Slashdot Mirror

The rules can't be too byzantine, this made it in.

The main problem with GPL'ed software in general is the question "how can I make a living writing free software." Companies like Red Hat, Caldera, and the rest of the Linux start-ups answer this question by providing technical support for a fee. However, not all programs lend themselves to this economic model. While it may be appropriate for complex software like operating systems and server programs, it is not nearly as feasable for desktop applications -- particuarly if they are very intuitive and user-friendly. A program that's easy to use won't need much in terms of tech support.

Besides providing support services, historically the only other significant way open-source programmers have been able to support themselves directly is to write & sell books. (ESR and Larry Wall spring to mind as examples of this model of compensation).

As a programmer, I'd hate to think that after putting hundreds or thousands of hours of my time into writing an open-source program, the only way I could make any money would be thru banner ads and selling tee shirts and stuffed toys. If I wanted to sell souvineers for a living, I wouln't have busted my ass getting an engineering degree. When you pour your blood, sweat, and tears into somthing, you deserve to be rewarded for your effort. If ego gratification is enough of a reward for you, that's fine; but remember that even the most altrustic programmer still needs to provide for himself and his family.

The problem with the free documentation licence is , like the GPL, it has a "viral" nature. Let's suppose I write program foo and release it under the GPL, then release a basic user's manual under the FDL. Because of the viral nature of the FDL, I could not then go write a book (foo In A Nutshell) that expands on the FDL'ed documentation. Strictly interpreted, even quoting a single line of FDL'ed text could render the entire new document FDL'ed. Even paraphrasing the original text might not be enough to get it out from under the FDL, given the translation clause.

Look at the Declaration of Independence : because it's in the public domain, anyone can publish a copy of the DoI without restriction. However, if I take the DoI and intersperse it with a line-by-line analysis of what it means, this derivitive work is fully copyrightable. However, if I did the same thing with a FDL'ed document, I would have to give up all rights to the new work, regardless of if I wanted to or not. I should have the freedom to decide how to assign my intellectual property rights.

Tim O'Reilly has done some great things for the open-source community, has made a good bit of money doing it, and has helped many open-source programmers, and has given a lot back to the community. But even a publisher as open-minded at O'Riley & Assc. would have to think twice about publishing a book that could be copied & resold by anyone.

"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'

The government is in the unenviable situation of trying to regulate the patterns and processes of Net activity. In real space, the various geographies (physical, economic) are pretty well understood, they can do this--hence, we have things like the Interstate Commerce Commission. Granted, illegal activities take place in which we can't account for the movement of capital and goods, but it's a relatively minor part of the economy.

In digital space, geographies are difficult to define, change rapidly, and are poorly understood in general--especially by government types. Things like MP3s, which are getting everyone into a froth, can be created, copied, hosted, and distributed with no relation to political boundaries, and the actors involved may or may not be U.S. citizens.

I understand the government's position of wanting to do something about what's happening on the Net, because it clearly facilitates gross violations of laws and regulations that are applied in physical space.

Hopefully, someone can clearly articulate to our lawmakers what it is about online culture that's different from physical space and deserves to be treated differently.

After Federal laws with such impressive titles as the Sonny Bono Term Extension Act get passed and signed into law, the good folk in our benign and wondrous government reconcile and merge the new law with the body of the existing old law, which is divided up into . The civil law related to copyright is all of a section called Title 17. (The criminal bits of copyright law are off in a seperate section, over in the criminal code). When a new law gets reconciled and merged with the old, it can be much like the application of a diff patch, lots of little changes all over to hell and gone. However, in the case of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), it resulted in a new chapter 10 of Title 17 (PDF), so you can read it for yourself (or try).

In a nutshell, the AHRA:

• defines a bunch of terms, primarily a class of "digital audio recording devices" (section 1001)
• mandates that any device in that class incorporate a Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) or similar copy management technology and prohibits "inaccurately" setting the bits of any SCMS-managed recording (section 1002),
• that anyone manufacturing such a device or media for such a device pay a royalty (section 1003),
• the mechanism for the big copyright owners to divide up their new revenue stream (sections 1004-1007),
• most important!! "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." (entire text of section 1008)
• and finally, what people can sue for, what the damage limits are, and how certain disputes can be arbitrated (sections 1009 and 1010).

In examining the AHRA in RIAA vs. Diamond, the court states:

The district court concluded that the exemption of hard drives from the definition of digital music recording, and the exemption of computers generally from the Act's ambit, "would effectively eviscerate the [Act] " because "[a]ny recording device could evade [ ] regulation simply by passing the music through a computer and ensuring that the MP3 file resided momentarily on the hard drive." RIAA I, 29 F. Supp. 2d at 630. While this may be true, the Act seems to have been expressly designed to create this loophole.

There's a lot of stuff in the rest of copyright law, but basically the law gives the copyright owner exclusive control of the copyrighted work with several exceptions. The AHRA in chapter 10 above defines one exception, the other exceptions significant for our puposes are:

• Chapter 1 (PDF): section 107: Fair Use
• Chapter 1: section 108: reproduction by libraries and archives

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, teach-ing (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 a 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 nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copy-righted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The other significant exception to the copyright owner's exclusive use is section 108. It's a bit convoluted, but the meat is that public libraries and archives can make backup and replacement copies of stuff for themselves under certain circumstances, can make copies of small sections of works in print for patrons, and can make whole copies of out-of-print works for patrons to take home and keep, under the condition that "the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price". And while someone claiming to be a Real Lawyer® in Usenet has said otherwise, I have always thought that if it's legal for a library to do it for you, it's just got to be "fair use" for you to do it for yourself. (But then again, IANAL.)

