DMCA Comments Posted At Copyright.gov

Ascaroth writes "The DMCA comments on 'Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works' have been posted."

Comments

Hmm

[lvdrproject]

What, no commentary?

Try all of them (e.g. classes of works)

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of this 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 of access controls. This page will contain links to published documents in this proceeding.

All classes of work would be "adversly affected"...the idiots dont realize that yet though.

Re:Try all of them (e.g. classes of works)

[Pseudonym]

These "idiots", as you call them, are just doing the job that Congress set for them. They are not legally allowed to do otherwise.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Librarian of Congress conclusions

[91degrees]

Executive summary

as ever, there were many good points made by representatives of the media corporations and fair use advicacy groups. However, two comments were outstanding in their clarity and eloquence - one was a comment from a Mr. J. Valenti which said "Fair use is a myth spread by a bunchof unwashed hippes, and there should be no exceptions. I'm a member of a public, so I know what the public wants" which had $100 000 in used notes. stapled to it.

The other was from a Ms Hilary Rosen. This one was delivered in a Ferrari, and stated "If you make some exceptions, they'll just wnat more, so don't bother and save yourself the hassle. P.S. Keep the keys"

Clearly, the rest of them were just written by a bunch of pirates and unwashed hippies, so I spat on them, and then used them as firelighters.

Re:Librarian of Congress conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure 90% of the lesbians I know would be offended by that.

Re:Librarian of Congress conclusions

[praedor]

Erm...were you really able to use them as a firestarter after you spat on them? Did you not at least wait for the spittle to dry? I wouldn't think it would burn well with a big wet loogie spattered all over it.

try making -that- an acronym!

[syukton]

the comments on the WHAT?

Next thing I know it'll be the comments on sally selling seashells by the seashore; who comes up with these names that are six mouth-fulls long?

Re:try making -that- an acronym!

[glMatrixMode]

I'm no conspiracy theory fanatic, but I think that it's _intended to_.

When you're making a law against your citizens, there are two options :
Either you want to make 'communication' to let people change their minds / unleash their instincts. Then you give it a neat name like 'Patriot Act'.

Or else it's better that the public does not think about it, because if he does not, he'll not notice the effects of the law. Then you give it an ugly name that no newspaper is going to make a big title of. Examples : CBDTPA, SSSCA.... (these are DMCA-like laws).

Re:try making -that- an acronym!

[LucidityZero]

Okay.
REPCTMCACW

:(

Re:try making -that- an acronym!

[octalgirl]

I'm no conspiracy theory fanatic, but I think that it's _intended to_.

Has anyone noticed that there only 50 comments there? That out of all that were submitted, those were the only ones ACCEPTED? (who know what the real count is.)

Well, I try not to be too, but I couldn't help get the feeling that this whole comment thing was made to be way more complicated that necessary. First off, the format requirment: in order to figure out what exactly these requirments were, you had to read through most of the 19 page Notice of Inquiry to figure it out. And if you weren't good at reading between the lines, forget it. One simple step - numbering your classes, appeared as just one little blip in the middle of a very legal jargon paragraph. Later, the requirment that a name be on the attachment.

I submitted, and noticed the little warning "Most of the comments submitted thus far do not comply....Comments that do not comply with ALL of the requirements will not be considered." When you click the submit button, up pops a reminder (which I think should have been right out front in the beginning) which reminded of the 5 requirements (name, idenify class, number each class, summary of each class, provide facts). Anyway, mine got rejected. In defense of the LOC, I will say that they did call me at home to let me know of the rejection and that I could re-submit to a different email. Basically, my summary was off, in that I did not start out the ending with "In summary,". I told the guy that I thought their requirments were too steep, and that anyone who took the time to submit should be heard regardless. I mean, how stupid to go through all that effort and not have your voice be heard because you didn't number a paragraph or use the word summary? Again, there are only 50 comments there and that bothers me. Last round 270something were submitted, mostly in essay form which I am sure drove them crazy. But whatever, it is their job to figure out what ails the public, not the publics job to become mini-lawyers just to be able to participate.

Let's put this myth to bed

[flopsy mopsalon]

I noticed the comments of Barry Klawans, and want to talk about it because I have heard this argument before and think it is poorly thought out and unpersuasive.

The summary of Klawans' comments runs as follows:

The inability to create noninfringing copies of musical works can lead to the loss of works that are not commercially successful. Permanent barriers to creating noninfringing copies goes far beyond the constitutional copyright protection that protects works "by securing for limited times

In his comments, Klawans makes reference to old Jazz 78 rpm records that he has transfered to CD, AND which he says record companies will not reissue because they are not profitable.

This argument is strongly flawed. First, the preservation of art form has little to do with profitability and everything to do with art lover's willingness to preserve those forms. History is full of examples of obscure books, art, and music that have been preserved while more popular (profitable) works fell by the wayside.

