Testimony on
“The Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2003”
(H.R. 107),
before the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection,
U.S. House of Representatives,
May 12, 2004.

Lawrence Lessig
Professor, Stanford Law School.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee:
I am the John A. Wilson Distinguished Scholar, and a Professor
of Law at Stanford Law School. I have written extensively
about new technologies and legal policy. As a lawyer, I have been
involved in a wide range of litigation involving copyright and the
Internet. I am Chairman of the Board of Creative Commons, and
a member of the boards of Public Knowledge, the Public Library
of Science, EFF and the Free Software Foundation. I direct the
Stanford Center for Internet and Society.

I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today,
and offer the following to help your deliberations.

Copyright law is an essential protection for authors and creators.
It is a necessary protection for creative industries and commerce.
Innovation and creativity depend upon adequate and reliable
copyright protection. Commercial piracy is therefore an important
threat that the government rightly should address.

Yet in its eagerness to staunch commercial piracy, the law must
not lose sight of the crucial balance in copyright that has also been
at the core of our tradition. These limits in the United States have
historically guaranteed that the benefits of copyright regulation do
not outweigh its costs. A poorly crafted copyright law — a law
that either creates too much uncertainty, or a law that extends its
reach beyond its legitimate purpose — can stifle progress rather
than promote it.

“Fair use” is one important limitation upon the regulation of
copyright. Historically, it has neither been the most important or
most familiar. The efforts of this Committee to consider whether
fair use is adequately protected in the digital age is an important
first step in striking the right balance in the regulation of copyright.
But it is only a first step. In my view, Congress’s zealous efforts
to attack “piracy” have had the unintended collateral effect of destroying
a crucial balance in copyright law. Never in the history of
our nation has the law of copyright regulated as broadly; never has
it regulated as extensively. And in light of the creative and commercial
potential of digital technologies, never has the law burdened
creative work as directly or pervasively. If copyright litigation
promises to become the “asbestos litigation for the Internet Age,”
as Stewart Baker recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal,1 then
the actual law of copyright promises to become the IRS code of
the creative class. The direct beneficiaries of this massive change in
legal regulation are existing, highly concentrated, copyright industries,
and lawyers. Those burdened by this regulation are increasingly
creators and innovators, both commercial and noncommercial.
In my view, Congress should systematically reconsider the
scope of federal regulation governing the creative process. It should
reevaluate, in light of the massive changes that digital technology
produces, the best way to protect the legitimate interests of creators.
Rules that made sense even just 30 years ago are highly questionable
today. Congress’s objective must be to guarantee that the
regulation of creative work continues to serve the single constitutional
purpose of that regulation: to “promote the Progress of Science.”
I know from personal experience that the position I mean to
advance before this Committee is apparently difficult for many to
understand. No doubt that failure is in part due to the rhetoric of
some of us on this side of the debate.

So let me state as simply and
clearly as I can: My argument is for balance in copyright regulation.

Yet many hear such an argument as an argument against
copyright. A kind of “IP McCarthyism” seems to govern this debate.
The rhetoric from both extremes makes it sound as if the
only choices were between two extremes.

This view is a profoundly costly mistake for both commerce
and innovation generally. Congress must begin to recognize the
radical change in the scope and reach of copyright regulation in
just the past twenty years. In part that change is the product of
legislation; in part it is the unintended consequence of copyright
law applied to vastly different technologies. As I have tried to
demonstrate in my own work,2 the consequences of these changes
together are to burden creativity, and stifle commercial innovation.
Neither effect is a necessary consequence of a well-crafted copyright
law.

Just as one can criticize the tax code without criticizing the idea
that in a civilized society, citizens must pay taxes, and just as one
can criticize the regulations of OSHA without believing that
business should be free from safety regulation, so too can one criticize
the extremism that copyright law has become without criti5
cizing the idea that copyright is essential to creative work, and to
creative industries. That it is essential is my view; that it has become
too costly and inefficient is also my view.

It is for this reason too that it is extremely important that these
issues be considered by this Committee. The history of regulation
being used as a tool to stifle competition is long. And as this
Committee knows well, only a careful and consistent monitoring
of regulation can assure that the law not become a tool that industries
use to protect themselves from new competition. Every
generation will view the innovations of the next generation as
troubling and threatening. But those same innovations keep competition
vigorous. As Adam Smith famously remarked, competitors
are always seeking ways to stifle competition. Federal monopolies,
which copyrights are, are often the most effective tool. Copyrights
are no doubt important. But the Constitution gives Congress the
power not to grant copyrights, but to “promote the Progress of
Science.”