In summation, when the RIAA writes:

"The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act."

After Federal laws with such impressive titles as the Sonny Bono Term Extension Act get passed and signed into law, the good folk in our benign and wondrous government reconcile and merge the new law with the body of the existing old law, which is divided up into . The civil law related to copyright is all of a section called Title 17. (The criminal bits of copyright law are off in a seperate section, over in the criminal code). When a new law gets reconciled and merged with the old, it can be much like the application of a diff patch, lots of little changes all over to hell and gone. However, in the case of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), it resulted in a new chapter 10 of Title 17 (PDF), so you can read it for yourself (or try).

In a nutshell, the AHRA:

• defines a bunch of terms, primarily a class of "digital audio recording devices" (section 1001)
• mandates that any device in that class incorporate a Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) or similar copy management technology and prohibits "inaccurately" setting the bits of any SCMS-managed recording (section 1002),
• that anyone manufacturing such a device or media for such a device pay a royalty (section 1003),
• the mechanism for the big copyright owners to divide up their new revenue stream (sections 1004-1007),
• most important!! "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." (entire text of section 1008)
• and finally, what people can sue for, what the damage limits are, and how certain disputes can be arbitrated (sections 1009 and 1010).

In examining the AHRA in RIAA vs. Diamond, the court states:

The district court concluded that the exemption of hard drives from the definition of digital music recording, and the exemption of computers generally from the Act's ambit, "would effectively eviscerate the [Act] " because "[a]ny recording device could evade [ ] regulation simply by passing the music through a computer and ensuring that the MP3 file resided momentarily on the hard drive." RIAA I, 29 F. Supp. 2d at 630. While this may be true, the Act seems to have been expressly designed to create this loophole.

There's a lot of stuff in the rest of copyright law, but basically the law gives the copyright owner exclusive control of the copyrighted work with several exceptions. The AHRA in chapter 10 above defines one exception, the other exceptions significant for our puposes are:

• Chapter 1 (PDF): section 107: Fair Use
• Chapter 1: section 108: reproduction by libraries and archives

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, teach-ing (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 a 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 nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copy-righted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The other significant exception to the copyright owner's exclusive use is section 108. It's a bit convoluted, but the meat is that public libraries and archives can make backup and replacement copies of stuff for themselves under certain circumstances, can make copies of small sections of works in print for patrons, and can make whole copies of out-of-print works for patrons to take home and keep, under the condition that "the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price". And while someone claiming to be a Real Lawyer® in Usenet has said otherwise, I have always thought that if it's legal for a library to do it for you, it's just got to be "fair use" for you to do it for yourself. (But then again, IANAL.)

In summation, when the RIAA writes:

"The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act."

After Federal laws with such impressive titles as the Sonny Bono Term Extension Act get passed and signed into law, the good folk in our benign and wondrous government reconcile and merge the new law with the body of the existing old law, which is divided up into . The civil law related to copyright is all of a section called Title 17. (The criminal bits of copyright law are off in a seperate section, over in the criminal code). When a new law gets reconciled and merged with the old, it can be much like the application of a diff patch, lots of little changes all over to hell and gone. However, in the case of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), it resulted in a new chapter 10 of Title 17 (PDF), so you can read it for yourself (or try).

In a nutshell, the AHRA:

• defines a bunch of terms, primarily a class of "digital audio recording devices" (section 1001)
• mandates that any device in that class incorporate a Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) or similar copy management technology and prohibits "inaccurately" setting the bits of any SCMS-managed recording (section 1002),
• that anyone manufacturing such a device or media for such a device pay a royalty (section 1003),
• the mechanism for the big copyright owners to divide up their new revenue stream (sections 1004-1007),
• most important!! "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." (entire text of section 1008)
• and finally, what people can sue for, what the damage limits are, and how certain disputes can be arbitrated (sections 1009 and 1010).

In examining the AHRA in RIAA vs. Diamond, the court states:

The district court concluded that the exemption of hard drives from the definition of digital music recording, and the exemption of computers generally from the Act's ambit, "would effectively eviscerate the [Act] " because "[a]ny recording device could evade [ ] regulation simply by passing the music through a computer and ensuring that the MP3 file resided momentarily on the hard drive." RIAA I, 29 F. Supp. 2d at 630. While this may be true, the Act seems to have been expressly designed to create this loophole.

There's a lot of stuff in the rest of copyright law, but basically the law gives the copyright owner exclusive control of the copyrighted work with several exceptions. The AHRA in chapter 10 above defines one exception, the other exceptions significant for our puposes are:

• Chapter 1 (PDF): section 107: Fair Use
• Chapter 1: section 108: reproduction by libraries and archives

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, teach-ing (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 a 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 nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copy-righted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The other significant exception to the copyright owner's exclusive use is section 108. It's a bit convoluted, but the meat is that public libraries and archives can make backup and replacement copies of stuff for themselves under certain circumstances, can make copies of small sections of works in print for patrons, and can make whole copies of out-of-print works for patrons to take home and keep, under the condition that "the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price". And while someone claiming to be a Real Lawyer® in Usenet has said otherwise, I have always thought that if it's legal for a library to do it for you, it's just got to be "fair use" for you to do it for yourself. (But then again, IANAL.)

