Slashdot Mirror

Fair use is covered in Circular 21 (pdf). I found this part quite interesting:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

OTOH, reading down a little, it appears that comments can safely be reprinted in their entirety without violating the authors copyright--in particular, it states that short stories, which are far more substantial than most posts, can be used in their entirety. The caveat is that this specific example only applies to classroom use (these are the provisions for educational use), but it would seem to imply that shorter works can be reprinted safely. (Of course 'imply' doesn't mean much, legally.)

-jcl

There's one thing wrong with that argument. Since the Library of Congress has such a vast collection, a person who wants to have access to the most information would do best to access the library stacks. But not everyone can afford to go to where the books are - so now, it is not discriminating against those who are not royalty or elites, but against those who simply don't have the funds.

True, but you might want to read the library's mission statement.

LoC's primary mission is to make useful information available to Congress, which is most definitely within travel distance of the library. It's secondary mission is to preserve materials for the future. LoC is not a public library. Serving the public at large is quite low down on its list of priorities.

LoC's catalog is available online, and FWIW, they do a lot of high quality cataloguing work that is used by lots of smaller libraries that can't afford to do their own, so they do provide an important service to the public in that regard. You can search LoC's catalog and if you find something you want, go to your local library and, if it doesn't have it, you may be able to request it via interlibrary loan.

I don't know if LoC has open stacks or not, but I suspect they would be closed, meaning that even if you did make it down to Washington, you probably wouldn't be able to browse the shelves anyway.

The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped -- a unit of the Library of Congress -- is very actively pursuing the creation and distribution of digital content. Check out their website for information about their Web-Braille and Digital Talking Book initiatives. The NLS is very interested in developments in the eBook world, since this has tremendous potential as a source of accessible content for their members.

I'm sure that Billington is totally unaware of what the more forward-thinking parts of his organization are up to.

By droppping a note to lcweb@loc.gov.

I am:

This is the most short-sighted view I have ever heard, and I am appalled to hear it from our Librarian of Congress.

I have a proper reverance for books. I don't believe most will ever choose to read a book online over a paper incarnation. But that is not the point of putting books online. I believe using this as grounds for not embracing your responsibilities in the information age is simply elitist, arrogant and isolating.

Do you simply wish to keep all of these books for yourself alone? To be shared only with those who can make the journey to your little empire there in Washinton DC? Or would you prefer to open your wonderous assets to every researcher in the world? Every college student writing a paper in their dorm? Every community library with an internet connection? Let every K-12 school in the nation have access to the collected and indexed works of Man? Every school child with a home computer writing a book report? Any person anywhere in the world, US Citizen or not, who can find a way to access the Internet could enjoy the weath of knowledge that you are the curator for. You feel the Internet is just sex, violence and commercialism? Why not make a difference then, by contributing knowledge, wisdom and information?

If this is a matter of money, simpy say so. But don't try to defend this with bull-headed reactionary luddite tripe. It is not your place to tell the world how it should utilize these resources. You are the servant of the Library of Congress, not the master. This week the American people (myself included) graciously and painfully paid every penny of your salary and operating expenses for the next year. Be sure you know who your employer is, and that you serve the needs of your employer, not just your own whims. Perhaps if your goal is not to serve the whole of American people, then the whole of American people should not be asked to fund the Library of Congress any longer.

This is rather surprising.

Digitization is a massive trend all over the world. Just have a look at the home page of Bibliotheca Univeralis Project (affiliated to the G7). Among other things, you can see that almost every big national library has set up some kind of digitization project, including the LoC.

The most impressive effort to date seems to be the Gallica server at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France : 15 million pages on line, most of them as images or PDF documents (I'm sure you all dreamed of reading a XVth century bible in Middle French, didn't you ?). All documents that are copyright-free are publicly available.

I didn't check the LoC project, but the name (American Memory) sounds rather self-explaining.

Digitization is not the future : it is the present. As usual, computer scientists have paved the way (on-line papers, etc.) have paved the way, but the rest of the world are catching on.

Although Mr Billington's comments about the importance of the physical support do make sense (if you techno-junkies don't understand this, just trust me: they do ;o), using this understandable fear as a rationale for rejecting digitization altogether is plain nonsense.

There needs not be any opposition between computers and good old paper codex. They simply are different tools for different purposes, not to mention the fact that transition from electronic to physical form is a common task even among technologically oriented people (ever heard about those little boxes they call "printers" ?)

Thomas
PS: My opinion: the real reason is, they don't want to spend money in it (alt: they don't have any money to spend in it). What do you think ?

Did anyone look at the actual speech text on the LOC site, or just the article linked from here? Cos the two don't match up!!!

Whilst the article says he used the words 'arrogant' and 'hubris', this must not have been part of the same speech transcribed here on the LOC's site. The words simply don't exist in there. Did anyone bother checking sources? Doesn't look like it - I haven't seen anyone else who bothered. So what use is it opening up the library, if no-one's going to use it? Is everyone really lazy and can't be bothered looking at the real thing, just some predigested version?

This shows up a more insidious problem today - revisionism. A journalist has a good chance of getting away with slipping in some extra details if no-one checks his source. Equally an official can get away with fluffing a speech or blowing his tracks completely if the speech is transcribed for the journalists to use. How many journalists were actually physically at the book club meeting? My money's on not very many.

I actually support what the Librarian's doing. His aim is to ignore the books around at the moment, and start with the primary source materials. Get the primary sources available, and you can get your information first-hand, instead of through some reviewer or some press flack. And I'm quite sure that the process will step forwards, getting closer to present-day material, as time goes on. Anyone who wants it all digitised instantly is just being childish - think of the quantity of archives there are! But start from the start and work forwards, and it'll get there in the end.

Grab.

