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

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.

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

[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

[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.

.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.