Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DMCA Comments Posted At Copyright.gov

Posted by timothy on from the worth-reading dept.

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."

7 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Good AP article summarizing by eclectro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Good AP article summarizing by micheas · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.
      --
      Work bio at MMWD
  2. Some myth by enkidu · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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

    --

    There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
    -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
  3. None of this matters by kcbrown · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  4. An interesting twist by Dunark · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  5. At thought, by Casualposter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
  6. Re:try making -that- an acronym! by octalgirl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.