The text of Mr Billington's 14 April remarks can be found on the LoC website: http://www.loc.gov/today/trans cripts/041400-npc.html Nothing about his remarks in the Q & A session, though.

--Ben

Computers are great for disseminating information, but lousy when it comes to what most people consider traditional book reading. Let's face it--you can't curl up on a couch on a rainy day with your 750MHz mini-tower and 19" monitor. And even if you could, why put the unnecessary strain on your eyes?

Personally, I'll wait till I can buy a decent-sized tablet reader that's less than half an inch thick, has a wireless connection to my in-home LAN, can download any document and has a great screen that I can read in sunlight.

Until then, kudos to Billington for waiting when everyone else is running like rabid rabbits towards whatever technological fad is in vogue this year. When the time is right, we'll have the Library of Congress accessible over the Internet. Till then, I'll take it easy on my eyes.

--

Priorities

1. THE FIRST PRIORITY of the Library of Congress is to make knowledge and creativity available to the United States Congress.

2. THE SECOND PRIORITY of the Library of Congress is to acquire, organize, preserve, secure and sustain [knowledge] for the present and future use of the Congress and the nation.

3. THE THIRD PRIORITY of the Library of Congress is to make its collections maximally accessible to (in order of priority)
A. the Congress;
B. the U. S. government more broadly;
C. the public.

He appears to have forgotten the third priority entirely. Digitizing the contents would improve accessibility to all three of the above groups, particularly the third, without compromising either of the first two priorities.

Granted, if I wanted (or could take the time), I could drive the 8 or so hours it would take me to get to DC from here, so it is available to me. However, as a prgrammer, I notice that "and" between available && useful. It (the Library) is of no _use_ to me if I can't have access to it when I need to.

So far, the Internet seems to be largely amplifying . . . semi-literate chatter.

So it's time for us to take advantage of this website and the chance it gives us to organize. We should all be writing our representatives to ask them to pressure the library of congress to digitize their collection (At least those with expired copyrights.)

And we should write directly to the LOC to express our opinions as well.

What? That's totally wrong, at least in the U.S. No laws have been passed by Congress restricting spam, and the few state laws that have been passed have been thrown out by the courts as violating constitutional free speech protections. Cliff, what protections do you think you have against spam? There are none. Please, I beg you, prove me wrong - log onto Thomas and find a law that protects you from spam.

(2) "Just wondering if the laws under which the U.S. Government is pursuing the DDoS attacks on Yahoo! and Amazon could be applied to telemarketers."

No, the laws being used to "pursue" the DDOS attackers are actually more akin to laws that would apply to grafitti artists or arsonists. They are not laws about "using a public network to bother end users."

As others have noted here, the technology is improving (in some areas) to combat telemarketers. And the technology to combat spam is improving, too. But there are bigger worries than these nuisances - and we should be more concerned about more important personal information than our e-mail addresses and our phone numbers.

(3) "Will laws be written to combat such behavior? Can such laws be written?"

No, no and no. "Congress shall make no law," the First Amendment tells us, to abridge the freedom of speech. That first amendment protects lots of things that are odious to many people - including, despite the best efforts of some wrong-headed Members of Congress, flag burning.

Imagine that a law is written preventing unsolicited commercial calls. What happens if I accidentally dial your phone number in an attempt to complete a solicited commercial call - can you prosecute me? What other forms of communication should be regulated next? Perhaps TV ads, for destroying your tranquility and peace of mind by letting commercialism interfere with your entertainment?

There are already strict laws regulating what you can say and spend in political campaigns. There are already strict laws in some areas against billboards. But how far do you want to go to abridge others' right to communicate - all in the name of avoiding a nuisance?

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

• The medium is not the information -- when information is tied to a physical medium it's possible to control copying the information by restricting access to manufacturing the medium.
• By monopolizing the manufacturing process for mass distribution of any arbitrary information, a manufacturer (in this case publisher) could make money exploiting the considerable capitol expense of "tooling up." IOW: printing presses weren't cheap so for end users it made more sense just to pay for the service of mass printing.
• This created a natural economic cycle of publisher producing a product and service for consumers which electronic copying breaks, because to copy electronically requires almost no capital expense (don't need to buy no expensive printing press).
• Therefore, publishers need some form of legal regulation which limits copying and allows imposing some form of "per-use" fees so that publishers and artists can earn a living, or the economic incentive to create new works will dissipate -- along with said artistic expression.

While I think it's reasonable for publishers to require a fee for multiple use, the DMCA goes way too far. For example, I can accept that when I purchase an ebook I should have to pay twice if I want to display that ebook on two display devices at once; just like I should have to pay twice to run a program on two separate computers at once (or two separate instances of a program). Though I argue that an exception should be made for libraries -- readers who enter a library should have access to all the materials therein without the requirement for paying copying fees. But the DMCA, and specifically section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA provides for Draconian copy protectionschemes. For example it would be possible to electronically limit a newspaper (eventhough there's an exception for newspapers in the DMCA the newspaper lobby is working hard to remove these exceptions; here's their reply comment to the US Copyright office regarding the DMCA and section 1201(a)(1) to this effect.) like so:

• Wrap the newsprint in an encryption copy protection scheme in order to enact the 1201(a)(1) DMCA Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for access control technologies.
• Now enact all sorts of draconian limits on per-use of copyrighted work through technical limitations in the electronic newsprint reader, such as: Install a GPS chip in the reader and limit reading the news paper to a single city, make it illegal to pass the reader to another person (use biometrics such as fingerprint on reader, retina scans, whatever or even legally prevent (though unenforceable) someone else reading over your shoulder.

My poor little brain is still trying to sort out 'natural rights', logic, and self-interest.

But there is one incontrovertible fact that I can point out: Copyrights are not forever.

