Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Office Asks For Public Comments On DMCA
krygny writes "A number of news sites (ZDnet, theregister) are reporting that the US Copyright Office is accepting feedback on the affects of the DMCA. While it's unlikley to prompt changes in the law, lucid and valid anectdotes of how fair use of certain materials is infriged upon, may help determine the degree and nature of enforcement."
Thanks for restricting our freedom. I'll start playing with guns instead.
Vote Libertarian!
We all enjoy posting comments here, but they won't be read by the copyright office. Carefully craft your words, and write them.
How ya like dat?
They're in The New York Times... and in a favorable story!
Completely offtopic, I know... but still interesting!
The AFFECTS of the DMCA...
Instead try:
The EFFECTS of the DMCA...
It'll will probably make you look a little more intelligent.
Seriously though, we (well, we meaning those of us who oppose the DMCA) should be all over this. It's important to make your voice heard through every avenue that is made available, as well as those that aren't.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
My submission:
I listen to my music on my computer. I like to load up several hours worth of music then just ignore it.
If we are only able to play music directly off the CD then I will loose the ability to do this.
The surest way to ensure the DMCA is repealed is to have it interpreted in the strictest and most rigorous sense.
Having the DMCA interpreted with a lenient bent is like having the constitution amended to allow "just a little" slavery.
If we truly want all or nothing vis a vis the DMCA, let's not plead for a lenient interpretation.
Since you are trying to convince the feds to
treat copyright as a limited thing, please write
comments as an adult and be respectful
UserFriendly actually beat Slashdot to this one by a couple of days. Will wonders never cease?
While I'm certain some sort of minor repeal of the DMCA will come about, I'm also certain that the partial repeal will take effect about ten minutes before another more restrictive bill called something like "The Save America From Terror Act" will go into effect, putting all the DMCA restrictions plus more new ones in place.
This is just a chance to vent so you can feel like you actually had a hand in the process. The only real hands in the process, of course, belong to the hands with dollar bills in them, headed for political coffers.the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Having the Librarian of Congress gut it completely by exempting all works that could be subject to the 'fair use' doctrine -- i.e., all works -- would be a nice end run.
Note, folks: comment period via website starts 19. November, not today.
I know, this is Karma whoring, but:
lucid and valid anectdotes?
From Slashdot?
C8H10N4O2 | Developer > Code
You should let your elected representitives represent you in legal & governmental issues. If you have to get involved with every trivial decision that gets made then you will soon lose patience. It will only be the extreme members of society that will influence decision making - and then where will we be?
We Might Have Some Problems With It.
This article is a repeat of this one.
So how can writing up and sending in your thoughts about the DMCA to the Copyright Office have any more effect on anything related to the DMCA than posting to Slashdot?
It's not like most members of Congress are going to listen to these comments, since they owe their allegience to the corporations and not the people...
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
That's more than a month away. That'll slip right off my radar screen unless I have a reminder.
Put it in your PDA. In your favorite scheduling software. In you little black book. On your fridge. Whatever you like, but do it NOW. This is a really good way for the evils of the DMCA to be entered into record, even if (for now) it's just a formality.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
The problem with this is that the items many of us feel should be exempted are exactly the types of things that the DMCA was enacted to "protect" (cd's, dvd's, etc), and it would be very unlikely that the government would do anything to change that in such a "minor" alteration of the act.
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
Please summon all your negativity and use it to kill yourself. In the real world, IP laws are destined to die (as well as money itself). You would have made such a great slave a few centuries back.
Looks like everyone who criticizes /. gets a bashing when it comes to the articles themselves. Several stories are repeated, like the one with life on Venus.
First article
And another one
Obviously the editors accept certain stories without question as long as it's about the DMCA or aliens. And I will be modded down for this. I know.
I see you're already posting from score 0. Maybe you can be less overt about the politics and just put in in a .sig. I would sure like to see a libertarian posting at slashdot (well, one that proudly proclaims it). As for the topic, clearly enforcing IP falls outside of the role of limited government.
let's see. i want cd's out of there. then movies.
why?
i like to listen to cd's on my computer. sadly enough, my monitor is larger than my TV, so i watch movies on there too.
if it's already illegal to make and sell copies of these cd's and movies anyway, what the hell is the DMCA doing other than stifling research into useful apps. for everyday folks.
if someone is making an illegal copy and selling it, throw them in jail. there have been laws in place to do this for years.
reminds me of people who want to create more restrictive gun laws. problem is no one is enforcing the ones that we already have.
does it make you feel any better that the criminal broke 17 laws to shoot your ass instead of 15 laws?
didn't think so.
same with this. if it's already illegal to mass produce and sell these cd's/movies, what's the DMCA really doing anyway?