In the testimony that follows, I briefly outline the historical
balance that copyright law struck. I then consider the current position
of “fair use,” in light of the changes that I describe. Against
this background, I argue that H.R. 107 is an important step in restoring
balance to copyright. And finally, I conclude with other
efforts Congress might consider to further balance copyright law
in light of new technologies.

THE HISTORICAL BALANCE OF COPYRIGHT
As the Supreme Court has repeated, and as the late Professor
Lyman Ray Patterson made clear,3 copyright “has never accorded
the copyright owner complete control over all possible uses of his
work.”4 Its purpose instead is to secure a limited monopoly over
certain ways in which creative work is exploited, so as to give
authors an incentive to create, and thus, in turn, to “promote the
Progress of Science.”

Originally, the trigger for that protection was the act of “publishing”
a work. The first Copyright Act secured an exclusive right
to the authors over the publication of “maps, charts, and books.”5
In 1909, the scope of that right was expanded to give authors an
exclusive right over “copies.”6 Against the background of the technology
extant in 1909, that change was probably not intended as a
substantive change in the reach of the law, and in any case, was
not significant: For printed texts, the technologies of “copying”
were essentially the same as the technologies of “publishing.”
Before digital technologies, this pattern of regulation meant
that while some “uses” of copyrighted material were plainly regulated
under the law — publishing a book, or reprinting a chapter
— many uses were unregulated under the law. Reading a physical
book, for example, is an unregulated use under the law, since
reading a book does not produce a copy. Giving someone a book is
an unregulated use, since giving someone a book does not produce
a copy. These uses are thus independent of the regulation of copyright.
And these unregulated uses support many important commercial
activities, including used bookstores and libraries.
Unregulated uses are not the same as “fair use.”

“Fair use” is a
privileged use of a copyrighted work that otherwise would have
infringed an exclusive right. It is, in other words, a copy that the
user is privileged to make regardless of the desire of the copyright
owner. Thus, reading a book is an unregulated act under copyright
law. But quoting a book in a critical review is a presumptively
regulated use (because a quote is a copy), yet privileged under the
law of fair use.

The traditional contours of copyright law thus secured to
authors exclusive rights over just some uses of their creative work.
But it secured to consumers and the public unregulated access to
that creative work for most ordinary uses. And it privileged the
public for some uses that would otherwise have infringed the exclusive
right to copy.

This traditional balance has been changed in the context of
digital technologies. For it is in the nature of digital technologies
that every use of a digital object produces a copy. Thus every use of
a digital object is presumptively within the scope of copyright law’s
regulation. And that in turn means many ordinary uses must now
either seek permission first, or rely upon the doctrine of “fair use”
to excuse what otherwise would be an infringement.
For example, the ordinary use of reading a book — unregulated
by copyright law for a physical book — is now regulated by copyright
law on a digital network: as any act on a digital network,
produces a copy, so too does merely reading a book. The same with
“lending” a book, or selling a book — all these produce copies; all
these are regulated on a digital network; none of these would have
been regulated outside of a digital network.

These changes are the unintended consequence of the interaction
between digital networks and a form of copyright law that
triggers liability upon the making of copies. Their consequence is
that the law now reaches far more broadly than it ever did before.
And when tied to the unconditional reach of copyright after the
abandonment of copyright formalities, they mean that the burden
of copyright applies in a vast range of contexts in which it does not
also provide any copyright related benefits.

THE CURRENT INADEQUACY OF FAIR USE
There are many who believe that “fair use” is an adequate balance
within copyright law. I believe that at present, this view is
mistaken for three related reasons.

First, as the history just sketched suggests, the doctrine of “fair
use” has not historically been relied upon to free ordinary uses of
copyrighted material from the regulation of the law. Instead, ordinary
uses were free of regulation because copyright law did not
cover those uses. “Fair use” originally regulated uses by competitors
to the copyright owner.7 It didn’t regulate uses by consumers. Yet
given the fundamental shift of copyright’s reach, it is now the
rights of consumers to use content in ordinary ways that must be
defended through the doctrine of “fair use.”