Copyrights used to only last for 56 years, and that was only if you remembered to renew it on the 28th year. But the media industry has managed to get law after law passed, extending copyrights all the way out to 90 years. It's even worse for stuff made since 1978, which will be copyrighted for the life of the creator PLUS 70/95/120 years. See this.

Now for the logic: WHY? Why aren't copyrights forever? They must have had a reason? What were those reasons? What ARE the 'natural rights' that apply to IP?

The only reason most people consider 'copyrights' to be unalienable is that, well, how often do you seen one expire? And so we've become used to the idea that IP is a God given right that an individual can posess.

Notice I'm not arguing one way or the other. I haven't researched this, I don't think many of us have. We're all familiar with the results of the development of human thought on a myriad of things over a few thousand years of human history, but we've never taken part in the development of one! How long ago have we had something so fundamental to re-consider? Our ideas and opinions are going to be warped by the status-quo of recent history, by what we're used to, and by self interest...

I'd like to find out, what *are* all of the historical thoughts on the subject of the posession of IP. Why were the first copyright laws set up the way they were, with such short terms.

Yes, we're almost getting into the area of philosophy. We're going to be considering *utility*, what is best for mankind, the rights of society, etc...

This could be kind of interesting. Unfortunately, it took hundreds of years for all our other 'fundamental' ideas to gel, and I doubt our society is so advanced as to do any better with this one. We'd better get used to the idea that it might take a while before things get 'officially' straightened out... Especially with all the powerful corporations running around, and all the average shmoe's making the decisions in the legislative bodies. You know, maybe 50, 100 years.

Of course this time it might be a little different. This time, we, the people, have the net. And we can route it around 'damage' as we see fit.

Of course, who are we to think we have all the philisophical issues sorted out?

-NH

PPS: Gosh it's such a shame a good post like this will be buried in a day old article.



---

> The original Dianetics article was published in
> the May 1950 issue of Astounding Science Fiction
> (John W. Campbell was also into this kind of
> thing). The book seems to have originally been
> published in 1951 according to the Library of
> Congress.

No, according to the Library of Congress, it was published in 1950.


--

I'm afraid that you are very much mistaken.

The original Dianetics article was published in the May 1950 issue of Astounding Science Fiction (John W. Campbell was also into this kind of thing). The book seems to have originally been published in 1951 according to the Library of Congress.

Battlefield Earth on the other hand was published in 1982 (1984 paperback) long after L Ron Hubbard had started the Scientologists I'm afraid. Battlefield Earth was published after L. Ron Hubbard had not been seen by non-scientologists for several years and was supposed to prove he was still alive. The interesting fact is that he then started to publish the 10 volume series "Invaders Plan". The Scientologists then announced in 1986 that he had died when only about half the books had been published (but the rest were already written - honest).

A sub-plot of the 1981 movie "The First Monday in October" about hiding the death of the CEO of a large company could be based upon the rumours about L. Ron Hubbard at the time.

In fact, the main flaw in the piece, as I see it, is that the author somehow assumed that "libertarianism" is the same as "anarchism." Libertarians know that there is an appropriate role for government, but that its role should be minimized to prevent an unhealthy accumulation of power in one corruptible institution. For the same reason, libertarians often oppose organized religion. And for the same reason, libertarians are now increasingly wary of aggregating corporate power.

It is a brilliantly American notion - best expressed in Federalist No. 10 - that factions and institutions ought to conflict with one another, for by their conflict is our freedom best preserved. Asking government to act against business institutions shows, therefore, not a sudden change of heart, but a deeper understanding of libertarian philosophy.

Occasionally, the author just went overboard, as when she blathered on about how librarians are civil servants paid by the public - and therefore, "true" libertarians should despise librarians? What nonsense.

Look, the political alignments of the tech communities (for there is not just one tech "community" of course) are likely to shift frequently in the coming years. As long as we don't get duped by "quick fixes," or slip into bed with an established political party, we will be able to keep sight of our ideas and ideals, and we shall watch our political power increase as society generally comes to accept the striking importance of technological issues.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

Craig Venter has promised this (on June 17, 1998 to the U.S. Congress):

A fact that has often been overlooked or questioned in the press accounts of this venture is that an essential feature of the new company's business plan is to provide public availability of the sequence data.

It is our plan to release data into the public domain at least every 3 months including the complete human genome sequence at the end of the project.

Celera has never made a release of it's human sequence data, so they must have started their work less than three months ago. The media are obviously mistaken when they report that Celera started sequencing in September last year.

BTW the human genome project got a bit of support yesterday from the U.S. Senate,

"..., computer source code, though unintelligible to many, is the preferred method of communication among computer programers."

The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) [anti-circumvention] shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title...

Your omission of the rest of the sentence makes this quote seem much stronger than it is. The "..." goes on to say: "as determined under subparagraph(C). "

The Librarian of Congress, under whom the Copyright Office operates, was given rulemaking powers in (C) to grant exeptions to (A). The legislative history of the DMCA shows that it was very important to Congress to preserve a way to allow fair access to allow fair use. The LOC rulemaking takes affect in Oct. and it will be absolutely critical to the subsequent interpretation of the law. I must disagree with prof. Lessig that the DMCA necessarily bans all cracking, even ones that lead to fair use. He points out that such an interpretation would run afoul of the First Amendment, but there is another interpretation that is much less far-reaching and is compatible with the law.

This interpretation is based on the fact that the law only bans circumvention of _access_ control measures. A limited defintion of "access" can distinguish "access control" from "use control". Accordingly, some of the members of the Openlaw DVD forum have submitted a reply comment urging the LOC to adopt such a limited definition.

This idea was first advanced by the original comment of the five leading Library Associations. We hope that the Copyright Office will treat these organizations with the enormous respect and credibility that they obviously deserve.

The cute thing about copyright and fair use is that violations are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Read all about what I am going to explain very poorly here.

