Slashdot Mirror
Comments on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(Note to would-be commenters: make sure you read the rules before sending in comments. You can send comments in plain text or as a PDF file [see createpdf.adobe.com], but it must be as an e-mail attachment, not in the body, addressed to 1201@loc.gov.)
Comments on 17 USC Section 1201(a)(1), Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Michael Sims
76 Swan St.
Staten Island, NY 10301
(718) 556-1002
<michael@slashdot.org>
David O. Carson
General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R
P.O. Box 70400
Southwest Station
Washington, DC 20024
By e-mail: 1201@loc.gov
Comments on 17 USC Section 1201(a)(1), Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Dear Copyright Office,
My comments on this section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act are simple: I recommend that the Librarian of Congress find that enforcement of Section 1201(a)(1) will adversely affect non-infringing uses of copyrighted works for ALL CLASSES of copyrighted material, and thus the prohibition in subparagraph (A) should not apply to any user for any copyrighted work for the next three years.
Digital copyright protection systems offer the potential for copyright holders to totally eliminate any "unauthorized" uses through technology. The copyright system employed on Digital Versatile Discs (DVD's), for example, does not permit users to make copies, grab still screenshots or audio snippets, or even to play the disc in an unauthorized piece of hardware, on an unauthorized operating system, or in an unauthorized country. This is the model for future digital distribution systems. No technological system can tell whether a user is making "fair use" copying or not, so they restrict all copying.
Users already pay for whatever unauthorized copying may occur. See 17 USC Sec. 1004, which describes the government-mandated royalty payments on digital audio recording devices and media, which go to producers of copyrighted content. Everyone who purchases any equipment relating to digital audio pays a tax directly into the pockets of the recording industry, whether they ever infringe any copyrights or not. These forced royalties were put into place specifically to compensate copyright holders for the alleged "casual copying" that users would perform.
There is already plenty of copyright law on the books. Copyright infringement is unlawful and punishable. By definition, a corporation pursuing claims under the copyright infringement laws is enforcing its rights to the maximum extent of the law - so what use is the prohibition against circumventing access control measures? The only use of such a prohibition is to attack conduct that is NOT infringing, yet still involves some sort of access to a copyrighted work, since infringing conduct could be attacked under other parts of the copyright laws. The usual name for conduct that isn't infringing but involves copying from a copyrighted work is "fair use".
And of course "effectively controls access to a work" reaches far beyond a copyright holder's rights under our current laws. The phrase is not "effectively controls copying of a work", though even that would eliminate fair use copying. Copyright is the right to prevent copying. The right to prevent or regulate access to a specific work is one that has never been enforced by copyright - when one book vendor tried to do so, the Supreme Court ruled against them, in BOBBS-MERRILL CO. v. STRAUS, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). Once a book is sold the copyright holder loses all powers over it - the purchaser can sell it again, loan it out, or read it in the country of his choice. Under section 1201(a)(1), a digital book author could restrict any or all of these abilities, and violating the restrictions would be grounds for civil and criminal penalties, including up to five years in prison. Once more: reading a book in a location or manner not authorized by the copyright holder could land you five years in prison. In a world that is rapidly moving to digitization of all works of creativity and scholarship, this is a frightening thought.
I'm not sure I can emphasize this enough. The only purposes which 1201(a)(1) can be used for is to restrict consumers from non-infringing copying and from accessing the copyrighted content in the time, place and manner of their choosing, which has never been a legitimate subject of copyright rights. That is, if a lawsuit is brought against someone, only two situations can exist: either that person was actually infringing copyright, in which cases claims could be brought under both the copyright infringement statutes and this circumvention provision; or the person was not actually infringing, in which case the claim under this provision would necessarily affect non-infringing conduct. In the first case this provision is simply tacking on more liability to the copyright infringement codes (which Congress should do independently if it wishes); in the second case it is making tort-feasors or criminals out of persons who have not infringed copyright in any fashion.
So we've established that the only conduct which section 1201(a)(1) affects is conduct which is non-infringing copying, or unauthorized access. Nothing in the law requires copyright holders to set "fair" standards for access to works - for instance, a digital book, perhaps a work by Stephen King or Danielle Steele, could cost $5 for individuals to buy, but $500 for libraries to buy. The mass market books could be issued with the "access restriction" that the purchaser may not lend the book to anyone else, ever, and thus the library would have no recourse but to purchase the $500 lending-permitted version. Access could be further restricted by only allowing the purchasing library to lend the book out; inter-library loans would be a thing of the past. Or maybe digital books would expire after a set time period; trying to gain access to them afterwards would be a violation. Naturally, copyright holders will seek to maximize their profits by setting the most restrictive access terms that the market will accept. Conduct like this is allowed by the law, hugely profitable to copyright holders, and under section 1201(a)(1), taking any action to circumvent it is illegal.
The Federal Register notice asks for specific examples of abuse. As an example, the standard for Digital Versatile Discs forces DVD players disable the user's ability to fast-forward when instructed by the disc. This allows copyright holders to include advertisements in the content which the user has no choice but to watch. If I want to be able to make certain non-infringing uses of a DVD I've purchased - such as watching only the 90% of the content which is not advertisements while skipping past the rest - the access controls in the work prohibit me from doing so, and the DMCA prohibits me from circumventing those access controls. There are hundreds or thousands of examples of abuses related to the software field. Many software programs limit their use to a single machine CPU, prevent users from making back-up copies of the original software, inform on users via the Internet to the company which produced the software, and otherwise limit the user's ability to copy or access the software in the manner of his choosing.
Access controls will also adversely affect the ability of libraries to archive copyrighted works. Digital Versatile Discs may last as little as 5-10 years (that is how long CD's last) and the access controls built into all DVD players and recorders mean that is impossible for a library to transfer a copyrighted work to a new medium for archival purposes. While a library's rare book collection can be digitized so that even when preservation efforts fail, an authentic copy remains available, no such preservation measures are allowed by the DMCA.
I hope I have made my point adequately. Honestly, the Librarian's action on this matter is likely to have little practical effect. Section 1201(a)(2) of the law, already in effect, outlaws the production, importation or distribution of any devices (including software code) which would circumvent access control measures. This part of the DMCA is already being used against individuals who wanted to play DVD's on an "unauthorized" computer operating system, Linux, and constructed a device to allow them to play lawfully-purchased DVD's on computers running Linux. The outcome of that lawsuit is not yet determined, but it is clear that making lawful, non-infringing uses of lawfully purchased DVD's (the defendants have not been accused of any copyright infringement whatsoever) is being hampered by the DMCA.
Thus, even if the Librarian accepts my recommendation and negates the effect of 1201(a)(1) for the next three years, a library may still find itself in the position of being permitted to circumvent an access control measure but not being allowed to construct or otherwise obtain a "device" which would allow them to perform it, unless the library desired to be sued by a copyright holder. However, if the Librarian were to reject 1201(a)(1) for all copyrighted works, this would send a strong message to Congress that the current attitude toward protecting copyrighted works, which involves no consideration of the fair use rights of the public, is unacceptable to the library community.
-- Michael Sims
Feb. 16, 2000
How does this effect me?
Fight Spammers!
Out of seventy-one comments filed and available so far, only Time Warner's is favorable toward the DMCA
Keep in mind that this is in an online forum, most likely visited by those who are seriously concerned about it. The only thing this means is that 70 people are pissed. This certainly does not say anything about {public,community,national,*} attitude toward the matter. And, frankly, they most likely won't care anyway.
// zyqqh
But sometimes you just have to shake your head and say "bwbwbbwbwbwbwbwbwbwbwbwbwbw"
7.
My studio - www.graylands.ca
Buy a senator or two. Where's the Open Source lobbying board?
Send ESR and the rest to Washington. Give them lots of money. Have them form a PAC and make a bribe^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contribution to a few politicians. It's surprising what a little cash could do.
Companies spend millions on this sort of thing; why do you think they have lawmakers in their pockets? Of course, this would require us to get enough money somehow.
And send Jon Katz, too. They're used to long rambling speeches there. Maybe he should run for office
Whatever judges and legislators rule, they cannot change history. CSS is cracked, DeCSS will live forever within the global net (which is under the total control of no one, not even the US or the MPAA). It's like prohibition and alcohol. The booze never stopped flowing. Eventually the other side submitted to the futility. MPAA; DMCA; Legislators. You will eventually yield, because you can never stop us. Oh. Yeah.
somewhere important, that would be seen by both sides (ie CNN, not /.), and they just send the results to the copyright office. I know there's more than 71 people who care (I do, and that at least makes 72, if not 72.3), but most of us are not willing to write a long well thought out position paper on the thing.
