Slashdot Log In
Fair Use Bill Introduced To Change DMCA
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Feb 27, 2007 04:51 PM
from the tilting-it-back dept.
from the tilting-it-back dept.
An anonymous reader tips us to a Washington Post blogger's note that Representatives Boucher (D-VA) and Dolittle (R-CA) today introduced the FAIR USE Act to update the DMCA to "make it easier for digital media consumers to use the content they buy." Boucher's statement on the bill says, "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the public's right to fair use..." The Post failed to note the history. Boucher has been introducing this bill for years; here are attempts from 2002 and 2003. The chances may be better in this Congress. And reader Rolling maul writes in to note Ars's disappointment with the bill for leaving the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions intact: "Yet again, the bill does not appear to deliver on what most observers want: clear protection for making personal use copies of encrypted materials. There is no allowance for consumers to make backups of DVDs, to strip encryption from music purchased online so that it can be played anywhere, or to generally do any of the things that the DMCA has made illegal."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Boucher Introduces New Bill 138 comments
brandido writes "The Register is reporting that Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled his attempt at returning some rights to consumers. According to the Register: "As we reported yesterday, some of the biggest names in IT names were on hand to support a legislation from Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled this morning. Boucher vowed to strike out the repressive portions of the DMCA, and 'directs the Federal Trade Commission to undertake a rulemaking to assure adequate notice to the public of any lack of functionality which may attend the purchase of copy protected CDs.'" Details of the bill can be found in PDF format , as can a summary and Boucher's Statement (taken from The Reg story)." Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself. Neither of these is worth paying much attention to: Congress is about to wrap up and go home for the year, and will start afresh in January with a clean slate. Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.
[+]
Your Rights Online: Digital Media Consumer Rights Act 156 comments
irabinovitch writes "Representatives Rick Boucher and John Doolittle introduced the DMCRA which would to quote the EFF would "require labelling requirements for usage-impaired "copy-protected" compact discs, as well as several amendments to 1998's infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)." We always seem to complain about the DMCA around here now is our chance to change it! Check out this "Action Alert" at the EFF."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Lawmaker Revs Up Fair-Use Crusade 254 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Nice... (Score:2)
DN
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
DN
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Nice... (Score:4, Interesting)
To Be Fair.
Has anyone been successfully prosecuted for burning a personal DVD for personal use on their PSP?
It doesn't make it right that it is illegal, but at least our society doesn't enforce the fact - yet.
Parent
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Informative)
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, just because it didn't make the "top ten list" doesn't mean it's not a right. Alexander Hamilton was steadfastly opposed to the Bill of Rights for this very reason. the 9th Amendment was an attempt to address such concerns. So next time you hear some loser parroting Rush Limbaugh and saying "the Constitution says nothing about us having the right to [whatever]", punch the dumb motherfucker in the face.
Sorry. Touchy issue for me.
Parent
Illegal but unenforceable (Score:5, Interesting)
You could be a "criminal" under the law, but not under moral principles. As the ancient Romans said, "non omne licitum honestum", which is translated as "not everything that's legal is honest".
Apart from the basic principles of "fair use", I think lawmakers should restrain from creating unenforceable laws, because they weaken the whole principle of legitimacy of the state. Violating laws that restrict copying of digital works is ridiculously easy. Even if some people try to equate copying music and films to robbing banks, if it were as easy to rob a bank as it is to copy a DVD, I would think the whole business model of banking should be reviewed before creating stricter laws against bank robbery.
There's a great quotation by Robert Heinlein about this. In his 1965 novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" his character Bernardo de la Paz said: "But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am responsible for everything I do." In digital works, this assertion is absolutely true everywhere. If the public does not accept the laws protecting "intellectual property", those laws will be broken.
Parent
Re:Illegal but unenforceable (Score:5, Insightful)
you know, i used to agree with this. after all, look at prohibition, right? but then i saw what the RIAA did to the Napster-using grandmothers and little girls of the world. there were 24 million Napster users at one point, and later even more who used the other various p2p systems that took its place. this did nothing to stop the RIAA and its hired legal guns from waging a war of propaganda and litigation, one that they have largely won at this point.
no laws sprung up to defend this huge chunk of the populace.
in fact, if you want to know what p2p users have accomplished so far
maybe back in the early 20th century politicians actually cared more about their constituants than their contributors? i don't know. but the whole "if enough of us do it, it will become legal" strategy doesn't seem to be working anymore.
Parent
Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA can keep suing a few thousand people a year, and it wont mean a thing. This year's round of the flu probably stopped more music-traders by flat-out killing them than the RIAA has by their lawsuits and propaganda.
All these laws mean is that the government is making itself more and more the enemy of the people, that the government is making itself more and more contemptible and despicable.
Inciden
Re:Right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not an expert on the subject and it isn't entirely clear to me why prohibition ended. I do think the negative effects of prohibition -- e.g. entire cities falling under the sway of organized crime -- was more severe and certainly more obvious than the rather ephemeral h
Re:Illegal but unenforceable (Score:5, Interesting)
Again thanks for the great quotation.
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.
-Frederic Bastiat
The Law
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Worse than Nothing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Non-partisan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-partisan (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad most of Congress is shifty.
Re:Non-partisan (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of the DMCA, a lot of intelligent people have become increasingly political, and represent a substantial voting block. On top of this, big corporations sueing poor people has led to quite a lot of people becoming a little negative about copyright. In the past copyright hasn't affected the ordinary guy too much. Now it looks like it might.
Parent
"The chances may be better in this Congress" (Score:5, Insightful)
Who signed the DMCA bill into law, btw?