Read their starter material and it becomes clear that the point at which you have violated copyright is the point at which you have ticked off someone with enough money to force you to submit.

Fair use, in the strictest sense, applys only in cases of parody, criticism, reporting, and academic use including teaching and research. "Librarians" and "archivists" also have some fair use rights.

Short phrases, single words, etc. are not copyrightable (but may be trademarked, an issue for another day). Nor can you copyright a character or a plot element. You can merely copyright a work in its entirety.

Furthermore, you own the copyright on your work once you create it, you needn't file with anyone.

So, in your example, what was your intention with "broadcasting" those bits? Once they are all put together, the original creator still has copyright because it's still their original work. You were just quoting it.

For you to have your own copyrightable work it has to be original. And we are talking about in its entirety. So using the above knowledge, you can write a book with Sherlock Holmes, using plot elements from a 007 movie and dialogue from Rainbow Bright. Though none of those parts are "original," the final product would likely be original enough to not infringe on anyones copyright, and to get one yourself. Have fun!

Oh, and lastly, as I mentioned in the very first thread, it is not a violation of copyright to create or own a "piracy tool" if it has legitimate uses. So the answer is both, and it is perfectly legal.

The cute thing about copyright and fair use is that violations are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Read all about what I am going to explain very poorly here.

Read their starter material and it becomes clear that the point at which you have violated copyright is the point at which you have ticked off someone with enough money to force you to submit.

Fair use, in the strictest sense, applys only in cases of parody, criticism, reporting, and academic use including teaching and research. "Librarians" and "archivists" also have some fair use rights.

Short phrases, single words, etc. are not copyrightable (but may be trademarked, an issue for another day). Nor can you copyright a character or a plot element. You can merely copyright a work in its entirety.

Furthermore, you own the copyright on your work once you create it, you needn't file with anyone.

So, in your example, what was your intention with "broadcasting" those bits? Once they are all put together, the original creator still has copyright because it's still their original work. You were just quoting it.

For you to have your own copyrightable work it has to be original. And we are talking about in its entirety. So using the above knowledge, you can write a book with Sherlock Holmes, using plot elements from a 007 movie and dialogue from Rainbow Bright. Though none of those parts are "original," the final product would likely be original enough to not infringe on anyones copyright, and to get one yourself. Have fun!

Oh, and lastly, as I mentioned in the very first thread, it is not a violation of copyright to create or own a "piracy tool" if it has legitimate uses. So the answer is both, and it is perfectly legal.

The cute thing about copyright and fair use is that violations are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Read all about what I am going to explain very poorly here.

Read their starter material and it becomes clear that the point at which you have violated copyright is the point at which you have ticked off someone with enough money to force you to submit.

Fair use, in the strictest sense, applys only in cases of parody, criticism, reporting, and academic use including teaching and research. "Librarians" and "archivists" also have some fair use rights.

Short phrases, single words, etc. are not copyrightable (but may be trademarked, an issue for another day). Nor can you copyright a character or a plot element. You can merely copyright a work in its entirety.

Furthermore, you own the copyright on your work once you create it, you needn't file with anyone.

So, in your example, what was your intention with "broadcasting" those bits? Once they are all put together, the original creator still has copyright because it's still their original work. You were just quoting it.

For you to have your own copyrightable work it has to be original. And we are talking about in its entirety. So using the above knowledge, you can write a book with Sherlock Holmes, using plot elements from a 007 movie and dialogue from Rainbow Bright. Though none of those parts are "original," the final product would likely be original enough to not infringe on anyones copyright, and to get one yourself. Have fun!

Oh, and lastly, as I mentioned in the very first thread, it is not a violation of copyright to create or own a "piracy tool" if it has legitimate uses. So the answer is both, and it is perfectly legal.

It was re-re-extended to the 31st. You can verify this at this link.

Privacy Policy
Pinkerton Services Group has created this "Privacy Statement" to demonstrate our firm commitment to privacy. This statement outlines our information gathering and sharing practices for this website.

Here's the link to the ALA comments, oops.

And even if he were dead, the Sonny Bono Act (which IMHO is unconstitutional) would make sure that his music belongs to his label (the Apple which is not an Apple) for at least a century. (At Project Gutenberg, they call it the "Sonny Bonehead Act.")

And even if he were dead, the Sonny Bono Act (which IMHO is unconstitutional) would make sure that his music belongs to his label (the Apple which is not an Apple) for at least a century. (At Project Gutenberg, they call it the "Sonny Bonehead Act.")

Cryptome has an article on upcoming hearings to reassess the copyright circumvention clause of the DMCA. It has an email address for comments until Mar 31. This is a chance to chip away at the excessive controls on IP by the commercial sector. One could submit suggestions and ideas, especially from bigger groups and experts (relevant testimony to the advantages and drawbacks). Please be responsible and reasonable, though - this looks like a pretty formal process.

dingus

The American Libraries Association's comments point out an even better rebuttal of the MPMA's case. Access control refers to prevention of acquisition of a copyrighted work, not use of that work once it has been acquired. Access and use are separate and distinct terms in copyright law. As CSS is not an access control mechanism, but a use control mechanism, bypassing it isn't illegal. Anyway, under the "first sale" principle, the copyright holder has no right to control the use of a work once it has been sold to a customer, and the DMCA has a get-out clause that says that no existing rights should be considered to be revoked by the DMCA.

There are problems with the way we are organized as a community. This is an inherent problem with a group that is so widely distributed, but sites like Slashdot help to alleviate that problem. Of course, there are plenty of people who used to read Slashdot, before all the First Posters and other weenies showed up, so I fear there is still a great lack of communication (heck, even Linus Torvalds doesn't read Slashdot ;-)

I am firmly convinced that we have a voice, but the voice is not focused in any particular direction. Only on a few issues (such as Section 1201 of the DMCA or the DVD/DeCSS cases), have we been able to focus in any significant manner. Even in situations like the above, we do not have the experience as a political group to get any attention.

