Slashdot Mirror
How Will The DMCA Be Implemented?
bl968 writes "Wired has an excellent article entitled "Fear of a Pay-Per-Use World" on the upcoming Librarian of Congress decision on granting exceptions to the DMCA anti circumvention provisions. The DMCA, which was enacted in 1998, bans the circumvision of technical protection measures like encryption systems and other methods designed to prevent access to copyrighted works. When the DMCA was passed it contained, a delay to the date the anti-circumvention provisions take effect. This delay is about up and your comments are needed"
Just in case you're really not a troll, it's "I Am Not A Lawyer"
To email, do the obvious.
Copyright theives will always exist (and fuck 'em) but I'm not one just because I want to watch a DVD which I bought legally on my own computer.
If you can't understand the debate shut up.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Hopefully backlash on the copyright clause abuse of the DMCA and Sonny Bono law will sink all the stupid laws that abuse the commerce clause, too.
I wrote parts of this stuff
Why is Goth good?
+++ATH0
Do me a favor and STFU. There is nothing wrong with ripping, there is something wrong with DLing it w/o intention of purchasing it. i own a DVD player and use Windows (dont hurt me :).) And i stll rip MY DVDs and copress them to DivX for sole purpose of me not needing to switch cds unless i absoultely need a special feature. The only reason the legal crap even comes along is when those MPAA/RIAA bastards get on that power trip and want you to buy 2 copies to have them in different places instead of making a copy urself and people who support "media control" like urself support them. The people are always saying "If you break it, you bought it." Well if i buy it i will break\rip\crack it.
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
No, what I'm saying is when any nut can walk into Walmart and purchase all the things he needs to go home and begin "ripping" DVD's you have a problem. We currently have this situation with audio CDs and data CDs -- data CDs are harder as one can get away with some Evil Tricks(tm) that cannot be done to an audio CD.
The point is, most people don't have access to the hardware and supplies necessary to make a true duplicate of a DVD-ROM with CSS and all that crap intact. What people do is transcode the DVD MPEG-2 data into MPEG-4 (DivX) or MPEG-1 (VCD) losing alot in the process.
As for "people"... DVD CCA is doing a good job so far. How many people have DVD drives that ignore region encoding? Very few. And after Jan-01-2000, no one makes non-RPC2 "region locked" drives. I know of at least one company that recalled every non-RPC2 drive not in consumer hands. How many people have DVD drives that ignore the whole CSS authentication and key exchange bull? Absolutely NONE. The physical format standard for DVD is publically available so you're welcome to start production of your own DVD drives. You would certainly be sued before your design ever got out of OrCAD.
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act exploits a loophole in the Constitution that makes "the lifetime of the Universe" a valid value for "limited times" in the copyright clause. It's all part of the slippery slope to make copyright perpetual. This must be stopped; click here to help.
<O
( \
XPlay Tetris On Drugs!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Well, that's the whole debate. The simple XOR-encryption is supposed to be the technical measure. The problem is that the DMCA does not thoroughly define what consitutes a technical measure, and so we have the currently problem.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Yes, sortof. (See below)
My device functions the same way as all the other "licenced" players. How could I be guilty of "circumventing" copyright measures?
Because the DMCA does strike against circumventing copyright control measures, it strikes more broadly: at anything that is "unauthorized" to access the contents. The word access here is very important. The DMCA does not criminalize devices which can be used to steal, it crimilizes devices which can be used for unauthorized access.
Maybe I should have asked a slightly different question. What is the copyright material (whether protected or not) to which you gain access my using a hardware device in a manner or for a purpose which the manufacturer did not forsee?
While at the time the lawsuits were filed DeCSS was still legal for the authors to create and use, the problem is that it is "illegal" to distribute circumvention tools, and that provision didn't have a delay on it. The MPAA didn't go after Johanson or 2600 et al for using DeCSS, they went after them for distributing it.
If you look at the last paragraph in this article they mention this problem, that even if broad exceptions are granted for circumventing content locks, it's still illegal to hand out the code to do so. Sucks huh?
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Will the world 100 years from now be a world with no current public domain as everything will be locked up?
"We consider that the likely impact of the coming into force of section 1201(a)(1)(A) will be that more works will be more widely available to more authorized (lawful) users than before. Those who shoulder the burden of arguing that section 1201(a)(1)(A) should not go into effect for all works on October 28 cannot prevail unless they can demonstrate convincingly that the contrary is true"
Hmmm. 2600.com attempted to aid in making DVD playing software more widely available and you folks sued them for it. The purpose of DeCSS was arguably to further the development of a Open Source DVD player, something that would have put the DVD format into the hands of many more users. We could demonstrate it much more convincinglu if you'd stop suing us.
