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."
Nice... (Score:2)
DN
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
DN
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got one solution: become a pirate. Seriously, they can't prosecute 100% of the popula
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.
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.
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: (Score:2)
The congress was also majority Republican (in both houses).
Not that the Democrats did or would have done anything to stop it.
Re:Right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hold on! (Score:2)
Don't give these people ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The end of the prohibition of alcohol really was a one off case of common sense on the part of law makers.
It may never happen again.
Re: (Score:2)
They've done a better job of stigmatizing those drugs than they did with alcohol and pushing the users underground, and organized crime isn't quite so prevelent. Though to get at the real reason, I'll have to steal from Bill Hicks by saying: Ever notice how the drugs that are legal, like alcohol and cigarettes, are the ones that do absolutely nothing for you, while the ones that can expand your mind like LSD are banned? It's alm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And now the government is larger. How does their total failure to make a dent in today's illegal drug trade jibe with your statement?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not enough cops, soldiers, courts, or prisons... (Score:2)
There are not enough police, there are not enough soldiers, not enough courts, not enough prisons in the United States--or in any country in the world for that matter--to enforce a law that the public doesn't agree with. The art of governing is largely the art of convincing the governed that they are better off following the laws than not, especially if it is a law that touches almost everyone as these changes to copyright do. Thus far, these stalwarts have only succeeded in convincing the public only in
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
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no way to offer color to a colorblind man, nor there is any way for us to give the man of imperfect brain the canny skill to distinguish a lie from a truth.("Gulf", 1949)
"you are willing to assert your own religious convictions and to use them as a touchstone to judge my conduct. So I repeat: who told you? What hill were you standing on when the lightning came down from heaven and illuminated you? Which archangel carried the message? ... I believe that a
Why not play dirty? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than Nothing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Non-partisan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-partisan (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
"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.
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, anyone can draft a bill, but only a Congressperson can introduce a bill into their legislative body.
>>Why are you talking about Clinton?<<
He could have vetoed the DMCA. The Republicans did not have the two-thirds majorities they needed to overrride. And, given the highly technical nature of the DMCA, I don't think there would have been any general public outcr
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? The DMCA enjoyed so little dissention [wikipedia.org] in the house that it passed with a voice vote and a unanimous vote in the senate. Talk about a veto-proof majority.
The OP was right. The DMCA was a bi-partisan screwing of the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. President Clinton, in this case. A Democrat.
With a Republican congress that, a few years before shut down the federal government to piss off Clinton, and also had enough votes to ram through a veto override while doing its best to impeach him on anything they could find. damn right he signed it.
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)
That would be 2/3. And 99-0 is just a bit over two-thirds, wouldn't you say? Not many presidents are going to veto a bill if they know their veto is going to be overturned; it weakens them.
But the grandparent didn't say anything about a veto. He commented on the question, "can you understand why people might hope a different party would tend to draft different bills?" When a bill passes 99-0 in the Senate, it has overwhel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
References for DMCA and Bono Act voice votes (Score:2)
I had no idea the issue was so slanted towards assent back then. Since this is the internet and all can you point to a source?
Look in the references of Bono Act in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and DMCA in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. Where you see "voice vote", read "81% to 100% assent", as 20% of either house can force a roll-call vote.
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you! That's an excellent explanation - certainly one I'll "fair use" as well.
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...
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
Re: (Score:2)
In some cases they migyht even toss in a cypher machine too.
The other way in which the whole idea just falls apart is that you have to output some kind of plaintext.
the MAFIAA got the DMCA passed which mak
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)
Re:So my free software dvd player is still illegal (Score:2)
Are you doing so now?
The problem is, I bet you can't come up with a single instance of someone who was convicted or even charged with copyright in
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you don't mean right now, fucking of course I am. It's a ludicrous law, and I will not respect it. I bought the fucking DVD, I'm going to watch it and not feel guilty. I also occasionally travel in my motor vehicle above the posted speed limit, should I feel the safety considerations allow for it, and that's pretty well established in case law as illegal I would say. Just call me a rebel.
