Corante

AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Copyfight

« Copywrongs and Godwin's Law | Main | Sony Electronic's Sad, Preventable Decline »

May 10, 2004

Fair Use Gets Fair Play on Capitol Hill

Email This Entry

Posted by

This Wednesday, May 12th, marks the first time since the DMCA was enacted in 1998 that Congress will hold hearings on legislation to reform it.

The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, or DMCRA, has three important goals:

#1: Warning: You're About to Pay Full Price for a Hobbled CD

The DMCRA would require labels on copy-protected "CDs," letting us know that we can't actually use what we've purchased except under limited circumstances. That's right -- you get advance warning that you're paying the same price for less functionality.

#2: You Get to Reclaim Fair Uses of Digital Media That You Already Have in Analog Media

The DMC_R_A would put the Rights back in the DMCA. The bill amends the DMCA to allow you to circumvent copyright controls on digital media for legitimate purposes -- for example, to make the fair uses that copyright law ordinarily and traditionally allows.

Among other things, this would mean that:

a.) when most scholarly communication, publishing, instruction etc., takes place using digital media/online, our ability to share knowledge and learn from one another won't be a distant and fast-fading memory;
b.) when researchers want to "tinker" to advance our scientific knowledge, they won't face a significant barrier -- like the repeated threat of litigation; and
c.) when librarians seek to preserve our history in digital media, they won't have to wait three years at a time to beg the Copyright Office for the narrowly defined technical ability to do so.

#3: These Will Be Real, Not Phantom/Illusory Fair Use Rights

The DMCRA would affirmatively allow the creation/distribution of devices that circumvent copyright controls, when the devices have substantial non-infringing uses. That means inventors will be able to invent the next VCR or TiVo without asking Hollywood's permission first. And if a researcher has created a circumvention tool for the purposes of researching/testing web-filtering mechanisms, the researcher won't be limited to describing the controversial results. He or she could share the tool with the scholarly community.

There are a few other hot spots for discussion of this bill; check them out, and if you decide that you want Congress to consider the public's rights in digital media, let your representatives know you support it.

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Laws and Regulations


COMMENTS

1. Seth Finkelstein on May 10, 2004 3:28 PM writes...

"And if a researcher has created ..."

*cough* ... *cough* ... that's "has created" in *my* case, err, situation - "wants to create" in *his* situation, err, case.

Permalink to Comment

2. Seth Finkelstein on May 10, 2004 3:44 PM writes...

Note that for censorware research, the DMCA isn't the only threat, it's just the worst threat.

The Cyberpatrol censorware lawsuit ($75,000 damages claimed, a pittance by RIAA standards) had no DMCA aspect - it was pre-DMCA copyright, trade secret, shrinkwrap license, etc.

Permalink to Comment

3. cypherpunk on May 10, 2004 6:01 PM writes...

You left off the most important and far-reaching provision of the bill:

"(5) It shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute, or make noninfringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work."

Wouldn't this essentially legalize the sale and distribution of every soft of infringing product, since any such device would inherently also enable significant noninfringing use? For example, a commercial version of a DVD deencryptor would be legal, since it would also allow you to publish excerpts for fair use commentary?

Permalink to Comment

4. Kim Weatherall on May 10, 2004 6:04 PM writes...

Hey, watch it, United States. It may not be signed, sealed and delivered yet - but if you're thinking of adding, for example, exceptions to the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, you might want to read the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, chapter 17. You'll have to review your new exceptions in 4 years, and you can only add exceptions to the ban on use, not the ban on distribution: Article 17.4.7.

Oh, and even though the US-Australia FTA isn't signed yet, I think you'll find you already have a free trade agreement with Singapore which limits your ability to add new exceptions to anti-circumvention provisions.

That's what comes from putting IP in trade deals - the obligations go both ways: just as Australia gets locked into your law circa 2003 - so does the US...

Permalink to Comment

5. Augustine on July 6, 2004 2:18 AM writes...

Don't forget about security. Secureroot.org

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Subscription Services for Books
Lest You Had Any Doubts, the ALA is on the Right Side Again
Deadly Effects of Unaffordable Medicines (TPP)
Planet Money on the Case Against Patents
FMC + Musicians vs FCC on Net Neutrality
Be the Potato Salad
These Businesses and Corporations are Not Your Friends
Aereo Loses