Slashdot Mirror
IEEE Wants Congress To Re-Examine DMCA
softsign writes "Reading this story in this month's IEEE The Institute, I found that IEEE-USA quietly published two position papers asking the US Congress to re-examine and/or clarify sections of the DMCA last year. The papers - developed by the organization's Intellectual Property committee - specifically cite concerns over the chilling effects and misuse of the DMCA against researchers and ISPs. Initially, the IEEE was pretty wishy-washy about the DMCA, but it seems that they've been listening to their members and have developed a pretty strong anti-DMCA, pro-innovation stance. Including an enlightened view on Fair Use rights!"
The snowball rolling down the hill towards the DMCA grows larger every day...
asking the US Congress to re-examine and/or clarify sections of the DMCA last year.
I like that they are asking for clarification. Sure, it would be nice to just have the DMCA go away but clarification would help a lot. The DMCA is a really poorly written law that can be interpreted in lots of ways. If Congress was force to clarify what the DMCA covers a lot of the corporate misuse would not be viable anymore.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Initially, the IEEE was pretty wishy-washy about the DMCA, but it seems that they've been listening to their members and have developed a pretty strong anti-DMCA, pro-innovation stance. Including an enlightened view on Fair Use rights!"
...which they quietly published in two position papers. Pardon me for being a wet blanket, but I'll wait until some organization makes the case by loudly publishing a position paper before I start cheering.
GMD
watch this
you cant be serious.
CNN is operated by those who made the DMCA and those who benefit from its being enforced. CNN has government "interns" working with the story-writers. CNN would never inspire popular debate on a topic that perfectly suits their interests and will go unchallenged as long as it remains out of mainstream media.
-- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau
...because 'civil disobedience of copyrights whenever possible (like people are doing now)' has to date been SO successful in securing less restrictive government policies...
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I think civil disobedience of copyrights whenever possible (like people are doing now) is a much more effective way
I guess you mean people should freely steal GPL code and not comply with it then.
Get it straight. Copyright is not a bad thing. Copyright is a good thing that is being twisted and abused to do bad things. We need to end copyright abuse, not copyrights.
A lot of what is opposed doesn't really fall under copyright per se, but under contract law, when you are talking about EULAs that have terrible clauses in them that infringe on basic rights. Copyright is only the means that is often used as an enforcement method for these EULAs.
The DMCA is bad for other reasons, it likely violates due process in regard to the "guilty until proven innocent" stance that ISPs must take when they get a DMCA complaint.
The DMCA anti-circumvention clause violates basic property ownership rights, that are heavily implied in the constitution and in common law.
The other issue with copyrights are their length, and the extensions, as seen in the Lessig case, terms so long that they actually hinder the creation of new works.
None of this points to an inherent problem with copyrights.
Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that this is true in the way you think. There are a lot of "diehard free-marketeers" who don't see excessively strong copyright as being a form of government intrusion. Many of them, in fact, see strong copyright as a preservation of property rights, which they veiw as being the cornerstone of a market economy. If anything, the idea of limiting government intrusion is likely to come out in the form of explicitly allowing copyright holders to hack the systems of alleged thieves, or some similar vigilante-style action.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Shut your pie hole moron. The US is NOT a Democracy. It is a Representative Republic. Big difference. I weep for the future.
Beleive me, Michael Powell is the last person you want fighting for your freedom of expression. Michael Powell has been behind the Corporatization of news for 2 decades. He's repealed valuable laws preventing news monopolies, for example, he has allowed one company to control multiple outlets in cities. I.E. Murdoch controlling the LA news. Clear channel owes a lot to this bastard, he's no friend of mine. -js
More and more I'm coming to believe that the phrase "Congress is bought" should be read "it's easier to whine than to act."
Sure, you could act to create change, but why risk it? If you actually found out that you could change the law, that would almost obligate you to act! And then when would you have time to read Slashdot?
Regarding paragraph one, which details your experience with Congressman Goodlatte. He dismissed you and called you a thief. From this, you conclude that those elected to Congressional seats do not represent you. You say, "You see, they don't care what the actual coders think, they care what corporations and unions' leaders think." I do not think that this is a valid conclusion. You can certainly conclude that Congressman Goodlatte does not agree with you, and that he does not represent your views. But he is just one person. How do you know that all representatives do not care? Perhaps a different senator would echo your views more closely.
Also -- your account is a bit vague. Your rhetorical style seems rather combative. Might you have alienated him by showing up and aggressively presenting your views and then expecting him to agree with you automatically?
