Slashdot Mirror

Remember folks, the founders of the United States assured private citizens the right to keep and bear arms just for this sort of reason. Government cannot provide extra-legal abilities to private interest groups. We are supposed to treated equally. So unless you and I get the right to hack, DoS or trojan MPAA members and their property, it is unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson requires you to bust a cap in any mo-fo that tries to deny you your Constitutional rights -- its in that Federalist Papers thingy.

From the 14th:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I can find no mention of it on Thomas, and if I bug my representative without a bill number, his staff's just going to check the "misc. loon" box when I call.

I really don't understand the ACLU's strategy here. Aren't people already allowed to do this kind of research thanks to the librian of congress's decision on exemptions to the DMCA's anti-circumvention scheme?

If he's already allowed to do this type of research, what harm is the ACLU basing their decision on? Won't they just get thrown out of court for bringing an issue that isn't ripe for decision? (i.e. that has no consequences, because the librarian of congress has already crafted an exemption for this research)

Truman suggested the nuclear bomb to Stalin 57 years ago TODAY, and you nerds are discussing the first wind-up phone charger review? MY GOD, GET SOME FRICKIN' PRIORITIES!!!

The Mormons first settled in Utah and founded Salt Lake City 155 years ago TODAY, and you people are JACKING OVER a wind up phone charger? JESUS H. CHRIST, PEOPLE, GET SOME PRIORITIES!!!

Martin Van Buren died 140 years ago TODAY, and you people are STILL going on about that phone charger? DAMMIT, GET SOME PRIORITIES, YOU SICK FREAKS?!?!?!

DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT (House of Representatives - August 04, 1998)

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for yielding this time to me, and I am pleased to rise today in support of the passage of H.R. 2281, which will extend new protections against the theft of their works to copyright owners.

Madam Speaker, new protections are needed due to the ease with which flawless copies of copyrighted materials can both be made and transmitted in the digital network environment. Essential, however, to the creation of new guarantees for copyright owners is the retention of the traditional rights of the users of intellectual property. A balance has always existed in our law between these conflicting interests, and the major challenge in the writing of this legislation is to assure that no fundamental altering of that delicate balance takes place.

Another challenge is to ensure that in the effort to eliminate devices that are designed and produced to make illegal copies of copyrighted materials, that legitimate consumer electronics products are not also placed in a category of legal uncertainty.

Today I want to offer congratulations primarily to the Members of the House Committee on Commerce who have devoted long hours in the effort to assure that these challenges are met. Specifically, the Committee on Commerce has added provisions that protect personal privacy by clearly permitting personal computer owners to disable cookies that are placed on their disks by others; that allow the encryption research that will lead to a new generation of trusted and secure systems; that give equipment manufacturers the certainty that their consumer electronics products need not affirmatively accommodate all technological protection measures; and that creative procedure for assuring the continuation of the fair use rights of the American public, a procedure that will prevent material that is generally available today under fair use being locked away in a pay-per-use regime in future years.

[TIME: 1400]

Report language also specifies that the technological protection measure circumvention restrictions will not apply when manufacturers, retailers and technicians need to make adjustments to devices to ensure that their performance is not degraded as a consequence of the installation of a technological protection measure. These changes, taken together, significantly improve the original legislation.

The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Klug), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), among others, deserve thanks for their successful efforts to create new copyright protections, while ensuring that traditional user rights are not undermined.

The Committee on Commerce has, in the manner for which it is known, mastered the intricate details of this complex subject and has produced a balanced result. I want to offer my congratulations to all who have been involved in that outstanding effort.

It is my pleasure to urge passage of H.R. 2281.

Madam Speaker, I will insert in the record correspondence from the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and myself, which further defines the terminology that is used in the statute.

1. Click here
2. Click on the link for #14
3. Do a browser search for "boucher", click on the link

Actually all presidents have used the power of the Executive Order. It bypasses congress and allows the president to a law. For example, Bill Clinton executed an executive order lowering the allowed level of arsenic in drinking water. Bush changed that order. President Bush issued an executive order that contradicted the 1978 Presidential Records Act, a law passed by congress. The law would have required records of the Reagan White House to be released 12 years after that president left office. Bush also used an executive order to establish the office of homeland security. So parts of Bush's "anti-terrorism" package were enacted through what amounts to presidential fiat, the executive order. The next president will obviously be able to undo any and all presidential orders, just each congress can repeal the laws passed by the previous congress. I believe executive orders can also be ruled unconsitutional.

