Slashdot Mirror
Today's Helping Of The DMCA
El pointed us to this nice DMCA story in UpsideToday. Time Warner says that it needs "effective protection, both technological and legal, against unauthorized uses of copyrighted works," showing that even AOL-TW agrees that the DMCA is intended to restrain personal use of copyrighted works rather than copying. For anyone around Stanford University, note that a protest is being organized for May 18 and 19.
This is not the first time Real Networks has sung the praises of the DMCA.
Another reason to boycott RealAudio.
http://overwhelmed.org
Gosh. Protests over copyrights? when does it end....
It has been infused with pork bacon juices.
The only thing AOL wants to protect is it's wallet.
Paragraph 229:
Protests against the DMCA are to be considered strictly in violation of the DMCA
Oh my god, Time Warner does not want people to steal their property. I find this greatly offensive. This goes against the rigid communist ideals presented on slashdot. I propose that we invate Time Warner HQ and execute all those capitalist pigs, including Steve Case. Viva la revolution!
If we let Time Warner protect their property, what will happen next? Will people try to protect their own cars, houses, foods, etc from theft? This can not stand if we are to create a communist society! Liberate all assets! Steal from the rich! They are only rich because they cheated and stepped on us honest masses. Down with money and greed!
Dr Kool
Loyal Slashdot Communist
DMCA is corporate america tool for making the individual use their technology and buy their products. For example: DVD technology.
DMCA is just a new way of repression of consumer freedom in the internet age. Everybody know that this is not a law for protecting authors and copyrights. It is for making consumers buy products of big corporations
What should we do? Boycott almost every product?
Most citizens are unaware how the DMCA affects them, or will affect their lives even if "pay-per-use" becomes standard.
Furthermore, the hearings will probably be a love-feast of the media business types. So, if we mere users wish to get our point across and educate the public, we need to do it in a way that not only gets the public's attention but also informs them of the real issues. It's the DMCA that's bad, not necessarily all of copyright law, and whether or not you believe in free software.
Another thing, it's really sad reading this thread right after reading the thread of the development of BSD and how academics at that time were more interested in the truth, and software that worked, instead of just the money and power.
As an example of our failure in one instance of getting our point across, please see yesterday's triumphant "beacon of light" message from the attorney who won the CyberPatrol case--it was decided under the DMCA too.
Nope. Join in the "civil disobedience" protests that actively oppose DMCA-backed products by publically and openly violating the Act. If enough people do it, the system will be forced to take notice.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
There is already a body of law that prohibits "unauthorized use" of copyrighted materials in all domains: Copyright law.
Rather than allow our rights to be bled by further legislation, TW/AOL has a right to help the federal government enforce the laws that already exist. To do anything more, particularly in the form of the DMCA, unconstitutionally inhibits fair use of copyrighted materials in favor of stronger rights for copyright holders.
If TW/AOL wants to protect themselves against "unauthorized use" they should either increase their contribution to the federal government so they can afford to pursue their valid claims (do they have any?) of copyright violation by loosening their accounting standards to indicate a higher taxable income (a simple numbers manipulation), or they should make their product in a manner that does not encourage the market to ignore their copyright and create a grey market for their copyrighted goods (less expensive, copy-prohibitive media such as cave walls, or not selling it).
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
I just wanted to see "anti-circumvention" written like that one more time, because gosh darn it, they only did it 12 fscking times in the article.
Rule of journalism #27: You only put an unfamiliar phrase in quotes once. After that your "readers" are probably "smart enough" to be "comfortable" with the "new" "phrase".
Here comes another DMCA-bashing session. So, here comes another obligatory Typical Slashdot Response Parody poll from the Poll Mastah...
What would you post in response to this article?
Poll Mastah
Send this news to your local media relations and get some air time for us. Bay Area channels 5 (KPIX), 11 (KNTV), 2 (KTVU), etc. would be great.
Also, if someone could find the email address of the Mercury News & SF Chronicle, that'd get us some coverage as well.
We'll never do any good until people outside of our little circles are well informed about what the DMCA means to them.
Peace
-jt
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
-cwk.
That being said, it's a real pity that the story on the 2600 freedom-to-link case didn't make it to the front page. The only reason given was that it was a long, long article that not everybody might want to read. So what? People should still know about it. It provides some dynamite anti-DMCA arguments that I hadn't even known about. Check it out.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Because as much as I love the right of Americans to fairly exchange knowledge, I am not going down to Cali to do it. Are we going to have any mirror demonstrations in other cities?
In my own city of Portland, it will be interesting hearing the police explain why it was immanently neccesary to gas those dangerous free software protesters, who have been known to riot and destroy public property.
And BTW, I am glad that Slashdot is providing some links to "real world" political action. I only hope that eventually it will be some political action involving something more pressing, such as a living wage for all workers.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Maybe we should not view movies as information but rather as enterntainment-cultural achievement combination? If we thought about movies as of service instead of thinking about films as of information, maybe then there would not be a confusion that arises as DMCA comes into our small internet based world. If movies are service then it is easy to see that the service providers may actually ask or even force their clients to some restrictions. For example: If you did not pay for your service, you can not use it. If you do not agree with the conditions of our service (such as only allowing to use the Video Materials with prescribed Video Viewing systems) then you can not legally use the service. etc.
In any case, information should be defined more precisely, movies are just copyrighted material, not information (even though they can be stored as a set of bits). I am not sure what exactly a good defenition of information is, but I would exclude most movies (except for scientific films) from having status of informative.
You can't handle the truth.
Why not try to add provisions that make the DMCA undesirable to AOL-TW and friends?
For example, put a requirement in there that protects "fair use". Maybe something that requires "fair use" to be easily accomplished. I know we can't think of ways off hand to to make it easy, but it would force the other side to have to come up with it.
This would be like what the FBI did (or at least tried to do) to laws attempting to allow the free use of encryption.
Seems strange that only "uses" is in bold in this story. If you put "unauthorised" in bold also, the story becomes a little more benign.
Come, on. The DCMA may be bad, but so is "unauthorised use" of copyrighted material. Why shouldn't TW do their best to minimise it?
The Open Source world is searching for the most effective business model. The Music world should be spending more time embracing such technologies and adapting their business model, instead of pursuing traditionalism.
IMHO, NOTHING will prevent consumers from getting what they'd like if they have the tools (decss) and the materials (the DVD stuff). The record industry must not deny this because this IS the future. Well, I can't say much more than this, as I think I've made my point :-)
The US Constitution grants Congress the power to grant copyrights for a limited time. If they keep upping the ante each time the deadline draws near, that is not "limited", because TW will never lose the copyrights of their characters to the public domain. Congress has overstepped its authority.
So, if TW invokes the DMCA to protect its characters, it's using an unconstitutional law to protect an unconstitutional franchise.
Normally, a copyright holder dies sometime, and their copyright fades. Not so for corporations like Time-Warner. Our legal system has been made into a twisted mockery of justice, in which immortal corporations are above the law.
The whole legal fiction of corporations being "persons" stems back to the 1886 Supreme Court decision in County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, in which the Court cited the "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment. Equal. That means that the entire reason corporations are allowed to have rights as distinct entities is because all people have equal protection under the law.
This is a complete crock. Do the actions of corporations ever kill people? You betcha! So when was the last time you saw a corporation sentenced to death?
And, no, monopoly breakups don't count. Those are to keep the other corporations happy, and any benefit to real people is incidental.
Why do we as a society constantly reward and look up to these faceless legal machines which are designed to grow larger and make money at any cost?
The corporation may be an efficient way to run the economy, but it's a sick joke to even think of them as "persons". We need a system of laws that recognizes that corporations are a group of people, working together, and not some entity in and of itself.
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
There *has* to be another side, no? Personally, I
encourage everyone I know to ignore intellectual
property laws of all sorts. Data and ideas cannot
be owned -- they lack scarcity. 'Pirating' is
not theft because nothing is *taken*. Post it
everywhere! Encourage your friends to ignore
'Intellectual Property'. IP is inherently invalid,
and it seems the DCMA is just taking us closer to
the inevitable conclusion of a pointless concept.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Ok, time for self-aggrandizing... when I read things like
/. readers & Linux activists may have more political/PR clout than they realize.
:)
Critics of the DMCA have long argued that the "anti-circumvention" provisions tilt the balance too far in favor of copyright owners, while depriving the public of the ability to use and access information.
I equate "Critics of the DMCA" with "Readers of Slashdot and Linux users." Perhaps this is silly... are there other large groups of people organized against the DMCA? I think librarians in general probably are... but I also think that
Or I could be on crack.
