Slashdot Mirror
DVD Cases: Help by Commenting to Feds on DMCA
Paul Burchard writes "The Copyright office is
requesting comments
by Feb. 10, 2000,
on how broadly to interpret the exemptions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to its provisions against circumventing copy-protection technologies.
As these features of the DMCA have been cited by lawyers from both sides in the DeCSS cases,
the interpretation of the exemptions appears to still be up for grabs -- your comments could make a difference." Get involved and do this now.
News for most americans: The rest of the world don't care about your laws.
Now when this is settled, let's talk about making this mirroring scheme more efficient. I'm talking spam. I'm talking buying the service of one of these hated spammers that ever so often sends you a nice pricelist of how many millions you can reach buy just paying $100, $200 or whatever the going rate is ...
I want to see the MPAA going after each and every single ISP, mailserver and end user receiving an email containing the CSS source. You know, those 3 millions or so ...
it's in my head
Let's make sure we Hormel them with fury!
Don't forget to spell lots of words incorrectly.
Could someone post their letter here so those of use who are not the best writers or just don't have as much info on this case can get an idea of what should go into these comments? I'd like to help but I'm not sure exactly what would be the most effective way to do it (unless "DeCSS rules!" counts as a good comment...)
My other
Copy protection is just a way to trick nerds into breaking the law.
Moderators won't understand this post, I must post anon, sorry.
You can also help a lot by giving a donation to the EFF. They are playing a big part in the legal defense for DeCSS distribution.
All information should be freely available. People that help release it are heros.
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.
What I want to know is why they will only take the comments in .pdf format, "Wordperfect 7 or earlier" or "Microsoft word 7 or earlier." Whatever happened to .txt or .html? I would think that text, at least, would be preferred.. if your word processor can't do .txt format then you must be using a pencil and paper. However, not everyone has a way to make .pdf, .wps, or .wpd (or whatever Wordperfect's file extension is), including me. I could do .txt, but none of the others (unless I use a school computer). I realize that this isn't everybody, nor am I a majority, but still.. a non-proprietary format please!
Insert mind here.
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:
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Show some sanity! Write reasonable and calm letters. Do NOT flame. This is not your chance to rant about the evils of Copyrights and such. Flaming and generally being a jerk will get us nowhere, in fact it will probably hurt the cause more than you can imagine.
Read the Advocacy FAQs. Proofread you letter. Get someone else (hopefully someone who disagrees with you) to read and comment on it. Having a flood of flamers attack the Copyright agency could be the worst disaster possible for the DeCSS case.
Once again. Please, show some sanity and some respect. Write well reasoned and informative letters. DO NOT FLAME.
--Nick
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV.
But this seems like a good thread to post case law
if you are a lawyer, or play one on DVD.
Some of this sounds more like "illegal tying" to force people to use particular playback technology for which royalties may be paid independent from those paid for the movies themselves. Also, what if somebody just doesn't want open source or Unix
users to be able to play DVDs. Could that be an "illegal boycott."
How many people have to suffer a harsh punishment before "cruel and unusual" returns zero?
Just don't buy DVDs. Tell your friends not to buy DVDs, and tell them why.
http://www.sharedlib.org/DMCA_RFC.txt
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.
/. 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!
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
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
I'm not sure if these comments will help as much as we might like. Federal bureaus establish guidelines as a practical way to put Federal laws into effect. The court would only pay attention to those rules if they had been in place long enough to constitute "common practice." And even then, the court could rule either that the law was bogus, or that the rules were.
Bureacratic guidelines are not law.
Since the Copyright Office hasn't even established the guidelines, they should not affect the judge's ruling. The judge might pay attention to strong public sentiment, but I believe the judge would be more likely to feel that, if the public wants the law changed (and the judge thinks the existing law is fine), then the public should vote for new representation.
The only way the comments would help is as evidence the EFF could use in court that DeCSS's intent is not piracy, but playback of legitimate content.
-----
Klactovedestene!
Remember, these are not geeks we are talking to. Some of these people are smart (but not on computers), and others are stupid. (I also know some stupid geeks, so the score is even) You need to talk to their level.
I strongly recomend analgies that they understand. For instance, I bought a manual for my car published by one "Haynes" company. For those who don't know, this company buys a car, and takes it apart. Point out to the beurocrats that they are reverse engineering and that any decision to prohibit reverse engineering computers must also prohibit reverse this company from reverse engineering cars.
If anyone else can come up with good examples, please post them. It would be nice if /. would then find the best of the best for anouther artical, but that might be asking too much.
While e-mail is okay, snail mail is better, so spend some money on stamps.
http://www.hackphreak.org/decss (Note: You'll get a 404 immediately, but it'll be there tonight.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
I think the best way to state your case here (supporting DVDs or any medium, we'll stick to DVDs for this message) would be to make direct use of the DMCA's wording.
First, you can attack the "effective" clause. The DMCA only prohibits circumvention of things that "effectively controls access". You can say that the DVD encryption wasn't very effective to start with, though this is not a very strong argument.
You can encourage them to add DVDs to the exemption list because circumvention is necessary in order to gain fair use priviledges of the copyrighted work without using licensed players. The absolute denial of fair use priviledges without a license (or licensed player) from the DVD consortium should not be supported by law. Nowhere in the DMCA does it restrict fair use priviledges explicitly in this way.
Note that I am not a legal expert, etc, etc. Please read as much as you can from other posters and the various advocacy howtos to make sure your message is clear and makes a real positive difference.
Keep in mind that snail-mailing it to them will be a hundred times more effective than e-mail. It only takes a minute to write a letter in word, print out the envelope, slap a sticker on it, and throw it in the mailbox. PLEASE DO SO. There is a huge gaping distance between the written word and the electronic one - while geeks take e-mail as seriously (sometimes moreso) than realworld, the realworld holds electronic mail in the same regard. Keep this in mind if you're trying to make a difference!
They also have very specific instructions regarding providing your name, address, etc.
Knowing government agencies, there runs a serious risk that our comments could get thrown out unless they are specifically in MIME'd PDF files. Be warned!
-Matt
Hopefully this will work out, and they will get some thoughtful comments to chew on. I remember when we were worried about "taxing bandwidth", and I submitted a comment to the FCC... their rules for submitting it were completely draconian! (something about sending them a disk with a wordperfect file so they could post it on the web)
This page isn't written in English as we know it, (I'm not fluent in Legalese) but at least it looks like they take e-mailed comments. And the bottom of the page is rather interesting too... Hopefully the government is getting a clue.
[...]
Dated: November 15, 1999.
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
Approved by:
James H. Billington,
The Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 99-30556 Filed 11-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:38:35 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.9 (Unix) Debian/GNU mod_perl/1.21
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<TITLE>200 OK</TITLE>
</HEAD><BODY>
<H1>OK</H1>
The server encountered an internal error or
misconfiguration and was unable to complete
your request.<P>
Please contact the server administrator,
webmaster@sailor.lib.md.us and inform them of the time the error occurred,
and anything you might have done that may have
caused the error.<P>
More information about this error may be available
in the server error log.<P>
</BODY></HTML>
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The Copyright Office has no idea what they've let themselves in for :-).
and don't send plain email. you have to send a pdf file or a word document with sufficient information about yourself.
please write good,non-flaming,sophisticated comments and stick to the point. (the css case i 'an' example, not more - it's of course a very important one, at least for us.)