Second, as any practical understanding of the law reveals, “fair
use” is an extraordinarily uncertain freedom. The test is crafted as a
balancing test, with no single factor as determinative. This means
that ex ante, it is extremely hard for creators and publishers to
know precisely what freedom the law allows. This either forces
publishers to impose rules that are far more strict than fair use,8 or
it forces creators to clear permissions upfront. And when that
permission cannot be secured, it forces the creator into an extremely
difficult choice: whether to risk substantial exposure for
copyright liability, or to remove the speech from the creator’s work.
A recent example involving NBC makes this hypothetical
more salient. Cinema Libre intends to distribute an awardwinning
documentary about the Iraq War by film director and
producer Robert Greenwald, titled “Uncovered.” In preparing the
extended version of the film, Greenwald wanted to include a one-
minute clip from NBC’s “Meet the Press” interview with the
President. Greenwald was denied permission. The agent informing
Greenwald’s agent of the decision stated, “unofficially, we
don’t believe it makes the President look good.” And thus Greenwald
and Cinema Libre are now confronted with a stark and odd
choice for a democracy protected by the First Amendment: Should
they risk substantial liability simply to repeat the words the President
of the United States?

These costs of fair use are significant both to commercial and
creative potential. Though some naively believe the costs of seeking
permission are slight, in fact those costs are prohibitively high
for all but a few commercial creators. Indeed, because the costs of
giving permission are often higher than any possible revenue from
that permission, many rights owners adopt a simple presumption
against giving permission. Transaction costs thus bury creative
work under a system of uncertain fair and free use.

Finally, and most directly related to the issues before this
Committee today, “fair use” is effectively erased by technical measures
that block ordinary or fair uses of creative material, and by legal
rules that render illegal technologies that might help evade
those restrictions. Thus, technologies that restrict the ability to
capture a clip from a DVD for educational purposes, or that restrict
the ability of consumers to backup digital media, interfere with
uses that would, under the law of copyright, be deemed fair. And
under the DMCA, efforts to evade those restrictions are prohibited.
These three reasons together suggest that “fair use” in its current
state will not suffice to secure a balance between the control
copyright regulation secures, and the access that copyright is meant
to guarantee. It is therefore crucial that Congress consider a range
of measures to update fair use in the digital age. H.R. 107 is an
important beginning, as I describe below. But I would not let it be
the last.

Fair use has been a central aspect of American copyright law. It
is less familiar within other legal traditions. Indeed, this difference
may well account for the relatively anemic understanding of fair
use offered by trade associations, including the RIAA. As every
major label in that trade organization is now owned by foreign
corporations, it is not surprising that those labels find our tradition
to be alien. “Fair use,” as a senior executive at one of the major labels recently put it, “is the last refuge of scoundrels.” I understand
how that may be the view of some in the world. But within our
tradition, fair use is a core freedom.

In its current state, however, fair use does not effectively protect
consumers and creators in their transformative use of creative
material. That in turn increasingly stifles commerce as well as
creativity.

One useful example of this consequence is the litigation surrounding
MP3.COM. MP3.COM designed a technology to enable
consumers to verify to a computer that they owned or possessed
a CD. Once that fact was verified, the company gave the
consumer access to the content on that CD from any computer on
the network. These password protected accounts served to validate
and protect the selected music. And they were supported by
MP3.COM’s purchasing and copying 50,000 CDs onto
MP3.COM’s servers.

Because the company was simply giving customers access to
music they had already presumptively purchased, and because the
service in fact made the music that people had purchased more
valuable, MP3.COM believed its business model was protected by
“fair use.” Some recording labels and artists disagreed, and sued
MP3.COM. Months later, a court found the company liable, and
fined the company over $120,000,000, and effectively forced the
company into bankruptcy. When one of the labels suing
MP3.COM purchased the company, it then filed a lawsuit against
MP3.COM’s lawyers, charging them with malpractice in advising
MP3.COM the company that its business model was legal.
That case has subsequently been criticized by Judge Richard
Posner.9 But my point here is not to take sides in the matter (although
I agree with Judge Posner). It is instead to make the obvious
point that a committee on Commerce would well understand:
if the doctrine of fair use is so uncertain that senior and respected
judges would apply it differently in the same case, and yet exposes
innovators to such severe liability, we can expect (as we have observed
in Silicon Valley) that this legal uncertainty will chill business
investment.

H.R. 107
H.R. 107 is an important first step in restriking a balance in
copyright law. The bill would make two significant changes. It
would first, and least controversially, require adequate labeling of
copy-protected CDs. And second, it would eliminate anticircumvention
regulation in contexts in which there is no underlying
copyright interest at stake.