The problem is, I bet you can't come up with a single instance of someone who was convi
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you misunderstood my question. It wasn't whether or not you were watching DVDs on Linux, but whether you were breaking the law by doing so.
So there is a contradiction, an
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I thought you were asking something that the post you replied to hadn't already stated plainly.
So there is a contradiction, and it comes down to which part overrides the other. Since the part about fair use explicitly references the rest of the DMCA, I'd say it's pretty obvious that part overrides the other parts: "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe "copyright violation" is defined in the law, so it is merely a colloquial term. I think a reasonable definition for "copyright violation" would be "a violation of copyright law", and you agree with me that the DMCA is part of copyright law, right?
Breaking an access control mechanism is a
Government won't allow DRM circumvention (Score:2)
Vote with our wallets? (Score:2, Informative)
Go outside and play? (Score:2)
So it comes down to: Either stop watching movies or TV altogether, or pirate them, or beg our government to smack them around and maybe even try to put some cracks in that oligopoly so we get some real competition.
Because the sad truth is, there is no competition. It's p
The Correct Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
"Section 1201 of Title 17 of the United States Code, in its entirety, is hereby repealed."
Schwab
Re: (Score:2)
"Chapter 12 of Title 17 of the United States Code, in its entirety, is hereby repealed."
"Section 512 of Title 17 of the United States Code, in its entirety, is hereby repealed."
But this bill doesn't do anything like that, and isn't intended to pass. It's just an attempt to make it look like there's some sort of balance in Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is only one form of legislative act that will correct the problems with the DMCA. It would read roughly as follows:
"Section 1201 of Title 17 of the United States Code, in its entirety, is hereby repealed."
No, the only near surefire way would be a grassroots Constitutional amendment. Something along the lines of "Congress shall pass no law restricting the free sharing of information among the people" should do it. The "copyright" clause would still stand to prevent commercial exploitation of writers an
Re: (Score:2)
Why would there still be anything "commercial" once we can all share?
Why wouldn't there be? People pay for many things that they could have or do for free if they find it convenient or valuable to do so.
Goddamn acronyms! (Score:4, Funny)
Somebody please shoot me.
Re:Goddamn acronyms! (Score:4, Funny)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
DVD backups (Score:4, Informative)
Re:DVD backups (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
he DMCA on its face does not affect fair use -- see 17 USC 1201(c).
Um, this is full of crap. The DMCA on its face makes it illegal to circumvent protections, and doesn't provide any exemptions for fair use.
Did you even *read* 17 USC 1201(c)? http://www.google.com/search?q=17+USC+1201(c) [google.com] and the first link, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u sc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html [cornell.edu]: "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement,
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed it could. Blu-Ray players must include a JVM, and Blu-Ray disks may include Java code. Normal DVDs can and have been used for games, including Hentai/dating games. I imagine it's also accidentally Turing-complete.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-Eric
I hope they care (Score:2)
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.
Pirate Party US (Score:2)
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
another incorrect use of "content" (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact what's owned, bought, and protected (or not) here is expression, not content.
If you learn that the Earth is round from watching that digital video, you're free to share that fact with anyone you like. The copyright holders can't do a thing about it.
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.
Cause it's already there (Score:2)
Section 107 of Title 17 already does that: "the fair use of a copyrighted work...is not an infringement of copyright". Even the DMCA itself says that "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
Why would chances be better? (Score:2)
Comparison to Ideal (Score:2)
How does this bill compare to what I believe are a reasonable set of rights like this [digitalconsumer.org]?
Inasmuch as
I expect money (which is needed to retain power in the periodic incumbent fest elections) will again streamroll this
Re:Pass the bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that the Democrats are *wholly* to blame. I'm just saying that they're not *free* from blame.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the Democrat Mary Bono will run for President, and she'll be in a position to pass a much more sweeping bill, like her idea to make copyright last for "forever minus a day".
C'mon, who voted for the DMCA? Who signed the DMCA? Who voted for/signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act? Who voted for/signed the No Electronic Theft Act?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it's what you get after all the religious people leave...