---
Does this harsh american copyright (I just realised how ironic "copyright" is) have a parralal in the prohibition laws? :-(
I mean, even those enforcing it are probably guilty of breaking it. A film that uses somebody elses material without permission for example (Ie. The Full-Monty, it's very very similar to a local play called "Ladies Night" that ran here about 10 years ago).
I can imagine Elliot Ness sitting down with a whiskey after a hard day with his Thompson machine gun.
So why do I make this point? Laws that are unenforcible and are broken everyone on a regular basis usually get forgottern about (Ie. The speed limit is 100km/h, but your speedo says 110km/h) They more you break it, the less anyone cares about it.
Though the american drug war is a notable exception, probably because politicians genrally don't shoot up in public or relax with some pot on friday night with the girls and boys behind the local bar.
Noone has taken up my idea of moving companies that seem a little dodgy under the DMCA to jump ship so-to-speak to another country with friendlier laws... Boo-hoo
From TWX:
"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."
The "technological protection" clauses of the DMCA are not an inadvertent extension of copywrite holders' rights by a naïve Congress, the limitation of fair use is entirely intentional. The argument that a digital work is fundamentally different from a pre-digital work was swallowed hook, line and sinker. The statement quoted above is absurd hyperbole; in a more accurate analogy, loaning a copy of Orifice2K to a friend is likened not to loaning a book but to loaning the press-plates for the book. The previously sufficient technical protection inherent in the expense of building a letterpress allowed for fair use to function without undue anxiety on the part of copywrite holders.
Congress is only too well aware of the technical issues, thanks to their friends in the content industries. Their eyes were wide open and their ears filled with the sound of the bell on the till.
Fair use is a dead letter, as intended. Arguments to restore it will fall on deaf ears. It remains to make clear that, in consequence, the very basis of copywrite, its ostensible role in supporting productive endeavor and the common weal, is subverted. Is this line persuasive? I doubt it. The DMCA effectively creates the conditions for a lively black market, essentially ensuring piracy. And this may be the key to its undoing. We may thus look on software piracy as a moral imperative.
In the immortal words of Wat Tyler (the punkers, not the 14th C. revolutionary):
Copywrite is for tools.
illegitimii non ingravare
Artists, and software authors, don't have to use the DMCA - they don't have to restrict access to their work.
Your local newspaper will take story ideas, call them during business hours tomorrow, they may actually be happy to hear from someone who isn't a paid publicist looking to have their press release run.
Offer to write an editorial after you've explained the location and purpose of the story. They will be unlikely to cover the story themselves--instead they will take your suggestion to mean: "look for this story on the wire for the next two days." If it doesn't make Reuters or the AP, you probably won't see it in your paper. If they are at all interested in the story, they might want to see an editorial in case the story doesn't surface or as a tie-in to the wire copy. Local editorials on a timely issue are more valuable than an archive or wire editorial, and cheaper. If you are "credentialed" all the better.
We in the twin cities that have a local econ professor battling the stadium builders tooth and nail through editorials. The point being that his modest credentials (prof at a community college), combined with his rhetoric have earned him quite a loud voice in the region.
Have URLs handy (2600.com, opendvd.org slashdot) to start the editors on the right track. Give them the MPAA/RIAA's webpage too, so they can feel they're being complete.
Anyone have any more suggestions?
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
(1) Prohibition. When alcohol was banned, people still produced, transported, and consumed it. "But it was the law!" The amendment was withdrawn by a subsequent amendment. Work through proper channels? Write your representatives? Convince legislators through proper means? Didn't happen. And the people were REWARDED for their disregard of an unjust law.
(2) Segregation laws. Blacks must yield their seat on busses to whites. Rosa Parks refused. "But it was the law!" Should she have complied? I think not. Her refusal spawned the great civil rights movement. Work through proper channels? Write your representatives? Convince legislators through proper means? Didn't happen. And the people were REWARDED for their disregard of an unjust law.
(3) The 55 MPH speed limit. The Federal Gov't, which is not supposed to be involved in making local state law (10th amendment) effectively extorted states into mandating 55MPH by refusing them federal highway dollars if they refused to comply and legislate 55. The law was widely ignored by the public. "But it's the law!" The threat was finally ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL and highway funds were ordered maintained regardless of local state speed limits. The result? Most states hiked local speed limits imediately. (And BTW, no increase in traffic fatalities appeared unkile what the naysayers predicted). Work through proper channels? Write your representatives? Convince legislators through proper means? Didn't happen. And the people were REWARDED for their disregard of an unjust law.
Am I making my point here?
Right now it's the internet turning IP law on its ear, just as the press removed literacy from the sole realm of high society. IP law cannot survive in a world of instantaneous global communication with each and every one of us granted equal power to publish anything. The dinosaurs will roar loudly, but they're already sinking into the tar pit.
Will the fall of IP law hurt a lot of people? Certainly. Recorded music put a lot of musicians out of business. Automatic pinsetters put a lot of people out of work. Computers and robots put a lot of factory workers out of work. Refrigeration put the ice deliverers out or work. The automobile hurt sales of horses. Airplanes depressed the commuter ship industry. The film camera hurt portrait artists. Cellular phones hurt the operators of coin operated phones. Something must be hurt or killed so that something new can live and grow. The fall of IP law will usher in a new wave of "information brokers" and "knowledge dealers". Knowledge will cease being for the wealthy or the "authoirized" and will become an omnipotent commodity upon which a new and better society will be built upon.
I for one am looking forward to the future.
It looks like it might just be a matter of time before the DMCA takes full effect. If the protests fail, and the courts rule in favor of the corporations, we still have a response. Lets simply ignore the monolithic, monopolistic, pay-per-use culture and come up with something better. How about creting an information/media refuge by creatively applying shrinkwrap style licensing?
In the software world, the GPL is an effective response to overly restrictive End-User License Agreements. Some of the best software in the world has been released under the GPL. The author chooses to use that license, and their works are protected under it. On this side of the fence, everything is working pretty well.
Wouldnt it be possible to release other media under a license that is more permissive than the DMCA tainted Copyright? Draw up a new contract that preserves the rights of the artist to profit, and protects the consumers rights to fair use. Include a provision that makes peer-to-peer distribution possible under certain, well defined conditions (payment for example). Make it easy for the end users to be legit, and stay legit.
Recruit artists who are benevolent and informed to start publishing under this license. Show them the benefits to their fans. Demonstrate that it wont cause a loss in revenue. This might take awhile (and some legal precedent), but it could be fairly feasable.
Push the benefits of this style of licensing to the consumer. Put little stickers on all permissively licensed merchandise, so people know when their rights are protected. Show them the benefits of the new licensing, highlighting the added value of having more rights to use the content at their convenience. Maybe even rally around someone who gets busted for doing something innocent under the DMCA copyright (linux DVD anyone?) to have a poster child for the cause. If we could get some consumer demand, then we have more pressure on the artists to release material under the new license.
So how about it? Can we take our ball and go home?
-BW
I was aware of the legal concept of the treatment of incorporations as persons. I consider it the basis of considerable injustice, but I did not know where it arose and I appreciate the reference. Time to do a little reading...
illegitimii non ingravare
Since (at this time) I am unable to properly form my ideas into text I will paraphrase. Did I get that right?
What I read below seems to be a very well thought out statementProfessor Pamela Samuelson of U.C. Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, a leading authority on the DMCA, has put the fair-use argument this way: "If owners of copies of copyrighted works do not have the ability to circumvent technical protection measures in order to make fair uses of protected material, fair use itself would cease to exist simply by virtue of the existence of technical protection measures."
I also read what seems to be a very well constructed sentence. The grammer is right and everything!
Of course, major copyright owners see the issue much differently. For example, in written comments leading up to the hearings, Time Warner (TWX) remarked upon on the "serious problems to copyright presented by the development of digitization" and the resulting need for "effective protection, both technological and legal, against unauthorized uses of copyrighted works and for effective prohibition against circumventing such protections."
With that said I expect to soon seek legal council for a violation of the DMCA. It seems I tried to view a DVD on a SUNY(tm) television as opposed to the DMCA approved MAGNAVAX(tm)
- sorry for posting,cole.
Quick question for all you legal eagle types out there - how does the DCMA apply to CANADA? I thought my country was sort of out of the jurisdiction of any US institutions. I AM Canadian, after all, so can a US court has a say in what I do up here?
Last time I looked, the DCMA was a US law, not an International law. Fuck 'em.