It seems they don't care about your attitudes toward the DMCA or DVD or anything like that. They just want to know if the DMCA has any exceptions. I think sending them a bunch of garbage about "dood the DMCA sux" isn't going to help much.
Of course, I might have missed something crucial on there. Anyone want to fill me in?
Got HTML? Want LaTeX? Try html2latex
What is your position on sugar price supports?
response
Which position would get me more money.
I know it's not an exact quote, but it's been several years since I watched the movie.
Fight Spammers!
Compaq reverse engineered IBM proprietary BIOS and created the first PC compatible. Connectix reverse engineered the Sony Playstation and created a compatible software clone. Coleco reverse engineered the Atari 2600 to create a hardware compatible clone. Franklin closed the Apple II BIOS and made compativles. Cyrix/AMD/Transmeta continue to RE and make Intel compatible chips. Who are you, Mr. MPAA and DVD Consortium, to dispute the collectively combined decades of legal precedent set against your opinion?
LOL! Let's just pop a DVD into my Linux machine... Hmm, nope, no technological access protections here!
The constitution gives legislative power solely to Congress for good reason.
Other recent examples:
What: Medical privacy regulations
What: Mandatory use of SSN's for PO box holders
What: "Know Your Customer" proposal for mandatory bank account activity profiling
The list goes on and on. I am afraid that until we force Congress to assert its sole right to legislate, we will be running around trying to stamp out these fires as they pop up. Inevitably some of this shit is going to slip by. We need to solve the root problem.
As I see it there is one primary problem in how many have chosen to deal with DeCSS. Whether it's constitutional or not the DMCA has provisions reading (this is from the judge's ruling):
"No person shall . . . offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology . . . that---
"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];
"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]; or
"(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].''10
Portion C of this is most important. Most of the activities of the open source community thus far have been to disseminate the code as widely as possible, this is only hurting the case. By publicly flaunting the law--printing the code on t-shirts etc--many persons have made it look like the original intent of DeCSS was to pirate. No matter what the defendants might say now it is almost impossible to prove to a judge that the true motives behind spreading the code were to play DVDs in Linux. In fact I personally don't believe that was the motive of most of the people posting the code, they were just trying to flaunt the system; all fine and dandy until the system catches up.
If the community had chosen to deal with DeCSS as it was origninally intended I have to think we would have a much better chance of winning the case.
Checkout taccom my worl war II simulator
The Time-Warner response likens CSS to the scrambling of cable signals. In this capacity, for only prohibitting things like digital versions of fscktv, I don't feel it strongly infringes on my freedom.
They claim they're just like the cable companies; that they're preventing access only to people who haven't paid for a work, which is simply not true.
From item 5 of the text:
The referenced item 3 basically says that lawful users now have convenient access to more works, but ignores the fact that they have less access to these works. Certainly by not being able to view DVDs on GNU/Linux systems because of the technical protection measures, these works are less available to us, especially if VHS fades behind the growth of DVDs.
Indeed, copyright often proports to exist to give corpor^H^H^H^H^H^Hauthors safety in releasing their works. Time-Warner argues that by giving authors more control they will be more willing to continue releasing their works. How many works have not been done soley because of fears of copying, fears that they'll only make $300 million off the latest movie instead of $310 million? That they might have less money to make the next movie doesn't factor into whether they're willing to release an individual movie.
Any law against actions which aren't easily detectable and don't direct damage anyone are hard to enforce. Copyright is no exception. It takes a police state to do this. Just because infringement has become easier and more undetectable doesn't mean we should start throwing away our fair use rights.
Because the court case you avoid might just be your own.
The response by Glenn and Mary Everhart makes an interesting case for a particular "exception" class, those who need to enforce security precautions. The note asserts that first, the issue is not about being able to copy (they plainly say that it is easy to copy and play the encrypted material), and second, that by making it illegal to break the encryption they make security at banks and other organizations harder -- as confidential and private inforamtion about persons in a bank could be encrypted using such a mechanism; and verifying that confidential inforamtion is not walking out the door with a walkman should not be a criminal act. Thoughts?
If content is copy protected and available only to those with the means to "pay" for access, then does this not obviate the copyright quid pro quo? A creator is granted a copy right in exchange for releasing the art to the public. This is how the useful arts are promoted in the USA. What about the libraries?
The difference is that this time there is a newly passed law which claims to make said reverse engineering and "fair use" illegal. Previous court prescedent, as long as it isn't constitutional in nature, is irrelevant. Acts of Congress can override a court decision easily, as long as the new Act is constitutional.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the DMCA was an Act passed by both houses of Congress, then sent to President Clinton, who signed it.
The enactment of the DMCA was not, therefore, an act of the sole discretion of the executive branch of the Government.
Compaq reverse engineered IBM proprietary BIOS and created the first PC compatible.
There is a slight difference here. It is not possible to copyright "function", so the ability to reverse engeneer in order to produce a chip that is functionaly the same, was held up by the courts.
What the MPAA has done is to use the fact that DeCSS's sole purpose was to defeat an anti copyright measure. If someone was to add DeCSS to a player and distribute it that way, the (IMO) would not be breaking the law.
They can pass all the laws they want and there's no way they'll ever stop me from getting my 0-day warez, my pirate movies (anything that comes out in the theatre is on my hard drive within a week) or my mp3's. They can just give up now, because they'll never win. Copy protection only hurts consumers, crackers will always be able to get around it, so there's not really much point. But hey, I guess it keeps people in jobs trying to think up new protection schemes and keeps the crackers entertained breaking them.
I notice that many comments to the librarian point out that VHS tapes are not copy protected. This is not entirely true; most commercially recorded VHS tapes use Macrovision encoding to prevent copying with consumer-grade VCRs.
Macrovision is also used by licensed DVD players. The players are required to apply Macrovision encoding to the decrypted analog video stream. This prevents copying DVDs to VHS, and may also hinder the ability to re-digitize the signal using an analog video capture card.
It specifically stats 'controls access' what the fuck does that got to do with copyright. This IS not protecting the copyright holders media. This is not protecting the consumer. this is protecting monopolistic liscensing to hardware and software manufactures to allow them to ACCESS the copyrighted media. Now personally I don't think this belongs in a copyright section, cuase it does not prevent copying.
Congress did assert its right to legislate. It created these very departments, and gave them madates to do what they do. These madates, however, are not very specific, which is as it should be, should Congress determine which drugs are safe, or should it be left to the FDA?
Congress also has the power to change there mandates and tell the department to do something else or not to do something. But even when these madates exist they do not go into effect, Congress also has to approve a budget that funds them, or the department cannot carry them out. So Congress approved of them not only once a long time ago but they are approved of every year, in the budget process. If Congress really had a problem with any orginaztions regulations or activities, they could easily do something about it.
However we do not want Congress tied up with things like drug approval or what is "safe food". And nor do we want a system where something like the Federal Reserve Board can easily be compeled to lower intrest rates because somebody needs to win an election.
> The difference is that this time there is a newly passed law...
Which is, of course, the whole point of the exercise: if you don't like decades of legal precedent, you buy a new law that explicitly sets the precedent aside.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Which is funny, because the Forces that would abuse such a law exist in the same society that, when I was in the 9th grade, handed me a copy of assorted works of Henry David Thoreau and said, "Read it. There will be test later."
The Enterainment Industry is driven by a market, and when a market decides that it doesn't need/want something, that Thing will die. The Industry is indeed very powerful, but there are more of Us. And can We help it that, from time to time, some of Us are smarter than Them? We are the market. Spread the damn word!
"Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respet for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."
Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1848.
--MessiahXI
Sorry if i havent read all replies, so this may have been covered, The author of this comment to the copyright office has presented a well worded response, backed up by legal precidence. Thank you for making this effort on behalf of all computer users.
The simple fact here is that companies like Time Warner are not afraid of the relatively few individuals who are going to make illegal copies of their work. What they are afraid of is that they won't be able to control the distribution of their material. Digitalization of everything from books to movies has made it possible for these companies to control not only when something will be released but also where and for how long. They are able to distribute US versions of DVD's which will not play in Europe for example and they are able to set restrictions on the use of the material that they distribute. If cracking the technology that enables these measures was not restricted then the whole scheme would not work. After all why sell a book once when you can sell it five times to the same person.
