Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comments On The DMCA Published

Posted by emmett on from the word-on-the-street dept.

vectro writes, "Well, the copyright office has published all the comments they've received. It looks like all the comments are pro-consumer, with the exception of those from media companies: Time/Warner (movies), Sony Computer (interestingly, comments focus on Playstation rather than movies or music), and the MPAA." These are in .pdf format, so you'll need Acrobat Reader.

40 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. PDF Viewer by adiemus · · Score: 2

    You should also be able to use xpdf if you don't want to deal with installing Acrobat.
    http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/

    --
    "Wherever you go, there you are."
    1. Re:PDF Viewer by QuMa · · Score: 2

      Ghostview works too...

  2. Question: The role of the comments by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3



    I am not a lawyer, so I would like to post this question - Just how effective are the comments?

    In other words, I want to know what's the role the comments play in the whole scheme of things.

    Is it juat "comments" and then forget about it type, or is it I would really take your comments seriously and I will see what can I do?

    What happens when there are opposing type of comments - as you have pointed out, the pro- and anti-consumer type, from different entities?

    What will the copyright office do in such instance?

    Will they base their future action on the comments on the businesses - anti-consumer - or will it be based on how many pro-consumer vs. the anti-consumer?

    I just want to know, so, many thanks for any comments (yes, I take your comment seriously) that you may have.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Question: The role of the comments by RancidPickle · · Score: 3

      Comments are actually taken into consideration, especially if well-written and follow the questions posed by the agency. I participated in several commentary proceedings for the FCC concerning ham radio. The comments were used and they were debated. The ham radio folks ended up winning. One thing that helped was the American Radio Relay League, an organized member-society for amateur radio. If we could get some heavy hitters (EFF, Linux businesses), in addition to thousands of folks, writing in to oppose DMCA and allow circumvention of encryption for media access, for example, they will listen. Figure 100 citizens against one Time-Warner, and it helps balance it out. I thought that 2600.com would get more support by folks writing in, but I was disappointed. But... there's still time to participate. Put in your two cents.

      --
      "First things first, but not necessarily in that order."
      - Doctor Who
  3. It's not over yet... by RancidPickle · · Score: 4

    Most of the comments concern DeCSS. While the initial comments are no longer being accepted, you still have time to reply to comments (March 20th). If you have any input, you can rebut and reply to any of the comments posted. Mine is up there. Several issues concern most of the visitors to /., including DVDs, encryption, reverse-engineering (how about not being able to make your new hardware work on Linux because it was illegal), and other copyright issues.

    Comment #224 has notes about one computer association's concern with DMCA, #209 concerns the input from the MPAA, and #43 is the yacking of Time-Warner. Some very interesting notes were posted by Universities and Museums.

    If you want to play DVDs on your Linux box, and you have an interest in how Linux continues to develop, make your voice heard. Post replies to comments. Some of the comments are very well written and thoughtful.

    --
    "First things first, but not necessarily in that order."
    - Doctor Who
  4. Re:Hasn't this been passed into law already??? by RancidPickle · · Score: 3

    The item up for discussion is exemptions. You are right, the DMCA was passed, but the LoC can make exceptions, such as media access (DVD) and length of copyright protection (if an item is encrypted, it will still be unavailable after the expiration of copyright).

    --
    "First things first, but not necessarily in that order."
    - Doctor Who
  5. Re:Hasn't this been passed into law already??? by technos · · Score: 4

    The Copyright Office often publishes their intrepretation of, and guidelines for law enforcement to use, for new laws concerning copyright. In this case, they have asked for outside input from us, the citizenry that will be beat down by the new laws. And we have said, collectivly, that the DCMA sucks so badly they should pressure Congress for a rewrite at very least. I actually submitted a short monograph of my opinion, in writing. See if you can find it..

    --
    .sig: Now legally binding!
  6. 235 Comments? by voidptr · · Score: 3

    235 comments out of 250+ Million Americans? This, in short, is why we'll never win... The American populace at large simply doesn't care about anything the government decrees anymore, nor about protecting their rights. We're talking less than .001 of a percent of the population bothered to respond. Hell, it's not even a significant percentage of REGISTERED /. readers.

    --
    This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
    1. Re:235 Comments? by Tassach · · Score: 2
      I'm sure there were many, many more comments which were rejected because they didn't satisfy one of the many byzantine rules that have to be met in order for a comment to count.

