DMCA Open For Public Comment

plaxion writes "Beginning tomorrow (Nov 19), the U.S. Copyright Office will begin accepting suggestions for new exemptions to the DMCA. From what I've read, it appears they're seeking specific examples on how the law restricts research or inhibits the marketplace. In other words, they won't be considering issues of inconvenience or hypothetical problems. The comment period ends Dec 18."

Comments

Uh oh, folks

[GreyWolf3000]

> From what I've read, it appears they're seeking specific examples on how the law restricts research or inhibits the marketplace.

What about specific examples about how the law restricts or inhibits freedom? Or do only the marketplaces (i.e. MPAA/MIAA) count here? I hope they make a new forum, because I don't give a damn that the DMCA 'cripples' the marketplaces when I think about what it does to freedom!

Re:Uh oh, folks

[JabberWokky]

Agreed - can I, as an end-user (as opposed to owner), complain about the effects of the DMCA, or have private citizens become non-entities in the eyes of this office? :/

(I've got a horrible flu, and I'm bitter, and I didn't RTFA, so nyeah. (And yeah, this comment will probably go +5 as a result, but I think it emotionally sums up what quite a few people feel)).

--
Evan (you can tell I'm a geek (I closed the nested parens))

Re:Uh oh, folks

[Dannon]

I would think (or at least, would hope) that one could make a solid arguement that the private citizens, as the Consumers, are an integral part of the marketplace. That, in fact, the marketplace exists for the Consumer as much as for the Producer. And, through market forces, Consumers should have the power to shape the behavior of Producers

In the Brave New World we've been slowly creeping towards, the trend is that the wants of the Consumer should be shaped around the demands of the market, rather than vice versa.

Re:Uh oh, folks

[GreyWolf3000]

> In the Brave New World we've been slowly creeping towards, the trend is that the wants of the Consumer should be shaped around the demands of the market, rather than vice versa.

Exactly! No one's interested in my CD's anymore? Go to Congress and force people back to a crappy, overpriced alternative. People not buying broadband? Let's (the government) make the deal more...appealing...to folks out there!

issues of inconvenience or hypothetical problems

[Alethes]

If they won't be considering issues of inconvenience or hypothetical problems, then what other issues do we have to throw them? Doesn't "I can't play DVDs legally on my Linux box" go under that convenience category? Are there enough exemptions we could seek that would make the law completely useless?

My little pipe dream

[L. VeGas]

The most obvious example of how it would negatively interfere with commerce is that it would instantly turn most of the nation's best and brightest into criminals. How much would it cost to arrest and prosecute everyone here?

I've got a few comments on the DMCA.

[Glytch]

A pity that those of you behind foul-language filters wouldn't be able to read them.

Inconvenience Indeed

[tchdab1]

What inconvenience, when it's "inconvenient" to market content that publishers cannot completely control? When this inconvenience comes before constitutional freedoms I sincerely hope they reject this inconvenience.

Inconvenience cuts both ways, and I say that with a large amount of lattitude.

Cutting through the legalese

[Randym]

...the Librarian of Congress may exempt certain classes of works from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention.

1) Copyrighted works exist. 2) Technological measures that control access to copyrighted works exist. 3) Circumvention of those technological measures exist. 4) Prohibitions against those circumventions exist. 5) Certain classes of works that are exempt from those prohibitions may exist.

1) Manuscripts. 2) Books. 3) Photocopiers. 4) "Fair use". 5) Research.

Thus I contend that any class of work that constitutes Research should be considered a class of work that should be considered an exemption to the DMCA. I further define Research as that class of work used to comprehend or understand a copyrighted item without the intention of distributing a full and complete copy of the copyrighted item.

See a nice example below. Understand?

DVD protection...

[Sylver Dragon]

I got about half way through the terms of posting before getting a headache. But one thing that did strike me, was that they make a point about DVD protection schemes being protected. They claim that since you can get the works on VHS tape, you have no need to be able to de-scramble a DVD disk. Nice, they pretty much shoot down any arguments for DeCSS before they are even made.
Though I still wonder if it would be worth arguing that I should be able to buy a DVD player with region coding disabled. Afterall, I would like to have the Futurama DVD, but live in the US. Since it was not released in any region 1 country I'm pretty much screwed. Not to mention that it interferes with international commerce.

That is a great summary!

[EnlightenmentFan]

But I'm not sure I agree with your definition of research as
.. that class of work used to comprehend or understand a copyrighted item without the intention of distributing a full and complete copy of the copyrighted item.

For example, would it be "research" if I published a book with a chapter of your book in it? IMO, even though I didn't use your whole book, you should still have a say in whether or not I get to use your chapter.

Or did I misunderstand you? Anyway, if I had mod points, I would have modded you up.

Re:That is a great summary!

[Randym]

Thanks!

For example, would it be "research" if I published a book with a chapter of your book in it?

As long as you didn't distribute it. 8^D

I see your point, however: a chapter of the book is not the whole book. However, it is still a coherent chapter, and thus a substantial portion of the book itself. The answer swings upon the thorny issue of what constitutes "Fair Use": some people might argue that my use of a single Bradbury sentence in a World-Wide Web forum constitutes "a distribution of a full and complete copy of a copyrighted item" (although obviously *I* don't, and don't believe that he would either! I used the quote because I found an ironic depth in quoting from a book that explores the concept of the abolition of reading for the good of society. I hope that the quote leads to more exposure of the book itself -- and thus more reading!)

Some courts have held that deriving some benefit from a distribution of copyrighted material constitutes an infringement of copyright (witness Negativeland's problems with U2), but even when there is no *direct* benefit, it has been held there is a unlawful taking (some college professors have been found guilty of copyright violation for something similar to what you mentioned in your post: compiling a collection of chapters from books for use in their classes.)

I was merely trying to establish that there is a "class of work" (i.e. Research) for which people *ought not be punished* under the DMCA.

Another example: let's say that you reverse-engineered MicroSoft Excel for the mere purpose of seeing how it worked, with no intention of then creating and selling something similar to it. Under the DMCA as it now stands, that constitutes an offense: reverse engineering of a copyrighted item with the intention of circumventing the display protocol (i.e. the closed-source software) is forbidden. My rationale is "That's just research!" since you don't have the intention of then distributing what you have learned. The DMCA does not make that distinction about intention. (Intention is important in law because it enables a jury to tell the difference between manslaughter -- killing a person by accident -- and murder -- killing a person deliberately.) The DMCA baldly treats all circumvention as unlawful; that difference, to my mind is unconstitutional , since it appears to limit the 'progress of science and useful arts', for which very purpose the doctrine of copyright was established!

I hope that my further exposition increased your understanding: "Enlightenment rushes in where ignorance fears to tread."