Slashdot Mirror
US Copyright Office Releases DMCA Advisory Report
snogwozzle writes: "The US Copyright Office's congressionally-mandated advisory report on the effect of the DMCA is in, and at first glance it doesn't look too good. They're against undoing the definition of temporary RAM buffer copies as possibly infringing (which Jessica Litman in Digital Copyright pegged as perhaps the central dirty trick in the DMCA as it opens the door to technical access control by publishers) is turned down, so is a first sale doctrine for digitally distributed works, and the DMCA's effect on fair use is called out of scope for the report. On the other hand, they think everyone should have a backup right for media bought in digital form, like we have for software." Keep in mind that this is only looking at the DMCA's effect on the "first sale doctrine" (once a work is sold to you, the copyright holder can't stop you from re-selling it) and on the legal right to make backup copies of a computer program.
The DMCA has been rated A for Awful by the US Copyright Office.
Oh how I would like to see that happen.
Could someone with a lot of time summarize this thing?
It does not matter what you do, it's wrong.
What I find Strange about this is that it says about halfway through that the Copyright office and the NTIA both issued a Notice of Inquiry (a request for public comment). In response to this notice, the recieved 30 comments. Only 30!!! How many people on slashdot alone has the DMCA brought to a raging boil?? A shitload. Why only 30 comments then?? Another example of how the bureaucracy that has taken over in this country makes it nearly impossible to take part in the process. How do you find out about things like this? I've written my congressman about the DMCA, but this may have been a better forum in which to voice these particular concerns... AAARRGH.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
232 Pages! I don't actually have to read the thing to take part in
It's amazing how much of the really important issues are 'out of scope'. Certainly convenient for the authors of the report... I have to look back at the congressional mandate to see exactly what was requires. It seems this report if woefully lacking...
OF course, in the areas in which we're all interested, there is some frightning stuff. I'm not sure I want to know about the office's interpretation of some of the other items...(cuz ignorance is bliss... - well, no we tried that from 1998 to 2000 when the DMCA went into effect)...
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I don't actually have to read the thing to take part in /. discussions, do I?
Bill, hasn't got the WPIconicSymbolsA font.
This may actually be good news. There's a building sentiment that DMCA is horrible and should be repealed or reworked. The worst thing we could get would be a workaround that would be good enough to save DMCA as it is, but without fixing the main problems.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
This echoes the letters that I just sent to the 4 Congressmen for my state. Basically, besides the "Free Skylarov" message, I told them that you should have a right to the content of something you buy, and that converting its form for viewing on other platforms or making backups should not be illegal. Hence, if I own a DVD, I should be able to watch it on Linux. If I buy an eBook, I should be able to convert it, print it, or do whatever I want with it, provided, of course, that I don't redistribute or sell it. This isn't about piracy, its about having access to something you already paid for.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Before people go ranting and raving about the DMCA, take some time to poke around these sites:
Full text of the DMCA (see section 1201)
Legislative history of the DMCA
Prof. Touretzky's page (lots of great resources here)
General DMCA/DeCSS paper
I'm sure that there's a bunch of other places where you can go grab some knowledge...if you have any good links, post them below, because I'd be interested in reading more...
Juiced? Or Not?
Rights? We don't have rights. We exchanged those old useless things for free school lunches and Medicare.
The next time you get stopped at a DUI checkpoint and asked for your papers and destination, ask the uniform about your Fourth Amendment rights. You'll be grabbing the trunk and wishing you had kept quiet.
Rights! You guys are so cute.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
My next step was to email microsoft about this, and find out what was the problem. As it turns out, you cannot sell this particular software without the original box and install manuals. I explained that I have never kept a box, and the manuals are useless. So, I still have a Windows NT 4.0 CD that I will not use again, and am unable to sell it or transfer ownership to another company.
I tell this only to let you all know that our abilities to resell items can be hindered by licensing. Legislation like DMCA will give unnecessary power to license-givers, and the consumer will suffer. Imagine if you are next told in your end-user license agreement that you can never resell the software you have purchased!
Click here or here.
The Washington Post article has quotes from the eff and American Library Association and a paragraph on Skylarov.
Best Slashdot Co
Having once been part of our fine gubbermint, I saw a lot of that. Notices were generally posted in places so obscure at to make the Hitchhiker's Guide seem like Open Government. You know, in the third sub-basement of a locked building, behind a door marked "beware of the jaguar". I admit having no specific knowledge of the case in point, but I've seen fixes like that put in many, many times. . ..
I'm going to buy myself a Free Dmity Skylarov T-shirt from thinkgeek. I'm glad that the company donates less than half of the proceeds from the sale to freeing Dmitry.
I can't wait to walk down the street in my Free Dmity Skylarov T-shirt, repelling the babes. It's not only pointless, it's ugly too! When people ask me, "Who's Dmitry Skylarov?" and I tell them, I can't wait to see their faces fall, as they realise they've wasted five minutes of their life on a listening to a total loser.
I'm kissing my already pathetic social life goodbye. I'm buying a Free Dmity Skylarov T-shirt. Join me?
While I think the DMCA sucks as much as the next person, it is forcing people to come up with a way of thinking about online media, and forcing legislation to define things like fair-use and distribution in terms of things that aren't necessarily physical.
Anyone made a t-shirt with the source code to crack ebooks on it? Maybe the source code on the front and "I READ STOLEN BOOKS" on the back. I bet those would be a hit..
so unhip it's a wonder your bum doesn't fall off!
That summarizes the rest of the doc in about 15 pages. . ..
They're against undoing the definition of temporary RAM buffer copies as possibly infringing.
On the other hand, they think everyone should have a backup right for media bought in digital form, like we have for software.
Now, what happens when I back up all my media into temporary RAM buffers. What about handheld devices that use only RAM to store data. *Sigh*...more evidence that the government is on autopilot.
"Missed it by that much ."
