Rep. Boucher Outlines 'Fair Use' Fight 327
A reader writes "AtNewYork.com is reporting: U.S. Congressman Rick Boucher, moving to strengthen "fair use" provisions under federal copyright law, said he is introducing a bill that would essentially restrict the record industry from selling copy-protected CDs."
Hooray for Virginia Democrats (Score:2, Funny)
.
Re:Hooray for Virginia Democrats (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hooray for Virginia Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
yahoo (Score:5, Funny)
Better still (Score:5, Insightful)
And his campaign website is. . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
I've met him. A politician with a clue is a rare thing. Let's not lose him . . . .
Re:yahoo (Score:3, Insightful)
I especially liked how he would have royalties sent directly to the artists, and not to the robber barons who are ripping them off. The RIAA will really hate that! p.s. check out www.dontbuycds.org [dontbuycds.org]
Re:yahoo (Score:3, Informative)
nice. (Score:2)
Re:nice. (Score:2)
Makes you wonder.... (Score:2)
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Please...
So. (Score:5, Funny)
The wispering in the halls of congress has already begun. "Didn't he get his check from the RIAA yet???"
Re:So. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad but true I'm afraid. However it is nice to see there is at least one US politician that knows the difference between copyright protection and copy protection; pity he won't make a difference. Even more of a pity for us Europeans who seem to be a test bed for all these copy^H^H^H^Hfair rights protected CDs. All power to him but I fear that the RIAA will get their way in the US and then force it on everyone else - and let's not even mention Palladium.
Re:So. (Score:2, Funny)
I think the word is com^H^H^Hterrorist now.
Re:So. (Score:3, Funny)
He sure did. He used it to buy a CD burner.
Strangely he's the only congressman who only got one.
-
Contact info for Rick Boucher? (Score:2, Insightful)
With all the negative feedback congressmen normally get from us, I think it would be a nice change if we actually wrote them something thanking and encouraging them for once...
Re:Contact info for Rick Boucher? (Score:5, Informative)
and Ninthnet@mail.house.gov [mailto] is his email address.
Re:Contact info for Rick Boucher? (Score:2)
"Representative Boucher,
Frankly, sir, you are my hero. I read about your ideas
for a fair use bill to amend current copyright code
at:
http://www.atnewyork.com/
and then subsequently your speeches and ideas at:
http://www.house.gov/boucher/internet.htm
In a world where corporate ideals, profit margins and
politician pay-offs reign you are a very refreshing
soul. The situation of the current music industry is
sad -- music, by nature, has very little productive
power and thus little value. As the economies of scale
kick in prices of records and thus music should fall
proportional to the amount that it sold. The problem
with this classic model is, however, corporate profit
margins fall too. To alleviate this the RIAA and large
labels institute 'artificial demand' by hyping and
advertising artists as well as restricting the number and
price of CDs in the market (artificial supply). The former
is completely legal and ethical and the latter is
questionable but fair.
Lately consumers have been able to seemingly bypass the
artificial supply side and record labels refuse to drop prices
to account for it (it is tough to get such things as mp3's --
they take time to find as well as cost the distributor money
in processing power, time and bandwidth and on top of that mp3s
are by definition lower quality then CDs). If CDs were cheaper
and adhered to the true supply and demand of markets, people
would have no use at all for mp3s because CDs would be cheap
enough that the processing power, time and bandwidth used for
mp3s would be far more expensive then the CD itself and the
added-value of the high-quality CD (vs. the degraded mp3) would
be realized.
The RIAA and large record labels refuse to let the market
decide the price of their CDs. Furthermore, with the advent of
the Internet artists have the ability to market directly to
consumers -- that which the RIAA despises. The RIAA needs their
artificial supply as well as their 'middle man' distributor and
marketing status to maintain their profits. To keep that, they
now lobby the government to restrict the rights of consumers
(broken CDs, DMCA) and to legalize corporate vigilantism (flood,
aka DoS, P2P networks and sue their customers) much like Carnegie's
Pinkertons against labor not too long ago. Using the government and
the restriction of the people's rights as a form of artificial supply
is unethical and should be outright illegal.
