A bill that seeks to protect the consumer! (1 Viewer)

[TyC]

The Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002 seems to be a step in the right direction. I am glad to see a bill that protects Fair Use.
EDIT: You can read the bill for yourself here

 

[Carl Johnson]

That sounds like it goes a bit too far. If one person buys a CD this bill so unds like it would make it legal to give away or sell digital copies of it.

 

[TyC]

Actually, it seems to ensure that if a person buys a CD, they can sell or give away one digital copy to one person if they destroy their own copy:

The privileges prescribed by subsections (a) and (c) apply
where the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord of a work in a digital or other non-analog format, or any person authorized by such owner, sells or otherwise disposes of the work by means of a transmission to a single recipient, provided that the owner does not retain his or her copy or phonorecord in a retrievable form and that the copy or phonorecord is sold or otherwise disposed of in its original format.

 

[Thomas Newton]

I think that part of the bill is about preserving First Sale rights (e.g., you can resell or give away the song that you purchased online, if you are transferring your copy.)

Today, when a consumer purchases a book, they are free to lend their copy to a friend or family member, or to sell their copy to a used books store. Section 4 allows consumers to do the same thing with digital content by extending the first sale doctrine – codified in section 109 of Title 17 – to digital transmissions. At the same time, it protects copyright holders by restricting such transmissions to a single recipient and requiring the consumer to transmit their copies with copy-control restrictions in place. Consumers also have to dispose of their copy after they transmit the work to someone else.

The real defect of this bill is that, like the DMCA, it bows to the false god of the supposed "need" for technological protection. Note the reference to preserving copy-control restrictions (which might have been aimed at preventing you from exercising your First Sale rights in the first place).

Likewise, Section 5 only relaxes DMCA anti-circumvention in cases where the copyright holder does not provide some means for lawful users to make use of the work. The means in question apparently does not need to be standard or even particularly convenient. This is an inappropriate way to treat the public. Circumvention should always be a legal option for making lawful use of a work.