Slashdot Mirror

You are absolutely correct. You are so right!

The MPAA put up the piracy as a stalking horse, and every fool with IP access is following along.

The suit is *not* about piracy, and the (indisputable fact) that DeCSS is not being used to pirate is *no* defense against 1201(1) or 1201(2) of the act under which the MPAA is bringing suit.

The DMCA, as you can read (http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyrigh t/legislation/hr2281.pdf) makes it illegal to read anything (even if you've bought it, even if you're not breaking copyright) which has been scrambled, encrypted, or otherwise `access protected', unless you're using an authorised reader.

So, if I give you a .pdf file, and you dare to quote it in ASCII, you can be $500K poorer, and spend two years as the wife of the guy with most cigarettes.

Please don't fall for the MPAA's trojan horse: it's not about piracy, it's about your rights under the copyright act to fair use. The only reason piracy was mentioned was to get the injunction - they have to show immediate harm, and piracy's plausible.

I'm getting really sick of this.

In 1998, Congress passed and the president signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,

... Right so far ...

which expressly made it illegal to traffic in "any technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner."

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. WRONG.

No, it didn't. Those words aren't in the fucking act. Go and read the damn thing, don't quote the MPAA's bullshit version.

Here's the Library of Congress' Copyright Office's copy:

http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyrigh t/legislation/hr2281.pdf Please go and read it.

Congress' intent appears to have been actually much *much* worse than merely protecting copyright.

Ms. Norton is not a representative of a state, and never should be if one cares to read the Constitution.

- quoting from Article 1, Section 8 - To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--

The District should never have had people living in it. It's a Federal District, and everyone that moved there, knowing they would not have Congressmen and Senators gets exactly what they deserve.

Diggs

The safest time for all Americans (and their wallets) is when Congress is in recess.

Government would not come to a complete and total stand still. In fact, things would be better for all Americans. Congressmen might again become Representatives. As it is now, they think they are legislators and think they are required to legislate.

Diggs

The safest time for all Americans (and their wallets) is when Congress is in recess.

Government would not come to a complete and total stand still. In fact, things would be better for all Americans. Congressmen might again become Representatives. As it is now, they think they are legislators and think they are required to legislate.

Diggs

(even shorter: the govenment could take something that was totally irrelivent to a crime, and not return it)

The only reference I could find was this proposed change:

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (Engrossed in House )[H.R.1658.EH]

I'm not certain if that's even the correct bill (Damit Jim, I'm an SysAdmin, not a lawyer!), but you get the jist of what I'm getting at. If this got into place, maybe he has a chance at getting the data back. If not, maybe not. {shrug}

Shane

(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
...
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
...
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

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

(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

I'm pretty sure that they aren't trying to sue based on the fact that a trade secret was uncovered. I think they are sueing based on the fact that the software was meant to circumvent copy-protection technologies, which is explicitly illegal based on privisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Which is why it's so important that you email the Copyright office with your opinion on what exemptions should be made for this rule, such as for reasons that are as obviously non-malicious as the deCSS authors intended. Read on, for more information on how to take part in ensuring your freedom to discover.

While e-mail is okay, snail mail is better, so spend some money on stamps.

No, snail mail is not better in this case, they specifically said in the link that they are posting all submissions to their website and they really prefer email! If you send snail mail you have to send 15 (that's FIFTEEN) copies and it probably WILL NOT make it to the website, so they are saying PLEASE PLEASE SEND EMAIL NOT SNAIL MAIL!!

From the link:
1. Written Comments

The Copyright Office will be placing all comments and reply comments that are submitted in electronic form on its Website (http:// lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201). Because of this, the Office prefers that comments and reply comments be submitted in electronic form, in one of the following formats: If by electronic mail: Send to ``1201@loc.gov' '' a message containing the name of the person making the submission, his or her title, organization, mailing address, telephone number, telefax number and e-mail address. The message should also identify the document clearly as either a comment or reply comment. The document itself must be sent as a MIME attachment, and must be in a single file in either Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred), or in Microsoft Word Version 7.0 or earlier, or in WordPerfect 7 or earlier.
If by regular mail or hand delivery: Send, to the appropriate address listed above, two copies, each on a 3.5-inch write-protected diskette, labeled with the name of the person making the submission, his or her title and organization. The document itself must be in a single file in either Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred), or in Microsoft Word Version 7.0 or earlier, or in WordPerfect Version 7 or earlier.
Anyone who is unable to submit a comment in electronic form should submit an original and fifteen paper copies by hand or by mail to the appropriate address listed above. It may not be feasible for the Office to place these comments on its website.
All written comments (in electronic or nonelectronic form) should contain the name of the person making the submission, his or her title, organization, mailing address, telephone number, telefax number and e- mail address.

While e-mail is okay, snail mail is better, so spend some money on stamps.

