Manage updates with the Download App
For me, the answer to his rhetorical question is simple as well: If the MPAA expects Congress to ratify a rule that would limit the ability of ordinary consumers to share lawfully acquired digital broadcast television programs with one another, then it shouldn't be surprised if Congress insists that the MPAA accept in return a restoration of the fair use rights taken from consumers through the enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
As crafted, the FCC's broadcast flag rule recognized the right of consumers to share lawfully acquired digital broadcast content within their homes. But it also would have made it illegal for my staff to send a digital broadcast news clip from my district office to my Washington, D.C., office via the Internet. It would have precluded a library from sharing with a patron via the Internet excerpts from a digitally broadcast public affairs program. And it would have limited the ability of teachers to use material from digitally broadcast programs when engaged in distance education with students in rural areas--the very kind of activity Congress authorized in the TEACH Act.
Given these restrictions on traditional fair use activities, I expect that my colleagues will think twice before simply ratifying the FCC's rule. Moreover, given that the rule raises the question of consumer use of lawfully acquired content, I am confident that the House Energy and Commerce Committee will consider the appropriateness of amending any broadcast flag legislation with H.R. 1201, a bill that I introduced along with the Chairman of the Committee and Representative John Doolittle, to restore the fair use rights that ordinary consumers lost when Congress enacted the DMCA.
Both fair use proponents and content owners frequently say we need balance in our copyright laws. I agree. Adding H.R. 1201 to appropriately crafted broadcast flag legislation would achieve a long needed balance--bringing us back to the equilibrium that existed before the DMCA disrupted it to the detriment of consumers, librarians, teachers and the public at large.
Biography
Congressman Rick Boucher represents Virginia's Ninth Congressional District.
7 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
think you get it. The notion that the broadcast
flag will "make certain that the American people
will continue to have the opportunity to see our
movies and television shows on free television
in the digital age" is at once arrogant and
ignorant.
It presumes that media companies would not
release shows in the absence of the flag --
which is not likely (heck, there's no flag now
and they still boradcast digital TV). Even if
they did pull their content, they'd simply leave
a niche to be filled with those not so obsessive
about legislating control over people's access
to the content. But most importantly, there are
scant few that really expect something as quaint
as TV, at least as we understood it a 20 years
ago, to survive the "digital age". Broadcast
Machine
[ <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.participatoryculture.org/" target="_newWindow">http://www.participatoryculture.org/</a> ],
anyone?
The DMCA and broadcast flag intend to set
precendent for a corporate agenda to evolve
copyright, patents, and trademarks into actual
property rights, to lock out the "consumer" from
production and distribution of media without a
corporate sponsor, and to move the burden of
enforcement from the media company to the
government (why file suit get a tiny amount of
cashe when you can call the FBI and have them
arrest people and confiscate their belongings
free of charge?).
Do region flags help consumers? Prohibitions
about changing things to a new format (dub your
VHS tapes to your DVD recorder before the VCR
goes kaput)? Perpetual "access restriction" of
films because even after the copyright expires
its "protected" by technology that the law
forbids you to circumvent, possess technology to
circumvent, or even discuss how to circumvent
it?
George Orwell foresaw "thoughtcrime" as a tool
of the state to quell dissent. But now that it's
taking shape it's not the state that's driving
the implementation, but rather the media; and
not to quell dissent, but to enhance
profitability and to legislate the mode of
distribution and consumption of ideas. The
state's role is nothing more than that of a
hired enforcer. A cynic might say that the state
is complicit because doing so elicits
reciprocity (the approved media distributing
what the state prefers the people to see and
hear), but I'm willing to accept that our
elected leaders are simply asleep at the switch
since there's considerable precedence for that.
I say call Hollywood's bluff. No broadcast flag.
If they yank their content from the preminent
venue the old-school will phase out to be
replaced with the new-school and we'll all be
better for it.
As it stands today, you have fair use rights, but it is illegal to exercise those rights. This situation is definately untenable and needs to be resolved.
The broadcast flag, if fair use is revalidated and made a legal right to exercise once again, will quickly lose its appeal and become a non-issue.
How did he get elected with that last name?
Doolittle for Congress!!
Oh well, if we can have Dick Army, then I guess we can have Doolittle.
I'm just saying. ;)
I've got it; I've become stupid.
Oh, oh, oh ... I get it, he wasn't speaking English, he was talking DC talk.