Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rep. Boucher Outlines 'Fair Use' Fight

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the going-into-battle dept.

News 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."

cancel ×

327 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

efff peeee (-1)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845237)

FP for clit, you motherfucking honkeys

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845242)

FP

Hooray for Virginia Democrats (2, Funny)

RumGunner (457733) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845243)

I guess that the RIAA contributions to campaigns to Democrats haven't been high enough lately.

.

Re:Hooray for Virginia Democrats (1)

eyegor (148503) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845306)

Even though he's a (cough,cough) democrat, he's been doing a pretty good job keeping informed technically and sticking up for us. Of course, the gentleman from South Carolina negates any good will toward the Democrats I might be harboring (not that the republicans are any great shakes either).

Come to the dark side, Rick!!!

Re:Hooray for Virginia Democrats (1)

SocialWorm (316263) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845350)

Come to the dark side, Rick!!!
I don't think he'll be running as a Green canidate anytime soon. :)

I wonder if the proposed legislation (-1)

RTFA Man (578488) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845249)

will contain any provisions for making archival, backup copies of music.

yahoo (5, Funny)

Patrick13 (223909) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845253)

send that man a CD Burner!!!

Better still (5, Insightful)

Fast Ben (241758) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845400)

Send that man some campaign contributions!

Re:yahoo (3, Insightful)

uncoveror (570620) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845410)

It is great that fair use, the public domain, and consumers have a friend in Congress. Rick Boucher is a great public servant who deserves our support. It's a shame that we need a new law to secure what should be protected already by the First Amendment, though. An idea, once expressed, belongs to the public domain, and is only loaned to copyright holders to promote creativity and innovation. Fair use is a natural right. It is part of free speech.

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]

nice. (2)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845256)

He mentioned this in his last interview. It's amazing to me he's actually going through with it.

Re:nice. (2)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845264)

Sometimes, people we vote for actually do things that we would like them to do... sometimes.

Re:nice. (1)

reduced (589510) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845512)

"get down with the Pee Pants" -Aquateen, MeatWad No, see, he needs candy now. when you need something its a responsibility.

Like this will even come close to passing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845258)

I would really like to believe it has a chance but knowing how our government tends to work this bill won;t even get voted on.

Simple reaction to this news (0)

azadism (578262) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845263)

This guy is a hero!

Re:Simple reaction to this news (2)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845434)

This guy's had a pretty good history of being a pro-tech advocate. He's kind of the Slashdot "dream representative", and has had a bunch of stories about him on here before.

A Bill? (1)

ZaneMcAuley (266747) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845266)

"introducing a bill that would essentially restrict the record industry from selling copy-protected CDs."

They can stack them as high as they want. I wont be buying any of them :D

Do we need a bill to help me decide what to purchase?

Re:A Bill? (5, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845337)

Yes.

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? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845396)

They can stack them as high as they want. I wont be buying any of them :D

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.

Makes you wonder.... (2)

nizo (81281) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845272)

wether he has DSL or cable at home, and how many mp3s he has on his computer? :-) Personally however I would rather they be allowed to release poor quality CDs until people get so sick of them, they stop buying them. Why force them to release a product that people can actually listen to??? (I don't know how many people have complained about not being able to listen to copy protected CDs on various players......)

Re:Makes you wonder.... (3, Insightful)

killmenow (184444) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845334)

So, I take it you believe anyone who thinks we have a right to fair use must be a criminal?

Please...

So. (5, Funny)

FreeLinux (555387) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845273)

The Honorable Mr. Boucher will be branded either a nut case or a heretic by the rest of the house.

The wispering in the halls of congress has already begun. "Didn't he get his check from the RIAA yet???"

Re:So. (3, Insightful)

jweatherley (457715) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845340)

The Honorable Mr. Boucher will be branded either a nut case or a heretic by the rest of the house.

