Proposed FAIR USE act takes aim at DMCA
Garg
Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
For images, view on front page
Since the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in 1998, many people that enjoy their content digitally (be it music, movies, or games) have been hoping for a relaxation of its troublesome restrictions. By criminalizing the circumvention of copy-protection software, it has allowed the content owner to have the final word in how the content is going to be used, and not the end user.
Thus, I was initially enthusiastic to hear that bannerman for the fair use cause, Congressman Rick Boucher of Virginia, has introduced the Freedom And Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007 to amend the DMCA (subtlety alert: the clever acronym is FAIR USE).
That is, I was enthusiastic until I realized that the FAIR USE '07 bill does little to help the average end-user. This is probably because, bless his heart, the congressman has tried this twice before (warning: PDF links), and it was shot down both times. Those previous bills focused mainly on shady copy-protection techniques such as Sony's rootkit that were included on CDs without the knowledge of consumers. That sounds like the kind of thing most congressmen could agree to get rid of, but at the end of each bill was a section that broadly restored the fair use of access-controlled media. The good news is that the Librarian of Congress (the head honcho of ©) has since decreed that it's alright to break through copy protection on compact discs if you are doing so to protect yourself from security threats like Sony's rootkit approach. With that out of the way, however, there is no more pretense to pad the true intent of the bill: restoring the fair use of audiovisual content.
Without the pretense, of course, the bill has even less chance of succeeding. To address that, the proposed fair usage exemptions to the DMCA are more specific, and potentially easier to swallow for other lawmakers. Some important provisions are:
* Damages can only be awarded by the court for infringement if "no reasonable person could have believed such conduct to be lawful."
* Hardware device manufacturers and distributors will not be liable for infringement if their device is "capable of substantial, commercially significant noninfringing use.’’.
* Allows circumvention of copy protection for library archives or educational use in a classroom.
* Allows circumvention of copy protection for skipping past "commercial or personally objectionable content in an audiovisual work."
* Allows circumvention of copy protection for transmission on a home network.
* Allows circumvention of copy protection for the purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."
The first thing you'll probably notice is the lack of exemptions that allow us use to protected content any way we want. There are some important changes here, though. The second item in that list is a codification of the Betamax rule, and would protect the makers and distributors of electronic devices such as Apple's iPod from copyright infringement. The fourth item may be potentially useful for TiVo hacking if rumors of deals to prevent fast-forwarding of recorded commercials are put into place. The last item is useful in an age where scientists are increasingly restricted in their ability to do their work by both copyrights and patents. While they are all positive steps, these provisions are only useful to end users in rare circumstances.
Perhaps it's necessary to pursue controversial legislation in baby steps. Previous legislation was defeated because it would have granted end users practically everything they wanted in one fell swoop of vaguely-worded legalese. The new bill is a step in the right direction for fair use, and its progress is worth watching as an indicator of the chances of future legislation. End users should probably hold their applause for now. That is, unless they also happen to make MP3 players, or plan on breaking down copy protection for research purposes.
The full text (PDF link) of the FAIR USE '07 Act is available from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Since the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in 1998, many people that enjoy their content digitally (be it music, movies, or games) have been hoping for a relaxation of its troublesome restrictions. By criminalizing the circumvention of copy-protection software, it has allowed the content owner to have the final word in how the content is going to be used, and not the end user.
Thus, I was initially enthusiastic to hear that bannerman for the fair use cause, Congressman Rick Boucher of Virginia, has introduced the Freedom And Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007 to amend the DMCA (subtlety alert: the clever acronym is FAIR USE).
That is, I was enthusiastic until I realized that the FAIR USE '07 bill does little to help the average end-user. This is probably because, bless his heart, the congressman has tried this twice before (warning: PDF links), and it was shot down both times. Those previous bills focused mainly on shady copy-protection techniques such as Sony's rootkit that were included on CDs without the knowledge of consumers. That sounds like the kind of thing most congressmen could agree to get rid of, but at the end of each bill was a section that broadly restored the fair use of access-controlled media. The good news is that the Librarian of Congress (the head honcho of ©) has since decreed that it's alright to break through copy protection on compact discs if you are doing so to protect yourself from security threats like Sony's rootkit approach. With that out of the way, however, there is no more pretense to pad the true intent of the bill: restoring the fair use of audiovisual content.
Without the pretense, of course, the bill has even less chance of succeeding. To address that, the proposed fair usage exemptions to the DMCA are more specific, and potentially easier to swallow for other lawmakers. Some important provisions are:
* Damages can only be awarded by the court for infringement if "no reasonable person could have believed such conduct to be lawful."
* Hardware device manufacturers and distributors will not be liable for infringement if their device is "capable of substantial, commercially significant noninfringing use.’’.
* Allows circumvention of copy protection for library archives or educational use in a classroom.
* Allows circumvention of copy protection for skipping past "commercial or personally objectionable content in an audiovisual work."
* Allows circumvention of copy protection for transmission on a home network.
* Allows circumvention of copy protection for the purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."
The first thing you'll probably notice is the lack of exemptions that allow us use to protected content any way we want. There are some important changes here, though. The second item in that list is a codification of the Betamax rule, and would protect the makers and distributors of electronic devices such as Apple's iPod from copyright infringement. The fourth item may be potentially useful for TiVo hacking if rumors of deals to prevent fast-forwarding of recorded commercials are put into place. The last item is useful in an age where scientists are increasingly restricted in their ability to do their work by both copyrights and patents. While they are all positive steps, these provisions are only useful to end users in rare circumstances.
Perhaps it's necessary to pursue controversial legislation in baby steps. Previous legislation was defeated because it would have granted end users practically everything they wanted in one fell swoop of vaguely-worded legalese. The new bill is a step in the right direction for fair use, and its progress is worth watching as an indicator of the chances of future legislation. End users should probably hold their applause for now. That is, unless they also happen to make MP3 players, or plan on breaking down copy protection for research purposes.
The full text (PDF link) of the FAIR USE '07 Act is available from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
0
Comments
It seems like these laws are more for protecting businesses than protecting 'artists'.