(BTW, the link needs QuickTime. Sorry)
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
"I am not sure what exactly a good defenition of information is, but I would exclude most movies (except for scientific films) from having status of informative."
Sneaking into a theatre and watching without paying is theft of a service. Downloading a film may be illegal but in no way whatsoever is it theft of a service. Services are things like haircuts, legal advice, and blow jobs.
If copyrighted works are not information, then what the heck is a copyright protecting? Copyrights don't generally protect services, if ever. Words, images, sounds, software and generally everything that is represented by bits.
In a perfect world, I'd grant anyone creating anything the ability to state precise terms of use. This is not a perfect world. Theatres require permits (greasing local politicians). TV and radio stations require airwaves (greasing the FCC). Movies require union cooperation (overpaying the politically well connected).
There probably is a way to accomadate both camps - restrictive and unrestrictive copyright usage. Unfortunately, the intricate power structure of governments and corporations makes having 2 competing methods for popular media close to impossible. DIVX version 1.0 died a quick and well-deserved death. DMCA is DIVX 2.0. Beware. Boycotting Circuit City is easy. Boycotting Uncle Sam will get you locked-up and ass raped.
If there is going to be one way, it damn well better be one that errs on the side of freedom and doesn't toss people in jail en masse. Corporations and media owners will stop at nothing to use government power to trample on your rights to ensure your business. Don't let them.
The "funny" poster who talked about boycotting everything was right. I say, bankrupt the mother fuckers until/unless they clean up their act. If copyright holders want ANY respect from me of their rights, they have a lot to learn and do to not infringe on mine.
I'm sure there are thousands who will gladly sign this, please help organize, I have finals this week so I can't deal with it.
Kick ass!
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
By Opening this book (reading this comment) You hereby forefit all earthly posessions to __________(insert name of company here).
(i thought it was funny at one point)
-Tim
Something that may be good to remember...
Copyright is *not* an inalienable, natural right. It is an artificial right, granted by a government FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.
Protecting a good authors work helps society, as that author can go ahead and produce more work.
This applies to patent, as well as other IP laws. Remember, laws like this are for THE BETTERMENT OF SOCIETY, *NOT* FOR THE BETTERMENT OF A COMPANY'S BANK ACCOUNT.
Remember. They will tell us it is 'illegal' for us to copy their DVD's, or to decode them.. let's remember who granted them those protections in the first place. Don't let this get any more out of hand than it already is.
Just some thoughts on implied contracts. I was thinking about why software/music/blah blah is so confusing.. why isn't this legal ground already covered.. and here's why.
When Joe Smith walks into a store and buys a pack of twinkies, he grabs the twinkies off the shelf, pays the clerk, and eats his twinkies. There is an implied contract here, namely, the transfer of ownership of the twinkies to Joe, in exchange for money. We don't put it in writing, we don't attach 'terms of use' to the twinkies.. it's just assumed that, after the purchase, joe owns the pack of twinkies.
When Joe Smith walks into the same store and buys computer software, or a CD, or a DVD, he does the exact same thing. He takes it to the counter, gives them money, and walks away. The implied contract, again, is that Joe now *OWNS* the stuff he just bought.
Oh.. but wait.. there are OTHER things joe wasn't aware of. He wasn't aware that his software will force him to agree to a legally binding (debatable) agreement when he runs it.. so he may *own* the media, but he doesn't own the bits....
Oh. And running the bits on the DVD through some kind of algorithm and coming up with a decrypted movie to store on his HD? That's not legal, Joe.. even though it *IS* your DVD, and you *DO* own it..
The problem, folks, is that people don't understand the issues around what they are buying. They don't understand when they buy software that they aren't really buying it.. that they are just purchasing a license to use it... oh, but the store treats it as merchandise. They aren't a licensing agent of any sort... deceptive, no? The software industry DOES have their cake and eat it too.
Hey. Pirating movies is *ILLEGAL* already. So is pirating music. So. Tough. We can buffer these existing laws with other laws, just to make it seem scarier (sort of like, getting caught for armed robery, but also getting charged with assault with a deadly weapon (steak knife), posession of stolen goods (the twinkies you stole), illegal use of an automobile (getaway car), illegal posession of a steak knife, entering a business with intent to rob the store, and resisting arrest (running when the cops show up, oh, and posession of criminal equipment (the otherwise legal radio scanner you were using to listen to cop frequencies. It's totally legal, until you use it in conjunction with a crime)
Kiddie porn, piracy, soliciting minors for sex, all these things are already illegal.
A previous poster posted a really good note about how existing laws are fine, and about how AOL should spend their money to help enforce todays laws, rather than simply create newer ones.
When Joe Smith goes to the store to buy a DVD, he's buying a movie. He sees these laws as 'fair'. His percetion is that, as long as he can watch his movies freely, he doesn't care.
When I go to buy a DVD, as I am more informed, I know that I am buying a plastic disc with digitally encoded & encrypted media on it. I know the basiscs of the laser mechanism that reads the disc, and I know how the data is encrypted. In other words, the 'creative work' that *I* am purchasing is very different than what Joe Smith is purchasing. I am not 'circumventing' a mechanism. I am just disassembling a work that I already purchased the right to 'use'.
Same disc, but different things to different people.
No comment. ;-)
As a small bit of historical background, DMCA was enacted in 1998, but there have been legislative proposals to deal with technological circumvention measures since about 1995, IIRC. Many Law Professors were concerned about those proposals from the beginning, fought them, fought DMCA, before ever enacted.
Obviously, the fight was not successful, but the outgrowth of that early work still influences the legal debate today. See, for example, this paper by Professor Pamela Samuelson at Berkeley, published virtually right after DMCA became law, still frequently cited.
All laws are supposed to exist to make the peoples' lives better, usually by protecting their rights. If it helps corporations as well -- good -- but that is not the primary objective. The copyright laws were put into effect to encourage corporations and artists to provide more works of art for the people. The DMCA helps corporations at the expense of the people. Any questions?
--
In the decision and determinminations of laws and facts, there was no mention of the DMCA. The issue argued was that they violated the stink (oops, shrink) wrap license agreement.
If you look at it, there is no argument from the defendants. It all refers to the "verified complaint" and counsel's affadavit.
Of couse, they repeat some of the same misrepresentations. That they decompiled the object code, onverted object code to source code. In the article, Schwartz claims that CyberPatrol was changed to make CPHack ineffective. But in the their papers, Mattel claimed that by not issuing the injunction, they would be subject to irreperable harm. If CyberPatrol was changed, how would it be subject to harm by an out of date, incompatble program?
Fight Spammers!
Actually corporations used to get killed all the time, up until the 1900's it was pretty common for abusive corporations to lose their charters, even before they became a fascist monopoly.
Anti-corporation sentiment was pretty common in the beginnings of the United States government, because of corporations like the Hudson Bay Company and their trade monopolies.
Now its all been downhill ever since that Supreme Court decision which gives corps the same rights as individuals, well individuals that never age, die, and are incredibly wealthy. Smart move.
Just a slightly offtopic response to the drug war comment.
Marion Barry(sp?) was arrested in a cocaine sting and was elected to mayor of Washington DC after he was released from prison.
More recently the wife of the top drug enforcment officer stationed in Columbia was found to have been smuggling drugs into the country in diplomatic satchels.
It seems to me that the drug laws are routinely disregarded in the US. (The fact that a huge percentage of the US prison population are convicted on drug related offences bears this out.)
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
Not to toot my own horn here, but I both do currently work for, and have in the immediate past worked for, companies that are potentially hugely affected by the DMCA.
I'm also responsible for our possible compliance thereunder. It Sucks. It makes my job a massive bitch, costs my company a boatload of cash and time to comply with, and generally makes my life miserable.
So, you bet I'm going to be there to let them know it's not just private citizen that are sick of the DMCA. It sucks hard for businesses, too - look at all the budding e-whatever, and I-whatever companies that are getting killed by the hired guns of the big media companies.
If you want a ride Thursday, give me a call. I work in Foster City, so I'll be heading down 101 sometime around 11:30.
650-520-5080
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
As an artist, I understand the importance of a copyright. I don't want a company to pay me once for something I worked on for days, and use it on everything they can to make ten times the amount they paid me. But this is ridiculous. Companies and associations shouldn't become the keepers of this argument. The initial creator(s) should be the ones with the final say. The associations were made to help the creators with issues regarding copyrights, not to decide for them.