In summation, when the RIAA writes:

"The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act."

• 1929.com Interesting, but needs more material.
• WPA Writer's Project A Library of Congress collection. Good photos.
• Songs of the Great Depression Brother, can you spare a dime?
• Downside.com See the guy jump out the window, just like 1929. A service of Animats

I've been reading through the (admittedly dense) text of the law itself (Public Law 102-563. Read it yourself at the Library of Congress). I can't find anywhere where it says that individuals are not allowed to make copies for their own use, despite what the RIAA says. The law seems to deal only with making manufacturers, importers, and distributors pay royalties. The only section that gives me pause is subchapter D, Sec. 1008, mainly because it's a huge run-on sentence. I don't understand what it says. Since IANAL, could someone a little more knowledgeable take a look?

I've been reading through the (admittedly dense) text of the law itself (Public Law 102-563. Read it yourself at the Library of Congress). I can't find anywhere where it says that individuals are not allowed to make copies for their own use, despite what the RIAA says. The law seems to deal only with making manufacturers, importers, and distributors pay royalties. The only section that gives me pause is subchapter D, Sec. 1008, mainly because it's a huge run-on sentence. I don't understand what it says. Since IANAL, could someone a little more knowledgeable take a look?

What you can do right here, right now, is to go o to the Library of Congress page Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works ( http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html ), read the SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS and file a reply comment to the MPAA's or other pro-DMCA submission.
(moderators, I know this is redundant with the same info in another post I just made, but give me a break)

What you can do right here, right now, is to go o to the Library of Congress page Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works ( http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html ), read the SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS and file a reply comment to the MPAA's or other pro-DMCA submission.
(moderators, I know this is redundant with the same info in another post I just made, but give me a break)

What you can do right here, right now, is to go o to the Library of Congress page Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works ( http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html ), read the SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS and file a reply comment to the MPAA's or other pro-DMCA submission.
(moderators, I know this is redundant with the same info in another post I just made, but give me a break)

Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works ( http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html )

DO NOT JUST EMAIL! READ THE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

File a reply comment to the MPAA's or other pro-DMCA submission.

Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works ( http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html )

DO NOT JUST EMAIL! READ THE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

File a reply comment to the MPAA's or other pro-DMCA submission.

Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works ( http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html )

DO NOT JUST EMAIL! READ THE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

File a reply comment to the MPAA's or other pro-DMCA submission.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is the US citizen's Right to Privacy. How the Bill of Rights is interpreted is a matter of constant debate, and pretty much depends on the majority opinion of the Supreme Court.

The right to privacy certainly exists, but how it's interpreted and enforced- that is the question. Overall, I agree with your point.

Children's Internet Protection Act (S.97) - sponsored by McCain

I decided not to mod this comment down, but rather post this comment . . . . otherwise, nobody would understand.

This is propaganda. There is no basis, no links, no hard evidience. Punch the CDA and McCain through your favorite search engine and see what it finds.

In FACT, McCain was reported to say any new measure that resembled the Communications Decency Act probably would not survive his committee, which oversees telecommunications. Furthermore, he's quoted as saying:

"I'm the father of small children, they all are far more computer literate than I am, and I've seen some of the stuff that they see and it disturbs me terribly. But I didn't know how you would implement that [law]. I didn't know who would decide what's decent."

McCain did endorse a bill that required schools and libraries with federally funded internet access, which I won't debate here. A bit more info on that bill is located here

In reality, the original sponsor behind the 1996 CDA was Senator Pressler. More information on authors of specific portions of the CDA are here.
McCain did add a lot of amendments to the bill, but so did everyone in the Senate. How else did the thing pass?? I'm not sure exactly what his changes entailed, but you can find out here.

Somebody mod the parent comment down into the flamebait category. It's nothing more than a sweeping piece political propaganda without backing at all.

I decided not to mod this comment down, but rather post this comment . . . . otherwise, nobody would understand.

This is propaganda. There is no basis, no links, no hard evidience. Punch the CDA and McCain through your favorite search engine and see what it finds.

In FACT, McCain was reported to say any new measure that resembled the Communications Decency Act probably would not survive his committee, which oversees telecommunications. Furthermore, he's quoted as saying:

"I'm the father of small children, they all are far more computer literate than I am, and I've seen some of the stuff that they see and it disturbs me terribly. But I didn't know how you would implement that [law]. I didn't know who would decide what's decent."

McCain did endorse a bill that required schools and libraries with federally funded internet access, which I won't debate here. A bit more info on that bill is located here

In reality, the original sponsor behind the 1996 CDA was Senator Pressler. More information on authors of specific portions of the CDA are here.
McCain did add a lot of amendments to the bill, but so did everyone in the Senate. How else did the thing pass?? I'm not sure exactly what his changes entailed, but you can find out here.

Somebody mod the parent comment down into the flamebait category. It's nothing more than a sweeping piece political propaganda without backing at all.

The Copyright Office does not have the authority to rewrite or delete parts of the DMCA. It has been passed by Congress, and is law.