      On the other hand, having only one in a million people take the time to write and mail a letter isn't that far-fetched. Even if they are aware of the issue, most people won't bother writing a letter. This is why government (and companies) pay so much attention to (literate, rational) letters -- they know that for every person pissed off enough to write a letter telling them they are pissed off, there are tens of thousands of pissed off people who didn't bother to write in.
      "The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    2. Re:235 Comments? by ronfar · · Score: 2
      Ok, I want to make a point here. This is not supposed to be a letter writing campaign to intimidate the copyright office into complying with public wishes. It's not supposed to be one of those events where you, say, convince your legislator into voting your way by organizing a letter writing campaign. It is more like a "Friend to the Court" brief, because what the Copyright Office was trying to get were informed, legal opinions on how to interpret th DMCA.

      For example, you wouldn't want people writing a lot of letters to the Supreme Court if the DMCA ever gets before them, in the hopes that massive opposition to the thing would get it declared unconstitutional, would you? I mean, I've yet to hear of anyone proposing a letter writing campaign to the judiciary, though I have been asked to write letters to the executive and legislative branch.

      The reason why is that it wouldn't work. Think about it, the courts are usually the ones who make the unpolitical decisions and shut down stuff like the CDA. This is because a good jurist is supposed to follow the law, and nothing else. He/she is not supposed to be swayed by public opinion. One good legal opinion, in this case, will outweigh a million, "The DMCA sucks," letters.

      My personal opinion on this is that if you couldn't write an intelligent opinion on this one, you should've taken a pass on it, because then you are just noise in relation to signal.

      Now, to be realistic here, if the Copyright office got X numbers of letters against the DMCA, being human beings, it might influence them. However, the people in the office will tell you that the point of this exercise is:

      1. It's a new law and it hasn't really been tested that much in the courts yet.

      2. The copyright office wants guidelines on what the law actually means. They aren't in a position to repeal the law. If the US government had passed a copyright law which says everyone must wear green hats while watching DVDs, the copyright office can't repeal it.

      The main thing I was hoping the copyright office would do in this case was examine the reverse engineering clause in the agreement and decide whether or not it trumps the "copy protection scheme" clause. However, even if they issue good guidelines on that, the DMCA will still be around and still be a bad law. The only difference is that it won't be possible to use it to prevent people from watching DVDs under Linux, though it could still be used to interfere with fair use.

      If you examine the process, you'll see it is not designed to get an accurate gauge of public opinion:

      Electronic Filing of Comments The Office prefers that comments be submitted in electronic form. For updated information on requirements for electronic and hard-copy filing, please see the Federal Register Notice Extending Deadlines for Initial and Reply Comments. Several persons have attempted to submit comments in the text of e-mail messages. The Office cannot accept such comments; the comments must be sent as attachments to e-mail messages or on diskettes as described in the Federal Register notice. In addition to the acceptable formats described in the Federal Register notice, the Office will accept comments in RTF and ASCII text formats. Important dates October 28, 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act enacted. November 24, 1999 Federal Register notice seeking written comments February 17, 2000 All written comments due. March 20, 2000 All reply comments due. Dates and locations to be announced Public hearings. Dates to be announced Post-hearing comments due October 28, 2000 Date of determination--from the Copyright Office

      I'm pretty sure that they added ASCII and RTF because people suggested that over reliance on MS Word documents was undermining the public perception of objectivity. I wonder if that's the first time they ever had that problem? I wouldn't be surprised if it were, I bet they were expecting the majority of comments to be from lawyers and experts on the technical side of the issue.

      At any rate, people who submitted comments to the copyright office should still write their legislators to try to get the law repealed. It is my opinion that the law is too deeply flawed for anything but a slight mitigation of terms from the copyright office, they can't overturn it or repeal it.

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
  7. DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself by MeowChow · · Score: 5
    We all know that The MPAA has used the DMCA to structure the CSS licensing system in a way which effectively controls both DVD publishers and DVD player manufacturers. I believe that if the MPAA wins their current legal battle over DeCSS, they will set a precedent with a side-effect that is antithetical to everything the MPAA is fighting for.