Icebox
When the MPAA was asked to comment on the current situation, they had this to say:
"It is our opinion that the DMCA is integral to the well being of corporations. Not only does this protect us from the evils of software/movie pirates, but his also presents an end to bankruptcy. We have talked this over and have thought of this wonderful (patented) plan: When a company is losing money and facing bankruptcy they will release a useful piece of software with A very weak encryption system. Once someone attempts to break it we will Sue under the DMCA for unspecified (see millions) of damages. And since this creates less bankruptcy -- it is better for the average consumer."
Getting the Librarian of Congress to narrowly protect our specific interests is helpful, but in the end, inadequate.
What we need is a new law.
The current law grants us our basic rights only as a special exception made after lengthy deliberations by a single appointed official, two years after the lack has been found to cause problems.
The burden of proof doesn't belong where it's been put.
Congress must repeal the DMCA and replace it with more cautious laws. If you're organizing on a cause, organize around that; in the end, nothing else will do.
solution: pay once, rip the video to some allowed video format. play that copy
problem: audio becomes pay per play
solution: pay once, rip the audio to mp3
there's no way they can stop people copying and distributing copyrighted materials, just look at warez.
i wonder what nader thinks about this. or gore or bush for that matter. would it be plausible to make a "Digital bill of rights"?
---
pack
1337
The DMCA anti circumcision provisions angered Jews & Muslims all around the world as members of Congress backpedal and attempt to explain how these provisions get approved onto completely irrelevant bills.
Whats worse, "circumvention" could be as simple as playing a DVD in a player you bought in another region. In this sense, the law is too broad, making commonsense actions like playing a DVD in a DVD player illegal (I believe someone has already made this point).
Omegadan: Dispensing original thought since 1978.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
I hate to inform you but the Consitution lost it Supreme Law of the Land when America went bankrupt and corporations bailed America out. Ever heard of the UCC? Well, the UCC is US law, but doesn't haft to follow the Consitution. After the 1930's any new law, didn't haft to follow the Consitution. The only reason why they haven't gone all out is becuase when have guns.
I'm telling you, the Corps run America, and you're just a slave to the Corps.
MarNuke
That's a very good way to get around DVDCCA's griping. But it doesn't do a damn thing to defend you against MPAA's weapon: DMCA.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Although I'd take it a bit further, 'everyone' is going to notice when they are no longer able to borrow an album and copy it, or record movies from TV to watch later (timeshifted viewing I know, but when I got Sky digital installed they told me I couldn't [record pay per view], umm even though I can...)
But by then as you said, it will be way too late, the sad thing is I very much doubt there are enough of us here to put any significant dent in the march of progress.
The only solution I can see is more nights down the pub informing the general public of these these abuses, darn :)
~ppppppppö
Given the structure of the law in this country, I think that we should ask for capital punishment for the infringer, or if the case brought to court fails, for the supposed infringee.
If you don't like a law, make it unenforcible.
Don't be reasonable, be outrageous. Be bold. Be daring. Be hostile and ridiculously vindictive.
Make the penalties so incredibly strick for the loser, either party, that nobody in their right mind will take this route. Knowing that if they lose, they DIE!
And don't think it can't be done... There are a few less Chinese software pirates around because they took the US at its word for trade concessions.
Yes, Bill Gates and his coterie of acolytes is responsable for firing squads and wooden markers. And I'm sure its not keeping him awake at night.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Yes, but a law is presumed constitutional unless and until a court declares it unconstitutional. "I think this law is unconstitutional" is not good enough, unless you're a judge.
"Well gee, your honor, I thought the law prohibiting first-degree murder was unconstitutional" as a defense will not get you very far.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
The President, at least, does swear something very much like that when he takes office. Sadly, most presidents since FDR at least have instantly forgotten that oath once in office.
Prohibition didn't work because a VAST majority of americans were against it. When 2/3 of American adults like to do something, it's idiotic to try to make it illegal.
Joe Sixpack and Vinny Bagadonuts doesn't care about DMCA, freedom or anything like that. As long as the football game will be broadcast on time they're happy. I have no idea how we can do it, but we have to make more people see the DMCA as personally offensive and intrusive.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's always been illegal for me to borrow tapes/cds from friends and libraries and record them, but it is easy to do, so everyone does...
What a lot of the DMCA does is provide for a technical implementation for existing laws.
Forgetting for a moment the fair use issues, which can probably be resolved, this would seem to be quite fair.
Except that it isn't. This is really more about power than anything, about the freedom to live relatively freely, to misquote Sabrina (Teenage Witch), 'Every Law Shall Have a Loophole'.
The DMCA is giving dictatorial control over certain aspects of life to corporations (cough, spit, wash yer mouth out with soap) who really don't have the maturity/morality/whatever not to abuse it.
In a way it is quite amusing, anyone can have shares, companies exist to profit the shareholders and are willing to go to pretty much any lengths to do so. We are becoming our own goalers.
For instance, a DVD sold in Japan will not play on a DVD player sold in the United States because of technical protection measures employed by the motion picture industry.