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. (2, Funny)

The Creator (4611) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845384)

The Honorable Mr. Boucher will be branded either a nut case or a heretic by the rest of the house.

I think the word is com^H^H^Hterrorist now.

Contact info for Rick Boucher? (2, Insightful)

kupekhaize (220804) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845274)

Hmm.. anyone know Rick Bouchers district/contact info? I would love to write that man a letter.. and I dont mean a bad one, either.

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? (0, Offtopic)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845303)

No offense, but that was a really stupid question. The answer can be found at: http://www.google.com/search?q=rick+boucher and it takes five seconds to come up with that search yourself.

Re:Contact info for Rick Boucher? (-1)

RTFA Man (578488) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845361)

Umm, google??

If you can't figure out how to find this guy's contact info in less than 3 mouse clicks and under 10 seconds, I'm not sure we need nor want you to talk to him.

America's solution. (2, Insightful)

Steveftoth (78419) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845278)

I guess that the only solution that americans believe in anymore is to legislate the crap out of everything. Making sure that no independent thought occurs anywhere.
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.

And in other news today... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845331)

Citizens of the USA have been plagued for years as to whether wiping their asses should be done from front to back, or back to front. In order to quell this delima, congress enacted the HTWYA (how to wipe your ass) bill, which stipulates that all ass wiping will be done from front to back. They have also demanded that all toilet paper manufactures add safeguards to their toilet paper to ensure there is to be no back to front wiping.

Not just legislation (1)

SpelledBackwards (587772) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845398)

We also sue the pants off of anyone who doesn't do exactly what we want, whether or not what actually happened was agreed to beforehand. God bless America!

Re:America's solution. (2, Insightful)

Temsi (452609) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845423)

Well, the problem is a little deeper than that. The problem is mainly unregulated corporations running rampant. If they can get away with something legally, they will, no matter how unethical it is.
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.

Schweet (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845279)

no really whats the post say
schweet.

Data CDs (3, Interesting)

papasui (567265) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845280)

While the bill indicates that this will effect the music industry is there any clause that allows other companies in the computer industry to continue their copy-protection?

Re:Data CDs (1)

silicon_synapse (145470) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845488)

While the bill indicates that this will effect the music industry...

Actually the music industry was created many years ago. It is now largly represented in the USA and abroad by the RIAA.

Boucher for President (3, Funny)

MxTxL (307166) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845283)

Sure, i don't know how he feels on a variety of other issues, but his stand on tech issues makes him president material in my book.

Re:Boucher for President (0)

azadism (578262) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845295)

I have to agree with you. Someone who is actually representing the people for a change and not the corporations.

Wow (1)

ktulu1115 (567549) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845285)

It's not too often that you see a congressman (or any other poltician) going against organizations like the RIAA.

Gene Kan - Creator of Gnutella - Dead (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845286)

Cremated Friday.

penis (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845288)

penis

unfair restriction (5, Insightful)

niloroth (462586) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845289)

I fail to see how it is a good idea to ban the sales of copy protected CDs. The record comapnies are more than free to sell them as such, and I would hate to see the even more legislation from the government telling companies what they can and can't do, especialy when it is in a situation where no harm can come to the users of the products. The Libertarian in me cringes at this idea.

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 (2)

dalassa (204012) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845315)

As long as the labels are clear and prominent. None of this "Sony Music Trax" in clear plastic small print on the back of the box.

Re:unfair restriction (2)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845356)

Pre DMCA world: certainly. they can sell them, and we can try to rip them under fair use laws

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 (1)

dmarx (528279) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845371)

I fail to see how it is a good idea to ban the sales of copy protected CDs. The record comapnies are more than free to sell them as such, and I would hate to see the even more legislation from the government telling companies what they can and can't do, especialy when it is in a situation where no harm can come to the users of the products.

No harm? How about the loss of fair use rights? How about the CDs getting stuck in some computers?
And as for the government telling companies what they can and can't do...how is that different from companies telling consumers what they can and can't do with products they buy? At least the government is theoreticaly under public supervision.