I think perhaps a reason why there have been so many problems regarding the DMCA is it was written to broadly. Sure, it's great to see better copyright protection for items that are released in a digital world, yes it means that some of your freedom is taken away, but in most situations, the DMCA has been no different than regular copyright laws. It IS in fact ILLEGAL to trade music mp3's that are copies of originals that you do not own. The same goes for warez and other software. We live in a world where we wish everything was free, but it isn't. In some cases though, like in the whole reverse-engineering scheme of things, the DMCA is taken out of context. To say that I can't modify something that is my personal property is blasphemy. As long as I am not making an exact copy of your product, it shouldn't be a problem (and this is the patent offices division too) I guess that is another problem, too many departments and lawmakers in washington scrambling to protect the intellectual property of individuals, with good reason, while not exactly understanding what it is they are going out to protect. Now I don't want to say that they are all imbeciles or fools, but imagine trying to explain tons of material relating to IT to someone who is also being lobbyed from 12 different directions on one item. I guess that what I'm trying to say is that the DMCA, while it had it's good intentions, has turned out to be a bad egg. Unfortunately it's a law that is in place, and the only way we are going to be able to get rid of it is to flood our nations representatives on capitol hill and in the white house with letters explaining WHAT the problem is with the DMCA and HOW they need to go about fixing it. Just remember though, that intellectual property needs to be protected too. Open Source is great, but there are people out there who have to make money off of software, and so they sell their products, and musicians and writers must make their money also. Don't write Washington and say that they should make all warez and illegal mp3 trading legal, but do write them and try to guide their decisions in the right direction and explain exactly what things are to them.
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
SUMMARY: The United States Copyright Office and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration invite interested
parties to submit comments on the effects of the amendments made by
title 1 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, (``DMCA'') and the
development of electronic commerce on the operation of sections 109 and
117 of title 17, United States Code, and the relationship between
existing and emerging technology and the operation of such sections.
Section 104 of the DMCA directs the Register of Copyrights and the
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the
Department of Commerce to submit to the Congress no later than 24
months after the date of enactment a report evaluating the effects of
the amendments made by title 1 of the Act and the development of
electronic commerce and associated technology on the operation of
sections 109 and 117 of title 17, United States Code, and the
relationship between existing and emerging technology and the operation
of those sections. This Federal Register Notice is intended to solicit
comments from interested parties.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 4, 2000. Reply comments must
be received by September 5, 2000.
Hey, if at the least, maybe a pair of ASCII quotes could surround all the code or music we decided to store or copy.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
Copyright Office Needs Comments On DMCA By March 31
Posted by timothy on Saturday March 18, @09:09PM
from the calm-collected-rational-and-persuasive dept.
Best Slashdot Co
Post 2234479, which is similar, obviously comes after 2234470, so shouldn't 2234479 be modded down instead?
well, I haven't read all of it yet, but what I did read, sounded a lot like 'it's not the DMCA itself, but license agreements that are causing problems'. I believe it noted that when software is purchased, you only buy the rights to use not make an archival backup. If that's the case, perhaps DMCA isn't bad, just our whole license structure that needs reworking?
Do You Have Stairs In Your House?
Don't know if anyone's said this yet...
What if we were talking about water instead of data:
There is an [almost] infinite amount of water (there are an infinite amount of combinations of binary sequences) and you needed a container (a cd,dvd,hd etc. vs. tank or cup) to store a decent amount (more than you could store in your cupped hands or remember in your head). Water is free to anyone - as long as its in a public place (the sea/oceans) if someone takes some water home thats fine, you can't get at it (if i write a document and store it on my computer you cant get at it). but they could get a simarlar amount of water. (yes i know the analogy isn't perfect). If someone starts selling water, generally they are selling the cost of transport (to tank it or pipe it to my home) plus whatever they've done to clean it. But if people start taking ownership of water by say colouring it with dye and taking legal action against anyone who tries to resell that water it would be mad. (watermarking data).
There's all sorts of stuff i've left out of this, but generally if i come up (independently) with a random bin sequence which just happens to match someone else's copyrighted sequence how do you deal with it?
-tfga
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Since the US Copyright Office is pretty much a rubber stamp for industry negotiations over what the next copyright law will look like, allowing congress to abdicate their responsibility to protect the interests of the people, it should be no surprise to anyone that the report basically upholds the DMCA provisions. It's interesting how they claim that backup copies are exempt, but the law ought to be modified to explicitly prohibit sharing of these copies. Hell, at this point, it's prohibited to share the originals, so why bother?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Hey, I don't know if you guys remember from history class or not, but our founding fathers started a war and people DIED because they didn't feel represented.
Henry David Thoreau states in civil disobedience "If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go" Basically don't support our current government. The people making our laws are drug addicts and suspected killers! I.E. people like condit and bush are telling us what is moral.
so what should we do? maybe slashdot should start a political party. But for now, I think I'm gonna continue breaking the law where I see fit. Civil disobiedence is more effective than preaching on slashdot.
But there are other concerns that are better, more poignant, as they impacts the emulation community. One court has held that Section 117 does not excuse the making of purported backup copies of a video game embodied in ROM, because that particular storage medium is not vulnerable to "damage by mechanical or electrical failure".
Excuse me?? I've seen ROM chips blasted right off circuit boards due to voltage spikes. I know that the CDROM in my Playstation could easily get off-kilter and trash a CD beyond repair before I could stop it. But alas, this is the language of the law - dumping ROMs of any form is illegal because ROMs aren't killable, so thinks the court system.
The report reads in a contradictory fashion. They solicit views from the public against the sections of the DCMA, then get opinions from copyright holders backing the DCMA. Even their own recommendations are contradictory! Example:
1) The people writing the report feel that arguments against Section 1201 generally aren't valid (detailing the `first sale` doctrine - once a work is sold, you can do whatever you want to it [`disposition of the work`]). This section limits the rights of the copyright authors after a sale is made.
The specific grievance they haul out is CSS/De-CSS. They feel that altering first sale priviledges to require that all devices be capable of playing DVDs would be like demanding that PCs could play VHS tapes -- when, clearly, this isn't the issue at hand. They reporting group intentionally misconstrues this in their report. Then they go on to say that while CSS and region encoding may well destroy a market for reselling the used DVDs due to limited playability, that this action is not covered as a right by the first sale doctrine, so nobody's really losing anything in the scope of this law.
2) Not a half page later, the reporting group proceeds to state, -in writing-, that using encryption technology to tether a program or medium to a particular system a la WMV encryption. They state that copying a tethered copy onto a zip disk or CDRW is a useless exercise, since taking it to another system wouldn't work, regardless of whether or not you own the copyright to the media in question. This limits the ability to exercise control over the disposition of the work.
The paper notes that this limitation halfway violates the first sale doctrine, because circumventing the tethering protection in order to exercise your rights under the first sale doctrine would entail violating section 1201 as amended by the DCMA.