No, snail mail is not better in this case, they specifically said in the link that they are posting all submissions to their website and they really prefer email! If you send snail mail you have to send 15 (that's FIFTEEN) copies and it probably WILL NOT make it to the website, so they are saying PLEASE PLEASE SEND EMAIL NOT SNAIL MAIL!!

From the link:
1. Written Comments

The Copyright Office will be placing all comments and reply comments that are submitted in electronic form on its Website (http:// lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201). Because of this, the Office prefers that comments and reply comments be submitted in electronic form, in one of the following formats: If by electronic mail: Send to ``1201@loc.gov' '' a message containing the name of the person making the submission, his or her title, organization, mailing address, telephone number, telefax number and e-mail address. The message should also identify the document clearly as either a comment or reply comment. The document itself must be sent as a MIME attachment, and must be in a single file in either Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred), or in Microsoft Word Version 7.0 or earlier, or in WordPerfect 7 or earlier.
If by regular mail or hand delivery: Send, to the appropriate address listed above, two copies, each on a 3.5-inch write-protected diskette, labeled with the name of the person making the submission, his or her title and organization. The document itself must be in a single file in either Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred), or in Microsoft Word Version 7.0 or earlier, or in WordPerfect Version 7 or earlier.
Anyone who is unable to submit a comment in electronic form should submit an original and fifteen paper copies by hand or by mail to the appropriate address listed above. It may not be feasible for the Office to place these comments on its website.
All written comments (in electronic or nonelectronic form) should contain the name of the person making the submission, his or her title, organization, mailing address, telephone number, telefax number and e- mail address.

While e-mail is okay, snail mail is better, so spend some money on stamps.

No, snail mail is not better in this case, they specifically said in the link that they are posting all submissions to their website and they really prefer email! If you send snail mail you have to send 15 (that's FIFTEEN) copies and it probably WILL NOT make it to the website, so they are saying PLEASE PLEASE SEND EMAIL NOT SNAIL MAIL!!

From the link:
1. Written Comments

The Copyright Office will be placing all comments and reply comments that are submitted in electronic form on its Website (http:// lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201). Because of this, the Office prefers that comments and reply comments be submitted in electronic form, in one of the following formats: If by electronic mail: Send to ``1201@loc.gov' '' a message containing the name of the person making the submission, his or her title, organization, mailing address, telephone number, telefax number and e-mail address. The message should also identify the document clearly as either a comment or reply comment. The document itself must be sent as a MIME attachment, and must be in a single file in either Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred), or in Microsoft Word Version 7.0 or earlier, or in WordPerfect 7 or earlier.
If by regular mail or hand delivery: Send, to the appropriate address listed above, two copies, each on a 3.5-inch write-protected diskette, labeled with the name of the person making the submission, his or her title and organization. The document itself must be in a single file in either Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred), or in Microsoft Word Version 7.0 or earlier, or in WordPerfect Version 7 or earlier.
Anyone who is unable to submit a comment in electronic form should submit an original and fifteen paper copies by hand or by mail to the appropriate address listed above. It may not be feasible for the Office to place these comments on its website.
All written comments (in electronic or nonelectronic form) should contain the name of the person making the submission, his or her title, organization, mailing address, telephone number, telefax number and e- mail address.

http://www.transmeta.com/ -- I could smell you, but then I'd have to kill you

http://www.hemp-sisters.com/ -- Let's just say it's a pretty strong smell.

http://www.house.gov/ -- the smell that comes out the back of a bull, covered by a strong perfumed masking smell

http://www.microsoft.com/ -- anxious sweat, money, the smell that comes out the back of a bull, the smell of a deisel engine (you know, like the ones that power steamrollers and bulldozers)...

http://www.getyoursoftware.com/ -- spiced ham

http://www.loc.gov/ -- very musty

http://www.as400.ibm.com/ -- very musty

http://www.slashdot.org/ -- jolt cola, fried silicon, solder, sweat, ozone...

According to the request for comments, electronically submitted comments will be posted on a web page. I have just checked the page and so far no comments have been put up, but in the future it might be a good source for ideas.

The Library of Congress is empowered to study only particular aspects of the affects of 1201(a)(1). This is not a forum to attack other bad aspects of the copyright law, such as the length of copyrights, and it emphasises actual and expected harms to yourself. The form of submission and the exact questions are explictly laid out in the RFC

Other resources you might want to consult are. The text of the DMCA itself. Relavent sections are 1201(a)(1) (the section under review),and sections 1201 (c),(d),(e),(f),(g),(h),(i),(j) (exceptions to the section under review).

As the questions in the RFC make clear. Personal experience as a copyright producer, distributor, or consumer is the most valuable. Actual harms, such as not being able to view a DVD under your chosen operating system are valid are probably the most persuasive. Try to come up with monetary costs of compliance. Like "it would cost me $100 for Windows + $50 worth of harddrive space + $X for a DVD viewing program to view my legal DVD's on my computer without using a program contravened by 1201(a)(1)". Note that inconvenience in and of itself is not at issue.

