Slashdot Mirror

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

All it says is that Congress can't make such a law. Congress didn't; the school can, and did.

Assume for a moment that Napster's users' actions fall under Section 1008 protection. Well, now we can't say that Napster's users are infringing, because then we'd be alleging infringement (in essence, they are-since Section 1008 never says that it is now legal to do these things, it simply says that nobody can allege that these things are illegal). Since we now have no infringers, we can no longer have a contributory infringer, can we?

For those that still didn't get it, how's this for an explanation. Can you be charged with accessory to murder (not conspiracy to commit murder, as I'm sure someone will bring up) if nobody's dead? How about if we're not sure if anybody's dead? How about if somebody is dead, but they were killed in self-defense (therfore-no murder...)? I would say the answer to all those are 'no'.

Now, the only thorn is to prove that Napster's users do indeed fall under the scope of Section 1008. Well, the US Gov't, being the business whore that it is, feels they do not. Read their brief here. Unfortunately, they didn't pay their lawyers enough to write this brief, and I explain why here.

If you don't want to look, here's the basics. Npaster's software falls under the definition of "device", as does a PC's audio recording functions, as does a CD-R. Napster's users are making "digital musical recordings", you just have to think in terms of hard drive clusters, not the entire hard drive. Napster's users are engaged in noncommercial copying, not public distribution "by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". Napster is used to make "digital audio recordings" (copies of the music in the brief's own words). Napster's users can't be said to be infringing.

To save people having to muck around on the thomas.loc.gov site too much (their search interface is horrid IMHO), here's a link to what I think (c.f. horrid interface again) is the final text of the CDA as passed. Of particular interest to this discussion would be Title II (common carrier crud) and Title V (things that excite senators,er, pr0n and stuff).

This is a big, complicated piece of legislation in which the laws of unintended consequences are in full force. That's why if you want to argue on it, you have to read the thing becuase there are so many little codiciles and amendments and stuff that what you think it says based on a soundbite level of knowledge and what it actually says may well be quite different (well, this is true of any legal discussion, but with complicated bills like this doubly so).

Yes, I wrote that post in haste, so I'll try to elaborate. I'm sorry I misunderstood your non-student status.

>Your eagerness to promote your egalitarian agenda
>is getting in the way of reading what was
>actually written.
You say "egalitarian agenda" as if it were a bad thing. Do you disagree with the second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence?

First of all, you're basing your argument about "average intelligence" on anecdotal evidence from your own life and your brother's life. Unless your brother teaches statistics, I don't see how his opinion is relevant. I also don't understand the importance of open-door Catholic schools to your point, since the average American isn't Catholic and doesn't want a Catholic education. You might also want to brush up on the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights if you do indeed believe that private schools are the answer to raising intelligence.

I am basing my argument on a social constructionist point of view. That is to say, people are mostly the product of their environment. Therefore, if the average student in your brother's classes aren't up to his standard of intelligence, then something about their surroundings is amiss. In my earlier post, I hypothesized that cynical teachers contribute to an anti-learning environment. In fact, a quick google search turned up this study, which confirms that teachers' expectations do affect student learning.

Of course there are stupid people in the world, and there always will be. However, it is elitist and undemocratic for people in power, (read: teachers and lawyers) to assume that the average person is hopelessly stupid.

Thanks for the clarification... But however I did find out that libraries and archives have particular restrictions and mentions in law or so I took to understand it, now not being a lawyer (and going brain-numb when reading legal docs), I didn't understand it fully, but essentially the legal rights of a library are different from the legal rights of an individual when it comes to copyright...
Anyone know where that line is? Can I just build up a collection of books/cd's and call it an archive/library (under law)?

umm.. yes you need to apply for a copyright. I've applied for a two actually. an SR and PA, sound recording and performing arts. like $30 each. you can read some more here


Nice work, Focker!

