Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Study Reply Comments Posted
richardbowers writes "The Library of Congress has posted the replies it received to comments collected about DMCA enforcement. Kudos go to several individuals who submitted comments, people who have also been strong contributors to the OpenLaw discussions on these topics.
Big business is also represented. If you have missed the last fifteen Slashdot stories on the aim of big business to take away ownership and replace it with rental, you can see it again here. Since the reply period is now closed, you will need to take up your disgust with your Senator or Representatives, or just give something to the EFF to help them defray the costs of the inevitable and continuing lawsuits."
A lot of /., k5, advogato etc readers are not US citizens, and so can't really comment in that kind of forum. In addition, there is the IANAL problem. Many of the submissions (e.g. Time-Warner) contained legal argument (a lot of which turned out to be wrong; read the submission from the Copyright Office to see one example). The average geek cannot be expected to reply to such an argument because they don't know how. I'm sure that more than one bowed out precisely to improve the quality of the submissions past "Uhm... uhh... it's wrong! I don't know why, but it's just WRONG!"
Sometimes people reason, rightly or wrongly, that it's easier to leave this sort of thing to the experts.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I really think that the majority of Slashdotters really do care. But we really are nerds dealing in the realm of technology, and not IP law. And honestly, we shouldn't have to get our hands dirty with this nonsense. It's because we see what is happening to the folks around us that we have to pay attention.
... how about if a student drops out of school, their books are electronically erased so they can't sell them to a new student! Great idea! New York University's Dental School has contracted with Vital Source Technologies to create exactly that! Only possible if Title 17 can be replaced with an electronic "plugin."
... The CSS Title 17 plugin doesn't provide for that, so it is illegal!
... or by the hour. No problem!
...
I used to think that way too, but I've changed my mind.
Look, we all understand the concept of a plugin in software. You want to watch a flash file, you have to download the plugin that allows you to do so. Then, when you open a flash file, the flash program goes and does exactly what the author of the flash program wants it to do.
The DMCA has taken the concept of a plugin into the legal arena. The DMCA is a law that allows a publisher to replace Title 17, the entire copyright code, with a computer language "plugin."
Don't like that Title 17 Section 102 says that copyright is only available for original works of authorship? No problem! So long as your "plugin" also controls access to copyrighted works, you can take works from the public domain, encode them, and your "plugin" will eliminate that pesky part of copyright law. Glassbook is right on top of that. You can download such public domain classics as The Art Of War, The Federalist Papers, and The Politics of Aristotle -- and these public domain classics are just as protected by Glassbook's "Title 17 plugin" as if they were written yesterday.
Don't like that Section 107 allows people to make partial or complete copies of your work for fair use purposes? No problem! Your plugin can fix that!
Don't like that Section 109 allows people to sell their used books without your authority? No problem! The Glassbook plugin lets you put a stop to that. Or perhaps you would just like to charge people whenever they resell their digital books. Hey, there's no limit to what you can do, if you can replace Title 17 with your own programmed plugin!
Here's an idea
Don't like that Section 109 allows the owner of a copy to display that work without permission of the copyright owner? No problem! The "CSS" plugin replacement for Title 17 allows DVD publishers to deny owners of DVDs the right to view their DVDs, unless they use "industry approved" equipment that pre-degrades the signal. And forget about extracting sections of digital video for fair use purposes
Or perhaps you'd like to replace Section 109 with a different flavor. Want people to pay every time they press the play button to watch their own DVD? How about a book that charges you by the page to read it
Anything becomes possible when you allow copyright owners to provide a "plugin" replacement for the entire copyright code, that does what they want it to do instead of what the copyright code says. Never mind that the copyright code, developed over 225 years, contains a system of checks and balances that protect both the rights of copyright owners and the rights of owners of lawful copies. That can all be cast away, and the DMCA is the law that gives copyright owners that power. The power to disregard the copyright code and impose whatever "copyright law" they can dream up. And if you circumvent someone's invented "copyright law plugin", you're risking five years in jail and a $500,000 fine.
That's what's wrong with the DMCA. It absolutely eliminates all the safeguards in copyright law that protect your right to learn; to self-educate; to have your own library; to trade in used books; to archive literary materials. Under the DMCA, you have no rights
... unless those rights happen to be part of the "plugin" you are using.