If this isn't stopped now, we'll all end up paying for it. Of course I don't have much hope that anything we say now will have any effect. It looks like our fate has been sealed.
Well folks there it is, could someone eloquently point out that not only is there a case of someones non-infringing use being adversly affected, its even happening before is the active date of October 28, 2000
I am an Australian, but when U.S. movie industry runs away from whats right and prossecutes before the law even comes into effect, what hope is there that for the rest of the consumer world? Maybe the U.S. will lose its dominence in the Movie Game. I can't see that as being bad.
cya, Andrew...
This is my sig, exciting huh!
Most TV tuner cards are capable of being used to view video tapes. This means that they can also record from tapes.
A few cards have software that detects copy protection and refuse to record, but most don't.
if the battle in the courts right now over DVD is lost it WILL hurt. Yes, I know the code is out there and it can never be repealed but there is more going on than that!
If the courts rule that, according to the DMCA, the reverse engineering that was done to create the DeCSS code is illegal then nobody can ever use it to create a commercial DVD player (in the US) without 1) doing do illegally or 2) paying licensing fees. Not only that, but it also sets a strong legal precendent for reverse engineering other things like DVD audio.
Without being able to legally reverse engineer DVD's nobody is going to be able to make and sell DVD players or DVD content without paying some licensing fees. That hurts! It gives a tremendous amount of money and control the the media monguls who control DVD.
Ten years from now when DVD software still costs money or is in the underground it should start to be clear how "this will effect you." And heaven forbid you should actually be trying to break into the movie business with a startup company of your own without paying license fees to create your DVD's.
I think now is a great time to try and get this legislation changed. Certainly the sooner the better.
That is all.
-Derek
P.S. This article explains it much better than I have.
Would it help if other people just signed your comment ?
Drowning these few bureaucrats under a flood of similar but poorly written messages may not be the best move. having a few hundred people say "and we agree with Mr. Simm" may be better.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
According to the MPAA,
To put it in less technical terms, a fair use defense might allow a user to quote a passage from a book but it does not follow that the user is allowed to break into a bookstore and steal a book.
Thats totally true. It also shouldn't be legal to break into a video shop and steal a disc.
Or we shouldn't be allowed to hack a cable box to get all the channels for free
While we're at it, it shouldn't be legal to open the shrink wrap without an approved pair of scissors
The point is that all these seem to be lumped together into the same category, but decrypting a disc is different from all of them.
It does (arguably) allow unauthorised copying.
It also allows legal copying (For example, Whatever Warner says, I can't produce a video review programme with clips from DVD's and distribute on video without circumventing the technological access controls).
Rather than trying to draw up a parallel with a non technological solution, we should be asking whether it is justifiable to ban free universal access in order to prevent an increase in piracy.
From the Time-Warner submission:
I really know zip about DVD, I just know I've seen it, and I like it! Now, is what Time-Warner says true? Won't a DVD player send a decrypted signal to a digital output? If that's the case, then I can see how the MPAA claims CSS is a copy protection schema, and not an access control one. Can someone please shed some light on this point?
If the MPAA will argue that increases in bandwidth make such access controls necessary, then we can say that increases in photocopiers and fax machines will let us fax an image of a dvd to everyone and then they can scan that in and play the movie. Thats just as realistic as someone paying ~$50 for the storeage space and days for a highspeed download. In fact if people were downloading 5gigs instead of screen shots it would become easy for them to be tracked down.
Just imagine the DoS from DVD piracy
If we can get physial media exemption then this law will come back to something realistic.
cya, Andrew...
This is my sig, exciting huh!
All of these situations would require access to the original unencrypted contents, and each one is for my own personal use.
So far for "no decrypted signal to digital output": from the point of view of the player software, the video board *is* a digital output...
A Norwegian schoolboy? Not bloody likely. He's a Norwegian schoolboy, DMCA does not apply in Norway (yet).
An ISP? Not bloody likely. Common carrier status protects ISPs.
John R. User from Newton, MA? Not bloody likely. He did not manufacture it. He did not import it (his ISP is in Newton, MA). Nor he offered to the public, provided, or otherwise trafficked in this technology. He merely used it.
IANAL but it looks like a whole subsection of DMCA is wasted. Actually two of them, 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1). I cant' believe it. Your Congress and your Senate are full of lawyers, and these lawyers can't protect interests of those who hired them (MPAA in this case). Any self-respecting hacker would do better.
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
I have not seen this argument before-- that access to unencrypted media is necessary for security purposes-- Information can be hidden in that data and the act of decrypting it to review it should not be illegal. This argument effectively seperates the DECRYPTION issue from the COPYING issue. In this case the data is being decrypted *not* to be played/enjoyed/etc for its entertainment-related content but rather as a security measure to be studied for its visual/numeric proprties.
(or is this already covered in another clause of the law?)
I also wonder if illegal information could be smuggled WITHIN THE ENCRYPTION ROUTINE itself. If so, then this is another way to legally prohibit outsiders from even checking to see what you're smuggling.
69 is a little bit overheated on some points, but interesting nonetheless. It addresses DVD and CSS directly. It's worth a read if you are thinking about submitting something. OTOH, I don't think this looks good...
The DMCA doesn't necessarily prevent the bank from analysing the software. The number of customers for the software will be very small, so supplying the source code under an NDA would be totally reasonable. Considering the security issues in a bank, this would normally be considered reasonable
Vednors who refuse to supply source should not be considered by the bank. The situation is not the same as the consumer market. There are very few people who actually want to know about the encryption on their DVD's. As long as their player plays it, why worry?
There is also a requirement for the copyright office to examine the impact of Section 1201(g) of the DMCA on "encrytion research" within one year of enaction.
They have a RFC here: US Patent Office Encryption Research RFC
Note comments must be in an acceptable format: PDF appears to be acceptable (and can be made from LaTeX, everybody's favourite wordprocessor, and other wordprocessors that everybody loves to hate).
I'd also strongly recommend reading the Act itself: DMCA
If I buy an old book that someone has taped shut for some reason, I am allowed to cut the tape and read the book I have purchased. If the book is in Japanese, I am allowed to read it if I know Japanese even if I am in America. Cutting the tape to open the book is not the same as stealing the book! Breaking CSS to play a legally owned DVD on my PC is not the same as stealing a DVD from the store!
If someone was to add DeCSS to a player and distribute it that way, the (IMO) would not be breaking the law.
Judge Kaplan disagrees with you. In his statement he claims (paraphrasing of course) that a program that circumvents access control whether it be for copying or playing on an "unauthorized" player are both equally illegal.
Of course, he's a twit in the pocket of the DVD Forum, so what do you expect from him?
Wordpad saves in Word 6.0, an acceptable format. February 17, 2000
David O. Carson, Esq.
General Counsel
Copyright GC/I&R
Southwest Station
Washington, DC 20024
Re: Section 1201(a)(1) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Docket #7M99-7
Dear Mr. Carson:
I am grateful for the opportunity of submitting comments on behalf of myself, a citizen of this country in response to the Notice of Inquiry announce in the Federal Register Volume 64, No. 102. As a normal citizen I rarely have the ability and resources that a large company has to react on an equal basis to federal decisions.
As I am sure you know, a number of major corporations are vitally interested in effective protection of copyrights. As a person who can now compete with these corporations on equal footing thanks to technology, I strongly support this attitude and agree that such measures are vitally important. Under the claim of that connection, many of these corporations support the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which, among other things, makes it unlawful to defeat technological protections used by copyright owners to prevent fair use, backups, and access in a manner unintended by the producer.
For your consideration we have the current legal battle of DeCSS. On the one side are corporations who wish to prevent unauthorized copying. However, the unauthorized copying of their products has been going on long before DeCSS was invented. The defendants are individuals who wished to view legally obtained DVD movies on legally obtained DVD drives installed in their legally obtained computers. They are not pirates but only wish to use the DVD in a manner currently considered fair use.
Today, I can create a movie, reproduce it on videotape and distribute it. However, as a small independent, I cannot legally create and distribute that movie on DVD under the DMCA, because the tools required to do so are become illegal to create or own. In short, the larger production studios are granted a legal monopoly.
Today I can create music, reproduce it on CD or MP3 and distribute it. However, the tools used to record audio on MP3 and CDs will no longer be legal under the DMCA because any tool capable of copying audio files could be considered a technological measure used to circumvent copy protection.
I am also prevented from making backup and archival copies of the media I have purchased. The members of our military may be prevented from purchasing DVD movies and viewing them while they are stationed oversees. This may already be happening today because of region codes imprinted in DVD movies.
