How would this gut the DMCA? As far as I can see, all it does is codify exemptions that the copyright office has already granted.

And what's wrong with Congress "assuming the place of the Copyright Office" by adding exemptions to the DMCA when Congress delegated this (entirely legislative) function to the Copyright Office in the first place? We can argue the merits of the specific exemptions in the bill, but what's inherently wrong with Congress deciding that some exemptions should be permanent, rather than having to be re-argued in front of a captive agency every three years? Is the Copyright Office bureaucracy inherently better at setting policy than Congress?

Anyway, check out the full text of the bill when you can, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on how it differs from last year's HR 1201.

Tim, pls read the bill, I've provided a link. You should see that there is far more in the bill. Also, I strongly encourage you to join in the postings occurring on another blog entry of mine titled The Growing Threat. It's a nice conversation we're having, was 16 comments at last count.

John, about 6 or 7 years ago I asked Boucher why he wouldn't put specific fair uses into legislation (he would only put vague descriptions). He said he thought being specific was dangerous, because technologies will change, uses will change, and it is better to have courts interpret fair use than have Congress codify it. I thought that made a lot of sense. Now here he is trying to codify specific uses, the opposite of what he once believed. I believe politicians should have the right to change their minds, but the DMCA has given the Copyright Office an extensive hearing process, where people can testify, submit evidence, etc. That seems a far safer approach to exemptions than relying on members of Congress to write them. Do you honestly think we have the same say in that process?

Patrick,

Having had a chance to look over the bill more thoroughly, I see you're right that there is indeed more to it than merely codifying the Copyright Office's exceptions. My apologies.

However, I still think the changes are more or less cosmetic. The bill would only legalize circumvention, not the act of "trafficking" in circumvention device. That makes it essentially useless for the 99.9999% of people who lack the time or ability to develop their own circumvention tools.

Patrick, having followed the Copyright Office's DMCA exemptions process, I can say that yes, in this instance we have the "same say," if not a better one, in Congress, which of course can also hold hearings and review evidence. The Copyright Office threw up so many procedural hassles and tortured interpretations against any consumer-oriented exemptions that in the 2006 round many proponents simply gave up. The CO wouldn't even consider an exemption without mountains of evidence, and whatever evidence proponents provided, it was never enough. The process is broken.

I was surprised to see you suggest that the Copyright Office is a better forum for clarifying rights, because I know how you feel about the CO's administration of statutory licenses.

Unfortunately, the bill doesn't go far enough. If you talk to anyone outside of Hollywood, esp. the biggest influencers in society, they will say DMCA as passed was flawed at best and should be repealed and redebated. This time in front of, if not an impartial commision, than with both sides equally represented.

"And what's wrong with Congress "assuming the place of the Copyright Office"..."

Someone should make a list of every time IPCentral tries to derail or deride ideas like freedom of the press, or democratic processes, which are "silly leftist" ideas, to quote from one IP Central post.

Evolution to the market state, passing over little speed bumps like theBill of Rights..