Dear Mr. McConnell:

Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 692, the Digital Consumer Right to Know Act. I appreciate hearing from you.

I understand your concerns. The lightning-fast growth and development of broadband and other high-speed, high-quality digital technology continues to reveal exciting new possibilities for the creation and exchange of movies, sound files, graphics, and other digital media files. The ability to download, transmit, rip, burn, view, and experience media in a myriad of new ways is rapidly changing the way Americans use their computers, televisions, and CD players, and could potentially have a profound effect on the way we conduct our business, spend our leisure hours, and interact with our families, friends, and neighbors.

As with any such change, however, our enthusiasm for new opportunities must be tempered with caution. Existing "fair use" doctrines generally acknowledge that a consumer who has purchased or otherwise lawfully obtained certain media has the right to make a copy for personal use, such as backing up a file. However, the ease with which all kinds of media, both digital and analog, can be accessed, copied, and retained (or re-copied) over long periods of time without degradation of the files' quality compels us to take special care that such materials are not being used or distributed unfairly or unlawfully.

Recently, consumers have expressed concern that a growing number of digital products employ technologies that prevent users from making copies of the material. The Digital Consumer Right to Know Act, introduced by Senator Ron Wyden, would direct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue rules requiring producers or distributers of copyrighted digital material to disclose any restrictions that may limit the ability of the user to play or make digital copies of the content. This legislation has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should it reach the Senate floor for consideration.

While I strongly support continued protection for consumers' fair use rights, I believe that we must also be mindful of the rights given to people whose livelihoods depend on copyright protection. Any legislation that seeks to clarify the fair use doctrine as it relates to technological copy-protections for digital media must also guard against encouraging unauthorized or illegal reproduction or distribution of copyrighted media. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this issue closely and will keep your views in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so again if I can help you in any way.


Sincerely,

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
United States Senator

This is most likely a pre-written response to inquiries of the same subject. But at least I know his stance as of today.

It sounds good, but most responses that I've read say the same thing. "New technology is great for you guys, but it can be bad too.. the end"

Having worked for a State Senator I can say with all confidence that this was in fact a letter derived from a pre-written response with the pertinent facts interchanged to suit the topic at hand. I wrote hundreds of these type of letters during the legislative term as a "Legislative Aide/Community Liason".

I am surprised though that he took a stance, albeit a safe one, at all. Most will only say "...I will take your considerations into account should this matter come up for debate/voting..."

My favorite tag line to use was"..I applaud your efforts to be involved in the legislative process and should this matter come to the floor for debate...." working for the government that closely only reinforced my worst fears about government. However, it also made me more determined to make changes in the way folks think and act on issues.

"Up the horns!"

geeze i sent my letter to my sennator who even gives a shit about us in Minnesota, Norm Coleman, and I got a responce in less than a month, which was a very good return rate, and also it was different form one of those prewritten for the masses letters. My letter didn't have the "...but it can be bad too... the end" ending it was more of a "technology is great and the RIAA thinks it isn't" responce

That's because Norm Coleman actually seems to have an opinion.

Well I'm disapointed. Ron Wyden is one of my Senators and his response to me was very canned and didn't even mention the bill he's sponsering. sounds like most of them sill have fence post up their rear

in substance..it seems the same as most of them..trying to keep that tricky line of literally saying something, but actually saying nothing...

too many politicians and not enough public servants

Chris..you should have written him
as "Un Death"...that way, you would have a response..Dear Mr. Death...

just struck me as funny....
hope no one is offended

Code... you should be a politician. At least right now, you take an obvious stance and stay informed.

That would have been funny. I was actually gonna use my other alias, Inyo FACE.

I wonder if 100 years ago he would have said that we have to be mindful of the rights given to people whose livelihoods depend on the horse and buggy.

Why do copyright makes automatically get to make a livelihood? There should be no problem for them to do so, after all a copyright is a monopoly. But the copyright laws make it so their heirs get to make a livelihood. THATS where I have a serious problem. Copyrights that extend to 75yrs AFTER death are ridiculously too long and need to be stopped.

While this Senator seems concerned about "fair use" rights, he seems more concerned about the rights of the Copyright holder. Unless we get lawmakers that get more concerned with "fair use", he's nothing more than another puppet for the RIAA.

What's the difference between my leaving cash & assets to my heirs vs. leaving them my copyrights? My heirs should be able to reap whatever benefits/reposibilities that may come from my estate no matter what the content may be.

That wasn't the intent of our forefathers when they set up the copyrights in the first place. And if you know anything about economics, monopolies are bad for them. They stifle creativity and invention, raise prices, steal from the poor and give to the rich.

There's nothing wrong with passing your hard earned wealth on to your own heris. But doing so by means of a legal monopoly stifles creativity, and only increases prices. All I am saying is put limits to copyrights that are REASONABLE!! Like 30 years and that's all. Now if you died after only 10 years of your 30 year copyright had been used, then great, pass on the remaining 20 years to your heirs. But current law stating that copyrights can exist until DEATH PLUS 75 years is absurd. And an obvious win for the mega-corps that own most of the copyrights in music.

Any forced time limit on ownership is BS! Why should something I created become public domain without my permission?

Any forced time limit on ownership is BS! Why should something I created become public domain without my permission?

So, uh all of Disney's movies are copyright infringers? Great, arrest the bastards.

Something you have created is already in the public domain, but is restricted by law for a certain time period. This is the exchange we make. I'll grant you these super-rights, but only for a limited time.

That limited time has been extended systematically in such a way that the original point of it, to stimulate the arts and sciences, is totally lost on the current day point of it. To collect money off old works and sue anyone that makes anything that looks, acts, or smells like it.

Then why should anyone create anything just to have the public do with & what they want to itor with it?

Two words - inheritance tax. It's one of the things our country was founded on. People show make it on their own, not based on inherited wealth.

I shouldn't post after dark, can't see the darn typos.

Why should my heirs have to deal with the poverty I endured as a young child?

BTW, there are legal ways around the inheritance tax.

Artists create for the love of the art first. the money will follow. if you invest you money correctly your heirs will have a good inheritance.

elwah is 100% correct. Ideas cannot be owned. they are for the benifit of all. the copyright laws as origionally intended strikes the balance between allowing the aritst an oprotunity to use their ideas for profit for a period of time before being released to public domain.