Yesterday, I noted that a new consumer electronics coalition was launching, part of the good news regarding the anti-DMCA bill moving slowly through Congress (Anti-DMCA Personal Technology Freedom Coalition to Launch). Today, The Register publishes a story on two conspicuous absences from the nascent coalition, Microsoft and Apple (Microsoft, Apple snub consumer freedom coalition). Could it be that my analysis of why MSFT and Apple would support DRM and the DMCA is correct? Read and decide for yourself: Metaphors Gone Wild: On Pies, Ships, Regressive Taxes, DRM and Microsoft.
My post on the Personal Technology Freedom Coalition also pointed out that anti-DMCA Congressional leader Rick Boucher (D-VA) sounded pretty optimistic. Well, the leadership of the House Judiciary Committee has struck back (Judiciary Committee Leaders Issue Statement on H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act):
WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.), Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), and Judiciary Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Lamar S. Smith (R-Tex.) issued the following statement regarding H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act.“We strongly oppose the substance of H.R. 107. This legislation would eviscerate a key provision of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which is successfully protecting copyrighted works and providing consumers access to more digital content than ever before. In fact, a DVD player is now as common a household item as the VCR was 15 years ago precisely because of the DMCA. H.R. 107 would undo a law that is working and destroy the careful balance in copyright law between consumers’ rights and intellectual property rights.
“Furthermore, our strong objections to the substance of H.R. 107 are matched by our objections to what appears to be a bold jurisdictional power grab. The Judiciary Committee has - and has long had - exclusive jurisdiction over copyright law. Rest assured, we will wholeheartedly oppose this move in a bipartisan fashion, as we would expect Energy and Commerce Committee leaders to do if we attempted to write energy legislation.”
via Furdlog and beSpecific