I must be able to buy a movie on a DVD and play this movie on a computer of my choice under operating system of my choice. If I choose to play the movie under some distribution of open source operating system, or any GNU (free software) operating system I must be able to do so. DMCA makes it impossible to legally play my DVD under GNU/Linux for example, since MPAA will not allow a license for DVD player software to be distributed under GNU; DMCA makes it illegal to reverse engineer DVD format.
MPAA DMCA FAQ
Question:
Doesn't the DMCA allow reverse engineering for compatibility, for example to allow playing of a DVD on a Linux operating system-driven personal computer?
Answer:
The DMCA does allow reverse engineering. However, the reverse engineering provisions in the DMCA were never intended to enable anyone to circumvent technical protection measures (TPMs) for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to or making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works.
The DMCA does allow a lawful user of a computer program to circumvent TPMs to ensure that the program can work with other programs (interoperability); and, with strict limitations, the research may be shared with others, as long as it does not infringe the copyright in the original or a related work. However, reverse engineering is not permissible if there is a readily available commercial alternative for that purpose. In this case, there exist MANY commercially available DVD players.
You can't handle the truth.
All we have to do is simply get people to vote, period. Politicians only listen to people that vote for them and/or give them money. That basically means that they listen to only a small minority of the population. My philosphy used to be "if you're stupid enough not to vote, then your opinions don't count." I still don't disagree with that idea, it's just that politicians no longer look to comprimise. They just play to their particular base of supporters that gaurentee them a vote. The only solution is to make it a law that every citizen MUST vote.
I'm an aspiring Visual FX animator. One day I'd like to do blue screen and green screen compositing. This is easy enough to do with a video camera and some blue tarp, but it is not the same as working under studio conditions.
.AVI file and do some practice work on that. If I can master some of the techniques the FX studio made for that movie, I have a real shot at working in the industry. In other words, the ability to legally rip this DVD would not only provide me eductational resources, but I'd also get hired by the same indsutry that's trying to prevent me from doing just that.
Here's an example: In the Scooby Doo movie, there's a scene where a creature picks up Velma and she tugs on it's ears thinking it's a mask. In the 'Making of' part of the DVD, they show how they filmed that. They suspended the actress on wires up against a blue mockup of the creature. Then they cut out the wires and the blue parts, and inserted a CG creature in the shot.
This is not something I can do in my garage without a huge personal expendature. Thankfully, though, the DVD of the Scooby Doo movie contains the unprocessed footage. Normally, I'd rip the section of the DVD to an
The DMCA prevents me from legally extracting this footage that I purchased. It really kind of bugs me. A student who's learning to paint can copy a painting, but I cannot take the steps I need to learn a trade that I cannot learn in school.
go down to best buy and spend $100 on a cheap 5-disk CD changer - you can even get one with shuffle. it's much cheaper than a PC, and doesn't run you afoul of any copyright laws.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
in my very uneducated opinion, the whole DMCA is based on wrong foundation. IMHO, it is utterly stupid to try and define what exactly, technically you can do to software - or hardware - that you purchased. I mean, if the legislative forces really think this the correct way to fix things, then there should be the "Oil Painting Copyright Act" and "Ceramic Copyright Act". I think I have said this in some other thread as well, but..after 100 years all these legislators will be crying in their graves when they realize that software is no different and that they cannot just do the easy DMCA-kludge fix to serve needs of specific companies.
Is it just me or is there a larger number of repeat stories on Slashdot lately?
Having the DMCA interpreted with a lenient bent is like having the constitution amended to allow "just a little" slavery.
You mean like the 16th Amendment?
Software Wars
Found here:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/fr2002-4.pdf
Another case in which the government tries to continue to display the illusion that the country is still run by the citizens...
Maybe slashdot should consider revoking its DMCA subsection 512(c) registration. This subsection limits the liability of a service provider.
Huh? This isn't a failed attempt at irony, is it?
Some of us don't think the DMCA is a trivial issue, regardless of our different opinions about copyright and intellectual property.
If you don't make sure your representatives know what you think, they have no option but to pay attention to the people who do make their wishes known. If everyone gives up and shuts up, then the corporations, special interests and lobbyists have the field all to themselves.