You will receive many favorable reviews of the DMCA. I suspect that most of them will come from large corporations that realize the DMCA allows them to control and prevent fair use of their products and also allows them to prevent fair competition from small independents and individuals. If America is still a country by the people, and for the people, I urge you to listen to the people, the small independent artist and businessman who can already recognize what the DMCA means to them.
Thank You.
Kenneth David Boucher
-----
No Zen is good zen
Please submit your own letter TODAY! Follow their guidelines for attaching your letter in a MINE encoded email, and let them know your concerns! This is not just about free software... how do you think public libraries are going to function when all intellectual property is delivered electronically with access controls and licenses stipulating where, when, and how said material can be accessed? Newspapers? How would you like it to be illegal for a reader to allow someone else to read over his/her shoulder? How would you like GPS hardware installed in your newspaper reader which limits where you may read a story? Hell, how would you like to have to buy (or rent) special hardware just to read a newspaper? How are communities supposed to afford these new technologies for their community library? Is we gut our public libraries we'll gut the ability for citizens to join the public discourse... this is very disturbing.
--------------------
David O. Carson,
General Counsel,
Copyright GC/I&R,
P.O. Box 70400,
Southwest Station,
Washington, DC 20024
Mr. Carson,
I'm writing in response to the Library of Congress's request
for comments regarding Section 1201(a)(1) of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act. As a citizen of the United States who
earns my living through writing and maintaining software, among
other types of intellectual property, this law concerns me
greatly.
While not an attorney, my understanding of how this law is
being interpreted currently in courts, for example in the DeCSS
suit brought by the Motion Picture Association of America against
many online providers and web page authors along with the authors
of the original DeCSS code, in commentary by many pundits
published throughout the technical press, and finally my own
reading of the law, section 1201(a)(1), said law could give
sweeping new powers and authority to those copyright holders who
include technical provisions to prevent unauthorized copying and
presentation of copyrighted materials to the detriment of "fair
use" laws. This thwarts basic citizens' rights to access what
they've purchased simply because it might violate a contractual
requirement of the license, along with technical provisions
included in the media content to enforce such a stipulation.
How will this affect the rights of citizens to use our
public libraries? Will copyright owners now be allowed to
contractually stipulate in their license that libraries, or their
clientele, must purchase per use licenses to access copyrighted
materials? Given the trend toward digital content over
traditional printed publishing, this is not as crazy as it
sounds. Within a few decades it's quite possible that publishing
on paper, which I understand will not fall under section
(1201(a)(a) and thus will continue to be available to public
libraries under "fair use" guidelines simply because it lacks a
technical mechanism for copy protection, may become outmoded as
paper costs already far exceed the cost of distributing
intellectual materials electronically. Should this take place
1201(a)(1) has the potential to essentially criminalize public
libraries as we know them, forcing a dichotomy between those who
can afford the per use costs charged by copyright holders against
those who can't, while gutting a public infrastructure for the
dissemination of new ideas.
Beyond public libraries, are we to accept the notion that
copyright holders should now have a new set of rights which not
only limit under what conditions a licensee may copy works, but
also when a licensee may access said works, where they may access
said works, with what equipment they may access those works, and
even limit the copyright holder's liability simply by the
licensee opening a shrinkwrap license they can't even read until
after the fact?
Because if it's acceptable that Sony, for example, can
legally lock the contents of a DVD video disk through encryption
under force of copyright law as a mechanism of copyright
protection under 1201(a)(1), then how will consumers enjoy their
basic rights for legally copying a "backup archive" of content
for which they've purchased a license? Is it "fair use" to
prevent consumers from accessing said materials through regional
locks, or stipulating which hardware or software platform is
legal for the reading of said disks? If so, consumers will be
forced to purchase not only the content, but also a physical
locks, or stipulating which hardware or software platform is
legal for the reading of said disks? If so, consumers will be
forced to purchase not only the content, but also a physical
device and software from the content producer, thus limiting
their right to enjoy the content to which they've purchased
access with onerous new responsibilities and costs never
previously required of consumers simply trying to gain legal
access to copyrighted materials
Does the Library of Congress wish to allow the Associated
Press the right to use copyright law to stipulate when and where
a reader may access an AP newspaper story? If the AP can't use
1201(a)(1) to limit what kind of paper the newspaper publisher
must use to print a story, nor where a reader may read, view, or
otherwise enjoy printed materials to which (s)he has legally
purchased access, why should they enjoy a right to limit said
access electronically? In a near future of electronic newspapers
and handheld electronic readers, already possible with the
popular 3Com Palm Pilot, making obsolete the traditional printed
daily will it be reasonable to allow the AP to include Global
Position Satellite equipment in an electronic newspaper reader to
enforce the provision that a news story must only be read in a
certain city, state, or country if this electronic dissemination
of the published materials meets 1201(a)(1)'s copyprotection
guidelines? Will 1201(a)(1) allow the AP to force readers to
purchase an AP approved electronic news reader as the only legal
method for accessing AP published news? And given the sweeping
new powers 1201(a)(1) allows if a restriction is specified in the
a copyright license, can the AP prevent researchers the right to
copy small pieces of a news story within todays "fair use"
guidelines to cite a source within a research paper because of a
combination of a contractual stipulation in the license and copy
protection distributed with the intellectual property? How
different are these scenarios from allowing Sony to stipulate
under what hardware a copyright licensee may view a DVD video, or
which country they in which they may enjoy access
to the materials they've purchased?
If enacted as written this could enforce a whole new
monopoly for content producers and copyright holders, not just
protecting the media content from illegal copying and bootleg
sales, but also enforcing the sale of equipment which has been
licensed strictly to access and view said materials. This will
gut public access to copyrighted works in libraries, individual
access to copyrighted works by consumers through open and public
technologies, and doesn't even serve to protect the copyright
holder's basic interest of preventing the illicit copying of
privately owned intellectual property. It's strictly a new
mechanism to force consumers to buy more equipment simply to
enjoy access to materials already purchased, no different from
Ford Motor Company mandating that Ford gasoline be used with a
Ford car by force of law.
Copyright should not exist to enforce new restrictions
beyond copying a privately owned intellectual work. If the
Library of Congress, along with the legislative branch, enact new
laws to expand the scope of Copyright law as defined in
1201(a)(1) the consequences for public access to information and
discourse may be severe. Think carefully before enacting such
laws as they may leave consumers and individuals in our society
unable to join in basic public discourse. Every new financial
wall enacted to prevent citizens from basic "fair use" rights to
copyrighted works is potentially devastating to our public
library infrastructure and thus damaging to public discourse and
our very democracy.
Sincerely,
J. Maynard Gelinas
----------------------
Cambridge, MA., 02139
maynard@jmg.com
DMCA will allow governments (US Tax Dollars) to spend billions in law enforcement against local users and dealers, with a now and then big bust of an illegal digital book mill for the (Talking Heads) US TV news.
.... Control the general public by absurd laws enforced with fears and threats. It will just cost a little freedom, a waste of tax dollars, ....
This will prove as satisfying to the select few of the public who promote illiteracy in schools, minorities, and poor families. We move closer to the Banana Republic of North America with such laws.
I fully expect that DMCA (if passed) will in about 10 years justify the development of another US DEA (Digital Effete Efficacy Agency) to prosecute the war against illegal books and education.
A US Government war against book/DVD/... users will prove as effective as the drug war over the last 25 years. They'll prosecute the war in a manner to make religious illiterates and bigots feel good about the news while being pretty much ineffective on controlling the traffic and use.
I guess it is obvious what I think about the politically/religiously correct drug war.
It is the way of fascist
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
The views of the individual mean very little in this type of situation (Not even yours, michael ;). Time Warner AOL is a very big corporation, with a lot of backing and many good legal minds behind it. You need to band together to show that its not just 70 people that don't like this.
Take the letter above, or something similar, and attach a list of cosignatories. All American members of slashdot who consent have their names and addresses added to the list. There. Instant petition.
Just do something. There's already DVD's I can't get over here, or have to wait 6 months for.
I wholeheartedly agree with the previously submitted comments of Michael Sims and David O. Carson.
Section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA serves only to extend additional powers outside the realm of copyright law (namely: controlling access to material, not simply the right or ability to copy it) to authors and corporations and to deny extant fair use rights of consumers. Despite merely being unjustly harmful to consumers, I believe extending powers of access control under copyright law is a very dangerous precedent, and could have serious detrimental ramifications on the future of technological development and innovation.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
That response is not AOL Time-Warner's response. It is Time-Warner's response. There's a difference. AOL hasn't completed the purchase of Time-Warner yet, and as such has no say in their business practices.