So what to do about it?
You can directly attack the access control schemes, but that doesn't fix the problem. Broken access control schemes will quickly be replaced with better ones. This is a recipe for a never-ending, destructive arms race.
And honestly, we shouldn't have to get our hands dirty with this nonsense.
Think of things this way.
The law is the machine language of justice.
If there's anything that hackers understand, it's that when you find a broken system, and you know how to fix it, you do so. In order to fix the broken legal system, computer programmers are going to have to put down their C compilers, and get involved in learning the machine language that controls the broken legal system, and work to replace the defective subroutines with ones that perform their correct function.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that this is someone else's problem. Before the DMCA, we had laws that protected our right to learn. Not anymore. Now copyright law means whatever the publisher of a work says it means. A plugin exit has been placed in the wrong spot. The only way to remove this dangerous program misfeature is to work to have the DMCA either repealed, or struck down as unconstitutional.
I could've sworn that I submitted comments.
There seems to be some confusion by several people saying "hey, where's my comment". There were several different opportunities to submit comments:
1201(a) Rule Making Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Reply Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Post-Hearing Comments
Section 109 & 117 Comments
Section 109 & 117 Reply Comments
Encryption Research Comments from July 1999
Then all Congresscritters are for it, by definition, unless they weren't on the job that day. Write them and tell them that you're using that definition to deny them their attempt to escape their responsibility.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I submitted a very carefully written 12-page comment that painstakingly addressed in simple, easy-to-understand terms with carefully documented real-world examples that is also not there. A friend of mine submitted a comment that is also not there. Are these the same comments? Because there were more than 100 comments there before! Where did they all go?!?!
I wrote a reply addressing the comments of the large media organizations with specific real-world examples and counterarguments that is not there, either.
Is this the same set of comments that were requested months ago?
And what about a catchy slogan?
"How can you steal what you already own?"
Okay, it's not a slogan, but rather a concice arguments...
Sorry, I'm sleep deprived and my mouth is too minty from Penguin Mints.
This is from the comment made by such illustrious organizations as the American Film Marketing Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Motion Picture Association of America, and the Recording Industry Association of America:
B. Archival/back-up copying
Section 117(a)(2), which allows the owner of a copy of a computer program to make an archival copy of it without the permission of the copyright owner under certain conditions, is a narrow exception to the exclusive reproduction right. Under no circumstances does section 117(a)(2) allow the
creation of "back-up copies" of works such as sound recordings, music, audio-visual works, or databases. As at least two initial round submitters have pointed out, many pirates and distributors of pirate software products have actively disseminated misleading statements about this provision in order to give their operations a false air of legitimacy, see Interactive Digital Software Association at 5-6; SIIA at 3-4.
If I read this correctly, wouldn't this forbid the ripping of CDs, let alone the copying of MP3s based on those ripped tracks to a player that you own?
The single most important thing that each of us can do is vote. Calling and writing your congressman may help, but ultimately it is what we do on election day that matters most.
The majority of people in this country don't vote. The politicians know this. They keep very close tabs on what kind of people do vote because these are the people the politicians must keep happy in order to stay in office. Why do you think politicians from both major parties continuously pander to senior citizens? Why do you think Gore is proposing that the rest of us pay for their prescription drugs? Because senior citizens vote more than any other age group in america. Therefore what they want and need will always be represented and taken into account when any decision is made on capitol hill or the white house
Laws like the DMCA get passed because we aren't holding our elected officials accountable for how they vote. The average person is oblivious to whats happening in their government. All they know is what they hear on TV, which most of the time is nothing but propaganda put out by rival political factions. Everyone knows that Clinton was getting it on with a 24 year old intern, but how many people know what bills he signed and vetoed last year? How many are aware of executive directives he issued and their effects?
But whats really sad is the fact that we're all being had. Not voting has been covertly promoted for some time now. The idea that our vote doesn't count has been spoon fed to us by those who don't want to see us vote. Here we are in a country where the government is ultimately controlled by the people. Today most of them have been suckered into laying that power and responsibility down and walking away from it. Later, when that forfeited power is used against them, they do nothing but pout or maybe complain to each other and wonder what the world is coming to.