The DMCA gives the Copyright Office the authority to determine whether there are certain classes of works for which enforcement of the DMCA would adversely affect legitimate copying, and that is what the Copyright Office is seeking comments on. If there are such classes, the Copyright Office is permitted to delay enforcement of the DMCA on those classes for three years. Not forever. They don't get to throw out the law. Congress can throw out a (federal) law by repealing it. The courts can throw out a law if they find it to be unconstitutional. The Copyright Office cannot throw out a law.

This would a good letter to send to your congresscritter explaining why DMCA should be repealed. But you are assuming that the Copyright Office has far more authority than it actually has.

(Don't take it personally, it seems that many of the posters here are making the same mistake.)

If you haven't already, you should read the actual Notice of Inquiry at http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ fedreg/64fr66139.pdf. It's long, but it's important to read so you understand the specific issues which the Copyright Office is trying to address.

I am writing my letter right now, and I came across something interesting that I need help on.

Basically, I was looking at the transcript of the injunction hearing that took place a few weeks ago in New York and I noticed that the MPAA lawyers referenced the Section 1201 in question of the DMCA. In that hearing the MPAA lawyers stated:

"... the posting of DeCSS violates Section 1201(a)(2) of the statute, which prohibits unauthorized offering of products that circumvent technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works."

Ok, fine...right? But I also found out that on the US Copyright Office page it states:

Specifically, section 1201 provides that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." This prohibition on circumvention becomes effective on October 28, 2000.

Last I checked, it was not Oct 28 yet! Am I totally missing something???

And oh, BTW, when will someone take a stand and sue those bastards at Babelfish for providing a circumvention for the foreign language copyright protection which prevents people like me from accessing content encrypted with a non-English language? Before they provided a French to English decryptor, did they even bother to get permission from every French author throughout history? No! The madness must stop!

Please submit your own letter TODAY! Follow their guidelines for attaching your letter in a MINE encoded email, and let them know your concerns! This is not just about free software... how do you think public libraries are going to function when all intellectual property is delivered electronically with access controls and licenses stipulating where, when, and how said material can be accessed? Newspapers? How would you like it to be illegal for a reader to allow someone else to read over his/her shoulder? How would you like GPS hardware installed in your newspaper reader which limits where you may read a story? Hell, how would you like to have to buy (or rent) special hardware just to read a newspaper? How are communities supposed to afford these new technologies for their community library? Is we gut our public libraries we'll gut the ability for citizens to join the public discourse... this is very disturbing.

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

David O. Carson,
General Counsel,
Copyright GC/I&R,
P.O. Box 70400,
Southwest Station,
Washington, DC 20024

Mr. Carson,

I'm writing in response to the Library of Congress's request
for comments regarding Section 1201(a)(1) of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act. As a citizen of the United States who
earns my living through writing and maintaining software, among
other types of intellectual property, this law concerns me
greatly.

While not an attorney, my understanding of how this law is
being interpreted currently in courts, for example in the DeCSS
suit brought by the Motion Picture Association of America against
many online providers and web page authors along with the authors
of the original DeCSS code, in commentary by many pundits
published throughout the technical press, and finally my own
reading of the law, section 1201(a)(1), said law could give
sweeping new powers and authority to those copyright holders who
include technical provisions to prevent unauthorized copying and
presentation of copyrighted materials to the detriment of "fair
use" laws. This thwarts basic citizens' rights to access what
they've purchased simply because it might violate a contractual
requirement of the license, along with technical provisions
included in the media content to enforce such a stipulation.

How will this affect the rights of citizens to use our
public libraries? Will copyright owners now be allowed to
contractually stipulate in their license that libraries, or their
clientele, must purchase per use licenses to access copyrighted
materials? Given the trend toward digital content over
traditional printed publishing, this is not as crazy as it
sounds. Within a few decades it's quite possible that publishing
on paper, which I understand will not fall under section
(1201(a)(a) and thus will continue to be available to public
libraries under "fair use" guidelines simply because it lacks a
technical mechanism for copy protection, may become outmoded as
paper costs already far exceed the cost of distributing
intellectual materials electronically. Should this take place
1201(a)(1) has the potential to essentially criminalize public
libraries as we know them, forcing a dichotomy between those who
can afford the per use costs charged by copyright holders against
those who can't, while gutting a public infrastructure for the
dissemination of new ideas.

Beyond public libraries, are we to accept the notion that
copyright holders should now have a new set of rights which not
only limit under what conditions a licensee may copy works, but
also when a licensee may access said works, where they may access
said works, with what equipment they may access those works, and
even limit the copyright holder's liability simply by the
licensee opening a shrinkwrap license they can't even read until
after the fact?

Because if it's acceptable that Sony, for example, can
legally lock the contents of a DVD video disk through encryption
under force of copyright law as a mechanism of copyright
protection under 1201(a)(1), then how will consumers enjoy their
basic rights for legally copying a "backup archive" of content
for which they've purchased a license? Is it "fair use" to
prevent consumers from accessing said materials through regional
locks, or stipulating which hardware or software platform is
legal for the reading of said disks? If so, consumers will be
forced to purchase not only the content, but also a physical
locks, or stipulating which hardware or software platform is
legal for the reading of said disks? If so, consumers will be
forced to purchase not only the content, but also a physical
device and software from the content producer, thus limiting
their right to enjoy the content to which they've purchased
access with onerous new responsibilities and costs never
previously required of consumers simply trying to gain legal
access to copyrighted materials