Remember, just like "A picture is worth a thousand words", a well written letter on high quality paper is worth a thousand stupid emails. Also remember that those who will be writing in on the other side are probably not geeks. Rather they are lawyers and businessfolks: people who are acquainted with coming across as a professional in all communications. As a result you can expect that there will be more than one letter from a lawyer on 100% cotton letterhead, crisp laser printing, civil logical writing showing up at that postal address. Geeks keep screaming that the politians and business people need to play by the Internet rules while on the Internet. Remember that this is going on in the meatspace world of business and law and to get noticed there you have to at least understand their rules.
LetterJ
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
...so it's not a circumvention of copy protection.
It serves no use in preventing people from illegally making DVDs, VHS recordings, or other format conversions. The bits can be copied identically onto other DVDs (with the appropriate manufacturing equipment), the video signal from a DVD viewer is sufficient to create production-quality VHS recordings, and one can video capture entire DVD movies with cheap and easily available computer hardware.
The primary purpose of this encryption was not to prevent copying, but to restrict viewing.
That means only viewing hardware produced under licence, and only in approved regions.
This is reverse engineering for the purpose of breaking the monopoly on DVD viewing devices (whether hardware or software). And the act of reverse engineering was done outside the country, so the US legality of whatever was done to produce the this tool is irrelevant, only the legality of its use and distribution.
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 tself 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.
They don't want plain emails people. If you send comments, please try to put them in the preferred formats. Please try to write concisely and stick to the DMCA topic, not copyrights or DVD in general.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
Snail has the whole week-end to get there by
Monday or Tueseday. Nobody will read E-mail until
Monday anyway.
.
How many people have to suffer a harsh punishment before "cruel and unusual" returns zero?
Adobe will convert a PC or MAC word processing file to PDF in exchange for an email address.
Click Convert to PDF .
Reverse engineering should be made totally legal. By reverse engineering, I refer to that done in a clean room, out of concern and respect for trade-secret and copyright holders. Whatever it is said, copyright is important, so we should bear in mind not to undermine it. (Subject to the legal restrictions of course. My finger to those who exploit IP/copyrights for their own selfish gain. e.g. Amazon 1-click nonsense).
Why should this be. Primarily becuase we live in a unfair world, where American businesses dominate a large part of the global economy. I think Americans should look beyond their shores and not see the world as people to exploit, but as partners, where there is great chance for mutual cooperation.
The point is that DMCA goes both ways. The US should not always assume that they will continue to be dominant players in all sectors of the economy. Neither should they wish to (It is unfair - no nation should have that great a burden to bear. :-) )
Today, someone in Norway reverse enginneers American technology, producing DeCSS. Someday, the tables are going to reversed. Is the US going to be a hypocritical and laughed at by the rest of the world when it decides to break their own laws?
Like it or not, the DMCA is going to be piece of international law. It is inevitable as we move towards a global, integrated economy. It is necessary and essential that the US sets a good example now, by upholding the principle of reverse engineering. For the reasons of competition, innovation and interoperability.
It might be look like that today, industries represented by the MPAA are getting the wrong end of the stick. But things will change. These businesses do not, and will not take the long-sighted view. They are short-sighted. They want to hold on to their dinosaur like hegemony. They want to extend it. The government of the US cannot allow itself to become subservient to these corporations.
Personally, I have always believed that the greatness of a country is measured by how well it treats firstly, its own people and then next other small countries. Get your act together!
http://www.opendvd.org/dvdintpress.html . BTW, are there any articles that talk about being able to copy DVDs without decrypting, or does that speak for itself?
Can't you in theory also make DVD backups of your VHS tapes under "fair use"?
You must answer some or all of the questions posed in the request for comments for your letter to have any effect. Also, the questions will help focus your letters on the issues that are relevent to this situation. Here are the questions::
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.
In response to each question, persons submitting comments are
requested to distinguish between (a) their response with respect to the
current state of affairs, and (b) their response with respect to the
state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. For example, in responding to
Question No. 3, persons submitting comments are requested to state (a)
what technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today, and (b) what new technological measures
that effectively control access to copyrighted works are likely to be
introduced between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. In discussing
the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003, persons submitting comments
should explain the basis for their projections.
A. Technological Measures
1. What technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today?
2. Do different technological measures have different effects on
the ability of users to make noninfringing uses? Can and should the
Librarian take account of those different effects in determining
whether to exempt any classes of works from the anticircumvention
provisions of section 1201? If so, how? In determining what constitutes
a class of works?
B. Availability of Works
3. How has the use of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such
works to persons who are or desire to be lawful users of such works?
4. Are there specific works or classes of works that, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become
unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works and explain how they have
become unavailable.
5. Are there specific works or classes of works which, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become less
available to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works, explain the ways in which
they have become less available, and explain whether those works or
classes of works are also available in other formats to which such
technological measures have not been applied.
6. If there are works that are available both in formats to which
technological measures have been applied and in formats to which
technological measures have not been applied, to what extent can the
works in the latter formats substitute for the works in the formats to
which technological measures have been applied?
7. Are there works or classes of works that are available only
electronically and only in formats to which such technological measures
have been applied? If so, what are they?
C. Availability of Works for Nonprofit Archival, Preservation, and
Educational Purposes
8. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit archival purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
9. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works created problems with respect to the
preservation of such works? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them and explain how they have been affected.
10. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit educational purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
11. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
nonprofit archival, preservation, and/or educational purposes? (E.g.,
``new broadcasts'' may not be an exempted class of works, but ``news
broadcasts used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a
nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place of
instruction,'' may be an exempted class.) Explain why or why not.
D. Impact on Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship,
or Research
12. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news
[[Page 66143]]
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research?
13. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses of such works,
including fair use and activities permitted by exemptions prescribed by
law?
14. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research has been
hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures?
If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered,
and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available
in other formats to which such technological measures have not been
applied.
15. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses
has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological
measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been
hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also
available in other formats to which such technological measures have
not been applied.
16. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,
or research? Explain why or why not.
17. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used in ways
that do not constitute copyright infringement, e.g., as fair use or in
a manner permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? Explain why or why
not.
E. Effect of Circumvention on the Market for or Value of Copyrighted
Works
18. In what ways can technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works be circumvented? How widespread is
such circumvention?
19. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the price of copyrighted works? Please explain.
20. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the availability of copyrighted works? In particular
formats or in all formats? Please explain.
21. Has such circumvention had any other impact on the marketing of
copyrighted works? If so, please explain the impact and which works or
classes of works have been affected.
22. Do the answers to any of these questions relating to the effect
of circumvention on the market for or value of copyrighted works depend
upon the class of work? Please explain.
F. Other Factors and Questions
23. For purposes of this rulemaking, what criteria should be used
in determining what is a ``class'' of copyrighted works?
24. With respect to any adverse effect on use of or access to
copyrighted works that has been identified in response to any of the
preceding questions, is there an explanation for the adverse effect
other than the presence of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works?
25. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in making copyrighted works more
widely available? Please explain.
26. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in facilitating lawful uses of
copyrighted works?
27. Are there other factors that should be taken into account? If
so, please identify and address those factors.
28. What other comments, if any, do you have?
29. Do you wish to testify at a hearing to be conducted by the
Copyright Office in connection with this rulemaking?
Sig goes here
This right-to-decode-your-dvd issue affects more than Linux. Every operating system can benefit from this. The code will get ported to [Insert Favorite OS here], newer third party apps can be developed for Win(9x,NT,2k). Please express this in your letters. The reader may only know of Linux users as "raging/ranting Zealots" (er.. don't quote me on that...), but know that they want to watch a movie on their own non-supported PC. Put it in terms they can understand.
