Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D - CA) has introduced H.R. 1066, The Balance Act. It seeks to clarify 'that America's historic principles of fair use - protected under Section 107 of the Copyright Act - apply to analog and digital transmissions.' Apparently Lawrence Lessig is on board, as are several associations and other organizations. If you like what you see, encourage your representative to support the bill."


SUMMARY OF BALANCE ACT OF 2003

For over one hundred years, copyright law has aspired to strike a fair balance between the interests of copyright holders in the control and exploitation of their works with the interests of society in the free flow of ideas, information and commerce. The great challenge today is to maintain that balance in the digital age by finding ways to prevent and punish digital pirates without treating every consumer as one. The Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations (BALANCE) Act of 2003 achieves this, and does so without utilizing government mandates or other prescriptive measures that ultimately only serve to stifle innovation.

Specifically, the BALANCE Act:

Clarifies that America’s historic principles of fair use – protected under Section 107 of the Copyright Act – apply to analog and digital transmissions.

Allows purchasers to make backup copies and display digital works on the devices of their choice.

Protects purchasers by prohibiting non-negotiable shrink-wrap licenses that limit their rights and expectations.

Clarifies that purchasers can sell or give away their copies of digital works, just like they can with traditional hard media.

Protects purchasers by permitting them to bypass technical measures that impede their rights and expectations.

Provides flexibility for content owners to develop new and innovative ways to protect their content and enable lawful uses.

The BALANCE Act has wide support among leading academics, including Professor Larry Lessig of Stanford Law School and Professor Pamela Samuelson of Boalt Hall, consumer electronics, computing, communications and Internet commerce companies, consumer groups, and libraries.

The Bill is HR1066 I urge you to contact your representative and tell them to support this bill.

Adobe PDF of the bill

Wow, if this bill can get passed then it truely would be a golden age for music.

It would most certainly be a major step in the right direction. I expect shortly we will be hearing "The sky is falling lobby" screaming how this will destroy the lives of countless musicians, songwriters and copyright holders, taking the food out of the mouths of the aritists great grandchildern, and destroy the economy in the process. Everyone contact your representaive.

heh, you ain't whistling dixie tack, but perhapse this time common sence will prevail over the almighty dollar sign........ well, i can dream can't i.

what they don't realize is that this is the best way to get more of those fabled dollar signs. without this, sure, they'll get em hot in the short term, but not at all in the long, cause people just ain't gonna keep buying their shit when it has so many terms and agreements attached to it that you can't look at it wrong without a law-suit.

This is a brillient bill. I dont think its got much chance of success through. If it shows the slightest signs of acceptance the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, every entertainment company and probably a few others will start predicting the end of the economy if it passes and put everything theyve got into stoping it. But they probably wont even need to. Still, we can hope.

It's like every other measure proposed since the enactment of the DMCA -- stonewalled out of sight, mind and existence. I predict that the major news media -- controlled, as I've said a zillion times before, by the same large multinational conglomerates that control the Big 8 movie studios, the Big 5 recording companies, the major broadcast and cable outlets and the big book publishing firms -- will do everything in its power to sweep this issue under the rug and try to make sure NO ONE finds out about it.

Also notice how interesting it is that the RIAA-MPAA-IFPI-BSA axis considers governmental involvement of this type to benefit the consumer "unnecessary" or "unwarranted interference" or what have you, yet see no problem with advocating socialist-style Big Government dictates on everything to what gets put into home computers to how over-the-air digital broadcast signals are transmitted to how certain media are manufactured, and so forth -- in short, if it HURTS you and I.

The one thing to remember is that MS Lofgren is indeed from the Silcon Valley area, so this will be an uphill battle.

They dont want to hurt consumers, they just dont care about them. If it keeps the money flowinh, who cares who suffers.

Yes, it will be swept under the rug. Along with MOCA and that cd-labeling bill. The DMCA was swept under the rug in the same way back in 97-98. What worked then works now.

I would like to say that I agree with absolutely everything that appears on this page (prior to my adding a post). This in and of itself is pretty rare, because I'm such a crabby old man, I suppose).

The bill is a wonderful idea, a ray of hope. Unfortunately, the industry WILL try to make it go away, as the rest of you have said.

I have been so discouraged lately by the real lack of any "new idea" for music that is not completely greed-motivated (mp3.com, Rhapsody, PressPlay, AOL, Apple, RIAA, etc.) that I cannot help to feel good about this bill.

Even if it doesn't make it, as least someone is trying to do something in the name of what's right and what makes sense instead of doing it in the name of the dollar.

Actually they are probably doing it in the name of the vote, but who cares why as long as the balence act is introduced? Its still very unlikely to pass through.

Perhaps I should bet a large sum of money on it not passing. Then its a win-win situation

I see the side of this bill that protects the downloader, hence Napster etc. What is the other side of the coin? How exactly is the writer going to protect their work from being given away 100x100?