Does the Library of Congress wish to allow the Associated
Press the right to use copyright law to stipulate when and where
a reader may access an AP newspaper story? If the AP can't use
1201(a)(1) to limit what kind of paper the newspaper publisher
must use to print a story, nor where a reader may read, view, or
otherwise enjoy printed materials to which (s)he has legally
purchased access, why should they enjoy a right to limit said
access electronically? In a near future of electronic newspapers
and handheld electronic readers, already possible with the
popular 3Com Palm Pilot, making obsolete the traditional printed
daily will it be reasonable to allow the AP to include Global
Position Satellite equipment in an electronic newspaper reader to
enforce the provision that a news story must only be read in a
certain city, state, or country if this electronic dissemination
of the published materials meets 1201(a)(1)'s copyprotection
guidelines? Will 1201(a)(1) allow the AP to force readers to
purchase an AP approved electronic news reader as the only legal
method for accessing AP published news? And given the sweeping
new powers 1201(a)(1) allows if a restriction is specified in the
a copyright license, can the AP prevent researchers the right to
copy small pieces of a news story within todays "fair use"
guidelines to cite a source within a research paper because of a
combination of a contractual stipulation in the license and copy
protection distributed with the intellectual property? How
different are these scenarios from allowing Sony to stipulate
under what hardware a copyright licensee may view a DVD video, or
which country they in which they may enjoy access
to the materials they've purchased?

If enacted as written this could enforce a whole new
monopoly for content producers and copyright holders, not just
protecting the media content from illegal copying and bootleg
sales, but also enforcing the sale of equipment which has been
licensed strictly to access and view said materials. This will
gut public access to copyrighted works in libraries, individual
access to copyrighted works by consumers through open and public
technologies, and doesn't even serve to protect the copyright
holder's basic interest of preventing the illicit copying of
privately owned intellectual property. It's strictly a new
mechanism to force consumers to buy more equipment simply to
enjoy access to materials already purchased, no different from
Ford Motor Company mandating that Ford gasoline be used with a
Ford car by force of law.

Copyright should not exist to enforce new restrictions
beyond copying a privately owned intellectual work. If the
Library of Congress, along with the legislative branch, enact new
laws to expand the scope of Copyright law as defined in
1201(a)(1) the consequences for public access to information and
discourse may be severe. Think carefully before enacting such
laws as they may leave consumers and individuals in our society
unable to join in basic public discourse. Every new financial
wall enacted to prevent citizens from basic "fair use" rights to
copyrighted works is potentially devastating to our public
library infrastructure and thus damaging to public discourse and
our very democracy.

Sincerely,
J. Maynard Gelinas
----------------------
Cambridge, MA., 02139
maynard@jmg.com

There is also a requirement for the copyright office to examine the impact of Section 1201(g) of the DMCA on "encrytion research" within one year of enaction.

They have a RFC here: US Patent Office Encryption Research RFC

Note comments must be in an acceptable format: PDF appears to be acceptable (and can be made from LaTeX, everybody's favourite wordprocessor, and other wordprocessors that everybody loves to hate).

I'd also strongly recommend reading the Act itself: DMCA

There is also a requirement for the copyright office to examine the impact of Section 1201(g) of the DMCA on "encrytion research" within one year of enaction.

They have a RFC here: US Patent Office Encryption Research RFC

Note comments must be in an acceptable format: PDF appears to be acceptable (and can be made from LaTeX, everybody's favourite wordprocessor, and other wordprocessors that everybody loves to hate).

I'd also strongly recommend reading the Act itself: DMCA

69 is a little bit overheated on some points, but interesting nonetheless. It addresses DVD and CSS directly. It's worth a read if you are thinking about submitting something. OTOH, I don't think this looks good...

69 is a little bit overheated on some points, but interesting nonetheless. It addresses DVD and CSS directly. It's worth a read if you are thinking about submitting something. OTOH, I don't think this looks good...

The primary responsibility of the Register and the Librarian in this respect is to assess whether the implementation of technological protection measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works is diminishing the ability of individuals to use copyrighted works in ways that are otherwise lawful. Commerce Comm. Report, at 37. As examples of technological protection measures in effect today, the Commerce Committee offered the use of ``password codes'' to control authorized access to computer programs, for example, or encryption or scrambling of cable programming, videocassettes, and CDROMs.

That's from the notice of inquiry

The response by Glenn and Mary Everhart makes an interesting case for a particular "exception" class, those who need to enforce security precautions. The note asserts that first, the issue is not about being able to copy (they plainly say that it is easy to copy and play the encrypted material), and second, that by making it illegal to break the encryption they make security at banks and other organizations harder -- as confidential and private inforamtion about persons in a bank could be encrypted using such a mechanism; and verifying that confidential inforamtion is not walking out the door with a walkman should not be a criminal act. Thoughts?

The Copyright Office is first seeking written and reply comments from interested parties in order to elicit information and views on whether noninfringing uses of certain classes of works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by the prohibition against circumvention of access control technologies. Persons interested in submitting comments should consult the November 24, 1999 notice of inquiry published in the Federal Register. Further background on this rulemaking may also be found in the notice of inquiry.

5. Specific Questions

The Office seeks comment on the following specific questions. Persons submitting comments need not address all questions, but are encouraged to respond to those as to which they have particular knowledge or information. Persons submitting comments are encouraged to submit concrete evidence, examples and data supporting their responses to these questions. Such submissions will carry greater weight than unsupported allegations and predictions.