I also don't see what the problem would be if the one copying movies/music/whatever is not making money off of this exchange. Copies are ok, but I personally would much rather have the actual tape or video, and if a friend makes a copy of something for me, I see it as a preview until I can afford to go buy the actual thing. Much better quality, and at least a little of the money gets to the people who deserve it. The ones who worked on the creation of it.
Lastly, the MPAA need to calm the heck down. They see a new technology they don't understand, and panic because all these younger people do understand, and are taking advantage of it.
-You're wearing...A bag? I have misplaced my pants.
Historically, no entity could enter your home without one of two things: One, your permission; or Two, a warrant from a judge.
Obviously, the citizen is in control of issue #1. If you don't want someone on your property, they're gone.
Item 2, a warrant, means the citizen must submit to a search for the items clearly delimited on the warrant. To obtain a warrant, the investigators must show they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has, or is about to be, committed on the property to be searched.
Contrast this with "personal" computers. NetPD was able to scan thousands of computers, obtain information about the users, compile and distribute the information without a warrant or your permission to access your machine.
The situation is grim. In my opinion, all communication between two computers must become legally protected. That is, no sifting or compilation of data about me, without my consent or a warrant from a judge; no monitoring of my communication with other PC users without a warrant or my consent.
Obviously, an employer has a right to know what their machines are being used for. I admit employers and company PCs do not fall under this umbrella.
One reason the presumption of innocence exists is to allow people to communicate freely. When I have a guest over to my house, I know we can speak and act freely -- any monitoring, without my permission or a warrant, is illegal.
My computer has microphones and video equipment attached. All transmissions between my computer and the outside world need to become protected. No monitoring without a warrant, or my express permission.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
The US is *not* the centre of this planet, which is actually some 6000+ kilometres beneath your feet.
<FLAMEBAIT>
It is amazing how some people are saying that the internet is global and should therefore not be regulated, while otherwise they're still trapped in the good-old "We're-the-centre-of-the-universe" vision.
</FLAMEBAIT>
Perhaps it's time to add a 'US-centric stories' checkbox to the slashdot config page ;-)
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
Is it my imagination, or has the stance taken by the media shifted slightly regarding DeCSS, and the DMCA. A short time ago, the DeCSS was described as a program that allows copying of DVD's. Here it is described as a "utility that is used to defeat the encryption on DVDs". Perhaps we could keep it up, and get it described as "a tool to allow people to watch DVD's without paying a cut to the MPAA"
The words "limit uses of copyright material" says it all about the mentality of the existing media groups. Basically they want to translate the Internet into a TV but with interaction (which maps to the ability to buy merchandise from them in their minds). Hello .... wakey wakeky guys. The ability for the user to *store* (or more correctly cache) and *transmit* data effectively decouples information in both a temporal and spatial dimension. Content distributors cannot assume that at 6pm, everyone will be settling down to evening news or that they can stagger the release of music titles to ensure word of mouth to control the build-up of hype. Hence their attempts to constrain the *use* of information through end-user licensing arrangements. By putting artificial restrictions (only home use, only link to original, etc) they hope to segment the market (much like aeroplane economy and business class) to sort out the people willing to *pay* for characteristics such as real-time (e.g. stock quotes), time sensitivity (last week's sports results are pretty valueless), or special services (e.g. customisation). However, the *big* assumption is that the consumer is passive and thus willing to have everything handed to them for the convenience (at a convenient markup). However, this IMHO is a serious misjudgement as what people (or at least the early adoptors) are seeking is the ability to combine/modify things to their liking. Star Trek would never have evolved the way it has if Paramount had forbidden the fans to write their own fiction or engage in unofficial conventions. The ability and freedom to mix your own tracks, design your own skin, or hack your own code modifications is viewed as a potential (lost) profit opportunity rather than a way of listening to what people really want. If a dispensing entity can restrict these rights, by fair means or foul, they then should be able to charge for the extra priviledges as per shareholder profit maximisation theory.
Unfortunately, the attempt to limit priviledges is not matched by a reduction in price. By attempting to license music rather than selling the rights to the contents they are effectively devaluing the resale and second-hand market. Some economists have noted that the secondary value of a good is often a more important determinant for marginal pricing, e.g. you can use a CD for the bits on it or as a drink coaster. Passing off a wasting asset as a durable good assumes that the consumers can't tell the difference or detect the reduction in value. Afterall, it's a standard trick when you can't raise the price, you reduce the portion size or dilute the intrinsic value.
One wonders what's worse, not having copyright and people borrowing your ideas, or having copyright protection and people *NOT* listening to you. So what can the Internet do? Well, you can take advantage of laws in other countries, compare and arbitrage prices across countries, or extend the reach of your opinions or new services. In other words, it forces individuals to think on a larger scale than previously.
LL
People in other countries should be concerned about the DMCA. The RIAA, MPAA and U.S. Government are probably going to attempt to shove it down your throat.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
They can authorise whatever the hell they want. They can say "You must not view this video except with HorrendouslyExpensiveVideoSoftware, which only runs on NastyExpensiveOS, made by people who eat babies, and if you don't live in the US you must not view it at all. Even though you paid for it. HA HA HA."
As a person who does not live in the US and would rather not run NastyExpensiveOS, I'd think it within my rights to do some unauthorised using of my DVDs which I paid for. Is that soooo "bad"?
Being in too much of a hurry to read the already posted comments, I will now sit and stare blankly at the screen until I formulate something to say. I do feel strongly about this one....
Real networks has something to gain out of this. As US law works at the moment, certain properties must be defended to remain in the owner's "legal possesion". This costs them money. They are built on being uncopyable and a secure medium to transmit AV over the net. Most of their job would be done for them if they could send the cops after anyone that cracked their code - or saw a cracked version of it, perhaps. Same income, great established name, no overheads, who could blame them for giving it a go - except it may come to be.
I'm gonna set up a corperate watchdog site, based in Australia but working globally and am interested in hearing from anyone who might like to get involved.
BTW - can anyone crack Realmedia?
Off to read the comments now....
Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
or just another milestone on the way.....
Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
The RIAA, MPAA and U.S. Government are probably going to attempt to shove it down your throat.
Quiet true. For nearly a centuary now, Europe/Australasia has copied laws passed in the US, an example of which is the hard line on drug's. The US likes to press it's laws onto the world citizens, because it suits them well.
When a law such as the DMCA is passed in the US, you can be sure a politician somewhere, will amend it and attempt to introduce it into your local laws.
I'm from the UK myself, and it's already begining to happen with the RIP bill. DMCA protests here i come....
Syllable : It's an Operating System
- To encourage authorship, copyright law gives authors a limited and exclusive property right to their works.
The sentence above, quoted from the linked article, is in someway contraddictory and absurd.If I create something, it's mine, and I own it, and therefore I don't need the law to give me a right (property) that I already have.
So, how comes that there was the need to give to authors what they alredy had? And with limitations moreover!
It was because they had given their property away. Did they?
Yes. When you publish your creation you give away your property, and exactly you give away the immaterial content of your creation, keeping ownership only of the material part.
That is the reason for the existance of the copyright law, and is a good reason.
To ensure that more and more content is given away to the public, the law garantees that economic benefit of the diffusion of that content be in exclusive benefit of the author, for a limited time.
It does not give the property back to the authors. It gives them only the economic benefit.
- At the same time, to ensure that the general public has access to information, copyright law gives the public the right to make "fair use" of copyrighted works without the author's permission.
Also the fair use doctrine refers to economic benefit: I can quote your book in my article (which is a recension of your book) and sell it without paying you nothing. This is fair use.When you transfer to your hard disk the content of the CD (or DVD) for which you already payed the economic benefit to the author (or owner of the copy-right), you are not stealing nothing.
The fact that the Media industry wants you to pay that tax more than once is just indication of their greediness.
bricius -- just my 0.02 euros
Stop the greediness! Fight the Intellectual Property!
Has anybody read the preamble to the original Copyright Treaty?
People providing the material Metallica and others are up in arms about invited others to connect up to their servers by making them part of the Napster network. NetPD didn't do anything nefarious in collecting its list, they used the same mechanisms available to any other Napster user. The only difference is that they found a way to automate the process and kept records of what they found. If you want to prevent NetPD or others from doing something similar to your system, implement access controls and do everything you can to ascertain the identity and intent of those you allow to connect.
In my opinion, all communication between two computers must become legally protected ... no monitoring of my communication with other PC users without a warrant or my consent.
What you're railing against has nothing to do with monitoring of others' communications. It has everything to do with the fact that a large number Napster users effectively hung signs on the front of their systems that said "I have others' intellectual property available for download." The owners of that IP took notice and are exercising their legal right to protect their interests.