You can't see it, so it doesn't exist. Hmmm. Just because it doesn't resemble an EULA doesn't mean it isn't there. Go read laws pertinent to copyright law. Granted, I don't believe it says "license", that was just the wording I chose. And, if you actually READ the copyright notice at the beginning of a book, it states, "...Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976, no portion of this book may be reproduced....."blah blah blah. Now, go here, and read 107 and 108. Read the whole thing. Fair use.I think that my arguement constitutes "fair use". As for the license, well, just because you are passing it up doesn't mean you aren't bound by it.

C Pungent

The link i posted was only a temporary search result.

You can find the original text for the bill here: http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d106query.html Look up the phrase "music owners listening rights" (Sorry about that.)

It's not the first time he's been mentioned on Slashdot (At least in comments.) He also made a very good statement with his Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000 propsal. Too bad this one got buried in committee.

He's really in tune with the /. community. Take a look at his picture... He really is one of us.

Read section 202.

Simply breaking any old encryption is not, nor is it a copyright issue.

This is what has constantly amused me as I've seen the string of stories on Slashdot proclaiming how enterprising hackers plan to turn the DMCA on itself. The DMCA does not ban reverse engineering or breaking of encryption per se. I've read the DMCA and it specifically targets circumvention of copyright protection systems. Unless AIMSter users are encrypting music to which they own the copyright then they're so called claims of reversing the DMCA are so much piss in the wind. The DMCA would simply be a license to pirate/steal/share digital works and protect yourself by encrypting them if that was the case. The RIAA, MPAA and congressmen who drafted the DMCA are not that stupid.

Bottom Line: If you are not encrypting work to which you own the copyright then the DMCA does not apply to you.

The DMCA (PDF), however villified it is here on Slashdot, was not intended to turn out as it did. Sen. Hatch's intent was a law that would allow digital copies to be made. The no-circumvention clause that we're all familiar with was supposed to be a pot sweetener to prod the recording industry into releasing digital media. Unfortunately, we all know how the law was abused by those it sought to protect.

Sen. Hatch's office has links to a number of letters and opinions regarding his true stance on the issue of digital media copying. I don't doubt he will bring this issue back up, and as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee the old media companies will be in the hot seat for what they have done.

So get moving! Do something that will have a real impact. Write your represantitive! Many of them were elected on non-technical issues and don't really know about the topic. Maybe it will be your letter that shapes their opinion.

Oppressive government:

1) seeks back doors into encryption products
2) wants to be able to execute warrants before serving them (8th paragraph). Whole bill here.
3) Wants to track e-mail & browsing habits with out a warrant.
4) Carnivore. 'nuff said.

Bingo! Here's the Library of Congress link: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html#piu

"Our goal is to offer the ability to search the entire 5-year archive by the end of next month," Krane said. "And over the course of the next two to three months, we'll be rolling out a variety of new features such as message posting and enhanced newsgroup browsing."

A BILL To prohibit the making, importation, exportation, distribution, sale, offer for sale, installation, or use of an information collection device without proper labeling or notice and consent.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Electronic Privacy Protection Act'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO INFORMATION COLLECTION DEVICES.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c107:./temp/ ~c107vURqcq

or you can go to the Library of Congress Home Page and search for H.R. 112..

A BILL To prohibit the making, importation, exportation, distribution, sale, offer for sale, installation, or use of an information collection device without proper labeling or notice and consent.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Electronic Privacy Protection Act'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO INFORMATION COLLECTION DEVICES.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c107:./temp/ ~c107vURqcq

or you can go to the Library of Congress Home Page and search for H.R. 112..

Of course, according to some (including the US Government, as pointed out here) Napster does not fall under the scope of Section 1008.

Personally, I disagree, and if you followed the above link, you can view my take on the situation here.

You can view over 80 short film clips for all types of dance steps at Memory.Loc.Gov. It's a nice collection. There are many other sujects in the American Memories Collections.

As with any right, if one does not defend and exercise it on the most extreme grounds, one will find it gradually being eroded. (i.e. differences in warrants today and twenty years ago...thank you, drug war justice.)

The core issue isn't whether or not the Census bureau is trying to keep your information private, the issue is whether or not they should be collecting detailed information in the first place.