I don't disagree with "Balance" but in the days of vinyl and compact disk prior to the internet, one could only give away cassette tape copies of ones inventory of music.

That limited how many of only close friends and family would swap, now it is all a "sharing" thing, I take what I want from your site and provide a folder for anyone to look into from my pc.

This exact thing is being done with software and so many other digital media other than just music, we are in a "Free Range" world now, anyone can trade what they have for what they want while it multiplies beyond their imagination.

I for one do not think this can be stoped, it is too late, short of the recording industry finding a new type of recording that the computer world cannot assimilate, along with an entire new player above and beyond what the pc world will see for years to come.

Real possible but not probable, sorta like non-gas consumming engines for cars?!

I still buy the cds I want so it all makes not too much to me, but if I turned into a big time recording hit, then I would want my due too.

The music industry is working on two non-computer discs right now: SACD (no computer support) and DVD-audio (computer support only with tough DRM). Neither is going to be easy to rip, but because few people have the very expensive players they arn't widely available yet. Anyway, its nothing a toslink cable or even analog cable cant get round. Its still pointless as long as the musics available on CD

It cant be stoped - but the RIAA and similar are going to give it a good try!

it is about time.
not that i expect it to meet with any major success, but it is still a hope.

I see it this way: what if our electricity providers were suddenly sued by battery manufacturers? What if we were forced to buy batteries instead of just plugging in our stuff? I mean, "a lot of work went into the making" of batteries and "many people would lose their jobs" if we stopped buying them yaddiyaddiyadda, blahblahblah.
But it cant really happen can it? No, we have cheap electric ower coming from the nearest wall AND the battery industry is happy.
Well, same thing with downloading music. If I can get it from the jack in the nearest wall, why the f*ck would I pay money for some stupid overpriced mystery-CD?
No, the industry needs to come up with an equivalent of a battery, or it needs to go out of business.

btw, physically speaking, the power grid and music on the internet are exactly the same thing, just different amplitude and frequency.

another thing: I think after the RIAA/MPAA go out of business, the tech companies, who sell MP3 players etc., will replace the RIAA as the artists' pimp. To sell music-playing/recording/copying-devices, you need music, and the RIAA is clearly a less efficient medium for music distribution than p2p/mp3.

that's a good point spica. although i'd much rather the RIAA go out of business, as the MPAA doesn't bother me much.

i think movies are a completely different ball game. for instance: you can rent them, or see them in a theator long before you shell out the cash to buy them, so there's a lot less mistery involved. if the movie's shit, then you'll hear about it a lot sooner than you would a music cd, so at least you have some warning before you shell out cash to even rent it or see it in a theator. and finally, for the most part, i like what they produce. a lot of it is actually good entertainment. (i know, i know, a lot of it's shit as well)

in addition, movies cost a hell of a lot more to produce and market. and there's a hell of a lot more risk involved if no wants to see it. etc.

Movies are different. For one thing the MPAA doesn't yet hate the internet the way the RIAA does, but mostly because movies arn't yet easy to trade. You need fast broadband, and even then it takes a long time to download. The movie industrys stratagy about the internet differers accordingly. While the RIAA is putting everything its got into fighting p2p through scary lawyers, misinformation campaigns and the occasional bit of minor sabatage the MPAA is working on secure almost unbreakable DRM systems, such as the CPSA. Im a DRM expert, and ive studied the CPSA. Its not unbreakable, but its enough to stop most people, once they get rid of CSS. Theres still the analog hole of course, but thats about it unless someone breaks either CPPM, CPRM or DTCP, and they all look a lot tougher than CSS. The movie industrys not worried about the internet because they know by the time enough people have broadband to affect their sales they will have their protection systems complete. They should hold for at least a few years before someone gets hold of a key.

Actually the battery manufacturers did get a bit scared when rechargeables were introduced, but there was nothing they could do about it

And you don't hear Kodak bitching because the studios are switching to digital filming. They're getting hurt far worse than the record biz and they're not trying to criminalize digital photos. They're trying to adapt.

If you build your business on a specific media, sooner or later that media will be replaced. It doesn't matter if you're talking about film, batteries or CDs.

If you're not flexible enough to adapt, then you die. It's survival of the fittest.

The thing this bill is missing is a provision for content providers (aka musicians) to declare that a particular piece of intellectual property is exempt from DMCA restrictions.

Netscape, Internet Explorer, Acrobat Reader all fall into this category, which could easily be extended to individual songs. This would allow the writer to, say, pick three songs from a CD that may be freely distributed and register a separate copyright for those songs -- before the record label even gets their hands on it.

Then it becomes the content creator's option. If I'm not mistaken, that's who the laws were designed to protect, not the record labels.