In early February, I stood out on a streetcorner in front of a movie theater, protesting the actions the MPAA and DVD CCA were taking against DeCSS distributors. It was a cold Minnesota evening, and I wasn't sure at all what I was doing.

When I first arrived, I was looking for some of the people I was expecting to meet. I fairly quickly found one person who was holding a sign with one hand, and with his other was trying to hand out flyers from a pile that was in great danger of blowing away in the wind. Mere seconds after I arrived, a very angry-looking manager told us to move off of the property of the theater and the mall in which it was located. We walked across the street, only to find that the mall owned that property as well. We finally ended up in a spot on the corner of a very busy intersection -- one so busy as to make distribution of our leaflets nearly impossible. We were also by this point quite a distance away from the theater, so no one really knew what we were protesting.

I learned many things that night and from reading post-protest coverage on 2600 sites and the like. If I had known these things earlier, I and the people with me would have been able to bring our point to a much greater number of people. I understand there are ways to get permits to be on `private' property (I use the quotes since it was a mall, a place of business usually open to anyone). Also, if our group had been slightly more forward-thinking and found a location before the protest, we probably would have made a much larger influence. Lastly, there were some very tight time constraints put on us. It is very difficult to organize something like what 2600 hoped to accomplish in just a week -- especially when the night of action in question was a Friday

Because of all of this, I propose creating a site (or two or three, if they become necessary) where geeks can learn about the political events that have the most influence on us. Also, the site could carry information about the best ways to get your message across to the public and the people in power. Basically, host HOWTOs for protesting, contacting representatives, and other things.

Of course, I might just be off my rocker...

(what would be a good name for such a site? geekpolitics.org? any other ideas?)
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA

To see an example of the output, read my comment (a trojancow_a) on http://www.loc.gov/copyright/120 1/comments/201.pdf, the copyright office's web site. (The cow's at the bottom.)

Please don't use this service unless you are submitting a comment, generating one PDF places a real load on the server. Thanks.

Have a cow man!

Karl <kop@meme.com>

The MPAA has exploited the DMCA to architect CSS licensing in a way that completely manipulated and controlls the publishers and DVD player manufacturers. If the MPAA wins out over DeCSS, a precident will be set that will set back the MPAA a long way.

Also don't just submit one comment. They are public and you can respond to other comments already received and posted. (See the last /. story on this). Lastly don't stop at just the copyright office. Support EFF,and also write you elected represetatives and let them know how you feel, Make sure that in all your verbal or written communication to either an elected official, industry lobby or industry exec that you be nice. Elected officials really don't respond well to flames, spam, mail floods or harsh language. You will come off as a script kiddie and be completely ignored. For a loose reference, re-read the Linux Advocacy Guide, it will give you the right sort of flavor for your communications.

The house of representatives has a search facility to find your representative:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
The senates listing is here:
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.c fm

For me this battle has never been about "the right to pirate a product" but rather "when I 'buy' a product have I bought the actual product or just a license to use it under certain circumstances?"

I have no interest in collecting entertainment "licenses." I can be forced into buying licensed software for many other things, but I'll never be successfully forced into buying licenses for movies, cds, book, or games. Myself, I'd rather do without than have a collection of stuff that was actually owned by someone else. I mean I feel that these people are trying to turn us into a society that can never buy anything, only rent it.

Imagine if when an auction house was selling a van Gogh painting saying, "We are selling a license to posess this fine painting as long as it is kept in this city with a tracking device in the frame and we have the right to repossess it at any time." I don't think they'd get many bids.

Right now, for example, I'm not "pirating" MPAA movies. I'm just not watching them. (Though, if my brother, who has no intention of ever joining the MPAA boycott, shows me a movie on his DVD player, am I then a pirate? I'm sure the MPAA would like me to think so.)

Incidentally, I recently re-bought Enchanter (as part of an Infocom collection) though I'm pretty sure I could easily have downloaded a pirated copy from somewhere (I mean the game is ancient). I hate having to still fight the pathetic (look at this page in the manual) copy protection they have on it.

There are a couple of things going on currently:

1. Stuff like Region Coding and DIVX are pretty disgusting ways to screw a purchaser who used to be able to just buy something and use it. Divx is not dead! It's just being retooled for a new release. The DVD makers have admitted as much in their comments to the copyright office:

Access control technologies are used, for example, to permit access to a work for a limited period (such as a free demonstration or "test drive" period, or the duration of a license agreement) while closing it thereafter. These techniques are also employed to allow access to part of a work while denying it to another part; to enable access by a specified category of users but not by another category; or to enable access by a specified number of simultaneous users but no more.-- from the MPAA comments on the DMCA

2. Anything that is available on electronic media is more easily copied than anything on traditional media. This is why book publishers aren't as woried about photocopiers as they were when they first came out. Unfortunately, the old media companies would rather kill or cripple the new technology (DVD is just crippled MPEG-2, I believe. You have to jump through hoops to watch something that could've been released in a standard readable format. Back in the days of vinyl records, films, and even video tape, crippling things wasn't as much of an option.) than try to find a way to work within the new technology. If these people had gotten their way, VCRs would never have become available to the general public! (Check out SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., ET AL. for the actual court case.) I don't like seeing good usable technology crippled, and I hate seeing good usable technology completely suppressed just so Monty Burns can have another ivory back scratcher. (Digital Audio Tape, anyone?)

Of course, I wish Jon had made these points instead of saying that people ought to put up with piracy because "making money from ideas is wrong."