Furthermore, the proper way to preserve musical recordings like 78 rpm records is to preserve the means of playing those records. For example. 78 rpm record players are still readily available, they just take some work to find. Putting these recordings on P2P networks for anyone to download just denies descendants of the original artists of those recordings their rightful royalties.

I'm in favor of fair use, but no progress will be made against the DMCA's overly restrictive policies by using bad logic.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[entrigant]

Please bear with me as I'll admit up front I haven't RTFA. However I'm only responding to your specific remarks. First you mentioned that this Klawans guy created digital backups of these records. You then go on to say he's also sharing them on p2p networks. Now according to the summary of the article this is about defeating anti-piracy technologies (i.e. CSS) and not the actual act of copyright infringement (i.e. p2p).

Preserving the method of playing the original media, while important, would do very little good in preserving the media itself. I'm not sure how familiar with records you are, but they are not a very reliable archival medium. The very act of playing them wears them out a considerable amount. What good is archiving an album if you cannot play it back? Making a digital backup of such a medium only makes sense for long time archival and enjoyment of the content.

Now I'm confused as to what making a digital backup of a record has to do with circumvention of anti-piracy devices.. as as far as I can remember records don't have anything like that built into them. With that and the mention of p2p I'd dare say things got a little off topic... my main point was just the fact that records wear out quickly with repeated use...

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[BrookHarty]

Perserving and never enjoying our collection of history art, how sad.

Copyrights should always expire, thou lawmakers seem to go crazy with life+20 years of the creator.

Then the combo of copyright+dmca, older music thats not being sold, plus electronic media formats, makes it impossible to legally listen in a modern format.

Of course, in 100 years, there will be a large collection of music/movies/books open to the public. Interesting to see what laws are passed to prevent this from happening.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[portnux]

What about the cave drawings, aren't the decendants of those cave dwellers due money for the display of those stick figures and any works based on them? Where does all of this frelling end? Copyright should run for a REASONABLE amount of time. Say seven years. At that point this "art" should be tossed back into the intellectual genepool to be reused. The current system is strangling innovation.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[Simon Brooke]

I noticed the comments of Barry Klawans, and want to talk about it because I have heard this argument before and think it is poorly thought out and unpersuasive.

In my opinion, it is your response which is poorly thought out and unpersuasive.

In his comments, Klawans makes reference to old Jazz 78 rpm records that he has transfered to CD, AND which he says record companies will not reissue because they are not profitable.... History is full of examples of obscure books, art, and music that have been preserved while more popular (profitable) works fell by the wayside.

This is true, but this if course is precisely what 'Digital Rights Management' makes impossible. If the jazz recordings had originally been released on Digital Rights Management media, set to be played only a specific number of times or for a specific period (tachnologies which the DMCA and equivalents in other countries explicitly protect), the performances would now be permanently unavailable.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[bm_luethke]

Putting these recordings on P2P networks for anyone to download just denies descendants of the original artists of those recordings their rightful royalties.

no, in the case you mentioned it does not. First the 78's are not available for sale, what is pressed on the 78 is all there will ever be, no more sales == no more roalities. Thus once all the 78's are worn out (record do wear out you know, maybe you aren't old enough to remeber) the music will be gone forever - unless a master is saved (probably not, not profitable) or someone has "illegally" recorded said music to CD.

this issue has absolutely nothing to do with P2P networks. After a reasonable period of time copyright runs out, this is one of the examples that it is meant to preserve. This is a perfect example of unlimited copyright (or very long copyright) and inability to make fair use copies destroying forever someones artistic works.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[Anonymous Coward]

"Putting these recordings on P2P networks for anyone to download just denies descendants of the original artists of those recordings their rightful royalties. "

This is part of the problem. "Descendants of the original artists" need to get off their butts and contribute themselves. Not ride on the coat tails of their ancestors. Where does it end? Does anyone 1000 years down the line with a trace of DNA from the artist participate in the gravy train? We are just bringing back the concept of inherited privilege. What's next "Devine right of Kings"?

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[AntiNorm]

Putting these recordings on P2P networks for anyone to download just denies descendants of the original artists of those recordings their rightful royalties

$DEITY forbid they should have to earn their own livings.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[rand.srand()]

Putting these recordings on P2P networks for anyone to download just denies descendants of the original artists of those recordings their rightful royalties.

Minor point, but copyrights are supposed to live for limited times to encourage creators to create so they can profit from their work. If the artist is dead, they can't be encouraged to create any more. Why should the decendants get anything for something their parent, or grandparent, etc. created? What valuable creative service have they provided short of being born?

I'd argue that this actually hurts the creative process because of the numbers of decendants getting money while artists (the creators) get an ever-smaller slice.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[Anonymous Coward]

Descendants of the originial artist don't deserve any royalties any more than anyone else who DIDN'T CREATE THE WORK does. Doesn't anyone else care that the insentive was supposed to be specifically for the artists themselves, rather than anyone else. (publishers, children, etc...)

