Lawmaker Revs Up Fair-Use Crusade 254
peipas writes "Wired News has posted an interview with Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA). In it he defends his stance in support of fair use and against the DMCA and other measures sought by the entertainment industry. The interview also touches on universal broadband and the recent overturning of the broadcast flag."
Lossed vs. Spent (Score:2, Interesting)
A reversal in the Democratic and Republican roles. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A reversal in the Democratic and Republican rol (Score:5, Interesting)
"Conservative" as a political label used to mean (among other things), that "the way things are" is good. That meant that conservatives tended to reject radical changes in policy, spending habits, etc. Combined with some of the only tax cuts EVER put forth during a "time of war" (during previous wars, like WWII, the upper tax bracket was increased to 90%, not dropped), the current set of conservatives in power are hard to describe as traditionally conservative. I've even heard some of these conservatives complain that people who are concerned about the current war aren't making the sacrifices needed during a time of war. Maybe if they hadn't exempted the wealthy from sacrifice, those folks would be complaining too.
Over time, the meaning of conservative has morphed into "morally uptight" and has more to do with a politician's stance on 2-3 social issues than on any sort of fiscal conservation.
Re:Lossed vs. Spent (Score:3, Interesting)
How many people does it take to make a music CD? Twenty? Maybe thirty tops.
Now how many people does it take to make a movie? Let's assume a modest 200. Now how much more does it cost to produce a movie? Well, probably on the order of many tens of millions of dollars.
Sure people will listen to a CD over and over again, but these music companies are out of their minds with their pricing and bad "piracy math".
I think Rep Boucher understands the issues but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well I can see a couple of problems. First the music industry currently sells the entire CD as if each song had value. Unfortunately most albums have a couple of good songs bundled with crap. Twenty songs for fifteen bucks sounds reasonable but fifteen bucks for two songs doesn't. Never mind that eighteen of the songs are unwanted.
Allowing people to pay only for the content that they really wanted would only be possible, from a corporate point of view, if the content industry could be sure that a few legitimately purchased copies would not be given away to the masses thus reducing their profit. This might be possible with the use of DRM. However DRM, if unchecked, could completely destroy fair use. If a corporation can eek out even a little profit by denying consumers their fair use rights they will. It's in the corporate nature to do whatever increases their profit margins.
"Do I have sympathy for them? Not when they're clinging to a relic and when that's getting in the way of making good current business decisions.... They can make a fortune if they do that."
I'm not sure which "good current business decisions" Rep. Boucher is talking about. I would like to think that making their content available at a reasonable price would be wildly profitable for the music industry while giving consumer's value for their dollars. The model is, however, largely untested and counter intuitive. Remember that corporations want profit. The more the better. If they can sell their product while grossly over pricing that product all the better. In a normal market supply, demand and competition keeps prices bearable for the consumers. It is only when the economic environment can be controlled that corporations can get away with grossly inflated pricing. Many times this can occur if a corporation can obtain some kind of monopoly, mostly through the use of copyrights, patents or laws tailored for this purpose.
The business model that I think Rep. Boucher is talking about would threaten the monopoly that the recording industry has on distribution and is therefore a very scary model for them, I'm sure.
At the end of the article Rep. Boucher seemed to be talking about cutting a deal with the MPAA. He suggests that he may support the broadcast flag if they support the Media Consumers' Rights Act.
"The circuit court for D.C. has invalidated broadcast flag rulemaking, saying that the FCC lacked statutory authority (to create the broadcast flag). Not surprisingly, the MPAA has now come to us and said, "We want you to legislate."
I don't think we are going to do that. I have been waiting for a long time for Hollywood to come to us and say, "Here's something we want" because there is something I want. And it's called the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act."
I haven't read the Digital Media Consumers' Act but I'm smart enough to know that many times the name can be deceiving. For example the "Patriot Act" which is anything but patriotic if one would take the time to actually read it. I also know that legislation that start out good can be perverted at the last minute by congressmen who are not acting in the public best interest.
Call me a radical but I think we should legalize the killing of lawmakers who act against the public interest. Not random killing, of course. What we should do is have a vote every five years or so for the politician that has done the public the most harm and then take that person out into a public square and hang him/her by the neck until dead. Just a thought.
a few words about this kind of issue (Score:1, Interesting)
55 good men signed
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
Re:Wow, refreshing to see a politician... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I think Rep Boucher understands the issues but. (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case it isn't. I've read it. It says three things:
(1) You no longer go to prison for defeating DRM (unless you actually commit copyright infringement).
(2) You no longer go to prison for offering a product to defeat DRM that enables the above noninfringing uses.
(3) DRM crippled CDs must be labeled.
Rep. Boucher seemed to be talking about cutting a deal with the MPAA. He suggests that he may support the broadcast flag if they support the Media Consumers' Rights Act.
I agree, I was not thrilled with that notion myself. However note that with the DMCRA it would be perfectly legal for people to sell products to strip the flag and it would be perfectly legal to use those products so long as you don't actually infringe.
So the MPAA would 'get' it's broadcast flag, but it would be pretty well worthless.
-