Re:unfair restriction (1)

hawkbug (94280) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845392)

So you're saying that it's ok for the record industry to sell CDs that freeze up Macs and don't play in computers? That's insane. I guess you're right though - if they want to commit financial suicide by putting out defective crap, nobody will buy it. That's the way the free market should work - yet the free market should also say that if you want to develop a computer program that did let you play it, you should be able to. However, the later is already illegal. So, if somebody can't make a compatible program/hack, then they shouldn't be allowed to sell something defective if we can't fix it on our own. This congressman has my full support, and hopefully a lot of other people's.

Rights (5, Insightful)

KFury (19522) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845405)

My concern is with the kind of transaction record companies are making with consumers. When you buy a CD, are you buying the physical product, or are you buying a license to listen to the music?

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:unfair restriction (5, Insightful)

Titusdot Groan (468949) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845421)

Copyright protection is a privledge extended to writers and muscians in order to incite them to create content. It is not a right.

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 (2, Insightful)

silverhalide (584408) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845466)

I see this fight as somewhat analogous to the Macrovision (The copy proection technology that makes copies of tapes fade in and out and make them fairly unwatchable) on VHS some years back. While I'm not familiar with the legal isses surrounding it, I do see the end result -- many video tapes are sold with Macrovision copy protection, and it's not marked anywhere. I can see this being used as a precident in terms of evaluating copy protection on CDs. Is it really worth the fight to prevent copy protected CDs from entering the marketplace? We all know they are fairly easily defeated, and sales of such CDs will suffer once word gets out about their inferior quality, so why bother?

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.

Re:unfair restriction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845489)

True, its another layer upon later of legislative crud.

First, they pay for a law to allow them to price-fix and bypass previously easily realized fair-use rights, and get away with it (DMCA). Now, in realizing the inital mistake, what is the ol US of A's solution? Another layer, to bypass certain provisions of the DMCA.

LOL!

Hardly (5, Insightful)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845514)

I fail to see how it is a good idea to ban the sales of copy protected CDs. The record comapnies are more than free to sell them as such, and I would hate to see the even more legislation from the government telling companies what they can and can't do, especialy when it is in a situation where no harm can come to the users of the products.

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.

I love him (2, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845297)

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 (1)

Zwack (27039) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845355)

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.

So. Start a small company. It won't cost much for a business licence. Become the owner of an llc... and then the llc can donate money to the campaign.

Z.

I can't vote here either, but I still have to pay taxes and the like.

Re:I love him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845433)

Boucher is a Democrat though. Democrats are in the pocket of Hollywood and the media monopolies so they must've forgotten to cut him a check recently or something. Usually all democrats are darlings of the entertainment industry and fight the evil Republicans who think everyone has the right to fair use and states rights. Fuck Hollywood. Fuck Democrats.

I'll give the RIAA credit for one thing... (3, Interesting)

jerkychew (80913) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845301)

I recently renewed my drivers license, and was asked if I wanted to register to vote. My first instinct was to decline, because I don't feel like I'm informed enough to make a good enough decision regarding my elected officials.

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.

Re:I'll give the RIAA credit for one thing... (0)

RTFA Man (578488) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845386)

My first instinct was to decline, because I don't feel like I'm informed enough to make a good enough decision regarding my elected officials.

What let that stop you? It doesn't stop anyone else. Voting is noise.

Re:I'll give the RIAA credit for one thing... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845501)

Geez, surely anyone who's informed enough to actually realize that they're not informed enough to make an informed decision at the polling booth is surely exactly the person you DO want to vote?

jerkychew for President!

A little out there... (2)

sheepab (461960) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845309)

But...
I love you Sen. Boucher.

Information on the Congressman? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845314)

Could someone be nice enough and fill me in on which state this congressman is from, and if he is a republican or democrat. This type of information should always be reported when a congressman name is reported, otherwise it shows that the news reporter is biased towards a particular party.