The Office prefers that comments be submitted in electronic form. For updated information on requirements for electronic and hard-copy filing, please see the Federal Register Notice Extending Deadlines for Initial and Reply Comments. Several persons have attempted to submit comments in the text of e-mail messages. The Office cannot accept such comments; the comments must be sent as attachments to e-mail messages or on diskettes as described in the Federal Register notice. In addition to the acceptable formats described in the Federal Register notice, the Office will accept comments in RTF and ASCII text formats

First... You can file down the firing pin on your daddy's hunting rifle and make it into an automatic weapon, but it's not your right to do that either

Please don't make comments like this unless you actually know what is involved with converting a firearm from semi-auto to full-auto. Statements like this only serve to fan the flames of argument and promote ignorance and are plain incorrect. I can "file the firing pin" on any of my hunting rifles and do nothing more than make a rifle that at best would be non functional or at worst dangerous to use.

Second...
Just because you can do something doesn't mean that society grants you the right

This is quite correct. However you fail to mention the fact that society does not grant you or me any rights at all. To quote the Declaration of Independence "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...", and "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men" Our rights come, not from society, but from God. And it is one of governments promary jobs to protect those rights, regardless of what Bill Clinton, or any other politician says

Hooptie

I am 99% certain that these are all cases which have been explicitely allowed by the courts. It may be that, due to their private and non-commercial nature, they are considered outside the scope of what copyright prevents. The examples that you give are all times when fair-use allows re-distribution of a copyrighted work (either commercial or non-commercial.)

Now, the DMCA is truly an evil beast. It allows the copyright holders to place any type of lame, ineffective, or imaginary system of "access control" in place and then harass any customer who dares to try and enjoy any of the fair use rights that the courts have recognized as being part of societies half of the copyright balance. It gives the copyright holder all of the benefits of copyright, while outlawing virtually all of societies half of the bargain. Truely amazing.

However, the DMCA also requires the copyright office to determine if any classes of copyrighted work should be exempted. They are accepting written comments right now about what things should be exempted. Please go take a look at this to get more information. Please read over the comments they have already received in order to get an idea of how to (and how not to) write your letter.

Remember, this is not about DeCSS per-se. It is to determine which types of copyrighted work will not be protected by the DMCA. It should be easy for us to make the argument that any work whose access control system prohibits the fair-use and private copy allowences that the courts have recognized should not be protected. The deadline for comments is Thursday. Check it out, and please try and find the time to write a well thought out comment. This is an excellent opportunity for us to make our voice heard!

Much of the way the U.S. government works is due the difficulties in communication and travel when the U.S. was established in the 18th century. It would be pretty pathetic trying to get everyone in the country to mail in a vote on every issue when the letter could take a few weeks to get across the country. It was therefore considered more pragmatic to have representatives at every step in the process.

While that surely contributed to the representative system of democracy, it was hardly the only or even the main reason. Read the Federalist Papers some time. Federalist #10 argues at some length that direct democracy on a large scale inevitably amounts to mob rule. James Madison would be horrified at the suggestion that inefficient communications channels are the only reason for representative democracy.

My question is: where is the line drawn? What protection should companies (or individual software vendors) have with their intellectual property? Should every media format be forced to be public, or just allow it to be "figured out" by whomever wants to?

-davek
LSDVD developer

• H.R.571 , Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
  
  
• H.R. 448 , Patient Protection Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Bilirakis, Michael (introduced 02/02/99) A bill to provide new patient protections under group health plans.
  
  
• H.R.398 , Plant Genetic Conservation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 , SPONSOR: Rep Mink, Patsy T. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to make appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for a plant genetic conservation program.
  
  
• H.R.358 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Dingell, John D. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• H.R.306 , Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to prohibit discrimination against individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic information or a request for genetic services.
  
  
• H.R.293 , Genetic Information Health Insurance Nondiscrimination Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Sweeney, John E. (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit health issuers and group health plans from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information.
  
  
• S.374 , Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Chafee, John H. (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ro protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.326 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act, SPONSOR: Sen Jeffords, James M. (introduced 01/28/99) A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S. 300 Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, SPONSOR: Sen Lott, Trent (introduced 01/22/99) A bill to improve access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S.240 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.6 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  

• H.R.571 , Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
  
  
• H.R. 448 , Patient Protection Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Bilirakis, Michael (introduced 02/02/99) A bill to provide new patient protections under group health plans.
  
  
• H.R.398 , Plant Genetic Conservation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 , SPONSOR: Rep Mink, Patsy T. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to make appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for a plant genetic conservation program.
  
  
• H.R.358 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Dingell, John D. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• H.R.306 , Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to prohibit discrimination against individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic information or a request for genetic services.
  
  
• H.R.293 , Genetic Information Health Insurance Nondiscrimination Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Sweeney, John E. (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit health issuers and group health plans from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information.
  
  
• S.374 , Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Chafee, John H. (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ro protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.326 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act, SPONSOR: Sen Jeffords, James M. (introduced 01/28/99) A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S. 300 Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, SPONSOR: Sen Lott, Trent (introduced 01/22/99) A bill to improve access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S.240 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.6 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  

• H.R.571 , Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
  
  
• H.R. 448 , Patient Protection Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Bilirakis, Michael (introduced 02/02/99) A bill to provide new patient protections under group health plans.
  