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[foo12]

Many of those 78s are old enough to have fallen out of copyright and into the public domain.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[mesocyclone]

While I agree that copyright life is way too long, the argument that the copyright should not extend past the life of the artist is wrong and is equivalent to saying that the state should inherit the (house or car or bank account or whatever) of the deceased.

People are often motivated by what they may pass down to their children. If the copyright is creating a property with a finite life, that property should be controlled, after death, the same way other property of the deceased is controlled.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[ckedge]

Furthermore, the proper way to preserve musical recordings like 78 rpm records is to preserve the means of playing those records.

You're not thinking of the long long *long* term.

There will still be people on the planet interested in hearing it 1000 years from now. You're record will long since have worn into dust, and not only that, but since you only have N copies of the record, very few people get to hear it despite the copyright having run out 900 years ago.

Imagine how many of the *old* old works from civilizations millenia past would be with us if making translations had been illegal.

.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[Anonymous Coward]

History is full of examples of obscure books, art, and music that have been preserved while more popular (profitable) works fell by the wayside

Moron. History is even more full of great works (greek tragedies and comedies, etc.) that did not survive due to the failure of an adequate number of copies being distributed; whose existence we only know by reference from other surviving work.

You are a fool.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[Peter La Casse]

While I agree that copyright life is way too long, the argument that the copyright should not extend past the life of the artist is wrong and is equivalent to saying that the state should inherit the (house or car or bank account or whatever) of the deceased.

That depends. Who, ultimately, "owns" the work? The artist has the copyright, but a good case can be made that it belongs to society as a whole. Ownership of ideas is not like ownership of physical objects, which is why copyright law exists in the first place.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[Sloppy]

Putting these recordings on P2P networks for anyone to download..

WTF?! Why are you trying to drag copyright infringement into this?

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, obviously, anyone complaining about fair use is just a dirty pirate!

Although they shape their words as if they care about teachers, and students, and forever archiving important data, all they really want is the ability to download MP3's off Kazaa!

I'm actually not serious, but I've seen several slashdot posts voicing this very opinion... if you complain about losing your fair use rights, you're a dirty pirate.

You have to wonder at the level of brainwashing that takes place in the US... consider the parallel attitude - if you won't submit to some stupid security checks, or support removing the rights of your fellow man, you're a filthy terrorist!

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[Anonymous Coward]

have you ever heard of wax cylinder recordings?

http://www.tinfoil.com/

well here's the thing, you play them enough times....and they wear down and the music is gone for ever....people and instruments long gone and dead.

but that's ok!!! fuck it! I'll just run down the pawn shop and find me a wax cylinder recording PLAYER....and listen to it myself and when it wears out....good.

it's all mine.

all mine.

mine.

FOAD asshole.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that "classics" compete for mindshare against the current slop that does generate profits.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Furthermore, the proper way to preserve musical recordings like 78 rpm records is to preserve the means of playing those records.
For example. 78 rpm record players are still readily available, they just take some work to find. Putting these recordings on P2P
networks for anyone to download just denies descendants of the original artists of those recordings their rightful royalties.

Well unfortuneatly playing records on an old 78 turntable, degrades the media. I don't think that this degredation was an integral part of the sale of the music. I would assume that the music is what was sold, it was just sold on a particular media, as we can buy the same song on record, cd, mp3 ... It is the music that gets the royalties not the media.

"If you are talking about preservation then the proper way to preserve musical recordings like 78 rpm records is to preserve the means of playing those records."

Then this is preservation of the antique experience more than preservation of the music.

And where is copyright lifetime in all of this? Aren't some things in the public domain? Bono legislation aside.

Re:Let's put this myth to bed

[bearklaw]

Well, since I am the Barry Klawans who made the submission you are commenting on, I want to make a few comments here.

First, I DO NOT share those files on a P2P network, or any network at all. I keep them for personal use only. Even if I did share them, I do not believe I would be violating any copyright laws. All of those recordings were originally purchased by my father in the 30s, and many have been unavailable for over 50 years. I believe that such works are considered in the public domain.

Second, it is true that you can purchase a turntable capable of playing a 78 rpm record today. Good ones are not cheap, and cheap ones do not have the proper stylus to play a 78. Using the wrong stylus both damages the 78 and sounds like crap.

Third, the fact that I can purchase a turntable that plays 78 today does not weaken my original argument. What if I had said I had a collection of Edison cylinders - would you agree then? Will I still be able to purchase such a turntable in 10 years? 50 years? It is the future that I am worried about, not the present. What if a future medium contains a protection schemes require a keyserver to play back, and that server gets shut down? No amount of money will enable owners to material encoded on that medium to recover the material they thought they owned.

-Barry Klawans

Wow.

[Chiasmus_]

That page is just chock-full of some absolutely irrefutable reasons that the DMCA cannot possibly be applied to, essentially, anything, without destroying every notion of fair use we hold sacred. Things I hadn't even thought of - like the fact that the DMCA would even technically make trying to crack an open source system in the course of improving it an illegal act.