How does this work the other way, I thought that regional encoding was illegal in NZ, but since then a scary source sez it ain't.
This goes way beyond fair use I'd have thought.
(been interupted so many times writing this I'm not sure what I was thinking though, it was way better than what I said though!! :)
~ppppppppö
Of of the top of my head, an act passed in 1978 prohibits the military CIA and NSA from suveilling, intentionally or not, any US citizen. That power in the US gov't is given solely to the FBI. At least, I had to sign that I understood that act every year I was in Mil. Int.
When you buy cookies in a store, you can only eat them the way they intended to. No more dunking them in milk, or using them in a dish to make something else. What about opening a can with out an electric can opener? Ever use scissors on bags rather than pulling that tab? It's the same thing, but with software. And who's to tell you what you can and can't use that screw driver for? Sorry, can't use it for that, have to buy our paint can opener.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
I don't think it's a restriction of free speech -- the movie isn't your speech. But it's almost certainly a restraint of trade and it might also be an illegal tariff and GATT violation.
The analagous situation is that I build a car in Mexico that reads its position with a GPS and disables its engine when it's driven into the United States. It's being "localised" and bypassing the "localization" might be a vaioation of the DMCA, but the car maker is in violation of NAFTA, GATT, etc. I wish there was someway to prosecute the MPAA and DVD CCA under these bills. Sue the feckers for tripple damages in a class action suit for every movie consumer on the planet!
*"Well gee, your honor, I thought the law prohibiting first-degree murder was unconstitutional" as a defense will not get you very far*
:)
... you have to say "I thought he was breaking into my house, Your Honor" :)
Unless you're in texas of course
no, no, no
I'd guess not only the Slashdot crew, but a good percentage of Slashdot readers, too.
So, when are we gonna read (again) something about Sony's new Airboard?
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
Can a corp be married? Nope.
Can a corp be executed? Nope, and in some states it is illegal for a corp to go under because of a civil remedy (see the Big Tobacco case). Now, excuse me if I just don't "get" this, but isn't the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land? Yes. The legal higherarchy is skewed, but roughly, it's:
- The Constitution, which provides the ground rules of operation;
- Federal Law, which makes more clear definitions of what's good and what's not;
- And the Bitch, Case Law (or Common Law). This is law pressed out in court rulings. Read the DeCSS briefs? The A vs. B (regular courts) and A v. B (Supreme Court) rulings make the intricate web of law only lawyers, judges, and felons in good prisons with libraries can understand.
Personally, I believe we can solve all of this corporate boldness fairly easily. Add a EULA to the Constitution: "By use of this document, you hereby attest that you have not and will not attempt to bypass the civilian rights listed herein. If at any time this statement is no longer valid, the person and/or corporation that does so will lose all rights listed herein." Yeah, right. Every Republocrat and Democritan in the House and Senate and in every Governorship and State Assembly in the nation is bankrolled with CORPORATE MONEY. The government and the corporations WANT to take your rights away. Welcome to the Corporate Socialist regime. This is why I am voting for Ralph Nader, and every civil-liberty loving bastard should as well. He is the biggest voice against corporate power. He is responsible for the Clean Air and Water Acts... seatbelts.. airbags... Freeedom of Information Act... and another three dozen pieces of legislation which protect citizens' and their rights.I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
How? How is it better for the average consumer when he has to pump a quarter into his DVD player every time he wants to watch chapter 13 of The Matrix? Isn't this creating MORE bankruptcy? Oh yeah, I forgot, the MPAA only sees things in its own favor. It hates us consumers and denounces all of us as hackers (even the innocent soccer moms and paper pushers).
It's time to dissolve the MPAA. It has become one large, capitalist, xenophobic entity that doesn't want to lose a cent from its bottom line. The funny part is, it's listed as a non-profit organization (hence, the http://www.mpaa.org), when, in fact, it is making an inhuman profit from making the consumers suffer. The MPAA should at least be castigated for abusing the .org TLD, just as The College Board should be castigated as well.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
rweou5y34iut293p
Note: This post is encrypted. In order to read it, you would have to break the crypto. You can't mod it without reading it, after all it might be insightful. If you mod this I will be forced to sue you as you will most certainly have circumvented my technological protection.
Thank you and good day.
Cunning linguists
wallow in the mud.
...cannot prevail unless they are able to demonstrated convincingly that the contrary is true.
be that more works will be made more widely available
So this doesn't count for region encoding???Doesn't region encoding make a DVD less available???
I would like them to explain how region encoding makes a DVD more available. That would demonstrate convincingly.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Unless you're in texas of course :)
~ppppppppö
Apparently you missed that part of the class.
Have you heard of the DeCSS trial? It is illegal to make a DVD player without licensing CSS. If you do, it must be because you're a pirate.
God forbid the consumer actually has a choice! Sorry, gotta use MS or Macs if you wanna watch DVDs on your computer asshole!