Looks like they want emailed comments to be in either PDF, Word >= 7.0, or Wordperfect >= 7.0. Whatever happened to plain vanilla ascii? Since they're planning to put this stuff up on their website, one might have thought that ASCII or HTML might have been an acceptable format. Maybe they need to be enlightened about requiring closed formats themselves.

Also, I urge everyone to act responsibly. Show them that we can give well-reasoned arguments for why DeCSS isn't covered by the DMCA's prohibitions. Spamming them isn't going to do anything to help us, and will likely hurt us in the long run.

Be sure to stress how DeCSS is designed so that Linux users can watch legally-purchased DVDs, and how DVDs can be copied without needing to decrypt them. In all the articles on /. so far on this (as well as most other sites carrying the DeCSS articles), plenty of valid reasons have been given, from those above, to just plain bad crypto being used, etc. Read the comments. Distill them into reasoned letters, and get them in!

The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to determine whether there are classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses if they are prohibited from circumventing such technological measures. This notice requests written comments from all interested parties,

If you are going to respond by e-mail, here is the address of the OGC.

If you are going to use snail mail, comments should be addressed to:

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

Never knock on Death's door:

The DVD case going on in New York is putting the DCMA to the test. We've already lost round one--the preliminary injuction was granted as all of you read.

This case has more significant ramifications than the California case that I'm involved with.

Please read the OpenDVD advocacy how-to at http://www.opendvd.org/advocacy.html

Flamers... please skip the rest of this message. We don't want your help.

The federal government is accepting comments via email at 1201@loc.gov. Use reason to argue why reverse engineering must be allowed for the purposes of interoperability.

The most obvious reason is that it promotes competition. It also empowers consumers.

Here's a summary of exactly what they are accepting comments on...


SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is preparing
to conduct proceedings to make recommendations in accordance with
section 1201(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1), which
was added by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and which provides
that the Librarian of Congress may exempt certain classes of works from
the prohibition against circumventing a technological measure that
controls access to a copyrighted work. The purpose of this rulemaking
proceeding is to determine whether there are classes of works as to
which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their
ability to make noninfringing uses if they are prohibited from
circumventing such technological measures. This notice requests written
comments from all interested parties, including representatives of
copyright owners, educational institutions, libraries and archives,
scholars, researchers and members of the public, 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 such
prohibition.

The fact that the anti-circumvention statute is not yet effective was mentioned in a CNI-Copyright response this morning, with a pointer to the Library of Congress feeback page at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc .html.

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.

Comments are due February 10, 2000

Unfortunately, Andy's overlooked the fact that the NY & CT cases are based both on 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) and 1201(b)(1) & (2). Reverse engineering applies only to the Norwegian minor who cracked the DVD CSS algorithm. The plaintiffs in the New York and Connecticut cases are charged with violations of 17 USC 1201(b). There is no grace period for violations of this portion of the statute.

other interesting section though, 1201(c)(2):

There is an(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.

(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17 /1201.html)

What does this mean?

What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

"We have received information that at the above address there have been offers to provide instructions on defeating DVD encryption so that illegal copies of DVDs can be made."

Did the MPAA copyright the procedure for cracking their own encryption scheme? If not, I don't see how this relates to anything. I would think that providing instructions on building bombs would fall into the same category (illegal) if what the MPAA twits are asserting is true.. and it isn't.

23. The Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2), provides that:

[n]o person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

I can't think of anything more fun! Nowadays you hear the same crappy music everywhere. The Music Industry decides what is Good and pumps it equally to everyone.

Imagine wandering around the city, catching some quirky-sounding DJ spinning a block party. Imagine going to visit another town just to hear the radio station. It's local color restored. It's a break in the corporate stranglehold of preprocessed nonsense. It's community bonding.

You say you have a distaste for the inconsistent availability of such short-range broadcasts. But it is the prefab stuff that is fed to you through a tube. The real gems must be sought out. The weather isn't beautiful every day, because if it were, that would be boring. You take the good with the bad. You listen to the ambient sound and take what you can get. You shouldn't expect wisdom delivered-on-demand - that is the domain of foolishness.

You may argue that the Internet makes this irrelevant, but I argue that every stronghold of the corporate fatcats should be disassembled. Unfortunately, that HR3439 bill introduced may not permit it.

Yep, congress acting to protect you from dangerous new ideas.

Can't believe moderators are ignoring this!

-Isaac

Sorry about the URL (it's temporary). Here's the permanent version http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ query/z?c106:h.r.3439:

See: HR 3439 IH: Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 1999. "To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from establishing rules authorizing the operation of new, low power FM radio stations."

Here's a permanent link for theDigital Millennium Copyright Act.
--

23. The Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2), provides that:

[n]o person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

I mean, if the federal government can't review the criteria that schools use to determine what to filter or whether they're in compliance, can't schools and libraries just put in filtering software that lets them choose what to filter, and they tell it to filter nothing (so long as they ensure that the software is actually in use)?