Does not CSS encoding and regional encoding tether your DVD to a particular player-type? If I carry my region-1 DVD to Asia, is it not preventing me from watching my licensed and owned DVD? Furthermore, if I seek to alter the disposition of the work - say, rip the DVD to MPG form so I can watch it on my computer - does not CSS encryption prevent me from exercising my rights under section 1201, as tethering technology does?
I swear, the more I read, the more infuriated I become. And congress is -reading- this slop.
As for making backup copies -- and circumventing copy protection to do so, which the DCMA prohibits -- the reporting group found that the ability to make or not make archival copies of software has little real impact on consumers as a whole. Thanks, guys - I'm not your average consumer.
They state that, for one, most copy prohibition is due to the software license itself not allowing you to make copies, so Section 117 never comes into play, as you're limited before you ever even think about the Copyright Act. Next, they say that if the software has no copy protection or licensing restriction, you can go ahead and make your one archive copy -- as per 117. Third, they state that most software comes on CDROMs, and that CDROMs *are their own archive copy*. Remember, ROM media is not vulnerable to destruction via mechanical or electronic forces. I suppose they've never seen a CD scratched beyond all recognition. *shakes his head*
The report is also loaded with obviousness.
"The recent phenomenon of the popularity of using Napster to obtain unauthorized copies of works strongly suggests that some members of the public will infringe copyright when the likelihood of detection and punishment is low."
Indeed. I wonder how much that little gem cost America's taxpayers to prepare.
All in all, I'm highly disappointed in the scope of this report, the effort expended by the people who wrote it, and the recommendations they make. I suppose I'll simply have to continue being an outlaw; these laws do not suit my idea of my rights after the first sale doctrine has been applied.
-
Wingchild
...because if I move with my Zone 2 collection to the US, 98% of the people there can't play my disc, if I tried selling them. Of course they can buy it and use it as a coaster if they like, but...
What really pisses me of is Californian law. If I, a norwegian citizen, choose to exercise my right to transfer a DVD to a different medium (e.g. a CD) explicitly granted to me by norwegian law, on my property (my DVD record), in Norway, being under no contract (or AUP, or EULA) with anybody, you would think that is legal right?
Wrong. Under Californian law, I can be sued there because it is considered an attack on the MPAAs interests which reside in California, to create a tool, *which is nessecerry to exercise my norwegian rights*, that can convert the DVD to a different format, because such a program must circumvent the copyright protection. In other word, I can be sued by a state in a *foreign* country for making a tool that *if* spread to foreign countries *could* be used for piracy.
In fact, this is reducing my fair use rights, and everybody outside California's rights to those granted in California. I believe the DMCA to be blatantly unconstiutional in the US, but that is besides the point. I find the law to be violating national soverignity, by extending it's domain to the entire world.
The only intern- and transnational courts I will answer to, are those granted authority by us, specifically the EU/EFTA-courts, and the international court in Haag. If I am ever arrested based on Californian law, I will consider them hired bandits acting for the MPAA under cover of practicing justice.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
CSS and first sale issues are completely ripped apart. They argue that the requirement to view DVDs on non-licensed devices is akin to requiring VHS tapes to be watched on Beta machines. The analogy is so poor and revealing of how clueless the Copyright Office is to the issue that it makes me despair.
So far the report has been, imnsho, uninsightful and focused on the here and now. The DMCA is doing what it is "supposed to be doing" and all that hippy protest stuff isn't very relevent. This is what your congress-critter is going to get out of this report after it is digested by some staff member. I reserve the right to change my opinion once I'm done with the other 98 percent of Section III but my initial reaction is no, this is bad news.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Here's an idea, if the slashdot guys are willing to implement it. Imagine if for certain stories on special topics, such as the DMCA stories, that the rating system was hardwired to individually email the top rated posts to certain email addresses. Many government agencies have Comment Periods where people can email or send comments to be attached to the reports they generate. This is also true of mergers and many of the topics that come before the FCC. What if the top rated posts on individual stories were automatically mailed to these email addresses? This would mean that someone would need to track what comment periods are available, and attach these email addresses to the articles in question. The system could also first send an email to the person that posted the message, asking them if they want to modify or clean up their message in any way; if they don't email back that they don't want to send the message or if they don't change the message, the message would be automatically fired off to the senator or comment period email address.
:)
Automatic democracy, imagine that.
Brad Neuberg
That this document concerning the DMCA is in .pdf format, the format of Adobe Acrobat!
But seriously, undoing the non-infringement of temporary RAM-buffer is nonsense, because any internet surfing woiuld be deemed illegal under the DMCA. And how would they enforce it, since internet usage is so widespread?
Copyright control is out of control.
People here are all talk and no action? How many people would even know how to file the comment or take the time to do so. Don't automatically suspect a conspiracy.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
If you sell the cd with a DEAD hard drive that meets the requirements for selling OEM copies of Windows and MS office. Although you probably won't get much for NT4 these days.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
After tuning into the news for the last few years, with the insurection of geeks in schools, arrests via the DMCA, Bush's minimal support for stem cell research. The only thing I can see is a government who is trying to push it's intellectual community away. Once the members of this community get fed up with the laws that are being placed against them, the most logical course would be to move to a country which supports them. This is good for the government, because it is easier to control a ship of fools.
it's a sig, wtf?
And Digital Media is not the same as tangible items.
"Digital transmission of a work does not implicate the alienability of a physical artifact. When a work is transmitted, the sender is not exercising common-law dominion over an item of personal property; he is exercising the central copyright right of reproduction with respect to the intangible work. Conversely, the copyright owner's reproduction right does not interfere at all with the ability of the owner of the physical copy to dispose of ownership or possession of that copy, since the first sale doctrine applies fully with respect to the tangible object (e.g., the user's hard drive) in which the work is embodied."
In other words when you copy anything in a digital form it's not only as good as the original it's IDENTICAL. Which means...
"The concerns that animate the first sale doctrine do not apply to the transmission of works in digital form."
I.E. Fair use laws DO NOT apply in terms of digital media.
I read Slashdot for the
I'm no executive, but the executive summary was enough for me.
What is, in my opinion, the most frightening is :
I. BACKGROUND
A. THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties were the impetus for the
U.S. legislation. In order to facilitate the development of electronic commerce in the digital age,
Congress implemented the WIPO treaties by enacting legislation to address those treaty
obligations that were not adequately addressed under existing U.S. law. Legal prohibitions
against circumvention of technological protection measures employed by copyright owners to
protect their works, and against the removal or alteration of copyright management information,
were required in order to implement U.S. treaty obligations.