    Consider what would happen if an open-source encryption/decryption algorithm was created (like CSS, the strength of the algorithm is not important), with a license that explicitly forbade both commercial and governmental use. Now any warez/mp3/movie pirate could encrypt their warez and post them for the public consumption with complete impunity. No law enforcement agency or company could bring any action against this pirate, because in order to do so, they would have to prove that they performed an act of piracy in the first place, which would entail infringing upon the terms of the license of the encryption algorithm.

    Perhaps the government has legal methods to work around this.. perhaps they are even built into the DMCA. Nevertheless, this sort of "restricted license" encryption, if employed by pirates, would make it more difficult for any company to protect their copyrights online.

    Lets do it! :)

    1. Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself by konstant · · Score: 4

      Consider what would happen if an open-source encryption/decryption algorithm was created (like CSS, the strength of the algorithm is not important), with a license that explicitly forbade both commercial and governmental use.

      I sympathize with your goals here, but really, dream on. One thing I've come to realize over the years is that "schemes" that aim to turn law or finance to the benefit of the little guy generally are ill-conceived.

      Essentially, what "would happen" is that the megacorp threatened by the warez distribution would convince a judge that there was reason to believe you were pirating their works. The judge would allow discovery, and you would be forced to decrypt the materials yourself.

      Remember, big companies do not stomp on little people by winning court cases. They operate by threatening you with the inevitable bankruptcy that any form of legal action would necessarily entail for a person of average means. They realize you can't afford trial costs, and they know from experience that ther mere threat of a lawsuit is generally enough to have you eating out of their hands.

      This law is tailored to harm us. It would be bettr to eliminate it, and failing that to protest it. Attempting to "use it to our advantage" will only work to our detriment as we turn our energies away from defeating an unjust law. Bottom line: I don't want to learn how to live with the DMCA. I want it dead.

      -konstant
      Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!

      --
      -konstant
      Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
    2. Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself by MeowChow · · Score: 2

      Essentially, what "would happen" is that the megacorp threatened by the warez distribution would convince a judge that there was reason to believe you were pirating their works. The judge would allow discovery, and you would be forced to decrypt the materials yourself. You're probably right; however, this is a long, difficult, and costly process for a company to go through. If most pirated works were encrypted in this way, a company would have to work harder to "whack" each "mole".

    3. Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself by Detritus · · Score: 3
      Consider what would happen if an open-source encryption/decryption algorithm was created (like CSS, the strength of the algorithm is not important), with a license that explicitly forbade both commercial and governmental use.

      That wouldn't work. Copyrights protect implementations of algorithms, not the algorithms themselves. An independent implementation of the encryption algorithm would not be subject to the conditions of the restricted license.

      Another problem is that most judges will laugh at anyone who tries to avoid prosecution by claiming that the police lied or violated a contract.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself by Coward,+Anonymous · · Score: 2

      Copyrights protect implementations of algorithms, not the algorithms themselves. An independent implementation of the encryption algorithm would not be subject to the conditions of the restricted license.

      The MPAA argues that an independent implementation of the CSS decryption algorithm is illegal, I'm sure a similar license could be made so that a new encryption/decryption algorithm can not be used by the MPAA (or any other commercial/government organization) without violating the same laws that the MPAA claims DeCSS violates. You shouldn't even need to keep the algorithm secret, give it to everyone who agrees to the license, and if the MPAA gets their hands on it, they've either stolen a trade secret or had it leaked to them, in either case they're not allowed to use it (according to them, anyways).

  8. EFF's letter /rocked/ by lunatik17 · · Score: 3
    I know you're eyes probably started to glaze as you scrolled down through the loooonnnngg list of replies, but there's one you really should read. The EFF's reply, number 204--excellent. Details exactly what's wrong with the DMCA as it applies to DVDs and other copyrighted works, and brough up a few points that I did even think of:

    • I was not aware of Copyright law's First Sale Rule, which states that a copyright owner has no control over what happens to a copyrighted work after it's first sale (other than the usual distribution/public display stuff), which is exactly what the DVD CCA is attempting.
    • DVDs should be considered as a completely different product than VHS, since the experience is so totally different. Okay, I kinda thought of this, but it helped clarify quite a bit.

    I wonder how the LoC is gonna react to all of these excellent replies; it's so overwhelming, I'd be pretty surprised if they didn't declare DVDs exempt. Let's all cross our fingers.

    Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?

    --

    Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?

  9. So what's next? by Tassach · · Score: 5
    I find it unsuprising that the big media companies (AOL/TW & Sony) are the only respondents who support DCMA. Of course their arguments are specious at best.