Your ideas for your proposed bill are the most logical, direct and
coherent that I have heard thus far on this issue. I congratulate
you, sir. It gives the consumers and the artists their rights and
freedoms and lets the 'middle men' freely compete as they should.
The benefactors of the RIAA should not be the center -- artists and
consumers should and the RIAA's benefactors should be hired at will
as a marketing or distributing agency just like in every other
industry. Our government is a tool of the people to ensure our
rights, freedoms and the pursuit of happiness. It is not a tool
of the corporations to ensure profits that will later "trickle down"
to the people. A corporation is legally a person but can not vote.
Too many legislators forget that but you, sir, have not and I thank
you."
America's solution. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that this is all bad, but do we have to legislate what should be common practice by the record companies. The real solution is simple, if you buy a cd that you cannont play and cannot return, call the company that you bought it from and annoy them.
Re:America's solution. (Score:2, Insightful)
So, to protect the consumer, laws need to be put in place to keep the corporations in line.
Remember what Milton Friedman said: The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
Since that's the corporate mantra, this is exactly why we have laws that prohibit certain abuses of power, such as insider trading. Corporate America has demonstrated again and again that it WILL go as far as legally possible to make a buck.
You can call Sony HQ as often as you want to, but in the end, they won't care about one guy calling them a hundred times (might even get a restraining order), but they will listen to the might of thousands of people not buying their products... or if that fails, a law forcing them to behave.
Re:America's solution. (Score:2)
Re:America's solution. (Score:2)
Data CDs (Score:3, Interesting)
Boucher for President (Score:3, Funny)
unfair restriction (Score:5, Insightful)
However, doing something like simply mandating a truth in advertiseing plan, so that CDs that are copy protected are labled as such, and ones that aren't are the only ones that can carry the Compact Disk logo would be a fine comprimise. And would also I think let the market police itself.
Re:unfair restriction (Score:2)
Re:unfair restriction (Score:2)
Post DMCA world: ban them. If:
-you can't reverse engineer them for fair use
-fair use is still "guaranteed"
then
-they should be illegal.
Re:unfair restriction (Score:2)
I agree with this. If they want to place legal restrictions on us, it's fully reasonable for us to impose restrictions on them in return. When they complain about it, someone in power should point out that it's only fair, and they always have the option of asking for the DCMA to be repealed.
Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're buying the right to listen to the music, then we should be able to listen to in in other forms, MP3, etc.
If we're buying the physical product, then the RIAA shouldn't be trying to tax record stores on sales of used albums.
Basically, they can't have it both ways.
the mot disturbing thing though is the ambiguity. There's no EULA to clickthrough or read, and I doubt the average consumer knows whether they're buying a CD, or buying the music on the CD. It makes a big difference.
Re:Rights (Score:2)
I've always been a bit miffed that I can drop $16 on a CD (or, back in the day, $8 on a tape), and then have it scratched (or eaten) the following day, and need to essentially purchase another license for it.
Of course, if I'm just buying the media itself, and not merely a license, then I must be free to distribute the music as I see fit.
(Certainly, this isn't what the record companies intended.)
Re:Rights (Score:5, Informative)
I've always viewed it like this: when you get media, there is a "basic" license intrinsically and inseparably tied to that media. The basic license grants you certain rights, including but not necessarily limited to:
The official view of the courts is that if the transaction has the quality of a sale, then it isn't licensing at all (they've also pretty much said that everything that's happened in any consumer store thusfar has had the quality of a sale). Thus, if it "feels" like a sale, then you have, if nothing else, the right of resale, lending, and space shifting (these rights have all been ruled on).
The courts have not specifically ruled on any of the other rights *I* feel you have (that I know of), but (so far as I know) a pertinent case hasn't come up. It would seem pretty silly that you didn't intrinsically have the right to listen to a CD you've bought, though. And I'm also pretty sure that copying for archival purposes is protected by copyright law as well. So, 2 of my 4 are official, one is common sense, and, well, look # 4 up.