So, clearly, according to them, DMCA is only mandatory, cause of the WIPO.
But who control WIPO(, and as such, the fact that a law must be enacted that violate first amendment)?
American friends, don't say f..k those foreigners, we do what we want, because us, foreigner, don't want this either. If slashdot is to become a political force, as some suggest, you must understand what we already know in Europe, governement are only puppets in the hands of corporations, importants decisions are never local, but in the interest of the "free market".
Real target are more the likes of G8, Davos, Berne convention, Munich Treaty...
Now, find an elegant mean of expression for those, and it can be interresting. And dont forget to mail your congressman, he can still take important decision, perhaps .
They argue that the requirement to view DVDs on non-licensed devices is akin to requiring VHS tapes to be watched on Beta machines. The analogy is so poor and revealing of how clueless the Copyright Office is to the issue that it makes me despair.
If I was evil, I'd use the exact same analogy to the anti-DMCA sentiment come off as petty liberal sticklers.
I appreciate anything that vindicates my apathy for your petty little freedom to write compatable software. Who are you to tell me what you can do with my copyrighted material? It's my right to be able to securly distribute my copyrighted material without the fear it's going to be Napsterized.
Try playing the Devil's advocate and see how easy it is to not give a shit about details when you're trying to manipulate the public.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Am I the only one that this Slashdot story makes almost no sense whatsoever to? The sentence doesn't even syntactically pick up where it left off before the huge parentheses aside!
Good grief! What the heck are you trying to say, you goofy Slashdot posters?
On the other hand, they think everyone should have a backup right for media bought in digital form, like we have for software.
Not that any government agency bothers to enforce my fair use rights. I've got two or three fucked 'backups' (read: CD copy protection prevented me from excercising fair use rights) here on my table to prove it.
Ironically, the only company I can think of offhand that explicitly gives users the right to make backup copies of their software is Microsoft.
T3/Dev
Goodbye karma.
Some good with the bad:
1. The copyright office recognizes that backups are often done on a "whole device" basis, data and all. The current archival exception doesn't actually protect this right -- it covers only computer programs. Although there is a good case for finding fair use, the CO recommends a statutory change protecting the right to do backups this way.
2. Though against a wholesale exemption of RAM copies as infringement, the CO supports special legislative exemption for streaming reproduction of licensed digital works.
Though carefully worded and limited, any official support for a right to make temporary buffer copies that are essential to the purpose of using properly licensed works for their fundamental purpose is a good thing.
Question for people who've actually read the DMCA. If I sell house door locks and don't tell people that I have a master key for all their houses, can I sue anyone who squeals for violating the DMCA? After all, there are books, videos, and other copyrighted materials in people's houses, so such knowledge could be used for copyright violation. Could someone who's actually looked at the DMCA give a pointer to the relevant part?
And I know the MPAA cares about lost sales. They have lost AT LEAST A WHOLE $50 from me ;-)
Excuse my ignorance as a german, but is that what america understands as 'the country of the free'?
IN the "sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf", page xix, you blurted: "Physical copies degrade with time; digital information does not."
This is wrong in so many ways. Clearly, the bits under discussion do not spontaneously mutate between one and zero. However, this is the functional equivalent of saying that two does not spontaneously mutate to three. Bits do not exist independently of the media upon which they are recorded. Numbers do not exist independently either. If you doubt this, please pick up a two and compare it to a three. I've recorded my address above. Please send me the results of your comparison.
Since bits do not exist independently of the media upon which they are recorded, it is disingenuous to suggest that "Works in digital information can be reproduced flawlessly..." Please contact the U.S. Census office. Ask them for Census information recorded from 1960 census. Consider carefully their answer. Please contact the Smithsonian Museum. Perhaps they can explain the digital archive process. Consider their answer.
I wrote my Senator complaining about the DMCA a month or so ago and here's the response I got. It doesn't look good.
Dear Mr Keal:
Thank you for writing to me about the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act.
I have always believed that the protection of intellectual
property rights is as important as the protection of any other
property right. Moreover, the protection of intellectual property is
vital to a flourishing economy -- particularly in California.
America's music, movie, and software industries are second to
none, and we export far more intellectual property than we import.
This is good for employment, and good for consumers.
Without strong copyright protections, the incentive to
innovate would be diminished. In fact, this issue was so important
to the Founding Fathers that the ability of Congress to protect
copyrights is actually written into our Constitution itself.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was Congress'
attempt to address the issue of copyright protection in a new,
digital age. As new technologies have developed over the past few
years, it has become increasingly difficult to protect intellectual
property from illegal copying and distribution. It is a delicate
balance, to be sure -- nobody wants to restrict the development of
new and exciting technologies, but we must work to prevent the
creation of perfect, digital copies of copyrighted works which can
be illegally distributed throughout the world.
Please be assured that I understand your concerns, and I
will keep your views in mind.
If you have other questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to write to me again, or contact my Washington, D.C. staff
at (202) 224-3841.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
http://feinstein.senate.gov
Which IS covered by the Constitution- no matter wat California says, they can't usurp that little thing called the Bill Of Rights.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
(Note: Please don't use these words yourself. Identical letters have less impact than individually-worded letters. Use your own -- but be polite or you'll be ignored. And use snail mail; to them, e-mail costs no time or money to send, so is a weak indication of voter interest.)
The Honorable xxxxx
[House of Representatives | Senate]
Washington, DC
Dear xxxxx:
I am writing to urge the repeal of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA, against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, limits the free speech and fair use rights of the public.
First, by classifying most security analyses of encryption and digital copy protection technology as illegal "circumvention", and subjecting those analyses to federal prosecution, the DMCA severely curtails the public's ability to ensure product integrity, security, and quality.
Most software sold today is sold without any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for use; it is truly "let the buyer beware". Yet individuals and corporations alike rely on this software for important, even critical uses. How the end-user community currently asserts its interest in quality software is through open collaborative analysis of product security, working with other end users, software developers, and academics. Without open discussion of security, the public's only recourse is to take software vendors at their word -- a dangerous helplessness that only serves to heighten fear and distrust of technology.
Second, by outlawing even the discussion of circumvention techniques, the DMCA effectively eliminates fair use as understood by traditional copyright law. Despite the portrayal of DMCA opponents by the major media cartels, virtually all of DMCA's opponents support the continuation of traditional Copyright Act law including fair use.