    Some of my favorite lies and FUD:

    "I am aware of no works or classes of works that have, because of the implementation of technical protection measures, become unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users"
    David Carson, General Counsel for Time Warner

    Gee Dave, how about a person who owns a Linux-based PC with a DVD-ROM drive (but not a set-top DVD player) who wants to legally purchase a DVD movie and watch it on his (legally purchased) computer hardware? What about an American who buys an obsure Japanese-language Anime DVD, but can't watch it on his legally-purchased DVD player because of the regional encoding? What about the person who hooks up his new DVD player thru his VCR, because his TV only has a 75-ohm input, and can't watch any movies because of the Macrovision feature? These are all perfectly legitimate scenerios where a law-abiding consumer would be forced to defeat "technical protection measures" (in violation of the DCMA) in order to use a legally-purchased product.

    "Time Warner is also vitally interested in the healthy maintenance of the 'fair use doctrine'."

    I'm sure you do, so long as it is Time Warner who is making fair use of someone else's intellectual property. They just have a problem if someone else wants to make fair use of their IP. Sorry, Davey; you can't have it both ways.

    I really, really hope that some Federal judge out there has the stones to strike the DCMA down; or at least issue an injunction to keep it from being enforced till it makes it up to the Supreme Court. Even though the current Court has a pretty lousy track record in upholding civil liberties, at least they pretend to give a crap about the Constitution; which is more than I can say about Congress & the President.
    "The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  10. Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself -anyone know? by eries · · Score: 2
    any lawyers out there 3l33t enough to know if this is a possible strategem?

    Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?

    --
    Can your IM do this?
  11. kudos to the CCIA by eries · · Score: 3
    Everyone should take a look at the list of companies who are members of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (which is comment 224: / 224.pdf>http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1 201/comments/224.pdf</a>

    A lot of closed-source companies in there fighting for Linux rights. Good to see...


    Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?
    --
    Can your IM do this?
  12. I dont give a squat about linux DVD players... by root:DavidOgg · · Score: 3

    ...and I think alot of people are missing the Big Picture(tm) here. We should have the RIGHT to store our media in READABLE FORM. This is a right that should rank right up there with the first and second ammendments, and should be defended as much.

    In the future might it be possible, without this right, that all media will require decryption software that must be licensed per use no matter what the form of media it is or who owns it, just because the encryption is "owned" regardless of the media?

    Why dont we fight for this right, and everything else (DeCSS, restrictive copy protection, ect) will fall into place under one big umbrella right? This is where the line needs to be drawn, and all these issues would reside on one side of this line.

    I have no need of a Linux DVD player, however, I want the RIGHT to posess my media in readable format, and I will fight for that right, lest it gets chipped away at like so many other rights these days...

    --
    --AROS is an Open Source AmigaOS clone, and source compatible with AmigaOS! Try the x86 build at http://www.aros.org
  13. International effects of teh DMCA by DaRkJaGuaR · · Score: 2

    I'm wondering how much thi stinking law will effect othercounrties allied to the US? i mean i live down under, we work closely with the US, are we gonna have to live by bits of this law?

  14. Set up Netscape to read PDF's by Rayban · · Score: 3

    If you want to quickly set up your copy of Netscape under linux to read PDFs like these, go to the Preferences dialog and look for the "Portable Document Format" type. Change this to "Application" and for the program name, type "gv %s". If you have acrobat reader, you can use "acroread %s" as well.

    I suggest doing this for "Postscript Documents" as well. Makes life way easier.

    --
    æeee!
  15. Byzantine rules by vectro · · Score: 3

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

  16. many comments follow /. stories by Barbarian · · Score: 3

    Many of the DMCA comments follow /. stories (within several days) .. notable blocks are around Jan 21 and Feb 16...good work people -- you may have made a difference today.

    --

  17. Re:"Macrovision feature" by Detritus · · Score: 2
    Macrovision dosn't stop the signal from passing through VCRs, it only stops it from being recorded to a VHS tape. If your going to rant, you should at least get your facts straight.

    That was what I thought until I bought a DVD player and connected it to my VCR. Real life beats theory every time. The picture on my TV had annoying variations in brightness, even though the DVD player's signal was just passing through the VCR to the TV set. It turns out to be a common problem. The solution is to directly connect the DVD output to the TV input. I don't have schematics for my VCR to determine why Macrovision causes a problem. I had to buy a mechanical video input switch for the TV because of Macrovision.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  18. Re:Hasn't this been passed into law already??? by Yardley · · Score: 3

    Parts of the DCMA do not come into effect yet, like the requirements that all consumer electronic devices capable of data duplication include hardware to stop it.