I doubt the Census Bureau is "eager to breach people's privacy", and I do respect their work as valuable--but in the course of their more invasive work, they end up violating people's privacy. The constitutionally mandated right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects includes the right to tell census workers go to sod off.

While that detailed information is most conveniently gathered during the census, I do believe that much of it is invasive, error-prone and would be much better collected through alternative research methods...like, say, measuring school enrollment for education funding and volume, weight and speed of automobile traffic to fund roads.

Let's see if they have the balls to go after this library.

Lets not get out panties in a bunch. Check this link out.
108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if-
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copy-right if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.

Of course, it then goes on to say that libraries can only have digital copies for backup reasons, not to lend. But I think its fairly blatant that the publishers do not have a legal leg to stand on if they decide to go after the librarians. Beware of the wrath of Conan the Librarian.

Signed on October 28, 1998. Mostly effective on that date, but the "prohibition on the act of circumvention of access control" not until 2 years after signing. see Copyright Office Home Page.

I was also curious just where "fair use" ultimately comes from, and the answer is here

Signed on October 28, 1998. Mostly effective on that date, but the "prohibition on the act of circumvention of access control" not until 2 years after signing. see Copyright Office Home Page.

I was also curious just where "fair use" ultimately comes from, and the answer is here

Are you familiar with the "tyranny of the majority?" Perhaps a reading of a few Federalist Papers or "On Liberty" by Mill.

I hardly know where to start with this one.

Let's grant the DOJ statistics your link points to. (If this were a real discussion, I'd ask whether the stats had been corrected for the innocents convicted because they were only black -----s, and hey, we've closed a case, right? I won't even ask how one defines so amorphous a concept as `race'. In my experience, it's always been ``someone who doesn't match my wonderful genetic makeup''---witness the fact that in the U.S., someone with seven ``white'' great-grandparents and one ``black'' one counts as ``black''. How does that scan in any sane classification system?) Let's even be generous and say the stats are up to 100 ``black'' murderers per 100,000, vs. 5 ``white''s.

So, how do you justify the completely unwarranted harrassment of 99,900 citizens to find 100 murderers? This country was founded on the belief that you're golden until you actually do something wrong, not until someone thinks you're more likely to do something wrong. This is the concept of ``probable cause'' referred to by the Fourth Amendment (in exactly those words). Probable cause is not a statistical concept. Either you've got reason to think this exact person committed that specified crime, or you have no probable cause. By no stretch of the imagination can being ``black'' be probable cause, therefore it is totally unjustifiable to claim you're just checking ``people who commit serious crimes nearly 8 times more than the rest of the population''. Either this particular person (not one of some random people you spot) actually committed a crime, and you have a good reason to think that's the case, or you keep your mitts off.

The trouble today (and in all previous days, for that matter) is that people forget the probable cause, and think police should simply nail all criminals, blithely assuming there's a 100%-valid mechanism for identifying them, and the police have it. That's why most folks today assume anyone arrested is guilty, why it's so insanely painful to be falsely accused, and why it's so dangerous to slack off in watching our public servants.

And when the police are given vastly more efficient methods to harrass everyone, we're in vastly greater danger.

According to Library of Congress Country Studies the average monthly earnings of [Brazilians is] US$211, and of this, in 1990, 60% of the nation was making less than that.

So while it is encouraging to finally see a country try to get it's nation online (although, IIRC, wasn't there a country with a traveling "Internet boat" and "Internet vans" prior to this?), you really have to realize that w/o the 24-mo paying plan, this is still nothing more than excess legislation.

BdosError

To answer your question about ICRA, I don't think it's clear. Do the ICRA ratings match up with the law? If you blocked all unrated sites, maybe, maybe not. But that blocks a lot of sites. (Is /. rated? How can a user-content driven site rate accurately from day to day?)

Liza

You will also find that the related bill is S.39, and that the Senate has not yet taken up the amended bill.

The short summary is, don't bother calling you Representative, call your Senator instead. Don't bother calling the White House, since Bush isn't there yet (and the odds of his voting against this is approximately nil.)

Thalia

You will also find that the related bill is S.39, and that the Senate has not yet taken up the amended bill.