Re:"The chances may be better in this Congress" (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people think that a democratic party controlled congress will be more sympathetic to fair use rights. I have my doubts, since both parties seem to be growing increasingly corporatist. The republicans at the FCC have been busy conglomerating power for media companies for some time now, so it is understandable to think that a democratic congress might be different. We'll see.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Right. President Clinton, in this case. A Democrat. You really should make an effort to figure out why the poster is asking a question before assuming they're ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I have much faith in either party to look out for our rights.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And, IIRC, did so by voice votes(*), so there'd be no record of who voted what way (such as how many Democrats supported it and how many Republicans did not) nor even hard numbers of ayes and nays, only that a clear majority voted for it.
Which not only concealed how they voted from their constituents, but also whether they had enough votes to override any
That still doesn't stop the fact that... (Score:5, Funny)
Net geeks,
There's no need to feel guilt
I said, Net geeks
For the software you built
I said, Net geeks,
Cause you're not in the wrong
There's no need to feel unhappy
Net geeks,
You can burn a CD.
I said, Net Geeks,
With your fave mp3's.
You can Play them
In your home or your car.
Many ways to take them real far!
It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A
It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A
You have everything you need to enjoy
Your music with your toys!
It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A
It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A
You can archive your tunes
You can share over cable
You can annoy the record labels!
James Earl Jones said it best (Score:3, Funny)
"We are the United States government -- we don't DO that sort of thing!"
Why is encryption even covered by the DMCA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I think the encryption itself should be the deterrent to the circumvention of the encryption, not legislation.
If we can break the encryption, too bad; use something besides Fisher Price's "My First Encryption Algorithm" next time.
Re:Why is encryption even covered by the DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone cleverly pointed out, current "protections" involve distributing both lock and key in an obscured form, then using a proprietary technology to put the key in the lock. Therefore, the reason for this encryption is suspect. The end-user is provided both cryptotext and private key, but told it is illegal to use them together except through a particular device (what we're selling) for a specific purpose (to watch exactly once).
Parent
Re:Why is encryption even covered by the DMCA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a look at the retarded laws covering scanners and cellphones/cordless telephones. We could just tell people that these things are insecure and let the market handle it, or legislate the implementation of real security, or we could tell all the law-abiding folks to stop monitoring those frequencies and force equipment manufacturers to degrade performance across the spectrum to filter these particular frequencies. Meanwhile, anybody who really wants to can still come up with a receiver that will work in those bands... The public *wanted to believe* that their phone conversations were secure, so they made listening illegal rather than actually trying to make them secure (or letting the free market do it as a "feature"). Legislate to the fantasy, that's what we do today, because it makes people feel better even if they're worse off...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the uses of encryption that the DMCA protects can never be "strong" - DRM is all about giving people the decryption keys to decode the content but trying to trick them through elaborate obfuscation into not realizing they have the keys. That kind of scheme can never be cryptographically secure, so to patch that lo
So my free software dvd player is still illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like it. It sounds like the bill wouldn't even allow you to play a DRM-encumbered CD, unless the DRM was a Sony rootkit or other security problem. Lame.
Though on the other hand, being able to say "I am breaking the law every time I watch a DVD on my computer" is a simple and clear way to demonstrate how crazy copyright has become by outlawing what is so obviously ethical behavior. Since I will still be able to say that should this bill be passed, I have an equally simple way of expressing how copyright law is still screwed up, and how this bill completely failed to fix it.
Much better than having it partially fix the main problem so that it still isn't adequate, but becomes harder to explain. To put it another way: If you're going to suck, suck hard, so the slurping noise gives you away.
Re:So my free software dvd player is still illegal (Score:2)
Government won't allow DRM circumvention (Score:2)
Vote with our wallets? (Score:2, Informative)
The Correct Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
"Section 1201 of Title 17 of the United States Code, in its entirety, is hereby repealed."
Schwab
Goddamn acronyms! (Score:4, Funny)
Somebody please shoot me.
Re:Goddamn acronyms! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
FYI: It's not the same bill as previous years (Score:5, Informative)
B.A.C.K.R.O.N.Y.M.S. (Score:4, Funny)
"Initiative Halting Arbitrary Terms Excessively Bringing Additional Confusion and Kludginess to Resolutions, Ousting Newspeak, and Yielding a Manageable System." (or I. H.A.T.E. B.A.C.K.R.O.N.Y.M.S.)
DVD backups (Score:4, Informative)
Re:DVD backups (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Another ironically-named bill (Score:2)
Licensing (Score:2)
Not even close (Score:2)
Even the most fair-use oriented part of congress are with a great margin on the MPAA and RIAA side of things.
Maybe the US needs a pirate party. http://www2.piratpartiet.se/international/english [piratpartiet.se]
With the current balance in congress, a few seats may give great influence.
Creative commons, own your culture (Score:4, Insightful)
You find yourself in the enlightened position of rooting for 100% effective enforcement of any laws on the books, while still being horrified at the stupidity of the 'we have way too much money, with little of it encouraging artists' lobby.
There are some open authors and musicians and other creative types who are actually worthy of your attention who refuse to attack their fans. They show a subtle attention to your best interest that the heavy handed conglomerates can only wish to imitate
Tilt the balance of copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the thing, copyright was created for the public's benefit and nobody else's! It's not like rights and freedom where there's a tradeoff between mine (I can do anything!) and what they impose on you (that means I can restrict you). With copyright, it's "hey, we want more material available to us, so we will make it worth your while by giving you a short monopoly". Well, it was.
Re:Pass the bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure they can. The President is free to veto whatever he wants to. And Congress is free to overrride the President's veto with a 2/3 majority. In this case, I don't think the DMCA had the necessary level of Congressional support needed to override a veto. The highly technical nature of they bill also would have made it difficult to gin up a huge public outcry against the veto.
Clinton should have vetoed the DMCA.