backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 40 comment(s) - last by lexluthermiest.. on Mar 20 at 4:16 PM


Congressman Boucher seeks to reign in the DMCA's trampling of Fair Use.  (Source: Congressman Boucher's Photo Gallery)
Hybrid bill could put off PRO-IP's industry supporters

The PRO-IP act, a bill introduced in December 2007 that vastly strengthens intellectual property protections, may see Fair Use provisions added if one Congressman gets his way.

Formally called H.R. 4279, the PRO-IP or “Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property” Act of 2007 reprioritizes Department of Justice resources towards copyright enforcement, and among other things, adds copyright infringement to the criteria for involvement of the DoJ’s computer crimes unit. Written in large part by NBC Universal attorney Rick Cotton, the bill enjoys heavy support from Hollywood content producers – and fierce resistance from Fair Use advocates, who consider the bill overreaching and “gluttonous.”

The PRO-IP act is expansive in its scope, even after its contentious “compilation” section – which allows industry members to seek damages per song, instead of per album – was stripped out earlier this month.

The EFF called the PRO-IP act a “one-way ratchet” proposal that “amplifies copyright without protecting innovators or technology users.”

Now, Congressman Rick Boucher says he has a plan to add his own provisions to the PRO-IP Act, which is working Congress as the H.R. 1201 FAIR USE Act of 2007. H.R. 1201 contains a series of provisions designed to restore a more complete vision of Fair Use to the DMCA, which currently forbids circumventing DRM even in cases of fair use. By legalizing the circumvention of DRM for someone who is “engaging in a non-infringing use,” the FAIR USE Act seeks to legally protect actions like skipping past TV commercials or transmitting files through a home network – both increasingly common activities among today’s media consumers.

The FAIR USE Act certainly has its critics: Hollywood viciously opposes the bill due to fears “that any loophole … would open the door to piracy,” and a few have pointed out that perhaps the bill’s exceptions are not expansive enough.

Combining the two bills could create what Ars Technica calls a “PRO-IP/FAIR USE Act Frankenstein's monster,” and if implemented, could see the PRO-IP act alienated from its Hollywood backers.

Boucher, an ardent Fair Use supporter, initially seemed to have shelved his plans after the PRO-IP recently passed a House committee vote without any additions. However, speaking at a Media Institute luncheon, he told his audience that he is still in discussions to advance “some parts or all of 1201 in conjunction with other IP measures … as part of a package.”

However, even Boucher has doubts: “It would be, I think, probably the most difficult bill we could consider this year because of all the controversy and opposition it would attract,” he said. “I'm not even sure what I think of the idea yet. At this point, we're having discussions about a package but I haven't signed off on anything yet.”

“I am trying to preserve fair use,” said Boucher. “With the passage of the DMCA, the possibility of the complete abolition of fair use now exists. It gives companies that power to lock up their content forever and prevent anyone from accessing it in any way that they don't approve. And one thing I've learned in the quarter century I've spent [in Congress] is that power once granted will be used. I have no doubt that within a few years we'll see companies taking steps to effectively cut off all fair use, unless we change the law.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Go Rick!
By MrDiSante on 3/18/2008 8:30:13 PM , Rating: 3
At least there's one man in congress protecting American rights!




RE: Go Rick!
By joex444 on 3/18/2008 8:33:16 PM , Rating: 5
"I have no doubt that within a few years we'll see companies taking steps to effectively cut off all fair use"

Odd, I came to that conclusion a few years ago.


RE: Go Rick!
By BladeVenom on 3/18/2008 10:26:58 PM , Rating: 5
The RIAA must have forgot to bribe him.


RE: Go Rick!
By MachFive on 3/20/2008 12:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
QUICKLY! Get that man a money hat!


Even the Government does it
By TheMan876 on 3/19/2008 12:49:33 AM , Rating: 1
I used to work at a public library. As far as I can tell, the library doesn't use any special means or obtain any special licences to distribute the books, movies, music CD's and games that they do. By allowing multiple people to use these games, aren't they breaking the law in the same way I would be if I let my friends borrow it or have a copy?

If I download an audiobook through the library and then rip the DRM so that I can listen to it on my iPod (my only worthwhile way to listen to an audiobook) have I commited a crime worthy of jailtime?




RE: Even the Government does it
By kyleb2112 on 3/19/2008 2:03:51 AM , Rating: 2
Borrowing or selling the original doesn't get you into trouble. It's the whole "copying" thing. Thus the term "copyright".

Imagine if we could clone cars as easily as mp3s. Toyota would care less if you resold your Corolla, but if you spawned 3000 of them for your buddies, well that's bound to create some friction.


RE: Even the Government does it
By stonemetal on 3/19/2008 12:21:09 PM , Rating: 3
they do. The library only buys books from certain sources and pays more than you would at the book store. Secondly lending isn't making a copy therefore it doesn't have to pass copyright. If you borrow it from the library then rip it to your ipod and keep it then you have committed copyright infringement. I believe you are covered during the duration of the loan, though IANAL.


RE: Even the Government does it
By TheMan876 on 3/20/2008 2:32:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly lending isn't making a copy therefore it doesn't have to pass copyright. If you borrow it from the library then rip it to your ipod and keep it then you have committed copyright infringement.


So what if I borrow a game from the library and install it on my computer, a process that copies the entire game to the hard drive in most cases, has anything illegal occured? What if I buy 1 copy of a game and "lend" it to all my friends, who all install the game on their computers?