If your representative loses patience with you and shuffles you out of the office, write it up, send it to the local media, post it on a website, and make sure the other party knows about it.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
From the website of the CO:
The Office of the Register of Copyrights
The Register of Copyrights serves the nation by providing advice to Congress, drafting legislation, preparing technical studies, and administering the copyright law.
Jeez. Not EVERYTHING falls cleanly into executive, legislative, and judicial.
On the comments to the DMCA issue: people of the United States, please take the opportunity to provide constructive inputs that will help to effect positive change a DEEPLY flawed piece of legislation that currently serves the interests of powerful corporations at the expense of the little guy. You have a voice - those of us outside your borders are affected by the DMCA but have no effective voice.
Sigs are bad for your health.
Do you like your Compaq computer?
If the DMCA had existed back in the day Compaq wouldn't have been legally allowed to reverse engineer the IBM bios and make PCs as common as they are today. A whole insdustry sprang from something now no longer possible. Many of the asian countries don't give two shits about your IP. They will reverse engineer it and make it better/cheper/faster. Why? Because they can. All the DMCA does is screw the small guy with the dream.
The FBI can't change laws. Hell, they almost never have flexibility in what they do and don't enforce. They are just enforcers. Convincing the FBI of anything will do you no good which you state yourself with your own barely literate words.
Either Congress needs to knock down their own law now (unlikely), the President could have vetoed the law (too late), or the Supreme Court will rule against it or send it back to the lower courts for reconsideration (somewhat likely, but not a foregone conclusion).
Yes we all must vote Librarian! Just don't let us in Florida vote or you'll end up waiting 5 months for us Floridians to finish counting! ;)
This post was generated by a Team of Elite Monkeys for br0ken2o0o (569914).
If you feel strongly and want your voice to count, consider doing the following:
1. Plan on spending some time (~1-2 hour(s)).
2. Get remedial edication on DCMA
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.educause.edu/issues/dmca.html
and many other sites.
3. First (today/tomorrow), write to your Congressperson AND Senators on the wider view of why DMCA is a "bad thing" for society. Give some simple examples. Use your own words - no form letters, please. Write your message both in a text file so it can be pasted in an e-mail and a web-form (the method of communication varies between different legistative members).
http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Select the senators/congresspersons you want to write to and send them e-mail or fill out the web form.
4. Be reasonable, respectful and all that - basic human relations stuff (and spell check!). Include your contact information.
5. Mark your calendar for Nov 19 (OR the week of Thanksgiving - what a good thing to do after you are stuffed with leftover turkey and resting the next day when most people are shopping) to write a *separate letter* to the Copyright office. Deal only with the narrow context of their request on interpretation and exceptions (but the irst letter to the congress-folks should deal with DMCA in the wider context).
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/fr2002-4.pdf for the context.
6. Write a short note to the same congress-folks you wrote before and CC them the letter to the Copyright office, emphasizing that the problem is with the DMCA itself, not the narrow copyright only context.
You may tell them it is more preferable to legistate human behavior rather than specific technologies.
Yes, it is work to paricipate in decision making. If we aren't willing to find some time to make the right input to the right people at the right time, we can't make a difference.
--
Rathinam
Well, If you think about it like this, You already have a computer, You Don't have a CD-Changer... Which one is the cheaper of the 2 again? Just asking
This post was generated by a Team of Elite Monkeys for br0ken2o0o (569914).
Screw the DMCA! Screeeeeewwwwwwww the DMCA!
(Legends of the Fall, part 2.)
Our Libertarian candidate for governer in Massachusetts made the brain dead comment that the Government has never done anything worthwhile with all of our tax dollars. While I agree that our government is too large and wastes a lot of money the Libertarian alternative is wreckless dreaming. It is as braindead as Communism is.
For example here is something that wouldn't exist without the largesse of the Government: TCP/IP and the INTERNET which was funded by the Department of Defense and was a secret network for a long time until it was released into the public domain (because they discovered how insecure it is)
Libertarians are zeolots living in a dream world of no government. GROW UP.
Take THAT!
fuck you. what if my unelected representative (cough bush) doesn't agree with me. I'll put my two cents in where and when I want.
It will only be the extreme members of society that will influence decision making - and then where will we be? we'll be where we are now, where the opinions of the *people* whom this government is supposed to *serve* are ignored. Our government is far from what it was envisioned to be by the founding fathers, and I think they'd all throw up if they were here right now. My room mate just made more of that tuna helper shit. i think I'M going to throw up. god damn, why would you ever want to COOK tuna. omg.