Ok, time for me to get off my Milk crate....
You must answer some or all of the questions posed in the request for comments or your letter will not have any effect. Also, the questions will help focus your letters on the issues that are relevent to this situation. Here are the questions::
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.
In response to each question, persons submitting comments are
requested to distinguish between (a) their response with respect to the
current state of affairs, and (b) their response with respect to the
state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. For example, in responding to
Question No. 3, persons submitting comments are requested to state (a)
what technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today, and (b) what new technological measures
that effectively control access to copyrighted works are likely to be
introduced between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. In discussing
the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003, persons submitting comments
should explain the basis for their projections.
A. Technological Measures
1. What technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today?
2. Do different technological measures have different effects on
the ability of users to make noninfringing uses? Can and should the
Librarian take account of those different effects in determining
whether to exempt any classes of works from the anticircumvention
provisions of section 1201? If so, how? In determining what constitutes
a class of works?
B. Availability of Works
3. How has the use of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such
works to persons who are or desire to be lawful users of such works?
4. Are there specific works or classes of works that, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become
unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works and explain how they have
become unavailable.
5. Are there specific works or classes of works which, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become less
available to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works, explain the ways in which
they have become less available, and explain whether those works or
classes of works are also available in other formats to which such
technological measures have not been applied.
6. If there are works that are available both in formats to which
technological measures have been applied and in formats to which
technological measures have not been applied, to what extent can the
works in the latter formats substitute for the works in the formats to
which technological measures have been applied?
7. Are there works or classes of works that are available only
electronically and only in formats to which such technological measures
have been applied? If so, what are they?
C. Availability of Works for Nonprofit Archival, Preservation, and
Educational Purposes
8. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit archival purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
9. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works created problems with respect to the
preservation of such works? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them and explain how they have been affected.
10. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit educational purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
11. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
nonprofit archival, preservation, and/or educational purposes? (E.g.,
``new broadcasts'' may not be an exempted class of works, but ``news
broadcasts used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a
nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place of
instruction,'' may be an exempted class.) Explain why or why not.
D. Impact on Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship,
or Research
12. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news
[[Page 66143]]
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research?
13. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses of such works,
including fair use and activities permitted by exemptions prescribed by
law?
14. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research has been
hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures?
If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered,
and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available
in other formats to which such technological measures have not been
applied.
15. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses
has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological
measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been
hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also
available in other formats to which such technological measures have
not been applied.
16. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,
or research? Explain why or why not.
17. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used in ways
that do not constitute copyright infringement, e.g., as fair use or in
a manner permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? Explain why or why
not.
E. Effect of Circumvention on the Market for or Value of Copyrighted
Works
18. In what ways can technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works be circumvented? How widespread is
such circumvention?
19. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the price of copyrighted works? Please explain.
20. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the availability of copyrighted works? In particular
formats or in all formats? Please explain.
21. Has such circumvention had any other impact on the marketing of
copyrighted works? If so, please explain the impact and which works or
classes of works have been affected.
22. Do the answers to any of these questions relating to the effect
of circumvention on the market for or value of copyrighted works depend
upon the class of work? Please explain.
F. Other Factors and Questions
23. For purposes of this rulemaking, what criteria should be used
in determining what is a ``class'' of copyrighted works?
24. With respect to any adverse effect on use of or access to
copyrighted works that has been identified in response to any of the
preceding questions, is there an explanation for the adverse effect
other than the presence of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works?
25. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in making copyrighted works more
widely available? Please explain.
26. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in facilitating lawful uses of
copyrighted works?
27. Are there other factors that should be taken into account? If
so, please identify and address those factors.
28. What other comments, if any, do you have?
29. Do you wish to testify at a hearing to be conducted by the
Copyright Office in connection with this rulemaking?
Sig goes here
It is unfortunate that someone otherwise as well qualified as Richard Stallman, is so physically unpresentable. It would be wonderful if he could spruce up his grooming a bit, which would allow him to be taken seriously by Congressional committees and such. Richard has done so much for the free software movement, that it may be unreasonable to ask him to make one more sacrafice. But then, it is sacrafice that separates the truly saintly from the merely good hearted.
I'm calling upon Richard to make the ultimate sacrafice to cause. I'm calling upon Richard to be our Amassador, and I'm calling upon him to get a makeover.
Anyone who is unable to submit comments in electronic form (which I assume would include because they would not meet the submission format guidelines) should submit on original and fifteen paper copies by hand or in the mail to the appropriate address.
So, let's do it their way. Send a long, detailed explanation of reverse engineering, it's role in the promotion of competition, blah, blah all the other points that are truly relevant to the issue. You may also want to include a polite note of apology for not being able to conform to the submission guidelines, but that you have no applications that use those proprietary formats.
On an added note, summarize this issue and contact your U.S. Senators and Congressmen and ask them if only users of Adobe, Microsoft, or Corel products have an equal voice in government. Explain that it appears the Library of Congress is only interested in comments from large organizations and others that can afford more expensive software. Perhaps they are only looking for comments from those "interested parties" that have property to protect? Send that by snail mail too! Our congressional representatives give slightly more than ZERO weight to e-mail correspondence. For added measure, include your comment to the Library of Congress to your representative.
It's important to note that there are a number of specific questions that they are seeking answers to. This includes examples of current technological access control and whether it works or not. This includes the impact of said access control on both content users and providers. A prime example of this could be Macrovision on VHS. It is relatively cheap and easy to circumvent, but almost nobody bothers to do so to copy a video tape.
The interoperability issue is important here as well, one (or more) of the questions relate to how access control can limit legitimate use of content. DVD CSS is a prime example, you purchased a DVD, you're licensed to view it, but cannot because there is no viewer for the operating system you use. LiVid circumvents the access control technology for the purpose of legitimate use (viewing a DVD). The fact that it can be used for illegitimate uses is irrelevant to the Copyright Office.
A good strategy for your comments would be to copy the questions from the web site and submit answers to them point by point. These are the questions they want to resolve, those that clearly take the time to study and write clear, concise answers for each will receive more attention than the rambling flamebaiters.
I've wrestled with reality for 35 years and I'm happy to say, I finally won out - Elwood P. Dowd
You must answer the specific questions posed in the request for comments, or your letter will have no effect. I've copied the questions to this post to facilitate ease of discussion.
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.
In response to each question, persons submitting comments are
requested to distinguish between (a) their response with respect to the
current state of affairs, and (b) their response with respect to the
state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. For example, in responding to
Question No. 3, persons submitting comments are requested to state (a)
what technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today, and (b) what new technological measures
that effectively control access to copyrighted works are likely to be
introduced between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. In discussing
the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003, persons submitting comments
should explain the basis for their projections.
A. Technological Measures
1. What technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today?
2. Do different technological measures have different effects on
the ability of users to make noninfringing uses? Can and should the
Librarian take account of those different effects in determining
whether to exempt any classes of works from the anticircumvention
provisions of section 1201? If so, how? In determining what constitutes
a class of works?
B. Availability of Works
3. How has the use of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such
works to persons who are or desire to be lawful users of such works?
4. Are there specific works or classes of works that, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become
unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works and explain how they have
become unavailable.
5. Are there specific works or classes of works which, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become less
available to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works, explain the ways in which
they have become less available, and explain whether those works or
classes of works are also available in other formats to which such
technological measures have not been applied.
6. If there are works that are available both in formats to which
technological measures have been applied and in formats to which
technological measures have not been applied, to what extent can the
works in the latter formats substitute for the works in the formats to
which technological measures have been applied?
