backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by juggalo0707.. on Mar 10 at 11:15 PM

Excessive restrictions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act may be a thing of the past if U.S. Representative Rick Boucher has his way

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is making its stance very clear on digital copying: Allowing users to make copies would "legalize hacking," it says. However, a new bill in the U.S. Congress aims to allow consumers to copy and safely play digital material that they legally own, and to protect user rights for consumers of copyright material. The bill also aims to protect fair use in hardware devices, which The RIAA is strongly against as of this moment.

Under the Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship (FAIR USE) Act, users will be allowed to copy material they own, but will also be granted exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. According to the FAIR USE Act, consumers will be allowed to make limited copies of copyrighted material for personal purposes as well as for reviews, news reporting and education. Additionally, manufacturers and service providers will not be held accountable for what customers do with their devices and services.

"The fair use doctrine is threatened today as never before," said U.S. Representative Rick Boucher. "Historically, the nation's copyright laws have reflected a carefully calibrated balanced between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of the users of copyrighted material. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the public's right to fair use," Boucher added.

A snippet from the FAIR USE doctrine reads (PDF):
The court shall remit statutory damages for secondary infringement, except in a case in which the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that the act or acts constituting such secondary infringement were done under circumstances in which no reasonable person could have believed such conduct to be lawful.
The RIAA has already shown its disdain for the proposed bill.  "The difference between hacking done for non-infringing purposes and hacking done to steal is impossible to determine and enforce," said the RIAA in a statement.

Late last year, Congress previously ruled that users are no longer allowed to rip DVD movies to their iPods, even if they own the movies legally. What the RIAA emphasizes is that some manufacturers may be creating devices that are intentionally easy to hack, circumventing the onboard protection measures, so that the "feature" may be attractive to end users.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which has stood against the RIAA in many cases, the FAIR USE Act would help consumers who are being sued for wrong doing when they have not committed any crime. "The bill would loosen the grip of the DMCA, which restricts circumvention of digital rights management (DRM) restrictions even for lawful uses," said the EFF in a statement.

Since its implementation several years ago, the DMCA has been viewed by many as being too restrictive, both on consumers and on manufacturers. Many compare their current collection of DVD movies and music CDs to their old video and audio cassettes. Copying and making backups were normal everyday practices that millions did. The RIAA's stance is that digital copying has significantly impacted music sales in a negative way. Research proved that the RIAA was making unfounded claims -- while sales of actual physical CDs dropped, overall sales of music has risen tremendously.

Boucher is also an advocate of Net Neutrality and U.S. patent reform.


Comments     Threshold


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

So let me get this straight
By jimmy43 on 3/7/2007 6:33:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The RIAA has already shown its disdain for the proposed bill. "The difference between hacking done for non-infringing purposes and hacking done to steal is impossible to determine and enforce,"


Therefore, lets assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent. I always though the law stated the exact opposite but maybe im confused?




RE: So let me get this straight
By alifbaa on 3/8/2007 9:12:17 AM , Rating: 2
That was exactly what I was going to say.


RE: So let me get this straight
By Serenade on 3/8/2007 10:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
It's an assumption that benefits their profit margin; law is secondary priority.


RE: So let me get this straight
By walk2k on 3/8/2007 5:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
The Golden Rule: The one with the most gold makes the rules.


By Spivonious on 3/8/2007 10:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
OT but, in the UK it is guilty until proven innocent.


RE: So let me get this straight
By iNGEN on 3/8/2007 11:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
At the risk of making it sound like I support the RIAA, actually yes, you are confused. Although misinformed would be a better term.

The phrase "Citizens are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law" has with rare exception always been interpreted to mean "Citizens are presumed innocent in a court of law unless proven guilty". The statement refers to treatment of those accused of criminal offenses by agents of government. It has not been enforceable upon private parties. It also doesn't pertain to civil wrongdoing.

There are exceptions, but that's a good simplification.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki