly in no legal sense.
As I mention in a separate post, we don't need more exceptions to current Copyright Law, we need new Copyright Law (stike the old one from the record) and return to the idea of "...promoting science
Sum up Bono's politial career (Score:4)
I don't really know anything else about Bono's career as a politician.
Six words: Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act [everything2.com].
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
DMCA Section 1201(f) (Score:2)
Has anyone read DMCA Section 1201(f)? I just recently noticed it, and it appears to claim that it is legal to reverse-engineer software products that you have legaly obtained a copy of, for the use of interoperability.
What this means to Linux DVD Players: If someone is willing to find the CSS decryption routine in PowerDVD, we can link it as a .so, and legally distribute a method to interoperate PowerDVD and LiViD. (Or your favorit Linux DVD player)
Re:FYI- how to really show him that you care (Score:2)
I've already sent off my email of thanks, but if you really want to make the point- you want to go here and make out a check to the man.
Not making fun of your post, but your statement above makes me envision the sad state of this country. IOW, you want to be heard, then you have to pay. You want to REALLY be heard then pay a lot. Sort of takes the "public" out of "public official".doh (Score:2)
Fine... if they're prepared to deal with it... (Score:2)
If schools are going to allow students to lead prayers and such on school grounds and/or during school hours, then they had damn well better be prepared to defend the rights of students practicing minority religions from the less tolerant students. Schools have a VERY bad track record of preventing violence and harrassment of "different" students.
Fair Use Letter (Score:2)
The crux of it went like this:
Since Fair Use is laid out in the US Code, people know what people have a right to do with a work. However, there's no companion legislation saying that the people MUST have the right to be able to do that. I pointed out that without that little bit, you get the mess we're in now, where in people have all sorts of rights to take sections and criticize etc., but that there are artificially induced technical limitations that prevent them from doing so.
Has anyone else had this thought? Has anyone else voiced this to their Congress Critters?
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:2)
--
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:3)
--
Ok... so tell HIM that.. (Score:2)
Write him a polite, respectful letter explaining what you believe to be the flaws in his reasoning. Then suggest alternatives. Don't be antagonistic, we need allies in Congress if we're going to have a real chance of fixing copyright laws anytime soon.
EFF should contribute to enlightened reps (Score:2)
We should get the EFF to donate funds to representatives who display such obvious enlightenment. If they get elected, they can spread that enlightenment far and wide, particularly within the government where it is so badly needed. That means we should donate more to the EFF so that they can support representatives in this manner.
--
Re:Gridlock [OT] (Score:2)
That there is gridlock NOW, is probably a good thing because the overall political climate of this country is not progressive. Unfortunately, when we have gridlock bad laws (like DCMA) get passed, BECAUSE of gridlock - they don't take the time to adequately review and debate issues, because they want to obfuscate and pass the law as quickly as possible. That's exactly what Boucher (boo-shay?) said happened when he tried to protect the MyMP3.com fair rights issue. It got gridlocked to death. So progressive legislation suffers, well-funded crap like DCMA under the guise of "globalization" (trade liberalization) gets passed like a drunk Canadian hockey player's beer fart.
Also, in the name of perceived "efficiency", BECAUSE of gridlock, we have terrible policies in place like the War Powers Act, and "Executive Orders", and "States of Emergency", to allow things to happen in a timely manner when congress can't address issues because of gridlock. This bypasses our constitutional government, and definately opens the doors to tyranny. These policies have been abused (Clinton was THE poster-child for abusing Executive Orders). Although I DO think that the Line Item Veto was probably a good idea. (another anti-gridlock tool).
So I think that while gridlock may be a good thing, it's a bandaid for a far worse problems. If it didn't limit our constitutional right to free association, I'd fucking outlaw political parties so people would have to choose candidates based on their stand on issues, and candidates would have to state those issues, and their records would have to match their stances. And we wouldn't have to watch power brokers juggling huge blocks of votes on issues, we'd have actual real debate.
Re:Dolly + Boucher = Bolly? Bouchy? Dollcher? (Score:2)
Fraid not. As large portions of the human genome are patented by biotechnology companies, you'd have to do something funky like splice in reptile DNA or something. And then we'd just be back to standard politicians.
And what's worse, they might start breeding.
Rich
Rick Boucher == Ricky Butcher? (Score:2)
"Rickaaayyy!!!"