Bite my yammer.
Umm please don't, a riot composed of geeks waving bar scanning dildos would be way more humour than my heart could take....
~ppppppppö
Francis Hwang
Do domain names matter?
UCC? What's that?
I could probly put up with the region-encoding scheme if I could get what I wanted in region 4 coding. Unfortunately, being in the much-ignored region-4, I often can't... or if I can, I have to pay over 40 dollars for it. I don't understand the MPAA's reasoning. Sure, if you're in region 1 you may get a lot more content available, but then you've got a lot more content available to you in the first place. So I'm forced to buy a multi-region DVD player... Only to find out it may not be able to read the region 1 discs I buy for it in the future... They want to control WHAT INFORMATION you can have, WHEN you can have it and HOW you can have it. Oh, and they want to control the access method. It's disgusting and immoral. Only, these guys don't have morals. I've come to the conclusion that these multi-BILLION dollar information companies (Don't fool yourself - this is EXACTLY what they are! And once you control the flow of information you do not live in a free society anymore.) just want to twist and pull at every opportunity they can get, and the governments' only real purpose is to hold us down while they do it... This is only the MICROSCOPIC tip of a MEGALITHIC iceberg! Don't let it happen!
...this is getting out of hand
You are however very correct about taking an active stance against corporatist intellectualism--known as greed.
What should Irk anyone with a sense of ingenuity is that information should be free, but in the intrests of some it benefits them so it should not too. I know what I am saying is old hat, but I must insist as did Brian Martin, in "Against Intellectual Property":
Much like realestate merket in San Francisco, Intellectual Property is overvalued.
There just aren't enough smart people out there!
what to do? Free software Foundation? Yes! and maybe even more than just giving people a better choice--allout attack on the corporatist unit.
I am no Marxist nor do I want to be, but there should be something done. And I feel that I am not alone in this regard to notice that the world has inadequacies about wealth and power is one thing, but to limit the knowledge in the name of the "market place of ideas" is to commit obvious treason to future generations.
ok, off the soapy box, your turn.
I'm referring, of course, to the much-reviled and spectacularly unsuccessful DIVX system (which, at first, was intended to kill DVD). Thankfully, it is dead, but conceptually related proposals like SDMI live on.
It seems to me that many of the problems our legal system suffers are analogous to problems found in computer programming.
Let's start off with code bloat. We started out with a kernel, the Constitution, and began haphazardly adding new code. At first, all was well. The new code worked most of the time, and when it didn't we could always slap together a patch. Eventually, however, it caught up with us. Loopholes began to appear, and the system became increasingly unstable as code that was never meant to work together was hastily altered to do so. When a major problem arose, a fix would eventually arrive, but on the whole, the complaints of the customers are ignored, and there is little they can do. In the meantime, the script kiddies are hard at work. As individuals, they are capable of only minor exploits, hardly noticed. In time, however, they work together, forming corporations. Now coordinated, using multiple exploits, they leave root kits all over the system.
Our legal system needs a major code audit. As in programming, such an audit would be time consuming, but it ensures that the code does what it was intended to do. The legislature must also realize that simply because a law is constitutional does not make it right, or beneficial to the country as a whole.
Answer: I write it to run on Winblows (which happens to have a player) so I have something that I can compare to.
UPS Sucks
Well, it's time to MAKE them care, by making them aware of the impact that the DMCA will have on their lives. It might turn out that Joe Sixpack downloads his favorite Elvis Costello tunes from Napster because his LP's are scratched beyond recognition. And what if he wanted to get DVD soon, but didn't want to worry about the MPAA charging him a flat rate to play the movie? Then he should start caring about how the DMCA will affect his life.
One of the major reasons why I hate the DMCA is because of how it became law: a joint venture between the MPAA, RIAA, and the government. In no way was this act approved by the US citizens. The very fact that the DMCA will become law soon flies in the face of this passage of the Declaration of Independence:
From the consent of governed. Now, did we give any consent to have the DMCA passed into law? NO. Were any referendums held to study public opinion on this issue? NO.
The DMCA IS destructive of the ends established in the Declaration, and it is our right to abolish the DMCA. It is not only our right, but now it is our responsibility to eliminate the DMCA. The DMCA will affect our happiness in the future; we will become drones, being forced by the MPAA to shell out X amount of dollars to watch a pre-recorded movie for Y amount of time. Even worse, the RIAA might soon mandate that we pay for FM radio by the minute. I fear that this idea (or a similar incarnation) isn't far off.
Do I sound a little like Henry David Thoreau? Good! It's nice to know that I'm the only remaining Transcendentalist in the US.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Check them out! They even have an opinion on Netscape (not to mention a recording of Booger's trophy-winning belch from ROTN1!)
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
there is an article at zdnet today about reverse engineering. obviously related to dmca
NEWS: cloning, genome, privacy, surveillance, and more!