The conclusion of your fourth paragraph strikes me as an of unsupported assertion compounded by the same logical error that troubled your judgement of representatives (judging a whole class of people based on your own experiences with a small section of that class). "Invariably political people tend to be scumbags . . . [who] have no real desire or capacity as a general rule to effect positive change." How is this different from the general population? Strike the word "political" from the above sentence. It now reads "Invariably people tend to be scumbags . . . [who] have no real desire or capacity as a general rule to effect positive change." You seem to suggest that politicians (if that is what you mean by "political people") should be held to a higher standard than anyone else. And yet, they are human too. They have failings, and they have flaws.
Turning to the last bit of that sentence, you seem to forget that people constantly disagree on what constitutes "positive change" and how to effect those changes. No change is universally positive; eliminating slavery was good for the slaves, but bad for the slave-owners who depended on their labor. In that case, deciding that the interests of the slaves were more important than those of their masters would seem fairly straightforward. But even that was hotly contested for years. Consider reading the writings of Senator Calhoun, who spoke vigorously in favor of slavery. He proposed basically a whole new political ideology in order to retain an institution that was important to him and a small group of others. You will always find special-interest groups in any political body; as a result, it is essentially impossible to maintain 100% consensus. A dictatorship is the only example I can think of where this is not a problem; because the dictator always agrees with himself, and his vote is the only one that counts. Even then, he'll have people trying to influence him for their own ends.
There is lots more I could say, but this post is getting long. Before I submit, let me turn to your last paragraph. Let me just put in a couple of quotes:
Let me get this straight. First you say that the average person is too dumb to be trusted with a vote. And then you say that our representatives should be selected at random from that same mass of people who are too stupid to vote in a general election, and given a vote in a legislative assembly? Are you sure about that? You'd be giving huge amounts of power to people who are, by your reasoning, incapable of wielding even the lesser power of a vote diluted by thousands of others. Perhaps you should put that one back to bake for a bit more, 'cause it ain't done yet.
Your political system evidently would be controlled by a small minority -- the "intelligent" ones who can "do the right thing" for all the countless others. You say you don't want to be lorded over by an aristocrat; but what I hear is not that you hate aristocrats . . . merely that you want to be the one doing the lording.
You seem very confused. Who said copyright was a "right"? I sure didn't. It's an artifical scheme designed to give authors some control over the distribution of their work.
EULA is not a contract
Last I checked, the only legal basis for most of an EULA is under contract law, debatable as that may be.
Copyrights as EULA enforcement devices is pretty weak, as most of it is covered under contract law, but certain EULAs may allow certain actions that may fall under the realm of copyright law, and violating other contractual clauses of the EULA may terminate the whole thing, including the parts covered by copyright law.
Think site licenses, which also grant rights normally reserved under copyright (i.e. the limited right to copy), in addition to EULA terms. In cases like that, both sets of law must come into play.
And what if someone sent you $100 in an envelope that said on the outside "by opening this I have the right to send thugs over and collect $200 in interest from you and your friends that you share it with" - this is fradulent contract law in any other context.
Your example is sleezy, but not fraudulent. Sleezy companies already do this! Haven't you ever gotten a "check" in the mail, usually for several hundred or thousand dollars, but upon careful inspection, it turns out the check is really a loan with a huge rate of interest? Anyone with good credit can attest to getting these. If the notice that it is loan is not prominent, then it could be argued that it was fraudulent, since both parties were not well informed of the terms of the contract, but if it was printed prominently in a place you would likely see it, then I seriously doubt it would be declared an invalid contract in court.
I'm temped to add IANAL, but if you are getting legal advice from some anonymous guy on the internet, you would probably be stupid enough to just think it was a reference to my homosexuality anyway.
Actually...the DMCA makes it illegal to do what you have a legal right to do. Under current copyright laws you have the ability to make 1 copy of any material that you own as long as it is for personal use only, and makes no mention of the medium for that copy.
Sure there is the potential for abuse in being able to make digital copies of your movies, music, etc...but there's always the potential for abuse no matter what the medium. The same argument was made 20-30 years ago with VHS tapes, back when similar DMCA laws were being proposed, but were subsequently rejected.
Is there any reason that I can't make a copy of the DVDs that I have a purchased and under copyright laws am legally allowed to make? What is wrong with me making a digital copy of it for myself?
NeoChichiri
http://www.neochichiri.net