(1) Labeling
As this Committee is well aware, technologists have been
working for many years to find a technological way to control how
CDs are used by consumers. In particular, they have sought a
technological way to assure that a CD could be played, but that its
content could not be copied.

Such a technology, given the open implementation of CD
protocols, is extraordinarily difficult to perfect. And hence the risk
that any particular technology will not work on a particular machine
is high.
“Not work” however can mean much more than simply not
playing. In some reported cases, copy-protection technologies have
actually destroyed data on the consumer’s computer. That loss can
be extremely costly.
This risk is more significant on less-mainstream computers.
Any copy-protection technology is likely to have been tested on
the most popular systems. It is economically impossible for these
technologies to be tested on every system. Thus, it is certain that
some users of these copy-protected technologies will use the technology
on a machine for which it has not been tested. And no
doubt, some will suffer significant costs from that use.
These costs from copy-protection technologies must be considered
in light of an obvious fact: that the ordinary use restricted
by these technologies is not, ordinarily, a copyright infringement.

A consumer who purchases a CD, and then shifts the content of
that CD to his computer so that he can listen to music, engages in
a “fair use” of that content. No doubt some might not be protected
by fair use — a user who systematically copies CDs borrowed from
the library to build his own library of music, for example. But the
vast majority of users would be using purchased content in a totally
legal way.

In this context, a labeling requirement is an obvious and valuable
regulation for both consumers and producers of content and
computers. The benefit to consumers is obvious: they can avoid
protected content if they have reason to be concerned that the
technology used to protect the content might interfere with their
machine.

But there is also a benefit to content producers and technologists:
To the extent stories about harm caused by copy-protected
technologies become more common, they will create an uncertainty
among computer users. That will reduce the demand for
CDs by those users. Eliminating that uncertainty will counteract
that dampening of demand. And likewise, producers of competing,
but not-yet mainstream, technologies will not face the barrier
to entry created by consumer fear — namely, that their technology
might interact badly with copy-protected CDs. If there’s no way
to know whether a CD will destroy data on a non-Windows
based computer, that will, on the margin, make it less likely that
one would purchase a non-Windows based computer.
Adding information into the market will thus improve competition
within the market. And while in the short term, such labels
may drive consumers away from copy-protected CDs, they will
also create a strong incentive for CD manufacturers to support
certifying organizations that can verify that the technologies cause
no harm. The label would thus create an incentive for better crossplatform
certification, which again would benefit consumers and
competition generally.

(2) Non-infringing use exception from anti-circumvention
regulation

The more controversial aspects of H.R. 107 are the portions
aiming to exempt from DMCA liability technologies that circumvent
copyright protection technologies for privileged uses. The bill
both privileges circumvention if the underlying use of the copyrighted
work would be privileged, and privileges technologies “capable
of enabling significant non-infringing use of a copyrighted
work.”

This correction to the DMCA is long overdue. It is necessitated
first by the limited authority granted to Congress under the
Copyright and Patent Clause. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly
affirmed, Congress’s power under the Copyright & Patent
Clause is limited. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 5 (1966)
(clause “both a grant of power and a limitation”). As it has recently
indicated in Eldred v. Ashcroft, among those limits is “fair use.”
Slip Op. at 30. Yet the DMCA, as interpreted, plainly interferes
with the effective exercise of “fair use.” And if Congress is restrained
by the First Amendment to include “fair use” in the
Copyright Act, it is constrained by the First Amendment not to
exclude it through other copyright-related rules.

No doubt, content owners who rely upon copy-control technologies
will worry that this exception will swallow the DMCArule:
that by allowing technologies that, e.g., enable back-ups of
DVDs, Congress will be allowing technologies that enable “piracy.”
But there is absolutely no independent economic showing of
harm caused by the ability to circumvent copy-protection technologies
for non-infringing uses. It is possible, of course, that such
an exception will create a problem in the future. But rather than
destroying a tradition of consumer rights because of a fear, Congress
should predicate additional legal regulation only upon an actual
showing of harm from such technologies.

That showing, moreover, must be precisely focused upon the
copyright related interest in controlling circumvention. The question
of harm is whether the existence of a technology (a) cannibalized
a market (by enabling some to get the content without
paying for it) more than it (b) expanded the market (by making
the underlying content more valuable). That harm must then be
discounted by the constitutionally required “fair use” enabled by
that technology.

