Fair Use Bill Introduced To Change DMCA 152
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."
Worse than Nothing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Non-partisan (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
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: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).
Re:"The chances may be better in this Congress" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pass the bill (Score:5, Insightful)
The Correct Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
"Section 1201 of Title 17 of the United States Code, in its entirety, is hereby repealed."
Schwab
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.
Re:Non-partisan (Score:4, Insightful)
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
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.
Re:Why is encryption even covered by the DMCA? (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 loophole, the MAFIAA got the DMCA passed which makes it illegal instead of impossible. The MAFIAA are a bunch of lawyers, to them the laws of man are just as good, if not more useful than the laws of math and physics.
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.
Incidentally, do you think the guy that posted the article is aware that it was a Democratic-Party government that proposed the DMCA, Democratic-Party congressmen who gleefully passed it, and a Democratic-Party president who signed it into law? The fact that the Republicans adored it too (as if they could dislike anything that strips the people of freedoms) doesn't mean that the Ass party is going to suddenly develop some newfound love of consumer-rights.
If the government makes itself redundant and stupid, the people will ignore its laws and do whatever they want. That's just the way it's always been. And I say this as someone who lives in a city with about a dozen Pot-smoking lounges that operate completely openly because even the cops have stopped giving a shit about laws that don't matter.
Re:Illegal but unenforceable (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 harm of my not being able to legally watch DVDs on my Ubuntu box. The violation of the law was more blatant -- Speakeasys were prolific, and they were social, so you were basically surrounded by fellow law breakers. Copyright violation is more private, more furtive.
One difference I'm sure of is that with music, we aren't going outside the normal sources to get what we want. We're getting it illegally, but what we are consuming is still the mainstream media. During prohibition people just went to illegal sources for booze, so the huge alcohol-related economy was happening entirely outside of traditional (taxable) avenues. Here, while piracy may mean somewhat fewer sales for the studios (and arguably it means the opposite), the fact is that the majority of people still get their music by giving money to RIAA studios. If we responded to laws like the DMCA by going to completely separate sources of music, ones that didn't feel a need to treat us like criminals, then we would definitely have an effect. This is happening already, but it is slow and not guaranteed to end with the death of the RIAA. Yet if it does, then we might see a reaction more like that at the end of prohibition, with the Big Money seeing their Money going someplace else and not liking it.
Basically what I'm suggesting is that the DMCA will be repealed when, practically speaking, it is completely irrelevent.
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:Illegal but unenforceable (Score:1, Insightful)
That's the first step. They fight back.
It looks the opposite to me. We're winning. Maybe I'm just older, and can see more of it that you. These things take time. Don't stop. Don't buy from any companies affiliated with the **IA. If you feel comfortable breaking the law, continue to do so.
I'm not saying that jailing pirates is similar to racial discrimination, but the history of the civil rights movement is an excellent resource for learning how to change government. Read up on it if you have the time, you'll get a better understanding of the timeline and some of the challenges we might face. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Rights _Movement_(1955-1968) [wikipedia.org]
This is important. We fight for freedom. We fight for America. Don't stop believing.
Re:Right... (Score:4, Insightful)