DMCA effectively outlaws copy protection, since no one is allowed to play the works (except for reverse-engineering purposes, blah blah) -- license or not. Because no one has the authority to grant such a license. In fact, even if DVD CCA had a patent on the CSS algorithm and therefore had some way to claim "ownership" of the algorithm, they still wouldn't be able to use it w/out violating DMCA. But even that's just hypothetical, since no one owns that algorithm.

In fact, the DCMA prohibits decrypting of CSS-encoded content in order to access the content only "without the authority of the copyright owner" (see section 1201, subsection a, paragraph 3). My understanding of the DCMA and the CSS cases is that what's at issue is 'distributing' a tool (in this case, DeCSS) whose purpose is to defeat access controls -- this violates section 1201, subsection a, paragraph 2 of the law. However, it seems that (in the interpretation of myself and the slashdot crowd, at least), section 1201, subsection c, paragraph 1 ("Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.") grants the rights to subvert the access control for the purpose of accessing content one lawfully owns, regardless of whether or not the copyright holder has explicitly granted authority (by, say, licensing CSS technology).

I suspect these cases will come down to some judge deciding whether or not (or if you're cynical like me, that) the "primary purpose" of DeCSS is in accordance w/ fair use (i.e. playing lawfully obtained content) or piracy.

Copyright 2000 Jon Katz

As a /. reader service: of the dozen or so that I read at random, 12 was the most persuasive. 235 and 36 were also thought provoking.

As a /. reader service: of the dozen or so that I read at random, 12 was the most persuasive. 235 and 36 were also thought provoking.

As a /. reader service: of the dozen or so that I read at random, 12 was the most persuasive. 235 and 36 were also thought provoking.

http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright /1201/comments/175.pdf

This paragraph in particular:

The Library of Congress audio-visual-collection preservation team believes that it may be necessary for the Library to circumvent technological controls on access to copyrighted works in order to preserve digital audio-visual works for the long term...

The Library has not made a definitive study of the copyright protection technology in use or proposed for use in digital sound recordings, DVD disks, and other formats. Coverage in the press indicates, however, that several protection technologies are designed to prevent copying or repeated copying in certain circumstances. This may mean that it will necessary for the Library and other legitimate archives to circumvent protective technology in order to preserve important content for the future.

This is not entirely true...many more people took it upon themselve to try and represent the public at large in their comments. For example there is this set of comments from the The American Library Assoc. et. al. who attempt to bring to light that 65% of american house holds use libraries for some of thier information gathering. While the public at large themselves did not try, nor really knew that they could, comment about the law in question, many organizations were well aware and did post. All is not lost, nor the battle even begun. Be patient. This is not over yet.

I'm henceforth-heretoforonout OpenSourcing my comments to the Librarian, #16.
Everyone needs to read the comments also by the big companies so that we can punch holes in their arguments and also try to find the comments by companies that ARE hurt by this (as opposed to us normal users).

If you are writing a reply comment, (as I am, and I hope that everybody will!) please check out comment #100. (Not mine-- mine is #17 if you care) The comment is by a gentleman who runs a video-editing business with Linux machines, and who is losing business as a direct result of DeCSS becoming illegal. This is an excellent comment to quote in your reply, along with those listed in the article summary from the "big boys" of industry.

This comment helps us make the point that the encryption restrictions hurt not only the honest end user who wishes to play DVDs from another region, connect their DVD player to a coax-only TV, make a backup of a DVD, or play a DVD in their Linux machine, but also honest businesspeople.

Please take the time to write a reply comment-- it doesn't have to be long, just make your point concisely and with references to actual facts. Please feel free to cannibalize my comment if you need a place to start. (it probably isn't the most beautiful of comments, but I tried)

If you are writing a reply comment, (as I am, and I hope that everybody will!) please check out comment #100. (Not mine-- mine is #17 if you care) The comment is by a gentleman who runs a video-editing business with Linux machines, and who is losing business as a direct result of DeCSS becoming illegal. This is an excellent comment to quote in your reply, along with those listed in the article summary from the "big boys" of industry.

This comment helps us make the point that the encryption restrictions hurt not only the honest end user who wishes to play DVDs from another region, connect their DVD player to a coax-only TV, make a backup of a DVD, or play a DVD in their Linux machine, but also honest businesspeople.

Please take the time to write a reply comment-- it doesn't have to be long, just make your point concisely and with references to actual facts. Please feel free to cannibalize my comment if you need a place to start. (it probably isn't the most beautiful of comments, but I tried)

If you are writing a reply comment, (as I am, and I hope that everybody will!) please check out comment #100. (Not mine-- mine is #17 if you care) The comment is by a gentleman who runs a video-editing business with Linux machines, and who is losing business as a direct result of DeCSS becoming illegal. This is an excellent comment to quote in your reply, along with those listed in the article summary from the "big boys" of industry.

This comment helps us make the point that the encryption restrictions hurt not only the honest end user who wishes to play DVDs from another region, connect their DVD player to a coax-only TV, make a backup of a DVD, or play a DVD in their Linux machine, but also honest businesspeople.

Please take the time to write a reply comment-- it doesn't have to be long, just make your point concisely and with references to actual facts. Please feel free to cannibalize my comment if you need a place to start. (it probably isn't the most beautiful of comments, but I tried)

I'd like to point out some brief excerpts from three of the comments. Others have rightly complimented the EFF comments - which we can probably assume will be a good indication of at least part of the approach EFF's team will use in the courtroom.

The heart of the EFF comment is this:

Hence, any "unauthorized descrambling" or viewing of DVDs constitutes a violation under the DMCA. Bypassing the wisdom of copyright law's First Sale Rule which terminates the author's right to control what happens to a particular work after its first sale, systems such as CSS effectively assert control over a DVD forever... [T]he Librarian should consider whether or not the technological protection measure actually protects a right afforded by a copyright holder, (such as copying, distribution, adaptation, public display/performance), or whether the system is designed to limit a consumer's legitimate use of media (such as viewing). ... [T]he DVD format should be exempted as a class of works under the DMCA's anticircumvention provisions.

