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."
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
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.
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".
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?