I am willing to bet this congressman is a republican, and the reason it was not mentioned was because the reported is a democrat.

Re:Information on the Congressman? (2)

Computer! (412422) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845436)

D-Virginia.

Hopefully, you browse at -1 like I do.

Re:Information on the Congressman? (1)

misterklaw (26739) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845444)

I don't know about the reporter, but the senator is definitely a democrat. He represents southwestern VA, which is one of the most economically underdeveloped regions of the state.

Why does govt set the royalties? (2, Offtopic)

Ryu2 (89645) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845316)

It seems that webcasting royalities are set by the US copyright office. Sorry if it's been discussed before, but isn't it the function of a free market to set the royalty rates themselves (owners v. users of the copyright)?

Re:Why does govt set the royalties? (1)

ZeLonewolf (197271) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845401)

It seems that webcasting royalities are set by the US copyright office. Sorry if it's been discussed before, but isn't it the function of a free market to set the royalty rates themselves (owners v. users of the copyright)?

...becuase if owners set the rates, they could effectively eliminate fair use. e.g., "I set the royalty rates of my music at a million jillion dollars." This way, even the (somewhat) little guy gets the reasonable ability for fair use on copyrighted works. Also, it eliminates potential monopoly issues (e.g. policies like "we'll allow only companies that pay RIAA dues to obtain fair-use rights.")

Re:Why does govt set the royalties? (2)

halftrack (454203) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845406)

Well, not when the mighty music industry decides it would be better for them that the world greatest democracy set them. They would then had listened to the voice of the people. The government is controlled by the people.

Re:Why does govt set the royalties? (3, Informative)

Silverhammer (13644) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845440)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845441)

In monoplies we trust, under 1 corporation we pray.

Content Monopolies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845454)

Because the companies involved are granted monopolies on the content that they are controlling. There is not per-song free market. If you want the latest song by NSync you can't shop around for a clone band that sells it cheaper. There is only one seller for any particular recording.

Michael

Nonsense. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845321)

Just repeal the DMCA.

Good step, but ultimately... (4, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845324)

I think it is good to see SOME sort of recognition of fair use. However this stops short of really saying fair use is a 'right', it is more along the lines of not kicking the ass of people just trying to do fair use stuff. What *I* want to see is some sort of penalty imposed on companies who take measures to restrict fair use in dominant standards, such as DVDs. All these so-called copy protection schemes make the right to exercise fair use a moot point, if successful one cannot exercise these rights. There are already laws in place to cover illegal copying. Of course, currently it isn't econmincally feasible to use that path as they should, so there is an issue... Chasing down the mechanisms that *could* be used for copying is wrong, as is trying to prevent the ability to copy altogether...

Re:Good step, but ultimately... (3, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845360)

Fair use isn't a "right." It's a doctrine which restricts a restriction on rights: that provided by copyright. IANAL, but who cares.

Re:Good step, but ultimately... (3, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845455)

That's a very good point. Fair use is just part of the bargain that is copyright law, which also isn't a right. It's a deal between content authors (or the megacorps that own them) and the people. But it's a deal that is ultimately supposed to benefit the people, and only them. The benefit to the authors is only in the context that making money off content in theory causes more content to be produced, which is good for the people.

Re:Good step, but ultimately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845519)

Dude, aren't you that retard from that 80s show?

Good *enough* step (1)

nsayer (86181) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845477)

There is no need to force content providers to allow copying to be easy. It is sufficient to make (or keep, depending on your point of view) it legal to reverse-engineer such schemes for the purposes of exercising fair use rights. This is the part the DMCA got wrong - it does not make a distinction between reverse engineering CSS for the purpose of ripping a copy, DIVXing it and putting it up for P2P and reverse engineering CSS for the purpose of using XINE to play DVDs.

Another Boucher article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845327)

Here's another article [idg.net] that mentions him.