But with the threat of criminal prosecution squelching public discussion of ways to exercise fair use, copyright holders are free to impose arbitrary and extra-legal restrictions above those of the Copyright Act (e.g., to restrict access to only devices sold by the copyright holder, or to prohibit the playback of imported DVDs through "region coding"), and those private restrictions on fair use will have the force of law. The only people who will enjoy fair use under the DMCA?s provisions are Ph.D. mathematicians or engineers, and each of them must independently discover how to do it in private, because discussion is prohibited -- an unintended "literacy test" for fair use.
Third, by transferring this area of law from civil to criminal court, the DMCA elevates copyright infringement above more serious matters and makes potential criminals out of those who otherwise would not be, including security professionals such as myself. In other instances where the law has seen fit to restrict a technology, it has not done so by prohibiting knowledge but by prohibiting specific acts. The discussion of lock-picking tools, hallucinogenic drugs, or nuclear bombs is not restricted; possession of these items is. DMCA's shadow already threatens the profession of information security in the United States, and discourages the best researchers from coming here to share their work.
Please work to repeal or amend this blight on the Constitution. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to express my concern.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxx
[state] nth district voter
From Page 119-120, They claim that the original CD acts like the archival CD?!? (Not in my experience!) This report appears biased.
Third, as of last year approximately ninety-eight percent of computer software sold in the
United States was sold on CD-ROM.267 This means that even where consumers are prevented
from making an archival copy, they are still able to reinstall the work in the event of computer
malfunction. In essence, the CD-ROM itself acts as the archival copy. In that case, even if
consumers are prevented from making archival copies as contemplated in section 117, their
software investment is protected from system malfunctions, thus fulfilling the purpose of the
archival exemption as articulated by CONTU.268 Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence at
this time of an effect of title I of the DMCA on the operation of section 117 is not substantial,
and no legislative change is warranted.
the DMCA's effect on fair use is called out of scope for the report.
Or in other words, "We know it destroys fair use, but we don't care as long as we keep getting brib^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions from the large media cartels."
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
This argument makes no sense, and makes me believe it was written by a shill. Although circumstances can cause a piece of media to become worthless, the causes are mostly out of the distributors control. What we are talking about is equipment manufacturers and media conglomerates (who are often one and the same) _colluding_ to control the distribution of media.
Taken to the extreme ,if I bought a DVD and found that I could only sell the DVD to people who lived within 5 miles of me due to the whims of the DVD consortium, this would almost certainly limit the market which I could sell it, and be an undefendible practice. The author might have tried to make the argument that since DVD regions are large, the market is not severely limted by region encoding, but they chose not to. Even this argument is not really supported by the facts, since there is clearly an nonzero demand for imported DVDs due to pricing descrepencies between the different regions.
The author of this text is presenting the view that the intent of the distributor doesn't matter, which may or may not be the case with regard to copyright law, but is not true on the face of it. Whether DVD encoding is illegally limiting first sale doctrine is something needs to be worked out by looking closely at the law and certainly isn't an argument that is "without merit"
I can imaging headlines: Local Man Stealing Music
A local man was arrested today for alledgedly violating copyright law by staging a public performance of copyrighted works without proper authorization from the artist. This alledged "hacker" could be charged with several counts of copyright violations, as witnesses say that he has done the same thing at other locations. When questioned the suspect readily admitted to the violation, "Yes, I admit that I was softly humming the tune to myself as I walked down the street, but I-HEY!. The suspect will be taken to a psychiatric facility for electroshock therapy to purge the illegal copies of songs from his memory.
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
Thank you,
Your CongressCritter
P.S. I appreciate your support in the upcoming election. Vote Quimby!
The worst part about losing the "first sale" qualities of a product is that that product will likely be sold for about the same amount, but carries a much lower value for the consumer.
Basically, this is a HUGE gob of inflation in the ecomomy - but it's inflation that won't be measured or accounted for in "cost of living" calculations, and will slip under the radar. Life will be perceptibly more difficult for consumers, but nobody's going to make an adjustment for it for people who are on fixed incomes, etc.
I believe this is also the main aim of "market segmentation strategies". Lower the value of the product for the consumer so you can give the appearance of not raising prices. Rake in profits for "prosumer" and high-end market segments that can bear the cost, and can't bear the lower value of the product (usually through technical crippling or inconvenient feature-bundling) - though that product has the same manufacturing cost as the low-end version. In effect, you increase profits, and you're getting more money from the consumer per intangible, unmeasurable "units of quality", without being accused of price-gouging, or feeding the inflation demons.
Of course, this kind of strategy only works in the absence of competition. And it's working very well today, and I suspect it will be working extremely well in the future.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Learn to love me ... well, never mind, never mind
...
Assemble the ways
Now, today, tomorrow and always
My only weakness is a list of crime
My only weakness is
Oh, shoplifters of the world
Unite and take over
Shoplifters of the world
Hand it over
Hand it over
Hand it over
Learn to love me
And assemble the ways
Now, today, tomorrow, and always
My only weakness is a listed crime
But last night the plans of a future war
Was all I saw on Channel Four
Shoplifters of the world
Unite and take over
Shoplifters of the world
Hand it over
Hand it over
Hand it over
A heartless hand on my shoulder
A push - and it's over
Alabaster crashes down
(Six months is a long time)
Tried living in the real world
Instead of a shell
But before I began
I was bored before I even began
Shoplifters of the world
Unite and take over
Shoplifters of the world
Unite and take over
Shoplifters of the world
Unite and take over
Shoplifters of the world
Take over
It is apparent to me that we are witnessing the effects of answering to a legislature unversed in and unused to the current state of our technological culture. Sure, they understand the effects of technology's cultural advancements on their supporter's bottom lines, but they don't understand the effects of those advancements on the end user. THEY have never really been the end user.
Now, in an atmosphere of self-serving corruption led by gargantuan special interest groups, they are scrambling to pick up pieces and make laws that put this technology in a perspective they can understand. It makes sense that these laws support the big corporations and associations that will benefit most from the regulation. Afterall, who is educating our congressmen? The MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, etc. These conglomerates have an immeasurable headstart on us, because they've had their foot in the door and hands down the pants of the House and Senate for decades! Anyone you help educate is going to learn what YOU teach them. Imagine what happens when you have a legislature sorely lacking in technological education being educated by people whose agenda includes technological regulation for the sake of their bottom-line?