The stupidity of the mpaa astounds me.
Remember when DAT was an up-and-coming technology for something other than backup tapes? The recording industry pinheads killed that technology for audio and it looks like these idiots will do the same for DVD and video.
Wake up and smell the binary data, Mr. Valenti! If you lock up control of this technology, people will use something else!
If this is just now taking affect, on what grounds was 2600 sued for providing DeCSS?
Please explain to me how I would go about downloading an *ANALOG* audio track from the Internet.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Well, even though the time for submitting comments has passed, you can read the comments at www.loc.gov/copyright/1201.comments& lt;/A> This is redundant information of course, but, worth mentioning.
What's NOT redundant is this - these comments are awsome. I mean, these aren't /. quality, half baked, spur of the moment replies. Everyone (on both sides) produced some really interesting and well thought out responses. Check out the Computer & Comminications Industry Association for a good loud voice who is looking at trying to make the concept of reverse engineering for the sake of allowing a user to use purchased materials on any platform - even if it means writing your own driver. (CCIA represents AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Fujitsu, and a couple others.)
Point blank - if you want to see the right way to debate an issue like this in an informed manner, most of these comments got it right. A good read, even if everything is in .PDF format.
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
DCMA is an overbearing solution to an exaggerated problem. Just as advertisers can always inflate the effectiveness of their advertising campaigns to their customers because it is so difficult to measure accurately (just look at all the otherwise honest businesspeople falling for the spam scams), likewise IP creators, publishers and distributors can ALWAYS claim to be losing revenues to an alleged piracy 'out there', even when none exists, because it is so difficult to accurately measure. Legislation should require compensation for the loss of revenue to come from actual, individually proven cases of piracy, not just some vauge claims by an industry group that they should be earning more than they should (heck, EVERYONE has that complaint!) and having govt. punish everyone for the misdeeds of a very few by restricting the fair use of material by honest folks. There should be more education and raising of consciousness about IP issues to make more honest citizens instead of resorting to technological skulduggery.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Eh? Texas is quite more likely to dismiss legal hair-splitting and shenanigans of the type listed above and to administer simple, clear justice.
You'd think I'd get a new one, or possibly revive one of the 30 or 40 old 12 ton olde-style ones I've got in the garage, then there ya go...
~ppppppppö
The problem is there are several entities that have informally referenced the Digital Millenium Copyright Act when talking about a wide variety of protection schemes they purport to have placed as a barrier to control access to their work. In their hands, the phrase "technological measures" and "control access" combine to form a hopelessly broad category which contains trivial or well-known encoding schemes upon data which is dubiously classifiable as copyrighted content.
Under such practice, it would be difficult without new legislation to define what scope of "access controls" congress would protect, and which measures employ a sufficient degree of technology. Would not a modern-day Da Vinci declare his practice of backwards writing a "technological measure" and prosecute any who realize and declare that a mirror would then give them access? Recent experience shows that he would, and go farther -- in charging for the only approved mirror and declaring other mirrors illegal under a poorly written law!
Thus one key concern may not be the access to the copyrighted works themselves, but rather the access to the technology that accesses them. When this technology is held as a trade secret, controlled via licensing with onerous fees, or otherwise restricted from any who would build innovative delivery channels for the copyrighted work, then the DMCA becomes a tool for those who wish to consolidate control of both the content and the cradle-to-grave distribution of the content into a few rich conglomerates. Technological protections should not be able to be considered both as a "technological measures that effectively control access" under DMCA and as a trade secret with restricted distribution. There is no benefit to the public for both considerations to be in effect simultaneously. Like patents, full disclosure and registration of these "technological measures" should be required before the additional protections of any law like DMCA may be invoked.
If a "technological measure" is implemented that goes further than simply granting access to a work, but also executes additional policies, such as giving one group of people access while (possibly temporarily) excluding another group of noninfringing would-be customers, then is this scheme worthy of protection under the DMCA? Citizens and consumers would say no. Why should DMCA be cited to protect a scheme that allows the copyright holder the unprecedented right of geographic designation of access, such as the regional encoding scheme for DVDs? In the past, has it been illegal for duly printed and purchased books, audio tapes, magazines, or other media to traverse geographical boundaries? Are we to constitute a government with no powers of censorship only to legislatively empower multinational corporations to routinely exercise such power? There is an important distinction between the DMCA's intent to prevent copyright infringment and industry's intent "to manage access and to exclude unauthorized users" as described by the MPAA. The DMCA must be clarified to forbid this type of practice and disallow descrimination based on geography or based on any other demographic attribute except possibly age.
My award goes to Fritz A. Attaway for this little number
"To the contrary, the use of technological measures in general, and of access-control technologies in particular, has already greatly increased the availability of a wide range of copyrighted materials to members of the public."