In any case, by the doctorine of first sale, the RIAA can't restrict by legal means the used CD market. Nothing has been said about technological means, though, and it sounds like Rep. Boucher wants to restrict the use of technology to limit such things.
Interesting note, but the doctorine of first sale stems from a case where a book publisher included a "EULA" in the front of their books, forbidding their sale on the secondary market. The court ruled that the interest of the publisher in that particular copy of a protected work ended after they sold it the first time, and that they couldn't limit what happened to it afterwards. So, by some stretch, there is precident for EULA's not having legal force.
Re:Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
1.) the right to use for any means persuant to the remaining rules
2.) the right to resell/lend the original as long as backups do not exist
3.) the right to duplicate as backup in any format
4.) the right to use the backup as long as the original is not in use
I think that would satisfy any "fair use" issues for all parties that care....
Re:Rights (Score:2, Interesting)
I sort of intended my list to be a set of irrefutable minimums. So, it only included things that either a) there's explicit precendent for, or b) are utterly common sense. While I'd agree that your 4 are more complete and palletable to me, finding arguments to restrict them is easier.
I like to think about how the "intrinsic" license can interact with other, separate license agreements. The GPL, for example, somewhat assumes my 4. Nobody at the FSF is going to be mad at me if I use GPL software without agreeing to the GPL (although they'll be pissed if I redistribute it).
Consider some piece of commercial software with a EULA. I believe that I can refuse to accept the terms of the EULA, and use the software under the intrinsic 4. However, there may be some benefits to accepting the EULA (much as you must accept the GPL in order to copy GPLed software). Consider StarCraft. I'd be willing to admidt that use of the official BattleNet services is conditional on accepting the EULA. However, single player, LAN games, and games hosted on 3rd party sofware (bnetd) are, IMHO, fair game even without accepting the EULA.
Now, as to the validity of giving up any of the intrinsic 4 in exchange for extra rights, I don't know. That seems to me to be one of those things where the lawyers will tell you it's "very interesting" (lawyerspeak for $1000 a day plus expenses), and probably rightly so. I'd like to think that the intrinsic 4 are irrevokable and can't be signed away (just as you can't sign away the right to bring a malpractice suit against a doctor, for example). But it isn't as clear-cut to me.
Just some random musings.
license for 'that' cd (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you know.....
A major record lable(mgm) is withdrawing music in the UK charts~(elvis Vs JXL in order to increase the chart raiting of a new release(kiddy pop)
Well here's [bbc.co.uk]the story
Re:unfair restriction (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with record companies distribution copy protected cds if and only if the copyright protection extended to them for these works is then withdrawn.
Somewhere along the line the original intention of intellectual property laws such as copyright and patents has been lost. Somewhere along the line some people started to think of them as rights.
I really hope legislators like Boucher can restore balance and some semblance of sanity.
Re:unfair restriction (Score:2, Informative)
Re:unfair restriction (Score:5, Funny)
Nice link, by the way. I like the way that Jefferson man thinked. Maybe he could write up a few guidelines on how to run a democracy? That would be helpful.
Re:unfair restriction (Score:2, Insightful)
Record companies still aren't using it on very major releases (such as the Eminem Show), which makes me wonder if they are really concerned with this hurting their sales. If so, the market has already spoken.
Hardly (Score:5, Insightful)
For the same reason the electronics industry is restricted from selling equipment which blacks out the radio reception in an entire building or neighborhood, or will tend to overheat wiring and start fires.
Copy protected CDs destroy expensive equipment, such as Macintosh computers and some high-end CD players. Banning their sale is minimalistic Consumer Protection, something is country is in sore need of, and something which is utterly appropriate for the government to be doing. Not everyone can be an expert on everything.
However, doing something like simply mandating a truth in advertiseing plan
I too would very much like to see a return to Truth in Advertising. Unfortunately, the courts have ruled the corporations are the same as living, breathing human beings, with all of their rights (but none of their vulnerabilities). This has been explicitly extended to include freedom of speech that is no more restricted than individual speech (go figure), so there is little if anything that can be done to coerce a company, much less a cartel, into not misrepresenting their incompatible disks as CDs.