It may not be possible to fool all of the people all of the time. But clearly it is possible to fool enough of the people enough of the time (or make them look the other way) to pass legislation which screws over everyone all of the time.
Want to see it change? Want the DMCA and similar issues,such as the MPAA's desire to prevent you from taping TV shows, become nothing more than a bad dream? Then vote. Don't like any of the major party candidates? Vote for one from a "3rd party."
To stand by and watch as our country is ruined makes you just as guilty as the ones doing it.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
You there, reading this post -- have you done anything about DMCA? If you're a typical Slashdot reader, probably not.
No, because I'm Canadian and the DMCA doesn't apply to me.
-- iCEBaLM
It's nice to see that there are alot of expert opinions in an open forum that are actually on the Anti-DMCA. With the obvious open hostility of the judges of both the Napster and DeCSS cases, there need to be more well documented 'official' comments speaking out against the DMCA. Most of the public has blown off opponents of the DMCA as either morons or thieves, and it seriously lowers the respect people have for Anti-DMCA activists when we aren't really seen as having an official voice, except for, possibly, RMS, who is a bit too extreme to be a PR Guy.
Who are these people, like Michael A. Rolenz, Paul Fenimore and Walter Charles Becktel? How is it that they've been chosen to be included in this? Didn't lots of people submit comments?
Becktel describes himself as "Primary (Senior) Oracle, Lyricist and Artist." Brian Taylor describes himself as "a private individual." Paul Fenimore's comments just come out as a series of Braille-like dots on xpdf. Arnold Reinhold describes himself, simply, as a resident of Cambridge.
What exactly are we looking at here?
-Waldo
-------------------
I agree, and I wholeheartedly think that these 'donations' ('bribe' is really a much more commonly accepted term) should be made illegal. How can we fight against a large corporation and a large corporation's interests if the playing field isn't level? It's not really in my best interest to send a 5K check to my representative, but the benefits for a large corp. to have a politician in it's pockets it well worth a 5 or 10 MILLION dollar donation.
Rami
--
rJames.org - illustration
RMS has an official stance that information and data should not be owned, controlled or restricted by anyone (Simplification, but essentially true). He seems to believe that the purpose of copyright should only be to give the creator credit, although would probably extend this to making sure that source code is available.
Actually though, I don't think he is quite that extreme. That seems to just be his starting position, to contend with the MPAA/RIAA's position of "We control all data. We control all movies/music. All data is licenced. Copies belong to us". He has a lot of arguments that seem to support reducing IP protection while still rewarding the creaator.
As for examples that the United States are more interested in control than in cooperative management, here are two broad examples:
the Gulf War, and
the Kosovo situation
That's specific enough for you? Yes? Then please bend over and shove that condescending attitude up your ass. Thank you.
There's a lot in the legislative history (not all in the LOC comment, unfortunately) to suggest that Congress intended an "authorized person" approach to the access control provisions, and not the "authorized device" interpretation pushed by the MPAA and its avatars (DVDCCA, MPA, etc.).
rst
Yes, it would give them more freedom to screw us over, but it would take away a huge amount of their power to screw us over. Have you forgotten the context of this discussion? DMCA!
Imagine a world where corporations can no longer buy legislation. The laws that they want to buy, would be deemed as "off topic" -- outside the scope of what is legislatable.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Perhaps you are right. I have been toying with the idea of a representative-less government for a while. In this day and age where communication around the world is simply a matter of going to the next room, or the school gymnasium down the street, I don't see why ANY laws are still being voted on solely by representatives that are voted into office. I was under the impression that this system was devized (sp?) simply because 200+ years ago, people could not take the time to travel all over the country to vote on every issue, hence the representatives that are supposed to vote in your best interests. But now, we have the technology to vote on any topic from the comfort of our homes.. why aren't we doing this?
That's something that you should ask yourself the next time you read or hear something that congress or the senate does.
(Yes, I realise that not everyone has a degree in law, and therefore cannot know the intricacies of any given issue, but therein lies the problem. Law is too complicated and too obfuscated. It should be within the reach of the common man, after all, it is he/she that the burden of the law falls on. Also, everyone has an opinion, why not allow people to exercise theirs instaed of giving greedy politicians the continued opportunity to sell their votes.)
