RSSBoucher DMCA Exemption Bill Would Legalize Commercial-Skipping
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published February 28, 2007, 7:16 PM
A copy of the early draft language of the revised H.R. 1201, sponsored by Rep. Rick Boucher (D - VA) and introduced on the floor of the US House of Representatives yesterday, shows the revised legislation would add six new exemptions to US Code section 1201, which had been amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
But the language in the new draft is shorter and simpler, and perhaps more prone to broader interpretations.
The six new 1201 exemptions the FAIR USE Act (its name is an acronym, thus prompting the otherwise rude capitalization) would add are further simplified as follows:
- Teachers can make copies of audiovisual works for teaching purposes exclusively, and may circumvent copy protection to do so.
- Individuals can circumvent any technology that would force them to watch commercials or offensive content (whether a Web page qualifies as an "audiovisual work" in this context may become a re-opened debate). This will be extremely important news to content producers, who have claimed in recent years that commercial skipping mechanisms such as those used on TiVo devices enable users to effectively break the terms of their contract with TV services, constituting not only a breach of contract but, as some executives have argued, outright theft of service.
- Circumvention is permitted for individuals making copies of AV files they've downloaded for transmission over their own home networks, but not to the Internet.
- You can defeat copy protection if your objective is to seek out a work in the public domain.
- If you're a reporter or researcher, you can circumvent copy protection in the act of research or journalism (something very much of interest to us here at BetaNews).
- Finally, as we reported yesterday, individuals can defeat copy protection in order to make backup copies of downloaded material.
As anticipated, the Recording Industry Association of America issued a statement to news organizations opposing the new Boucher Bill, on the grounds that its language is too ambiguous, and thus may enable IP theft.
"The difference between hacking done for non-infringing purposes and hacking done to steal is impossible to determine and enforce," the RIAA statement reads this afternoon. (Whether the RIAA is suggesting that legislation should instead "enforce a difference" is equally impossible to determine.)
For its part, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has come out in support of the bill, also as anticipated. "Technology companies play a game of Russian roulette whenever they create products with both infringing and non-infringing uses," an EFF statement reads this evening.
Another provision in the new Boucher Bill language would declare individuals free from liability for copyright infringement that takes place on devices that they design, manufacture, or distribute, if those devices have a principal, non-infringing purpose.
I'm with everyone on the "Outright theft of service."
I pay every month 50+ bucks to watch a "TV shows" not to watch some ads every 5mins. I should not get push around and made to watch TV ads. Most shows are about 30mins long with most of it being filler (about 15mins of ads). I for one would like to see this bill past.
The companies that are paying millions ever year on ads should stopped and spent more on R&D improvements on their products. Then they wouldn’t need to make ads, word of mouth goes a long way then an ad.
If we the consumers do not step up and say anything we may as well go live in China where you watch only what the government would like for you to watch and when. Maybe a bad example but it’s the same control on media.
Yes IP should be protected but not when the end-user rights are taken away.
Score: 0
|"Outright theft of service"
If I always arrive late to a movie becasue I know they are going to show 10 minutes of commercials (Fanta, Fanta, don't you want a) am I stealing service?
Score: 0
|Next thing you know DVRs will have alternate commercials that will play while you're fastforwarding through recorded commercials (like what TiVo's trying to do). I see a Renaissance in VCRs and VHS tapes lol
Score: 0
|"outright theft of service" for skipping commercials? That's rich. We should be able to sue companies like the incredibly annoying and stupid Geico for advertising which amounts to open and offensive harrassement in my opinion.
Score: 0
|Don't those caveman commercials seem racial? I always imagine the "caveman" as some race, and just going after 'em. It's as if the ad company wanted to be racist, but aren't allowed to be.
Score: 0
|Wow. How about the caveman is a freaking caveman and the commercials are meant to be funny, you know, like a joke. Incredibly dumb comment.
Score: 0
|The RIAA will never go for something like this, nor will the MPAA, simply because they love the idea of everyone having to purchase a new copy of a movie or CD when the original wears out. Even the gaming industry plays that silly game. You can't backup the disc, you have to use the disc to play the game, so when it wears out, you have to buy another.
Score: 0
|I hope I don't go to jail for purposely never watching anything on live TV just so I can skip all the commercials on my Comcast DVR.
Score: 0
|:) I have four VCR's that I use exclusively for
recording.
Tonight, for instance, 10PM. Medium, CSI, Lost.
And if I had cable....
Score: 0
|:) I have four VCR's that I use exclusively for
recording.
Tonight, for instance, 10PM. Medium, CSI, Lost.
And if I had cable....
Score: 0
|Going to jail may be a better choice than having to watch much of the "content" available on television these days
[grin]
Score: 0
|...and you'd still be able to watch it.
