Fair Use Bill Introduced To Change DMCA

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."

Re:Nice...

[kennygraham]

Not that it will pass, but it would be pleasant not to be a criminal for burning the DVDs I own for viewing on my PSP...

DN

Incase the summary was too long to read, that still would be illegal.

Vote with our wallets?

[idlemind]

Stop buying their crap. Find some other way to get entertainment.

FYI: It's not the same bill as previous years

[ntk]

The DMCA reform bill Boucher has proposed in previous years is the The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA). FAIR USE is a different bill, with a different target for reform: removing statutory damages [wikipedia.org], encoding some temporary DMCA exemptions into permanent statute, and ensuring that dual-use technologies (that have non-infringing uses as well as being used for infringement) are legal.

DVD backups

[crankyspice]

The DMCA didn't make it illegal to "back up" DVDs. That has always been true of audiovisual works; the reproduction right (17 USC 106) is exclusively reserved to the copyright holder, there's no AHRA-like carveout for movies / TV shows / other A/V works, and the "backup" provisions of 17 USC 117 apply only to computer software -- MPEG2-encoded A/V content is still A/V content, not computer software. The DMCA might have made it (theoretically) harder to reproduce DVDs, what with the anti-circumvention provisions, but no 'right' or legal ability to make a backup copy of an A/V work existed before the DMCA.

Re:Nice...

[RobertLTux]

DVD > Vobs >raw mp4 >> MSProDuo stick

Re:"The chances may be better in this Congress"

[Keebler71]

If the bill didn't pass the senate 99-0 [senate.gov] and pass the house by a voice vote (most likely near-unanimous)... then you might have a point.

Re:Pass the bill

[quanticle]

>>Presidents can't veto every bill that comes across their desk you know.

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.

Re:Right...

[Anonymous Coward]

| Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2281 by Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC)...

Actually, it was introduced jointly by Coble, Barney Frank (D-MA), John Conyers (D-MI), and Henry Hyde(R-IL), and signed into law by Bill Clinton on Oct. 28, 1998 as Public Law 105-304.

We can thank both parties for this one.

Re:Nice...

[Dun Malg]

I understand it isn't 'in the constitution'

No worry-- it doesn't matter because it doesn't HAVE to be there. Anytime anyone throws the bullshit "isn't in the constitution so it isn't a right" line out, tell them to read the 9th Amendment:

"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.