Slashdot Mirror

Second, for those too lazy to read it, the act deals with distribution, not personal recordings. If you legally own the media you are recording from and do not give or sell your copies, you are covered, according to this Act.

-------------------------

Here's some links that are especially useful for researching the legislative history of the DMCA. I believe these strongly contradict judge Kaplan's interpretations in his preliminary injunction opinio.

Summary page for Legislative History of DMCA.

The following is most revealing: DMCA Comments of Commerce Chairman Bliley. Here's a few choice comments:

The Committee considered it particularly important to ensure that the concept of fair use remain firmly established in the law and that consumer electronics, telecommunications, computer, and other legitimate device manufacturers have the freedom to design new products without being subjected to the threat of litigation for making design decisions.

Sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) make it illegal to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in so-called `black boxes'--devices with no substantial non-infringing uses that are expressly intended to facilitate circumvention of technological measures for purposes of gaining access to or making a copy of a work. These provisions are not aimed at widely used staple articles of commerce, such as the consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computer products--including videocassette recorders, telecommunications switches, personal computers, and servers--used by businesses and consumers everyday for perfectly legitimate purposes.

Under section 1201(a)(1)(C), the Librarian of Congress must make certain determinations based on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who must consult with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information before making any such recommendations, which must be made on the record. As Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, I felt very strongly about ensuring that the Assistant Secretary would have a substantial and meaningful role in making fair use and related decisions, and that his or her views would be made a part of the record. ... As the hearing record demonstrates, I and many of my colleagues are deeply troubled by the prospect that this legislation could be used to create a `pay-per-use' society. We rejected the Administration's original proposed legislation in large part because of our concern that it would have established a legal framework for copyright owners to exploit at the expense of ordinary information consumers. By insisting on a meaningful role for the Assistant Secretary and by ensuring that a court would have an opportunity to assess a full record, we believe we have established an appropriate environment in which the fair use interests of society at large can be properly addressed.

Here's some links that are especially useful for researching the legislative history of the DMCA. I believe these strongly contradict judge Kaplan's interpretations in his preliminary injunction opinio.

Summary page for Legislative History of DMCA.

The following is most revealing: DMCA Comments of Commerce Chairman Bliley. Here's a few choice comments:

The Committee considered it particularly important to ensure that the concept of fair use remain firmly established in the law and that consumer electronics, telecommunications, computer, and other legitimate device manufacturers have the freedom to design new products without being subjected to the threat of litigation for making design decisions.

Sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) make it illegal to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in so-called `black boxes'--devices with no substantial non-infringing uses that are expressly intended to facilitate circumvention of technological measures for purposes of gaining access to or making a copy of a work. These provisions are not aimed at widely used staple articles of commerce, such as the consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computer products--including videocassette recorders, telecommunications switches, personal computers, and servers--used by businesses and consumers everyday for perfectly legitimate purposes.

Under section 1201(a)(1)(C), the Librarian of Congress must make certain determinations based on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who must consult with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information before making any such recommendations, which must be made on the record. As Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, I felt very strongly about ensuring that the Assistant Secretary would have a substantial and meaningful role in making fair use and related decisions, and that his or her views would be made a part of the record. ... As the hearing record demonstrates, I and many of my colleagues are deeply troubled by the prospect that this legislation could be used to create a `pay-per-use' society. We rejected the Administration's original proposed legislation in large part because of our concern that it would have established a legal framework for copyright owners to exploit at the expense of ordinary information consumers. By insisting on a meaningful role for the Assistant Secretary and by ensuring that a court would have an opportunity to assess a full record, we believe we have established an appropriate environment in which the fair use interests of society at large can be properly addressed.

but was it really the intention of the DMCA to completely reverse the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992?

Yes, that was its intention. That is why it should pilloried, mocked, fought in court, shredded, and mounted on a pointed stick so that all may see it as an example of what happens when industry and government conspire to take away our freedoms.

Well, I just found this:

The following is the floor debate in the Senate before passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It was reported in the Congressional Record on October 8, 1998.

SNIP

Lots of senators had their say but I though this quote was especially telling in light of the NY judge's interpretation of the DMCA.

It thus should be about as clear as can be to a judge or jury that, unless otherwise specified, nothing in this legislation should be interpreted to limit manufacturers of legitimate products with substantial noninfringing uses--such as VCRs and personal computers--in making fundamental design decision or revisions, whether in selecting certain components over others or in choosing particular combinations of parts.

I trust that the Librarian of Congress will implement this provision in a way that will ensure information consumers may exercise their centuries-old fair use privilege to continue to gain access to copyrighted works.

Umm, this actually did happen, 17 years ago (with Betamax, not VHS).

On a related note, SDMI, which exists solely to manage copy protection for music, managed to let the certificate expire on their secure web server. Remember, these guys want to manage the keys to all the audio content in the world. Here's their current certificate:

This Certificate belongs to:
www.sdmi.org
EMS
Global Integrity
La Jolla, California, US
This Certificate was issued by:
Secure Server Certification Authority
RSA Data Security, Inc.
US
Serial Number: 1D:37:FE:F6:B9:A4:C0:91:41:B1:F9:D7:1C:43:A2:A4
This Certificate is valid from Wed Jan 06, 1999 to Fri Jan 07, 2000
Certificate Fingerprint: DF:EE:C6:82:A9:E2:8E:27:91:5F:8E:ED:6D:06:0D:FB

BTW, has anyone noticed that the HRRC (Home Recording Rights Association) seems to be dead? No new content on their page for some time now.

It's legal to record from TV. That's what VCRs were intended for.

• Reverse engineering IS legal for the purpose of interoperability.
  See the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 1201(f)

  Examples of legal reverse engineering:

  • AMD Reverse engineers Intel chips so that Intel Software can run on AMD.
  • WINE Reverse engineers Windows so that Windows Software can run on Wine.
  • Linux Reverse engineers DVD so that DVD Software can run/play on Linux.

• CSS is NOT copy protection.
  • Hardware DVD copying machines can copy DVD's without knowledge of any CSS infomation.
  • Rather, CSS acts as a mechanism to prevent "fair use" of the DVD media. CSS Authentication software merely removes this inconvenience to allow users to freely used purchaced media as governed by the "fair use" laws regarding copyrighted material.

Ever notice how we always seem to be getting upset with the RIAA or the MPAA when they throw their weight around? Where did they get the weight to push the MDCA into law anyway?

All the concerned parties banded together! They formed groups to persue common interests.

A group exists to protect the consumers rights under the Fair Use clause. It's the Home Recording Rights Coalition. Go join them! Do it now. As far as I know, it's the only group in Washington that is solely dedicated to preserving your right to make backups, record broadcasts, and make compilation disks.

Cheers,
Chris

(p.s. Remember your cartoons? Voltron got significantly more powerful when they united. The Wonder Twins were always combining their powers. There's a lesson in there somewhere. I'm sure of it...)