The question we have to answer is relatively simple: Which of us is going to stand up and begin educating our congressmen as to the REALITY of the cultural advancements of technology? Who is going to teach them what it means to be an end user? I don't think that writing individual letters to our congressmen is the answer. I think that each one of us writing a letter expressing our individual views will water down the message that this kind of regulation is WRONG. It will beget the same reaction as each of us writing to legalize marijuana, LSD, cocaine, etc.
What we need is a single concerted effort--the only way any dissention has ever resulted in success. Imagine if Martin Luther King, Jr. had asked each and every black person in the US to just write a letter to his/her congressman asking for an end to segregation... Sometime soon, all of these voices protesting the immorality of the DMCA must gather together and approach congress in an organized fashion. Begin holding educational workshops for your legislators, giving speeches on the effects of such draconian regulation on end-user's rights, the unconstitionality of the DMCA and its like.
I fear, as do many of you, that unless such an effort is made, we will soon see ourselves fighting this battle beneath an already well-established DMCA.
Otto
hm . word for word, the same exact reply I got from her almost a year ago. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The following message has been encrypted. If you have read it, you must have violated the circumvention mechanism, and I will sue you out of existence.;-)
--message starts here--
tHIS MESSAGE IS ENCRYPTED WITH aDOBE'S NEWEST HIGH SECURITY ENCRYPTION SCHEME. tO DECRYPT THIS MESSAGE RUN THE FOLLOWING ALGORITHM WRITTEN IN ADOBESCRIPT ON THE MESSAGE:
FOREACH CHAR IN MESSAGE
FOR I = 255 DOWNTO 0
CHAR = CHAR xor I
CHAR = CHAR xor I
IF CHAR IS UPPERCASE,
CHANGE IT TO LOWERCASE
OTHERWISE IF CHAR IS LOWERCASE
CHANGE IT TO UPPERCASE
aS YOU CAN SEE, THIS SUPPERADVANCED ALGORITHM DESERVES PROTECTION SINCE IT'S FOOLPROOF.
Translation:
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Pondering about the subject of the DMCA, I have reached an interesting insight.
The legislators of the DMCA saw a strange situation. Mega-Corporations are producing digital content, gaurded with various kinds of "protection" systems to prevent certain uses of thier content, and to allegedly enforce their copyrights. Then, "hackers" come and circumvent this protection, publicly posting their results. This situation of cat-and-mouse race sounds unreasonable. Either the rights of the copyright owners should be protected and it should be illegal to circument them (as the DMCA suggests), or (and this is what should have been decided) that the "protection" mecahnisms themselves are unethical and bypass the fair-use rights and the expiration of copyright.
The answer therefore is that they passed the wrong law. It's not illegal to circumvent the "protection" mecanisms. The mecanisms themselves contradict the fair-use rights that have been established.
The law that should have been passed, is one preventing use of any mechanism that prevents exercising of fair-use rights by legitimate owners. If the court decided I'm entitled to fair use rights, Mega Company X cannot deny me of those rights.
Right?
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
...All I see are trees!
Without strong copyright protections, the incentive to
innovate would be diminished. In fact, this issue was so important
to the Founding Fathers that the ability of Congress to protect
copyrights is actually written into our Constitution itself.
I can't figure out if this woman is really ignorant, or just does a good job at playing that way as long as the cash keeps rolling in... Someone should point out the other things "actually written into our Constitution", like say the first amendment rights of free speech (Which the DMCA does away with if you are using those pesky rights to talk about encryption).
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
innovate would be diminished. In fact, this issue was so important
to the Founding Fathers that the ability of Congress to protect
copyrights is actually written into our Constitution itself.
Except that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that by making the term limit on Copyright too high, they were depriving the People (and further artists, musicians, and authors) of work from which they could build upon and grow new works from. While the Constitution reads "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;", no mention of actual time limits exists within this document. The limits were proposed by Jefferson to be 14 years, which were then extended to 28 years, as is demonstrated by reading ancillary documents of the time.
While your Senator believes that protecting the intellectual property of the US is vital for the economy and provides incentive, it actually has a retrograde effect for content providers who do not hold the Copyright on current work, as they cannot build on existing works until those works leave copyright (A period currently longer than most human lifespans), or until they pay Copyright holders for the privledge of using their work. This effectively shrinks the pool of content creators to those already holding Copyright, or those financially entangled with Copyright holders.
And while those Copyright Holders may provide large donations to your Senator's campaign, they are not the majority of voters in the State of California. It is the will of the Voters that your Senator swore to represent in our Government, and if she is failing in this regard, then she is unfit to hold office.
I hope you're not feeling too special, cause she didnt even bother to read what you sent her.
Notice how the letter doesnt specifically acknowledge any points you made in the email?
Of the MANY letters that I've written to our lawmakers regarding this issue, I've only received ONE response and that was from Sen. John Kerry (MA). His "excuse" was that we needed the DMCA to comply with the WIPO trade agreement.
Sigh...
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
It is becoming clear that even flight attendants, who (due to their propensity for travel and promiscuity) are more likely to spread this insidious disease, are becoming involved with our nation's leaders. Once we could rely on Congress to confine their affections to prostitutes and major motion picture starlets, but now it seems we face the possiblity that our elected representatives will grab a piece whenever and wherever they can.
As concerned citizens we all need to do our part to stem the tide of this phenomenon. Please join me in designating your campaign contributions as intended for use in purchasing prophylactics and funding medical research into the prevention and cure for CTD's (Congressionally Transmitted Diseases). Only with your help can we hope to prevent a national disaster. Thank you.
give up on selling CD's as the exclusive media for the music. They should sell cheap CD's, and increase the amount of live music presence thier artists have. Music is meant to be live, and everyone prefers live music most of the time, for the atmosphere.
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
Perhaps this is futile, but I felt it might be a good idea to write back to Feistein with a rebuttal. And perhaps get other people who haven't written to her to write to her and _include_ the rebuttal in their letter to point out that they've already heard those arguments. Here's a first draft of a response; I'd love to get comments on how to make it more effective (I know it's weak in places). Specifically, references/quotes from good other material (Lessig essays, for example) would be helpful. What I'm aiming to achieve is a calm and rational response that cannot be dismissed as zealotry but doesn't lack punch (yes, I know that some of the first draft doesn't reach that standard - that's why I want suggestions!)
--I have always believed that the protection of intellectual property rights is as important as the protection of any other property right.