Not only that, but if AOL *did* interfere in Time-Warner's business practices, it would be illegal and would be grounds to have the purchase thrown out immediately.
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Compaq reverse engineered IBM proprietary BIOS and created the first PC compatible.
Mmm, actually I believe it was either Phoenix Technologies or Award Software, not Compaq who did the original reverse engineering... just picking nits here...
However, these cases aren't quite like this one. The difference here is that there is a new law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that outright makes this type of reverse engineering illegal. The law doesn't apply to the recent Sony vs. Connectix suit because the reverse engineering wasn't done for the purpose of defeating an encryption scheme.
Interesting side note: note that the fact that defeating the encryption scheme by this reverse engineering technique shows that the encryption scheme used in CSS is really, really crappy. What are the legal ramifications of this? For instance, if I ROT13'd this whole message, then threw the following notice on the bottom of it.
Copyright (C) 2000 Rob A. Shinn. All rights reserved. Message Encryption Powered by ROT13.
Would it be illegal for you to use ROT13 to read my message?
My journal has hot
I am not the best at legal comments but I want to help with this issue, so please help me make corrections before I send this off.
David O. Carson
General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R
P.O. Box 70400
Southwest Station
Washington, DC 20024
Dear Copyright Office,
I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns on the subject of
this section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I believe it is
in the best interests of the American people that some of the terms of
the DMCA be rewritten or deleted.
The relevant section of the DMCA would hinder future technological
innovation. Most technological innovation is a re-application of
existing technologies in ways that had not been considered by the
inventors. If, for example, the inventors of the audio compact disc had
used legal means to prevent all consumers from using the technology in
ways not explicitly allowed by the producer, we might not have CD-ROM
technology today, which permits us to store computer programs on the
same medium. A major part of today's economy depends on CD-ROM
technology.
The case of the DVD association vs. the distributors of DeCSS is an
example of the tight copyright control that is now permissible
under law. A small group of people found a way to access protected
works they legally owned, but in a way which wasn't explicitly allowed
by the producer. Their primary intention was only to expand the usage
of DVD technology. They were, in fact, pushing the limits of a new
technology, quite probably opening the way for more innovation. But
under the DMCA such exploration and innovation is not permitted.
I am a producer of computer software. It is important for me to be
able to use existing technology in new, unexpected ways. That is how I
make my living, and that is how America will continue its current rate
of technological progress.
Shane Hathaway
February 17, 2000
What if the DMCA isn't constitutional? It's a pretty big puppy to skin.. but with enough oomph, someone could do it!
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
David O. Carson, Esq.
General Counsel
Copyright GC/I&R
Southwest Station
Washington, DC 20024
Re: Section 1201(a)(1) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Docket #7M99-7
Dear Mr. Carson:
The DMCA limits my basic human right to have hot grits poured down my pants. This situation is unacceptable.
Thank You
You can then send the PDF on to the copyright office for inclusion on their web site.
I'm looking for sysadmins to put up trojancow servers.
For more info see: http://www.meme.com/soft/trojancow.
Thanks for your help.
Have a cow, man.
Karl O. Pinc
kop@meme.com
President, The Meme Factory, Inc.
CSS serves one of three purposes. Let's examine them.
a)It prevents copying of DVDs. This is known to be incorrect. DVD movies are being copied and have been copied since before DeCSS. The pirates in question have never been called into a court of law.
b) It's to prevent the viewing of the medium. Although this appears to be the reason the MPAA is against DeCSS, the actual argument itself makes no sense. Why would they want to limit their customer base? Why would they want to discourage people from purchasing movies. There is no logic in this argument. There must be another reason.
c) It's to prevent the creation of DVD movies by independent studios. Let's look into this a little closer. DVD players not only have the capability of viewing movies that use CSS, they require that the movie uses CSS. The only way a movie could be made that is viewable by a DVD player is if someone had the ability to incorporate CSS and use all the proper keys. It's not good enough to just know a single key, such a Xing's, but you need to know all of them. DeCSS provides this capability.
The DCMA prevents software like DeCSS from being created or even researched. When the medium requires a copy protection scheme to be used, those without access to that scheme cannot create items in that medium.
That is what the DCMA means. It's an effective monopoly. Independent musicians, artists, actors, and eventually writers will be prevented from being able to distribute their works independently. They will be forced to sell their works through a larger production company, often giving up their rights in the process.
-----
No Zen is good zen
And oh, BTW, when will someone take a stand and sue those bastards at Babelfish for providing a circumvention for the foreign language copyright protection which prevents people like me from accessing content encrypted with a non-English language? Before they provided a French to English decryptor, did they even bother to get permission from every French author throughout history? No! The madness must stop!
I used an exert from Bryan Pfaffenberger's (bp@virginia.edu) excellent article in the Linux Jounral about the DMCA. http://www2.linuxjournal.com/articles/currents/016 .html
6 .html. The point they illustrate is that the DMCA seriously infringes on the our freedoms.
Here is the full text of my response. I hope that others will submit it as well with their own names at the bottom.
Dear Copyright Office,
I believe that the DMCA presents a real threat to the freedom of software developers and, ultimately, consumers. Software developers must always have the right to reverse engineer a technology for the purposes of interoperability. We should be allowed to contract away that right. The Congress should not be allowed to legislate away that right.
I have responses to the following specific questions...
1. What technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works exist today?
Copyrighted works that can be digitized are often protected by some form of proprietary encryption. This encryption has, so far, always been shown to be crackable.
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?
Proprietary encryption technologies and closed data file formats have a negative impact on the consumers ability to make noninfringing uses of ALL WORKS they have purchased. It must always be legal to create, distribute and use technology that frees the consumer to make "fair use" of the copyrighted works they have purchased. That means that the consumer will be allowed to make copies of a work for private, non-commercial use as often as he or she likes. This is the principal of fair use as established in the Sony v. Beta Max case.
18. In what ways can technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works be circumvented? How widespread is such circumvention?
Encryption is often used to control access to a copyrighted work. In general, this doesn't do what the copyright holder wants. If an encrypted work can be viewed that means it can be decrypted. If it can be decrypted, it can be copied. Here are several examples that apply to audio/visual data that can be played on a computer...
* One could write a video driver for a personal computer that, in addition to displaying images to the screen, copies the images being displayed to the computer's hard disk. In this way, one could make digital copies of a DVD.
* Many modern sound cards provide a digital output jack. Any encrypted music that is played on such a machine is decrypted and sent to both the computer's speakers and the digital output jack. This output jack can easily be connected to a digital recording device such as a MiniDisc recorder, a CD burner or a Digital Audio Tape recorder.
I can think of no form of encryption that has not yet been cracked.
19. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had any impact on the price of copyrighted works? Please explain.
I don't believe so. Pricing on music CDs have been more or less consistent with inflation. By and large, consumers would rather own the "real" media than a pirated copy. A music CD comes with pretty cover art, lyrics, etc. and the knowledge that the consumer is contributing the band's success. The same argument can be made with DVDs. In addition, it's cheaper and faster to visit a store and buy a DVD than it is to spend 100+ hours downloading a pirated copy of questionable quality.
25. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works resulted in making copyrighted works more widely available? Please explain.
No. Controlling access to copyrighted works makes the works less widely available because it requires that the digital consumer purchase a specially equipped viewer/player with proprietary decryption technology built in.
28. What other comments, if any, do you have?
I would like to reference the MPAA cases going on in New York and Connecticut. In these cases, the MPAA is attempting to make it a criminal act to distribute a "unapproved" Linux DVD player. If the DMCA is interpreted in a way that sides with the MPAA, consumers, software developers and free speech will all suffer a massive set back.
To illustrate the potential problem with the DMCA, The Linux Journal has concocted the following examples of legitimate, fair uses of copyrighted material that would be criminalized under the DMCA...
* A software publisher embeds in its copy-protected code a measure designed to interfere with the operation, on the same computer, of a competitor's products. If the adversely affected competitor includes code in its product that defeats the access-control mechanism to defeat this destructive activity, the competitor will have violated the DMCA--and since the underlying purpose is commercial gain, the federal fines or imprisonment penalties apply.
