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!
The surest way to ensure the DMCA is repealed is to have it interpreted in the strictest and most rigorous sense.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.
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.
Maybe slashdot should consider revoking its DMCA subsection 512(c) registration. This subsection limits the liability of a service provider.
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.
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.
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.
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.