Lawyers, help me out here!

I guess either way, it's a horrible bill (because it leaves it up to schools and libraries to decide what to censor; the majority will probably not do as I outlined above). McCain has lost any chance of getting my vote w/ this one!!

It's 116 pages in the PDF form from the Government Printing Office, but the letters are big and it's a quick read.

Title I - Inventors' Rights
Basically protects inventors from those shady late-night TV commercials promoting "invention" services, where you sign your inventions over to them for the purposes of "evaluating" and "promoting" it, and they keep the patents, royalties, etc.

This is a good thing.

Title II - First Inventor Defense
Protects an inventor from patent infringement charges if the original inventor brought the subject matter to practical use at least a year before the filing of the other guy's patent and used the patent commercially at some point prior to the filing.

It seems to me like this kinda matches my own interpretation of what "prior art" was, but maybe not. Maybe this just makes it more explicit.

Title III - Patent Term Guarantee
Very basically, if the patent office is butt-slow in getting your patent approved, your patent term is adjusted accordingly.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but I guess in the past your patent term began when you filed the patent? So I guess here you get extra days for every day the patent office is unnecessarily slow in getting it processed. Maybe someone has a better analysis.

Title IV - United States Publication of Patent Applications Published Abroad
Presumably this is where all of the fuss occurs. Unfortunately, it's very hard to read for me, and makes extensive references to the various patent treaties.

My understanding is this: Patents are generally published/made available to foreign countries after 18 months. You can request that it be made available earlier, or, if you're not filing patents in a different country, you can request that it not be published at all. If you do file patents in other countries, presumably treaties require these patent applications to be shared between member countries after 18 months.

I think this is what some people are angry about. I don't know the rationale behind the sharing of applications, so maybe somebody else can step up and elaborate for us? I guess by publishing these patent applications, anyone in another country where the patent holder isn't planning on applying for a patent could then in turn patent it himself. Anybody in a country where the US patent wouldn't be legal could use the information in the patent for his own good. I may be totally off-base here, but that's how I read it. Corrections are welcome.

Title V - Patent Litigation Reduction Act (I like it already)
Anybody can write the patent office with a request for re-examination, citing examples of prior art. Their letter will become an official part of the patent, and the patent office must make a determination (whether or not to re-examine) within 3 months. The requester gets copies of the progress.

Title VI - Patent and Trademark Office
This takes up about half of the actual bill. Since I'm not totally familiar with the current structure of the PTO, this could either be a lot of re-wording, or (more likely) a complete restructuring of the office itself. Note that this seems to only apply to the PTO office/organization. It doesn't have anything to do with the types of patents issued, but how they do their day-to-day business, how they evaluate their staff, and pick their work force.

But most importantly, the bill includes wording to bring the PTO out of the dark ages. They're given permission to make use of whatever equipment and technology they need (like broadband) and lets them hire their examiners more competitively.

It's 116 pages in the PDF form from the Government Printing Office, but the letters are big and it's a quick read.

Title I - Inventors' Rights
Basically protects inventors from those shady late-night TV commercials promoting "invention" services, where you sign your inventions over to them for the purposes of "evaluating" and "promoting" it, and they keep the patents, royalties, etc.

This is a good thing.

Title II - First Inventor Defense
Protects an inventor from patent infringement charges if the original inventor brought the subject matter to practical use at least a year before the filing of the other guy's patent and used the patent commercially at some point prior to the filing.

It seems to me like this kinda matches my own interpretation of what "prior art" was, but maybe not. Maybe this just makes it more explicit.

Title III - Patent Term Guarantee
Very basically, if the patent office is butt-slow in getting your patent approved, your patent term is adjusted accordingly.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but I guess in the past your patent term began when you filed the patent? So I guess here you get extra days for every day the patent office is unnecessarily slow in getting it processed. Maybe someone has a better analysis.

Title IV - United States Publication of Patent Applications Published Abroad
Presumably this is where all of the fuss occurs. Unfortunately, it's very hard to read for me, and makes extensive references to the various patent treaties.

My understanding is this: Patents are generally published/made available to foreign countries after 18 months. You can request that it be made available earlier, or, if you're not filing patents in a different country, you can request that it not be published at all. If you do file patents in other countries, presumably treaties require these patent applications to be shared between member countries after 18 months.

I think this is what some people are angry about. I don't know the rationale behind the sharing of applications, so maybe somebody else can step up and elaborate for us? I guess by publishing these patent applications, anyone in another country where the patent holder isn't planning on applying for a patent could then in turn patent it himself. Anybody in a country where the US patent wouldn't be legal could use the information in the patent for his own good. I may be totally off-base here, but that's how I read it. Corrections are welcome.