If they want to sell a new, incompatible medium, they should be required to change its physical format such that it cannot accidentally be put into equipment it will damage. Requiring such disks to be 6" in diameter, instead of 4.5", for example, woud probably be sufficient.
The Compact Disk logo is a trademark issue, but frankly it is too subtle for most consumers to recognize, so while Phillips will likely not allow such copy protected CD-resembling media to bear their logo, the customer will likely only become aware of that discrepency after their incompatible drive has refused to play the music they purchased (at best), or has been damaged or destroyed by the disk.
This is not acceptable, and I am frankly amazed that anyone could argue that caveate emptor would be at all an acceptable standard of behavior, much less regulation, for something like this.
Re:unfair restriction (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, the music industry wants it both ways and he is willing to stand up and say, "Wait a second here!"
Re:unfair restriction (Score:2)
The problem is that you just can't produce a CD that cannot be copied -- in the end, it's all just little ones and zeros.
What you have to do is convince or force (laws, lawsuits, etc) the hardware and software people to make it hard to copy the bits using their hardware. This, in turn, means that we start dictating what innovations a very big industry (computer equipment) can make to protect the interests of a much smaller industry whose business model is on borrowed time (recording).
That makes me cringe, personally.
Re:unfair restriction (Score:2)
Re:unfair restriction (Score:4, Interesting)
I got to introduce Boucher and RMS.
Bruce
Re:unfair restriction (Score:2)
If you don't consider being ripped off harm, why don't you post your real name, social security and bank account numbers?
Didn't you hear what happens when you shove an RIAA special into a Mac? I've heard scattered reports of other kinds of damage to audio systems as well from the noise bursts. The Libertarian in me cringes at this idea.
Well, tell him to pull out and get lost, and I hope for your sake he was wearing a condom. And listen to people with common sense, not Libertarians in the future.
With respect to use of the Compact Disk logo, that's a matter of convincing Phillips to enforce the use of its trademarks... because they've said publically that they do NOT consider copy-protected CDs to be CDs within the use of that trademark. For that, a law isn't necesary.
You should check into the rest of the law as described. Modifying the DMCA and restoring "fair use" to something that can't be circumvented via new technology is a very good idea.
Re:unfair restriction (Score:4, Interesting)
One simple reason, copy protected CDs make a mockery of the 1992 Digital Recording act. The RIAA already got the benefits (SCM added to DAT etc., blank media tax), and now they are trying to get away with not living up to their side of the bargain -- consumers have the right to make digital recordings of digitally recorded music.
This is also the reason they should amend section K of the DMCA - the MPAA clearly broke the spirit of the deal. Both laws were written without anything to enforce the industry to live up to their side of the bargain, and they naturally want to fully exploit the law as it is currently written (I'll forgo detailing both industry's lack of ethics).
Since both parties have clearly shown loopholes in the existing laws (making a killing in the process), it is time to close these loopholes and force them to observe their side of the bargain. What have you got against closing loopholes?
PS: The subtext of this comment is a mock-libertarian stance, the record companies ought to be able to do what they want, and the market should deal with it. This ignores the fact that government regulations and rules are already very, very, involved (like the definition of copyright). This thinking that the current laws we have now are "natural", and the market can correct any problems with them is at best simplistic.
I don't see why the poster does not remember libertarianism applies to individuals as well! The companies have already rigged the games with rules and regulations that take away individual rights. Where does he get off that this is a totally natural process. If you scrap the current copyright laws, and (somehow) manage to design them fairly, than I could appreciate a "let the market take care of it" stance. Meanwhile, I'm glad Rep Boucher is not waiting for this mythical time and is taking steps to close loopholes that rob the citizenry!
Re:unfair restriction (Score:3, Insightful)
The record companies exist because of laws. Laws saying people can't copy their stuff, laws saying they get percentages of all DAT and music CD-Rs, even, indirectly, laws saying that only certain companies can broadcast in a certain radio spectrum. (Yes, that's not technically the 'record' companies, but anyone who believes they aren't in bed together is crazy.)
If they don't want laws controlling them, fine. I don't want any laws controlling me, and I'll copy all their stuff, broadcast on my now legal 'pirate' radio station, etc.
