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!"

49 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. I like it by kcornia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The snowball rolling down the hill towards the DMCA grows larger every day...

    1. Re:I like it by softsign · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's important to point out that this is the mother of all engineering groups we're talking about here. These are not exactly hot-headed activists. That may make their words a little more tame, but - one hopes - their message all the more potent.

  2. clarity by dirvish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. For more chilling effects... by PseudoThink · · Score: 5, Informative
  4. How about we examine... by goatasaur · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...its flammability.

    --
    ~D:
    1. Re:How about we examine... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      well, if you want to examine flames, you sure are in the right place ;)

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  5. somebody please enlighten me by The+Other+White+Boy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    i may be confused, but the only IEEE acronym i know of ... doesnt seem like it'd have anything to do with this. I'll assume that its good news, but could someone please fill me in? and if its the only IEEE i know of, do they really have any sort of position to influence this or will it just be brushed aside?

    1. Re:somebody please enlighten me by dirvish · · Score: 4, Informative

      Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The create technical standards. They certainly don't want a law that will unjustly limit the standards they can create/use.

    2. Re:somebody please enlighten me by dirvish · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think most of the people that have gotten in trouble for violations of the DMCA are those who have made something that circumvents the copy protection of something else. Like Dimitry Skylarov and Elcomsoft, who made the software to read Adobe's e-books. They weren't end users, they were the developers. Or 2600 for publishing the DECSS. I would imagine the IEEE would like developers to have more freedom to create new stuff using their standards.

    3. Re:somebody please enlighten me by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, IMO they're doing this because the DMCA can and will be used by moneyed corporations to keep the IEEE from coming up with standards like the IEEE 1394 cable that you plug your videocam in with.

      If everytime they get to work on another standard or protocol, some corporation 'unleashes the hounds' while waving a copy of the DMCA in the air claiming sovereignty over the technology, and its pretty much the end of this group.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  6. I hope. by ball-lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    I personally the DMCA is abolished, especially with This Freedom of Speech issues notwithstanding of course. I know this has been said before (by a lot of people), but I actually do make a lot of copies of the CDs etc I own, (I'm a clutz, just broke a CD yesterday, was a CD-R though, thankfully). I expect the DMCA will end up just like the prohibition did, being repealed because it did more harm than good, and made a joke out of the law.

  7. Yeah right.... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 4, Funny
    I can see it now....

    Senator: Wow, there are some really good points in this paper....maybe we should re-examine this DMCA thing...

    Secretary: I have a Ms. Rosen on the line. She wants to know if you want the front or the backs of the bills when she wallpapers your house with money.

    Senator: Tell her I'll want some toilet paper as well. These position papers leave me dry and chaffed.

  8. What if by Troll+Garou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Okay, this is a troll account, but I'll bite.

    Consider this : what if the DMCA was only a way to buy time ? They needed time to compute the impact of internet access to their existing business model. Damn, some customers of mine oppose arguments stronger than theirs to delay migration and observe the behavior of the new system.

    Don't be fooled. They don't want a revolution, and they never did. They are just buying time and brainstorming.

    'Cause they already did a mistake. Remember the new economy ? Now they wait and watch and prepare their next move.

    Fair enough.

    1. Re:What if by SurgeonGeneral · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well I think there is something to this, however I have read a lot of studies that indicate piracy does not detract from corporate profits whatsoever. In fact it makes them grow because the ability for users to hear an artist inspires them to support them (at least they think they are by buying the CD). Piracy promotes numerous smaller artists.

      The proof is in the pudding:
      Sony is one of the world's largest producers of music, and is one of the largest manufacturers of CD copying/producing hardware. This would be a conflict of interest if cd copying had any effect on sales.

      My theory is that if companies can sell to the politicians the idea that they are losing money on CDs (which they do by donating large sums of money to their campaigns), then they can get laws passed like say, oh I dont know, levies on the sale of blank CDs, CD copying software, and MP3 players. In Canada these levies (at the bare minimum) double the price of the purchase.