Title V - Patent Litigation Reduction Act (I like it already)
Anybody can write the patent office with a request for re-examination, citing examples of prior art. Their letter will become an official part of the patent, and the patent office must make a determination (whether or not to re-examine) within 3 months. The requester gets copies of the progress.

Title VI - Patent and Trademark Office
This takes up about half of the actual bill. Since I'm not totally familiar with the current structure of the PTO, this could either be a lot of re-wording, or (more likely) a complete restructuring of the office itself. Note that this seems to only apply to the PTO office/organization. It doesn't have anything to do with the types of patents issued, but how they do their day-to-day business, how they evaluate their staff, and pick their work force.

But most importantly, the bill includes wording to bring the PTO out of the dark ages. They're given permission to make use of whatever equipment and technology they need (like broadband) and lets them hire their examiners more competitively.

Here's a link to the most recent version of the bill.

I can't make heads or tails about what this guy is complaining about. Probably black helicopters are involved, somehow...

Section 303, requesting an investigation of business model patents, is probably of the most interest to ./ers.

Here's a link to the most recent version of the bill.

I can't make heads or tails about what this guy is complaining about. Probably black helicopters are involved, somehow...

Section 303, requesting an investigation of business model patents, is probably of the most interest to ./ers.

You'll find that the bill is really quick a work of literature.

You would be interested in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act introduced into the House during the 105th Congress. Lots of interesting things.... like, enabling the Post Office to seize? A search of "civil forfeiture" in the 105th Congress at Thomas should turn it up.

Just FYI to anyone who is concerned about this discrepancy. The search that should be used is: this one.

The DMCA was ratified by the 105th Congress, and not the current 106th. Thomas' default search turns up the wrong h.r.2281 if you're searching the wrong Congress.

Pratik Dave
ps: Did anyone besides me notice that they used the former term of art, "Digital Video Disc" rather than "Digital Versatile Disc?"

When I went to http://thomas.loc.gov and then did a search using the string 'h.r.2281' (quotes mine) I got a firearm bill. So I did a phrase search. Here is the method. U.S. Bills - search page then use 'Digital Millenium Copyright Act' (do not use the quotes) in the word/phrase search, the result is a bit different. -d

I believe that even the Digital Millenium Copyright Act protects reverse engineering in the name of software support.... http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ legislation/dmca.pdf

You're right, a good reading of the injunction makes clear that they're not defending the terrible copy protection in the dvd mechanism. However, this has a lot to do with recent changes in the U.S. copyright laws, I recommend that folks read H.R. 2281 - The Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The Library of Congress has an easier to read summary online.

What it really comes down to is that the defendants were informed that they should have removed the offending materials and refused to do so (it's right at the top... of the injunction right beneath the 69K of MS-XML.) They can't touch the guy who wrote DeCSS because he complied upon notification of transgression.

If you haven't yet actually read anything about the DMCA, you'll find the WIPO/Title I sections useful in understanding what they new laws have to say about reverse engineering of the sort used in DeCSS. WIPO is the World Intellectual Property Organization, and Title I is the U.S. Congress ratifying general new international agreements about intellectual property. Read Educause's summary, particularly the section on: "Prohibitions on Circumvention of Technological Protection Measures ."

Pratik Dave
ps: Given the specific burden of proof placed upon service providers and their DMCA agents given by the DMCA, I'm especially shocked that some of the defending sites were .edu sites. Since we're (academic sites == service providers) monetarily culpable if we don't take "prompt" action upon notification, seems like someone at rpi dropped the ball.

This part doesn't take effect for a few months, but see if you don't find it the slightest bit relevant (and frightening):
''(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS.--(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
''(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
''(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
''(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

Let's say that I lived in 1910, or 1953 - patent laws affected me differently. Now imagine I am an inventor from Maine. Now why would I patent a dumb idea, or common concept? It's a waste of money, time, and in the end it isn't going to mean a hill of beans. Let's say I want to release a prototype into a very viable market, am I going to patent every idea and concept around the main product. This is what I ment by "nullified" - it doesn't make the paper idea or however old patent go away. That's why it is a "sad fact" that "these type of patents" or not product related, but service related method patents are thrown out in court by a judge. The entire concept behind the service industry is to make it easier for the end consumer regardless of the industry. Let's be honest, do you think that Barnes and Noble outright STOLE (gasp) the idea of being able to click on a single link, button, or whatever they have from Amazon.com?

Now as to having a blaring error for the date I would note the preface of copyright law:

Act of August 5th 1977 (Amendment to section 203, title 17, U.S. Code, being the Act of 1909, as amended, and to section 708, Title 17, U.S. Code, being the Copyright Act of 1976, regarding the deposit of moneys by the Register of Copyrights in the Treasury of the United States), Pub. L. 95-94, 91 Stat. 653,682.