OTHER NECESSARY STEPS
As I have indicated, this important legislation is just the first
step in a series of actions that Congress should consider to assure
that copyright law continues to function in the balanced way that
is our tradition. In addition to this change, I would urge this
Committee to recommend the establishment of a serious and balanced
study, perhaps chaired by former Congressman Robert Kastenmeier,
to consider fully how best to adjust the protections of
copyright to the digital age. Kastenmeier’s tenure chairing the
Subcommittee on Courts was defined by a constant appreciation
of the balance the law needs to strike in light of changes in technology.
A commission focused on precisely this sort of balance
could provide a map for Congress in a range of areas.
Such a map would reveal, I suspect, the great value that could
be produced by rules designed to re-formalize much of copyright
law. One unintended consequence of Congress’s changes in the
law in the 1976 Act was to eliminate many traditional copyright
formalities. That in turn has massively increased the unproductive
burden of copyright regulation — both making it more difficult to
track down copyright owners, and extending copyright protection
to works having no continuing copyright-related interest. Rules
for more clearly identifying owners and content requiring protection
would improve the creative process generally.
No doubt some of this work can be done by the private sector.
I am Chairman of Creative Commons, <http://creativecommons.
org>, a non-profit corporation that builds and gives away technologies
that enable authors and creators to more simply signal the
freedoms they intend to run with their content. Thus a musician
can use these tools to signal her desire that others share her music
for non-commercial purposes. Or an author may use these tools to
signal his desire that others use his work for any purpose so long as
attribution is given. As a recent feature article in Business 2.0 describes,
10 this strategy is increasingly used by artists and authors to
enable their own commercial success, by lowering the transaction
costs imposed by the law on the ability of others to reuse and share
content.

I am proud of the work that Creative Commons has done to
enable creators to make their work more easily available. And following
a recent grant, I am eager to expand that work into the
domain of science. But this work signals the need for a more extensive reconsideration about how copyright law currently functions.
It is not a substitute.

CONCLUSION
As the Supreme Court has indicated repeatedly, it is primarily
Congress’s job to “defin[e] the scope of the limited monopoly that
should be granted to authors or to inventors.”11 But in executing
that task, it is crucial that Congress not be captured by any single
set of interests. While I believe historically that Congress has done
a good job in balancing technologies and protection, there is an
important and valid criticism made by many that Congress has
crafted copyright policy to conform to the interests of current
creators, while ignoring the interests of future creativity, and businesses
that build on their work.

My concern is that this dynamic precisely is happening just
now. In the heat of the debate about “piracy,” I believe that Congress
is losing sight of other important values. And in particular, in
the burdensome regulations that have been enacted to fight “piracy,”
my concern is that a great deal of the potential commerce
and creativity that digital technologies might enable will be lost.

Tom...great article!

Awesome!

I think this line, at the very end, sums up what everyone who's been "molested" by the big copyright owners, and also everyone else if they bothered to find out what was happening would agree with...

"But in executing that task, it is crucial that Congress not be captured by any single set of interests. While I believe historically that Congress has done a good job in balancing technologies and protection, there is an important and valid criticism made by many that Congress has crafted copyright policy to conform to the interests of current creators, while ignoring the interests of future creativity, and businesses that build on their work."

I think copyright was reasonable until 1976, then it all started going down the toilet.

WOW! I'm not one to read the long legal articles but I did this one and I'm impressed. finally someone with sense talking to congress.

This is FIREWORKS, folks!! Valenti and Sherman aren't going to get the cakewalk and schmooze-fest they are used to. Tough hitters on board here backing up Lessig. Gary Shapiro, Peter Jaszi, Gigi Sohn, Chris Murphy.. Try CSPAN-TV first--- Please tune in at 10 am EST at this link for real player audio

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/05122004hearing1265/hearing.htm

PANEL 1
The Honorable Rick Boucher
Member of Congress
9th District of Virginia
2187 Rayburn House Office Building

The Honorable John T. Doolittle
Member of Congress
4th District of California


Panel 2

Mr. Lawrence Lessig
Professor of Law
Stanford Law School

Mr. Gary Shapiro
President and Chief Executive Officer
Consumer Electronics Association

Mr. Jack Valenti
President and Chief Executive Officer
Motion Picture Association of America

Mr. Cary Sherman
President
Recording Industry Association of America

The Honorable Allan Swift
Colling Murphy


Ms. Miriam M. Nisbet
Legislative Counsel
American Library Association

Panel 3

Mr. Robert W. Holleyman II
President and Chief Executive Officer
Business Software Alliance

Mr. Peter Jaszi
Professor of Law
Washington College of Law
American University

Ms. Debra Rose
Senior Legislative Counsel
Entertainment Software Association

Mr. Chris Murray
Legislative Counsel
Consumers Union

Ms. Gigi B. Sohn
President
Public Knowledge

Mr. Robert Moore
Chief Executive Officer
321 Studios

"Congress has crafted copyright policy to conform to the interests of current creators"

Unfortunately no, it hasn't.
It panders to the interests of copyright holders.
Big difference, especially in the music industry.