I am sure Clinton signed some executive orders I disagree with and I'm sure Bush must have signed some I agree with, but these examples were both in the news at the time and they are the ones I remember.

For more information about the checks and balances of the American government, check out your local library or go on-line and visit:

• http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa121897 .htm
• http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0431503.html
• http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/usexec.html
• http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html - for a view opposing the executive order power

And that's One to Grow On.

This violates our civil liberties, plain and simple. See the following for more information.

Actually, not quite. How a bill becomes law in the House and Senate is not that simple. Read these and have fun.

Actually, not quite. How a bill becomes law in the House and Senate is not that simple. Read these and have fun.

knee-jerk... how about your response!

This just says that if you hack into a system and cause an accident that kills people(like making the air traffic control system crash planes) then you can get life in prison.

"if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death"

Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002
If my family gets killed because some script kiddy takes out the air traffic control system at Kennedy I am going to be pissed.

I've just finished reading through the overview in detail, and skimming the other documents.

Before everyone starts bringing out their copy of 1984 (sorry - not going to link to Amazon, thank you very much) to compare lets take a good look at what they're doing.

First, a Service Provider (some place you might want to use your "Liberty" ID) has no requirment to use the Liberty IDs exclusively. The Service Provider can authenticate you with a 'local' username/password as well. (It's up to them.) The examples they use indicate this as well.

Second, if you don't trust an Identity Provider (The entity that you have your cross-site identity with), you don't have to use them -- there can (and hopefully will) be others. There's no built in monopoly, like some other system.

Lastly, if you're worried about your Identity Provider (who holds your 'master account') knowing all sorts of jucy information about you, you can relax (mostly). Other then when and where you signed on, or re-signed on, no personal information gets transferred from Service Provider to the Identity Provider. (With the exception of information needed to verify the identity you give.) This is unlike this system who wants to hold alot of information for itself. The key here is that there is no requirment forcing the Identity Provider to do this, and if you don't like it - don't use it.

If enough people stand up and say "NO", we can affect change.

On the positive side, if the Identity Provider has reasonable policies regarding the use of my personal information, and a compelling base of like-minded Service Providers using it's authentication service, I would likely avail myself of it's use. At the same time I'd burn a monopolistic Identity Provider in effigy.

NOTHING.

This isn't a matter of wait and see, the bill stinks so badly that even the sponsors claim to oppose it.

The Webcaster exemption is meaningless unless legislation is passed that overrides the Library of Congress CARP decision that makes Webcasting financially impossible for any US-based operation. Don't expect the bill to have this provision added, it was not written for our benefit either as consumers or as content distributors

Unfortunately, this is a draft, so there is no bill number we can add to this to so we can tell our Congresscritters which bill we want dumped into the bitbucket. Yet.

What can we do?

When the bill we don't want becomes available, we need to contact our Congressmen and Senators and tell them that WE DO NOT WANT IT. We need to tell our Congressman and Senators to VOTE YES on Rick Boucher's Music Online Competition Act .

The best way to do this is with a fax gateway set up specifically to enable us and anyone else who's interested to easily contact our elected representatives. When it becomes available, we then need to point, click, and make our points known.

Letters are obsolete in this context. Due to worry about anthrax, they are going through extensive decontamination and a letter might take months to get there if it shows up at all. Phone calls are good, but this works best because it's easy for someone to casually participate. What we need are hundreds of thousands of contacts between us and our elected representatives, and it's been proven that this works.

The ACLU uses this approach and it frequently works, despite the unpopularity of the ACLU itself and civil liberties in general.

Who lives in Washington,DC who is willing to dedicate a telephone line to this and is willing to maintain a fax server limited to local calls within the DC area?

The software required to run a Web-to-fax gateway already exists, check http://www.tpc.int for more information. The site seems to be down right now. If it doesn't come back up, there are other possibilities. Or start an Open Source project at Sourceforge and write one.

Given the basic gateway software, a front end is needed that does what we need to do.

