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

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: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: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: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.

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.