*grumbles*
Score: 0
|I too doubt this will pass, and it still leaves a question mark over those transferring DRM-infested media files between devices they own. Are they allowed to copy their CDs to their iPods? Or is it still illegal? Do they have to go and purchase another copy of the song from iTMS that they already bought on CD?
More work needs to be done, IMO - and copyright laws are even worse in Australia than they are for you in the US. Why or why did Johnny Howard signed an agreement for your stupid DMCA? :P
Score: 0
|Wow! It sounds great, but this will never pass. The RIAA bought and paid for congress years ago.
Score: 0
|Yep! News Flash!
The Recording industry runs the country!
Tell you what, how about all of you conspiracy folks getting your stories straight. Is is the recording industry, the big oil companies, the religious right, organized crime, blah, blah, blah...
Which one runs the country?
Score: 0
|i don't know... I've sent emails to my local congressman in the past regarding things of this sort, and was not pleased with the response i got... he has absolutely no concept of fair use.
Score: 0
|you are lucky you got a response at all...
Score: 0
|Then quit electing morons.
Score: 0
|Well it is obvious you don't *laughs
Score: 0
|All the worn-out DRM crap aside, the terms involving commercial/ad skipping are bogus. They'll just start interlacing the content with commercial interruption. It's no different than legislating a requirement for museum visitors to stop and read every brochure in the lobby before proceeding towards the exhibits. The whole concept of requiring us to watch commercials is dumb. We already paid for the media, there is no fiscal requirement for it other than pure profit. Over-the-air TV depended on commercials. DVD's do not.
Score: 0
|So.
Why should they facilitate your skipping the ads?
"The whole concept of requiring us to watch commercials is dumb."
You are not required to watch anything!
The amazing logic is that you assume some right that they are violating!
As much as I dislike them, they are entitled to generate as many revenue streams as they like.
The only right you have?
DON'T BUY THEM IF YOU DISLIKE THEM SO MUCH!
Now, please explain why you still feel some entitlement to them? Remember, you find them so disagreeable!!! Don't buy them. End of discussion.
Score: 0
|Buy what, you tool... TV can still be free. And to act like TV is unregulated clearly is putting your head in the sand. Skipping a commercial is a viewer's choice. Removing that capacity from certain devices on the premise that a revenue stream is skipped is absurd.
You're jumping up and down saying "if you don't like it, don't watch it". Well, most commercials suck (just like your logic), so I'd like to NOT watch them. So by your own argument I should have that choice, correct? If not, then I should be able to placeshift anyhow. Both sides of the argument lead to the same premise; I should be able to watch what I want, when I want. That includes watching ads as I see fit.
Score: 0
|Of course you are not obligated to watch the ads!
But the manufacturers are not obligated to make a machine that facilitates that.
There is a fundamental difference that you fail to understand.
Score: 0
|"TV can still be free"
I'm curious as to how you would go about doing that?
And, what happens when a network, take your pick which one, comes out and says they can't make enough money to make it worth producing shows so they aren't going to do it anymore?
Score: 0
|Correct - they are not obligated to make them, but they did. And they were regulated into EXCLUDING the feature. That's what you fail to understand.
Score: 0
|Manufacturers are currently stepping over dangerous legal barriers if they make a device that permits you to circumvent commercials in retail media. There is a difference between "having to watch" and being legally prevented from NOT watching.
Score: 0
|Wow! Finally someone puts forward a reasonable legal effort to change the rules.
This is sure to confuse all of those whose efforts are still oriented toward getting something for nothing.
As the irony is that the majority of the anti-DRM rant is from those who are not simply interested in the legitimate archiving of material. Instead they are interested in getting and sharing music for free.
So I don't expect a reasonable fair use rule to make much of a difference at all.
After all, this is like saying that providing for a concealed carry license will stop the criminals from carrying and using guns. The RIAA isn't after those who make legitimate backups who do not distribute! In fact, there is no way for the RIAA to know anything about them at all!
But I am sure that this won't matter to the anti-DRM crowd. After all, thems R 2 BZY studyin N skool.
Score: 0
|i dont know what all the fuss is about, my dvd duplicator ignores all drm and copy protection anyway, and i have no urge to use it for anything other than legal backups. although i use it mainly for making duplications of dvds, so i use the copy, and when it gets too scratched to be usable, i break it and make a new one. no matter how hard you try, when dealing with children or careless teens of any type, you just cant keep those things from scratching.
Score: 0
|So do I!
The AnyCD and ANYDVD suite works great.
And the RIAA is not chasing me. To my knowledge they have not chased anyone for simply making archival copies or copies of legally purchased media for use in, for example, their car.
I am all for this type of fair use. And this should be protected and officially legalized . And this is a legitimate portion of the DMRA that should be corrected.
But then I am not feigning ignorance and innocence as I distribute them over the net!
The legions of folks doing this and then whining are fools.
Score: 0
|