The short summary is, don't bother calling you Representative, call your Senator instead. Don't bother calling the White House, since Bush isn't there yet (and the odds of his voting against this is approximately nil.)

Thalia

You will also find that the related bill is S.39, and that the Senate has not yet taken up the amended bill.

The short summary is, don't bother calling you Representative, call your Senator instead. Don't bother calling the White House, since Bush isn't there yet (and the odds of his voting against this is approximately nil.)

Thalia

You will also find that the related bill is S.39, and that the Senate has not yet taken up the amended bill.

The short summary is, don't bother calling you Representative, call your Senator instead. Don't bother calling the White House, since Bush isn't there yet (and the odds of his voting against this is approximately nil.)

Thalia

Search for medal of valor here.

It's the last link, as far as I can tell.

I don't see how section 308 is as bad as Dave Koppel feared? Am I misreading, or reading the wrong text?

It doesn't mention wiretapping, and where it does mention encryption:

(c) AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO USE OF ENCRYPTION- Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and, if appropriate, shall promulgate guidelines or policy statements or amend existing policy statements to ensure that the guidelines provide sufficiently stringent penalties to deter and punish persons who intentionally use encryption in connection with the commission or concealment of criminal acts sentenced under the guidelines.

It would seem that encryption used intentionally by criminals to hide the crime would have to face 'sufficiently stringent penalties'

Would this then only apply to those who have been accused *and* determined to be guilty of criminal acts 'sentanced under the guidelines'?

His fear of wiretapping comes from S2448RS, senate, not house...

Search for "wire, oral, and electronic communications", here.

It's section 8, under authority to...

However, there is no related section or subsection under HR46...

So the only problem I can tell is under HR46 section 304 clause (2)
(2) The criminal forfeiture of property under this subsection, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding relating thereto, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsection (d) of that section.'

Are there reasons to suspect this clause? It seems out of place, in a computer crime action...

Geek dating!

Search for medal of valor here.

It's the last link, as far as I can tell.

I don't see how section 308 is as bad as Dave Koppel feared? Am I misreading, or reading the wrong text?

It doesn't mention wiretapping, and where it does mention encryption:

(c) AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO USE OF ENCRYPTION- Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and, if appropriate, shall promulgate guidelines or policy statements or amend existing policy statements to ensure that the guidelines provide sufficiently stringent penalties to deter and punish persons who intentionally use encryption in connection with the commission or concealment of criminal acts sentenced under the guidelines.

It would seem that encryption used intentionally by criminals to hide the crime would have to face 'sufficiently stringent penalties'

Would this then only apply to those who have been accused *and* determined to be guilty of criminal acts 'sentanced under the guidelines'?

His fear of wiretapping comes from S2448RS, senate, not house...

Search for "wire, oral, and electronic communications", here.

It's section 8, under authority to...

However, there is no related section or subsection under HR46...

So the only problem I can tell is under HR46 section 304 clause (2)
(2) The criminal forfeiture of property under this subsection, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding relating thereto, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsection (d) of that section.'

Are there reasons to suspect this clause? It seems out of place, in a computer crime action...

Geek dating!

If burglars, murderers and rapists would have access to some kind of a system that would make them invisible

Moreover, the legislation would be greatly helped by simply criminalizing use of Linux and other Open Source software. The spectre of "wiretapping" is likely to raise the hackles of citizens who may not even care about the use of encryption, so long as the linux users/criminals who set loose computer virii are stopped. The only persons who have a "need" for encryption are criminals/linux users, so they can hide their sordid acts. Others would not have to worry about encrypting sensitive information, if it were not for the linux users/criminals constantly scanning ports and sniffing packets and generally invading the privacy of decent, law abiding citizens.

In short, I think a law making Linux use, and possibly all Open Source software a criminal act would really nip the problem in the bud. Not only would it force linux users/criminals to pay for their software, like other law abiding citizens, but it would lead to eliminating the vast majority of cybercrime as we know it, by putting criminals/linux users behind bars where they belong.

I will contact my congressman, and I suggest you do as well, to reintroduce HR 65, including legislation to criminalize use of open source software.