Now, time to sit back and see just how intellectually dishonest the courts can be. They'll have to write some really creative stuff to put big money interests ahead of reason this time. Fortunately, they have an army of recent lawschool graduates dedicated to that very cause.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, time to sit back and see just how intellectually dishonest the courts can be. They'll have to write some really creative stuff to put big money interests ahead of reason this time. Fortunately, they have an army of recent lawschool graduates dedicated to that very cause.

One wonders if you even read the tiny blurb of explanation that slashdot gives you in its story, let alone the comments actually made on the linked page. If you had, you might have noticed that the comments are part of a rulemaking process.

(Basic citizenship lesson a-1): The Congress writes legislation, not the Courts. The Courts interpret legislation. In this case, they were made as part of a rulemaking process because the Constitution is very clear that it is the Congress, not the courts that make our laws pertaining to copyright.

There is no doubt in my mind that the DMCA was bought and paid for by corporations bent on long-term monopolization of original works. However, guess what? The Constitution gives Congress not the Courts, the burden of creating those rules.



Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To . . .

Clause 8: 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 and Discoveries;


And, yes, the Courts have the ultimate say over the law, but that is itself a sensitive balance. It amazes me how people will blame the judicial process where Congress has completely abdicated its duty.

As for those recent lawschool graduates. Well . . . who do you suppose is working for the EFF, and is on the side fighting an uphill battle for low-pay in every case against these ridiculous laws.

As for who is really to blame for the DMCA? Let me ask you this: Did you even consider campaign finance reform last time you voted? Did you even vote?

Re:Wow.

[Zontar The Mindless]

And, yes, the Courts have the ultimate say over the law, but that is itself a sensitive balance. It amazes me how people will blame the judicial process...

Nobody's "blaming the judicial process". What's being pointed out is that the courts have the duty of tossing out laws that violate the Constititution -- in other words,

where Congress has completely abdicated its duty

by passing insanely bad laws like DMCA.

DMCA clearly violates both the letter and spirit of the Constitution in this regard; therefore, when it's brought up before the courts, they're obligated to invalidate it.

Of course, that's not to say we shouldn't let our Congresspeople know they've done a Very Bad Thing(tm), but just in case they or their successors don't get the message, we have other recourse and we should avail ourselves of it. Our obligation as US citizens is to take every possible measure to see that unconstitutional and unjust laws are shown the door, and this includes making sure that DMCA comes up before the courts ASAP.

In addition, acting through the courts will not only invalidate the law itself, but make it clear what aspects of it are unconstitutional. Otherwise, the Congress could very easily repeal DMCA, then turn right around and pass something else that does the same thing. There are times when the legislature needs to instructed in unambiguous terms: "You can't make laws that do X because laws that do so violate the Constitution, and here's why...".

That's not bad logic

[mericet]

The problem is that with DRM you have no way to "preserve the means of playing those records" as you say. Simply, because if the license server (or whatever means you have of getting decryption keys) is down (say, the company went under) there is no such means.

Good AP article summarizing

[eclectro]

some of the issues surrounding these comments is here.

choice quote -- With copyright holders wanting stronger protections and users seeking greater freedom to copy, Congress "looked at those extremes and struck a balance," said Robert Holleyman, chief executive of the Business Software Alliance.

Re:Good AP article summarizing

[micheas]

choice quote -- With copyright holders wanting stronger protections and users seeking greater freedom to copy, Congress "looked at those extremes and struck a balance," said Robert Holleyman, chief executive of the Business Software Alliance.

unfortunatly halfway between the two is not resonable.

Re:Good AP article summarizing

[evilviper]

Good idea.

If you ever appear before a court to support the death penalty, just say that everyone even accused of a crime should be killed immediately.

Does anyone suppose the court would "meet them half-way" on that?

Re:Good AP article summarizing

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you ever appear before a court to support the
> death penalty, just say that everyone even
> accused of a crime should be killed immediately.
>
> Does anyone suppose the court would "meet them
> half-way" on that?

Yes. Everyone (except me of course) is a criminal, specially those who accuse you of a crime.;-)

Re:You forgot something

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot something from your list:

7: ?
8: Profit!

Sorry, I had to...

There's no myth to be put to bed

[outlier]

This argument is strongly flawed. First, the preservation of art form has little to do with profitability and everything to do with art lover's willingness to preserve those forms. History is full of examples of obscure books, art, and music that have been preserved while more popular (profitable) works fell by the wayside.

Many of these works have been saved by individuals who were not the original producers or copyright holders of the material. When CD players that support a particular flavor of DRM become rare, it will be illegal for me, as an individual to use a device to convert the files to a new format that I can listen to.

Furthermore, the proper way to preserve musical recordings like 78 rpm records is to preserve the means of playing those records. For example. 78 rpm record players are still readily available, they just take some work to find.

If I had a collection of rare audio recordings that happened to be stored on betamax or old 8" floppy disks, I shouldn't have to keep searching for working beta and floppy drives to be able to listen to my recordings over the next 50 years. As an individual, I should be allowed to make copies for my personal use (under Fair Use statutes) so that I can continue to listen to them after the format dies.

