Slashdot Mirror
New Anti-Circumvention Rulemaking Coming Soon
zurab writes "According to CNet, copyright regulators are considering a rare public comment (pdf) process on the controversial DMCA law. The article states they are mostly looking for what kind of exceptions they should make to the law." If you recall, the Librarian of Congress is required by law to conduct a review process every three years to see if there are any specific types of works which should be exempted from part of the DMCA. You can see loc.gov for some information about the current and previous rulemaking procedures, and this piece I wrote after the last rulemaking was finished, examining what did and didn't work to convince the bureaucrats.
But seriously, you can't pick apart this law, because its only teeth are the same words that prevent perfectly legitimate products and acts? The whole thing must go. Congress might come up with a laundry list of devices that are legitimate (Dreamcast serial cable) vs. devices that are often illegitimate (Xbox mod chip - hold the flames), but such a list would be instantly outdated. And then there's the problem of multiple classifications when people want to run Linux on their Xboxes and make all kinds of wonderfull new toys and usefull setups out of them. That is not copyright infringement, and yet it's prevented by a law that purports to be all about copyrights.
The DMCA should be taken off the books and the problem should be reapproached with new cooperation between enforcement and lawmakers, as well as a renewed ownous on industry to create solutions. Big media has ignored companies offering (more) secure solutions for years and let many of those companies dry up. It could have been a significant boon to the economy had the uber-rich media giants invested in these solutions rather than on lawyers and lobyists. Too often I heard them saying that Bertlesman / Napster was a test case and that its failure was their reason for reluctance. But what they failed to see was that Napster didn't have the desire to change their ways, let alone the experience and skill to come up with a valid solution. If these giant record labels and movie studios don't grow some balls and try some solutions...invest in some budding technologies, they deserve to fail.
I'm not an expert, but it appears to me that the DMCA doesn't protect copyrights that weren't already protected under existing laws.
Perhaps the legislative efforts should be focused on giving enforcement more ways to go after blatantly illegal networks and their users. Less public sharing channels could be gone after much the same way law enforcement goes after the mob. They don't outlaw baseball bats and guns, they catch someone in the act go up the tree from there by getting information and following known mobsters until they trip up.
"The article states they are mostly looking for what kind of exceptions they should make to the law." Um... May I suggest instead, we pressure legislators not to make a blanket law and then pock holes in it. If that is their approach they will undoubtedly leave perfectly acceptable actions illegal. It is my belief that the lawmakers should always error on the side of freedom and smaller government. List which situations to which the law applies, and not a list of when the law it doesn't apply.
Just so you know I wrote this three times. I was so angered the first time that the draft made no since and the second time I wrote too emotionally. This time I wrote it too fast, but now I'm tired of writing it.
Business News and Resources: www.usasource.net
The LOC has a narrow mandate and they lay out very clearly what they will listen to and what they will not.
If you hope to submit a comment, or have any effect on the DMCA as a member of the general public, short of getting elected to congress or becoming a defendant, for god's sake read the PDF and construct a coherent argument according to their guidelines.
Last time around, these guidelines were not available as the LOC had a short time to prepare and didn't really know what they were looking for. This time the rules of the game are more clear. I think this provides circumvention advocates with a clearer path to a beneficial rulemaking.
Examples of things they don't want to hear about:
What they do want to hear about:
This isn't exhaustive. Read the PDF. Thanks.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.