The main requirement is that it allow users to submit their zip codes and automatically return a response that will direct their faxes with our canned message and anything users want to add to the fax number corresponding to their Congresscritter.

The ACLU has this kind of setup that should be easy to duplicate. To see the user interface, click here and enter your zip code. Go through with the rest of the process if you agree with what they want public support for, but the important part is to see how such a thing works.

The hardest part is gathering the list of several hundred fax numbers. While there is such a list, it's a couple of years old and needs updating before it is used. Fixing this just takes being willing to put in a few hours comparing the list against the current list of Congresscritters and going to individual web pages for new additions to the list.

Based on the previous performance of the geek community, The Register says essentially that we as a community are too stupid to mobilize to cover our own asses,preferring the practice of pure Libertarian cult dogma to any approach that can work in the real world. Maybe they're right. I'm writing this in case they aren't.

Is our freedom worth a spare server, the price of a phone line, a bit of code writing, and being willing to point and click a few times as these bills hit various points in the legislative process?

It's up to you now. If The Register is right, and we can't mobilize to protect ourselves, we don't deserve to be free and we don't deserve to be able to use our computers and the Net we will instead of as appliances whose posssiblities are limited to what Hollywood, the Feds, and Microsoft give us permission for.

1. Click here
2. Click on the link for #14
3. Do a browser search for "boucher", click on the link

His discussion of the legal risks of decrypting these blacklists is fascinating too, and (as he likes to say) "a topic in itself." He would like to open up the source to his SmartFilter-decryption tool but feels the legal risk is too high. How sad is that?

-jhp

South Africa (where I come from). There is no need to, and in fact no WAY to, register a copyright (except for films). There is no copyright office or the like, only a patent office. Reference: Department of Trade and Industry (SA)

Collecting damages involves proving that you are in possession of the original copy of the work, which is most easily done by proving that you had the complete work before the first publication. I don't have a legal reference, but I have associations with two successful Copyright defendants.

WIPO's rules require that all signatory countries enact legislation to recognise only: the WORD "Copyright", the copyright symbol (and bracket-c-bracket is specifically excluded in recent WIPO commentaries, but can be recognised by individual countries if they choose to), AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE COPYRIGHT TO BE REGISTERED.

I don't have a reference for the symbol vs. (C) commentary, but according to this article, this article, and in particular this article from the Library of Congress you haven't done your research. Or you can read from the Berne Convention itself. In particular take note of the line "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin", as well as references in all three articles to the registration requirement for claiming infringement being a purely US phenomenon, but that it may make it easy to claim damages in other jurisdictions. Registration can also take place at any time in a Copyright life!

Not only did you get it backwards, (the UCC only recognizes the (c) as a valid copyright notice) but all of the above is meaningless if you haven't registered the copyright.

1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright," or the abbreviation "Copr."; and, from LOC.

When copyright is challanged, the onus is on the author to prove that their work predates any work the claimant can prove.

Wrong.

Rephase, your Honour. When copyright is challanged, the onus is on the challanged to prove that their work predates anything the defendant can prove.

Same effect. At long as I can prove I owned the work before you did, you can't possible own the Copyright. This is enough to get even a registration overturned in court (since you don't have to register a Copyright at the beginning of its life).

This is definately NOT a recommended method. The only recommended method is formal registration.

Only in the US, Canada and other countries where they HAVE registries.

Actually it only proves that you can mail yourself an empty(?) envelope.

No, this is why it specifically has to be registered mail, or the equivalent service, because they will not accept unsealed mail. Registered mail ensures that the mail is delivered and not tampered with. Or did you miss the bit about "containing the complete work"?

You might look here [copyright.gov] for some correct information on copyright in the US. There are also links to international copyright law.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, section Copyright Registration. Note: "U.S. work", a sentiment borne out by the LOC page and other legal articles.

Thank you for playing, consider yourself WRONG. Insert brain to continue...

South Africa (where I come from). There is no need to, and in fact no WAY to, register a copyright (except for films). There is no copyright office or the like, only a patent office. Reference: Department of Trade and Industry (SA)

Collecting damages involves proving that you are in possession of the original copy of the work, which is most easily done by proving that you had the complete work before the first publication. I don't have a legal reference, but I have associations with two successful Copyright defendants.