Otherwise a kickass statement.

Question: How much are any of you willing to bet that Valenti, Sherman et al., will be treated with kid gloves (or, to put it another way, handed softballs) by their stooges in Congress . . . and that those aforementioned lapdogs will be giving Lessig, Shapiro, Murray, Moore etc., the proverbial "third degree"?

That kinnd of ambush did happen in the Coleman hearings. But this is orchestrated by Chairman Barton and Boucher. It is difficult to support merchandise that you buy and doesn't work. Lessig makes a point that is rather overblown about Consumers getting computer damage for their troubles. This is the Commerce committee after all, which was used by Boucher quite effectively to slow down the original DMCA. Which gave Mitch Glazier fits.

Bravo!

I hope the Subcommittee members listened carefully.

One thing that Lawrence might have added was that adoption of H.R. 107 is especially critical for society given that the life of copyright, unlike patents, lasts for such a very long time (I would not have expected Lawrence to advocate during his speech that copyright life be shortened; that would be a very desirable goal but outside the scope of what he was trying to accomplish).

I fear, however, that getting H.R. 107 passed will be extremely difficult, given the vested interests by large content holders who contribute heavily in political campaigns. As Lawrence stated in his testimony, one group of folks who benefit from the existing 'balance' of copyright law are lawyers, and many, if not most, politicians are lawyers. The extremes and complexities of copyright law effectively give power to lawyers and politicians at the expense of the private sector. I have nothing inherent against lawyers, but they are human like the rest of us; power is a very difficult thing to give up.

Folks, don't forget to go to eff.org and sign the action alert on this bill! We NEED to get it passed.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

that's the thing about Lessig. He explains so that everyone understands. I did my best to read his other book as quickly as I could. I really feel he understands what's going on even without being a musician

Even in Mr. Lessig's testimony, there are SIX instances of the word "piracy"...there are two instances of the word INFRINGEMENT...
and only ONE instance of COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT...

So, even OUR side has embraced the use of piracy.

The BIG LIE campaign is a complete success...

Hats off to the late Josef Goebbels and the RIAA....you have won the rhetoric war!

Yeah, Code, I guess the BIG LIE does work sometimes.

Of course, big lies should be easier to expose - provided you can get the exposure!

But Bill, when our OWN SIDE like Lessig uses the term, it legitimizes it...

I really got depressed reading it as if all my attempts to fight the mislabelling of copyright infringement have come to naught!

Makes me quite despondent, because I have always found that if the other side lets ME define the terms of a debate, I will win, so to me, this signals a giant loss.

smoreop is RIGHT!

Most copyright HOLDERS today (as it relates to the music business) are NOT the creators. They are merely the distributors. Until people understand this more, things will not change. Although passing this bill is a step in the right direction, we still have a LONG WAY to go!!

We must get copyright law CHANGED to eliminate the extended lives, especially those lives given to corporations. Innovation and creativity are stifled more by this fact than any other out there, especially if the corporations that hold copyrights act as an oligopoly!

Hopefully, we will have a "Small Victory" and get this bill passed. But we still have many battles to fight! Don't stop Boycotting!

It's on!

Just got it on. What did I miss???

not much, opening statements only

I can tell some of our reps have been listening to us

I just saw Code's log. Yeh!

Here comes Larry! Sic em

Free speech TRUMPS (those are MY words...

Jack is telling them that they will loose RIAA/MPAA/BSA $$$ if they support HR 107

He named COMPANIES and NOT public interests as opposed

"I know from personal experience that the position I mean to
advance before this Committee is apparently difficult for many to
understand"


Ha ha ha . B/c There'ye stupid.

"As I have indicated, this important legislation is just the first
step in a series of actions that Congress should consider to assure
that copyright law continues to function in the balanced way that
is our tradition."

that's the key

Code - we always new we would lose the war over "piracy" that's why we keep screaming about it.