7. Are there works or classes of works that are available only
electronically and only in formats to which such technological measures
have been applied? If so, what are they?
C. Availability of Works for Nonprofit Archival, Preservation, and
Educational Purposes
8. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit archival purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
9. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works created problems with respect to the
preservation of such works? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them and explain how they have been affected.
10. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit educational purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
11. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
nonprofit archival, preservation, and/or educational purposes? (E.g.,
``new broadcasts'' may not be an exempted class of works, but ``news
broadcasts used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a
nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place of
instruction,'' may be an exempted class.) Explain why or why not.
D. Impact on Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship,
or Research
12. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news
[[Page 66143]]
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research?
13. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses of such works,
including fair use and activities permitted by exemptions prescribed by
law?
14. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research has been
hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures?
If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered,
and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available
in other formats to which such technological measures have not been
applied.
15. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses
has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological
measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been
hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also
available in other formats to which such technological measures have
not been applied.
16. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,
or research? Explain why or why not.
17. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used in ways
that do not constitute copyright infringement, e.g., as fair use or in
a manner permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? Explain why or why
not.
E. Effect of Circumvention on the Market for or Value of Copyrighted
Works
18. In what ways can technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works be circumvented? How widespread is
such circumvention?
19. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the price of copyrighted works? Please explain.
20. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the availability of copyrighted works? In particular
formats or in all formats? Please explain.
21. Has such circumvention had any other impact on the marketing of
copyrighted works? If so, please explain the impact and which works or
classes of works have been affected.
22. Do the answers to any of these questions relating to the effect
of circumvention on the market for or value of copyrighted works depend
upon the class of work? Please explain.
F. Other Factors and Questions
23. For purposes of this rulemaking, what criteria should be used
in determining what is a ``class'' of copyrighted works?
24. With respect to any adverse effect on use of or access to
copyrighted works that has been identified in response to any of the
preceding questions, is there an explanation for the adverse effect
other than the presence of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works?
25. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in making copyrighted works more
widely available? Please explain.
26. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in facilitating lawful uses of
copyrighted works?
27. Are there other factors that should be taken into account? If
so, please identify and address those factors.
28. What other comments, if any, do you have?
29. Do you wish to testify at a hearing to be conducted by the
Copyright Office in connection with this rulemaking?
Sig goes here
Say "pdflatex letter.tex"
You should get a letter.pdf. You can verify it's readible with gv/gs (Assuming you have the Alladin GS that can read PDF files) or acroread (Assuming you have a libc5 system or the libc5 compatability libraries.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Well, I think this is a good opportunities to express yourself and your position (and please DON'T FLAME, this would be worse than a suicide because you would cause harm to every consumer) but I am an European and I would like to know if they would accept letters from us non-American.
I ask that because they say "This notice requests written comments from all interested parties" and given that America has a distasteful habit to put pressure on other countries to adopt their ways (like the software patent stuff) I feel myself concerned with the outcome of all this.
Do you think I should send them a letter and specifiy clearly that I a not a citizen of the US of A???
On the same subject, if you are not American I don't think this would be a good idea to mess things up by posturing AS an American, this would be as bad (if not worse) as flaming them.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
about them moderators
The government is not equiped or empowered to second-guess the intent of a computer programmer when he/she analyzes computer media or reverse engineers the software on it. Doing so places censorship authority in the hands of people who are not recognized as being best able to understand the technology research they are stopping. Taking on this responsibility also puts an unreasonable burden on the government: Imagine the federal government getting involved because someone reversed engineered the ingredients of McDonald's special sauce. (Why hasn't the government gotten involved in that?) If the government makes itself a tool of business that they can use in place of creative engineering to reduce unwanted reading of their media, then those businesses will invest in legal departments instead of engineering departments. Government should punish those who break the laws, not those who make tools that lawbreakers might also use. Is the government going to start arresting the CEOs of gun manufacturers and the foremen in knife factories? What about arresting the CEO of Xerrox because we can use his machines to illegally copy copywrited material? That would be ridiculous. ideas@room4me.com
- Download LyX
- Use the "letter" template to write your letter
- Export to postscript
- use ps2pdf to create a PDF file
- Send it to the LOC.
Alternately, you could print it out from the PS and wow everybody with the awesome typesetting quality of TeX.Glad to be of service,
jwb
What i find interesting about this is the choice of required submission file formats. Although i believe that adobe is available for *nix, word perfect or microsoft word is certainly showing an OS preference, which started this mess in the first place! (and yes, i know about StarOffice)
It would have been nice and neutral to allow submissions in plain text (why don't they *always* ask for that!?!), postscript, or even HTML!
Even if we ignore the platform independence thoughts, all the formats in which they want to receive the information are closed source!
I think the ideals of this case need to be explained more fully to the court.
Demonstrant's Open Source Tools
It's looking bad for Linux. I could care less about DECSS if it stops the movie houses from creating quality DVD's. I don't care who makes it or how much it costs, I care about the quality of the movie. Shit on Linux if it stops people from making good movies on DVD.
1. They prefer electronic form
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...
Plus, as you can see by the quote below, your comments are more likely to get posted to their web site if you submit them electronically.
2. If you send it via snail mail...
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.
Yep, 15 copies. You'd probably better do this unless you want somebody who doesn't feel like making copies h(im|er)self to set your comments aside and forget about them.
Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
Automobiles are not subject to copy protection. The DCMA will not prohibit reverse engineering of any automobile or other nuts and bolts product. I will write a letter tonight. I will politely state that I own a computer system that runs the Linux operating system and that I wish to play legitimately purchased DVDs on my computer system. The techonological protection section of the DCMA prevents me from doing so and prevents the programmers who have been writing such software from doing so unless an exemption is granted for personal use of DVD media under alternate operating systems.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
How is this DeCSS different from any number of prior /LEGAL/ reverse engineering attempts?
Well, for one they are giving away the product of their reverse engineering...Reverse engineering has a precedent...but giving it away doesn't
should it matter?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
How is this DeCSS different from any number of prior /LEGAL/ reverse engineering attempts?
Well, for one they are giving away the product of their reverse engineering...Reverse engineering has a precedent...but giving the results away might not
should it matter?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Software is very similar to a book, and the copyright laws have long been established in an acceptable manner regarding books. Software is just a list of instructions, like a book is a list of words. You read a book by examining the words in order, just as you use software by examining the words in order. I know a blind girl who puts her textbooks on a scanner so that her computer can read them out loud to her. In the same manner, a computer reads the instructions in software and performs a task. Saying that people cannot reverse engineer software is like saying that only computers have the right to read books.
I suggest using an analogy similar to this in your letters.
this is fascinating - what this whole bruhaha seems to be about is generating a new revenue stream, not only from the media, but from the PLAYBACK device as well - like has been said, it's not about copying, but under the guise of restricting access, they claim the right to charge yet another fee - whether paying for a license to the media AS WELL AS paying for a license for something to view the media with will stand up in court, that's the 64 billion $$ question. Maybe these guys are also salivating over M$'s billions, where youse pays for the server, you pays for the client, and then you pays once again for the client to access the server. The more you pay, the better it is! Put another nickle in...
The Scarlet Pimpernel
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Why?
If it was Congress's intent to ban software like the LiViD project, then they would be effectively granting the members of the DVD CCA a permanent copyright on the material on the DVD. That is, Congress would be making it permanently illegal to copy the contents of the DVD in any manner not approved by the DVD CCA, simply by virtue of the fact that technical means had been used in an attempt to prevent such copying.