WIPO's rules require that all signatory countries enact legislation to recognise only: the WORD "Copyright", the copyright symbol (and bracket-c-bracket is specifically excluded in recent WIPO commentaries, but can be recognised by individual countries if they choose to), AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE COPYRIGHT TO BE REGISTERED.

I don't have a reference for the symbol vs. (C) commentary, but according to this article, this article, and in particular this article from the Library of Congress you haven't done your research. Or you can read from the Berne Convention itself. In particular take note of the line "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin", as well as references in all three articles to the registration requirement for claiming infringement being a purely US phenomenon, but that it may make it easy to claim damages in other jurisdictions. Registration can also take place at any time in a Copyright life!

Not only did you get it backwards, (the UCC only recognizes the (c) as a valid copyright notice) but all of the above is meaningless if you haven't registered the copyright.

1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright," or the abbreviation "Copr."; and, from LOC.

When copyright is challanged, the onus is on the author to prove that their work predates any work the claimant can prove.

Wrong.

Rephase, your Honour. When copyright is challanged, the onus is on the challanged to prove that their work predates anything the defendant can prove.

Same effect. At long as I can prove I owned the work before you did, you can't possible own the Copyright. This is enough to get even a registration overturned in court (since you don't have to register a Copyright at the beginning of its life).

This is definately NOT a recommended method. The only recommended method is formal registration.

Only in the US, Canada and other countries where they HAVE registries.

Actually it only proves that you can mail yourself an empty(?) envelope.

No, this is why it specifically has to be registered mail, or the equivalent service, because they will not accept unsealed mail. Registered mail ensures that the mail is delivered and not tampered with. Or did you miss the bit about "containing the complete work"?

You might look here [copyright.gov] for some correct information on copyright in the US. There are also links to international copyright law.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, section Copyright Registration. Note: "U.S. work", a sentiment borne out by the LOC page and other legal articles.

Thank you for playing, consider yourself WRONG. Insert brain to continue...

122 Colour
2608 Total

[They hid the index inside 'Search the collection' - see 'Preview' under 'Other ways to search']

122 Colour
2608 Total

[They hid the index inside 'Search the collection' - see 'Preview' under 'Other ways to search']

oh my god!
there are 2 aliens in this picture!!


http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87_70 55 __01522_.jpg

they glow!!

For fans of the Prokudin-Gorskii Collection pictures. By searching the catalog it came up with 2608 pictures that you can view. Most of these are in black and white. Just click the link and start viewing. Be warned that it is a bit slow, and slahdotting may make it worse.

There are quite a few more photos available at the Prokudin-Gorskii Exhibition than officially linked from the pages of the exhibition. If I'm not mistaken, 111 photos are available, but only 61 are linked. How to reach them is quite trivial and left as an execise for the reader. Hey, you'll even get the chance to have a beautiful picture of Alix Chevallier!

...was by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii. He used three cameras to capture red, green and blue values and combined the output. Online archive here - absolutely incredible!

Its the same thing with God. They talk about divine intervention - aka God.

You've obviously never even looked at the constitution. Go read it yourself.

There is no mention divine intervention. There is no mention of a creator. There is no mention of God.

There are only two times religion is even mentioned is to state no religious test can be mandated for office and no law respecting the establishment of religion can be made.

This Library is a gift to the nation [...] this is a national celebration, not just of an institution but of the role of libraries everywhere in providing free and open access to knowledge and information.

-- James H. Billington, April 24, 2000

June 20, 2002: The Librarian of Congress is to librarianship as a fireman in Fahrenheit 451 is to firefighting.

Another sad day for the greatest Library mankind has ever created.

Nice try, but it's not. The resolution is in Thomas (the US Congress's online database). Search for "meucci" and you'll find resolution 269.

That said, it's obviously a silly publicity stunt from some Italian-American congresscritter, not actually worthy of much attention. The courts decided the issue moot over 100 years ago, and so it should (in this writer's opinion) remain.

The links to the Congress' website are wrong. They are H.RES.269.IH and H.RES.269.EH
Typing these into this website should work.

This seems to be based off the story at The Guardian. Also, the US Congress has some links on the issue.

This seems to be based off the story at The Guardian. Also, the US Congress has some links on the issue.