* A professor wishes to excerpt a portion of a protected work for the purposes of critical commentary in her classroom. She defeats the work's access-control mechanism so that she can excerpt this section. Even though this action is defensible under the fair use provisions of long-standing copyright law, it is an offense under the DMCA. If all available information were to be eventually digitized and protected by access-control mechanisms, teachers will be unable to share information in the classroom unless they pay fees to copyright holders.
* A popular music utility is found to collect extensive information regarding the user's listening habits, and uploads this information surreptitiously to a marketing database. Because the utility does not associate this information directly with the user's name, it is protected against circumvention by the DMCA--and that's true even if, subsequently, this information can be linked to the user's actual name through the use of a serial-number matching program. Any attempt to circumvent this type of monitoring is a crime under the provisions of the DMCA.
* A popular, but access-protected, operating system is found to have gaping security holes, which can be repaired only by defeating the access-control mechanism. A group of security experts creates and disseminates via the Internet a utility that defeats the access control mechanism so that users everywhere can protect themselves. Although the DMCA gives individual owners the right to circumvent the mechanism, any attempt by such owners to develop and distribute a circumvention utility would appear to be illegal under the provisions of the DMCA [see Section 1201 (b), 1]. If such a utility were commercially distributed, the "infringers" would be subject to federal fines or imprisonment.
* To safeguard confidential information, a company develops an access-control mechanism that prevents unauthorized employees, or people outside the company, from gaining access to this information. However, an employee becomes convinced that the company is engaged in illegal activities. To blow the whistle on these activities, the employee shows an encrypted CD-ROM to a press reporter. They use an anti-circumvention utility to gain access to the potentially incriminating evidence. Learning of this incident, the company sues the employee and the reporter under the provisions of the DMCA, and wins.
These examples were taken from http://www2.linuxjournal.com/articles/currents/01
We don't need additional laws to protect copyrighted works. It's already illegal to distribute a copyrighted work that you don't own or have license to distribute. There's no need for further legislation. Especially legislation that goes as far as the DMCA.
Sincerely,
Andrew Bunner
39361 Mozart Terrace #101
Fremont, CA 94538
bunner@massquantities.com
I just checked out the site...how odd! When I submitted my opinion (Donald Goodman) a couple of weeks ago, several large corporations/conglomerates had sent in comments in support of the DMCA, including MPAA, ASCAP, and several other familiar names...where are thier comments now? Have they been removed, or have I simply missed an extra page?
I think you missed my point and the opportunity that I was trying to explain. Maybe you can't distribute DeCSS, but you can use it in-house for competitive purposes. And more importantly, even if DECSS is restricted, CSS is not. All you have to do is take DeCSS and invert it to come up with CSS. Then you can use CSS to protect your own works, and every single DVD player manufacturer will be at your mercy. You can send them Cease and Desist orders, demand billion dollar licensing fees, whatever.
You can research CSS and break the protection in order to compete with the DVD CCA. DMCA says so. You won't be able to distribute your DeCSS-like work, but there's nothing to stop you from using that research to make your own CSS-protected works. (And there's nothing to stop you from distributing a program that implements CSS so that other people can add "access control" to their works. DMCA prohibits defeating copy protection, but doesn't prohibit using copy protection.)
Once somebody does this, the DVD consortium will be a sitting duck for an unlimited number of lawsuits, because their products will be in violation the DMCA. This will force them to send more bribes to Washington to have the DMCA repealed or ammended.
You see, we're all assuming that DMCA somehow provides a double-standard that prohibits competition, giving an advantage to the big guys. But I don't see that anywhere. (Do you?) DMCA sucks, but it sucks for everyone including them. If we can't have DeCSS, then no one can. If we can't make DVD players, then they can't either. Scorched Earth! I think MPAA will back down and listen to reason before they allow that to happen.
All we need is for one person to create a copy protected DVD and decide not to cooperate with the DVD CCA. Anyone know where I can get a DVD writer that will let me write to the track that has the keys? :-) I would be willing to spend a couple thousand dollars.
Where is the flaw in my reasoning?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Publish books with locks on them! Then Sell the key to the readers, providing they break after one use and lock again after the user closes the book! You could have a whole collection of books in your library that are locked and completely unusable! Since it's illegal to circumvent this restriction to access you can prosecute people for leaving their books open, taking pictures of the pages, photocopying the books, or even from copying the words down! You can even prosecute those parents for reading the books to their children! Since the children would have to pay for a key themselves to have any access to the content on those books. There are so many different types of materials you could do this with! Just apply this idea to your favorite top selling media and watch the money pour in! Books, VHS tapes, CD's, DVD's, Magazines, Newspapers, Software, & Art! Just remember, you just have to word everything right and you can squeeze the money out of all those consumers! And prosecute anyone who even thinks about how great it would be to circumvent your Copyright Protection!
*end satire*
Seriously, what does access control have to do with copyrights? Is it not enough that we pay for the material? Do we have to pay to access the material once we own it?
Copyright laws are to govern what you do with the material as it involves other people, not what you do with the material all by yourself.
-coyo
--------------------------------------------------
I am writing my letter right now, and I came across something interesting that I need help on.
Basically, I was looking at the transcript of the injunction hearing that took place a few weeks ago in New York and I noticed that the MPAA lawyers referenced the Section 1201 in question of the DMCA. In that hearing the MPAA lawyers stated:
"... the posting of DeCSS violates Section 1201(a)(2) of the statute, which prohibits unauthorized offering of products that circumvent technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works."
Ok, fine...right? But I also found out that on the US Copyright Office page it states:
Specifically, section 1201 provides that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." This prohibition on circumvention becomes effective on October 28, 2000.
Last I checked, it was not Oct 28 yet! Am I totally missing something???
The correct answer is 4) the major studios wish to make sure that all the available players don't allow consumers to get around the restrictions on the DVDs that they (the studios) produce. It's not other people's DVDs they're worried about, it's their own. They don't want someone to be able to make a player that, say, can skip the advertisements.
You said:
As I am sure you know, a number of major corporations are vitally interested in effective protection of copyrights.
Your use of the phrase "protection of copyrights" illustrates a basic misconception that is being deliberately put forth by the entertainment industry. Copyright and copy protection are two completely different concepts. Copyright provides legal protection against unauthorized copying, while copy protection/access control provides physical protection against unauthorized copying or access. They are NOT one and the same. Copyright allows for fair use. Copy protection and access control do not allow for fair use. Fair use is what allows you to quote passages from a copyrighted book in your term paper. Fair use allows you to videotape a copyrighted television program so you can watch it later. By making the act of bypassing a copy protection or access control scheme illegal, the DCMA effectively outlaws fair use.
By using the term "protection of copyright", you lend credibility to the deliberate lie that copyright and copy protection are one and the same, and that if a copy protection scheme is bypassed, then somehow the copyright is lost, and therefore that copy protection must be enforced by law.
The importance of retaining fair use provisions cannot be understated. Most of our preserved culture prior to the computer age exists as printed words on paper. In the future, the historical record of our culture will be preserved on computer media. It is vitally important to the freedom of our culture that our cultural record be dispersed throughout our society.
Why?
Because when one person or company has the power to retain physical control over all copies of their work, they also have the power to alter or destroy all copies of the work. Our cultural record is filled with examples of important books, films, and recordings that various people -- including the original publisher have attempted to censor or alter. The reason that censorship of published works is largely unsuccessful is that once copies of a work are sold, the buyer obtains complete physical control over that copy, and there is nothing that the copyright owner can do to recall the work.
Persons who are interested in the preservation of a controversial book may obtain an original copy, and protect it, secure in the knowledge that the words will not change on the page, and that their book will not suddenly burst into flames on the command of the publisher. Contrast this with the "access control." In a world where our historical record is dissemenated in electronic form, under the "access control" of the copyright owner, the copyright owner will have the ability to "reach out" and destroy or alter EVERY SINGLE copy in existance of a work. A court could find a work obscene, and issue an order that the copyright owner permanently disable access to the work, and perhaps issue a "revised" edition in it's place. In such a situation, the original work would effectively disappear forever from the world. Not only would our history be subject to continual "revision", but such revision would be enforced by law. Under the DMCA, it is effectively illegal to retain a permanent record of public discourse, including discourse in the mass media, without the permission of the content provider.
Ray Bradbury had the right idea, but the wrong method of action when he wrote Fahrenheit 451. In the world we are now passing into law, there will be no need to go house to house to destroy the books that our censors do not want us to read. Instead, our censors will simply be able to order that the access codes be disabled by the publisher. The act of preserving the truth is on the verge of actually becoming illegal. And we're the generation that's doing it to ourselves.