Rich
Address here.. (Score:2)
http://www.boucherforcongress.com/contribute.htm [boucherforcongress.com]
Re:OK, what's the angle? (Score:2)
Senators Robert A. Taft and John LaFollette, but that was a long time ago.
Rentals are thorny. (Score:2)
So what is the tradeoff that needs to be made here? One answer is that manufacturers should be allowed to employ copy protection in their products ala Macrovision. This would probably lead to most media products having some form of copy protection. This road seems to be where we are headed at the moment. Unfortunately, this path seems to result in a loss of fair use rights on the part of the consumer.
Another possibility is to only allow copy protection on products which are produced for rental purposes. So, the tape you rent from the video store has macrovision, but if you buy it from a retail outlet you get an unprotected version. This seems like it could be an OK balance. Unfortunately, it could lead to products which are not available or are prohibitivly expensive in their non-rental form. I can see the media giants moving all of their inventory into some sort of "rental" scheme and dropping the non-copy protected purchase version entirely. I'm not sure I like that possibility.
The third possibility is to ban copy protection which in any way infriges on fair-use rights. Works which are released in a form which denies fair-use rights have, IMNHSO, no right to any protection under copyright law. This would probably have the effect of prohibiting all copy protection because, as others have mentioned, it is possibly (probably?) impossible to mechanically determine if a copy is a fair use copy.
Of these three, I myself prefer the third. But that's because I'm largly a consumer of IP, not a producer or distributer. The reality is that option 3 is not going to come to pass unless something is done to reassure the media giants that they are getting something out of it. The question is, what could they be offered? We have to realize that the best we can hope for is that our Congress-critters will listen to both sides in the debate. One possibility would be to allow and encourage the watermarking of media files with serial numbers. The watermarks couldn't be used to prevent copying. But, if a song was being distributed illegally the watermark could be used to try and track down the original purchaser. Another idea would be to make it easier to track down and prosecute anyone who was making copyrighted material available illegally. Perhaps a light but significant fine could be levied against people who put Metallica songs up on Napster. Sort of like photo-radar driving tickets. Pay your $50 or whatever if you get caught leaving your Dr. Dre songs on your anonymous FTP server.
So, I ask everyone, what is the tradeoff that we are willing to make? We can't really expect the media giants to give up anything if we aren't willing to give up something also.
hating the system and using it anyway (Score:3)
To put it another way: yeah, the system sucks. But it is our system: hating it doesn't change the way it works, nor does it change the fact that it has very serious consequences for the way we live our lives. So... we'd better work with it, even while trying to change it.
~luge
Re:EFF should contribute to enlightened reps - NOT (Score:2)
However, donating to the EFF is always a good thing.
Re:FYI- how to really show him that you care (Score:2)
Even people that don't use Napster might agree with his views.
I think $40 million ought to help him get re-elected.
Large contributions only matter to politicians because so many voters base their choice on what TV ads they see.
Re:Fair use? (Score:2)
The only solution, therefore, is political, not legal, short of a constitutional amendment. The question is whether you will be on the side of James Madison and the framers on this one, or on the side of the supporters of DMCA who are cracking the Constitution.
In any case, the poster is making a more fundamental assertion which is independent of legal or constitutional issues -- that there is a fundamental human right to intellectual property, and this includes the right to limit the ways which people benefit from your ideas. The only way to deal with such radical viewpoints is at their root. You either believe this, in which case the fact that the irrelevance of the preamble to the copyright clause is a fortunaate accident, or you don't, in which case it is a grave misfortune.
Re:time shifting, fair use. Close.... (Score:2)
-
Re:A small step, but in the right direction (Score:2)
School can't sanction prayer, can't foce people to pray, can't provide money and space for ORGANIZED prayer but it can nto prevent someone from saying hail mary before a test either.
Re:Rentals are thorny. (Score:2)
Well, yes and no.
I don't know in your country, but in mine [everything2.com], libraries are allowed to lend books (of course) and audio/video material (CD, video tapes, etc.) In almost any significant city there are public libraries where you can borrow CDs free of charge. Yet that did not kill the market for music commerce. Every year, several records sell more than a million copies (in a potential market of 60 million people).
BTW, notice that I live in a country where IP rights are a fundamental right. Maybe that's a proof that strong IP protection (for authors, at least) is not absolutely incompatible with fair use.
Thomas Miconi
Napster (Score:2)
Jaysyn