I'd be real interested to know why people feel people should be beheaded for violations of the GPL but that violating the license terms of non-free things is okay.
...is the same as the problem with trademarks: dilution.
There's a lot of anti-DMCA, anti-UCITA, anti-MPAA and anti-RIAA sentiment, and a lot of people have called for boycotts. The problem is that no one's organizing anything; there are individuals boycotting all these things (well, the last two, anyway, and the sponsors of the first two), but not in large enough numbers for it to make a difference, and not in a coordinated, public way.
Am I part of the solution? No, I don't guess so. I'm boycotting the MPAA, but I know I'm in a pitifully small minority, and as a result, my actions are doomed to failure. But don't more people care about these issues? Is it just a lack of organization, or publicity, or what?
Are there coordinating organizations for any of these alleged boycotts? Would someone be willing to donate bandwidth and webspace to coordinate one? Until we get organized, we're just going to get trampled on.
phil
Anybody planning a protest around Cornell U.?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Normally I'm a law abiding citizen, but this law and what the industry is trying to do with it makes me so mad, that for the first time in my life I feel obliged to 'civil disobedience'. Today I feel guilty when I buy a DVD and/or CD (money is not the problem, I have enough of it) and only feel right if I make illegal copies.
I feel the same way, and I imagine many of the better informed people (here and elsewhere) do. Alas, I hate to say it, but I am skeptical that any good will come of such civil disobediance.
Why?
Because, to be effective, civil disobedience must reach a certain critical mass and become widespread enough to make a noticable impact. Alas, nearly all of my friends who privately agree with my stance on boycotting DVDs and the Entertainment Industry still cannot live a day without their bread and circuses, and routinely sell their rights to free expression down the river for another daily dose of "Friends" and the "X-Files."
The Media Moguls know this. They understand their history and know that the most important, and powerful, institutions of the latter centuries of the Roman Empire were Bread and Circuses, initially in the form of the Games(tm) and later in the form of the Catholic Church(tm). They assume, quite correctly I'm afraid, that consumers' craving to be entertained will outweigh their outrage of being stripped of their rights. So far, Disney, Time-Warner, and friends appear to be winning this wager.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you see legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Actually, the 55 was never ruled uncostitional. Yes, it certainly was unconstititonal, like a majority of today's legislation, but the case was never heard.
Nevada passed a 75 law that had a provision allowing the governor to suspend it if the federal secretary of transportation threatened to pull highway funds. A single 75 sign was posted, and the governor waited for the phone call. ONce it was received, there was a dispute which could be heard in federal court. (Nevada had *no* speed limit other than the basic speed law on most highways before this).
The case was pending for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court when the federal 65 law passed. A spineless state Attorney General withdrew the case at that point, and it was never heard.
A few years ago, th feds finally dropped the law entirely.
The reason it violates the constitution is that the constitution grants a set of powers to the feds. Recognizing that this law wasn't even close to those powers, the feds did not directly implement a 55 law, but required the states to do so under threat of loss of federal highway funds. If ordering states to pass legislation in this way is within the power of the feds, there is *absolutely* no limit on federal authority.
Note: there were a handful of trial judges around the country that correctly ruled that the law was unconstitutional, but that only applied in those individual courtooms--and they tended to be in jurisdictions with multiple judges. Also, Nevada and Montana "complied" by creating "wasting natural resources" infractions (the 55 was initially justified as an energy saving matter, and then extended as it got credit for the lives saved by improved safety features in cars [three point belt; reinforced doors]). This ticket was not a moving violation, could not be used by insurance companies in calculating rates, was equivalent to a parking ticket, and could be paid at the scene ($5, iirc) in Montana.
hawk, esq., displaced Nevadan
After spending a good part of 3 days reviewing the Tapes of the east
,etc
coast hearings on the DMCA, I think that a number of problems can be
outlined in the attempt to hurdle fair use of copyrighted materials
for Open Source development, and in the rest of the world.
First of all, being there and at these sort of hearings is very
important. The Library Associations had presented a dozen
or so testimonies. As a result, through the testimony that the libraries gave, they shaped the framework and the context of the hearings that for the rest of the testimonies.
Fortunately, Open Source and Libraries largely dovetail their needsin terms of copyright. But there exists important differences between
theneeds of Libraries and Open Source developers. Concessions that Libraries obtain, may well not be extended to the public at large. We need to also bring this same level of lobbying to the Government if we want our individual rights to survive, let alone Linux or FreeBSD.
Secondly, the largest problem I see is in the definition of words. Repeatedly, proponents of access control talked about the rights of
property owners, and described copyright holders as property right owners, and such were expecting certain rights. They then went on to describe "Fair Use", on the other hand, as a doctrine and
privilege.
This axiom was never sufficiently challenged, and is of course, essentially wrong.
Copyright is indeed the privilege and Congress can remove all copyright tomorrow if they so desired. Fair Use, on the other hand, is the constitutional right of individuals, and nothing can be done to remove "Fair Use".
For example, your rights can not be given away by contract. I would not be able to sign an agreement preventing my freedom of speech or assigning it to another. Similarly, I can not give away my right to property, to have due process,
etc. These are guarantees. But a copyright can be sold - straight out.
Clearly, the Fair Use doctrine was created by the courts to define the property rights of individuals over material aquired under copyright. Therefore, "Fair Use" is not a privilege at all, nor can I agree to give it away in a click through license.
There have been comparisons made that a person using a legally acquired work and
hacking through access controls to use the material in a way protected under the Fair Use doctrine is the same as a person breaking and entering into a home/business to make Fair Use of a book in a store. Nevertheless, this is clearly invalid at the core premise. In fact, the limitation of Fair Use of a
material legally purchased by an individual is comparable to Time Warner breaking into my home and stealing my VCR because I lent a my copy of the Titanic to my Grandmother.
Secondly, the panel at the copyright office really does not take the Open Source community seriously. They find us an amusing group of little consequence.
Thirdly, many people purjured themselves at the hearings. This is especially true with
Time Warner who said that there is a legal license of Linux to play DVD's currently. Yet in fact, Creative Labs told me that the Movie Industry
threatened them if they released another open soured driver for their current DVD player.
A fourth point is that the DMCA definitely created a dangerous precedent, which
Congress was completely aware of, and said so in the Legislative History
of the DMCA. It is repeated in the text. When Congress could not resolve the constitutional issue of Fair Use with Access control they passed the issue to the Copyright Office. In order to get the statute passed, they left the Fair Use problem to the Copyright Office to solve. And yet many people told the Office they had no right to address that issue, which was clearly intentionally left to them in the first place because Congress could not resolve the problem itself.
So a great Constitutional issue has been passed by Congress to the Copyright Office. I'm not sure if Congress actually has the power to do this. But the thrust of the Copyright Office is to not do anything to destroy the law totally of its bite. The problem is that Access Control is incompatible with the Rights of Property and free Speech granted to individuals under the Constitution (what is generally being called Fair
Use doctrine) One completely destroys the other as a practicle matter. This puts the Copyright office in a position of making rules to prevent
access control from destroying the Bill of Rights and clauses within the
Constitution which protect
individuals from Government or private interests. I do not think the copyright office can do this even if it wanted to. And therefor the entire law might be unconstitutional. Either way, the Office needs to be urged to make sweeping classes of material exempt from the DMCA because to do so otherwise would be unconstitutional.
Fifth - a major weak point in many of the arguments was a lack of examples of harm by the DMCA. Well, the DVD control is one, the destruction of Audio Digital Tape another (prior to the DMCA), the Steven King e-book is a third, being unable to scan past advertisments is a fourth etc, etc
We need the people in California to be prepared with cases of this, and the Comments to Testimony coming up after the hearing should detail these abuses. Bring a DVD if you need to!
The argument was repeatedly made by media industry that they will guarantee us certain rights because it is in their interest to do so and can therefore
be trusted to protect Americans rights to property and speech. This argument must be attacked vigorously.
First, Industry does not give us "Fair Use" rights - the Constitution guarantees it to the public. Secondly, the concessions they are making,
they have no real control of. For example, they claimed to allow people
to RIP CDs for personal use. This is something they clearly have no control over and had tried to stop when they killed the Digital Audio
Tape format. Also, as made clear by the WABC cable spat, they have proven that they can not be trusted to protect the interests of the
public. In fact, if they did so, they would be in conflict with their responsibility to stock holders. By definition, businesses serve their
own purposes. In addition, Congress has granted the responsibilty of protecting of our rights to a private enterprise, which if not unconstitutional, is still morally corrupt.