By seraphim1982 on 3/19/2008 10:37:04 AM , Rating: 5
This is such a "iffy" kind of topic.
There are numerous points to support both sides of the argument.

I just wanna say...if I buy something, ie. a MOVIE, I am buying the movie, NOT the 10 mins of bull$hit I have to wait before I even get to my root menu. If I wanted to watch commercials or advertisements, I might as well turn on the turn on the TV and look for commercials. By not allowing you to bypass these advertisement, is NOT allowing the end user control of the product.




Cars/Property is different from IP
By azherdev on 3/19/2008 4:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
I see many people compare property and software, but I do not believe you can make 1 to 1 comparison.

If I purchase a car, I can't duplicate it and keep it in two different locations for convenience. I only poses one physical car and sure can do whatever I want to it. When I purchase a copy of Windows or new Top 20 album, I purchased a license to a piece of software and some music to enjoy. But unlike a car, I can also duplicate it in a usable form (install on second pc) or copy to my iPod and home media server.

Some people say that coping a CD to a tape/ipod to listen in a car is ok (I do agree), but that equates to creating a copy of a car and keeping it in a different city at the airport for convenience when you fly in. Sure, you only use one car at a time, but would it be ok to duplicate your car (assuming replication at $1 per copy)?

The only property you own when you buy software or music or dvd is the physical media it came on, not the IP. Microsoft or Sony doesn't care what you do with the physical media (break it, scratch it, write on it, color it), they don't want you creating IP copies. Microsoft cares less about physical copies now because they created a way to limit the usability of their software until they said it's ok (I hate activation).

And in terms of backup copy... can you create a backup copy of your car in case you children destroy the seats or scratch the paint? Or what about that plasma TV you paid $3K for, copy that in case it breaks? Today it is not possible, but would you argue it should be allowed if and when replication allows us to do it? We pay extra insurance to cover the costs of damage to our cars, homes, and other material possesions. So why not create an insurance or physical media that your software and music came on in case it get's scratched or destroyed in a fire? Wouldn't that be a 1 to 1 coparison then?

Once we can replicate physical objects the same way we do for media, you will see how all this will apply to TVs, Cars, etc. Replicating a TV for convenience to put in two rooms will be illegal, even if you use one at a time for personal use.

Personally, I hate all drm stuff and think music and movie industry needs to worry more about good content then making it more difficult and frustrating for customers to enjoy entertainment.




By arkcom on 3/20/2008 1:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
If I could make a copy of my car for $1, I would do it, and would not feel at all bad. You know why? If I can do it for $1 then BMW could do it for 10 cents, just like with software.


Hilarious picture!
By jtemplin on 3/19/2008 12:24:38 AM , Rating: 3
Congressman Boucher bears a striking resemblance to that furry monster. They both need immediate dental care.




Whatever Happened...
By cidman2001 on 3/19/2008 10:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever happened to the good old days where you could use IP in any way you wanted as long as you are not making a profit from it? Isn't it kinda stupid to make it so complicated, with so many grey areas? Why can a library lend popular CDs to thousands of people (who no doubt make copies)and not be in violation of such dumb legal arguments like the "making available" argument used by the MPAA and RIAA? There are simply too many ambiguities in the statutes and their enforcement.




Now isn't that interesting
By eye smite on 3/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Now isn't that interesting
By lexluthermiester on 3/18/2008 9:12:37 PM , Rating: 5
Violating the DMCA in many ways takes the form asserting ones statutory rights to ownership. Simply put, an individuals rights to ownership supersede and override copy/patent right. For instance, If one does to a store and buys a movie on DVD, that person has the right to do with that movie as they see fit, within the realms of personal use. So if that person wishes to make a copy of the movie for use the the children for the purpose of keeping the original in good condition. If the children[or anyone else] happens to scratch that disc, another may be made from the original. Of course this option is only available to those who know how to do it. The uninformed don't have this option, even though it is their right under fair use and property ownership laws. The same applies to software. I for example use my copy of XP on three machines. And even though Microsoft would have us all believe that I'm breaking the law, which is totally false. I own that copy of XP, and I have the RIGHT to use that copy as I see fit, again within the realm of my own personal use. Microsoft may own the copyright[which is nothing more than distribution and profit rights], but I own this copy of Windows. I may be in violation of the EULA, but I could care less. I paid for this software and I shall use it as I please.

The DMCA contradicts the constitution in not less than 38 different ways. I myself refuse to acknowledge the legality of DMCA and will only obey the portions of it that do not stand in contradiction of my statutory rights.

Now watch, I'll be rated down for expressing this point of view, and encouraging the protection personal freedoms and rights.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By lexluthermiester on 3/18/2008 9:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
Please forgive my grammar. I didn't proof read that statement before clicking the "post comment" button.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By eye smite on 3/19/2008 7:17:48 PM , Rating: 1
I made an observation and a bit of a joke, and you gave this dissertation on the quantum flux of mp3 dynamic dispersion of theft and the ideal way things are supposed to be. So I'm curios, does the corn cob up your butt tickle your tonsils yet?


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By lexluthermiester on 3/20/2008 3:49:43 AM , Rating: 1
How colorful. Not particularly witty, but colorful. What a person of quality you must be...


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By eye smite on 3/20/2008 2:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
Like I'm remotely concerned on any possible opinions your limited intellect can come up with on me........that's just laughable. When the Clue Train comes by, be sure and hop on it.


By lexluthermiester on 3/20/2008 4:16:15 PM , Rating: 1
...need I say more?


By lobadobadingdong on 3/18/2008 10:12:13 PM , Rating: 2