      --
      -- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau
  9. great... by GuyMannDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:great... by vsprintf · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

      Agreed. I also think the poster of the article was somewhat confused. I am a member of both the IEEE and the IEEE-USA since it is the regional organization for U.S. residents. The links in the article are to IEEE-USA pages or the linked articles refer to IEEE-USA positions. IEEE, the parent organization, will remain wishy-washy as always. The only time it takes a position is when IEEE-USA offends someone (like the time it opposed H-1B increases), and the IEEE slapped them down and told them to shut up. IEEE-USA has a new president who hasn't been slapped down yet.

    2. Re:great... by softsign · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'm also an IEEE member and I realize that IEEE-USA is not the same as IEEE proper, but it's entirely appropriate that, as the US organizational unit of IEEE, IEEE-USA is developing these position papers, in accordance with its mandate:
      "To recommend policies and implement programs specifically intended to serve and benefit the members, the profession, and the public in the United States in appropriate professional areas of economic, ethical, legislative, social and technology policy concern." (emphasis mine)
      DMCA is a US problem first. For good or bad, the IEEE doesn't have the mandate to advocate public policy in specific countries. It's primarily an academic/professional body. Part of the reason IEEE-USA exists is to circumvent that shortcoming... To put it simply, I don't think this is insignificant... It's no coup, but it's nothing to sneeze at either...
  10. IEEE has pull with Congress? by Cyclometh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I really doubt that Congress, who won't listen to the majority of its citizens, will bother to listen to a collection of scientists that don't provide any money to their campaign coffers.

    After all, the RIAA and MPAA can probably outspend the IEEE by about 500 to one or more.

    I hate to be too cynical, but this seems to be a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing to anyone who isn't a geek.

  11. This is good by greymond · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm glad to finally see a big dog enter the fight. Don't get me wrong, the EFF and Slashdot community are great, but they have a tendancy to allow their bark to be louder than their bite.... So having the IEEE peeps start in on this is definately a good thing.

  12. Still pretty "wishy-washy" by cbuskirk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Coupled with the Unpatriotic Act the DMCA is a blueprint for the end of our country. Organizations like IEEE should be taking a much stronger stance against the DMCA. They should have no profit motive and should be charged with the duty to futher computing, not corprate greed. Granted the individuals who make up the various standards commities on the IEEE have shareholders to pretend to answer to, but the core mission of the IEEE should be offended by the blatent Un-American nature of the DMCA and take a stand, just as every true patriot should take a stand against the so called Patriot Act.

  13. More help in high places by elflet · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Not only has the IEEE jumped on the bandwagon, but we're likely to find a sympathetic ear in the FCC. This story profiles the new head of the FCC (Michael Powell, who is General Colin Powell's son):
    Powell, 39, will help craft the rules of the road to a new digital promised land, where the lines between computers and entertainment devices blur and consumers have access to a vast array of new services. A die-hard Republican free-marketeer, he aims to do so with as little government intrusion as possible.
    It seems that an overly restrictive DMCA would get in the way of his plans as well, and he's well received on Capital Hill.
    1. Re:More help in high places by rgmoore · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A die-hard Republican free-marketeer, he aims to do so with as little government intrusion as possible.

      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.

  14. Humm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    In line with its past positions regarding shrink wrap licenses overriding user rights in the Copyright Act that are the result of hard-fought compromises in Congress, IEEE-USA feels that all user rights in digital works, as well as other user rights provided by intellectual property law, must not be alterable by a shrink wrap, click wrap, or similar license.

    So if I am reading this correctly, that means that there can't be a EULA clauses that says that I can not make a back up or transfer a DRMed file.

    Now if only there is something that also covers EULA changes and clauses like "we have the right to reword and fine tune this EULA to what ever screws you and benefits us the most."

    There is still the legality issue of EULAs but I doubt they will want to do anything about it.