Second, the MPAA comments are extremely revealing - and will probably be important in the courtroom, too. In essence, they argue that CSS gives them important protection against more than just piracy:

Access control technologies are used, for example, to permit access to a work for a limited period (such as a free demonstration or "test drive" period, or the duration of a license agreement) while closing it thereafter. These techniques are also employed to allow access to part of a work while denying it to another part; to enable access by a specified category of users but not by another category; or to enable access by a specified number of simultaneous users but no more.

And, the third (and final) excerpt I want to quote is this, from the Computer and Communications Industry Association. They point out an absurd conclusion that the law might lead to if there is is not a broad protection for interoperability.

[A]t some point in the near future computer programs will be distributed on DVDs. Would reverse engineering CSS to permit these programs to run on Linux be permitted under the DMCA as enacted, or would the exception not apply because the decryption software would also allow the running of movies? To eliminate the possibility of this absurd result, reverse engineering for the purpose of permitting all forms interoperability -- and not just between computer software -- should be permitted.

Now, here's what happens next. The court cases are going to proceed - which I think is plainly thuggish behavior on the part of the MPAA and the Copy Control Authority. Court procedures are slow, but so is the regulatory process. It is conceivable that some of the court cases will be in the appeal stage before the Copyright Office makes any final decision.

Slashdot users can do two things:

• 1. Send reply comments to the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office gives until March 20 to reply to those comments. I know that isn't a lot of time, but if you have some spare hours this weekend, you might want to jot something down. Some of your comments in this discussion could almost directly go to the Copyright Office - like
• DavidOgg's comment, which gets right to the heart of things.
  
  The rules for sending reply comments appear here. If anyone is unclear about how to send these reply comments, or wants to send their comments in PDF format (which is not necessary), I would be willing to help clean them up or convert them to PDF and send them on to the Copyright Office as a service to the /. community. I have set up a special Hotmail address (copyright_reply@hotmail.com to serve as a dropbox, and I'll contact anyone who seriously wants help.

  2. Keep fighting the battle of public opinion. Most people don't know anything about this issue, and those who have heard of it largely don't grasp its importance. Tell your friends and family - and, if you can, write letters to your local newspaper. Anything you can do to move the battle from the online world to meatspace will help.

This is going to be a long fight.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

I'd like to point out some brief excerpts from three of the comments. Others have rightly complimented the EFF comments - which we can probably assume will be a good indication of at least part of the approach EFF's team will use in the courtroom.

The heart of the EFF comment is this:

Hence, any "unauthorized descrambling" or viewing of DVDs constitutes a violation under the DMCA. Bypassing the wisdom of copyright law's First Sale Rule which terminates the author's right to control what happens to a particular work after its first sale, systems such as CSS effectively assert control over a DVD forever... [T]he Librarian should consider whether or not the technological protection measure actually protects a right afforded by a copyright holder, (such as copying, distribution, adaptation, public display/performance), or whether the system is designed to limit a consumer's legitimate use of media (such as viewing). ... [T]he DVD format should be exempted as a class of works under the DMCA's anticircumvention provisions.

Second, the MPAA comments are extremely revealing - and will probably be important in the courtroom, too. In essence, they argue that CSS gives them important protection against more than just piracy:

Access control technologies are used, for example, to permit access to a work for a limited period (such as a free demonstration or "test drive" period, or the duration of a license agreement) while closing it thereafter. These techniques are also employed to allow access to part of a work while denying it to another part; to enable access by a specified category of users but not by another category; or to enable access by a specified number of simultaneous users but no more.

And, the third (and final) excerpt I want to quote is this, from the Computer and Communications Industry Association. They point out an absurd conclusion that the law might lead to if there is is not a broad protection for interoperability.

[A]t some point in the near future computer programs will be distributed on DVDs. Would reverse engineering CSS to permit these programs to run on Linux be permitted under the DMCA as enacted, or would the exception not apply because the decryption software would also allow the running of movies? To eliminate the possibility of this absurd result, reverse engineering for the purpose of permitting all forms interoperability -- and not just between computer software -- should be permitted.

Now, here's what happens next. The court cases are going to proceed - which I think is plainly thuggish behavior on the part of the MPAA and the Copy Control Authority. Court procedures are slow, but so is the regulatory process. It is conceivable that some of the court cases will be in the appeal stage before the Copyright Office makes any final decision.

Slashdot users can do two things:

• 1. Send reply comments to the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office gives until March 20 to reply to those comments. I know that isn't a lot of time, but if you have some spare hours this weekend, you might want to jot something down. Some of your comments in this discussion could almost directly go to the Copyright Office - like
• DavidOgg's comment, which gets right to the heart of things.
  
  The rules for sending reply comments appear here. If anyone is unclear about how to send these reply comments, or wants to send their comments in PDF format (which is not necessary), I would be willing to help clean them up or convert them to PDF and send them on to the Copyright Office as a service to the /. community. I have set up a special Hotmail address (copyright_reply@hotmail.com to serve as a dropbox, and I'll contact anyone who seriously wants help.

  2. Keep fighting the battle of public opinion. Most people don't know anything about this issue, and those who have heard of it largely don't grasp its importance. Tell your friends and family - and, if you can, write letters to your local newspaper. Anything you can do to move the battle from the online world to meatspace will help.

This is going to be a long fight.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

I'd like to point out some brief excerpts from three of the comments. Others have rightly complimented the EFF comments - which we can probably assume will be a good indication of at least part of the approach EFF's team will use in the courtroom.