  
• H.R.398 , Plant Genetic Conservation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 , SPONSOR: Rep Mink, Patsy T. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to make appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for a plant genetic conservation program.
  
  
• H.R.358 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Dingell, John D. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• H.R.306 , Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to prohibit discrimination against individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic information or a request for genetic services.
  
  
• H.R.293 , Genetic Information Health Insurance Nondiscrimination Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Sweeney, John E. (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit health issuers and group health plans from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information.
  
  
• S.374 , Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Chafee, John H. (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ro protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.326 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act, SPONSOR: Sen Jeffords, James M. (introduced 01/28/99) A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S. 300 Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, SPONSOR: Sen Lott, Trent (introduced 01/22/99) A bill to improve access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S.240 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.6 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  

• H.R.571 , Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
  
  
• H.R. 448 , Patient Protection Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Bilirakis, Michael (introduced 02/02/99) A bill to provide new patient protections under group health plans.
  
  
• H.R.398 , Plant Genetic Conservation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 , SPONSOR: Rep Mink, Patsy T. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to make appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for a plant genetic conservation program.
  
  
• H.R.358 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Dingell, John D. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• H.R.306 , Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to prohibit discrimination against individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic information or a request for genetic services.
  
  
• H.R.293 , Genetic Information Health Insurance Nondiscrimination Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Sweeney, John E. (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit health issuers and group health plans from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information.
  
  
• S.374 , Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Chafee, John H. (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ro protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.326 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act, SPONSOR: Sen Jeffords, James M. (introduced 01/28/99) A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S. 300 Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, SPONSOR: Sen Lott, Trent (introduced 01/22/99) A bill to improve access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S.240 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.6 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  

• H.R.571 , Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
  
  
• H.R. 448 , Patient Protection Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Bilirakis, Michael (introduced 02/02/99) A bill to provide new patient protections under group health plans.
  
  
• H.R.398 , Plant Genetic Conservation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 , SPONSOR: Rep Mink, Patsy T. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to make appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for a plant genetic conservation program.
  
  
• H.R.358 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Dingell, John D. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• H.R.306 , Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to prohibit discrimination against individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic information or a request for genetic services.
  
  
• H.R.293 , Genetic Information Health Insurance Nondiscrimination Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Sweeney, John E. (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit health issuers and group health plans from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information.
  
  
• S.374 , Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Chafee, John H. (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ro protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.326 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act, SPONSOR: Sen Jeffords, James M. (introduced 01/28/99) A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S. 300 Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, SPONSOR: Sen Lott, Trent (introduced 01/22/99) A bill to improve access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S.240 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.6 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  

• H.R.571 , Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
  
  
• H.R. 448 , Patient Protection Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Bilirakis, Michael (introduced 02/02/99) A bill to provide new patient protections under group health plans.
  
  
• H.R.398 , Plant Genetic Conservation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 , SPONSOR: Rep Mink, Patsy T. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to make appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for a plant genetic conservation program.
  
  
• H.R.358 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Dingell, John D. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• H.R.306 , Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to prohibit discrimination against individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic information or a request for genetic services.
  
  
• H.R.293 , Genetic Information Health Insurance Nondiscrimination Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Sweeney, John E. (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit health issuers and group health plans from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information.
  
  
• S.374 , Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Chafee, John H. (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ro protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.326 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act, SPONSOR: Sen Jeffords, James M. (introduced 01/28/99) A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S. 300 Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, SPONSOR: Sen Lott, Trent (introduced 01/22/99) A bill to improve access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S.240 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.6 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  

• H.R.571 , Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
  
  
• H.R. 448 , Patient Protection Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Bilirakis, Michael (introduced 02/02/99) A bill to provide new patient protections under group health plans.
  
  
• H.R.398 , Plant Genetic Conservation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 , SPONSOR: Rep Mink, Patsy T. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to make appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for a plant genetic conservation program.
  
  
• H.R.358 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Dingell, John D. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• H.R.306 , Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to prohibit discrimination against individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic information or a request for genetic services.
  
  
• H.R.293 , Genetic Information Health Insurance Nondiscrimination Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Sweeney, John E. (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit health issuers and group health plans from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information.
  
  
• S.374 , Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Chafee, John H. (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ro protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.326 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act, SPONSOR: Sen Jeffords, James M. (introduced 01/28/99) A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S. 300 Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, SPONSOR: Sen Lott, Trent (introduced 01/22/99) A bill to improve access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S.240 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.6 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  

• H.R.571 , Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
  
  
• H.R. 448 , Patient Protection Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Bilirakis, Michael (introduced 02/02/99) A bill to provide new patient protections under group health plans.
  
  
• H.R.398 , Plant Genetic Conservation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 , SPONSOR: Rep Mink, Patsy T. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to make appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for a plant genetic conservation program.
  
  
• H.R.358 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Dingell, John D. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• H.R.306 , Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to prohibit discrimination against individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic information or a request for genetic services.
  
  
• H.R.293 , Genetic Information Health Insurance Nondiscrimination Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Sweeney, John E. (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit health issuers and group health plans from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information.
  