They are a government created business, with a government created monopoly on their content. If they don't want to have government created 'ownership', then I will stop calling for them to be regulated. Otherwise, I will call for laws to protect my rights, just like they have laws to protect their business. The laws were created to 'balance' things so people would have an incentive to produce content, not to control every person or even to protect a business model.
I love him (Score:2, Insightful)
I love him, and I want to have his babies. I want to be his meat puppet of love.
And the scary bit? I am not joking. This is the one elected representative who gets it, who's prepared to stand up and say so, and is not buying the line that what's good for big shareholders isn't necessary good for us.
The worst part? I'm not a US citizen, and so I'm not supposed to be allowed to donate campaign contributions. And yet, strangely, Hollings can take money from any US business that he likes. I despair.
Re:I love him (Score:2)
I'll give the RIAA credit for one thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
I changed my mind, however, and registered. I'm glad I did. The whole mess with DRM has really opened my eyes to how much big business controls politics nowadays. Representative Boucher is a breath of fresh air in this soap opera, and I applaud his efforts.
A little out there... (Score:2)
I love you Sen. Boucher.
Why does govt set the royalties? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Why does govt set the royalties? (Score:2)
Re:Why does govt set the royalties? (Score:3, Informative)
Here's why [cornell.edu].
Basically, if the record companies were not subject to compulsory licensing, they could pick and choose which stations may play their music. They would control radio broadcasting outright (rather than through mergers and payola).
With compulsory licensing, any station can play any music, so long as they comply with their side of the license.
The current problem is in updating the license to handle the new reality of back-room Internet broadcasters...
Re:Why does govt set the royalties? (Score:2)
The bugaboo is, if the marginal value of a song is zero and it has significant one-time costs (recording studio, band rental, etc.), then no rational economic operator would ever produce music, since no one could make money back from it.
To entice creators to publish their creations, the government sets in and artificially props up the marginal value of the song, by establishing a legal monopoly and granting the "right" to copy the song only to one entity (who may therefore charge more than 0 for the song). As far as I'm concerned, since the government is creating the value, then the government can legitimately limit it, in the public interest.
Nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Good step, but ultimately... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good step, but ultimately... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good step, but ultimately... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good step, but ultimately... (Score:2)
It may not be an inalienable right, but it is still a right. That's what having the force of
law protecting you MEANS.
Re:Good step, but ultimately... (Score:2)
Re:Good *enough* step (Score:2)
So get off your @SS (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, RIAA and the rest of the Horsemen of the Apocalpse aren't going to stand by. They'll fight this thing with every dollar, lawyer and lying press release they can dream up.
This could be a HUGE momentum swing. Let's take advantage of it...
Re:So get off your @SS (Score:2, Insightful)
Excellent point... if the 'Slashdot Effect' can bring most websites to their knees, we might be able to actually get some attention from the US Congress (or most any other major decision-making body) if the community would just initiate and follow-thru on a letter-writing/e-mail campaign (for this and/or another worthwhile cause).
I suppose that the follow-thru always seems to be the difficult part, though.
I wonder.. (Score:2)
Copy protected CDs only? (Score:2)
So if they are successful at the "copy protected CD" legislation, the DVDCCA issues are also in danger under such law guaranteeing 'Fair Use' in law. I honestly don't think this action will get too far. The politicians are far too well paid by interests who would prefer to deny Fair Use to their consumers.
If. by some miracle, something preventing such protection is enacted, it could grow into something quite powerful indeed.
Re:Copy protected CDs only? (Score:2)
You can't really write law that restricts only a single technology. Even if they did, there is a matter known as the "spirit" of the law which is often more far reaching.
Sure you can. Simply prohibit companies that violate the Red Book standard CD format from using the term "Compact Disc" or "CD" to describe their wares.
Re:Copy protected CDs only? (Score:2)
Call Them Something Else! (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn owned politians! (Score:3, Interesting)
will be a very heavy cost that the industry will pay when copy-protected CDs
are introduced," Boucher said.