Perhaps it doesn't predate the Automobile but the common use of it. 1909 is when the initial act was revamped, or as far back as it goes. It would seem to me that patent law has never been rewritten and that there have only really been amendments to patent law since then. I say this after largely reading the publicly avaliable documents on the internet from the library of congress on Patent Law. I am not an expert, I'm a Network Admin/Analyst type, not a lawyer. I would however like to challange the validity of the laws and how they are handled, hopefully calling for a complete rewrite of the patent laws out there.

#include

I'd be careful about giving legal opinions if you're not a lawyer (I'd be even more careful if you are a lawyer). The facts as I understand them is that common carrier status for websites is a somewhat murky subject. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act makes the limits to liability much more explicit, but also requires that a service like Slashdot remove materials that they know about and which are objectionable.
--

The copyrights on all of Dover's books are still in effect.

A small correction. Some of Dover's works are under copyright (those it was the first publisher for) and others are in the public domain (though they might have copyrighted introductions and notes). Gee, it tells you right on the back of the title page.

Dover is quite concerned about the copyright term extension act and other changes in the law that took works out of the public domain and put them under new copyrights (the GATT provisions of U.S. copyright law--see the Library of Congress site for more info). So they have joined a suit to overturn the act. They are definitely not in favor of strong copyright laws. (Project Gutenberg has not joined the suit.)

But is there a particular reason why Dover Publications ought to give money to Project Gutenberg, when Project Gutenberg does not support Dover's efforts to free up copyright?

Here's a useful overview of the law surrounding trademark confusion. I recommend that Slashdotters read it before posting uninformed opinions.

It's not mentioned here, but there's a new law (the Trademark Anti Dilution Act of 1999) addressing this issue, that gives more protection to so-called "famous marks". This has been cited before in regards to domain names, which seems to be one of its main thrusts.
----
Lake Effect, a weblog

This sort of thing should be brought up with WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization) as well. It is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. This is exactly what WIPO is all about, and you can read this copy of the WIPO treaty which actually resides on the US Copyright Office's website.

This will allow not only the US, but other countries to be persuaded that things need to change. It sets the benchmark to follow.

Check out the treaty itself, and then check out the agreements the US made with it, and you'll see that there is still lacking by the US in what it agrees to. Note also that the treaty was created in 1996, and that things have changed dramatically in the last few years with respect to different types of media available, which now may or may not be covered by this treaty. (I haven't had the time to scour it myself).

This sort of thing should be brought up with WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization) as well. It is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. This is exactly what WIPO is all about, and you can read this copy of the WIPO treaty which actually resides on the US Copyright Office's website.

This will allow not only the US, but other countries to be persuaded that things need to change. It sets the benchmark to follow.

Check out the treaty itself, and then check out the agreements the US made with it, and you'll see that there is still lacking by the US in what it agrees to. Note also that the treaty was created in 1996, and that things have changed dramatically in the last few years with respect to different types of media available, which now may or may not be covered by this treaty. (I haven't had the time to scour it myself).

I really don't understand why everyone is so caught up in the twenty-year extension. It's frustrating, it's creating an insidious and pervasive feeling that all words and images are owned by someone, yes, it's bad. However, the restrictions applied are pretty much the same as ever. The more compelling threat to civil rights, in my opinion, is the addition of restrictions against devices intended to copy.
In the words of the Digital Millenium Copyright act summary linked above,

Section 1201 proscribes devices or services that fall within any of the three following categories:
- They are primarily designed or produced to circumvent.
- They have only limited commercially significant use other than to circumvent; or
- They are marketed for use in circumventing.

Am I the only one who notes the striking similarity to the British law that allowed this bullying incident so recently discussed on slashdot? Am I the only one that thought they couldn't do that to us in America?

Please note the -or- clause, and consider that only one has to be shown. If you can show that far more people will use the device to break the law than will use it legitimately, the device (like, say, the DeCSS program) will become illegal.

Libraries, non-profit organizations and educational institutions are protected from criminal, but not civil, liability in these cases, but individuals have no such protection. If I'm putting the pieces of the summary together correctly, a successful lawsuit means you could be put in prison for up to five years for contributing to the DeCSS project. Hopefully, the developers would win, but I don't think (though IANAL) that they could get the case dismissed out of hand; it would go to trial, and cost lots of money to someone.



--Parity

I'm a lawyer and (worse?) a law professor, so I have to start with disclaimers: this isn't legal advice, consult a lawyer who is familiar with the facts of your situation, etc. etc. YMMV. Consult the other disclaimers at once, etc. etc..

I should also note that what follows is based on the law at the time the letter was written (i.e. I am not taking account of the cybersquatting bill, which AFAIK has not actually passed both houses yet although I gather it's almost a foregone conclusion).

Furthermore, trademark law varies some (but only some) from country to country. I know much more about US law than I do about other countries. What I do know about European trademark law, however, suggests that the position of a domain name registrant viz a viz a brick & mortar trademark holder is a little less favorable in, say, the Netherlands, than it would be in the US because the distinction between commercial/non-commercial uses is less strong, and because mere registration may qualify as "use" of a trademark or some other type of infringing activity. What follows is primarily geared to the US domain name registrant.