As another example, Circuit City's DiVX users had an option that allowed them to "purchase" a DiVX disc -- that is, they could pay a price for unlimited use of a disc. However, in 1999 or 2000 (I don't remember the exact date) a year or so after the service was terminated, the servers that were in charge of permissions were turned off. That means that any DiVX discs that you "purchased" were compeletely unusable. It wouldn't matter if you had 100 working DiVX players, you still can't access the content. Now, imagine that you had some rare, unprofitable music recording that had been made using a similar, failed technology...

Also, while it may be best to listen to analog 78s using 78rpm turntables (as a non-audiophile I'm not as wedded to this, but I'll take your word for it), digitally encoded data won't lose their quality if they are converted, in a lossless manner from technology X to technology Y.

Putting these recordings on P2P networks for anyone to download just denies descendants of the original artists of those recordings their rightful royalties.

That argument is a bit disingenuous in this context. Klawan's comments don't say anything about

• A. putting the recordings on P2P networks, or
• B. Denying royalties.

His examples focus on personal use and sharing them with his daughter's history class -- cases where Fair Use would traditionally be supported. In addition, his comments also raise concerns that recordings whose copyrights have expired may be rendered inaccessible.

OMG

[jericho4.0]

This link is worthy of a /.ing. To all the folks talking about the about the DMCA,if your talk isn't here, it isn't going to mean shit.

Some myth

[enkidu]

In his comments, Klawans makes reference to old Jazz 78 rpm records that he has transfered to CD, AND which he says record companies will not reissue because they are not profitable.

This argument is strongly flawed. First, the preservation of art form has little to do with profitability and everything to do with art lover's willingness to preserve those forms. History is full of examples of obscure books, art, and music that have been preserved while more popular (profitable) works fell by the wayside.

You're missing the point. To use your analogy regarding 78rpm records, clauses in the DMCA would make it legal for a manufacturer to put a time bomb in all 78 record players AND make it illegal for you to repair 78rpm record players or even research how these record players work. Audio and video recordings, unlike text, are inherently coupled to the playing mechanism (record player, CD player, VCR, DVD player) and the DMCA can be interpreted in such a way as to prevent the preservation (through research and repair) or the players themselves. With audio and video records, copying to new formats is a neccessary and vital means of preservation.

500 year old books can be read and can last for another 500 years. 200 year old pictures can be seen and will probably last that much longer. 100 year old films have deteriorated to the point where most are unviewable and need to be TRANSFERRED to be viewed and preserved. The same will deterioration will happen to CD's eventually. If you couldn't make copies of your CD's, how will your children listen to them if they didn't have any working CD players? What if they didn't know the format that the CD's are in? What if it were illegal for them to fix CD players, figure out how CD players work, and if the CD format were a "trade secret?". The DMCA makes all of that legal for media companies to do.

Putting these recordings on P2P networks for anyone to download just denies descendants of the original artists of those recordings their rightful royalties.

Unsanctioned distribution of works under copyright is illegal and not neccessary to exercise fair use. Can you say straw man.?

As long as you mention descendants, let me rant on that subject for a short moment: <rant>just because the decendants of Edgar Rice Burroughs et al, are still making millions off of what their grandparents created, doesn't mean that that is what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" clause into Article I of the Constitution. Note that it says "limited Times" and "Authors and Inventors" and not "forever" and "Authors, Inventors, their heirs and their investors"</rant>

EnkiduEOT

Re:Some myth

[0-9a-f]

Many Edgar Rice Burroughs books are out of copyright, and are available for free download from Project Gutenberg.

Perhaps this is a good counter-example to the DMCA, the "rights" of heirs, and "forever".

Re:Some myth

[enkidu]

Yeah, but the characters are still trademarked. As such it is illegal to publish new stories, make games, create movies, etc. starring Tarzan without obtaining approval from (and usually paying) the Burroughs estate. Check out the credits to Disney's Tarzan movie.

Of course, there are better examples, I just couldn't think of them at the time. How about these: the somewhat recent Gone With The Wind vs. The Wind Done Gone controversy, or just the more recent Cage "silence" composition crapola.

EnkiduEOT

Re:Some myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the founding fathers.

Yeah, you heard right. They were around hundreds of years ago. They don't have any idea what the world's like now, or what's necessary in today's world. They're dead. Stop trying to fall back upon their ridiculous ideals, most of which have been generally abandoned by the American public..oh, except for the most ridiculous one of course -- guns. Hell, an American would gladly lose most of their freedoms, so long as they still have a right to carry a hand-gun around. You know, just in case they need to blow someone's fucking brains out on the way to the grocery store.

but will anything happen?

[HealYourChurchWebSit]

Some good comments. It actually looks like some of them aren't bogged down with legalese - now the killer question, will anything result out of these comments? Or are voices in the recording and movie industry too loud, too schrill and too strong to matter?