Thank you.

Cunt.

Love,
Slashfucker

• It's not actually an official law until President Clinton signs it.
• The very same day that the president signed COPA into law, the ACLU filed a suit against it (and they've been winning so far).
• CIPA is different from COPA and CDA though, in many ways. One of the main differences is that COPA and CDA were criminal statutes, bound by stricter due-process considerations. CIPA is just an incentive-based "suggestion", similar to the 55mph thing, and so it's not bound by constitutional considerations as much.
• This law has been introduced 9 times over the past two years, all by Republicans.
• The American Library Association strongly opposes such a law.

• A general perception exists that Internet filtering is seriously flawed and in many situations unusable. It is also perceived that schools and libraries don't want filtering. These notions are naive and based largely on problems associated with earlier versions of client-based software that are admittedly crude and ineffective. Though some poor filtering products still exist, filtering has gone through an extensive evolution and is not only good at protecting children but also well-received and in high demand.

Unless stated specifically, the images, names, phrases, story lines, yadda yadda yadda of pretty much anything are considered to be intellectual properties. Any unauthorized use of those properties is itself justification for cease and decist orders and/or other legal action by or on behalf of the rightful owner. That said, unless you're using these images, names, yadda yadda... for research purposes only, your usage probably doesn't meet the criterion for "fair use."

As a starting resource for our faculty, staff, and students our library website includes the following information:

FAIR USE, 17 U.S.C 107
Fair Use is a limitation that allows reproduction in certain instances, without securing the copyright owner's permission. Fair Use acknowledges the importance of educational use of copyrighted works, by allowing reproduction for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, and research.

Materials that meet the four factors of fair use may be used without obtaining copyright permission.

Four factors must be examined on a case-by-case basis, weighed, and balanced to determine whether copying represents fair use. The courts have maintained that no single factor is determinative. The four factors are:

• Purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
• Nature of the copyrighted work
• Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
• Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Code commentary is like sex.
If it's good, it's VERY good.

Unless stated specifically, the images, names, phrases, story lines, yadda yadda yadda of pretty much anything are considered to be intellectual properties. Any unauthorized use of those properties is itself justification for cease and decist orders and/or other legal action by or on behalf of the rightful owner. That said, unless you're using these images, names, yadda yadda... for research purposes only, your usage probably doesn't meet the criterion for "fair use."

As a starting resource for our faculty, staff, and students our library website includes the following information:

FAIR USE, 17 U.S.C 107
Fair Use is a limitation that allows reproduction in certain instances, without securing the copyright owner's permission. Fair Use acknowledges the importance of educational use of copyrighted works, by allowing reproduction for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, and research.

Materials that meet the four factors of fair use may be used without obtaining copyright permission.

Four factors must be examined on a case-by-case basis, weighed, and balanced to determine whether copying represents fair use. The courts have maintained that no single factor is determinative. The four factors are:

• Purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
• Nature of the copyrighted work
• Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
• Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Code commentary is like sex.
If it's good, it's VERY good.

• Make your interface consistent in terms of navigation. American Memory from the Library of Congress is a really neat idea. It's fairly well organized, but is really graphics heavy and the navigation changes from page to page, easily confusing you as to where you are and how to get where you want to go.
• In contrast, the Library of Congress Online has a lot of content and the interface stays mostly the same (as far as searching goes). However, when viewing it I feel as if I need to be trained as a librarian in order to find anything. Avoid using terminology and definitions that you might find understandable because you're working there, but that the average Jane or Joe user wouldn't necessarily be able to comprehend.
• Categorization. The IRS' website, as has been noted, is rather difficult to navigate. Again, one needs to know the exact governmental terminology to find stuff. Your categorization method might need to be some other format than one used internally. For example, you might find the ordering
  Residential Documents -> Tax Forms -> Family -> Income Level -> 30,000
  to be self-explanatory, but it might not be the best ordering so that the average person can find information.
  Try to keep category depth to at most three levels if you can manage it.
• Programming-wise, it may be good to store the design and content in separate places. Have each subpage simply contain content and just include the design either at run or compile time. When you've got as much information and as many documents as a govt. site typically has, this is IDEAL for when you want to change the design (which means the file containing the design). This can significantly add to the load however, so make sure you're ready for it.
• Make sure you have the bandwidth and machine horsepower to handle the site. One thing I've noticed with almost any .gov site is that they are extremely slow. This is as much part of the user experience as the layout and organization.