That might be how this is used. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but is the idea of Reichschancellor Ashcroft greasing the squeaky wheel, so to speak, that farfetched?
You are not the customer.
With the big push for "paperless" agencies nowadays, why don't we have a real good slash-style public comment forum in place yet? Sure, many agencies accept e-mails in addition to more traditional forms of public comment, but one might think that a true online web-based public forum might be desirable for situations where government agencies wish to solicit public comment. That way we can see other posts, respond to them, have intelligent discussion where necessary, and the agencies wouldn't be limited to simply re-reading the same things over and over again, trying to pick out a gem here and there, but otherwise just tallying votes.
A large enough boycott of music would only further their beliefs that they are losing sales due to theft, whether or not they actually have proof of the latter occurring. This will only result yet more mecahnisms being put into place further restricting our ability to excercise fair use, which, interestingly enough, according to the very text of the DMCA itself, it wasn't actually supposed to affect -- but of course, it does.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So you are implying that bad laws are simply ignored rather than repealed? Gee, you sound like the NJ Supreme Court. Of course, you're probably right.
Unfortunately, I think there's going to be an increasing trend of differences between what's on the books and what is really enforced. Look at speed limits... thanks to that ludicrous Federal 55 MPH speed limit way back when, speed limits are almost universally ignored by citizens and only sporadically enforced, and "equal protection" is a joke.
Just wait until the laws are more even draconian than they already are and the enforcement is even more arbitrary than it is now. It will become like a negative lottery. Everyone breaks the law (because its stupid or unreasonable) and a few certain unlucky individuals will be singled out for punishment.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
FREE DMITRY!
Like it did for, ooh, four score and seven years, give or take?
--
E_NOSIG
Having the DMCA interpreted with a lenient bent is like having the constitution amended to allow "just a little" slavery.
Surely you wouldn't need a constitutional amendment to allow slavery, didn't need one before. I don't think you could make a serious argument for the founding fathers to have disapproved of slavery.
Let's look at the case of DeCSS, a software tool designed to break the Content Scramble System (CSS) used by the MPAA in an attempt to protect it's intellectual property. . The DMCA was pivotal in the MPAAs lawsuits against three separate websites that hosted DeCSS or similar copyright circumvention tools, one just for linking to it.
Just as virus protection companies must strengthen and improve their software after each new virus is introduced, and operating system (OS) manufacturers and other software companies must develop a more secure system for each security hole found, then so must any corporation, especially so the entertainment industry, who wish to develop solid technical applications. They cannot be exempted from the forceful nature of making a better product.
This make it-break it-make it again process is simply inherent to the development of better software and hardware. Every single technological evolution that we have experienced in the last decade alone can find its humble beginnings in some earlier discovery; whether it is software, protocol, hardware or written word.
The DMCA fails miserably when technical experts, software engineers, scientists or the next encryption expert, are not allowed to dissect, discover and expand upon the potential of some new (or possibly old) element of technology. Especially when traditional copyrights and the patent process already exist to protect the actual inventor or original product. Can we even imagine a world if a company such as IBM were able to use something like the DMCA to prevent the creation IBM cloned PCs?
People learn one thing, then we pull it apart, see if it will break, turn it over and inspect every corner to see if it can be made better, bigger, smaller, cheaper, easier, safer, more secure - the list goes on. It is human nature to explore in this manner, from all things in earth and science, especially in science, and most especially in technology. To exclude any portion of software or hardware development because it appears to 'infringe' on one corporate entity, basically brings future developments to a stand still. A poor product forced upon the public with little hope of change in sight because it is illegal to improve upon its humble beginnings. Since the DMCA silenced the masses in regards to creating and then breaking copyright protection devices the world may never know what could have been.
Today, in the year 2002, we may be able to define what a "unlawful copyright circumvention device" is, using today's standards and our naïve knowledge of what they are. How will it be defined just ten years from now, or twenty? If the DMCA is not corrected, the definition will be exactly the same.
Note - if you see any holes in this please point them out - thanks
DVD region coding. (Remember they want specific examples, not long arguments about why the law should be repealed--save those for Congress.) There is absolutely no justification anywhere in the Copyright Act for the MPAA's artificial segmenting of the market, yet the DMCA props it up anyway. Allowing circumvention of CSS to build region-free players would open a door for a more general exception to circumvent copy protection schemes that overstep their bounds and do more than prevent copying.
Hmm, libertarians have something like millions of years of history on their side (after all, we evolved as libertarians). Everything else is a blip.