So get off your @SS (5, Insightful)

rutledjw (447990) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845338)

and write your Reps and Senators! Remember that a massive letter writing campaign kept Hollings' bill from getting out of committee. If we get going on the same response with this bill, all the better. We may help provide a backbone to our "elected officials" to stand up to the big corporate dollars.

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...

Man..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845339)

I am so proud to be from this man's district. It's the only time I ever voted and didn't feel like I was getting the lesser of two evils....The surprising thing is that Boucher is from one of the less technologically inclined corners of Virginia (i.e. not NOVA and not near Jefferson Labs...). And they called us hicks.

Re:Man..... (2, Informative)

Takeel (155086) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845435)

The surprising thing is that Boucher is from one of the less technologically inclined corners of Virginia (i.e. not NOVA and not near Jefferson Labs...).

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.

I wonder.. (2)

olman (127310) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845345)

If this guy's some kind of changelin'

Unbelievable (1)

dmarx (528279) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845349)

A Congressman who's not up for sale...
Great! If you live in his district, vote for him! And wherever you live, be sure to write your Congressmen in support of his proposals.

Copy protected CDs only? (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845352)

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. This is why we can't restrict the right to free speech of unpopular opinions without endangering our own free speech.

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? (2)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845422)

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.

Love is more important (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845353)

Look up http://singlegoal.com and http://eternalambition.com . Then
look at the only purpose anybody can have--as follows.

MEANING

The meaning of all conscious beings is to pursue one of two
goals--love or power.

All subgoals except L2 are unachievable.

A conscious being...

-Common subgoals:

C1. controls reality.

C2. knows reality.

C3. has mastery of potential reality.

C4. has mastery of the abstract plane.

-Love subgoals:

L1. and one other are the only conscious beings to exist for all time
and space.

L2. is bound by a seed of love to the other conscious being.

-Power subgoals:

P1. is the only conscious being to exist for all time and space.

Call Them Something Else! (2, Insightful)

saddino (183491) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845357)

A better solution is to restrict the RIAA from using the term "CD" for these so-called "copy protected" discs that break from the red book specification. Pass laws to force the industry to call them "PDs -- protected discs" and let the market forces decide. Maybe Joe Consumer is willing to forego fair use for the right price point?

Damn owned politians! (3, Interesting)

The Creator (4611) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845358)

"I'm just a little perplexed to understand the rationale for this. There
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.
...It's like you don't even know what to say man... ...when they like... ...get it.

Re:Damn owned politians! (1)

Psx29 (538840) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845485)

Aha! so his legislating against copy protection to PROTECT the industry. Dammit when are we gonna get some politians who are on our side?

Well the truth is, large corporations do basically run everything, therefore the legislation has a much higher chance of success if he can convince people it is good for the corporations (When in fact, it is probably better for the people).

More Legal Issues? (4, Informative)

Caradoc (15903) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845374)

I don't think any new laws are going to fix any of the problems. Look at what's going on with Microsoft lately... Slashdot published a story about the meeting scheduled between the Phoenix Linux Users Group and the Maricopa County CIO to talk about the purchasing guidelines and potential for Open Source, but it looks like Maricopa County won't be "disbarring" Microsoft as a supplier, despite the clear legality of doing so after Microsoft's lost legal battles on the "monopoly" front.

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.

Question (1)

wyseguy (513173) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845377)

I wonder how far this proposed legislation will go to protect the technology used to make "Fair Use" rights a reality? It seems like the DMCA and the CBDTPA both are aimed not at the "Fair Use" rights themselves but aimed at outlawing the technology that allows us the ability to exercise those rights. The RIAA and the MPAA have been allowed to have their cake and eat it to by saying that they support "Fair Use" but pushing for legislation that makes the vehicle for exercising those rights illegal.

A US Congressman who actually still has his balls! (1)

CarrionBird (589738) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845393)

Of course the paid-off RIAA congressmen will make short work of this, but I admire the atempt nonetheless.