Rami
--
rJames.org - illustration
I just sent the email below to my House representative. It's pretty easy to do this online at the sight
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
__________________________________
To the Honorable Lamar S. Smith:
I am an Oracle database consultant in your district. I work at Randolf Air Force Base in San Antonio, supporting the Air Force Recruiting Service.
I write to you to express my very strong concern that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which passed in 1998, is a bad law that urgently needs to be revised or even repealed. I believe that the law does not adequately reflect the "delicate balance" that several hundred years of copyright jurisprudence has created. The troublesome section is 1201 of the Copyright Act (Title 17).
My objections to this law are as follows:
- It guts "Fair Use" completely
- It stiffles competition, especially that of "open source" software
- It risks antitrust abuse by creating two separate rights "access" and "copyright" that industry trusts exploit through tying and collusion
- The reverse engineering 1201(f) exception is too narrow and is unclear
- The encryption research 1201(g) exception is too narrow and is unclear
- Despite 1201(c)(4) and 1203(b)(1), the law is being used to chill open discourse and free speech on the science of computer security matters
- The law is ambiguous if copyright owner authority to access can be retained after "First Sale" of the copy, contradicting the "just rewards" purpose of the copyright monopoly and diminishing property rights
- Protecting insecure systems with laws fosters insecurity not security; Most computer scientists support "full disclosure" of security flaws.
I do not support piracy, and recognize that authors deserve financial reward as inducement to create. I note however that there is no "intent" language in the law: it reaches far beyond piracy into the realm of legitimate activity. The attempt to create enumerated exceptions fails miserably to address this. Just as fair use must be judged on a case-by-case basis, so too would a claim of "fair access".
This bill appears to go beyond what is needed by granting wholesale control of the use of sold works to the copyright holder, who all to often isn't even the actual author, but is a corporate mammoth. I am not willing to sacrifice my intellectual property rights as a consumer to line the coffers of the MPAA and RIAA. I am certainly not willing to stiffle the free speech rights of open source programmers, who give generously to the intellectual commons, and exemplify copyright's calling "to promote the progress of science".
There's something even more important that you can do. It isn't fun and it takes more time than beating Diablo II on Hell level. Here it is: Run for office.
How many times have you complained about the idiots we have running the country? What would it take for you to do better?
One nice thing about Slashdot readers is that we tend to move in herds. There are geographical regions that are packed with nerds (nerd-herds?), and could probably support city council or state legislature positions for people with brains. If we get enough of a critical mass at the lower levels, it shouldn't be too hard to move up.
Even if you won't run, or can't, try finding those candidates that can and helping them out. It could be financial help, or it could be coding them a new web page. It could be offering to speak at a party fundraiser, if you are well-known enough, putting a link on your home-page, submitting stories about their good works to Slashdot, whatever - just do something.
============================================
Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. -- Aaron Burr
Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. -- Aaron Burr
This is their entire argument for throwing out 117(b), the portion of the law which permits you to make a backup, archival copy of your software. They are saying that since pirates are trying to hide behind it, well, throw it out.
Is it me or is that like saying we should get rid of the fifth amendment because of all the people who claim the rights afforded to them by that amendment but are then convicted anyway? There's no logic there. They aren't challenging the meat of 117(b), they're just saying that since pirates CLAIM it as protection even though it isn't, get rid of it anyway.
The IDSA goes one step further and claims that since computers are more reliable now (bwahahaha), we don't really need the ability to make an archival copy. More reliable? Hellooooooo?
"Property is theft, therefore theft must be property, right?"
---
Hey, I just gave my $100 to the EFF - what's your excuse?
Can your IM do this?
but the rest of the world is watching to see how the DMCA is going to hold up in court and what the corporations intend to do with it. I already know of some bills that are being drafted in a number of countries in the EU that are suspiciously akin to the DMCA. The backers of the DMCA have a lot of power and their reach is certainly farther than the shores of the US.
I do, however, agree wholeheartedly with you that the responses the government (in the US, now, perhaps in the future, otherwise) recieves should be courteous and well-informed. I would personally like to see hundreds upon hundreds of well-written, thoughtful, and though-provoking letters pile up on the desks of the politicians in the US. Unfortunatly, the simple fact of the matter is that there is a distinct lack of informed and (this is the sad part) intelligent people that have the knowhow, ability, and urge to write to congress and their representatives.