Congress does not have the power to grant permanent copyright! Article I, section 7, grants it the power
(emphasis mine) Thus, if Congress had intended to make a program like the LiViD project illegal dispite its legitimate uses, the DMCA would be unconstitutional!What do you all think of this argument?
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.
Use as many other examples as you can think of, variety is the spice of life. Security information is another major issue. Notwithstanding the relief granted by 1201(j), 1201(a)(1) seem to prohibit sites like rootshell and bugtraq which may not be able to freely post reverse engineered security information because it facilitates infringment.--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
For those of you without a copy of Word or WordPerfect handy (which I suspect may be a lot of us *nix users), it seems that Adobe has a free service which will turn any file into a PDF and e-mail it to you. You get 10 conversions per e-mail address you register with them. It accepts text and HTML uploads, and the output from an HTML file is pretty reasonable. (I had some trouble with a file with links in it though, so you might want to get rid of any before using this.)
CVS is teh suck. Use Vesta instead.
From what I've read it appears that if anyone attempts to reverse engineer what I've stored using a copyrighted technique then this action is considered illegal and is punishable with powerful action. I've been browsing through Knuth's Art of Computer Programming vol III and I read of an early sorting program whose sole purpose was to produce optimized copyrighted sorting programs --- an automatic copyrighted code generator. So, here is what I'm thinking:
We create a similar product which creates copyrighted encryption programs. We then use these copyrighted encryption programs to talk about whatever we damn well please. If our communcations are intercepted and decrypted we cite the DMCA and use it against whoever decrypted our message. These programs don't have to be snazzy encryption products, they could and should fit within what is exportable by law. This way, we can use the power of the DMCA to protect our secrets.
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
either way, there's a chance that any comments getting posted on a government website are going to be read by some people outside of slashdot (read: people who don't already approve of or don't already understand decss).
anything that increases public awareness of what the DVD forum is doing to restrict freedom of information is good. public opinion _does_ affect both court and law.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
We all remember the story of how a few Texas Instruments engineers went into a "clean room" and reversed engineered the IBM BIOS, which allowed them to produce their own PCs, start a small company called Compaq, and create the biggest industry of the century. (documented in, for example, "Accidental Empires").
If a law had prevented them from using what they had learned in the clean room to produce their own BIOS chips then we would not the vibrant PC industry that we have today.
If I search a foreign Web search site for DECSS instead of a US one I can get a reference to the DECSS software. Then I can go to that site and subscribe to the email notification mailing list. It will then automatically send me notification of DECSS upgrades and foreign web links - one at a time randomly - on a periodic basis. Then I'll know where to go to get the s/w. This will eliminate anyone here in the US getting into trouble by posting a Web link to overseas locations by an indirect method. Ha! Ha1 RIAA
Copy-protection schemes merely add another level of encoding to the information, requiring different information to be applied in order to extract it, but not differing qualitatively in that the information needs to be decoded regardless. So as far as I can see, this section of the code adds no protections whatsoever to copy-protected or encrypted information.
But in order for the lawyers to see that, they have to be able to understand how the law as phrased relates to the processes they are regulating. It's clear to me that they do not.
And the brethren went away edified.
3. How has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works to persons who are or desire to be lawful users of such works?
I think there are some pretty obvious answers to those questions...
As usual, what appears to be a good step taken by the govt. turns out to be more sinister than imagined.
-----Charlie Benante
What needs to be done is to abstract away the parts of the code that are legal, until you have a small core that is the illegal stuff. Basically, make some general purpose utilities that do most of the work, and then all you need is the "illegal" key or a small bit of code to make it work. Make sure the tools really are general purpose, and make sure they get used for other purposes, though.
Then, all you have to do is have people distribute the illegal bit in sigfiles, spam, macro viruses, TShirts, etc.
ecampbel's _Simple Letters won't cut it_ is perhaps the most important post I've seen on this thread. To have an effect on their decision making process, we need to answer the questions they're asking and address the issues they are examining. If my reading of their document is correct, informed and autoritative letters will hold much more weight on their decision than a mass of knee-jerk activist-type responses.
I hope high-profile autorities in the Linux community will respond to their request.
Don't get me wrong, I'm going to write in, too, even though I'm in no way autoritative or high-profile. On the other hand, I'll be writing with a copy of the request document in hand.
"Space exploration is not endless circles in low-earth orbit." -Buzz Aldarin
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
Real mail takes up space and gets attention.
Ever see a news story about stacks of email? Probably not.
But, stacks of real mail looks great on the evening news.
Dust off those pens!
PDF is about as open a standard as you can get. There are a bunch of FREE & OPEN utils for *nix that allow creation of PDFs. Also the complete PDF file format is documented on Adobe's web site.
Remember, postscript was invented by Adobe also, yet it is pretty damn open and standard.
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
I think the example of your blind friend is great, but it also needs to be elaborated. The same scanner and OCR software that she uses to have the computer read to her (proper use of the information) could also be used to put the book up on a public webpage (illegal use of the info.) In the same way, the same code that they are saying can only be used to copy and sell pirate DVDs (illegal use) can be used to veiw the info you legally own (proper use.)
At my college I knew plenty of people who would have loved it if someone with a good scanner and ORC software had bought some of the $100 wafer thin comp sci textbooks and put them up on a public web page. Its an obvious and illegal use of the software. But people understand that that software (and scanners and photocopiers) have enough legitamate uses that you can't rule the device itself illegal. This point must be made about the DVD deencyption code as well.
I'm not saying that distinction will be easy to make. I had an incredibly unproductive conversation with the tech writer of my local paper on this issue after the first article on this subject and since I hadn't thought of any good analogies in advance, I couldn't get him to understand what I was saying. You need to be very coherent and simple in your retoric to get this to a non techie.
-Kahuna Burger
PS, I did know someone in college who had access to a department photocopier and just bought the book, copied it and returned it for a full refund. Illegal as hell, but if the bookstore found out they would have blamed him, not the existance of photocopiers.
...will work for Chick tracts...
Just to let you know that I just got 3 pirates DVD with chineese subtitles for USD10 Each...
The DVDs are not regionally coded and includes thing like James Bond Tomorrow Never Dies.
It seems they redid themselves the DVDs from analgous source. Some quality is ok some quality is bad..
Some you can remove the chinese subtitles...
So DeCSS or not, DVD pirates existed before...
FM/FJ
If you're a linux user, you've probably already got this program installed. To begin, open a text editor and begin with these lines:
\documentclass{article}
\title{*YOUR TITLE HERE*}
\author{*YOUR NAME HERE*}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
Then, you can go ahead and type your comments; remember LaTeX ignores spacing between words and sentances, it modifies the spacing to format the document better. % and $ need to be escaped with \, and when you are done with the document, end it with this line:
\end{document}
That's the whole banana. Now run latex *filename.tex and then dvips *filename*.dvi -o *filename*.ps and then ps2pdf *filename.ps* *filename.pdf* to get a PDF file. If you want to do it in a slightly more complicated way, you can add \usepackage{hyperref} right between \documentclass{article} and \title{*title*} and then run pdflatex *filename*.tex to get a better PDF file out.
Better introductions are available on the net, as are good books and good help.
Daniel
I am also an alien, not the one from outer space but the one from another country. So, here is my 3 cents for the internet communities in US:
/.! Is there anything in US law that control copy-protection technologies for copyrighted work? "Copy-protection technologies" here means a mechanism that prevent copying copyright work which may be an application of any encryption technology, but may be NOT! This term is referred to as the copyright protection systems under title 17 sec.1201. Anyway, I hope that you get my point.)