And I will be modded down for this. I know.
That is such a little bitch way of avoiding being modded down.
Added a paragraph:
Let's look at the case of DeCSS, a software tool designed to break the Content Scramble System (CSS) used by the MPAA in an attempt to protect it's intellectual property. . The DMCA was pivotal in the MPAAs lawsuits against three separate websites that hosted DeCSS or similar copyright circumvention tools, one just for linking to it.
Just as virus protection companies must strengthen and improve their software after each new virus is introduced, and operating system (OS) manufacturers and other software companies must develop a more secure system for each security hole found, then so must any corporation, especially so the entertainment industry, who wish to develop solid technical applications. They cannot be exempted from the forceful nature of making a better product.
This make it-break it-make it again process is simply inherent to the development of better software and hardware. Every single technological evolution that we have experienced in the last decade alone can find its humble beginnings in some earlier discovery; whether it is software, protocol, hardware or written word.
The DMCA fails miserably when technical experts, software engineers, scientists or the next encryption expert, are not allowed to dissect, discover and expand upon the potential of some new (or possibly old) element of technology. Especially when traditional copyrights and the patent process already exist to protect the actual inventor or original product. Can we even imagine a world if a company such as IBM were able to use something like the DMCA to prevent the creation IBM cloned PCs?
People learn one thing, then we pull it apart, see if it will break, turn it over and inspect every corner to see if it can be made better, bigger, smaller, cheaper, easier, safer, more secure - the list goes on. It is human nature to explore in this manner, from all things in earth and science, especially in science, and most especially in technology. To exclude any portion of software or hardware development because it appears to 'infringe' on one corporate entity, basically brings future developments to a stand still. A poor product forced upon the public with little hope of change in sight because it is illegal to improve upon its humble beginnings. Since the DMCA silenced the masses in regards to creating and then breaking copyright protection devices the world may never know what could have been.
The bar is constantly rising in technology. After successful dissection there comes discussion - the sharing of knowledge. Yet the DMCA stifles this too. In a world full of curious and inventive educators and learners, we pass on what we know so that others may benefit from this knowledge and learn to raise the bar yet again. That is the way it has always been, and will continue to be for there is not one single human being on this earth that can successfully predict when technological growth will stop because it has finally grown up.
Today, in the year 2002, we may be able to define what a "unlawful copyright circumvention device" is, using today's standards and our naïve knowledge of what they are. How will it be defined just ten years from now, or twenty? If the DMCA is not corrected, the definition will be exactly the same.
Don't be so negative about fruit flies.
They can train fruit flies to a number of different things... I read about single flies that were trained to avoid a course toward a visual object that had been associated with the aversive odor benzaldehyde. (to quote the site)
Study your flies on cshl.org
True ravers don't need drugs
Intent, and due process
For intent, the it must be a defense to the DMCA that if the intent was to exercise a fair use right, then it is allowed. If it meets certain criteria (news commentary, satire, education, or other fair use allowable exceptions) then arguments over how much of original article was quoted (as an example), then it must be considered prima facia evidence that the use falls under fair use, and therefore, due to intent, of the alleged infringer, the complainant in a DMCA case must overcome the prima facia threshold to prove a violation of the DMCA.
Due process:
From the previous stories and posts on slashdot of ISPs receiving demand notices of shutdowns of customers for DMCA violations, there must be due process prior to shutdowns. Currently, as reported on slashdot, and as testified to in Congressional Committee hearings, the MPAA and other leeches are sending demand notices to ISPs alleging that account holders, identified by IP address, are sharing copyrighted works. They demand the immediate shutdown of the accounts. Some ISPs are capitulating, some are shutting down only the most egregious violators after negotiating with the leeches, and some are holding out a little more. What is happening in this process is that the account holder is not receiving any notice, the plug is just being pulled.
Testimony has been heard in Congress of accounts being shut down without notice from account holders whose child had written a book report on Cinderella on one case, Snow White on another case, and Lord of the Pigs in another case. In all three cases, the leeches alleged that the account holders were trading copyrighted works. In all three cases, the accounts were shut down.
If my child writes a book report on my computer, based on a copyrighted work, does that give Jack Valenti the right to pull the plug on my dns servers, web servers (hosting other peoples' web sites, other peoples' email accounts, other peoples' voicemail services, other peoples' pager services, other peoples'...