No really good-quality audio recordings of his best work exist, he was born too soon. But we do have digital recordings: piano rolls he cut for player piano while he was at his prime. Five years ago or so, some smart people found some of those original piano rolls, scanned them into the computer, and converted them to MIDI files. Any adulterated roll-holes that the publisher might have added were removed -- at the time, player-piano publishers often took a razor blade and cut extra holes to make it sound like their artists had more hands. And subtle dynamic variations were added by hand to each note, since a player-piano roll has only one note attack volume (which at the time was often crudely modulated on playback anyway). As the liner notes say: "Converting Morton's old 78 recordings to computer data, we were able to study them from myriad standpoints of tempo, melodic shaping, accentuation, swung rhythms, chord voicing, and pedaling."

Then they played the files on a Disklavier in a concert hall.

It's eerie to listen to. It's this guy who was born in 1885, actual recordings he made in 1920, and it sounds... brilliant. You're not used to hearing jazz pianists from that era in CD quality on a great piano. Suddenly you realize that the 1920s did not sound like the 1920s to the 1920s. It's like seeing photographs a hundred years ago in color -- your mind knows better, but your senses go: whoa.

Let's see if that number is right... I'm curious. According to this, the LOC is "the largest library in the world, with more than 120 million items on approximately 530 miles of bookshelves. The collections include more than 18 million books, 2.5 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.5 million maps, and 54 million manuscripts."

18,000,000 books * 200 pages, scanned, * 100K/page = 343 Terabytes.

2.5 million recordings * 3 minutes per * 1 meg/minute MP3 = 7.5 Terabytes.

12 million photographs * 250K per = 2.9 Terabytes.

4.5 million maps * 20 meg scan = 0.9 terabytes

54 million manuscripts * 50 pages, scanned * 100K/page = 257 terabytes.

My conclusion: The LOC is more like 611 Terabytes, if you're talking a complete collection with all detail. And that still leaves 29 million items that they didn't identify (out of the stated 120 million items). But those may not be media materials.

I'm not sure about this 10 Terabyte number. If you just talking books, that's 610K / book. That seems pretty high for just text, but low even for a low-res scan. I think someone just pulled it out of their butt.

I don't think reading the Bible or the Quran or any other religious text will help you understand the strife; some good psychological studies of terrorism and schizophrenia might help.
Rex Hudson did a great study for the Library of Congress on terrorism, way back in September of 1999. Also, read some good political text, and, for something fun, try Philip Roth's Our Gang it's a wonderful parody of the Nixon White House.

Link.

I can't find a single mention of the electoral college in the Federalist Papers

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

nintendo's coming out with virtual boy! it'll be out 4Q 2002...

Both of your senators voted for it. According to the roll call, 99 senators voted yea, 1 did not vote Sen. Gregg (R-NH). Sounds kinda fishy to me right from the start there. Following the House activity thereafter (btw, DMCA was an ammending of WIPO), we see absolutely NO (none, zilch, nada, anti-democracy) vote recorded in the House roll calls regarding DMCA. In fact, the roll call records NOTHING regarding the DMCA after the Senate vote in May, 1998.

However, following the paper work between the House and Senate Congressional Record articles from the 105th Congress we DO find that it went to conference committee, it was brought to the floor on October 12, 1998 (weeks prior to the impeachment hearings...hmmmmmm), and a vocal vote was taken to suspend the rules and agree with the conference report. Here are the recorded proceedings of our House:

" The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. COBLE) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the bill, H.R. 2281 .

The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the conference report was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. "

End of story. Case closed. Screw your reconsiderations. Hmmmm.

Doesn't sound like parliamentary process to me. Last I knew we had a red, white, and blue flag, but seemingly I was mistaken and it's red with a star and sickle or something like that.

No wonder the CARP recommendations were knocked down and certain Congressmen are petitioning letters out the door to counteract the DMCA, seeing that our Congressional representatives in the House didn't even have an official recorded vote on the subject.

Personally, I do not believe that DMCA was legally enacted into law, and perhaps you should pose some questions to the Congressman regarding the fact that DMCA was enacted without a final recorded vote from the 105th Congress. And bring up the fact of its blatant violation of "fair use" and consumer privacy. And again, remind him that the House did not record a final vote on DMCA and ask him if this kind of activity is what he considers democracy in action.