As a general rule, trademark law divides the universe of trademarks into two families: a fairly small set of "famous" marks (think "CocaCola (tm)" and everything else. In the US the "famous" marks (and, weirdly, maybe some non-famous marks) are protected by relatively new federal anti-dilution statute and in many but not all states by (older) state anti-dilution laws which do vary. All trademarks, whether famous or not, are also protected against "confusion" and "tarnishment" (and other stuff we'll ignore for now). Tarnishment prosecutions are rare, but the law protects against the association of a trademarked name with something really bad (porn or drugs), modulo first amendment concerns (but then beware libel law). Running a porn site, even a free one, might well be considered tarnishment if the site's name was easily confused with a trademarked name.

The critical points to understand, as a first approximation to the law only, are these:

• In the US, although not necessarily in other countries, mere registration of a domain name, without something more (infringing use and/or an offer to sell the domain name, especially one that is part of a pattern of such offers), is NOT a violation of trademark law. There might be some special cases sounding in unfair competition law (e.g. registering the domain name of a competitor), but we'll ignore that.
• If
  1. your use is purely non-commercial (you are not even selling T-shirts), and
  2. you have never offered to sell the domain name to anyone for anything, and
  3. you are not guilty of tarnishment
  then your legal position is very strong.
• If you are engaged in any sort of commercial activity using the domain name, it matters whether the trademark is famous or not.
  • If it is (and fame can be just regional instead of national) , you might want to talk to a lawyer as this part of the law is in some flux since the federal statute is fairly new and state laws vary.
  • If the mark is not famous, the most important issue is whether there is a likelihood of confusion between your site and the trademark. This is a question about how you are using the site, not a question about the name itself. On the other hand, the court will look at the totality of the circumstances, including how different your line of business is from that of the trademark holder. Just running a little disclaimer is not inevitably going to be enough to protect you, especially if there is substantial similarity between your line of business and theirs. Yup, probably lawyer time again.
• If you have offered to sell the domain name for $$$ the court is going to suspect you of being a cybersquatter. The more the $$$, the worse it looks. It also looks worse if you initiated the contact; it's less bad if they contacted you and they first broached the subject of $$$.

Note also that all new registrations and all re-registrations in .com, .org and .net will henceforth be subject to ICANN's new take-it-or-leave-it dispute policies at the option of a complainant with a trademark seeking to wrest a domain name from a non-trademark holder.

So, don't panic. Please keep in mind that the new cybersquatting bill may obsolete some of the above. I understand the bill was amended last week and I have not had a chance to look at the latest text, which is why I'm not discussing it.

Excellent comments. For the benefit of those who want to look up the legislation for themselves, here's a link that almost leads to just the right place, and that should be durable: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ query/z?c106:H.R.1714:. That link will display a list of all the versions of the bill; just click on the "H.R.1714.EH" link to get the version that's currently in the House.

Thank you very much for referencing the real legislation; this is a vastly superior thing to discuss than mere commentaries on journalistic commentaries.

It appears to me that there may need to be a clearer "Opt Out" mechanism; aside from that, the fact that the bill expects that parties

should be permitted to determine the appropriate authentication technologies and implementation models for their transactions

There perhaps needs to be some allowance for there being a period of time during which people don't fully understand the implications of this, and some coherent method for repudiation of such agreement, perhaps modelled after the manner in which consumers are permitted to reject certain sorts of transactions from door-to-door salescritters if cancellation is done in some specified period of time...

It doesn't specify what the "digital signature" is. It just says they can be used. Basically it says that digital contracts using digital signatures can be made legally binding if all the parties involved mutually agree on the exact form of those signatures.

Actually there are a whole bunch of other details as well, but that's one of the important points. Have a look at the bill itself.

Rather than speculate about what this bill will or won't do, let's take the time to read it for ourselves. Like all the other bills working their way through Congress, the text of this bill is available at the Library of Congress' THOMAS server. Here's the full text of the bill; that link may or may not work when you read this, since the URLs on THOMAS do have a habit of changing occasionally. If the link fails, then go to THOMAS' home page, type "HR 1714" in the 'Search by Bill Number' box at the top of the page, and do the search. In the list of bills that appears, choose 'HR 1714 EH'; that's the current version, at least as I'm writing this.