- John
Whoever is in charge of the rulemaking proceeding changed the accepted formats to include txt (isn't this ascii?). See Cryptome.org, there is a notice put up on that site detailing the changes. (The deadline for comments was also changed, it originally was 2/10.)
It's an algorithm. Nobody can own an algorithm. Well, exceptions are made in the case of patents, but since they wanted security-through-obscurity, they chose not to patent it. So there's no ownership of this algorithm.
And even if they did own the algorithm, I don't see anything in DMCA that states that the owner of the access control algorithm that protects a work, is exempt from the circumvention clauses in 1201(a). Sure, the owners of the protected content are exempt of course (although I don't even see that mentioned in the DMCA), and up until now, the owners of the protection algorithm and the owners of the content have been friendly, so this issue hasn't come up.
I am proposing that we cause a situation to arise where the owners of the content and the "owners" of the access control algorithm are not friendly and have no contractual agreements. (Although actually, I reject the assertion that anyone really owns the unpatented CSS algorithm.) I believe that this can be done (legally), and it would cause the CCA members' lives to become very interesting. Since they decided to make Jon Johansen's life interesting, I think it's only fair that we return the favor.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The DMCA prosecution is not brought under this provision of the DMCA (1201(a)(1)). It's under the NEXT provision of the DMCA (1201(a)(2)), which is in effect now.
Gotchya! Thanks for clearing that one up for me!
>Interesting side note: note that the fact that defeating the encryption scheme by this reverse engineering technique shows that the encryption scheme used in CSS is really, really crappy. What are the legal ramifications of this? For instance, if I ROT13'd this whole message, then threw the following notice on the bottom of it.
>Copyright (C) 2000 Rob A. Shinn. All rights reserved. Message Encryption Powered by ROT13.
>Would it be illegal for you to use ROT13 to read my message?
This could be a way to fight back. We just ROT13 any "infringing" code, and when the suits file a lawsuit, we file a countersuit against them for bypassing our copyright protection.
Many of the comments posted on the loc website are very articulate, and cite law. I can come up with thoughts, but I don't know if I can cite law. I'm not even sure I can sound that articulate -- at least, given only today to weave my wordcraft (and I might resort to silly little aliterations, just like that, too). So should I submit comments? If so, any hints on how to write good ones?
Funny... probably wouldn't apply because the DMCA thoughtfully leaves so much to interpretation.
Ok. I'm actually very much in favour of DMCA, for the very simple reason that it will self-destruct; and then I will have a good laugh at it. I really think that there is no need to prevent the bill from being passed; on the contrary, we should encourage it!
...) to copy data onto.
There is no preventing technological progress, and companies will still rush to market to supply us with bigger hard disk and larger media (fluo cds, nanotech,
Of course, the big corporations will start with supplying content on DVD; but the rest of the market, like the upstarts in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, will not. They will supply on the other media. Obviously, the consumer too, will prefer these other, free media. The free media market will grow stronger and stronger; because more people will have the free players than the unfree ones, more content providers will be willing to supply, and therefore this is the place where there will be strong growth dynamics. As a result, the big corporations of the unfree media will be bound to lose market share and in the end, they will be dwarfed by the companies in the free media.
It's happened before. Where did the ancient forums of Compuserve go, once people started discovering the Internet? Did DIVX really stand a chance as long as movies were still available on VHS and DVD?
The only way the corporations of the unfree media can stop this, is to prevent new data storage technology from hitting the market. They should start with trying to outlaw the 20Gb harddrives; however, I'm afraid that this is beyond the capabilities of any corporation or cartel to push any legislator that far.
Comments On
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304 (1998)
In light of the passage of Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public Law
105-304 (1998)
the Copyright office is now going to have to determine rules for the
application of the new law which will impact the daily lives of all US
citizens. In an effort to protect the holders of the limited
privileges of Copyrighted Cultural artifact, Congress has tried to
create a legal basis for the use of technology to help the granted
rights to Copyright holders. This is an admirable undertaking by the
Congress in that it assures reasonable control of original authors to
profit financially from the Cultural Artifacts which they created.
However, Congress and the Courts have consistently upheld the principle
of "fair use". In fact, the US Constitution was so concerned about the
obvious conflict of interest of public discourse, political freedom,
and the effort to give creators limited exclusive licenses to Cultural
Artifacts of their creation as a measure of fairness for their efforts
at enriching our shared cultural inheritance, that they included the
right of Congress in inhibit free speech by issuing limited Copyright
and Patents protections into the Constitution.
Furthermore, the courts have tried to uphold the balance of these
conflicting interest by applying the legal concept of "fair use" as
outlined in several court cases including the now famous cases
following the advent of inexpensive video tape recording and playback
technology. Congress further attempted to define the natural the
rights of individuals to usage of Copyrighted material with USC
1201(a)(3) as noted in the Notice of calls for comments of the DMCA in
the Federal Register.
The question needs to be answered if Congress, in passing the DMCA,
actually intended to alter the balance of the rights of individuals to
use legally obtained Copyrighted Cultural Artifacts, and those who own
the limited licenses under Copyright Law to those Artifacts. Nothing
I've read in the Act, as passed, seem to indicate that Congress
intended to make any change in the status quo in this regard.
Further, it would be a question for the Courts to decide if Congress
actually has the power to infringe upon the individual rights of people
further than the Constitution explicitly allowed by extending any legal
device which impairs "Fair Use" Doctrine.
It seems that if the Copyright Office or other Federal Agency chooses
to strictly enforce many of the segments of the DMCA as it is written,
that the effective outcome of these ruling would be adding questionable
restrictions on individual liberty, and even threaten the foundation of
an open society, upon which the basis of our Democratic form of
Government relies.
Specific examples of this include rules which would make the
dissemination of information which encourages the "Fair Use" of any
copyrighted material, protected with the use for a DMCA inspired
technology or not, such as the elimination sharing Computer code which
makes legally obtained media possible to read on devices or software
other than those disseminated or approved by the holder of a Copyright.
Individuals should have the explicit right to reverse engineer, and to
make the information available for how it was done, for the purpose of
using a legally obtained media on non-commercial operating system of
hardware Computer platform. It Copyright Office should also make it
clear that the use of DMCA covered devices or software does not give
the Copyright owner the right to dictate how, where or when the user
can view the legally obtain media, or other Copyrighted material. To
do otherwise, the Copyright Office would be allowing the Copyright
holder, usually a large multinational corporations, undue influence on
the free access of information which our society depends on.
Key areas that warrant specific protection would be Copyrighted granted
Cultural Artifacts such as the BIOS of a computer which might make it
impossible to run an Operating System other than an Operating System
which the holder of the Copyright BIOS makes a prearranged agreement.
For example, if my PC have an encrytped BOIS's which needs to be
decrypted for the computer boot, and only Microsoft is given encryption
keys to read the copyrighted BIOS, it would impossible for any other OS
vendor to create an Operating System for that hardware, even though the
purchasers of the Hardware is the holder of the license to use the
Copyrighted BIOS, and should have a choice to use any Operating System
that they choose to create or obtain which is compatible with the
hardware. A strict interpretation of the DMCA, in this case, can
destroy the Open Source Software project, and remove the Linux
Operating System Kernel from the Desktop PC.
And the same holds true for all kinds of peripheral hardware devices.
If the key to access encrytped media is not bundled directly with the
media, and developers and prevented from reverse engineering devices,
writing decrypting algorithms, publishing them for public access,
then CDROM's can become useless for anyone not using the commercial
system of the copyright holders choice. Hard Drives, DVD media
players , sound devices, electronic newspapers, school text books and
any other devices yet to be invented are threatened to be freely
accessible even after legal purchase or a license to use a Copyrighted
media.
The Copyright Office needs to be clear that reverse engineering and
publication of the results of such efforts for the purpose of
innovating new technology to be interoperatable with readers of such
media is not illegal. And further, the same rights are granted for the
purpose of developing new devices to read the media, and to even permit
the usage of old devices not designed to read the media to be create.
Ruben I Saifr
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Why can this not compile. This seems to have a bug. I get this error from css-auth.