    You can read more about a specific instance of this in the Go-Video's FAQs.

    Can I use my Dual-Deck(TM) VCR to make copies of copy-protected tapes?

    Go-Video Dual-Deck(TM) VCRs contain our patented "AmeriChrome" technology and proprietary software which allows a near-identical copy to be made from an original VHS tape. Some pre-recorded tapes contain anticopying signals that take advantage of single deck VCR design weaknesses, causing single deck VCRs to make poor or unusable copies of videotapes. Go-Video Dual-Deck(TM) VCRs are not normally affected by these signals.

    All VCRs, including the Dual-Deck(TM) VCR, are affected by Federal legislation that was passed in October 1998, commonly referred to as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. One of the effects of this new law requires that all VCRs sold after April 28th 2000 recognize a type of anticopying signal that prevents consumers from making a usable copy of videotapes encoded with that type of anticopying signal.

    We have modified our current models of Dual-Deck(TM) VCRs so that if they are purchased prior to April 28th 2000, they will continue to operate as originally designed for the lifetime of the VCR. If they are purchased after April 2000, they will recognize and respond to the anticopying signal as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

    Owners of Go-Video Dual-Deck(TM) VCRs are not required to have their units modified as a result of this law and can continue to enjoy their Dual-Deck(TM) VCRs for the unit's lifetime.

    --

    --
    He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
  19. Re:"Macrovision feature" by Pope+Slackman · · Score: 2

    Macrovision dosn't stop the signal from passing through VCRs, it only stops it from being recorded to a VHS tape. If your going to rant, you should at least get your facts straight.

    Perhaps you should take your own advice.

    Macrovision works by mangling a component of the video signal - TVs happily ignore this for the
    most part, but VCRs try and correct for the errors in the signal, leading to all sorts of visual
    artifacts, from color-shifts, to blank 'no signal' screens.

    My DVD player is connected thru my VCR, and MV makes the video completely unviewable.
    Luckily, I can disable MV, otherwise, I'd need a new TV...

    --Kevin

    =-=-=-=-=-=

  20. Quite depressing by 348 · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately I sort of agree with you here. The thought that kept coming to mind when I was reading the comments was, why did the DMCA publish these in the first place? Are they sincere in the effort, or are they just doing PR diligence. I really feel it's the latter. Making a token effort to say we did our research, got input from all sides, etc. In the long run I think the DMCA is going to do whatever the big corporate mongers want them to do. Quite depressing.

    --

    More race stuff in one place,
    than any one place on the net.

  21. the ABC News story by Coyote · · Score: 2

    A FINE example that this is true was ABC News' story on DeCSS this week.

    Yes, the story we waited to see on ABC last month about Jon and DeCSS - it was on... sort of.

    The story was about piracy. There was no mention of any other issue, and Jon's presence was about 3 selected lines that, in the context of the story, left the viewer with the inference that he was just one more teen cracker.

    ABC followed the CSS story with one about napster, also spun down the piracy line.

    You can download the wav of both stories at http://www.galstar.com/~mctech/abcnews.wav

    You might also take ABC up on their invitation to tell them what you think... after you read the linux advocacy page, or course.

    --
    My metamoderation cancels your moderation
  22. Long term effects?? by TyFoN · · Score: 2

    Consider this... US bans all production of hardware that omits copyright. But that is only in the US.. Won't Japan/Europe get a profound advantage in making hardware since they are not under such serious restraints? (I.E. It is not legal to make the hardware you want). You can apply this to software as well. I think that the US Goverment is getting very restrictive... It is NOT a free country anymore IMO.

  23. Sony's interest in playstation by latcarf · · Score: 2
    I expect that Sony's concern with Playstation relates to their setback in the Connectix case. I read recently that the Playstation is Sony's cash cow at the moment and they, naturally, want to protect it. The Connectix press release can be found here.

    One should take some comfort from court decisions such as this one that respect the principle of "fair use". Comments to rulemaking bodies, letters to your representatives to Congress, serve to protect the narrow interests of, for example, legitimate users of DeCSS. Will you vote in November?