Re:but will anything happen?

[dapunk]

It's not the voices of the recording industry and the movie industry, the politicians don't care what they're saying, they only care about the money that the industries are pouring into their campaign funds.

Re:You forgot something

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot something from your list:

9: ?
10: Profit!

Sorry, I had to...

None of this matters

[kcbrown]

The Library of Congress has no say in who the Department of Justice pursues for violations of the DMCA, nor are the courts required to listen to what the Library of Congress has to say about the DMCA.

In other words, it looks to me like all this effort is completely irrelevant and merely a way of wasting the dissenters' time. The Library of Congress can decide anything they want about the DMCA and where the limits on its power should be: it won't make a damned bit of difference out here in the real world.

Re:None of this matters

[outlier]

IANAL, but this exercise is not fruitless.

The last time they took comments, they implemented two exceptions to the DMCA anti-circumvention statute. Based on comments in 2000, they decide to allow the circumvention of content protection in two cases:

1. Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications; and
2. Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsolescence.

These exemptions are in effect from October 28, 2000 to October 28, 2003.

In other words, this is relevant, and not a waste of dissenter's time. However, it is not a replacement for judicial or legislative attempts to overcome a bad law.

Re:None of this matters

[greenrd]

Actually, no, it seems to me (from reading the first paragraph of the link) like the LoC actually has statuatory authority to determine what the DMCA exceptions should be.

Re:None of this matters

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Library of Congress has no say in who the Department of Justice pursues for violations of the DMCA, nor are the courts required to listen to what the Library of Congress has to say about the DMCA."

Two points:

• The Librarian of Congress has the authority to make the rules on interpretation of the copyright statutes, including the DMCA; and,
• The courts almost always defer to the rulemaking authority when it comes to the interpretation of statutory language.

Re:You forgot something

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot something from your list:

11: ?
12: Profit!

Sorry, I had to...

Re:You forgot something

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot something from your list:

13: ?
14: Profit!

Sorry, I had to...

An interesting twist

[Dunark]

The seventh comment by Todd Colvin is interesting and suggests that technological protection isn't always good for IP owners. It got me wondering about MS Palladium: If Palladium can prevent unauthorized scrutiny of the executable code of a program, then how would anyone know if that program uses patented algorithms, perhaps without the patent owner's approval?

Discriminatory laws!

[Hater's Leaving, The]

Case 6:
"""
Music that is used by natural-born persons in the United States and other nations which we have treaties with should be exempted for all ... blah blah blah
"""

What about people born via C-section - don't they have rights too?

THL.

Re:You forgot something

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot something from your list:

15: ?
16: Profit!

Sorry, I had to...

but you wait in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

while they decide if you're doing something illegal

You will probably plead guilty to a lesser charge with a guaranteed fine and community service rather than risk going to jail when the only lawyer you can afford will tell you that if you lose you're looking at 10 years.

At thought,

[Casualposter]

Why not have a limit on the copyright that says that the copyright holder must keep the work available to the public for a reasonable fee or the copyright is void? If worded properly, this would eliminate the captivity of "unpopular" or "unprofitable" works. The holder would either lose their rights, or make the work available to the public.

Having the work in a library would not count as reasonably available.

What ever happened to simple spellcheckers?

[Anonymous Coward]

My god. You'd think the people submitting these things could at LEAST use a spell checker. Nearly every one I've read so far has some sort of glaring spelling or grammatical error.

Is a video camera good enough for fair use?

[smiff]

Fritz Attaway, executive vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said nothing stops Olsen from including clips -- if he is willing to accept a degradation in quality.

"All you have to do is take a video camera and take a screen shot of it," Attaway said.

The "degradation in quality" would be quite severe. If you just point a video camera at a television, you will get massive flickering. To stop the flickering, you need to attach a device to manipulate the video signal. For that device to work, you need to circumvent Macrovision (a violation of the very law in question).

Some day, the camera won't even work. Hollywood is already working with camera manufactures so cameras won't record anything with Hollywood's watermark on it.

Re:Is a video camera good enough for fair use?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some day, the camera won't even work. Hollywood is already working with camera manufactures so cameras won't record anything with Hollywood's watermark on it.

Why is it every day on this site I see the most inane, paranoid crap modded up?

Re:Goatse Guy's LArge Friend, The Giver

[Lord Bitman]

You have no concept of meaningful literary wordplay. He is stating this in the form of a question, but he is in no way asking a question. He is explicitely telling the person: "You like that.", he is merely doing so in the form of a question.
If your feeble mind can't grasp the possibility of a direct statement ending in a question mark, perhaps you should restrict yourself to less sophisticated literature, dumbass.

So where do content owners go?

[Qzukk]

If I produce a song and want it freely distributed, what must I do? Anyone thinking that this "DRM thing" won't affect them because they're not an "evil music pirate" or whatnot better think again.