  
• S.374 , Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Chafee, John H. (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ro protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.326 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act, SPONSOR: Sen Jeffords, James M. (introduced 01/28/99) A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S. 300 Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, SPONSOR: Sen Lott, Trent (introduced 01/22/99) A bill to improve access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S.240 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.6 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  

• H.R.571 , Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
  
  
• H.R. 448 , Patient Protection Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Bilirakis, Michael (introduced 02/02/99) A bill to provide new patient protections under group health plans.
  
  
• H.R.398 , Plant Genetic Conservation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 , SPONSOR: Rep Mink, Patsy T. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to make appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for a plant genetic conservation program.
  
  
• H.R.358 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Dingell, John D. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• H.R.306 , Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to prohibit discrimination against individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic information or a request for genetic services.
  
  
• H.R.293 , Genetic Information Health Insurance Nondiscrimination Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Sweeney, John E. (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit health issuers and group health plans from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information.
  
  
• S.374 , Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Chafee, John H. (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ro protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.326 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act, SPONSOR: Sen Jeffords, James M. (introduced 01/28/99) A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S. 300 Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, SPONSOR: Sen Lott, Trent (introduced 01/22/99) A bill to improve access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S.240 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.6 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  

• H.R.571 , Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
  
  
• H.R. 448 , Patient Protection Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Bilirakis, Michael (introduced 02/02/99) A bill to provide new patient protections under group health plans.
  
  
• H.R.398 , Plant Genetic Conservation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 , SPONSOR: Rep Mink, Patsy T. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to make appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for a plant genetic conservation program.
  
  
• H.R.358 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Dingell, John D. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• H.R.306 , Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to prohibit discrimination against individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic information or a request for genetic services.
  
  
• H.R.293 , Genetic Information Health Insurance Nondiscrimination Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Sweeney, John E. (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit health issuers and group health plans from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information.
  
  
• S.374 , Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Chafee, John H. (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ro protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.326 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act, SPONSOR: Sen Jeffords, James M. (introduced 01/28/99) A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S. 300 Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, SPONSOR: Sen Lott, Trent (introduced 01/22/99) A bill to improve access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S.240 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.6 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  

• H.R.571 , Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
  
  
• H.R. 448 , Patient Protection Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Bilirakis, Michael (introduced 02/02/99) A bill to provide new patient protections under group health plans.
  
  
• H.R.398 , Plant Genetic Conservation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 , SPONSOR: Rep Mink, Patsy T. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to make appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for a plant genetic conservation program.
  
  
• H.R.358 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Dingell, John D. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• H.R.306 , Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to prohibit discrimination against individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic information or a request for genetic services.
  
  
• H.R.293 , Genetic Information Health Insurance Nondiscrimination Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Sweeney, John E. (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit health issuers and group health plans from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information.
  
  
• S.374 , Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Chafee, John H. (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ro protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.326 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act, SPONSOR: Sen Jeffords, James M. (introduced 01/28/99) A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S. 300 Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, SPONSOR: Sen Lott, Trent (introduced 01/22/99) A bill to improve access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
  
  
• S.240 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  
• S.6 , Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
  
  

This is a great distinction among otherwise muddy concepts. We need to stress the legitimate uses of circumvention technologies or the overextension of copy-protection systems as access prevention.

Copyright is a bundle of rights granted exclusively to the author. The right to make copies is just one of those. (Others are distribution, performance, and preparation of derivative works, see sec. 106.)

Typically, once the author has exercised his right to copy and distribute a copy to someone else, call him the reader, the reader gets rights under the "first sale" doctrine to use his copy as he wants (read it, read it backwards, place it on a bookshelf, burn it...) or to give or sell his copy to someone else. The reader still cannot make further copies of the work or perform the whole work publicly, but fair use gives him the legal right to use excerpts from the work, or to copy for limited purposes.

The licensing and access controls we're now seeing change that picture. Under a license, the reader doesn't own a copy of the work free and clear, but is granted a more limited set of rights. His license may not permit activities that copyright law would otherwise allow.

If everybody who has access to a work is bound by a more restrictive license, there is no one who can exercise the fair use rights. The author can sue anyone who violates his license agreement for breach of contract, though not for violation of copyright. (Then we face issues of the validity of the contract; on a click-wrap license, the reader can raise arguments that there was no real acceptance on his part, so he should not be bound by the boilerplate...)

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act in effect imposes a mass license condition, prohibiting readers from accessing works except through the methods approved by their authors. (The legislation has imposed its consent to these terms on us.) Fair use is again limited to what readers can do within the bounds of restricted access. Yet the legislative purpose was not to restrict use or access, but to prevent copyright-violative copying. The statute arguably goes beyond its legislative findings.

I'm still trying to figure out where this leads. For one, we can argue that the DMCA unconstitutionally tips the balance of "promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts" by granting too many rights to copyright holders, against readers. A narrower argument suggests that for the statute to be constitutional, circumvention of access controls must be permitted, even if those controls are also copy controls. This is only a slight extension of the Sony holding that devices with "substantial noninfringing uses" must be permitted even if the devices (there VCRs) may also be used to infringe copyright.

--Wendy

Actually, that ain't the bill. If you look at that bill's info on Thomas, you'll see that HR 1572 hasn't been touched since May.

This is the real bill, HR1714.

Actually, that ain't the bill. If you look at that bill's info on Thomas, you'll see that HR 1572 hasn't been touched since May.

This is the real bill, HR1714.