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.
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.
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 There's a building sentiment that DMCA is horrible and should be repealed or reworked.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
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.
That's never stopped anyone before.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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
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
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
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.