There must be due process for this procedure. The internet is no longer a luxury. Children use the internet for research for school. Parents and teachers use the internet for communicating about their children, school closings, emergencies, and more. On September 11, cellular sites were overloaded, and cell phone service was knocked out for most of NYC. But the internet stayed up. People who died in the WTC were able to get email out to loved ones. People who survived were able to notify relatives that they were safe, and were on their way to sleep at a co-worker's home, or stay at a bosses' office, home, whatever. Children were able to contact their parents and tell them they had made it out of ground zero and were with their teacher. Libraries have argued to protect the rights of people to access pornography on their computers, and against filtering software, because people have the right to access the internet, it is a necessity, and they can access at the internet if they can't afford a computer. Laptops are now standard requirements at Universities.
Running a web site on your server? Does your child access the internet on your small home network? Can you afford to have your web site taken down without notice because your small ISP can't afford to fight the leeches' deep pockets? Care to guess how long your site will be down while you make arrangements to find another ISP, negotiate the price for additional static IP addresses, dns server use for your site, changing the registrar info for new dns servers, changing the dns server entries, having the information from the dns servers filter through the internet so your site is recognized once again by name not number?
If you make a living off of your site, I doubt you can afford to have the plug pulled on it for what could turn out to be a minimum two week period of downtime, and the associated costs of a new isp, deposits, minimum contracts, lost time, lost profits and more.
There must be due process before a disconnect is allowed. The due process time must be equal to whatever filing time periods are given to the leeches. Nothing less. During this due process, it must be structured to allow the account holder to dispute the allegations, and to fill out the form that transfers liability from the ISP to the account holder, thereby forcing the leeches to go after you instead of the ISP (which is all the ISP really wants, a transfer of liability), and which will therefore keep your internet connection up.
Who would fill out the form ? Since I run a "news site" or blog or whatever the current terminology is in fashion at the moment, and am therefore a reporter and publisher who quotes other news sites, it is therefore very likely that at some point in the future, I will be accused of a DMCA violation. I will not view it as such, I will view it as a Fair Use issue, news commentary. The only thing that will be at issue is how much I quoted, and whether the amount that I quoted falls under fair use or not. Since I'm willing to take the liability risk on what I publish, and since I don't want my plug pulled, I would fill out the letter as the law provides , but currently, the DMCA, as the leeches are applying it, does not even require my notice and opportunity to respond in this fashion, or give me the ability of defending my right to connectivity. This must change.
As to the other problems with the DMCA, that will be dealt with as the issues arise. But we must defend Fair Use at every corner, and take every opportunity and opening given to us to try and restore Fair Use rights to the public.
So, I am not a lawyer. A lawyer needs to take my arguments above on intent, on prima facia evidence, and on due process, and make them into a lucid statement, and submit them. Thank you. From all of us.
The Libertarians are just like the Republicans when it comes to issues of corporate hegemony over public life -- while they claim to love freedom, they want nothing less than a plutocracy which they can worship in their self-aggrandizing Ayn Rand cult. These people revere Bill Gates as a living God and ideologically hate the altruism of Open Source.
They're not some party that takes the "freedom-loving" aspects -- they're incredibly right-wing and anti-freedom, except they tout the pro-business aspects instead of the social issues, whereas the Republicans simply do the opposite, and a lot moderately, too.
If you want true freedom from corporate greed and corruption, vote Green Party and join every anti-globalization PROTEST that you can!
<Kodos-voice> Go ahead! Throw your vote away!</Kodos-voice>
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
Since artists don't get too much from record companies anyway, if you are angry enough, don't buy cd's. If you are against being a music pirate, just download winamp and listen to Shoutcast radio (www.shoutcast.com). I found a station with very very little interruption which plays songs I really like and some new ones which I like the first time I hear them. Besides, when you can listen to a particular song on demand, the song can become tiring. I haven't listened to winamp radio for all of my life.
And for the Linux diehards, you can just download the playlist file (.pls) and use XMMS to listen. No hassle, the music you want, and not illegal.
I was thinking something along the lines of... ...
IT SUCKS!
That is all.
If you do that, then they can just remind themselves of how many people vote libertarian, put an upper limit on how many people agree with you, and then throw your letter into the circular folder.
Actually, I'd have to say posting AC is "such a little bitch way of avoiding being modded down."
(Well, as far as your own karma is concerned)
Go read up on the two. Objectivists like Rand don't like Libertarians. Fucking moron.
I hate to say it, but no one has said it before me: READ the notice of inquiry BEFORE you comment! In it is a list of issues that were confused during the last filing, what the Library of Congress *can* change, and what the Library of Congress *cannot*.