    Keep in mind that the DMCA primarily exists to implement U.S. obligations under international treaties. The U.S. has probably the greatest interest in those treaties because intellectual property ("IP") is a significant contributor to U.S. citizens' higher than average standard of living.

    It wasn't that long ago that copyright holders could not protect their IP in foreign contries. H.M.S. Pinafore was a great hit in the U.S. in the 1870's but Gilbert and Sullivan couldn't collect royalties. See here. If it was your ox being gored by a Chinese sweatshop reverse engineering your code and putting your company out of business by selling a copycat product in the U.S. via the internet, I expect you would look more kindly on the treaties and the DMCA that enable you to protect your company's IP and your job.

    --
    Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years
  24. What to do next.... by ATKeiper · · Score: 3
    Two points of preface. First, as others have said, congratulations to the /.ers who leapt at the chance to comment to the Copyright Office on this matter. Second, you can be assured that the Copyright Office is going to seriously consider the comments, which were largely very well thought out.

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

    The heart of the EFF comment is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Slashdot users can do two things:

    • 1. Send reply comments to the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office gives until March 20 to reply to those comments. I know that isn't a lot of time, but if you have some spare hours this weekend, you might want to jot something down. Some of your comments in this discussion could almost directly go to the Copyright Office - like
    • DavidOgg's comment, which gets right to the heart of things.

      The rules for sending reply comments appear here. If anyone is unclear about how to send these reply comments, or wants to send their comments in PDF format (which is not necessary), I would be willing to help clean them up or convert them to PDF and send them on to the Copyright Office as a service to the /. community. I have set up a special Hotmail address (copyright_reply@hotmail.com to serve as a dropbox, and I'll contact anyone who seriously wants help.

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

    This is going to be a long fight.

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

  25. Not only that... by Booker · · Score: 2
    but browsing through them, I'd say they were Slashdotted! A random sampling shows many familiar names from these pages... way to go, guys! Most of them look well thought out and reasonable. If these letters have any impact at all, I'd say that Slashdot is now a force to be reckoned with...

    ---

  26. If you read only one comment... by jimhill · · Score: 2

    If you only read one of the posted comments, make it 162 (from 5 library associations). It's 39 pages, but this document slices right to the heart of the matter: that DMCA was intended to distinguish between access and use, but the technological measures combine the two. Those of you/us trying to have our electeds take another stab at moving copyright law into the Digital Age would be well advised to incorporate many of the points made in the associations' comment.

    --
    Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
    1. Re:If you read only one comment... by Mr.+Underhill · · Score: 2

      I'd like to second that. I've read Time Warner, MPAA, CCIA, EFF, and the various Library Assiociations combined comment. (As well as a few individuals) The library people easily have the most well though out an comprehensive comment. Highlights include: 1. pointing out that the copyright law distinguishes between protecting "access" vs. "use" while the current protection software inextribably combines the concepts. (as mentioned) 2. pointing out the societally important archival function of libraries, long provided for in copyright law, is seriously impaired by protection schemes and quite illegal under DMCA. 3. pointing that the protection schemes, in limiting use along with access trend society away from the long standing "First Sale" model of copyright law and business practice to a "Pay-per-View" model. Something Congress has expressed concern over. 4. It is more general than just DVD's. I The comment documents numerous specific examples where protection schemes interfere with fair-use. It worth the read. I'm sorry Jim's comment hasn't been moderated up, it is certainly worthy of it. Royce

    2. Re:If you read only one comment... by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2
      Absolutely, here are some excerpts:
      The repeated claim of content providers in pressing for passage of Section 1201(a) was that "digital is different." Digital access permits making perfect copies; hence, access controls are needed to prevent rampant piracy of copyrighted works in a digital world. So clear was the distinction between "access" and "use" at the time of legislative consideration of the DMCA, that Congress also provided in Section 1201 the following provision:

      (c) Other rights, etc., not affected - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

      ...

      The ambiguity is exacerbated by the distinctions in Section 1201 between "technological measures that effectively control access to a work protected under this title" [subsection (a)] and "technological measures that effectively protect a right of a copyright owner under this title" [subsection (b)]. The statute distinguishes between the two, but as we will document, the technological measures being marketed do not. Works protected by technological measures that attempt to control "access" when they are really controlling "rights" or "uses" are not covered by Section 1201(a).

      ...