Secondly, Industry has a track record of impeding the rights of the Public in matters of Fair Use. Valentiani, who represented the Movie industry flat out compared access of a video media to buying a ticket at
a movie theater. He directly linked access of a legally acquired copy of material to the fee for view model of seeing a performance at a theater. Congress went to great pains to prevent this in the DMCA, but without Fair Use protections, industry has said on record that it wants a pay per view license and the end of Fair Use.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
The argument Real used to prevent someone from creating a player/recorder client is so wrong it makes me ill. there are many reasons to want a recording of broadcasts. News commentary, education, evidence of slander, etc... all of which are fair use and aren't possible because DMCA protects the interests of content providers and not the people. Resting on one's laurels is no excuse for taking away rights from the people. If I buy a CD from a store, no one can deny me the right to do with it what I please so long as I don't try to make a profit from it. Yet the DMCA does just that for the equivelent package, should I download it and not travel to the brick and mortar record shop. No one can deny me the right to re-record the songs on that CD to a tape in whatever order I want for personal use, so long as I don't make a profit from it. So how are napster users making money? Why is it impossible for me to record Real broadcasts? Didn't we go through this already with cassette tapes and vcr's? Just my 2 cents, thanks for the audience.
Greeting Congressmen
:http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0018/howe.shtm l)
n s.html ) is being
/ msg00159.html for a
4 00safi.html l c urrents/016.html
I'm sending this email out to you about the The Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304 (1998), which added a new Chapter 12
to
title 17 United States Code.
This Act by Congress needs to be dramatically altered to ensure that
the
fair use rights given to US citizens under the Constitution are better
protected, and to ensure that everyone in America has the right to
innovate and participate fairly in commerce.
Without going through the complete details of the the entire act,
fundamentally, this law was passed by congress in response to the
increasing concern by various traditional broadcast and media
corporations
that the limit license provided by copyrightis becoming
harder to protect in the digital environment. The trouble with the act
is that it has no respect for the constitutional balance between the
rights of holders of copyright licenses and the rights of
the public. The rights of free speech and property, which are
constitutional guaranteed to all individuals, have been made secondary
to the protection of the privilege of copyright, which is a limited
license granted to a individuals as congress sees fit for the purposes
of encouraging practical sciences. In fact, this point is made clear in
the legislative history of the DMCA as Congress as claimed the
constitutionality of the DMCA under COngresses empowerment under the
commerce cause, not the copyright clause. The trouble is that Congress
has used it's powers under one clause of the Constitution to eliminate
the publics rights under the Bill of Rights.
While the DMCA is Constitutionally questionable, it is morally repugnant
since it reduces the publics ability to participate in commerce and
public life.
Both individual free speech and individual property rights, as
guaranteed under the "Fair Use" doctrine, have been absolved by the DMCA
to consumers of information. And, of course, we are all information
consumers.
both free speech
and property of people who consume information. And of course we are
all consumers of information.
As Law Professor Yochai Benkler of NYU, an expert of Inforamation Law,
was quoted as saying, "If the judge finds for the plaintiff (in a case
involving the DMCA in NY), and the decision isn't knocked down on
appeal
it will create an environment that's closed like nothing we've ever
seen
before....Say you want to criticize the liberal leanings of Hollywood,
or criticize the sexist movie of this or that, You need to be able to
quote little pieces of the movie. You can do that under the copyright
law, because that's fair use, but using DVDs lawfully as the [film
association] reads the law, you can't do that. This really extinguishes
user privilege to an unprecedented degree."
(For more information see
The DMCA, as it is currently written and interpreted by the Federal
District Court of NY, under Judge Lewis Kaplan, (See the transcript at
http://www.2600.org/news/2000/0121-files/0121-tra
interpreted so strictly as to undermine the protections that were
written into it for protecting reverse engineering and fair use.
The law states that if a copyrighted material is available in digital
format (and what is not going to be available in digital format in the
future), that an electronic access device can be used to regulate
access
to that material in order to prevent piracy of the material.
The trouble with the law is largely 3 fold:
A - The law tramples on fair use and property rights.
B - The law is stifling innovation.
C - The Law is stifling free speech and is a direct threat to the kind
of discourse necessary for a free society.
In the first case, up until now, the Supreme Court has drawn a line
between the limited rights of a copyright holder to material, and the
protections of speech and property of owners of the actual media in
which material is publish on. For example, an owner of a record is
allowed to copy music to cassette tape for personal use. The owner of
a
book has the right to quote parts of the book, as I did here, even to
photocopy it for a personal archive or a report. The DMCA prevents
these activities when the printed text or the audio track is on a DMCA
protected digital format. As an example, in the case of the new DVD
media, the purchase of the DVD does not give the owner of the disk the
right to use it as they see fit. For example, they may only be
allowed to view the disk on a computer running Microsoft Windows, or a
computer using a specifically permitted software or other authorized
device.
This arrangement places a choke hold on what information can
and can not be viewed and removes freedom of choice and fair use. You
can not copy any segment of the information, anotate it, or print it
out. As things are currently, for example, a standard American DVD can
not legally be seen on the Linux Operating
System, the second largest operating system in current use in the
US. In response to not being able to view DVD's on Linux, Linux
developers created a program to access the DVD for viewing.
The developers posted the program on the internet. In response, the
Movie
industry brought suit in NY and in California. Judge Kaplan in NY has
said in his ruling that EVEN UNDER THE CONDITION that the program was
developed for use under Linux, and was protected under the reverse
engineering clause of the DMCA, that this would not protect the
developer of the program from arrest, or the web masters who post the
program on the internet from prosecution under the DMCA.
As it is, the developer is a 16 year old boy and both the boy and his
father were arrested in Norway, where they live. If he lived in
America, the boy would be considered a felon under the DMCA.
In the second case, if Judge Kaplan's ruling is to stand, and if
congress
does not strengthen the rights of developers to reverse engineer DMCA
hardware and software for inter-operability with new hardware and
software, then the impact on the US economy will be devastating. The
Linux operating system, for example, was created by a graduate student
who had an open platform in the IBM Personal Computer clone. Without
the ability to have this open platform, the Linux operating system, in
addition to nearly every other internet based piece of software, could
never have come into existence. The DMCA is a dagger at the heart of
Linux, and other new technologies like it, and to the internet itself.
If any part of the PC which is copyrighted (which is almost the entire
platform), the DMCA today would prevent the exploration of the hardware
and the firmware, and more to the point, would, with new technology
make
it
illegal just to access the computers insides without
pre-authorization by the copyright holders of the technology.
In short, under today's legal system, thanks to the DMCA, the internet
itself, which is largely driving today's economy, would never have come
into existence because the protocols which run the networking would be
protected and closed through means of DMCA devices.
In the third case, the DMCA is stifling free speech today, and will
have
an increasingly devastating effect on free speech in the future. The
news
outlet at http://slashdot.org has received notice from Microsoft Corp.
to
remove information posted on the web site in discussing Microsoft
business
practices, because they claim, not that the information itself
was copyrighted, but because it was protected under the DMCA. The
copyright itself would not have given Microsoft protection because the
material was being discussed in the context of a of a conversation of
it's unfair business practices. So they needed to invoke the DMCA.
Microsoft is bypassing the fair use doctrine which protects individuals
and news media by invoking the DMCA. (see
http://nylug.org/list-archives/NYLUG-TALK/2000-05
copy of the Letter sent by Microsoft to the publisher of slashdot)
This threat is larger than the recent spat between Time-Warner and
Disney over channel seven/WABC. In that case, the NY
Times has ardently come out in support of protecting the freedom of
speech
by the press. In this case, there would no longer BE ANY PRESS except
for
news disseminated through approved channels under DMCA protection. Both
creators and consumers of information would be censored through the
control of access to the public.
Barring any potential perceived monetary risk which media companies
think up, and especially in light of the fact that no evidence exists
that digital media has cost companies a single penny from copyright
infringement,
I must ask that the Congressmen take the lead in protecting individual
property and fair use rights, freedom to innovate and share in our
prosperity, and freedom of speech. This is the trinity of a great
and free society. Congress is empowered to protect and enhance these
activities. But Congress has stumbled because it seems to lack a real
understanding of the issues, and how technology works.
I want you to lobby and to present a bill to repeal the DMCA, or at
least, pass an amendment reaffirming the rights of every individual, in
relationship to copyrighted and exchanged information, to their
historical guarantees which have, until now, served this great nation
so
well.