If you filing a comment without reading this straightforward (albeight long) 19-page document, and you submit a comment that does not match its formatting/requirements or goes off base, chances are you will be IGNORED.
So please, read what the Library of Congress can and cannot do as well as how to format your submissions *before* the time to submit comments arrives, so when you do submit a comment, it will be taken in a good light.
Look, I hate the DMCA as much as the next guy, but if we write or vote to solve this problem we are just jumping through the same hoops that got us here. This is exactly what they want us to do to distract us from doing much more productive things like blowing off copyrights in civil-disobedience whenever possible from now on.
Unlike the other options, civil-disobedience hits them right where it counts. And puts pressures in place to make sure that they are more and more limited from imposing further restrictions like the DMCA, and unlimited extensions of copyrights. If we only just wait arround for them to make the next move, next rule, or next law, and then react or comment on it - we are doomed to an endless ratrase that we will loose.
Congress is not doing the rulemaking. Congress passed the DMCA and then mandated that the Copyright Office fill in the details (i.e., write the regulations that will actually implement the law.) The office has to take public comments during the rulemaking and that's where your letters come into play.
I worked in the Copyright Office during the DMCA Sec. 1201(a) rulemaking in 2000. One of my jobs was to read the public comments to the proposed rulemaking. Most of them were pathetic, filled with stuff like, "The DMCA sucks!" or "You shouldn't make tough rules because you shouldn't make tough rules." Real exercises in logical kung fu. In fact, many of the letters were indecipherable because they were so poorly written. I found it frustrating because I wanted a "liberal" (not in the political sense) rule.
My point is that the Copyright Office may not "enforce" copyright law, but it does set the official rules that the good guy lawyers can use to defeat the bad guy lawyers when these cases go to court. That's why it's damned important to make logical, well-written arguments against whatever copyright issue gets your goat. If you do that, than those poor unpaid legal interns reading through the public comments can WRITE legal memoranda incorporating good, strong arguments, and those staff attorneys who are leaning toward your position can use those memoranda in their deliberations.
It's not glamorous but it's how the office works.
I have the mixed pleasure of having participated in the EC comment period for the software patent law.
I wrote a small essay about what the most prominent shortcomings of the proposed practice were. My comments made it to the final report, but I felt that same report chastised my contribution together with many others for, in effect, "using my own words". I can't, and won't, write legalese. Unfortunately, the Dark Side will have its lawyers on their contributions, and by virtue of speaking the language so close to the hearts of the recipient of the comments will win on form alone.
The long and short of it: get a lawyer to review your contribution. Offer to fix his PC if that's what it takes you to get his time. Or mow his lawn. Be creative.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
I was just reading the Mod Squad article, and it occurred to me that the appropriate metaphor for this situation with the DMCA is that "we can listen to the music, but are no longer allowed to sing along". To me, a programmer and musician, adding some cool hack to an existing product is not much different to humming/singing a harmony line to a song.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
I see it, but I don't believe it. Brain says "shorter", hands type "longer". My bad.
Sigs are bad for your health.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of public comment forums!
Whereas most sections of the Constitution
are matter of fact; an ordinance is asserted,
period.In the instance of copyright & patent
laws the founding fathers deliberately offer an apology for a set of rules that are *unconstitutional*.
Article1, sec8,par8; 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....
Article1, sec9,par8;
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
The government is granting an aristocratic title
or monopoly on a piece of property. It is a
dangerous law which is why it is carefully circumscribed. While an artist ought to have
control of his works during his own life, extentions of copyrights beyond the artists life
is really indefensible.
Usually the artist never sees a benefit from his work but the population must bear up under the
adverse effects of corporate ownership of ideas.
It would be nice to pick up a piece of software
& be able to work it immediately because it had
standard controls. Instead we have to work out what new system the designer was forced to develope so he wouldn't violate or appear to be violating some other software. Why can't "Gimp"
operate like "Paintshop".
SPQR
Agreed... Personally I am an anarchist and believe that voting is nothing more than a moral 'statment' that the government (aka: small group of plutocrats which have convinced the general population that it has Authority over them) is a justified authority.
The only difference between the government and other forms of organized crime is that most people believe government has the legitimate right to enslave them.