While conceding later that copy-protected CDs aren't against existing law,
he said their introduction wouldn't even impact the music piracy the music industry is
trying to stop. Instead, the move will "anger millions of their
best-customers who have become accustomed of making copies [of CDs] for
their own use,"
Aha! so his legislating against copy protection to PROTECT the industry. Dammit when are we gonna get some politians who are on our side?
On a more seriours note:
which is allowed under "fair use" provisions of copyright law.
He said he would introduce legislation that would essentially codify
"fair use" provisions of copyright law (that have been implied but not necessarily guaranteed). He also wants to ease up some of the more copy-restrictive provisions of the 1998 Digital Milennium Copyright Act, whose pay-per-use provisions on copies he has criticized as a threat not only to "fair use," but to innovation, idea exchange, even First Amendment guarantees on free speech.
More Legal Issues? (Score:4, Informative)
After about two hours (8:30AM to 10:30AM) I left the meeting with a much better feeling about my local County government - at least in the IT/IS groups.
Linden Thatcher, the CIO for Maricopa County, struck me as quite literate in the issues that were raised.
About 5% of the County IT/IS budget goes to Microsoft products, a vast majority of those being the 12,000 desktops they support. According to the statements Mr. Thatcher made, most of their "server-side" applications run on a mix of HP-UX and System V, with some apps running on Websphere.
There are currently a couple of internal projects running Linux/Apache to provide document publishing.
Mr. Thatcher has read "Ender's Game," and met Orson Scott Card (thank goodness we've got SOMEONE in the hierarchy who is not only literate, but READS!)
The Phoenix Linux Users Group people who showed up were very polite, and there was only one person in the crowd who seemed to be almost violently "anti-Microsoft."
Good meeting. But I still don't have any hopes that new laws are going to fix any of these problems.
Re:More Legal Issues? (Score:2)
I guess I'm just not enough of a karma whore to actually get a submission posted.
About "Fair Use" (Score:4, Insightful)
Although I am all for letting the users (buyers / market) to decide whether or not something is worth to be purchased, methinks it will be a VERY BAD LAW if there is any restriction on the selling of the "copy-protected" CDs.
Why ?
Simply because, in the spirit of "FAIR USE", the producers of the CDs should have the right to enjoy the "FAIR USE" of the technology employed in the "copy protected CD".
The only thing that I think is important in all these things is that THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY LAW PROHIBITING ANYONE FROM rendering the very technology that have been employed in the "copy protection" scheme useless.
And that's the gist of DCMA - it makes EVERYTHING, or EVERY IDEA of creating NEW TECHNOLOGIES making existing ones useless ILLEGAL.
Copy-protected CDs are NOT the culprit. It's the BAD LAW (DCMA and friends) that is hurting everyone.
One bad law doesn't deserve another. We have enough bad laws already.
Re:About "Fair Use" (Score:2)
Kudos, but is this necessary... (Score:3, Insightful)
While conceding later that copy-protected CDs aren't against existing law, he said their introduction wouldn't even impact the music piracy the music industry is trying to stop. Instead, the move will "anger millions of their best-customers who have become accustomed of making copies [of CDs] for their own use," which is allowed under "fair use" provisions of copyright law.
So, if indeed they are angering millions of their best-customers, then why does he need a law. Seems logical that by doing this they will be hurting their own bottom line, and thus will be disincented to do it. Having said that, I'm happy to see this kind of legislation because I think copyright is getting sorely out of balance.
I have been fortunate in that my obscure taste in music has kept me away from CD's with copy protection schemes. If I do someday pick up a CD with a protection scheme, then I will handle it very simply.
I will rip it as I do with every CD to 192Kbps MP3. If it fails I'll spend some time trying to find hacks that will get it to rip successfully. If no hacks solve it, then I will return the media as unusable and demand my money back. If the label doesn't want my money, I'll just go find other musicians to listen to, thanks. If they all go to unbreakable copy protection systems (hahaha!), then I'll just hum along with the voices in my head I guess.
If they don't want to sell me music in the form that I listen to I guess I just won't listen anymore.
