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."
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?
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The surest way to ensure the DMCA is repealed is to have it interpreted in the strictest and most rigorous sense.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
It'll will probably make you look a little more intelligent.
It'll certainly will.
"Truth is not decided by majority vote" consensus gentium -- Norman Geisler
I know, this is Karma whoring, but:
lucid and valid anectdotes?
From Slashdot?
C8H10N4O2 | Developer > Code
An article in the New York Times? Now Slashdot will get Slashdotted!
That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
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.
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
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.
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.
Found here:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/fr2002-4.pdf
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.
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
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.
Like it did for, ooh, four score and seven years, give or take?
--
E_NOSIG
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
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.
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.
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.