From THOMAS: Gene Taylor has sponsored or co-sponsored two bills in the 107th Congress. Here they are.
Looking at this, I'd push the impairing-defense-readiness angle. CBPDTA (?), by preventing DoD from procuring GNU/Linux systems offering greater transparency and security and a lower total cost of ownership, does not contribute to the goal of a leaner, more efficient military and leaves the services more exposed to 21st Century asymmetrical warfighting tactics (e.g., the enemy-du-jour 0wning the properly-licensed regimental IIS server).

• [ Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill] said parents need to be aware of what Web sites their children are surfing

To which we all heartily agree, but the article claims:

• Parents could set computer software to limit a child's access to only addresses ending in .kids.us.

Say what? That looks like the existing "put a token filtering system in place, then abrogate your responsibility" method so beloved of AOL and the NetNanny brigade. But did our elected representatives just mandate that and slip through mandatory domain locking in browsers while nobody was looking? Let's check the actual bill, H.R. 3833

• `(11) Written agreements with registrars, which shall require registrars to enter into written agreements with registrants, to prohibit hyperlinks in the new domain that take new domain users outside of the new domain.

Hmm, OK, not too bad. Once you're in, you can't just click out by accident (although of course this will happen, but at least they've thought about it). Is that all?

• (12) Any other action that the NTIA considers necessary to establish, operate, or maintain the new domain in accordance with the purposes of this section.

OK, much as I hate catch-all clauses, this is still limited to "the new domain", not to enforcing functionality in browsers (or telnet, for that matter) to lock off the domain. It looks like any browser locking functionality will be voluntary and third party. I can see AOL and Microsoft scrambling to implement this ASAP, but nobody will have to.

I'm always ready to believe the worst of our legislators when it comes to dealing with technology (their track record isn't great), but I think they've got this one right (even if they are a little vague on how it will actually be administrated). I pronounce this bill sane and measured

Regarding H.R. 1877, it's largely moot. It's a minor modification to existing wiretap law, and law enforcement (or anyone with a suit and a badge and some lawyers) can get a wiretap on you right now for pretty much any reason they like. Personally I think that soliciting children for sex should justify a wiretap, and I'm all in favour of honesty in law enforcement, rather than making them scam a warrant for un-American activities (aka domestic terrorism) or whatever.

Constant vigilance is a good thing, but I don't see anything scary or particularly bad in either of these bills. OK, I find the thought of a .kids.us full of Disney and Barney a little scary, but that's not really the fault of Congress. ;-)

• [ Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill] said parents need to be aware of what Web sites their children are surfing

To which we all heartily agree, but the article claims:

• Parents could set computer software to limit a child's access to only addresses ending in .kids.us.

Say what? That looks like the existing "put a token filtering system in place, then abrogate your responsibility" method so beloved of AOL and the NetNanny brigade. But did our elected representatives just mandate that and slip through mandatory domain locking in browsers while nobody was looking? Let's check the actual bill, H.R. 3833

• `(11) Written agreements with registrars, which shall require registrars to enter into written agreements with registrants, to prohibit hyperlinks in the new domain that take new domain users outside of the new domain.

Hmm, OK, not too bad. Once you're in, you can't just click out by accident (although of course this will happen, but at least they've thought about it). Is that all?

• (12) Any other action that the NTIA considers necessary to establish, operate, or maintain the new domain in accordance with the purposes of this section.

OK, much as I hate catch-all clauses, this is still limited to "the new domain", not to enforcing functionality in browsers (or telnet, for that matter) to lock off the domain. It looks like any browser locking functionality will be voluntary and third party. I can see AOL and Microsoft scrambling to implement this ASAP, but nobody will have to.

I'm always ready to believe the worst of our legislators when it comes to dealing with technology (their track record isn't great), but I think they've got this one right (even if they are a little vague on how it will actually be administrated). I pronounce this bill sane and measured

Regarding H.R. 1877, it's largely moot. It's a minor modification to existing wiretap law, and law enforcement (or anyone with a suit and a badge and some lawyers) can get a wiretap on you right now for pretty much any reason they like. Personally I think that soliciting children for sex should justify a wiretap, and I'm all in favour of honesty in law enforcement, rather than making them scam a warrant for un-American activities (aka domestic terrorism) or whatever.