I have read through this thread a few times, and I have come to the conclusion that the problems at hand won't be solved by votes. They will be solved by public awareness (do I hear a drum beating?) and a large campaign that is in the spotlight. There are thousands of kids out there that not only buy CDs (and they do, en masse) but downloads MP3s. It is in their best interests to be aware of the problem and at least take a stand. This is particularly important because we all know that most people over 30 DON'T CARE. (Fire? No, I don't smell fire. Flames? What? What?). Personally, I am writing to the papers and the media in the hopes that I can get in the editorials of maybe be able to get a reporter to do a good, honest, and unbiased story on the DMCA and it's repercussions.
Write your politicians,
Write your local media,
Vote,
Organize the young and untainted,
DO SOMETHING!
Rami
--
rJames.org - illustration
Where is the FSF, EFF, SPI, LPF, and a couple of other TLAs I probably missed? I mean, RMS spends all his days writing and lecturing on this stuff, and then doesn't send a sumbission to LOC? What's up?
Ken
I think another point (and it is hard to read this legalese!) they make is that the copyright law and in particular the DMCA was not supposed to give copyright holders a stranglehold on access to copyrighted works so long as the "authorized user" had a legitimately acquired DVD disc. In other words, I don't think the MPAA can control the access to DVD. This makes it seem like their practice of giving a license to companies to make "authorized players" is illegal because they should be able to make players for legimate copies of DVD without a license.
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
While this is mostly true, if we really wanted we could do what New Zealand and other countries have done.
Outlaw any and all region code honoring DVD devices, as they do infringe on the GATT (WTO).
It is ILLEGAL to sell a region code honoring DVD device in New Zealand, and it should be the same way in every nation which has signed the UN charter.
-- iCEBaLM
The whole issue is nicely and succinctly summed up in one choice nugget from Michael A. Rolenz's commentary (emphasis added by me): "The use of access controls of digital media has the ability [to] create a perpetual monopoly on copyright[ed] material. This is counter to the basis of copyright law."
(I couldn't help but notice the irony of Adobe Acrobat preventing me from copying and pasting that phrase. I had to type it in manually.)
What we really need is approval voting. What this means: you get a list of all the candidates for office, and you vote yes or no on each one. The candidate with the highest number of yes votes wins the election.
This lets people express their vote much better than standard methods. Do you like Nader but don't think he has a chance to win, and would rather not see Bush win? Vote yes to Gore and Nader and no to everyone else. Hate the major parties? Vote no to Bush AND Gore, and yes to everyone else. Fed up with the whole process? Vote no to everyone. This last option actually has influence under approval voting-- imagine how it would look if the winning candidate was approved by less than 30 percent of the voters. A side benefit is that it encourages candidates to not engage in negative campaigning, since it's easier to increase their own approval than decrease everyone else's.
The best part is that implementing this doesn't require changing the Constitution, or anything so drastic. Local voting laws are all that need to be changed. Personally I believe that all we'd need is one state to implement state-wide approval voting, and the natural publicity from that would take it from there.
---
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
I have to work full-time and go to school just to try to make sure I will be able to survive in the future. I don't have the time or money to run for office. I'm not even old enough to run for most serious offices. Unless you have the kind of money that allows you to devote your full attention to running a campaign, you don't have much of a chance of getting elected.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Lamar Smith is my representative as well. I think I will follow your lead on this and write my own letter. I don't expect him to act on it, which is why I will not vote for him in the future, and I will write another letter to tell him that.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Obviously survival comes first. Hopefully at some point you will be more secure in life, and better able to consider making a civic contribution. If you view running as a sacrifice, that's good: that's the sort of attitude public servants should have.
I don't have the time or money to run for office. I'm not even old enough to run for most serious offices.
One of my friends ran for the Montana State House at 17, and almost made it. He had all the wealth of your typical art student backing him.
Unless you have the kind of money that allows you to devote your full attention to running a campaign, you don't have much of a chance of getting elected.
Depends on where you are, I suppose. I know lots of State Rep races are uncontested here in Iowa, and the sole candidate is often a member of one of the local parties who got more or less drafted.
And these are the people who vote on things like UCITA.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"Get over it. You have no rights online."
