Comments On The DMCA Published

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.

Comments

Question: The role of the comments

[Taco Cowboy]

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.

Re:Question: The role of the comments

[RancidPickle]

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.

It's not over yet...

[RancidPickle]

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.

Re:Hasn't this been passed into law already???

[RancidPickle]

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).

Re:Hasn't this been passed into law already???

[technos]

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..

235 Comments?

[voidptr]

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.

DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself

[MeowChow]

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! :)

Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself

[konstant]

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!

Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself

[Detritus]

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.

EFF's letter /rocked/

[lunatik17]

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?

So what's next?

[Tassach]

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'

kudos to the CCIA

[eries]

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?

I dont give a squat about linux DVD players...

[root:DavidOgg]

...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...

Set up Netscape to read PDF's

[Rayban]

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.

Byzantine rules

[vectro]

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

many comments follow /. stories

[Barbarian]

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.

--

Re:Hasn't this been passed into law already???

[Yardley]

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.

What to do next....

[ATKeiper]

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