Constant vigilance is a good thing, but I don't see anything scary or particularly bad in either of these bills. OK, I find the thought of a .kids.us full of Disney and Barney a little scary, but that's not really the fault of Congress. ;-)

Here are the exact words from the FAQ of the Library of Congress:

How do I register my copyright?
To register a work, you need to submit a completed application form, a non-refundable filing fee of $30, and a non-returnable copy or copies of the work to be registered. See Circular 1, section Registration Procedures.

...and...

HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration."

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.

If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.

and later...

COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

• Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.
• If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
• If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
• Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, request Publication No. 563 "How to Protect Your Intellectual Property Right," from: U.S. Customs Service, P.O. Box 7404, Washington, D.C. 20044. See the U.S. Customs Service Website at www.customs.gov for online publications.

Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.

Here are the exact words from the FAQ of the Library of Congress:

How do I register my copyright?
To register a work, you need to submit a completed application form, a non-refundable filing fee of $30, and a non-returnable copy or copies of the work to be registered. See Circular 1, section Registration Procedures.

...and...

HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration."

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.

If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.

and later...

COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

• Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.
• If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
• If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
• Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, request Publication No. 563 "How to Protect Your Intellectual Property Right," from: U.S. Customs Service, P.O. Box 7404, Washington, D.C. 20044. See the U.S. Customs Service Website at www.customs.gov for online publications.

Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.

"like the French government's purchase and placing in the public domain of the first photographic patents in the early nineteenth century... The work of Harvard economist Michael Kremer ( 1998, 2000), both with respect to the possibility of public purchase of patents at auction and of shifting some public research and development funding from effort-oriented to result-oriented processes (that is, holding contests for private companies to develop vaccines instead of funding research directly), is especially intriguing in its attempts to develop institutions that have all the advantages of market competition, natural monopoly, and public provision."

This, like many things you post about, has nothing to do with censorware.

That is incorrect. The original question concerned. Librarian of Congress exemptions. I am quite familiar with that topic, having played a role in establishing one of the only two DMCA exemptions granted. Those two exemptions were for obsoleteness and for censorware. I then quoted part of the actual text of the exemption to demonstrate how narrow was the exemption granted. I suppose I could have quoted the text for the obsoleteness exemption, but given a choice, why not use the relevant topic dear to my heart?

So you are mistaken, it was written in direct and accurate response to the original poster's question.

Of course, I talk about censorware a great deal. I've done much of the pioneering work on that topic. And if I may say so, I'm expert about it and familiar with the relevant legal issues surrounding it. And these legal issues strongly connect with the DMCA, per above.

I usually don't reply to personal attacks in these threads. But since you're not a troll, and it is arguably on-topic, I'll make an exception here.

Regarding going up against the DMCA myself, well, just how eager would you be to take legal risk in my place, given that Michael Sims has done actions such as What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) ? That's an extremely serious question. This isn't a game. It's not a silly flame-war. Note what this story is about - 2600 has lost at every LEGAL level, been outright flamed by the judge in the original case decision, and DeCSS cases have even had comments from Slashdot postings used against them. The smears you mention, have been against me. If I take too much legal risk, as sure as the other side has lawyers, it's all going to be in their court evidence. So I feel heavily constrained as to what I can do to fight the DMCA, in large part because I have to worry about a Slashdot editor who has already shown he's extremely willing to abuse power for revenge.

Maybe I'll get modded down for this, but it's late, and I'm tired. It's not a nice topic. But going to jail over the DMCA is far worse. And I didn't take any vow of silence about Michael Sims.

"Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works"

Already happened, and it'll be a while before it can be lobbied again. It only applies to doing circumvention, not to technology.

