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.
And no, code has not been ruled as free speech according to the courts. Linux will not qualify as speech and will be unprotected by the us constitution. The judge presiding over the case of the MPAA vs Jon Johnshon ruled that code was a series of "actions" rather then "expressions" and will remain how courts look at code untill another judge questions this.
If the dmca is ever overturned then we can port linux to pallidium and the xbox without a mod chip and ms wont be able to do shit.
Please common on about the unconsitutionalality of the law but do not write comments about specific bad sections which may help the EFF in court.
http://saveie6.com/
Free speech involving security vulnerabilities.
It makes little sense to be allowed to post a patch containing C code to fix a security vulnerability to a public mailing list, and yet not be able to post English text that contains the same information.
I don't particularly care about not being able to "make mp3z from my cdz", but I don't want my webservers rooted just because somebody wasn't allowed to post a patch.
If somebody doesn't patch their server, they are being irresponsible, not the person who posts details of the vulnerability.
At the end of the day, if your server is vulnerable, disconnect it from the network. If you don't like the idea of download, use software that doesn't have a terrible track record of security flaws.
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
It annoys me greatly when someone tells me the DMCA contains an exemption for scientists. This supposed exemption is an extremely thin, virtually nonexistent concession to the scientific community.
Aside from being limited to "encryption research" (only one component of security research, which did not cover the SDMI researchers,) the exemption contains a ridiculous requirement that scientists first ask permission from companies before collecting data or performing experiments---data which, coincidentally, might embarrass those companies. Is there any good reason why third parties should have themselves written into the scientific method?
Another major problem with the exemption: it only permits one step in the scientific process, the actual collection of data, the act of circumventing a DRM system. The next step, publishing or sharing that data with the scientific community, doesn't seem to be exempted, and has been the target of legal disputes in the past.
What I'd like to see: an exemption for the entire scientific method, which doesn't require the scientific community to be restructured or centralized or authorized by an entertainment industry or any other arbitrary group who can write laws.
Please read the PDF the LOC has provided. They state clearly their mandate from congress and what arguments might sway them.
The LOC doesn't give two rats whiskers about the constitutionality of the law. Do not write to them about the constitutionality of the law. They have one mandate, and that is to examine if there are "classes of works" for which enforcement of the DMCA would "substantially harm" legitimate, non-infringing use of those classes of works.
The legal battles to have the law overturned as unconstitutional are a logically seperate issue from what the LOC rules. If the LOC exempts certain classes of works (as it has already two), then either the law will be declared unconstitutional for another reason or enough works will be exempted (due to legitimate argumentation from interested/harmed parties) that the DMCA will be unenforceable by its own mandate.
The best solution would be to argue to the LOC according to its terms, conceding its strict mandate and forming coherent reasons that everything worthwhile should be exempt (one class at a time, like the PDF requests), and fight the battle of unconstitutionality in the courts. Any spurious assertions or argumentation will be posted on the LOC's webpage, but nobody will read past the first paragraph.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
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.