RIAA/MPAA donations (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RIAA/MPAA donations (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RIAA/MPAA donations (Score:4, Informative)
Congressman Boucher's statement on Fair Use (Score:2, Informative)
You can find his statement on Fair Use here [house.gov]
And his official web site can be found here [house.gov]
Anyone actually check this congressman out? (Score:3, Informative)
Committess
* Committee on Energy and Commerce
* Committee on the Judiciary
Sub-committees
* Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property (Judiciary)
* Energy and Air Quality (Energy and Commerce)
* Telecommunications and the Internet (Energy and Commerce)
I never even heard of the NetCaucus [netcaucus.org] but he seems to be majorly involved with Internet and Government. Wonder who else is belongs to this caucus and "Gets It"...
legal status of copyprotected CDs should be simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Copy-protected CDs don't hold up their end of the bargain because the work can't go into the public domain (more likely, it will simply become inaccessible after a few years as the DRM technology changes). Therefore, any content published on copy-protected CDs should not be subject to copyright protection: if people break the copy protection, they should be able to redistribute the content freely.
The legal power and protection of copyright should be reserved for content that is actually published and that will eventually be able to fall into the public domain.
The Basis of US Copyright Law (Score:5, Insightful)
The correlary to this view is that copyright law (which extends all the way back to the US Constitution) was established primarily to protect those who create and distribute creative works. In fact, it was created as a compact between average citizens and those citizens or organizations that were provided with copyright protections.
The underlying goal of this compact was to strengthen the culture of the United States for all its citizens. The underlying goal was never to provide special protections for copyright holders in some sort of vacuum of privelege.
Interestingly, in their primer on copyright [riaa.org], the RIAA neglects this vial information. As usual, they cite the rights of the copyright holder, without pointing out that those rights are mirrored by specific and explicit rights given to the general public as part of the copyright compact.
The RIAA essentially constitutes a cartel, and as such when they decide to endorse computer-damaging CDs or other nonsense, it's not simply a matter of consumer choice. Unopposed, the RIAA will get what it wants. What it wants in this case is to deny you and me the right to exercise our end of the copyright compact.
As we're seeing now with WorldCom, Enron, et. al., even though the Congress is generally overly-lenient with big business, from time to time the politicians realize that it's in nobody's best interests for these people to be given free rein.
I for one am happy to see at least one member of Congress who is willing to stand up and make this an issue. Cynics will call it grandstanding, or proof that he didn't get enough money from the music industry, and so on. But I see it as proof that the American political system can work.
As others have pointed out, it's not enough to steal songs via Limewire all day in a "protest" against the RIAA. Sometimes you have to *gasp* get to know the issues [eff.org], vote *double gasp* and stop whining that the system doesn't work.
My Email --- Send yours yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
--------
I am a computer professional who lives in Central Upstate New York. I just wanted to let you know I have been very impressed with the views you have expressed recently regarding fair use of recorded music, and CARP.
In addition, I am strongly against many of the restrictions imposed by the DMCA, and am in favor the the modifications you propose. The current DMCA has very little to do with protecting copyright and very much to do with having absolute and complete control over the consumer. Without correction, I believe we are on a course to a world where we are unable to possess a copy of any digital IP, and will be charged every time we want to access it. This is very anti-consumer, and has nothing to do with the reasons "limited" copyright was ever granted.
I would like to thank you for the views you are expressing, and would like to let you know I support you in what I have heard so far. I look forward to reading your soon to be proposed legislation. I will most likely be writing my representatives in support when the bill is released and numbered.
I wish you represented my district so that I could give you my vote next time around.
-signature with complete mailing address-
Support politicians on our side (Score:2)
CDs and the War on Terrorism (Score:2)
It's obvious Sen. Boucher fails to understand that the RIAA's undertaking steps to protect American CDs from copyright infringment is a thoughtful action by the responsible corporate sector of our economy toward preventing terrorists from profiting from the piracy trade. They're acting in our best interests, can't you all see that? Boucher and the rest of you rabble-rousers should get out of the way and let our congress, the administration and the corporate sector protect our country before another attack occurs.