A few personal comments after reading the bill:

• Like many other Congressional bills, this one contains lots of contradictory paragraphs and "Notwithstanding paragraph b..."; it takes a very careful reading to figure out what it does and doesn't do, and I'm personally still not sure I've got it figured out. This alone gives me reason to distrust it.
• In order for an electronic document to satisfy a requirement that a consumer be informed of something in writing, the consumer must first be informed that electronic notification may be used, and the consumer must agree to that "by means of a consent that is conspicuous and visually separate from other terms". Furthermore, the consumer can withdraw consent at any time. This doesn't seem bad to me.
• A consumer is still allowed to claim that notification was never given or that an electronic signature isn't the consumer's, just as a consumer can claim that a document was never mailed or that a physical signature is a forgery.
• States are allowed to pass laws modifying the use of electronic signatures within their states; however, there are restrictions on their ability to do that, and those restrictions seem extremely muddy to me. Lots of potential for arguments and Supreme Court action here.
• If a notification is "necessary for the protection of the public health or safety of consumers", then the notification cannot be only electronic, even if the consumer has consented.
• A will still cannot be electronic. Those probate lawyers are a conservative bunch, I guess.
• Court orders and notices still can't be electronic. All those lawyers are a conservative bunch.
• Notices about the cancellation of utility service, foreclosure of a home, or cancellation of health or life insurance can't be electronic-only.

Overall, I wish that it were written more clearly, but it doesn't seem onerous to me.

Rather than speculate about what this bill will or won't do, let's take the time to read it for ourselves. Like all the other bills working their way through Congress, the text of this bill is available at the Library of Congress' THOMAS server. Here's the full text of the bill; that link may or may not work when you read this, since the URLs on THOMAS do have a habit of changing occasionally. If the link fails, then go to THOMAS' home page, type "HR 1714" in the 'Search by Bill Number' box at the top of the page, and do the search. In the list of bills that appears, choose 'HR 1714 EH'; that's the current version, at least as I'm writing this.

A few personal comments after reading the bill:

• Like many other Congressional bills, this one contains lots of contradictory paragraphs and "Notwithstanding paragraph b..."; it takes a very careful reading to figure out what it does and doesn't do, and I'm personally still not sure I've got it figured out. This alone gives me reason to distrust it.
• In order for an electronic document to satisfy a requirement that a consumer be informed of something in writing, the consumer must first be informed that electronic notification may be used, and the consumer must agree to that "by means of a consent that is conspicuous and visually separate from other terms". Furthermore, the consumer can withdraw consent at any time. This doesn't seem bad to me.
• A consumer is still allowed to claim that notification was never given or that an electronic signature isn't the consumer's, just as a consumer can claim that a document was never mailed or that a physical signature is a forgery.
• States are allowed to pass laws modifying the use of electronic signatures within their states; however, there are restrictions on their ability to do that, and those restrictions seem extremely muddy to me. Lots of potential for arguments and Supreme Court action here.
• If a notification is "necessary for the protection of the public health or safety of consumers", then the notification cannot be only electronic, even if the consumer has consented.
• A will still cannot be electronic. Those probate lawyers are a conservative bunch, I guess.
• Court orders and notices still can't be electronic. All those lawyers are a conservative bunch.
• Notices about the cancellation of utility service, foreclosure of a home, or cancellation of health or life insurance can't be electronic-only.

Overall, I wish that it were written more clearly, but it doesn't seem onerous to me.

Rather than speculate about what this bill will or won't do, let's take the time to read it for ourselves. Like all the other bills working their way through Congress, the text of this bill is available at the Library of Congress' THOMAS server. Here's the full text of the bill; that link may or may not work when you read this, since the URLs on THOMAS do have a habit of changing occasionally. If the link fails, then go to THOMAS' home page, type "HR 1714" in the 'Search by Bill Number' box at the top of the page, and do the search. In the list of bills that appears, choose 'HR 1714 EH'; that's the current version, at least as I'm writing this.

A few personal comments after reading the bill:

• Like many other Congressional bills, this one contains lots of contradictory paragraphs and "Notwithstanding paragraph b..."; it takes a very careful reading to figure out what it does and doesn't do, and I'm personally still not sure I've got it figured out. This alone gives me reason to distrust it.
• In order for an electronic document to satisfy a requirement that a consumer be informed of something in writing, the consumer must first be informed that electronic notification may be used, and the consumer must agree to that "by means of a consent that is conspicuous and visually separate from other terms". Furthermore, the consumer can withdraw consent at any time. This doesn't seem bad to me.
• A consumer is still allowed to claim that notification was never given or that an electronic signature isn't the consumer's, just as a consumer can claim that a document was never mailed or that a physical signature is a forgery.
• States are allowed to pass laws modifying the use of electronic signatures within their states; however, there are restrictions on their ability to do that, and those restrictions seem extremely muddy to me. Lots of potential for arguments and Supreme Court action here.
• If a notification is "necessary for the protection of the public health or safety of consumers", then the notification cannot be only electronic, even if the consumer has consented.
• A will still cannot be electronic. Those probate lawyers are a conservative bunch, I guess.
• Court orders and notices still can't be electronic. All those lawyers are a conservative bunch.
• Notices about the cancellation of utility service, foreclosure of a home, or cancellation of health or life insurance can't be electronic-only.

Overall, I wish that it were written more clearly, but it doesn't seem onerous to me.