"right on man" was heard...



"We're in the home stretch"...ended with him talking about his blood sugar...
MISSED testimony..

he he he. I noticed that stuff too.

apparently someone in control of the audio did too... sound gone again

Geez, I should go to bed. It is past my bedtime. (motel night auditor) I gotta work tonight. But I care about this issue so much I can't tear myself away from the puter till the end.

shmoo I'll drop that to you tonight If I get it done. check your mail in the morning

i'll watch it for ya Shmoo...and itll be on CSPAN later as streaming media...

this vote is taking forever....I think I'll take a nap if this goes on much longer....

they're voting now? thought there were more questions. oh well, I'm on pins and needles

supposed to be more questions if they get back from recess....this is boring when nothing is going on there...

Naw, there should only be one more segment (and the vote? do they vote on it today?)... I will stay up for the next little bit.

Look forward to the new vid Rick. Will check it out in the morning.

off topic, the more I hear about that Nick Berg story, the more spooked I get... something is fishy.

they'te voting on something else...this is still in subcommittee

are we still waiting on them to get back from that vote??? I went and took a shower. I just assumed I missed the end...

Mr. Moore....tells it like it is.

Issa should be asking YOU this question Rick. (Taking clips from diff movies and putting together a new work)

I already know what my answer would be

hey, maybe he's already seen my stuff

1 copy ... they keep talking about this "1" copy bs. If the RIAA bought and paid for legislators think they can throw us that "1" copy bone and claim that "fair use" is taken care of they are full of it.

Issa issa Ass.

just got back

damn, they didn't even need to go on that last break if that was all they were gonna do.

You missed a good one with Mr. Moore, Code. I think he had em all backed up against the wall. This guy rocks!

darn...oh well...
maybe will see it when they get the file uploaded...

Oh, well... see you good folks in the morn. Gonna sleep now. Lot's to digest.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

Support HR 107

wish I'd seen that. will there be a subcommitte vote or do they just recommend something to the full committee

What happened with it? Did they just say "ufck it" until tomorrow or something?

The hearing was over -- end of panel testimony and questions. We're going to look for it to be rerun on C-Span.

From the committee web site http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/05122004_1277.htm:

Barton Favors “Fair Use” of CDs, DVDs by Consumers

“When you buy music, it's yours”

WASHINGTON (May 12) - When someone purchases a music CD, should he be able to copy it for himself?

“Yes,” said U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, at a congressional hearing on whether consumers have a right of “fair use” over the CDs and DVDs that they purchase: “When I buy a CD or a movie, it should be mine to use once I leave the store.”

“We have a long history of copyright law that permits ‘fair use’ of copyrighted material, which allows me to make a copy of music to play in my car or make compilation CDs of my favorite songs,” Barton said. “New technology has facilitated the ability now to make commercial quality personal copies, which poses the additional risk of piracy.”

Today’s hearing in the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection focused on the possible effects of H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumers’ Right Act of 2003. This legislation, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., would restore the ability of consumers to use copyrighted material lawfully, and permit consumers the ability to circumvent copy protection technology, as long as it was consistent with fair use. Additionally, H.R. 107 maintains the protections for copyright producers to use copy-protection technology against illegal privacy.

“Does ‘fair use’ mean I have unlimited duplication rights? No. Consumers would still be liable for anything that amounts to copyright infringement,” Barton said. “It remains illegal - as it should be - to buy a CD, and eventually a DVD, and make multiple copies to sell for profit. But if I purchase the ‘Lonesome Dove’ DVDs and want to make another copy to watch when I’m traveling, where is the harm in that?”

Witnesses at the hearing included those from both sides of this issue. Jack Valenti, CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America stressed the continued need for strict copyright defense, while witnesses such as Stanford Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig testified that in its eagerness to staunch commercial piracy, the law must not lose sight of the fact that fair use is a uniquely American tradition that has bolstered our economy.

Barton agreed, saying that the balance between consumers’ and producers’ rights over copyrighted material needs to be restored to ensure our society progresses, not regresses, with the expansion of technology.

Further committee action on H.R. 107 is expected this year.

Good article here too on today's hearing

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=20300683

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=20300683

Good post, Carla. I remain optimistic about this bill.
Boggieman, thanks for the link. I know you were following the hearing today. How many times do you think Jack (Valenti) said "hack"?
Anyway, the final line in this article says: "The subcommittee has not set a date for when it will vote on the bill. "
What a day! We've got to stay on top of this.

The video of Nick Berg being shared via P2P networks will be a watershed moment in the filesharing debate.

Everyone has seen it on the web.

The anti-filesharing voices will argue that the grotesque images support their argument that P2P is out of control. They will argue that any images, even those too graphic for the public, can now be distributed without any regulation or control.

However, let them make this argument. The people's right too know should trump this worry, but not without a fight.

While hearing from both sides of the debate on HR 107 it has become increasingly clear that the anti-DMCRA camp won’t give an inch. It is also apparent that they don’t fully understand what this bill actually says and does, nor do they understand copyright either. The anti-DMCRA camp wants one thing, and one thing only, COMPLETE control over the copyrightable material they own and they want it forever.