(and the misspelling was intentional)
You have the right to purchase (rent) what we deem you should purchase at the price that we see fit.
You have the right to view/play/listen to that in the (destructible) formats that we sanction with playters that we sanction (extracted large participatory licensing fees from manufacturures) with no chance at archival or transformation of format.
PULL!
Fire away.
see you down in Arizona Bay.
.
- 235 Comments
- 129 Reply Comments
- 28 Post-Hearing Comments
- 16 Post-Hearing Reply Comments
Since most of the opponents made their strongest points in the first or second round of comments, there's fewer and fewer submitted in each following round.--
314-15-9265
Not true! I'm in Canada, and I've written missives to Australian and American government peons and representatives.
:*)
I never expect them to my voice in drawing up their stats, but I'm sure it must have some influence. After all, if someone half the world away has noticed that you're doing something stupid, you've got to start wondering if everyone has noticed...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
It's time for the anti-IP community to put its money where its mouth is. Contact your Congressmen, write some editorial letters, stage a demonstration, e-mail the Library of Congress -- just do something. We can't win this fight by sitting back and bragging about how much smarter we are. Is there any sort of organization devoted to opposing IP? An organized resistance with some key spokespeople -- RMS, or Linus himself, or Shawn Fanning, or some other household name -- would do wonders for our cause. Right now, we're suffering from a PR problem: Big business has successfully spun this into an issue of thievery. We need to put the issue back in favorable terms; convince people that this isn't about stealing, but freedom and the right to fair use. And what about a catchy slogan?
Remember, all that is necessary to evil to triumph is the absence of good. Let's put aside our elitism and bring back the forces of good. Stop talking about what you could do and do something.
All subsequent elections should be treated as if they had their actual level of chosen turnout -- namely, zero -- to determine the credibility level of parliament's mandate.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
- Time Warner on current DVD encryption methods: "In no way does this disadvantage consumers or any other public interest"
- Regarding licenses to make DVD players: "there is no restriction on the availability of licenses to manufacture them"
I stopped reading there, I really can't be bothered wasting my time reading corporate crap and getting annoyed, Time Warner etc are lying, and they know they are lying, that irritates me.Normally I would say 'Thank God I don't live in America', however I suspect they'll be shoving the DMCA down the throats of the rest of the world RSN.
<Sigh>
(Are non-US citizens allowed to submit comments to the US copyright office re DMCA, based on the probability that the DMCA will be used to screw up copyright laws for overseas countries? : ))
is the fact that most of the corporations are attempting to have the LOC throw out prior comments based on the fact that "they are not applicable" and that Congress had not ordered a complete review of DMCA apparently; only certain sections. See http://www.loc.gov/copyright/reports/studies/dmca/ reply/Reply006.pdf for one particularly disturbing instance.
Since the replies they are attempting to throw out are lucid and well thought out, I'd wager they feel threatened by the logic. This is reminescent of the "if I can't see them they can't see me" mindset.
The DMCA and UCITA are starting to remind me of the Salem Witch Trials. "IF THEY'RE NOT PROVEN INNOCENT, THEY'RE GUILTY!" When did the golden law only become used in a criminal court, and when you're not guilty there you get sued in a civil court because the requirements for "liable" are less than "guilty"?
Yes, I am an Elite Hacker (sorry, 3l33t 4ax0r or whatever). I rip MP3s to my HD for distribution to the world. No, really, I do. With my 128kb upload rate, I welcome the world to my 20GB of MP3s! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT MY STEREO IS IN THE OTHER ROOM AND THE SPEAKERS ON MY COMPUTER ARE BETTER THAN MY STEREO (sad, but true).
My wanting to play DVDs has *nothing* to do with an unsupported box. Do I have access to Windows? Yes, but that doesn't mean I want to slap a DVD drive in that box!
BTW, I didn't submit to the LOC (as stated below or above depending on how you thread) but I can say I've written my congressman. That doesn't require legal ability; it only requires me to express my opinion in a lucid manner. Whether the information I "think" I know on the DMCA is FUD or not, the perceived can be as powerful as the reality.
-- Talonius
My reality check bounced.
So if you have a legal copy on your hard drive, the action of putting it into RAM, in order to run it, or otherwise access it, falls under copyright law.