The heart of the EFF comment is this:

Hence, any "unauthorized descrambling" or viewing of DVDs constitutes a violation under the DMCA. Bypassing the wisdom of copyright law's First Sale Rule which terminates the author's right to control what happens to a particular work after its first sale, systems such as CSS effectively assert control over a DVD forever... [T]he Librarian should consider whether or not the technological protection measure actually protects a right afforded by a copyright holder, (such as copying, distribution, adaptation, public display/performance), or whether the system is designed to limit a consumer's legitimate use of media (such as viewing). ... [T]he DVD format should be exempted as a class of works under the DMCA's anticircumvention provisions.

Second, the MPAA comments are extremely revealing - and will probably be important in the courtroom, too. In essence, they argue that CSS gives them important protection against more than just piracy:

Access control technologies are used, for example, to permit access to a work for a limited period (such as a free demonstration or "test drive" period, or the duration of a license agreement) while closing it thereafter. These techniques are also employed to allow access to part of a work while denying it to another part; to enable access by a specified category of users but not by another category; or to enable access by a specified number of simultaneous users but no more.

And, the third (and final) excerpt I want to quote is this, from the Computer and Communications Industry Association. They point out an absurd conclusion that the law might lead to if there is is not a broad protection for interoperability.

[A]t some point in the near future computer programs will be distributed on DVDs. Would reverse engineering CSS to permit these programs to run on Linux be permitted under the DMCA as enacted, or would the exception not apply because the decryption software would also allow the running of movies? To eliminate the possibility of this absurd result, reverse engineering for the purpose of permitting all forms interoperability -- and not just between computer software -- should be permitted.

Now, here's what happens next. The court cases are going to proceed - which I think is plainly thuggish behavior on the part of the MPAA and the Copy Control Authority. Court procedures are slow, but so is the regulatory process. It is conceivable that some of the court cases will be in the appeal stage before the Copyright Office makes any final decision.

Slashdot users can do two things:

• 1. Send reply comments to the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office gives until March 20 to reply to those comments. I know that isn't a lot of time, but if you have some spare hours this weekend, you might want to jot something down. Some of your comments in this discussion could almost directly go to the Copyright Office - like
• DavidOgg's comment, which gets right to the heart of things.
  
  The rules for sending reply comments appear here. If anyone is unclear about how to send these reply comments, or wants to send their comments in PDF format (which is not necessary), I would be willing to help clean them up or convert them to PDF and send them on to the Copyright Office as a service to the /. community. I have set up a special Hotmail address (copyright_reply@hotmail.com to serve as a dropbox, and I'll contact anyone who seriously wants help.

  2. Keep fighting the battle of public opinion. Most people don't know anything about this issue, and those who have heard of it largely don't grasp its importance. Tell your friends and family - and, if you can, write letters to your local newspaper. Anything you can do to move the battle from the online world to meatspace will help.

This is going to be a long fight.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

I'd like to point out some brief excerpts from three of the comments. Others have rightly complimented the EFF comments - which we can probably assume will be a good indication of at least part of the approach EFF's team will use in the courtroom.

The heart of the EFF comment is this:

Hence, any "unauthorized descrambling" or viewing of DVDs constitutes a violation under the DMCA. Bypassing the wisdom of copyright law's First Sale Rule which terminates the author's right to control what happens to a particular work after its first sale, systems such as CSS effectively assert control over a DVD forever... [T]he Librarian should consider whether or not the technological protection measure actually protects a right afforded by a copyright holder, (such as copying, distribution, adaptation, public display/performance), or whether the system is designed to limit a consumer's legitimate use of media (such as viewing). ... [T]he DVD format should be exempted as a class of works under the DMCA's anticircumvention provisions.

Second, the MPAA comments are extremely revealing - and will probably be important in the courtroom, too. In essence, they argue that CSS gives them important protection against more than just piracy:

Access control technologies are used, for example, to permit access to a work for a limited period (such as a free demonstration or "test drive" period, or the duration of a license agreement) while closing it thereafter. These techniques are also employed to allow access to part of a work while denying it to another part; to enable access by a specified category of users but not by another category; or to enable access by a specified number of simultaneous users but no more.

And, the third (and final) excerpt I want to quote is this, from the Computer and Communications Industry Association. They point out an absurd conclusion that the law might lead to if there is is not a broad protection for interoperability.

[A]t some point in the near future computer programs will be distributed on DVDs. Would reverse engineering CSS to permit these programs to run on Linux be permitted under the DMCA as enacted, or would the exception not apply because the decryption software would also allow the running of movies? To eliminate the possibility of this absurd result, reverse engineering for the purpose of permitting all forms interoperability -- and not just between computer software -- should be permitted.

Now, here's what happens next. The court cases are going to proceed - which I think is plainly thuggish behavior on the part of the MPAA and the Copy Control Authority. Court procedures are slow, but so is the regulatory process. It is conceivable that some of the court cases will be in the appeal stage before the Copyright Office makes any final decision.

Slashdot users can do two things:

• 1. Send reply comments to the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office gives until March 20 to reply to those comments. I know that isn't a lot of time, but if you have some spare hours this weekend, you might want to jot something down. Some of your comments in this discussion could almost directly go to the Copyright Office - like
• DavidOgg's comment, which gets right to the heart of things.
  
  The rules for sending reply comments appear here. If anyone is unclear about how to send these reply comments, or wants to send their comments in PDF format (which is not necessary), I would be willing to help clean them up or convert them to PDF and send them on to the Copyright Office as a service to the /. community. I have set up a special Hotmail address (copyright_reply@hotmail.com to serve as a dropbox, and I'll contact anyone who seriously wants help.

  2. Keep fighting the battle of public opinion. Most people don't know anything about this issue, and those who have heard of it largely don't grasp its importance. Tell your friends and family - and, if you can, write letters to your local newspaper. Anything you can do to move the battle from the online world to meatspace will help.

This is going to be a long fight.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society