When the content industry-envisioned "DRM world" comes about (where everything is DRM enabled) what do YOU think the default state of the "do not copy bit" is going to be? If your answer is "off", pass me some of what you've been smoking. The only way that DRM would *ever* be effective is if it banned all copying of everything, whether or not you are the owner.

Take video cameras. Sure you could be recording your own smash hit motion picture (in which case the MPAA wants to stop YOU). But what if that DV you're encoding on your computer is actually the latest MPAA-made smash hit, filmed from under your jacket?

How will mommy send her "Baby's First Steps" video to her family then? Simple, she has to prove to someone (an MPAA rep, probably) that the material she wants copyable really does belong to her. Of course, the MPAA representative's time IS money, so they will have to be fairly compensated for the time they spend reviewing the video.

Of course, once its in the hands of the MPAA, all bets are off. Don't be suprised if you get arrested because your independent smash hit was actually a complete copy of a work by an MPAA-subsidiary studio, made 3 hours after they received your video... err, I mean which has been in the works for 3 years.

If you think all of this is bullshit, just take a look at the behavior of the *IAA's now. They're willing to lie (no matter HOW fast, 1 burner is ONE BURNER) to whatever ends they want to get, and they want to get your money.

Re:So where do content owners go?

[andrew cooke]

If I produce a song and want it freely distributed, what must I do?
Go to creative commons.

Re:So where do content owners go?

[Anonymous Coward]

How will mommy send her "Baby's First Steps" video to her family then?

For a one-time $15000 fee, she can get licensed to add the appropriate bit to her own stream. This is good, because it keeps the riff raff out of The Media. The unwashed masses don't have anything important or truly entertaining or profitable to say anyway. If this baby, whose first steps are being taken, were anyone important, then the $15000 fee is going to be inconsequential.

hows this

[v(*_*)vvvv]

Why don't they just make "extensions" for copyrights.

The standard copyright can be 10 years, for example. And those who wish to continue to profit from their ancient creations can apply for an extension and pay the US Gov't a %age of the profits, ie, be taxed.

Why does the entire intellectual pool need be harmed just because the mouse stood up. Turn it around, and they could be huge contributors to society (through taxes).

What is most disturbing, is it is not the artists who are losing out and complaining. It is the people selling other people's work. Sure, they are filthy rich meaning they are quite successful at it, in which case it is even more important not to confuse the issue.

In most cases, artists would LOVE for their work to be heard. Especially if no record company sells their work anymore. The only artists complaining are those who already are filthy rich and are convinced by their record companies their income is being threatened.

If artists were in it for money, they wouldn't be artists to begin with.

Companies selling art are in it for the money, and they were in it for the money to begin with.

Copying of DVDs

[dumboy]

According to #10 by Michael A. Lowry copying DVDs should be exempt. How does that relate to this case then?

DMCA hard at work, I get error trying to decrypt

[Genjurosan]

How ironic, I get an error in acrobat letting me know that the document(read comment link) can't be decrypted for viewing. I would try to circumvent, but then I'd be in violation of the DMCA.

Definition of "natural-born"

[yerricde]

What about people born via C-section - don't they have rights too?

They have rights too. Heck, I was almost a C-section baby. But your definition of "natural-born" is not the real definition used in law:

Music that is used by natural-born persons in the United States

Aside from the joke made in the parent comment, the "natural" in "natural-born" means the same as it does in "naturalized". The term "natural-born" describes individual persons born on United States soil who, by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, become U.S. citizens approximately nine months into their life, at the moment of birth.

"In print" requirement won't fly under Berne

[yerricde]

Why not have a limit on the copyright that says that the copyright holder must keep the work available to the public for a reasonable fee or the copyright is void?

Requiring works to remain in print or lose their copyright would violate international treaties such as the Berne Convention, which requires that contracting nations recognize copyright on a work regardless of whether or not the work is still in print.

Doing it only in one country wouldn't work

[yerricde]

Why don't they just make "extensions" for copyrights.

Treating the copyright term like the trademark registration term, renewable every ten years, would not work because countries other than the one that allows term renewals would be free not to recognize any copyright term extensions beyond the life plus 50 years that the Berne Convention guarantees. Even Sonny Bono never got to Canada (a tree got in the way).

Let's put Flopsy to bed, instead

[ediron2]

OK... Flopsy is, to all appearances, a shill for the dark side.
In the few moments it took me to read his posting on alterslash, I was appalled at the idea that this thing was rated 5-insightful, considering how many instances of bad logic it exhibits:

In his comments, Klawans makes reference to old Jazz 78 rpm records that he has transfered to CD, AND which he says record companies will not reissue because they are not profitable. This argument is strongly flawed.
First, the preservation of art form has little to do with profitability and everything to do with art lover's willingness to preserve those forms.

Art lovers cannot preserve anything under Bono or DMCA, since they are not creators of that content. This RIGHT has been denied, despite constitutional language that puts forth this right.

History is full of examples of obscure books, art, and music that have been preserved while more popular (profitable) works fell by the wayside.