In my opinion, once long ago, some band of thieves (or morons, take your pick) wrote the words "We the people..." on a piece of paper and pretended that they bound me to a social contract of some sort. Unfortunately for them, I don't remember giving them my power of attorney, and considering I wasn't alive then, it isn't possible anyway. That being the case, they have no legitimate authority over me, and unless I feel morally obligated not to do something (like I do in regards to physical theft, murder, abuse, battery, rape, etc..) I just don't care what the government has to say. I certainly am not going to cross the street in-between the lines every time simply because the government tells me so, or kill a bunch of Jews for the same reason (like other governments have told their 'people' to do). Why would I respect what the shameful and authoritarian DMCA has to say?
I think the best way to vote is not to vote... And eventually, when the time is right and everyone is ready for widespread 'civil disobedience' (against the government, not other people of course) abolish the government by simply not paying it's taxes anymore. After all, the Mafia can't break EVERYONE'S legs can they? If they did, who would grow their food, build their cars...
For anyone who is about to post "your wasting your time, be reasonable it won't change in your lifetime", don't bother, I've heard it all before. I am merely trying to set an example for more reasonable future generations, while simultaneously spreading the 'seed' of other forms of thinking than 'government is the only way to produce a workable society'.
-Craig Meyer
stellar@dotnet.com
PS- I'm not an Anonymous Coward, I just don't care to have a nick right now..
wrong ! ... it isnt
go read some history , you look stupid even if you are stating what the general public believes to be true
I saw this article and was bugged by the fact that they're only interested in hearing about specific concrete examples of where the DMCA legislation has created a problem.
In my mind, that means that they've thrown in the towel on challenges based on fundamental principles, thinking either that the fundamental principles trod upon by the DMCA are negligible, and/or that the political battle to get it changed cannot be won on fundamental grounds. The latter meaning that the legislators who passed the bill thought the abridgement of peoples rights by the bill was negligible.
I find that sad.
Just as I found it sad reading a number of weeks ago that the much of the U.S. public was willing to give up most of the protections guaranteed under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution in the interests of "fighting terrorism".
Dammit, I should be able to do anything I want with the digital information I purchase, short of selling copies. Make a million copies for backup, play it backwards, put Arnold Schwarzenegger's head on top of Mickey Mouse when I view it, whatever, as long as I don't sell copies.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Maybe people would vote Libertarian if the canidates where not so damn retarted. Monkies talk better then them.
"Monkeys speak" perhaps? surely you must be a Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate.
As an AC said, Libertarians are NOT, in fact Objectivists. I'm not anti-freedom, and I'm not right wing, I *am* a Libertarian. To that end, I also voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Not because I wanted to see Nader get the presidency (believe me, I saw Jello Biafra speak during his spoken word/sorta campaign tour in 99-2000, I *don't* want him in office [though the Dead Kennedys were rockin]), but because I believe in a true democracy. One without two party, money grubbing systems. Also, it's RaiseTheFist.com, not the first. Please: STOP FANNING THE FLAMES IGNORANCE AND HATRED. If you can't beat your "opponents" without slander and false assumptions, then you can't possibly be any better than they.
--- What
Please check your grammar before sending this.
"It's" expands to "it is". No exception.
If you want possessive: his, hers, its.
This is a little off the theme, but since you mentioned it.
I honestly think that people have basic inherent rights (eg to own property, or exercise free speech) and to secure these rights people (being the sociable folks that we are) organize into forms of government. IMHO, an ideal government takes people who would otherwise fight to violate our rights, and pits them against each other in a perfict balance that keeps them out of the hair of everybody else.
Also, when battles are necissary it is often better when people engage in batels of words (polotics) rather than battles of blood because the latter is harder to undo and often has much more collateral damage.
Unfortunately, governments are all too imperfect - and unfortunately, people will often put up with it when a government violates peoples rights. This is very unacceptable because small violations are like a virus, that if not quickly dealt with, spread everywhere and become stronger and stronger at the expense of the host. This is what I think has happened with copyrights. IMHO, the right to copy is a basic moral right and copyrights have only led to more and more disaster as we let them violate us more and more. Soon something has to give, I personally hope it can be dealt with peacefully which is why I promote civil disobedience. However, with all the money at stake, i'm very afraid that all hell could break loose over this.
Yes, stop buying music. But don't just stop buying music. Make sure that everyone, from the manager of the store where you buy the music, to the distributor who sells to the store, to the record label (and its parent company, if any), to your Senators and Congresscritters, know that you've stopped buying music, and why.
Silent boycotts are interpreted as sales slumps. Loud boycotts are interpreted as political action, and usually paid attention to. After all, things which negatively affect business' bottom lines get their attention...
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
look!! a website linked to on /. that did not get slashdotted quicly... :)