One major goal of DMCA is to protect many intellectual properties. That is great. However, the provisions against circumventing copy-protection technologies is not fair. Circumventing copy-protection technologies is itself an intellectual work and should be protected under the title. On the other hand, unless the copy-protection technologies are protected by patents or this title, they do not deserve to be protected as such. Some uses of circumventing copy-protection technologies besides to provide interoperability are to improvement performance and burden created by the slow and huge protection mechanisms or to simply detect malfunction copy-protection mechanism that may be used to expose the end user's privacy or any other rights of the end user. This may create a problem because there isn't (not sure) any provision that control the use of copy-protection technologies. (pause, hey
Doesn't surprise me. The IRS had their tax forms available in postscript form on their website, but they were self extracting executables. So much for Macintosh and UNIX users.
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.
------------------>8 cut here---------------------
21 January 2000
A Comment.
Librarian: I seek to comment on questions 3, 4, 18, 21 and 22 posed in DOCID:fr24no99-23, "Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" with regard specifically to the class of copyrighted works known as DVD (Digital Versatile Disk).
DVD's are a popular new format for the distribution and playback of motion pictures. The DVD format is controlled by a standards organization known as the DVD Consortium. To ensure and safeguard against unlawful duplication, the content has been encrypted; only a DVD player (a console unit or computer software) authorized by the DVD consortium is allowed access to a decryption key. This key is necessary for playback.
Computer software for the playback of DVDs is widespread and common for both Apple Macintosh computers and PC's running Microsoft Windows. However, there is currently no software for several other PC based operating systems: Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS/2, and several others, nor do any companies with a license from the DVD Consortium have any plans for creating such software. Thus, there is a significant population of computer users who cannot lawfully use DVD technology, namely those running Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS/2 or any other non-Microsoft Windows operating system.
It is my opinion that those who reverse engineer DVD encryption systems to ensure interoperability of DVD products on officially unsupported platforms should be exempt from the clauses in the DMCA prohibiting circumvention of access control technologies. I have in mind, of course, the authors of deCSS, software designed to defeat DVD encryption, and the LiViD project, a group working on creating a DVD player for Linux (which relies on deCSS, and is intended for legal viewing of properly acquired DVDs).
This leads into question number eighteen, twenty-one and twenty-two: with the widespread availability of deCSS, nearly anyone with a computer and some knowledge of computer programming may decode a DVD. To this point DVD encryption has been very weak; this of course facilitated its circumvention. Even if it had been strong, though, it would have been circumvented eventually: no security is perfect. Suppose, for example, that DVDs have been given newer, incredibly strong encryption technologies that ensured only licensed players could decrypt a DVD: it could still be circumvented by merely tapping the cable that connected a player to a television: this signal could be captured and recorded onto another format. Take also into account that most motion pictures are released onto VHS tapes: this format has no built in security at all, yet motion picture producers still use the format widely, because it is popular. Thus, even if copying DVDs becomes widespread, I dare opine that sales of motion pictures in any format will not be harmed.
Thus, I posit for your consideration, that access control technologies are in the end potentially harmful to consumers, as it can, under certain (and not uncommon) circumstances limit availability of copyrighted works to those who wish to lawfully obtain them, as evidenced by the problems with DVDs. Further, I posit that a lack of access control technology has not hurt copyright holders in the past: if illegal copying of VHS cassettes or CD audio disks had been widespread enough to cut deeply into their sales, entertainment companies would have dropped the format for something different: neither VHS nor CD format have been dropped, nor are there publicly available plans to do so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I further argue that any circumvention of access control technology does not and cannot harm producers of copyrighted content; further, I conclude that the availability of access control circumvention is a boon to the consumer, allowing for greater choice of formats and an insurance that any given format will be interoperable with any and all hardware and software that are capable of interoperating with said format.
-------------->8 cut here-----------------
yes, you wrote the software all by yourself
(but we'll say you stole trade secrets)
yes, you did it without signing an NDA
(but we'll say the shrinkwrap license counted)
yes, you did it without stealing code
(but we'll say you illegally reverse engineered it)
yes, you did all this solely for the purpose of viewing dvds
(but we'll say you did all this solely for piracy)
yes, you purchased your dvd discs and drive legally
(but we'll say that your fair-use rights don't count)
yes, you have never created an illegal copy of any of our titles
(but we'll say that you are a thief and a pirate)
we are above the law because we have more money than you
we control your courts and we write your laws
democracy, freedom, liberty... not for you...
It is a little off topic but maybe this is an idea about how to distribute the source for decss legally.
Take one ascii file, say the declaration of indipendance.
Take another file that is the ascii representation of a really long number.
The source of one program that breaks the second file into chucks of 3 digits, this 3 digit number references a character in the first file and writes it out. By the time you work through the second file you have written out the source to decss.
Now what can be banned.
1) The distribution of the declaration of independance?
2) The ascii representation of a number? I don't think so.
3) A program that does not break any copyright protection at all?
In fact you could mirror any 2 of the above and what can be proven?
Just a thought anyway, what do you think?
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
I seem to remember that whoever owned the beta vcr system did not allow anyone to make clones of the tapes or machines while the vhs format seemed to be open to whoever wanted to follow the standard. Both systems were stereophonic and the beta tapes were smaller. I also seem to remember beta being superior in other aspects too. The point is that BETA DIED FAST. One factor was that the owners kept beta closed from the public. I don't know if vhs was developed from any reverse engineering of beta systems or not. I may have been incorrect somewhere in this post but it has been how many years now? chuck12
Yes, yes! Send lots of messages complaining about the format your comments need to be sent in.
We want our Men In Washington to be trained. When they hear the word Linux, or Open Source, we want them to automatically translate to "annoying pedantic geeks." You voice can count. This could be the opportunity in a lifetime to give Linux a black eye in Washington.
I know this has been posted already but I'd hate to read this person's uninformed answer and consider it fact
They say that they prefer it to be emailed, and that if you must snail mail it (hard copy) then you should send the original with 15 copies.
Enjoy,
MxPx
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
How many people will see this article two days from now, after it has faded into the archives of "old slashdot news"? I suspect that there will be a bombardment of comments to the copyright office today that will trickle off as we near the deadline.
I propose that an ad banner should be created, pointing to a central source for advocacy, (http://www.opendvd.org maybe?) ... Containing by then a copy of this story, an advocacy mini-howto, and a link to the copyright office comment box. If this ad were to run on the Andover network of sites (and maybe also be picked up by traffic-heavy sites with opendvd-friendly admins as well... linux.com?), we might get more thurough feedback on this important issue, even after the slashdot effect dies away.
What do you think?
-Mike
So does anyone actually use deCSS for anything? I read all the comments since the controversy began and found only 1 person who actually tried to use it. This is a controversy based on principle and has nothing to do with being able to watch DVDs on a Linux box. As such, we can only expect the MPAA to win as students lose interest in fighting. Nobody's complaining about not being able to write mp3 encoders anymore.
Go one step further - create the banner add, and use stenography to encode the DeCSS code as part of the ad. Or, you could split the code into 3-4 chunks, and create 3-4 different ads, saying something like "1/4 of the reason the MPAA is scared out of their wits.", along with a bitmap representation for the chunk o' code... make it an animated image, and have that fade away to say "Collect all four."
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Along w/ that letter I suggest you write a /polite/ letter to some of your favorite studios telling them that you won't buy their movies on DVD if you aren't allowed to watch them on your choice of platforms. This two way attack would cause double the pressure. :)
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
The "reverse engineering" exemption in the DMCA must be interpreted to permit any activity with the effect of overcoming illegal tying by content vendors.