      Further, the blurring of any distinction between "access" and "use" was certainly not the intent of the Congress when it passed the law. The key legislative committees all expressed their views on the fact that access prohibition should not affect all other rights, remedies and limitations in the Act. The intent of Section 1201(c)(1) was that once a work had been lawfully acquired (that is, "accessed"), circumvention by users to engage in lawful non-infringing uses as defined in the copyright law would not be prohibited by Section 1201(a). Due to the persistent nature of advanced technological measures, fair usage could fall dramatically. Without a meaningful exemption from the Librarian, Section 1201(a) will cause significant, irreparable harm to users attempting to make lawful, non-infringing use of works protected by technological measures.

      What does this mean? My interpretation is this: The DMCA prohibits bypassing of access control mechanisms, for instance, passwords for downloading material. It does not prohibit bypassing of use control mechanisms, because copyright holders have no right to control use of copyrighted material, under the "First Sale" doctrine, which the EFF comment #204 explains, "terminates the author's right to control what happens to a particular work after its first sale".

      That, IMO, utterly vindicates DeCSS.

  27. As a "lawful" Viper V550 owner... by DeeKayWon · · Score: 2
    "I am aware of no works or classes of works that have, because of the implementation of technical protection measures, become unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users"

    He may not be aware, but we do exist. I have a Diamond V550 AGP retail, which included a copy of Zoran's Software DVD player. Playing recent games with it necessitates using nVidia's reference drivers since Diamond, as a part of S3, no longer has access to nVidia's driver source. There are recent drivers from Diamond, but they are nothing more than the nVidia reference drivers with Diamond's InControl tools and install utility.

    With the nVidia reference drivers, the Zoran softDVD - for which I hold a perfectly valid legal license - will not play DVDs. It just tells me that my hardware does not support Macrovision. The most recent drivers that will allow the DVD player to work are dated March of 1999 and are obsolete. Requiring me to use those drivers is totally unreasonable, especially given the target demographic of the V550 was gaming.

    Does anyone know if people from other countries (I'm Canadian) can submit a formal response to these comments? If it's possible, I'd like to let them know that if the customer ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

  28. 100 citizens == 1 Time/Warner? by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
    I really don't think so. As I understand it (and still with a bit of cynicism, even so) it's more like
    • 1 citizen == _2_ Time/Warners
    • for every citizen speaking up, there are _10_ Time/Warners asking favors.
    This is the way it works: the citizen actually counts for more than you think in these matters, but very few get involved. In a way, it's _because_ so few get involved that they carry weight: the default assumption is that no citizens will be bothered enough to speak up. If any do, that's a red flag right there. This applies especially to elected officials like senators and representatives- every dirtball corporation is hitting up these people for more favorable laws and zoning regulations and so on and so on- but it's not anywhere near as common to hear from a constituent/voter.
  29. Another way to turn DMCA against itself by Sloppy · · Score: 2

    I've said this before, but got little response. Perhaps someone can explain if there's a real problem with this or not.

    I think I see a way to make DMCA eat itself. DMCA prohibits defeating the access control, except under a few circumstances. Let's take the good old popular DVD CSS case as an example. I don't see anything in DMCA that makes it legal for any DVD player -- whether it was licensed by the DVD CCA or not -- to decode a DVD.

    I know that sounds weird, but consider this: CSS is unpatented. Anyone can encode things with CSS, and there's nothing in DMCA to prevent this. If I make my own DVD disk, encoded with CSS, what right does the DVD CCA have to grant anyone a license to access my work? None that I see, at least from looking at DMCA. Except for the major points made about reverse engineering, evaluating security, etc., there's nothing in there that seems to give DVD CCA (or anyone else) any authority at all.

    As far as I can tell, all DVD players are in violation. It's just that since no one except the MPAA members (who are in cahoots with the DVD CCA) are making CSS-protected DVDs, there is no one to sue the manufacturers.

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

    To kill DMCA, simply create a work whose technological-access-protection algorithm is compatable with a bunch of existing devices, and then start suing people right and left. I suggest CSS, since it seems to be on everyone's mind. Once this causes the price of DVD players rises to a few thousand dollars per unit, I think the appropriate bribes, blowjobs, drugs, blackmail threats, etc. will quickly be given to our men in Washington to repeal or ammend the DMCA.


    ---
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  30. My favorites of the 235 by jkorty · · Score: 2

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