Perhaps it is as important; however, there are fundamental differences between "intellectual property" and other property. The primary one is that "intellectual property" can be possessed by many people simultaneously without difficulty or conflict (except in certain specific circumstances) whereas the same cannot be said for physical property. This difference means that analogies between "intellectual property" and physical property are generally misleading and unhelpful--in this instance, your statement is evidently meant to impress upon voters that strengthening copyright law is somehow similar to strengthening laws that protect a home from burglars. This is disingenuous, and I hope that you do, in fact, understand the difference.
Moreover, the protection of intellectual property is vital to a flourishing economy--particularly in California.
This is probably true. It is necessary to ensure that the creators of artistic and intellectual works are fairly compensated for their work. The key word, however, is 'fair'. Obviously their compensation, and any laws enacted to protect it, must co-exist well with the free and open exchange of ideas, something also vital to a flourishing economy--particularly in California, which has such a rich history of collaborative development (see BSD Unix as one example; there are many more).
America's music, movie, and software industries are second to none, and we export far more intellectual property than we import.
This is misleading, and simply cannot be held to be true. This is because you are falling into the mistake of equating "intellectual property" with artistic works put up for sale. In fact, under current law, all ideas, texts, images, tunes, etc. are "intellectual property", even if they're public domain. This letter, for example, is under my copyright by virtue of my writing it. That makes it intellectual property. The same goes for almost any form of communication. So your above statement claims that the US communicates to the rest of the world more ideas than it receives. This may sound right, but if you think about it you should see that there is no ways to quantify ideas and therefore no way to measure them, and therefore no way to test your assertion exists.
This is good for employment, and good for consumers.
That strong "intellectual property" protection is good for consumers is difficult to assert. After all, stronger consumer rights (for example, the right to play their own legally--purchased DVDs on whatever platform they choose, and the right to backup said DVDs) are also good for consumers. The current balance is tilted very far in favor of the large copyright holders, such as the music and movie industries. A fairer balance would be better for the consumer, and for America in general. As for the employment issue, this is a red herring, perhaps to prepare future claims that we have to somehow 'choose between jobs and consumer rights' in the same way that we somehow have to 'choose between jobs and environmental protection' when the profits of timber companies are threatened.
Without strong copyright protections, the incentive to innovate would be diminished.
Perhaps. As I stated above, there is a need to ensure that creators and innovators are fairly rewarded for their work. However, this incentive, again, must be balanced with the rights of others. Also, innovators and creators are not driven merely by economic incentives. Many great artists and musicians created for the love of the work, not out of profit motive. And this is still true today, even in the most modern areas--perhaps you've heard of Linux, an operating system created entirely by volunteers, that now rivals Microsoft's products in number of important categories?
In fact, this issue was so important to the Founding Fathers that the ability of Congress to protect copyrights is actually written into our Constitution itself.
True. But this is also disingenuous. The Founding Fathers did, after all, envision a copyright time limit of 14-28 years, and did not foresee the ridiculously long copyright terms we have today. These are clearly in place to protect the profits of major corporations such as Disney rather than to encourage innovation/creation.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was Congress' attempt to address the issue of copyright protection in a new, digital age.As such, it is terribly flawed, kowtowing to corporate interests and upsetting the balance of consumer rights versus "intellectual property" rights. It gives the copyright holders more power than ever before, cripples free speech in regard to areas like encryption technology, and allows the copyright holders to make an 'end run' around fair use rights.
As new technologies have developed over the past few years, it has become increasingly difficult to protect intellectual property from illegal copying and distribution.
True. It has also been increasingly difficult for the older profit models to remain in place in the face of this new technology. And so the owners of those models turn to legalistic efforts like the DMCA to protect themselves--not from 'piracy' but more often from the deleterious effects of being outmoded.
It is a delicate balance, to be sure--nobody wants to restrict the development of new and exciting technologies, but we must work to prevent the creation of perfect, digital copies of copyrighted works which can be illegally distributed throughout the world.
There's an easy way to do that--make the distribution of copyrighted works legal rather than illegal. This is not a facetious argument. "Illegal distribution" is by definition a legal construct. While working to change the laws, we should look at all of them and ensure they are reasonable--not simply take some of them as sacred and then warp the others to suit those.
Please be assured that I understand your concerns, and I will keep your views in mind.
I am not entirely convinced that you do understand my views, simply because I'm not sure that you understand all of the technological ramifications of the DMCA. I would, however, be entirely willing to answer any questions on them that you may have, and I invite your response.
Yours, etc.
--Companies no longer want to -sell- you anything, they will only sell recurring licenses to use/hear/view their data for a fixed period of time rather than -selling- a copy of the data to you.
Stomping on other nation's soverignity isn't unconstitutional as far a I know. Other countries also do this all the time. The ability to enforct those laws outside of the United States is somewhat limited, but California it seems can pass their stupid laws.
The book Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson was actually pretty close when stated that the United States is going to hell in a handbasket. The US really doesn't 'produce' anything anymore except for technology. That's about to change, and the US is scared shitless.
I cannot confirm nor deny the allegation or allegations you may or may not have just made
Just sell the manuals for future MS product you buy. There must be plenty of folks who steel the SW and want the manuals. You should be able to legally (and simply on ebay) sell the manuals for what you would get for the depricated SW when you are finished with the SW (say, 3 year old OS is good for %10 of new and manuals for brand new OS might go for %10 ????)
Create a corperation/partnership/sole prop., etc that buys your copy of Everquest, the sell the business. Everquest ner gets sold, just the business that owns the software.
By daughter had to use single use software to apply to med school. You are required to fill out a generic application using software yo ubuy from some med school assoc. This SW comes on disk, require you to answer all sorts of detailed questions using the worst UI I've ever seen, you then save your work back onto the disk and return the disk. The disk will only run once and will not allow you to save your work until the end. Pray for stable power. It take about 4 hours to go end to end on it. They never tell you to make a back-up of the disk before you start. Major Pain!!!
Where A == DVD Data;
B == our Web sites;
X == deCSS transform;
Y == eZula/GATOR/Surf+ transform
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
IMHO what's needed is a separate law for each concern:
At least laws that seek to control use and access would have to come out from behind the skirts of legitimate copyright issues, and show themselves for exactly what they are.
Inundate her staff with phone calls. Sometimes they begin to pay attention (it gets on the radar) when alot of people call. I am sure glad I didn't vote for her last election.
If RAM buffering is upheld as a violation of the DMCA, then that will make most people criminals, wil it not? Very convenient way to simply arrest anyone whom you consider to be a threat. Very convenient.
You know, I wonder how long it will take before everyone just stops paying attention to these silly laws. Over-restrictive rules and laws always lead to rebellion.