The thrust of his argument is
(a)access control enables the copyright holders to make available trial versions or restricted versions like those cable movies that cut out 1/2 an hour into it and ask for your credit card number.
(b) Access control is a means of making sure that unauthorized use of material is not possible. This is implemented "in tandem with the hardware."
These don't seem too unreasonable to be honest. I think the reason I have such a hard time relating to the MPAA is that they consider movies, music whatever as product. Most of the crap they put out is, "Mission to Mars" for example has about as much artistic value as Lemon Fresh dishwashing detergent. I could care less about access control on product like this.
What scares me is the idea that access to artistic or intellectual works which have real value to humanity and society will be controlled by a capitalist driven authority like the MPAA. ( milar concerns have cropped up with the human genome project, fortunately all parties agreed to release their data into the public domain. )
And it's the MPAA's movies that reach the wider audience. Shudder
:wq
His argument stood perfectly well when you considered the following: When DeCSS was developed, Linux lacked any functionality to talk to DVD's as more then ATAPI CDROMs. There was no UDF filesystem support. Jon made this argument in his defense when he took the stand at the DeCSS case.
.88 magnum -- it goes through schools.
Also, if they weren't sueing Johansen, why was his house raided and him and his father taken into custody?
--
It's a
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
If it got circumvented, it couldn't have been controlling access very effectively, now could it? =)
I'm certainly not trying to say "oh, those GEEKS are being oppressed, but that's not me, so I don't care."
:)
There's geek in me, it wasn't meant to be a derogatory term.
-Erik
By then it'll be too late.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I wonder if compaq are trembling in their boots. IBM could say they lost billions and billions by not having a captive PC market.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." The MPAA and RIAA have forgotten all about Prohibition. Time to repeat history.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Looking at the text of title 17, section 1201...
Subsection (c)(1) reads Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title. so the "fair use" defense is unaffected by this measure.
As for DeCSS I'm guessing the defense lawyers are hammering real hard on subsection (f) which explicitly permits reverse engineering any access control AND distributing the means to do so so long as it is solely for the purpose of allowing interoperability. Of course the corporate weasels didnt like this so they are claiming DeCSS in "purely a piracy tool." IANAL but from reading the actual letter of the law it seems that all it should take to defend against the suit is claiming "I made this code to allow interoperability between the firmware code on commercial DVD drives and the linux OS since nobody else had made a driver for it." - that fulfills the requirement in (f)(2) that it is for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability and also of (f)(3) where the information gained may be made available to others ... solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability
In the absence of the MPAA being able to prove that any of the coders intended DeCSS for piracy or actively used it for such (and since "fair use" remains intact their lawyers should be able to argue that the presence of decrypted movie fragments in old temp files on their disks is simply evidence they played them, not that they copied them) whilst the MPAA may throw more and more money and lawyers at this they should eventually lose.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
I had a
Prohibition is less an example of 'government's efforts to interfere with people's lives failing', as an example of 'people voting themselves rules they don't intent to follow'.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
One of the major reasons why I hate the DMCA is because of how it became law: a joint venture between the MPAA, RIAA, and the government.
Not to mention being passed by a voice vote so that we can't even tell who voted for or against it. (Safer to assume that it was unanimous and vote the whole lot of them out.. if only we can convince others of the disgusting nature of this law.)
Do I sound a little like Henry David Thoreau? Good! It's nice to know that I'm the only remaining Transcendentalist in the US.
Let's not get too full of ourselves here.
Anyway, this law was bought and paid for by corporate interests. The average citizen had no input on it, nor did the government care to even attempt to see how people felt about it. They slipped it through as quickly and quietly as a bill this attrocious can possibly be slipped through. By using a voice vote, everyone in favor got to get the bill through while avoiding attaching their names to it. Sneaky as hell. How does a bill this big and important get through on a voice vote? It's called corruption. We need to fight this and we need to make people understand what it means to them. Explain how it will affect them. I'm just not sure how to go about doing that. Most people I know just kinda shake their head and say something to the effect of, "Well, that's the government for ya." I'm beginning to despair of ever finding enough people who give a damn about this to make any sort of difference at all.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
In order to be ex post facto, the law has to be passed after the "offense" has been committed. So it isn't an ex post facto law, the MPAA's argument just then has no basis in law until the 28th.
I must say one thing in response to your ignorance. NOBODY is above the law. Judges and Police are obligated to obey the same laws as us.
That said, here's something which would probably be better if posted up a few threads.. but anyways ..
I created a device, using my knowledge of how CSS supposidly works. Am I guilty of circumventing copyright measures to the disk? My device functions the same way as all the other "licenced" players. How could I be guilty of "circumventing" copyright measures?
From one point of view, I am copying information from the disk to the television screen I am watching, but isn't this a generally accepted practice because this is how the device was meant to function?