BGM in Major record fix (Score:4, Interesting)
Fair use law? (Score:2)
Sweet. Now let's hope this works. (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I've taken a look at what Boucher is proposing, and it's ambitious. It covers a lot of ground. Admittedly, these are topics that do need to be addressed, but the more you cram into one piece of legislation, the more ammunition you give its opponents. I worry that a select few pieces of this bill might face such strong opposition that the bill itself gets plowed into the dirt.
Of course, I'm just being rationally pessimistic. I truly hope this goes through; it will be a step in the right direction.
I would like to nominate (Score:2)
Rick Boucher? (Score:2)
Encryption of DVD and HDTV (Score:3, Insightful)
A Supportive Open Letter To Congressman Boucher (Score:3, Interesting)
This proposal doesn't go far enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if 80 percent of the market is willing to buy them, the recording industry will go ahead and sell them. And when most all the music that is released comes on the copy protected format, then you are either giving in, or going without most music.
Remember, all intellectual property-based transactions are already entirely the product of legislated fictions - if it involves royalties, copyrights, patents, or the like, it is a "product" that was essentially created by legislative fiat.
Re:A Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
Do we need a bill to help me decide what to purchase?
That attitude reminds me of this quote:
"First the Nazis came for the Communists; and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews; and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. When they came for the trade unionists I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a trade unionist. And when they came for the Catholics I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me... and by that time there was no one left to speak for anyone."
Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoeller
Basically what I mean is that it is FAR easier to fight to keep a right than it is to regain it after losing it. Sitting on the curb and boycotting isn't going to help one damn bit unless you can get more than a handful of people to do it, which you won't. The teeny-bopper clueless fuckwits are too brainwashed by MTV to think for themselves and their rights as individuals.
Re:Simple reaction to this news (Score:2)
Re:Man..... (Score:2, Informative)
I wonder if some Slashdotters realize just *how* technologically uninclined Rep. Boucher's district is.
The "Fightin' Ninth's" major issues include assistance for tobacco farmers, improving transportation (only one major highway runs to the district), and getting *any* sort of information technology industry to locate in the area. A large portion of Virginia's ninth Congressional district is virtually impoverished, with unemployment rates in some areas being as high as *13 percent*. The region receives very little attention from Virginia's state government, being overshadowed by the fast-paced, high-tech, (incredibly fortunate) Northern Virginia/Washington DC area.
Geographically, the ninth Congressional district in Virginia stretches from the western edge of Roanoke county to the western-most area of Virginia, commonly referred to as "Southwestern Virginia." Major industries include trucking, coal mining, farming, and service businesses.
So, keeping this in mind, it truly is a considerable wonder that Rep. Boucher is interested in these issues.
Re:Information on the Congressman? (Score:2)
Hopefully, you browse at -1 like I do.
Not wasting your vote (Score:3, Informative)
You know that a Democrat or a Republican will only vote for a few things you want, and a bunch of things that you don't want. They never follow a strict regiment of careful voting.
When you vote for a Libertarian, you are saying "I WANT LESS GOVERNMENT." "I WANT LESS TAXES." "I WANT MORE RIGHTS, MORE PRIVACY, AND MORE RESPONSIBILITY."
Libertarians swing votes in local elections, even at the state level (the governor's race in Illinois is highly contested, and the Libertarian may swing that vote). Our vote counts because it scares the bejesus out of the party who lost, as well as the party who won. The vote says there are people out there who want smaller government. With time, and with more voters, it'll make both parties stand up and realize that big government will help them lose elections.
Last year I met an average of 30 people a week who say "I won't vote Libertarian because its a wasted vote." I started a mailing list of these people. I also asked them to get their friends on the mailing list who said the same thing. In less than 9 months, we're 6000 strong. That's just people who were afraid to vote Libertarian because they were afraid of wasting their vote. Now, we're finding that we're much stronger together than we ever were apart.
I recommend the same for you. Afraid of wasting your vote? Get together at the local libertarian meetings. Bring your friends. You'll see its not a wasted vote.
Voting for the status quo is a wasted vote. Both only make government bigger, more intrusive, and cater to big business. Even the greens do that! Only one party wants to take the axe to government spending and growth.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)