________________________________
Other Sourses of Information:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/safire/050
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0018/howe.shtm
http://slashdot.org
Must Read-->http://noframes.linuxjournal.com/articles/
--
Ruben I Safir
ruben@sruben.dental.nyu.edu
ruben@wynn.noSppam.com
Perl Notes:
http://www.wynn.com/jewish/perl_course
http://www.brooklynonline.com
Manager of Intranet Development NYU College of Dentistry
Resume: http://www.wynn.com/jewish/resume.html
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report on
H.R. 2281, a bill to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization
copyright treaties. I am pleased that the final product of the many months
of negotiations has produced a bill of appropriate scope and balance, and
reflects many of the priorities I established through the introduction of
my own bill to implement the WIPO copyright treaties, to begin updating the
Copyright Act for the digital era, and to address the potential problem of
on-line servicer liability.
First, with respect to `fair use,' the conferees adopted an alternative to
section 1201(a)(1) that would authorize the Librarian of Congress to
selectively waive the prohibition against the act of circumvention to
prevent a diminution in the availability to individual users (including
institutions) of a particular category of copyrighted materials. As
originally proposed by the Administration and adopted by the Senate, this
section would have established a flat prohibition on the circumvention of
technological protection measures to gain access to works for any purpose,
and thus raised the specter of moving our Nation towards a `pay-per-use'
society. Under the compromise embodied in the conference report, the
Librarian of Congress would have authority to address the concerns of
libraries, educational institutions, and other information consumers
potentially threatened with a denial of access to categories of works in
circumstances that otherwise would be lawful today. I trust that the
Librarian of Congress will implement this provision in a way that will
ensure information consumers may exercise their centuries-old fair use
privilege to continue to gain access to copyrighted works.
Second, the conferees made an important contribution by clarifying the `no
mandate' provision of the bill. Because the conference report is silent, I
thought that I should explain this provision in some detail. As my
colleagues may recall, I had been very concerned that S. 2037 could be
interpreted as a mandate on product manufacturers to design products so as
to affirmatively respond to or accommodate technological protection
measures that copyright owners might use to deny access to or the copying
of their works. To address this potential problem, I authored an amendment
providing that nothing in the bill required that the design of, or design
and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics,
telecommunications, or computing product
http://www.hrrc.org/senflr.html
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
These punks distributing MP3, playstation CD images, MS Office, "mod chips" for game machines and DVD players, software cracks, are no different than the loads of small-time, penny-ante "bosses" during the 1920s. And if they don't want this to turn into a large scale organized net mafia, Feds had better nix the DMCA and recognize WHAT THE PEOPLE THINK (not corps) is fair use.
Until now musicians, movie stars, software authors, silicon valley startups, Microsoft, etc., have all been living IN THE GUTTER, in impoverished destitution because there were unable to make any money from the furits of their hard labor. These poor souls. THANK GOD for the DMCA which will be a saviour for these poor saps and allow them TO EARN MONEY FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER!!!
Who could be against that?
DMCA is about helping the big corps. It was never about rewarding creativity. Never. "DMCA was never about rewarding creativity". Repeat as needed until it sticks.
News from the frontlines: AOL worried users might be able to access web pages due to the constitution, asks congress to repeal constitution.
-ElendaleToday, AOL released a press statement claiming that the constitution is infringing upon their right to deny certain customers access to web pages based on their age, nationality, or- as the spokesman put it- catagory. AOL states that it was given the right to do these from the DMCA and the fact that all the government workers are owned by AOL. The AOL spokesman stated at the end of the conference "by listening to this speech you have agreed to give up your rights as human beings and work as cheap labor for AOL and also not say anything bad about us. If you agree to this, blink sometime within the next week or two. Thank you and have a nice day."
No one was available for comment
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Licensing seems to be the trend in corporations. I no longer own software, movie or music. The copyright holder has licensed it to me. On his terms.
The fundamental problem is that many real world truisms are not so obvious in the digital world. e.g. I go to McDonalds. I give them MY money for THEIR French fries. I'm the owner of the fries and they own my money. We've exchanged ownership. Simple. Has worked for thousands of years.
The same does no apply for digitalware. I give them MY money for THEIR digitalware. Now they say that, "You don't own it, we do". And, THEY own MY money. No exchange of ownership. This is a new kind of transaction. Maybe as the owner of the money, I should redefine transaction.
Can I be funny and say, that this dollar bill, serial no "G 27669358 A" is unique. I received it as a reward for some good work I did. That I have elevated the humble dollar bill to Intellectual Property. And that I grant corporations the license to use it(See terms and conditions).
Of course, I will shrink wrap the dollar bill(Hey, UCITA protects anything shrink wrapped, right?) I authorize them to use my money. Only, it will be under my license terms.
My license would say that, they can use the money only in research and development of new software, etc. Under no circumstances should my money, or any portion of it be used to fund their legal department, etc. At the end of the license period, the money must be donated to a charity of my choosing.
Do I remember wrongly, or isn't the DMCA meant to bring the United States into full compliance with some international copyright treaty or other that's already in effect in most other places? Or am I thinking of something else?
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Time Warner says that it needs "effective protection, both technological and legal, against unauthorized uses of copyrighted works".
They had better resort to legal protection then, because any technical measure that is "acceptable to the market" is going to be reverse engineered in a country not prohibiting such "hacking".
To quote Digital Copyright Protection by P.Wayner: "The best place to begin in this book is with the bad news: there is no absolute way to prevent people from copying digital versions of your text, your music, your movie...".
All "unbreakable" copyright protection systems rely on a trusted oracle either:
Option 2. clearly isn't viable in the market (think DIVX!), so 1. seems the only workable option. The problem is, of course, that DVD drives are by now widely distributed - you can't really hardwire the functionality into existing players.
It would appear that the horse has well and truly bolted for a technical solution.....
"Mary had a crypto key, she kept it in escrow, and everything that Mary said, the Feds were sure to know."
When independent groups of right-minded people set out to see beyond marketting hype and manufacturers specs and actually TEST the products we use today, they are generally called Consumer Advocates, not malicious hackers. Computer software seems to be one of the few arenas today where the general public has been effectively misled to believe that those actually working in their best interest are somehow evil, lawbreaking freaks. What do you think the response of the public would be if UL found a defect in a baby toy and was SUED by the manufacturer? Or some automag independently crash tested a vehicle and found it didn't meet the safety rating the manufacturer claimed, and was likewise sued? In these situations, the public would of course be outraged that these companies were trying to not only coverup existing defects but PREVENT others from finding new defects! And yet, when it comes to software, we seem more than happy to put the muzzle on the only dogs who won't bite the end-user...
Once again, fair use is being ignored. Its already part of the law. What happens when two laws are passed that don't agree with each other?
Its already almost a given that people think using a sound or piece of music or a graphic image of a television show or whatever is "illegal," even if it meets most if not all of the fair use tests.
At the very least, it will probably generate a letter from a lawyer somewhere saying "this is a violation of our copyrights," when in fact, it probably isn't.
Somewhere along the line, there has to be some legally precedent-setting case law or some commentary on some of these issues before any more laws are passed. Fair Use has to remain part of the law.
A good answer to DMCA would be to come up with a new reasonable license.
Let's call it "Fair Copy License"...
The outline would be something like that:
you are allowed to make backup copies and copies on different media for personal/family use
you are allowed to make and give away copies on an individual basis
copies from copies are not allowed
any monetary or bartering gain from distributing copies is not allowed, with the exception of getting copies of other material licensed same way in exchange
Non individual copies are not allowed - i.e. by placing material on the Internet for unattended downloads or posting on the Usenet.
This kind of license is a much better deal for content customers, and it's a better deal for artists as well, since "fair copying" acts as a very good promotion mechanism. Revenue lost on unpaid copies is more then compensated by reduced advertising expenses and increase in sales due to "grassroots" promotion.
Vassili Leonov
Actually Alaska has been coerced by the pulling of federal funds before. IIRC the speed limit was 55 on Alaska's highways. Whether that was due to the Feds I do not know. regardless, every state relies on the federal government for the maintenance of Interstate highways. That is their function, and was to be their only domestic function, to regulate interstate commerce.
Also during the Hickel administration, Alaska was told in no uncertain terms that it must repeal its marijuana legalization or face the withdrawal of highway funds. Hickel had promised more highway maintenance, and had to capitulate.
Because of the AK constitution, this did have to go before the citizens with a vote. However because highway funds were on the line, the proposal was made deliberately obfuscatory. Each choice on the ballot was at least a paragraph of legal jargon, and "no" meant yes once it was all unravelled. The law was repealed by a narrow margin, marijuana was illegal, and the funds were saved.