I suggest mentioning tying when commenting on this issue. Tying arrangements, sometimes called "tie-in sales", where you have to buy something you don't want to get something you do want, are the issue monopolies usually lose antitrust cases on. IBM lost this one several times (compatible mainframe peripherals) AT&T lost (long distance), and the movie industry lost (forcing "B" movies on theater owners). So there's good history here to remember and exploit.
the government is supposed to serve US they are the ones taking OUR MONEY via TAXES under THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT... now they are trying to tell us that WE CANT USE MATERIAL WE PAYED FOR UNLESS WE HAVE MICROSOFT WINDOWS THERE IS NO REASON TO BE POLITE OR CALM STICK IT TO THE FUCKERS
...which may still be LEGAL. But that's beside the point...
Your basic argument is flawed. You're essentially stating that DVDs ARE copy protected because it is too difficult to make a bitwise copy.
Yet you continue on to say that economics and storage concerns do NOT present enough difficulty in copying because people will get around these limits sooner or later.
You can't have it both ways. DVDs are not copy protected by encryption, because copies can be made without circumventing the encryption. Difficulty of accomplishing that task is not the issue. That is a simple fact.
SEAL
Many people are now buying DVD's to replace the video tapes that they bought a year ago. Even if the DVD code hadn't been cracked a new technology will be released and you will have to buy everything all over again anyways (my guess is the next technology will be some type of ROM card).
By forcing the consumer to use only 'licensed' devices to play DVD's (or any other media) you are also forcing them to have to upgrade those devices when the industry decides it's time for an upgrade.
I hate video tape and I watched very few movies at home because of it. I waited a long time for the stupid DVD standards to settle down before I bought a player because I wanted to avoid the problem mentioned above (technology change). I purchased my player about 2 weeks before this whole DeCSS thing blew up. My feeling is that if they (the movie industry) decide to scrap the current standard and produce another one, I, as a consumer, will just decide to scrap the whole format.
LRJ
And why would you need to use a program to generate a copyrighted encryption program? Most available encryption software is already copyrighted.
--
I know most of the replies about the DMCA are going to revolve around DeCSS, but you could probably help your chances in getting your voice heard if you approached it form a less-iffy state. DeCSS really doesn't scream legitimacy since its first release WAS a program to copy DVDs and not simply a DVD player. Theres also the issue of them reverse engineering Xings player and all.... its just not a very solid issue to stand behind.
However, there is a very solid issue pending in courts now - Streambox VCR. they are being charged with the exact same thing because they circumvented RealNetwork's copyrighting "switch" that they put in real streams served from RealServers. Now, Streambox VCR is _directly_ analogous to using a VCR to record a television program. This application, and this legal battle, could more easily be used to persuade the government that this sort of leniency is a good thing.
And listen to the sane posts, please don't flame, it will not help our situation at all.
Esperandi
Explain to them how Sony and other japanese companies want to lock up the US market and keep small American companies from being able to compete as effectively.
Could someone give us the poop on region codes, please?
From what I picked up in an earlier discussion, they sound like nothing more than software support for a price-fixing scheme. If this is the case, then it should perhaps be mentioned in our statements (and may well be grounds for a class-action lawsuit, to boot).
But if "price fixing" is a misinterpretation/misrepresentation of the function of region codes, then of course they should not be mentioned. So if you've got a clue on this, please share it with those of us who don't. Thanx.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Constitutionality of the DMCA?
Price fixing plus preventing movies from being distributed on DVD before being released in the cinemas in the same countries. I hear that they sell much better in these "late release" countries, because everyone has been watching reviews and trailers for ages.
Actually this has been ruled illegal in some countries (or at least one: New Zealand). It probably would be in the US, if it wasn't that it is profit mainly for US companies, and most of the releases come out first in the US.
I think that Hollywood is embarresd that they fucked up by using easily cracked encryption, and that they don't have controll over people any more. This tech could possibly be used for "ripping" your own movies, for instance. They spent millions on R&D for this, and they are embarresed to see some guy from Sweeden crack their encryption. They can't seem to get it through their head that you don't need the original software/hardware to reverse eingeneer something. This is probally due to arrogance. They probally thought that the encryption would take years to decode, but they were proven wrong. They have already tried to keep it out of the media, and are doing quite good at it.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
Guess who's one of the big time players on the DMCA effort? Once again, SONY.
SONY=Stupid Old Nasty Yakuza
Trying to subjugate the American people. Information wants to be free!
Section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA (the section used to sue the DeCSS distributors) explicitly is not about copying but about access control. Obviously there is a big difference, since copy protection is the entire historical purpose of copyright law, not access protection.
Private fair use puts some reasonable limits on copying, but private access to legally purchased copyrighted materials is a fundamental right and the DMCA restricts it by making the tools to achieve that access illegal.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
You can often run a self extracting executable through unzip to uncompress the data.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
So, they're going to put the electronic letters they receive on their web site ? All of them ? Who's going to post them a .pdf file of the decss source to put on their site ? That'll stuff them up.
The 1201(a)(1) only protects copyrighted work. When the first CSS protected DVD work is no longer copyrighted, it will probably be legal to distribute DeCSS since it will then have the legitimate commercial use of decrypting public domain DVDs. This will occur in around 2090. The chances of DVDs still being playable then seem slim.
Even worse, congress seems bent on extending Copyrights indefinitely. Disney can't loose the copyright on Mickey after all. Copyrights have been extended retroactively (how's does retroactive copyright promote art?) at an average rate of one year per year since 1962. So if you think that DMCA is unconstitutional on time grounds, read Opposing Copyright Extension and be prepared to get really mad.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
The Week Online with DRCNet (stopthedrugwar.org) has learned that Newsweek Magazine decided late Friday to postpone publication of an excerpt of a Gore biography featuring eyewitness accounts of Al Gore's regular and continued drug use over a period of years. The drug use covers a period of Gore's life from his days at Harvard up until the very week he declared his candidacy for Congress in 1976, sources told The Week Online. The book, by Bill Turque of Newsweek's Washington bureau, quotes both named and unnamed sources, including John Warnecke, son of John Carl Warnecke - architect of the John F. Kennedy grave site, and a long-time friend of the Gores. An exclusive interview with Mr. Warnecke follows this story.
The excerpt had been scheduled to run in Newsweek's January 18th issue, just days before the start of the Democratic primaries. A previous excerpt from the book appeared in the December 6 issue. In that excerpt, which covered Gore's Vietnam experience, Tipper Gore was said to have spent considerable time, distraught with worry for her husband's safety, at Warnecke's house while Gore was overseas.
The Gore biography, to be published by Houghton-Mifflin, was itself originally scheduled for a January release, but that too has been delayed until March 23. A spokesman for Houghton-Mifflin told The Week Online that the delay was "normal."
Al Gore has previously admitted using marijuana, but those admissions fall well short of the type of regular, even chronic use described by Warnecke. Warnecke also says that Gore used marijuana regularly for at least four years after the Vice-President claims to have stopped.
On November 7, 1987, in the wake of Douglas H. Ginsburg's failed Supreme Court nomination, Gore told the Bergen County Record that he had smoked marijuana in college and in the army but had not used it in the past fifteen years. The New York Times reported on November 8, 1987:
Mr. Gore said he last used marijuana when he was 24. He said he first tried the drug at the end of his junior year at Harvard and used it again at the beginning of his senior year the next fall. He also said he used the drug "once or twice" while off-duty in an Army tour at Bien Hoa, Vietnam; on several occasions while he was in graduate school at Vanderbilt University and when he was an employee of a Nashville newspaper (The Nashville Tennessean). On November 11, 1987, Gore was quoted in UPI, saying "We have to be honest and candid and open in dealing with the (drug) problem."