And pointing to one artifact from the past and declaring that it is proof that all worthwhile art has been preserved is just silly. Every historian I've met says old documents are rife with references to other stuff that they'd kill to see, but which has disappeared.

Furthermore, the proper way to preserve musical recordings like 78 rpm records is to preserve the means of playing those records.

That's an opinion. Considering the fallibility of media and the fact that this prevents anyone but an obsessive or enthusiast from experiencing anything created solely on 78's, I say it's a pretty poor opinion. I like old jazz, but not enough to build/maintain an old Victrola (sp?).

For example. 78 rpm record players are still readily available, they just take some work to find.

Do you hear how intellectually elitist you sound? Telling us that we're not worthy of early jazz recordings unless we suffer a bit?

Putting these recordings on P2P networks for anyone to download just denies descendants of the original artists of those recordings their rightful royalties.

Rightful. That's when I lost it. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT FOR PREVENTING COPIES. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO COPY. YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN A PRIVILEGE TO CONTROL THE COPYING FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
Besides, nobody deserves anything they didn't earn directly. I don't like royalty (as in kings), I am not sure I like huge inheritances, and I sure as hell don't think that anyone's great-grandkids deserve anything special.

I'm in favor of fair use, but no progress will be made against the DMCA's overly restrictive policies by using bad logic.

Based on all the rest of the bad logic, this is when I decided you're a shill. Because that seems so trite. A half dozen of Atwater-esque Big Lies, wrapped up nicely with a 'and I'm on your side.' If you're so for fair use, let's see you argue for it, rather than using tricks and poor logic to try to pollute the pool.

DiVX

[phriedom]

In defense of DiVX and Circuit City, I would like to point out that everyone who had purchased unlimited play was given a refund. Your point is valid and important though. All those DiVX discs are just drink coasters now (if you put tape over the hole.)

And even if there isn't a DRM server involved, it should still be legal for people to do format changes and backups. I shouldn't have to rely on working DVD players being available in 40 years and the media not getting scratched in order to play a Chinese version of Iron Monkey for my future grandchildren.

Re:DiVX

[Anonymous Coward]

A refund? You make it sound as if Crook City gave us our money back! I only got back about 10% of what I spend on the discs.

a further dilemna (computer code hoedown!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, what if you want to freely distribute a MP3 containing the DeCSS code? Such as the Computer Code Hoedown, as found at Touretzky's DeCSS gallery? I kid you not!

-1, flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

get your stinking words off me you damn dirty troll

They ingored me

[alricsca]

I went to the site an attempted to follow their incredibly complicated submission criteria. I wrote about a five page response regarding the exceptions I thought should be created in the DMCA and examples as to why. I got an email a day later saying it did not meet their submission guidelines with a link with about thirty possible reasons. Without any specific explanation of what was actually wrong, I did not know what to correct as I thought it had met the guidelines. I guess not being a lawyer, I was not meant to be heard. I wonder how many other people had this happen to them and were then essentially ignored. I think it was a deliberate red tape barrier to stop the masses from actually being heard, shame on them. I am just glad, that I contributed to the Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org who they did listen to.

Re:They ingored me

[octalgirl]

If you read my comment above, you'll see I had the same problem and agree. The whole 5 requirements (name, idenify class, number each class, summary of each class, provide facts)were buried too deep and very difficult to decipher. I suggest you also forward your comments to your local Congress person, and insist your voice be heard. to eliminate comments because they weren't numbered, or didn't end with "In summary..." is crazy. I also think the timing is a bit off. Having the deadline the weekend before Christmas, when people are busy doing other things seems a little intentional to me.

Re:George W Bush is a Moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this a troll?

If anything, Bush's IQ is a few points lower than that! Good enoughfor a C average at his high priced college!

Not only is he a moron, he's also a psycho, a loony, an idiot, a cretin, but mostly an ASSHOLE!

What this shows about slashdot posters

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time this came up for discussion in Slashdot (sometime in October), we had many replies.

The Government only received 50 replies (there seems to be that implication on the website, though the number 50 looks a bit suspicious)? Is this the entire list of comments they received? If so, what does it show about the slashdot writer (and reader) community?

Re:What this shows about slashdot posters

[octalgirl]

"The Government only received 50 replies..."

No, we don't know how many were received - it's only 50 that were ACCEPTED. On the last round 270+ were received, and I believe most of those will show up again during the Reply deadline which is in Feb. With all the buzz on here, EFF, ChillingEffects, etc., I doubt very much the number is anywhere near 50, and probably closer to the hundreds somewhere. I think anyone who took the effort to send in and didn't get accepted should forward their comments to their local Congress and insist they be heard.

Content owners have power.

[Anonymous Coward]

Try using your content to compel users to shun evil technology.

Artists and authors should release their work under a license which prohibits use of the work on devices designed to impede fair use.

Logically, impeding fair use should terminate the copyright privilege, but prohibiting impediments to fair use should protect the privilege.