The goal of your site (I'm assuming) is to provide information to users. Just try to realize that too much information at once is overwhelming and makes people go away. The only place where you should have lots and lots of text is in the actual document or page the user is looking for.

That's all I can think of right now. I hope this helps.

• Make your interface consistent in terms of navigation. American Memory from the Library of Congress is a really neat idea. It's fairly well organized, but is really graphics heavy and the navigation changes from page to page, easily confusing you as to where you are and how to get where you want to go.
• In contrast, the Library of Congress Online has a lot of content and the interface stays mostly the same (as far as searching goes). However, when viewing it I feel as if I need to be trained as a librarian in order to find anything. Avoid using terminology and definitions that you might find understandable because you're working there, but that the average Jane or Joe user wouldn't necessarily be able to comprehend.
• Categorization. The IRS' website, as has been noted, is rather difficult to navigate. Again, one needs to know the exact governmental terminology to find stuff. Your categorization method might need to be some other format than one used internally. For example, you might find the ordering
  Residential Documents -> Tax Forms -> Family -> Income Level -> 30,000
  to be self-explanatory, but it might not be the best ordering so that the average person can find information.
  Try to keep category depth to at most three levels if you can manage it.
• Programming-wise, it may be good to store the design and content in separate places. Have each subpage simply contain content and just include the design either at run or compile time. When you've got as much information and as many documents as a govt. site typically has, this is IDEAL for when you want to change the design (which means the file containing the design). This can significantly add to the load however, so make sure you're ready for it.
• Make sure you have the bandwidth and machine horsepower to handle the site. One thing I've noticed with almost any .gov site is that they are extremely slow. This is as much part of the user experience as the layout and organization.

The goal of your site (I'm assuming) is to provide information to users. Just try to realize that too much information at once is overwhelming and makes people go away. The only place where you should have lots and lots of text is in the actual document or page the user is looking for.

That's all I can think of right now. I hope this helps.

I've gone to loc.gov sometimes & also things like congress.gov and you think this should be easy enough to drudge through to get the info I want... But I also seem to go through endless links here & there that make it a nightmare... So having some 'obvious' links that are simply state what they lead to & also search engines that are geared for the average American instead of endless links that annoy you to the point of just giving up.

I guess for instance... If I go to some commercial site to download their software, demo or otherwise, I want a link that says 'Download' or 'Get it' and actually leads me to the file with a dozen links in between or that isn't really a download page at all.

I think the key word for government sites is 'accessibility'.

Bullseye.

The rules for content are simple:

• The users have to be able to find it.
• The users have to be able to read it.

The first item means that you have to be really careful how you lay out your site navigation. Other posters have some good suggestions here. In particular, consider how your users will try to find things. Hint -- it aint by regulation number.

It is also important to provide your data in a usable form. Thomas is a particularly bad example here. This site lists bills before the US Congress. Unfortunately, the "real" text of the bills is almost invariably in the form of a diff to a current law; it's impossible to tell what's going on without reference to the original, and even then, it's not easy.

In terms of fancy layout, etc:

• Take the graphic designers out and shoot them.
• Delete all the fancy "web design" tools. Anybody who uses a tool more sophisticated than Homesite will be designated a "graphic designer" and shot. Anybody can learn enough HTML to format a basic page in about 10 minutes.
• All testers must connect to your pages at no more than 14400 bits/sec. Broadband connections and local Ethernets are specifically forbidden.