Planetary assets (1)

mapinguari (110030) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845404)

From the end of the article:
This publication's parent company, INT Media Group, recently purchased the remaining assets of Jupiter, including its research and events business. However, this event was not included in the purchase.
Cool. What other planets are for sale?

What event wasn't included in the purchase?

Is it true? (1)

MongooseCN (139203) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845415)

A politician that works for morals and ethics rather than dollars? Could it really be?

Just when I thougtht... (1)

grantls (584552) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845418)

Just when I thought that everyone in Congress slept through law school, I see that someone there has heard of the term "Fair use." Too bad they'll eventually vote this bill down.

You know what else should be banned... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845430)

Those yellow volkswagon beetles. They shouldn't be allowed to sell those cause they piss me off. And those Austin Mini's...I don't like those either, so let's pass laws to ban the sale of them. And Fruit Loops, they always rake the crap out of the roof of my mouth, let's ban those. And gas lawnmowers, they're noisy and they pollute the environment. And those stupid birds that make noise really early in the morning. And chartreuse paint, I always hated that stuff. And televisions that are smaller than 23", make it illegal to sell those stupid things. And stereos that are too loud, ban those. We need to make it so that anything that pisses a bunch of people off should be made illegal. Then we can finally live in a country where we're protected from everything not nice.

The best part is that you stupid wankers talk about how finally there's a guy in power who's not on the take...yet he proposes some stupid bill that isn't going to pass, but it's exactly what you slashdot sheep like to hear, and you stupid shits instantly want to suck the guys dick. grow up you dumb fucks. You want the government telling you what you can and can't sell? You wouldn't like it if the government said you couldn't sell products where the sourcecode is readily available now would you? Not that any of you are the ones actually participating in the open source movement, but you sure love talking about it...My rights online eh? I hope you all are happy celebrating the fact that the RIAA is having some of it's rights taken away...
JUST DON'T BUY THE FUCKING CD'S...STOP MAKING STUPID LAWS...

About "Fair Use" (4, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845431)



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.

Furst pjst (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845438)


Kudos, but is this necessary... (3, Insightful)

sterno (16320) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845442)

In the article, I found the following paragraph rather interesting:

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 (3, Informative)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845461)

Does anyone know where I can learn how much money my elected representatives have received from the RIAA, MPAA, and other pro-DMCA companies? I'd like to write letters to my Congressmen asking them to support Boucher's bill, but I want to include this financial information to let them know that I know.

Re:RIAA/MPAA donations (3, Informative)

mcfiddish (35360) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845513)

http://www.opensecrets.org/

Congressman Boucher's statement on Fair Use (2, Informative)

Phoenix-kun (458418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845467)

We need to support this man!

You can find his statement on Fair Use here [house.gov]

And his official web site can be found here [house.gov]

Hope... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845473)

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.

[...]

Allow back up copies of music on a hard drive, much the way software copies are backed up in case a computer hard-drive has to be rebuilt. Under existing law, users can't back up music they download with, say, RealJukebox software, although they can back up the software itself.

I hope this means scrapping that awful idea to make hardware and operating systems a requirement, which inhibit reading or copying music/video. I just got an MP3 player in the p/u this weekend and want to be able to rip and burn from my considerable investment in CD's and listen to them as I travel. I'm concerned about having to buy a drive before I'm ready for one, just in ensure I'll be able to do so later.

Anyone actually check this congressman out? (3, Informative)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845478)

Rick Boucher [house.gov] - Virginia-9th, Democrat

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 (5, Insightful)

g4dget (579145) | more than 12 years ago | (#3845479)

Copyright was created to encourage the dissemination of creative works, works that would fall into the public domain after some period.

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.

write your representative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3845517)

We all saw what writing your representative can do with that sssca bill (can't remeber it's second name) getting rejected. Lets see if our support can work in the opposite direction.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>