I got the chance to listen in on most of the panel 2 debate, some of the opening statements of panel 3, and a few debates in 3. Each side had valid arguments for copyright protections and neither side thought that copyright protections should be abolished. Even though the anti-DMCRA camp and the legislators who support them continued to accuse the pro-DMCRA camp of this. I couldn’t help but wondering of the anti camp was deaf, dumb or both, because they clearly didn’t acknowledge this when they spoke up. The anti camp was full of the same rhetoric that they’ve been spewing in well rehearsed briefs for quite some time and this hearing was no different. They clearly keep re-stating that if the DMCA were abolished or changed in any way, they would be substantially harmed and could quite possibly go out of business.

I have a few questions I didn’t hear and would like to have had asked of the anti-camp:

1) How did these companies survive before the DMCA was passed. Clearly most were in business and many were selling digital media before it was passed. They also clearly were doing well at the cash register at this time or they wouldn’t have the money to put such high priced people as Jack Valenti and Cary Sherman on the panel to represent them. If it is so essential to their existence, how did they ever manage before???

2) The anti camp stated that more media and better media has been released with the guarantee of the DMCA to protect them. The software and games industry group in particular mentioned this. To this again I have to ask, what did you do before the DMCA that allowed you to exist without its protections? Clearly Microsoft was doing a booming business without activation and many games companies put out the beginnings of what would be hugely popular games that have had follow-ons that continue on because they are good, not because they were protected by the DMCA. Examples being Doom, now up to Doom III, Unreal Tournament, now up to UT2004, and many others. These games existed before the DMCA and the companies survived and thrived, not because of the DMCA protections, but because of the “good” content. How has the DMCA changed this for the better?

3) Copyright already protected their content before the DMCA. Even with anti-copying technologies the anti group would still have to litigate to prove infringement. All the DMCA really did was add another layer of possible infringement (anti-circumvention). So what does the DMCA really add to protecting copyright holders that wasn’t already in existing copyright law? Infringement is infringement, and bypassing the anti-copy technology and infringing is the same as not bypassing ANY anti-copying technology and infringing.

For the pro-DMCRA camp I have just a few statements:

1) Boucher did a good job driving view-points from panelists that supported his HR 107.

2) Lessig left too many avenues open to rebut his testimony. He’s more interested in the theory of fair use, rather than practical application. Because of this when he was asked practical questions, he got stuck. Advice to Larry: make sure you have better practical examples to back up your theory. Unfortunately you looked stupid/ill prepared because of this.

3) The technologists, particularly Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Moore showed very clearly where the DMCA was broken with very precise examples. They showed why it was broken and why it would be good for Americans if it were fixed. Great job showing the laws abuses and the positives that can be gained if it is amended or abolished.

4) Boucher/Lessig made a very significant point that fair use is a very “foreign” concept to foreign countries. As long as the U.S. is partner to WIPO, the foreign companies with business interests in the U.S. will continue to fight fair use, what ever definition that may entail. In order to maintain fair use, it will take Americans to demand it, and also to define what it means for us rather than let the companies decide since fair use is for the consumers and we’re the only ones with a vested interest in it!

Lastly all this has brought me to the conclusion that the anti-DMCRA crowd want something even more than the DMCA. They want the legislation in place that will allow them to charge, per use, for every instance of their copyrighted material without worrying about constitutional infractions. The DMCA comes very close to this, and it won’t take too much to push copyright to this reality. The prospect of non-infringing uses out of the control of copyrighters is a concept the anti crowd wants to get rid of. It is also clear that there are very few legislators currently in Congress who are willing to change this.

So, what are we going to do about this come this November?

"it has become increasingly clear that the anti-DMCRA camp won’t give an inch."
Airider: At the beginning of the hearing, one of the legislators said that it was about jobs. He didn't have any other statement or questions for Panel 1. That said to me that he wasn't interested in hearing about the consumer's position. He just wanted the industries to continue to do whatever they wanted to do.

I lost count of the use of the word "hack" It's a bunch of bull anyway that they think this will open the door to hackers. It opened the door further when they started going after P2P and consumers. Idiots! They don't realize that hackers will hack whether you have laws in place or not, so what difference does it make, except to give more of a challenge to hackers! Oh well, stupid is as stupid does.

All, Here's the Consumer Electronics version of the hearing:

http://www.ce.org/press_room/press_release_detail.asp?id=10455

Good link, boggieman.
Shapiro did a great job yesterday. He gave specific examples in his testimony.

A thought here......Maybe it is time that we launch a campaign of our own. Those legislators that we saw yesterday that were not friendly to our cause perhaps need some pressure from our side. Maybe what we should do is ask those out there that live in the congressional districts that these unfriendly to our side reps belong to, to write and write and write to them. Just keep dumping on them and even organize some peaceful demosnstrations in those districts.....protest signs and all to voice our side. Any thoughts out there?

Robert Moore from 321 studios was great yesterday also. His testimony was awesome and he brought out most of the points that we have all been bringing out here.

http://www.321studios.com/

boggie -- The opponents are mainly from California (Bono, Issa, etc.). There's also Mike Ferguson from New Jersey, and Otter from Idaho.
Maybe schools/universities in those areas could be persuaded to start a letter-writing campaign to them. I doubt we have many members here from those areas.

I'm just proud (and smug) to be from a state whose congressional representative supports HR 107.