Mr. Turque refused to comment to The Week Online. Roy Burnett, a spokesman for Newsweek, acknowledged that the magazine was preparing to run a new excerpt from the book "in the coming weeks." Asked whether there in fact had been a delay, and if so, the reasons behind it, Burnett would say only that it is Newsweek's policy not to discuss its editorial practices.
Gore, as part of the Clinton Administration, has presided over a drug war policy that has led to the arrest and incarceration of record numbers of non-violent drug offenders. In 1998, according to the Justice Department, there were 682,885 Americans arrested on marijuana charges, 88% of whom were arrested for possession. A recent study by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (www.cjcj.org) reported that the incarcerated population of the U.S. will reach two million on or around February 15, 2000. Of those, more than half are non-violent offenders according to CJCJ.
- --------------------------------
On February 8, 1999, Vice President Gore personally presented the administration's Drug Control Strategy at a Washington, DC press conference. During his remarks, Gore spoke about the "spiritual problem" of drug abuse and about the need for more positive opportunities for young people. Despite this, however, the strategy allocates approximately 2/3 of the federal drug budget on enforcement, with less than one third to be spent on treatment and education combined.
At that press conference, Gore, perhaps inadvertently, pointed out the very problem inherent in a class of political leaders who prosecute a failing drug war while hiding their own experiences with illicit drugs, and the message that sends to young people.
"And if young people... feel there's phoniness and hypocrisy and corruption and immorality," Gore said, "then they are much more vulnerable to the drug dealers, to the peers who tempt them with messages that are part of a larger entity of evil."
-----------------------------------------------
INTERVIEW with
John C. Warnecke
Exclusive to The Week Online
By Adam J. Smith
John C. Warnecke worked as a reporter for the Nashville Tennessean and was a close personal friend of the Gores. Warnecke is the son of John Carl Warnecke, architect for the John F. Kennedy gravesite. The Week Online spoke with Mr. Warnecke by phone this week.
The Week Online: Mr. Warnecke, Vice President Gore has said that he used marijuana 'on several occasions' and 'not since he was twenty-four.' But you say that you have first-hand knowledge that his use was more extensive than he has previously admitted?
John C. Warnecke: Yes, I do. I have first hand knowledge that he has not told the truth about his drug use. Al Gore and I smoked regularly, as buddies. Marijuana, hash. I was his regular supplier. I didn't deal dope, I just gave it to him. We smoked more than once, more than a few times, we smoked a lot. We smoked in his car, in his house, we smoked in his parents' house, in my house... we smoked on weekends. We smoked a lot.
Al Gore and I were smoking marijuana together right up to the time that he ran for Congress in 1976. Right up through the week he declared for that race, in fact.
WOL: And after that?
JCW: After that he began to distance himself from me. I was bad for his political career.
WOL: During the course of the 1988 campaign, you told the New York Times and the Nashville Tennessean that you had smoked marijuana with Al Gore...
JCW: A few times. And I told them that he didn't like it.
WOL: Why didn't you tell the truth at that time?
JCW: I was put under a lot of pressure to lie.
WOL: Who was pressuring you?
JCW: The answer to that question is in the excerpt that Newsweek decided not to run. It's in the Turque book. Right now, I'm going to leave it at that.
WOL: So what made you decide to come forward now?
JCW: It's because I've been under a lot of stress. My conscience has been killing me ever since then. I actually came forward months ago when Bill (Turque) interviewed me for the book. I had been told that this story would come out, that the public would know this by now. But then the book date was pushed back, and Newsweek pulled the story. The only thing that I can assume is that Newsweek is covering this up, protecting the Gore campaign by refusing to run this before the primaries. I decided that I had to go ahead and tell it. I really feel that the public has a right to know this at this time, and I was having trouble living with myself being part of the hypocrisy and the lies.
WOL: Hypocrisy?
JCW: Yes. The drug laws in this country are ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people, mostly poor young people, people who don't come from privileged backgrounds and wealthy families. It just doesn't make sense that we have a war on drugs. It doesn't work, and the politicians refuse to talk about it. That suffering and that hypocrisy has weighed very heavily on my conscience. I have a saying that I use, and that is: "who raised you?" In other words, were you raised with a conscience? Mine has made my life very difficult ever since I became part of the hypocrisy. I couldn't live with the lie anymore. Not and stay sober.
WOL: How long have you been sober?
JCW: Twenty-one years.
WOL: Congratulations. So, after twenty-one years of sobriety, do you consider Al Gore a criminal for his drug use?
JCW: I don't consider drug use a criminal act. Is drug use a poor choice? Yes. Is it risky behavior? Yes. Does it make any sense -- has it gotten us anywhere as a society to criminalize it? Absolutely not. Unless you consider it progress that we're spending more on prisons than on higher education, and still the drugs are everywhere. But politicians refuse to talk about this issue honestly.
WOL: And what would you have Al Gore say about it?
JCW: I wish Al would come clean. I wish that all politicians would come clean and deal with this in a rational manner. Look at all the damage the silence is causing.
WOL: And Newsweek?
JCW: Newsweek cut off information that the American people should have had in order to make an informed decision. Knowing that Al Gore used drugs considerably more than he has admitted is important. Let the American people draw their own conclusions about it, let them decide how important it is.
We need to quit lying about it. Quit hiding it. To my mind, Newsweek censored this, they covered it up. And I think that the perpetuation of that silence over time has allowed us to go on jailing kids. Kids who are much younger and less equipped to deal with life than Al Gore was when we were using drugs together.
I want any candidate that is running for president to be honest about their drug use. And then we can start being honest with ourselves about how best to deal with society's drug problem.
WOL: So you don't think that his past drug use, even his extensive drug use, should disqualify Al Gore from the nomination?
JCW: I'm going to vote for Al Gore.
When will the world learn, LEGALIZE this stuff
God united nations are nazi fuckers really controlled by aliens or something...
WHy did they make it illegal, to make drug cartels and fund CIA with billions?
And what will this "vote" tell the Powers That Be (tm)?
That you don't have the money for a DVD player?
That you already have a VCR and don't flip around in your movies enough to make a DVD worth while?
That you are boycotting our decedant entertainment culture?
That you are a technology cynic and think DVDs will go the way of the laserdisc?
That you only watch porn and thats mostly on VHS or on-line?
OR...
That you are part of a tiny minority of americans who have any idea what this debate is about and how it pretains to *nix users.
Funny, I don't think the few people who undrstand this issue boycotting will cause enough of a blib in the market for anyone to even notice, much less consider the source. Sending in a letter, on the other hand makes your position exactingly clear and actually gets the message to the people that matter. Vote for yourself, don't expect some market analyst to imagine your motivation.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
I know this is off topic but one of the devices that win2k says it will delete is my Adobe PDF printer driver. This is the fake printer you can print to creating a PDF in the process. Anybody have a clue as to why Win2K hates it? In addition I noticed that it would remove the MPEG codecs from my ATI Video player.... Very strange...
As somebody whose last patent took 3 years for them to process and who still has pending ones... PLEASE DON"T GIVE THEM MORE EXCUSES FOR BEING EVEN SLOWER!!! GIVE THE PTO LESS TO READ NOT MORE