, 0x36,0x2b,0x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b, , 0xd6,0x0b,0x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b, , 0x52,0x8f,0xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1f, , 0xd0,0x01,0x48,0x08,0x40,0x91, , 0x34,0x25,0x6c,0x2c,0x64,0x75, , 0xd4,0x05,0x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95, , 0x50,0x81,0xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11, , 0xd2,0x0f,0x4a,0x0a,0x42,0x9f, , 0x56,0x8b,0xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b, , 0xb6,0xab,0xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb, , 0x32,0x2f,0x6a,0x2a,0x62,0x7f, , 0xb0,0xa1,0xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1, , 0x54,0x85,0xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15, , 0xb4,0xa5,0xec,0xac,0xe4,0xf5, , 0x30,0x21,0x68,0x28,0x60,0x71, , 0xb2,0xaf,0xea,0xaa,0xe2,0xff
tstdvd.c: In function `GetTitleKey':
tstdvd.c:131: `dvd_authinfo' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:131: parse error before `ai'
tstdvd.c:134: `ai' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:134: `DVD_LU_SEND_TITLE_KEY' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:139: `DVD_AUTH' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c: In function `GetASF':
tstdvd.c:167: `dvd_authinfo' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:167: parse error before `ai'
tstdvd.c:169: `ai' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:169: `DVD_LU_SEND_ASF' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:173: `DVD_AUTH' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c: At top level:
tstdvd.c:186: parse error before `*'
tstdvd.c: In function `hostauth':
tstdvd.c:190: `ai' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:192: `DVD_LU_SEND_AGID' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:194: `DVD_HOST_SEND_CHALLENGE' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:197: `DVD_LU_SEND_KEY1' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:200: `DVD_AUTH_FAILURE' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:203: `DVD_LU_SEND_CHALLENGE' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:211: `DVD_HOST_SEND_KEY2' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:193: warning: unreachable code at beginning of switch statement
tstdvd.c: In function `authenticate':
tstdvd.c:239: `dvd_authinfo' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:239: parse error before `ai'
tstdvd.c:240: `dvd_struct' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:243: `ai' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:244: `dvds' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:251: `DVD_LU_SEND_AGID' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:253: `DVD_AUTH' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:256: `DVD_INVALIDATE_AGID' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:316: `DVD_AUTH_ESTABLISHED' undeclared (first use in this function)
tstdvd.c:318: `DVD_AUTH_FAILURE' undeclared (first use in this function)
make: *** [tstdvd.o] Error 1
Is line 119 not working?
/*
* css_descramble.c
*
* Released under the version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus / M Roberts
*
* This file contains functions to descramble CSS encrypted DVD content
*
*/
#include
#include
#include "css.h"
#include "css-descramble.h"
#define CSS_DEBUG 0x00
/*
*
* some tables used for descrambling sectors and/or decrypting title keys
*
*/
static byte csstab1[256]=
{
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa
};
/*
*
* this function is only used internally when decrypting title key
*
*/
static void css_titlekey(byte *key, byte *im, byte invert)
{
int i;
byte k[5];
int val;
unsigned int lfsr0, lfsr1;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
lfsr0 = ((im[4] >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24);
lfsr1 = (reverse[ im[0] ] > 12) ^ (lfsr0 >> 4) ^ (lfsr0 >> 3) ^ lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ((lfsr1 >> 14) & 7) ^ lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 ^= (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr0 >= 8;
}
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]]^key[4];
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]];
}
/*
*
* this function decrypts a title key with the specified disk key
*
* tkey: the unobfuscated title key (XORed with BusKey)
* dkey: the unobfuscated disk key (XORed with BusKey)
* 2048 bytes in length (though only 5 bytes are needed, see below)
* pkey: array of pointers to player keys and disk key offsets
*
*
* use the result returned in tkey with css_descramble
*
*/
int css_decrypttitlekey(byte *tkey, byte *dkey, struct playkey **pkey)
{
byte test[5], pretkey[5];
int i = 0;
for (; *pkey; ++pkey, ++i) {
memcpy(pretkey, dkey + (*pkey)->offset, 5);
css_titlekey(pretkey, (*pkey)->key, 0);
memcpy(test, dkey, 5);
css_titlekey(test, pretkey, 0);
if (memcmp(test, pretkey, 5) == 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Using Key %d\n", i+1);
break;
}
}
if (!*pkey) {
fprintf(stderr, "Shit - Need Key %d\n", i+1);
return 0;
}
css_titlekey(tkey, pretkey, 0xff);
return 1;
}
/*
*
* this function does the actual descrambling
*
* sec: encrypted sector (2048 bytes)
* key: decrypted title key obtained from css_decrypttitlekey
*
*/
void css_descramble(byte *sec,byte *key)
{
#define SALTED(i) (key[i] ^ sec[0x54 + (i)])
unsigned char *end = sec + 0x800;
int val;
unsigned int lfsr0, lfsr1;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
lfsr0 = ((SALTED(4) >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24);
lfsr1 = (reverse[SALTED(0)] > 12) ^ (lfsr0 >> 4) ^ (lfsr0 >> 3) ^ lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ((lfsr1 >> 14) & 7) ^ lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 ^= (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr0 >= 8;
#if (CSS_DEBUG & 0x10)
fprintf( stderr,"lfsr0:0x%08x lfsr1: 0x%08x o_lfsr0:0x%02x o_lfsr1:0x%02x\n",
lfsr0, lfsr1, o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1);
#endif
}
}
Something has been lost in this whole thing... Copyrights, like patents, are a monopoly, _granted by the government for the common good_. The theory is, for both patents and copyrights, to grant that monopoly for a limited time in exchange for the ultimate addition of the copyrighted material or patented techniques into the public domain. This has apparently been forgotten. Or perhaps was never realized by some. The recent purchase, by the Disney corporation, of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, guarantees that thousands of worthy works, now out of publication, will never again see the light of day. The DMCA takes that horror, and multiplies it 1000-fold. Now copyrighted material will be completely controlled by the producer. The only societal benefits the DMCA generates are the profits of those who produce DVD players and those who produce DVD materials. Now, there is not only no guarantee that works will ever fall into the public domain, there's a guarantee that they will not. Orphaned DVDs cannot be reproduced, saved, studied, or archived for the future. Works cannot be excerpted, analyzed, modified, or used at all w/o the grantor's explicit permission and cooperation. My personal opinion on this is that if DVDs contrive to limit use tighter than the copyright laws (the ones prior to the DMCA), then copyright law should no longer apply at all, and this should be codifed into law. I.e., one should be faced with the copyright, patent, or trade secret conundrum all over again. If one insists on licensing w/ more restrictive terms than copyright law allows, trade secret law should apply. Reverse engineering then is legal, copies generated by tapping the analog video out of a DVD player would be legal, and hacking or reverse-engineering the encryption would be legal. (Provided that one didn't sign NDAs...) RJ
I'd have to say I'm shocked that there have only been 71 comments posted on the site! With all the outrage over the DeCSS lawsuits and arrests, and all of the commentary raised on /. and elsewhere, I would have thought this site would have been slashdotted to hell... As I am not a US citizen, I can't put forward my views, but I urge those of you who are to do so iimediately. There's no point bitching on slashdot about the state of DeCSS and how wrong it all is, when an opportunity exists to vent your frustrations with those directly responsible for the DCMA's implementation. M@T
'sapientia potestas est'
DVD players not only have the capability of viewing movies that use CSS, they require that the movie uses CSS.
Are you sure this is true? My understanding is that consumer DVD players will play non-CSS-encrypted DVDs.
(Of course, the dark thought has occurred to me that there's nothing stopping the studios from demanding, via the DVD-CCA, that all future players require CSS encoding, the same way they've demanded Macrovision and the ability to disable fast-forward. The structure of the DVD player market is such that all the DVD-CCA needs to do is threaten to remove a manufacturer's key, making that manufacturer's players unable to play any future CSS-encrypted disks. If they want to use CSS for "artist control", they have the power and the structure in place to do so.)
FYI: American Military bases overseas are considered "offsite american soil" and we attempt to have each base/fort/port classified as US Soil with the countries hosting them. So on-base useage would be OK. If you went off base to say, your housing unit, then it would be back into a region-code issue. da'fly
Windows 2000 was selling for $2.75 on the streets cause nobody cared to actually pay a few hundred for the product and now 90% of commercial software is sold via the black market. Do companies really want that to happen in the US?
The movie industry has attempted to paint the DeCSS source code as a violation of the DCMA -- we must create the awareness that code which allows us to play DVD's on players of our own creation is a legal fair use, and not some type of piracy. I make this point specifically to highlight the fact that some of the web sites which pointed to the DeCSS code had lines like "copy and share your dvd's, etc., which would be against the law whether or not the DCMA existed.
We must not allow the war over "free code" to get tied into a battle with "the law", without our voices being heard as to how the law will be interpreted.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...