I wrote to my Senator (John McCain, AZ) as well, about the DMCA and Dmitry. The letter I received back sounds suspiciously similar to yours, except there was a little Dmitry blurbage in it. I will have to check the letter when I get home, but I am wondering if there is a form letter or boilerplate being used for responses to these issues - if that is the case, then what is even the point of writing your congresscritters?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
The best business model would be to copyright All frequencies and All notes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, # and flat.
I can get paid for anyone who has a harmonia, a guitar, a voice that speaks, or a speaker that creates sound from 5Hz to 20KHz for each note I get a royalty, for each voice thast speaks I get a penny, for each broadcast I get money to use to create publish less and less, since eventually everyone will owe me too much to utter anything but silence itself (Which I will also have another convienent patent on.)
Want to read this message to your mommy? Pay Up. Whip out that wallet and gimme some green.
Be careful not to ask how much or it will cost you extra.
Silence is golden, but you better not say it out loud or you'll need to pay me.
If your about to have an accident on I5 in the fog, you better not honk your horn, or you'll need to pay me.
If you fart you'll need to pay me.
If you burp you'll need to pay for that too.
If you tap your fingers while waiting in line at DMV you'll be needing to get your wallet out to pay me.
If your car alarm goes off at 2:30am in the morning you'll pay me a royalty.
If you transmit a dead carrier your going to have to pay me for that.
If you accidentally chop off your finger and scream out loud you will pay for it.
When the USAF fly's a jet I get paid.
Got a noisy dog or cat? Pay me.
Want to change the weather? Create a storm? Rain? Pay me. Thunder? pay. Wind? pay up.
I can patent amplitude and the louder the noise the more you pay. Then it would pay to keep your mouth shut. Or not.
Feel like feeding some humming birds? Better pray they don't know how to tweet.
Want to live out in the middle of nowhere with the "whispering pines?" Better hope they don't whisper too loud or you have to pay for it.
I will hire an immense army of lawyers to go after every man woman and child who makes more than a dollar a year.
I will use my money to buy legislation and pass more laws for my own benefit.
I will make neighbor fight neighbor, turn friends into enemys, I will so jam up the legal system that it will need to pay me to be restructured with counters, booths, tellers and lines to receive my cash.
Want to pray to god? You'll need to pay me. You can donate too, but if that quarter hits the pan too loud that makes some sound, you'll need to pay me.
Want to worship satan? Do it silently or you will have to pay me.
I will have people out standing in their fields taking money for me, when the land owner's land makes sound.
Every transmitter will have to go through me as well as the FCC.
If you have a crystal clock, your going to pay.
If you hunt whales in the ocean you will pay me.
I will use my money to put more cool patents out, like the length of words. A penny a character. To tell me 'fsck you' would cost seven cents. possibly more depending on how loud you say it.
I will patent the decible.
You won't be able to write code because it is in a language that I own a royalty for.
Simply asking me for your money will cost you.
I will patent color as well, so anyone who can see will have to pay me, even dogs that see black and white, if you own one, your responsible to pay for it.
The problem with their analogy is thus: we aren't saying that manufacturers make sure we can play our DVDs on whatever platform we want, but that it shouldn't be illegal to make it play on whatever device we want.
By using the logic of the DMCA, the analogy would be: Not allowing developers to make unlicensed playback machines for DVDs would be akin to making it illegal for Beta machine manufactures to incorporate the ability to play VHS tapes. You can immediately see how stupid that makes the DMCA look.
-------------------------------------------------
of course, some of those people aren't Americans, too. for example, I doubt any American politician is quaking in his boots (okay, Hillary isn't worried either :) at the thought of losing my vote.
not that I've voted for anybody who won in an election that wasn't municipal in my life. curious, that. I have a very good history of voting for the winning alderman. in many different cities. :)
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
I just don't understand this sentence. I mean, English is not my first language, but it's a close second; however I just can't figure out what "They're against doing X (which Y pegged as being Z) is turned down" is supposed to mean.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
You can't reason with a jackal. Stop voting for democrats and republicans. It's that simple. They are both sold out. The laws they vote on and the legislation they pass are based on money, not common sense.
They are not leaders, they are puppets who do what they are told to do. They do not represent you and they are not responsible for their actions.
In fact, they are domestic terrorists, by the fact that they are attacking the constitution. That is domestic terrorism.
Every single military person who swore an oath to protect the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic should question their oath or get busy and bring these money hungry jakal's to justice, by making them responsible for their actions.
Problem is they are breaking their oaths on a daily basis. They should not have even sworn to an oath if they are not going to believe in it, and uphold it when it is broken.
The jakal's want the military to become a bunch of gay pussies. They want you disarmed so you can't take action, when peaceful demonstration doesn't work.
It's all about power and control.
Personally I see the same thing going on and on and on untill there is a civil war.
From page 5 of the pdf:
"Enclosure
The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
President
United States Senate
Washington D.C. 20510"
Should that be Vice-President? I guess Bush really is a puppet..
Slavery, like intellectual property, was so important to the founding fathers, that these rules and protections had to be included in the Constitution.
Cryptnotic
My other first post is car post.
Well think things through sherlock.
Dianne Feinstein is stupid. Its not that I agree or disagree with her. She's too stupid and clueless to form an opinion on. She's like the lady at Hair Cuttery who offers dumb opinions on stuff she doesn't have a clue about. You nod, because she's holding a sharp instrument near your neck, but you wouldn't make her a senator, right?
So you idiots voted her in because of her party affliation, she gets money from MPAA and RIAA and guess which way she votes?
Right.
But wait, she cares for the poor and downtrodden. Or the dumber excuse "The other guy was worse". Well he wasn't and you guys did the wrong thing. You're morons.
I take that back. You guys who voted for a moron are dumber than a moron. I don't know if there's a word for that kind of stupidity; I don't think such a word exists.
But you voted for her, she's a puppet, and now we're all paying for your cluelessness. Way to dump on all of us.
...are surely 'fair use', aren't they?
As the owner of a work copyrighted by someone else, aren't I allowed by 'fair use' to make as many personal copies of that work as I like, so long as I have destroyed all those copies if I ever get round to reselling that work to someone else?
Copies in RAM are certainly not going to stick around (ditto copies in swap) for any length of time; they're not for commercial gain; they require me having a copy of the work already. Why on earth is extra legislation needed for these 'RAM copies', when fair use seems to cover it so well?
K.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
eh, what can you do about it.
Click here or here.