Since then every petition to bring a more readable proposition to the ballot has been rejected, not because of a dirth of signatures, but because of "technical difficulties."
A slight diversion, sure, but another example of the federal governments' extortion and coercion, and the reason why caving on the basis of highway money does not work -- they will just think up something else to tie to it.
Yes, this is all well and good, and I used to think as you, but innocent people are dying here.
v es.html
http://www.theonion.com/onion3618/kid_rock_star
Become a FIST.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fists_of_Righteous_
Two requests: First, read up on the DMCA cases before you come so you can answer people's questions. Second, be polite and obey the law.
I personally think the Cyber Patrol case is the worst DMCA abuse so far, since Mattel basically used DMCA to censor an article and analysis that was critical of software it wants to install in public libraries. But some of you might be interested in the Slashdot/Microsoft mess or the DVD cases too. Hope to see you all there.
What is important to me is that open content formats continue to be available freely and widely, so that alternative, free, open media and productions can prosper. With digital recording and PC-based audio and video production, a lot of really good content (concerts, theater, etc.) produced by non-profits and non-professionals is going to find its way onto the Internet, as long as the means for recording distributing that content remain open and affordable. Unfortunately, there are some restrictions already (MP3 players, for example, can't copy even free content); this is where we need to be vigilant.
Now, there is one exception where I think fair use provisions for media are really important even when it comes to the bogus content the big media companies are producing: news and other politically related media. It is really important to be able to call these organizations on the factual and logical errors they make. If they get to control who views their content, and when, and how, critics can be prevented from accessing it at all, or be kept from analyzing it carefully.
Of particular concern to us should also be what happens once the written word is customarily consumed using digital devices. The comments of the industry specifically talk about books; with DMCA, access to written materials by critical voices may become difficult, or, worse yet, different individuals may be shown different content altogether without even knowing it. That, too, is a good reason to be concerned about the DMCA and similar efforts even though, as far as the money making media are concerned, many of us couldn't care less what kinds of restrictions Disney puts on the latest Tarzan video.
A single $ layed down on the counter in exchange for goods is a thing of the past. Once the consumer buys what he or she needs, they can (theoretically) drop out of society, quit their jobs, and move on, not be an "economic unit".
"they" have already converted things like houses and cars over; you no longer BUY a house anymore, you basically rent it from the bank, and make monthly payments. Same with cars (they're even pushing leasing increasingly since the late 80's). Now they want to do the same with entertainment. Gone will be the days where you could watch something on TV, tape it, and watch it again as much as you want, or lend it to a friend. Same with music. It's all going over to a revenue-maximizing pay-per-view model. Same with computer software, what do you think the term "ASP" means? Application Service Provider. Gouge the customer for ownership of the app, and provide the app on a pay-per-use basis off an internet server. Most people won't want to pay $500 to own a copy of Word, especially if it will be obsolte (due to shifting proprietary file-formats) in six months, so why not rent it from MSN for $5 per use? Problem is, if you use it more than 100 times, you lose in the deal.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
So, according to Time Warner, making a copy of content I have legally bought and paid for is exactly the same as breaking and entering into a store, and stealing merchandise! The mind boggles... did the Time Warner representative actually manage to say this with a straight face?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
How right she is! The concept of fair use has ceased to exist; wasn't that the intent of the DMCA in the first place?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
If you fight the law, and it is deemed invalid for some reason, by violating the U.S. Constitution or a state Constitution or somesuch, then you are free and have instituted a change.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
According to the Upside article, "For its part, Real Networks Inc. (RNWK) submitted written comments arguing that none of its streaming media technologies should be exempted from the anti-circumvention rules. According to Real Networks, its use of technological copyright protection measures has actually made more content available to the public because copyright owners are more inclined to distribute their content over the Internet without fear of widespread piracy. ..This is not the first time Real Networks has sung the praises of the DMCA. Earlier this year, it successfully used the DMCA's 'anti-device' provisions to enjoin Streambox Inc. from distributing the Streambox VCR. According to Real Networks, the Streambox VCR circumvented Real Media's technological protection measures to allow users to record Real Media files."
But according to www.streambox.com ( a press release dated Jan. 18, 2000), the judge actually repealed a restraining order preventing Streambox from selling Streambox Ripper, which "enables consumers and content providers to convert RealNetworks files into Windows Media, MP3 and WAV formats." The statement goes on to ask Real to release the proprietary format on their copy switch so that owners of copyrighted material can choose to use Streambox VCR to turn on the copy switch or not.
It would appear that Streambox would be adversely affected by the form of the DMCA that Real Networks is lobbying for. And it is rather interesting that Microsoft Corp. appears to have invested in Steambox.
Would any Streambox or Microsoft people care to join the protest against the DMCA?
I repeat, it's not only free software people or digital pirates who oppose the DMCA. Most corporations ought to understand that it operates against their interests as well. And every citizen will be affected if media giants can turn all content into "pay-per-view". What do you suppose our kids in school will be viewing on their computers, courtesy of Intel, Microsoft, AOL, Disney, Time-Warner, and the RIAA and their friends?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
IP isn't about reimbursing work. Work occurs over time, and I take great pains before I engage in work to ensure that I am going to be reimbursed for it. IP is an attempt to turn the product of that work into an alienable, resaleable commodity. This does increase the reward for some producers, and decreases it for others. (I.e., if you can sell several recorded copies of, i.e., a musical performance and can use the force of law to ensure that each copy of that performance is redundently rewarded, you significantly diminish the market for new performances. This is why local musicians don't thrive in the recording-industry star system.)
Remember, in most sectors, the residual benefits of work performed are not identical with the work: i.e., people who enjoy the ongoing benefits of the work I have done at one time are not sending me royalty checks. I don't see why other industries should be special in that regard.
The main problem with the DMCA is that it removes the onus on the plaintiff to prove that there were any actual damages. The very act of using a product in a way not specifically authorized by the product maker is prohibited, and severe penalties are imposed, regardless of whether or not the use in question had any negative impact whatsoever on the maker!
Please ammend your comments to read "No one can deny me the right to do with it what I please so long as they are not harmed" and "No one can deny me the right to re-record the songs on that CD to a tape... so long as they are not harmed by it". Again, the assumption that they can intimidate you into buying both a CD and a tape is absurd; you are more likely to buy the CD if you can freely make use of it, so in fact the RIAA is harming itself by placing unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on it's products!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
While I agree that the DMCA and recent actions by Time Warner and Disney are reprehensible, when it comes to the bottom line, we don't matter.
If a company like TimeAOLWarner boosts their profits by 30% by turning introducing some type of pay-per-play media, but end up alienating 15% of the population, it's a major bonus for someone in the company for boosting company revenue!
And even if there was some type of backlash towards a company, TimeAOLWarner and Disney (for example) have a large enough control of the media to squelch any dissent, and line the pockets of congress deep enough keep their actions protected.
Our basic rights are being bought and sold, and as the rich get richer and the big players merge, it's going to be difficult if not impossible to do anything about it. And if the government gets the snooping rights to the net that they are pushing for, well.. it's game over.
-a-
And incorporation isn't just for the protection of businesses; the square dance club of which my parents and I used to be members was considering incorporating itself just in case someone fell and injured himself while square dancing and decided to sue.
Don't get me wrong, when a corporation starts acting badly, it needs to be slapped down. But if we didn't have some form of liability-shielding, then people would be too scared to advance anything. While "corporatization" may be a problem in the modern world, I don't think that blind Katzian anti-corporatism is the solution.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
I like that distinction.
It never occurs to most people, since most people like the idea of government making efforts in *all* directions.
But yes, I suppose that's a good way to distinguish some positions. Government is to have a limited role, which should be its top priority?
I feel that without property rights, all other rights lose their leverage. The power to tax, is the power to destroy.
Good distinction... rarely has a slashdot argument left me so satisfied.
...as long as you don't waste your resources to help them. That's the difference between today's boycott and yesterday's. There doesn't need to be a "cause" or other such self-indulgence.
Right now, I only buy cd's from independent bands (private releases), and don't buy any MPAA-member DVD's. Not because I'm going to "hurt" the bottom line of the enemy, but because I don't want my dollars funding their efforts.
In today's world, that's a meme that can build a snowball.
Does anyone know if there will be a protest in the Carnegie-Mellon U area (Pittsburgh)?
The Original Celebrated Curiously Strong GHOST (mentha lemures)