Subject: Response from Sen. Stevens WRT CBDTPA
From: Frederick J Polsky v1.0 (fred@fredbox.com)
Date: Tue Jul 02 2002 - 19:23:23 AKDT
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[bracketed comments mine]
June 6, 2002
Dear Frederick:
Thanks for your letter regarding the Consumer Broadband and Digital
Television Promotion Act. You raised some good pionts, and I appreciate
your taking the time to share your views.
A number of Alaskans have expressed concern about the impact this bill
will have on programmers and others. I have been working with Intel and
Microsoft [gee, I feel better now. not.] and am pleased to report that
many of those concerns will be addressed when the bill is marked up in
the Senate Commerce Committee. Representatives from the computer
industry, software production, and movie and music studios have been
working dilligently to develop voluntary standards on software
protection. Our bill says that if they cannot agree on a standard within
18 months, then the government will assist in that effort. [government
'assistance'.. what everyone needs. Just ask the children of the Branch
Davidians..] My staff has been told that industry is within days of
reaching an agreement on this issue. If that happens, this legislation
will either be set and/or substantially revised.
If an agreement is not reached, Senator Fritz Hollings, Chairman of the
Committee, has agreed to an amendment I plan to offer clarifying that
software producers who participate in developing those uniform standards
will be able to copyright and protect their proprietary work. Microsoft
and Intel both strongly support that amendment. [Well! Problem solved!
That is, the problem of non-Microsoft and non-Intel products being
allowed to exist, anyway]
Others have raised concerns about the impact the bill might have on
consumers personal use of material. The measure actually confirms
consumers legal rights for the first time and actually extends them.
[That which is not compulsory is forbidden; that which is not forbidden
is compulsory] For example, the Supreme Court decision in the Betamax
case gave consumers the right to time shift television shows they copy
for later viewing. Our bill puts that right into the United States Code.
[Really, I'm satisfied with the following legal claim to rights:=20
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.; Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.] It also extends "personal
use" to include any "lawful use in the home," not just time shifting.
In addition, the bill guarantees consumers a seat at the table as
copying policy and technology decision are made [sic] - a guarantee they
do not currently enjoy. Consumers are also guaranteed the right to
participate in decision on encoding rules, the policy conditions that
will determine what consumers may copy, under what conditions, and how
many times. They do not currently have that right.
If the private sector discussions fail, perhaps because consumers are
not satisfied, then the Federal Communications Commission will reoslve
the dispute through a public rulemaking through which consumers may
participate. Further, the technology standards and encoding rules must
meet the pro-consumer protection included in the bill.
The legislation also imposes statutory penalties including monetary
fines on content companies who try to lock up their content more
stringently than allowed under the encoding rules. Consumers enjoy no
such protections today. [The right not to purchase products from such
companies? Oh, wait, that's being repealed with this bill. I forgot..]
Lastly, the measure includes a section called "limitation on the
Exclusive Rights of Copyright Owners". This section mandates that as a
matter of law, that the encoding rules for new technologies like
broadband internet distribution MUST "take into account the limitations
on the exclusive rights of copyright owners, including the fair use
doctrine." Absent the bill, content companies would be free to impose
more stringent standards.
This is a very complex issue, but one important both to content
companies as well as the technology world. I am working hard to strike a
reasonable balance between the needs of consumers for fair use and the
rights of companies producing content to protect their products. I also
want to make sure that software developers and computer manufacturers
whether they are Alaskans telecommuting from their home computer, or
building computers in their garage, are not unduly restricted. [like I
want to be duly restricted...] Thanks again for taking time to share
your views.
With best wishes,
Cordially, [sic]
Ted Stevens
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
-- File: signature.asc
-- Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQA9Im4rfUdXAv3jqewRAv49AKC5I+BES0189l6UmBW5uVyEJhszYwCfcRVi
VmMLJyHkWCmiqxLO3+zb+Zk=
=T4RQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 19:23:26 AKDT