  15. Civil disobedience is better by argoff · · Score: 4, Interesting


    The problem isn't the DMCA, but that the era of copyrights is over and people, especially in the entertainment industry, can't deal with it. I think civil disobedience of copyrights whenever possible (like people are doing now) is a much more effective way. It will force change from the outside and not the inside. It will get the problem at the root.

    1. Re:Civil disobedience is better by goldspider · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "I think civil disobedience of copyrights whenever possible (like people are doing now) is a much more effective way."

      ...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
    2. Re:Civil disobedience is better by Sarcazmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Civil disobedience is better by argoff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let me put this straight, just because an institution calles something a right doesn't mean that it is. This is as true with calling copyrights a right today as it was in the 1850's when controlling slaves was called a property right. Rights are not about controll, but liberties. But copyrights are about controll, and the DMCA is about taking actions to secure that form of controll - and now people act supprised when all of a sudden their liberties start disapearing. Sorry, but this wouldn't happen if copyrights were a true right, and neither would the infinite extensions. True rights don't have expirations, phony ones or otherwise.

      And the EULA is not a contract, and copyrights are not an enforcement. Since when did contract law become binging on 3rd parties who don't even agree with it? this is exactly what copyrights do. 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.

    4. Re:Civil disobedience is better by Sarcazmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  16. Re:damny lobyist and crooked congress by The+Other+White+Boy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Clinton was when it was ratified, I'm pretty sure it was all within his term (although pupae versions of it may have been born before his term, i know it was at least completed within his).

  17. Re:bout time by SurgeonGeneral · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  18. The name by Radio+Shack+Robot · · Score: 4, Funny

    There is some irony in the IEEE's name: "The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers" also includes computer engineers, but the computers engineers have coded themselves out of the name. Thanks to legacy issues in source code (e.g. #include ieee_std_80211a.h) in C and VHDL, the computers engineers would have a heck of a time going back and changing the code if the IEEE changed its name to include computer engineers. It would become confusing to have one name but the legacy header files another name.

    --

    Beep. Boop. Beep. You have questions. I have answers and your home address.
  19. Don't be so sure by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After all, the RIAA and MPAA can probably outspend the IEEE by about 500 to one or more.

    Don't be so sure.

    The IEEE not only has a large number of fairly wealthy engineers, but it also has some very wealthy corporate members such as Intel, and the rest of the semiconductor industry. Chips are in everything. I know I have a few in my car, all my media and computer equipment, my mobile phone, my cordless answerphone, my watch, and my credit card. These people don't want to have to spend money on adding a chips to prevent piracy. Especially when they know it isn't going to work.

    1. Re:Don't be so sure by vsprintf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First, it's not the IEEE leading the fight, it's the IEEE-USA which is a regional organization. The IEEE, which controls the money, has none. The IEEE's bloated directorship has squandered the organization's revenue and led it to near paralysis. The smaller subsections or societies finally demanded an outside review of organization management and policies.

      The review condemned the current state of affairs, but unless something is done about it, the IEEE will remain moribund and ineffective.

  20. History Repeats Itself by Exitthree · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps someone else has made this analogy before, but I've never seen it.

    I was just thinking of the similarities of today's copyright infrigement and corporate behemoths exploting the working class with the old day's mills and bosses controlling labor. Basically in both instances people became fed up with the situation. Back then, people started to protest and organize unions, while at the same time the corporations and bosses would pass out black-lists of violators and make a fuss when people wanted fair pay. Today we have file-swapping and MP3s becuase we are sick of paying too much money for something; things (MP3s in particular) where the original author doesn't profit so much as the recording label. Again, the corporations are making a fuss, and instead of black-lists, they are suing the pants off anyone they can find.

    Now, I doubt that the government will legalize file-sharing like they protected unions, but I hope something just as amiable is devised for our current situation. Anyone new that decides to fight is a step in the right direction.