Take a look at the formal text (I'm mentioned twice! :-) ) at

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights and Determination of the Librarian of Congress, 65 FR 64555, October 27, 2000

For example:

A review of the factors listed in 1201(a)(1)(C) supports the creation of this exemption. Although one can speculate that the availability of technological protection measures that deny access to the lists of blocked websites might be of benefit to the proprietors of filtering software, and might even increase the willingness of those proprietors to make the software available for use by the public, no commenters or witnesses came forward to make such an assertion. No information was presented relating to the use of either the filtering software or the lists of blocked websites for nonprofit archival, preservation and educational purposes. Nor was any information presented relating to whether the circumvention of technological measures preventing access to the lists has had an impact on the market for or value of filtering software or the compilations of objectionable websites contained therein. However, a persuasive case was made that the existence of access control measures has had an adverse effect on criticism and comment, and most likely news reporting, and that the prohibition on circumvention of access control measures will have an adverse effect."

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Just a simple FYI if anybody wants to track down the bill text on thomas.loc.gov -- it's S. 2201, otherwise known as the "Online Personal Privacy Act".

If you want a PDF version from the GPO, this link may work for you.

When you write your Congresscritters, be sure to mention that you're talking about bill HR 4742.

I dunno, I agree w/ Phil Greenspun. Manufacturers getting wacked over the head by the content industry and a crippled product certainly didn't help. Maybe you're right, I went and checked with the Library of Congress and they only collected $3million in 1999 (LOC 2000 Annual Report, in the appendix p9).

Minidisc isn't big in the general consumer market but is way more successful than DAT in the low end audio recording community. The lessons from DAT are clear in how this product has been developed, MD's lossy compression essentially emulates analog's generation loss. Manufacturers did this for a very specific reason, to avoid the Digital Audio Home Recording Act. Now we're likely to see the next step in that process with SSSCA, which will probably outlaw general purpose computers.

Congress is already trying to make it a criminal act to lie to Network Solutions, punishible by up to 5 years in prison. How much longer before they try to do the same for lying to Yahoo?

Reading each of the proposed laws listed, I was able to find a couple of paragraphs to support everything the original poster mentioned.

If that's the case, then I'm sure you'd have no problem providing links to such text in question on the House or Thomas-LOC websites?

I look forward to seeing it, since I don't think you can. I've read the text of the bills in question, back through the 103rd Congress, and saw no such content as you describe. Yes, riders routinely get attached to bills -- but that happens on the floor, not in committee. This year's HR 4239, for example, has been referred to the Ways and Means Committee (and hasn't even been considered by it yet!); the previous Congress' HR 4239 was referred to the House Subcommittee on Health and Environment and died there; and so on.

It is fortuitous that we have an astute reader like b.foster among us who will read the many pages of obfuscation in the laws going through Congress and distill the things that interest the tech community. Your time would better be spent writing your congressman than posting misinformed replies on Slashdot.

I smell sock puppet.

Reading each of the proposed laws listed, I was able to find a couple of paragraphs to support everything the original poster mentioned.

If that's the case, then I'm sure you'd have no problem providing links to such text in question on the House or Thomas-LOC websites?

I look forward to seeing it, since I don't think you can. I've read the text of the bills in question, back through the 103rd Congress, and saw no such content as you describe. Yes, riders routinely get attached to bills -- but that happens on the floor, not in committee. This year's HR 4239, for example, has been referred to the Ways and Means Committee (and hasn't even been considered by it yet!); the previous Congress' HR 4239 was referred to the House Subcommittee on Health and Environment and died there; and so on.

It is fortuitous that we have an astute reader like b.foster among us who will read the many pages of obfuscation in the laws going through Congress and distill the things that interest the tech community. Your time would better be spent writing your congressman than posting misinformed replies on Slashdot.

I smell sock puppet.

Reading each of the proposed laws listed, I was able to find a couple of paragraphs to support everything the original poster mentioned.

If that's the case, then I'm sure you'd have no problem providing links to such text in question on the House or Thomas-LOC websites?

I look forward to seeing it, since I don't think you can. I've read the text of the bills in question, back through the 103rd Congress, and saw no such content as you describe. Yes, riders routinely get attached to bills -- but that happens on the floor, not in committee. This year's HR 4239, for example, has been referred to the Ways and Means Committee (and hasn't even been considered by it yet!); the previous Congress' HR 4239 was referred to the House Subcommittee on Health and Environment and died there; and so on.

It is fortuitous that we have an astute reader like b.foster among us who will read the many pages of obfuscation in the laws going through Congress and distill the things that interest the tech community. Your time would better be spent writing your congressman than posting misinformed replies on Slashdot.

I smell sock puppet.