Like everybody else has been mentioning.. this is about control. They're making much money off licensing the information behind this technology. They control how I manufacture and to whom I manufacture to. If they were smart the first round, they'd have patented the technology rather than introduce extensions to Copyright law. They would have had better footing!
Business as usual will take care of that side of the problem, especially when done by Russians and Chinese.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I am glad to see the Library of Congress is backing up our rights as a consumer. If purchase an item as long as I do not make a truck load of copies to sell. I should have the ability to view and use the product in any manner I see fit. I believe people should get paid for the work that they do. Also I do not want to see people try and screw me over when I buy thier product.
Furthermore the MPAA is more worried about Region Control than bootleggers. With region control they fix the price for a product in any manner they see fit. Even though you can get the same product else for cheaper. There is alot of bootleggers in China the deliver to surrounding countries. Is something they can not stop. Anyways they get a tax break because of boot legging. Well I finishing ranting.
Get ordinary people's attention focused on why this abuse of the limited copyright monopoly harms them
Well, how is that? I'm an 'ordinary person' and I'm not sure how DMCA is going to hurt me. I don't use/need DeCSS. While I like napster but I do use it to do illegal things, even if those illegal things cause me to buy more CDs. What exactly is wrong with the DMCA besides the fact that in a geek's eyes, it's The Wrong Thing?
-Erik
Initial written comments in this rulemaking were due February 17, 2000. The Office received 235 comments. All 235 comments are now available below for viewing and downloading. Copies of comments are also now available for inspection and copying at the Copyright Office
To quote the first line of the linked page.
Initial written comments in this rulemaking were due February 17, 2000.
I'm probably just begging to be whacked upside the head with the Clue Stick, but...
From the way this article reads, it sounds like the anti-circumvention measures of the DMCA don't go into effect until the 28th. IANAL, but it sounds like this would mean that any uses of it as a defense in court cases before that time would be considered an attempt to apply the law ex post facto, which is explicitly unconstitutional.
Wouldn't this mean that all charges pressed under that clause of the DMCA, including the infamous DeCSS case, be legally groundless?
Like I said, IANAL and IAPC (I Am Probably Clueless), but it seemed like something to think about...
----------
How about if we encrypt the source code to deCSS. Then, if the MPAA decrypts said source code, they are in violation of the DMCA. They can't sue us because to get the evidence is against the law.
What makes you think the DMCA would be any use in assisting the little guy against a large corportaion or federation?
So while an analog format may be excempt from the regulations, it also isn't very useful on the net.
--
An interesting quote I saw was
"Unless some exceptions are created, they argue, the entertainment industry will have more control than the Constitution allows. "
Now, excuse me if I just don't "get" this, but isn't the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land?
Personally, I believe we can solve all of this corporate boldness fairly easily. Add a EULA to the Constitution:
"By use of this document, you hereby attest that you have not and will not attempt to bypass the civilian rights listed herein. If at any time this statement is no longer valid, the person and/or corporation that does so will lose all rights listed herein."
Now, I am against EULA's -- but who doesnt think that would make Corporations a little uneasy.. =)
And DeCSS is illegal because.........
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
In what way does using a barcode scanner (hardware) in ways which the manufacturer did not anticipate "circumcent a technical measure which protects access to copyright material"?
Dude, it was a joke. Calm down.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Globalization has been the big corporate wet dream for the last few years. Some /. readers have sung the praises of the global economy.
How is it that it is good for the corporations to take advantage of the wonderful global marketplace, but a crime for consumers to do the same?
Seriously, how can they defend this? The Regionalization mechanism seems to be a system designed both to restrain trade and to fix prices? Doesn't this constitute some kind of criminal conspiracy? I know ADM and it's competitors were busted for global proce fixing in the Lysene market... So there should be some way to prosecute them under US law, at the very least.
I can imagine the defense: "Oh no you can buy a movie wherever you like, you just can't watch that movie..."
Although fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, fair use is not a defense to the DMCA. Therefore, a person who circumvents an access control in a work he has already purchased has violated the DMCA, Cohen wrote.
So in other words, I can't import DVDs and play them here, unless I use a region-free player, or DeCSS. If I purchase a legit DVD through legitimate sources, then I have every right to play that DVD on my player. Region coding is nothing more than a restriction on your free speech. Write the MPAA, the hardware manufacturers, and let them know how you feel. Inform the public about these practices (as a whole, we do not have a voice unless we get the general populace involved). This is how we can get the DMCA repealed.
I think it's time we organize the Million Geek March in Washington, DC.
I don't see what the issue is here.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
This could get interesting. If D2A, (digital to analog), converters are taken to do exactly what the name implies, then the output signal is analog and can be recorded without being subject to DMCA rules. At the crudest level, (sound quality not considered), one could stick a microphone in front os a PC speaker. Moving up 1 level, run the speaker wire into an impedence matched analog input.
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
I don't know if DCMA addresses this or not, but suppose it was a DVD, (not a palmcorder tape) that was trnsmitted but only an analog copy made. The issue is; does that circum-whatever the DCMA?