In particular:

• Don't make assumptions about your users' hardware or software. In particular, don't assume any particular screen size or browser.
• No animation, Shockwave, graphics maps, Java, Javascript, background music, etc. Duh!
• User defaults are your friend; style sheets are your enemy. In particular, don't mess with fonts. Every commercial site out there tries to force me to read a tiny, san-serif font. Every usability study I've ever seen shows that serif fonts (Times Roman, for example) are more readable.
• Don't use tables for layout. They don't improve readability and they slow things down. Use tables for tables, and don't make assumptions about your users' screen size or resolution.
• Use graphics only when necessary and keep them small. Use the minimum color and resolution that you can get away with. Don't forget the ALT tags.
• Validate your HTML. There are a number of HTML validatiors out there; find one you like and use it. Amazing how often this gets forgotten ....

Above all, look at it! Look at it with every browser you can find. Don't forget the old versions. (And don't forget Lynx.) Get some blind (excuse me, Visually Impared) testers if at all possible to "look" at it with screen magnifiers and screen readers. Look at it over slow lines.

Note that, depending on the laws in your area, you may have specific requirements that won't fit these (or probably, any) guidelines (line numbering, fonts, etc). In this case, you may be limited to letting folks download a PDF file. Even in this case you should be able to post your HTML regs "for information only" and tell people to refer to the PDF for the "real" regs.

Anyway, good luck! One advantage of the current crowd of crap Webpages is that it's easy to look good.
--

Hmmm, the US Copyright office. And how on earth are these people supposed to exert their influence to the rest of the world?

More importantly, how do WE exert OUR influence on the US Copyright office to make sure this is done right?

The only contacts list I can find is http://www.loc.gov/copyright/about.html#contact.

I think we need to write supporting some of the following ideas:

1) The RIAA should:
a) only be able to collect royalties for works members of their organization hold copyright too.
b) _freely_ provide access and administrative rights to non-RIAA affiliated artists who wish to use their system to collect.

2) The RIAA may not collect royalties where other parties are collecting them from the same download/broadcast (read: ASCAP, or any other society) for the same copyright.

With these stipulations, use of their system would probably be fine...

>The DMCA defines "circumvention" as decrypting or otherwise gaining access to a copyrighted work without the authority of the copyright holder.

That's true for provision 1201 subsection (a), Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Protection Measures, if you interpret the commas in the most sensible way:

(3) As used in this subsection --

(A) to 'circumvent a technological protection measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological protection measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;

(2) As used in this subsection --

(A) to 'circumvent protection afforded by a technological protection measure' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological protection measure;

>You make it sound as though I will be violating the DMCA even if I create a device that does nothing at all...

That is correct. 1201(a)(2)(B) and (b)(1)(B) don't say the device must circumvent access controls, only that it must not do anything else that's commercially significant. If you create your useless device you will be violating the letter of the law. Note that a device includes a service, so if you perform a commercially insignificant service (e.g. casting a shadow), that's illegal too, in theory. Components of devices are included, although it's not clear whether the component must do the circumvention on its own, or whether it need only be part of a potential or actual device. If the latter, it's not clear whether components that are also used in legal devices are excluded.

Sorry, I was sure I included this link to the Letter of Comment.

I'll second that MrSid is pretty cool. (I found it by way of some old railroad maps at the library of congress. So, if you are looking for some free content, there you go.)
--

No. The U.S. AHRA specifically allows digital audio copies, provided they're recorded on taxed media and on a device that implements "Serial Copy Management System". The AHRA only covers audio devices, and not general-purpose computers, BTW. You can read the law yourself at the U.S. Copyright Office. (This is the major part of the AHRA, I think some minor bits of it are elsewhere in the U.S. code.)

Yes, the AHRA came into being because of the fears of DAT, and effectively killed it as a consumer format, but your analysis of how it did so is wrong.

I think this guy has it right on, you should pay your $10 to have the rights to an album and then you can listen to it or own it in any medium that you want

IANAL, but I believe that under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 you do have that right, assuming it is for personal use and you are willing to move it to the new medium yourself

Do you have a URL to back that up? Because it sounds like pure bullshit to me, due to a few tiny rules:

• US Constitution, Article 3 -- "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury"
• Bill of Rights, Amendment 6 -- "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury"

Given that the ACLU is not screaming bloody murder about this, I simply don't believe you without a reputable news article.