It seems that there is a fundamental disconnect somewhere here...
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Assuming the presidential debates actually take place:
Does anyone know how to contact whatever committee it is that runs them? Perhaps it'd be possible to suggest some questions dealing with the DMCA or even just more generic internet/copyright ideas.
It'd be nice to get some PRIME TIME answers from the presidential candidates. It'd also raise public awareness outside of the this arena.
A CONTRARY RESULT WOULD MEAN THAT CONTENT OWNERS WOULD NOT DARE TO MAKE THEIR WORKS AVAILABLE FOR TRANSMISSION ON THE INTERNET. THIS WOULD BE A GREAT LOSS TO THE PUBLIC INCLUDING THE ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED COMMENTS.(TIME WARNER)
Hmm... So if the protection of first sale is not preserved artists will no longer place mp3 or other digital content upon the internet? I would disagree, a great deal of unsigned bands out there already disperse content to allow for free viewing and continual dissemination which helps provide support and revenue by increased concert attendance.
not everyone wants to rape the consumer
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, how many legs does a cow have if I claim that a tail is a leg? (Answer: four)
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
In a situation you describe, what would be ideal is having the option to cast a vote of no confidence. If 20% of people bothered to go out and pull a lever that said "I think you ALL suck" then maybe the sad sacks in DC would take notice.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
No, and in fact NO ONE has such a list! Why? Well it seems that this piece of important legislation was voted upon by voice. What does this mean? Apparently that they simply asked everyone who wanted it to say Yea or Nay at the appropriate time. Those who wanted it were more numerous and it passed - but no actual count was taken nor were any names recorded.
Pretty scary huh? I believe this was also voted on upon at an off-hours time but that may be FUD. The important thing to realize here is that OUR representatives must have KNOWN that this was controversial legislation and wanted to make sure that no one knew how each of them voted upon it!
Frankly, that scares the crap out of me. These bastards KNEW that when people began to figure out the ramifications of this that they'd be pissed and wanted to dodge those angry voters - and they did it didn't they?
The public voted down DIVX with their wallets, yes? Guess what - it's coming back only this time we won't have a choice. We'll no longer be able to BUY a piece of media and have rights to what's on that media. Instead we'll be leasing or renting the material on it! Just wait for DVD Audio - I'm quite sure it'll protected and that breaking it will cause all sorts of havoc. Let's just hope that MP3 players that provide large amounts of music per CD get a strong toehold before DVD Audio manages to make it's way to the market place. The only advantage I see to DVD audio right now is play time - lot' of music. If we can get some sort of compressed music player out there first perhaps the DVD Audio won't have as much allure.
Trouble is it's companies like AIWA and Kenwood that are making these players. $600 for the Kenwood and $300 for the AIWA - IF you can find them. Won't surprise m at all if the likes of Sony\Aiwa sabotages getting the MP3 players to market (shiver).
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
To be honest, as a Canadian I'm not sure what to do either.
Answer: TALK TO YOUR MP (as long as you don't live in She-Lied Copps' riding)
Talk to the Alliance members in your riding (whether they have seats or not) - most of them are not career politicians (or haven't been for long enough that you can still get through to them)
Hrm... let's see... my choice is either to pay (as an example) $40.00 for a program, or rent it as a per use program for a dime per use. Hrm... let me think on this... Even at 400 uses before I exceed the cost of the app, I don't like this idea... I use some apps 15 times a day....
Of course "Big Business" loves this idea. It only takes a little while, even at 'cheap' rates to equal and/or exceed the list cost of any given software application (of course, you all already realize this, being Slashdot fanatics).
So what to do? Convince all of your friends to go with Open Source apps or freeware. If Microsoft wants to go to a rental format for software, let them. I'll convert every single person I know to Unix that much easier with that kind of thing going on.
My question is, how do the software companies think they can get away with this? Sure, rental methods exist for a lot of things (cars, for example), but how can they honestly think that it will work with software? I'm sorry, but no one in their right mind is going to "rent" a lot of the apps that exist. (I ignore certain games like Evercrack as a useful nuisance that keeps more Anonymous Cowards off of Slashdot.)
Is Open Source and freeware not that much of a threat yet? Beats me for sure, but in the paraphrased words of Yoda, "It will be..."
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.