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."

Comments

Re:Who Are These Individuals?

[bwt]

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

You've got to vote

[leereyno]

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

Re:You've got to vote

[Anonymous Coward]

For who?

This is a common argument, but it always fails in the same way:

Who are you supposed to vote for?

In most elections, when you look at most any issue, both of the candidates (eg., the ones with a possibility of winning that is not exactly zero) will act the same on that issue. You might say, "Well, they'll vote the same, but candidate B is less of a scumbag" but that's still dodging the issue.

In a representative democracy, you're supposed to vote for the person to represent you. If neither candidate represents you, then there's little point in voting. You can basically:

1. Pick one at random
2. Pick an irrelevant candidate (any third party, write in, whatever)
3. Not vote

The first is essentially being dishonest, while the second means that your vote is basically useless: You voted, but you will not under any circumstances be represented. The only advantage to this over not voting is really just to artificially enhance the voter turnout numbers, to no particular advantage to your position.

Perhaps some will hope that the winning candidate will give the poll results a quick glance and say, "Oh! 2% of the people voted for the Wurlitzer Party! I must pay attention to their needs." But of course, this is ridiculous. 40% voted for the Other candidate, so under that logic their needs would be nearly the most important. In reality, the winner always takes winning as a vindication for their own ideas: they won, so they must be right.

There are ways to influence politicians, but just arbitrarily increasing the voter count won't do it. It's not like anyone monitors the number of Voters Who Require Sensible Copyright Laws, nor would anyone care if such figures existed. Most people are happy as long as they don't get arrested, aren't starving, and don't think they're less well off than the next guy. Abstract things like rights? Pah. And Civil Liberties? Damn those new-age punks, always trying to take their indecent liberties and such!

Re:You've got to vote

[The G]

In a representative democracy, you're supposed to vote for the person to represent you. If neither candidate represents you, then there's little point in voting. You can basically:

1.Pick one at random
2.Pick an irrelevant candidate (any third party, write in, whatever)
3.Not vote


You always have the option to spoil your ballot, or to go into the booth, don't pick anyone, leave the booth. This is recorded as not voting for anyone -- a fairly clear mandate if enough of us were to do so.

They'll know that you care enough to vote and that you reject the system. That's about all you can hope for.
--G

It's nice...

[DustyHodges]

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.

To the Honorable Lamar S. Smith

[bwt]

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".

Maybe not citizens, ..

[Lonesmurf]

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
--

Is that it?

[vertical-limit]

Out of all the Slashdot, kuro5hin, and advogate readers, fewer than ten bothered to submit comments on the most important act of Congress in our generation? If that's it, that's a pretty sad commentary on how empty most of our rhetoric is. We rant and rave on these threads all day, but never take a moment to explain our views to the outside world. You there, reading this post -- have you done anything about DMCA? If you're a typical Slashdot reader, probably not.

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.

Re:Is that it?

[aqua]

These aren't all the comments. Leastways mine isn't there, and I endeavoured to be as calm, polite and rational as possible. Most of the comments appear similar to the ones submitted back when slashdot ran the original article on this specific issue. I'd be interested to know what portion of the comments submitted by both sides were published; the big-money media companies seem fairly well represented. Is this even the right page?