    1. Re:History Repeats Itself by argoff · · Score: 5, Interesting

      how about this...

      in the 1850's they called slavery a property, rather than a form of controll; today they call copyrights a form of property

      in the 1850 they thought that the entire purpose of the industrial revolution was to use inventions like the cotton gin to expand the size of their plantations for unlimited controll and profit. Today people think the information age is about using the internet to leverage their copyright holdings for infinite and unlimited reach.

      "I have no incentive to grow cotton without slaves", "freeing slaves is common theivery", "the great wealth of the plantation system show's it's goodness", "I put effort into getting them slaves" sould alot like "artists have no incentive to create ... etc" , "copying is piracy", and "the great financial success of the movie and software industries is owed to copyrights". etc...

      And how about the market crash of the 1850's when all sorts of experimental business ventures involving industrial technology crashed. (dot com bust?)

      even a civil war happened next, today we have a war on terrorisim?

  21. IEEE Wants Congress To Re-Examine DMCA by orthogonal · · Score: 3, Funny

    IEEE Wants Congress To Re-Examine DMCA

    IEEE? Isn't that Microsoft's new browser?

    Internet Explorer Extended Embrace?

  22. Give up trying to negotiate with Congress by ShatteredDream · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Two years ago I brought basic concerns about misuse of patent law and the DMCA to my Congressman, Goodlatte (R-VA). He said that I was either a thief or advocated stealing because I opposed his bill and that a lot of technical people did too. You see, they don't care what the actual coders think, they care what corporations and unions' leaders think.

    Stop acting like Congress represents you. It gets auctioned off every year and CFR isn't going to fix it. It is the 2-party system that is to blame. Even if you outlawed bribery on the pain of death under our current system you'd see no meaningful change. It is because only the best looking and/or most ruthless people get into office.

    I'm a CS student and a regular voter and supporter of the LP and 85% of its positions (I only disagree on its espionage and immigration policies, I support the CIA and believe immigration should be heavily restricted). I was talking the other day with probably the only girl in our department who genuinely "gets it" with coding. She's better than most of the guys and we were talking about politics and she said agreed that universal democracy is a bad idea. She said that most of the women she knows that voted for Clinton in 92 did so because he was the sexiest candidate and she said that in her opinion such idiots should be disenfranchised.

    Most geeks don't understand political people. I have been around enough of them and have been drug into political conversations enough to know exactly how they think. Invariably political people tend to be scumbags. They practically get off on social and political discussions and yet they have no real desire or capacity as a general rule to effect positive change.

    I am a semi-Stalinist Socialist-turned-Libertarian. I learned from history that only **one** system of government works for a long time and that's a Liberal republic. Liberalism is the key to the salvation of the human race and that's what both conservatives and leftists cannot understand. The Liberalism of Locke, Friedmon and co. is an experiment in true civilization. Stop bitching about how Bush and co. undermine democracy. Fuck democracy. You want to see real democracy unleashed on a nation? Read up on Socrates' last days on this Earth. The summaray execution of Socrates by committee for his beliefs is the true face of democracy. It is as vile and vicious as any communist or fascist government that has ever existed. Be concerned about your natural rights, the rights that are inherent to your being a human being such as your right to own property, speak freely, defend yourself and be secure in your home and person. I would rather live under a benevolent dictatorship such as a platonic republic that respects my rights than a democratic system that lets "the people" get whatever they want.

    Democracy doesn't work. The average person doesn't have the intellectual maturity and education to wield the political power that is the vote. I would rather lose my right to vote and know that my representative truly is a peer than have an aristocrat lord over me like I'm a sheep that needs to be herded. Excuse the hell out of me, Congress, but I know more about computers than all of you combined. If our representatives were chosen at random from the bourgiouse then we'd have representatives who could actually relate to us and would see us as equals. We'd also have a system where they don't have to take shit off of us or special interests and can do the right thing. Choose them at random from the bourgiouse, give them one term in office and if they take bribes lynch them from the nearest tree in DC.

    1. Re:Give up trying to negotiate with Congress by ovapositor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shut your pie hole moron. The US is NOT a Democracy. It is a Representative Republic. Big difference. I weep for the future.

    2. Re:Give up trying to negotiate with Congress by cheezedawg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Here is a summary for the people that don't want to read this entire rant:

      ShatteredDream is not going to vote to re-elect Congressman Goodlatte.

      Hope this helps.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    3. Re:Give up trying to negotiate with Congress by Selanit · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yours is an interesting argument. You have put a lot of thought into it. I think there are several problems with it. At the risk of writing an overly long post, I am going to respond to a few of your points.

      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:
      1. The average person doesn't have the intellectual maturity and education to wield the political power that is the vote.
      2. If our representatives were chosen at random from the bourgiouse then we'd have representatives who could actually relate to us and would see us as equals.

      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.
    4. Re:Give up trying to negotiate with Congress by skinnydskitzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wrote my congresswoman, Sue Myrick, a republican from Charlotte, the second largest banking town in the US and a huge pool of ultraconservative cash...in regards to the consumer broadband act, and she vowed to vote in favor of my opinion, and take the consumer side instead of that of the corporations..point being, there are some decent people in public office, few and far between, but there are nonetheless.

  23. There are 3 papers specifically regarding the DMCA by joggle · · Score: 5, Informative

    IEEE-USA quietly published two position papers asking the US Congress to re-examine and/or clarify sections of the DMCA last year

    Actually, there are three papers:

  24. No, no, no, no no no no by Hug+Life · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:No, no, no, no no no no by cheezedawg · · Score: 3, Funny

      2 decades? You mean he started all this corporatization stuff and repealing laws when he was 19?

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
  25. Influence of money by Badger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  26. Let your rejoice of victory be heard by paroneayea · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Often times news such as this creates only slight interest, as the war against the DMCA has not yet seen a complete victory. But is not each battle won in a war indeed still a victory? Should we not still celebrate this small step? Our cries of satisfaction over that which we approve are indeed just as important as our groans of disgust over that which we disapprove (which we seem to be much more willing to display). For you see, this is more than just encouragement amongst us geeks; it piques the curiosity of others, for they shall wonder why we rejoyce as we do. Not all, but surely some, shall investigate, and many shall join our cause. And our cry shall become louder.
    Thus I encourage you to join me in whooping, hollering, and just plain happily ranting about how this wonderful event when in the accompanyment of others. Believe it or not, in doing so you are helping to win yet another battle.

    --
    http://mediagoblin.org/
  27. Another relevant IEEE-USA position statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is another IEEE-USA IPC position statement relevant to this discussion that is on the general IEEE-USA position statements page but somehow is not on the IPC-only page. It is at http://www.ieeeusa.org/forum/POSITIONS/copycontrol systems.html

  28. Re:Please. by BEHiker57W · · Score: 4, Informative
    Check thomas.loc.gov for H.R. 2281 from the 105th congress. (Thanks, Newt!) Sorry, Thomas has a strict policy against deep links. (Next time, try to do better, Newt!) Here's an excerpt.

    H.R. 2281 Digital Millennium Copyright Act

    Introduced by Rep Howard Coble (R-NC) and in the Senate by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), may they suffer for their perfidy.
    7/29/1997:
    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary...Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property [
    copyright issues ].
    5/22/1998:
    Referred jointly and sequentially to the House Committee on Commerce [
    technology and internet issues ]
    5/22/1998:
    Referred jointly and sequentially to the House Committee on Ways and Means [
    taxation and revenue issues ]
    8/4/1998 2:26pm:
    On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. [
    no recorded vote in the House ]

    And for the Senate side:
    4/30/1998:
    Committee on Judiciary ordered to be reported an original measure.
    5/14/1998:
    Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 99-0. Record Vote No: 137.

  29. Re:IEEE = nothing but criminals. by NeoChichiri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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