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
It's time to begin the revolution against the DMCA.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
So,if the DMCA "bans the circumvision of technical protection measures like encryption systems and other methods designed to prevent access to copyrighted works" then I can copyright my Emails and encrypt them! If carnivore or the NSA decrypt my Email, then they are breaking the law and they will have to stand up to Jack Valenti!. Ha! Valenti and his lawyers will protect me!
/me hides his stack of 2600 mags.
What? Uh, No sir. Never heard of DeCSS, nope, never bought a T-shirt of it neither. Nope nope!
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I regret to inform any new Slashdot readers that the comments period at the Library of Congress has been well expired. They had public hearings regarding those comments in May, and even the post-hearing-comment-rebuttal-comment window has passed.
All that's left to do now is wait. Virtually all the scheduled opportunities for public comment (read: your rare chance to not be ignored) have passed, as most slashdot readers probably know.
What this thread should provide an opportunity for Slashdot readers to do, is organize and take action should the LOC rule in Big Copyright's favor. We have until October 28th to prepare, and once the ruling comes down, anyone interested in the enrichment of the public domain and the rights to fair use of copyrighted material needs to be ready to stage an information campaign the likes of which has never been seen.
Prepare fliers and protests. Get ordinary people's attention focused on why this abuse of the limited copyright monopoly harms them. I'm trying to compile an HTML archive of important documents and arguments that can inform people about their relationship to copyright and it's place in society. Burn stuff like this to CD and distribute it near theaters, video rental shops, Kinko's, or other areas where people are likely to be in a receptive mood regarding their rights as individuals. If you're interested in knowing the URL when my compilation is done, send me an email with 'dmca' in the subject line.
Make the argument heard, because if the LOC rules to delete fair use and copyright expiration, we have the hardest argument yet to make to change what will be the status quo.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Slashdot (not to mention other sites such as Technocrat) have been covering this since early 2000; this particular article says that comments "are due Feb 17 2000". Add this to the earlier story about Mojonation, which is a repeat from July 30, and one can only conclude that the Slashdot editors are suffering from an acute problem which makes it impossible for them to retain any kind of long-term memory. This illness is caused by some form of brain damage.
OTOH, so the Slashdot editors are brain-damaged... what's new about it?
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Copyright, according to US constitution at least (that's the most easily accessible source of the definition, I presume everyone's is similar), is a limited set of rights afforded for a limited time to content creators. In my opinion, the MPMA/DVDCCA have broken their side of the bargain by using technology to attempt to secure additional rights, and for unlimited time. They therefore do not deserve the protection of copyright law, and I have no moral qualms about making copies of DVD movies.
If Digital Convergence has any "intellectual property" claim, it is most probably patent -- and without seeing specifics, I'd be dubious about even that. (Query how a process for Web information retrieval triggered by the scanning of a bar code is any innovation over a library's retreival of remote database records when it scans a book at checkout.)
-- Openlaw: Fighting for fair use and the public domain
You may be an American, and so have lots of negative associations with the word "socialism", but it's mostly to do with focusing on getting social justice. Inevitably when you do that some bloated billionaire mourns the loss of his freedom to run sweatshops and dump toxic waste in the rivers.
Also, wake up! The free market is what made the MPAA. The fact that they are now big enough to get some legislative influence and restrict the freedoms of others should be no shock to you. That's capitalism.
--
-- What do you need?
-- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
>The funny part is, it's listed as a non-profit organization
well.. strictly speaking the MPAA isn't making much money at all.. the money is made in copious amounts by its members, the individual movie producing companies.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
You are asking yourselves how you can circumvent copyright protection. Let's see... Some poor sap spends a couple of years writing and working hard at it then you goons rip his work and post it on the Internet where millions of people can download the whole thing for free (illegaly.) So the poor sap looses all the time and energy spent creating it. You are just theives You clearly do not understand the incentives to create. You clearly have never created anything yourselves or you would be a little more protective of your rights.
Are you bragging about being anal?
If the source was ripped from a DVD, the ACT itself of ripping the DVD would violate the DMCA. I believe the distribution of the 2nd generation digital copy would fall under standard copyright law. I could be wrong though. Maybe someone out there could answer.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Digital device makers could put a little random noise in with each playback, so the first viewing looks acceptable, but every time you copy it it gets a little bit worse and worse - just like the old stuff. Would this make everybody happy? (no).
Just being facitious.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I made the same mistake
Corley and 2600 are being charged with trafficking, which has no such effective date. The ban on trafficking was effective immediately.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
"Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. - This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term ''information security'' means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network."
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Everyone bring their hacked Cue:Cats to Washington! Show your defiance of the DMCA and the pay-per-use mentality! And when more pay-per-use hardware gets released, hack and tweak those and flaunt it on the steps of the Capitol!
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer