Slashdot Mirror
Lofgren Introduces BALANCE Act to Modify DMCA
Infonaut writes "Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D - CA) introduced H.R. 1066, The Balance Act. It seeks to clarify 'that America's historic principles of fair use - protected under Section 107 of the Copyright Act - apply to analog and digital transmissions.' Apparently Lessig is on board, as are several associations and other organizations. If you like what you see, encourage your representative to support the bill."
Lofgren introduced the Digital Choice & Freedom Act last term. What ever happened to it? This seems like basically the same thing/
Attorney for Duff: "That party-hardy attitude is a registered copyright of the Duff Brewing Corportation."
Duffman: "What ever happened to fair use?"
it's about time someone realizes that just becase it's made of 1's and 0's it's still just a recording, and protected under fair use.
if they keep this up, I'll have to transfer all my mp3's and ogg's over to tape.
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
A list of US House Representatives
(remember it is always best to write snail mail to your reps. Email is trashed to easy.
http://www.house.gov or here Write your Rep
And here are the Senators
Senate Listings
na, just fancier scratches on the walls.
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
clearly a clued up congressional representative. See also her remarks on p2p here
" Illegal file-sharing is a major problem. But we should not create one problem to solve another."
She'd get my vote...
we'll, if I had one over there...
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal
- Let's add the following to the DMCA:
- You are allowed to back up the stuff you've bought legally, as long as you don't perform it or infringe on the rights of the owners by selling it
- You cannot sell media covered by the DMCA with a non-negotiable license because said license is unenforceable as of now.
- You can do whatever you need to do in order to watch the media, as long as you don't go against #1.
- If you don't have a way to see/hear/whatever the media is, you can do what you need to in order to see/hear it as long as you don't sell/perform it
Is that about right?Webmaster Wanted - Entropic Reactions
I'm all for the government taking the technology that prevents me from making backup copies of games and music and reducing it to a pile of smoldering dung. Smoldering dung is, in my book, way cooler than an irreplaceable copy of Unreal 2003 that my sister rolls over with my computer chair (hypothetically speaking... grr...)
But let's not forget that there are legitimate concerns about the pirating of software and music. It's not just the RIAA and other large organizations. The widespread pirating of software does, in fact, have the ability to cripple businesses that produce it. As I recall, the guys that made Thief made next to nothing on Thief 2 (and are no longer in business as a result), but everyone I knew had a copy.
So I'm Asking Slashdot <dramatic music>: What should companies be doing to prevent the loss of income from pirating while leaving inviolate the right of the consumer to make copies of materials to which we own legal license?</dramatic music>
I know, I know, we talk about this all the time, but I don't think anyone's offered a suggestion that would really work; this is a tough nut to crack.
Peace,
~SL
Not whorin', just informin'.
Dear Congressman/Congresswoman,
I would like to encourage you to support Representative Zoe Lofgren's "Balance Act" (H.R. 1066). This act seeks to balance the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and clarify consumers fair use rights for digital content.
Like Representative Lofgren, I believe that "Contrary to the intent of Congress, the DMCA has been used to legitimize...control over consumer uses. It's been used to prohibit lawful users from circumventing technical restrictions, even to pursue their fair use rights."
I believe that Fair Use is an important issue that's been overlooked in the debate, and that the long term effects of the DMCA on Fair Use are detrimental to society. Passage of this Act will be a boon preserving the Fair Use rights of your constituents.
Sincerely,
-----
Interesteing reference in Section 4 of the legislation:
SECTION 4:
Today, when a consumer purchases a book, they are free to lend their copy to a friend, or to sell their copy to a used books store. Section 4 allows consumers to do the same thing with digital content by extending the first sale doctrine - codified in section 109 of Title 17 - to digital transmissions. At the same time, it protects copyright holders by restricting such transmissions to a single recipient and requiring consumers to transmit their copies with copy-control restrictions in place. Consumers also have to get rid of their copy after they transmit the work to someone else. (underline added by me)
This is good, legal, and just. If only people would do that. Sure it is a pain to delete your copy when you lend it out, or to remember who has it and if they "gave it back" (by deleting their copy or by sending/ftping it back to you).
The real important part of this law is the extension of the fair use to digital works, even if it shouldn't be obviously there by default. Having something expressly writting rather than implied is necessary.
(Simpson's quote regarding illegal practices performed in international waters)
"Over there is a ship re-broadcasting major league baseball with implied oral consent instead of express written consent."
robi
I was going to send a message to my representative about this until I realized that Zoe Lofgren is my representative. Therefore, I win.
Maybe con-gress isn't the opposite of pro-gress all of the time after all...
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
BALANCE is The Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations Act.
Obviously, we need legislation to keep our representatives from wasting too much time thinking up clever acronyms. I would like to propose a bill entitled Legislation Insulated from Acronyms by Representatives.
Oh, wait...
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
The proposed title 17 section 123(b) is crippled in that it doesn't apply to barring licensure of software in ways that would impede limits on copyright in title 17. Nice as this generally is, it's still not going far enough in protecting customers and promoting science.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Everyone knows that people will violate copy protection algorithms anyway, whether it is legal or not. And, the people who break the protection are not (in most cases) the average Joe. What I see this law doing is allowing enterprising individuals, who are the ones most commonly blocked by the DMCA's restriction of fair use, to continue to go about their business, in a legal fashion. This legislation just strips off the layer of rules that prevented currently legal activities from continuing, without weakening any of the rules for violation of copyrights.
I went ahead and read the article... not only does she seem to "get it," she also seems to be trying to put it into law in a relatively unintrusive way... by (a) extending some definitions, (b) codifying into written law some points long held in common law (e.g., those regarding fair use), and (c) definitively casting shrinkwrap licenses as unenforceable to the extent that they might be used to "take away" the Fair Use rights of consumers.
:)
It's a very well-written and fine-tuned attempt to swing the balance of copyright back toward the public again. It's not overreaching (as was the DMCA) and seems to be able to do only what it was intended to do - restore Fair Use - and no more.
It also supports things like DeCSS by making legal the disemmination of tools to allow Fair Use to be exercised IF the copyright holders do not make such means availalbe. This is tantamount to telling the RIAA and MPAA and BSA (Business Software Alliance), "Fair Use is here to stay - so you'd best figure out a way to deal with this issue technologically right now (something they have been VERY reluctant to attempt), instead of beating it to death with legislation. You have your choice - you may choose to find a solution you like - but if you don't/can't/won't address the problem, someone else can now fix it for you whether you like it or not."
Applause for Zoe!
Now, I'm off to write my congresscritter - or perhaps (since her local office is right across the street from where I work), visit in person to make my views on this matter known.
--Posted by myself.
One thing that it's important to realize is that the DMCA (and other laws of the same stripe) not only have no effect at all on piracy, they were never really intended to address piracy, regardless of all the lip service provided in that direction.
These laws are primarily a control issue, and those that bought these laws (and bought they certainly were, there is no evidence at all that the general voting constituency clamored for these laws), want to have complete control over how (and where and on what) you experience their content, and the concept of fair use is anathema to them.
The vast majority of piracy can be addressed by directly targeting the major pirating organizations that distribute in a mass production fashion.
I fully support the right of copyright owners to have the limited rights granted to them, and fully support targeting anyone who actively violates copyright law. But none of these laws, nor any of the other copyright protection schemes do anything but inconvenience the general user and attempt to criminalize legitimate fair use behaviour. The actual copyright violators out there are not detrimentally affected by these issues, at all.
In addition, laws such as the DMCA are far more often being used to hamper and threaten legitimate competition, rather than address real copyright violations.
The suggestion that has the most chance of working is to target the actual violators, and stop treating the general population as criminals simply because they actually bought the product.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
I know, I know, we talk about this all the time...
And the reason we talk about it all the time is that these two desirable things can't be reconciled without ever-greater levels of technological evil stuff materializing (Paladium, anyone?). Give me the technological ability to have my fair use rights, and I've also got the technological ability to pirate.
The world is messy.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
From page 8:
(c) Circumvention for Noninfringing uses -
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a person who lawfully obtains a copy or phonorecord of a work, or who lawfully receives a transmission of a work, may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to the work or protects a right of a copyright holder under this title if -
(A) such act is necessary to make nonifringing use of the work under this title; and
(B) copyright holder fails to make publicly available the necessary means to make such noninfringing use without additional cost or burden to such person.
I don't agree with (A) "and" (B); I think it should be (A) *or* (B) there. Why should anyone's fair use be impacted by any "means" that copyright holders may or may not provide? In fact, this word "means" is not defined anywhere. Since when is it *fair use* that everyone has to use the "means" that copyright holders provide for consumption of their content?
They should have a copyright only on content, and, as long as I don't violate any other laws, I should be able to use whatever "means" I want to enjoy that content, whether or not similar "means" already exist from the copyright holders.
..because, if this passes into law, my eleet DeCSS t-shirt will be uncool.
Please, leave me this last consolation in an otherwise gloomy existence
of being shunned by my peers. I beg you, vote against this monstrosity.
Finally, an attempt to plug the holes left open by the DMCA. It would seem that the RIAA, MPAA, and many software companies are largely to blame for their own predicament since the former two were willing to enter the electronic age on their own and only recently began initiatives to do the same whiole the third had reps using false advertising then suing customers who proved them wrong. While artists/musicians do have a right to recieve compensation for their works, the RIAA should not have a legally-protected monopoly on CDs even in the face of fair use. Many of the people who use Kazaa and similar services would likely stop if the greed of the CEOs and certain musicians allowed for a drop in price. Similarly, software companies should not be allowed to make false claims like "unbreakable codes" then litigate people who show how fradulent these claims are. If anything, the latter companies should be liable for false advertising and deceptive business practices, not allowed to prosper and benefit from a protectionist corporate cloak. How can we balance the need for protecting consumer and producer alike? I wonder if it would be possible to use binary files of some sort, like MP3s that could be transferred all over the place but would only work given another piece of software encoded by, say, an IP address. Artists and companies who work hard and play fair should get some benefit back, but we also need a counter-DMCA to punish both the pirates and the companies who blatantly exploit the technology for profit.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
That's because their publisher (Eidos) never paid them their royalties for Thief 2. Looking Glass went under before they were due. Eidos was having its own financial difficulties at the time (overfunding Daikatana didn't help there), and was unable to rescue them.
Oh yes, pirates harm Microsoft so much that they only have a 30% profit margin.
#include <disclaimer.h>
As for software, honestly I can't address that other than to say you're the first person I've ever heard claim that Thief 2 was so heavily pirated it ran them out of business. They certainly didn't claim that. I certainly bought my copy legitimately. What more do you want?
Most people are reasonable and law abiding and recognize the value of paying others for the entertainment they provide. If the value proposition of the entertainment was good, piracy would only infect the segments of society that either 1) simply can't afford much of anything (who arguably aren't likely to have internet access anyway) or 2) would be pirating for the fun of it regardless.
Me, I think that being able to download music, check it out, THEN decide if I want to buy it is a Good Thing[tm]. Given that ClearChannel controls so much of the radio market that I hardly hear anything I give a damn about on the airwaves any more (to get me excited to go buy stuff), and given that the labels as a general rule are releasing so much crap, and given that the resale value of a CD is insignificant (I'm lucky to get $5 for a new CD I bought for $18 and listened to once? Insane), I don't see any other avenue to go through. All the MP3's I've downloaded fall into three broad categories:
- things I thought I might like, but didn't (the new Massive Attack, the new Tori Amos both qualify here)
- things I thought I might like, and did, and then went and bought the cd
- things that I'd buy if they were available from the labels, but they don't deign to release (e.g. The Boomtown Rats _Fine Art of Surfacing_)
None of these is a case where I am stealing from the artist. If anything, the labels, by refusing to release older work that is still of interest to me, is denying the artists the chance to make more royalties from me. If I were forced to spend $13 net on albums I didn't like, I just wouldn't spend anything. That's not a value proposition I can live with, and the industry ought to think hard about how much less they'd be making if everyone made that judgement.7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
First of all, I think you are looking at things in a sort of strange way. I am assuming you are not a troll in this response and that you truly believe what you are saying and are asking the question with honest intent.
I think that the purpose of copyright law is to build an intellectual commons by leasing the commonly owned intellectual property back to their contributors. The emphasis needs to be on fair use and the transition to the public domain rather than the sort of perpetuity of ownership and control over these things that are now the focus of the law (remembering that the CTEA was passed because Disney was about to lose copyright on the Mickey Mouse character).
So rather than asking "how can publisher's protect their investment" we need to be asking "How can we entice publishers to release material so that it can eventually become public domain?"
This is not an easy question to answer, so most people have answered simply by not asking.
My proposal would do as follows:
1: Reduce the copyright term for digital works back to 28 years.
2: Require DRM-free versions to exist in an escrow service provided by the US Copyright Office. When the copyright term expires, anyone can, for cost of copying and shipping, requiest a copy of the DRM-free content.
3: Allow total restriction for the duration of the copyright term including any DRM and overriding first sale.
4: If software is the content being protected, require that the *source code* be escrowed, not just the binaries.
Then we can try to reduce the copyright term of print items too.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
is there a topic that the Simpson's hasn't covered yet? Possibly abortion since I can't recal that ever comming up in an episode
Kang: "Hmm.. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others."
Crowd: (Cheers)
These laws are primarily a control issue, and those that bought these laws (and bought they certainly were, there is no evidence at all that the general voting constituency clamored for these laws), want to have complete control over how (and where and on what) you experience their content, and the concept of fair use is anathema to them.
This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that I see on here all the time. It's insightful from the perspective that it points out that it's detrimental to society to have restrictions in place that prevent the free flow of art and information. I wholeheartedly agree. On the other hand, this kind of argument fails to address the real question here.
The main reason I have a problem here is that I can't imagine a boardroom full of executives coming to the conclusion that free use is anathema. "Yes," they say, "if we were to prevent our product from being sampled and redistributed for educational purposes, we'd make millions!" In my mind, there's simply no way that's the case.
Remember that the people behind these corporations are exactly that; people. They're not monsters hell-bent on destroying civilization, they are simply under pressure from their constituents (anyone who owns stock) to make money doing what they do. That's the way it should work; capitalism is about profit motive. If owners of copyright all over the country want to prevent the reproduction and distribution of their intellectual property from being so easy that an autistic chipmunk could figure it out, they probably have a genuine fear of losing real customers.
Don't get me wrong here, I hate copy protection. All I'm saying is that you haven't provided an answer to my question. Given that copy protection is both worthless and harmful to the consumer, how should a copyright owner go about preventing their information from being spread all over the world and enjoyed without their being recompensed? Peace, ~SL
I am writing to encourage you to support Representative Zoe Lofgren's "Balance Act" (HR 1066).
As a software developer AND digital content consumer, I strongly believe in striking a balance between both content consumers' and producers' digital rights. HR 1066 does just this by addressing some of the more onerous effects the DMCA has (and will continue to have, if unchecked) on our future in the Information Age.
I am a strong believer in the power of the free exchange of information, and many content producing corporate media groups and organizations (at their worst embodied by organizations such as the BSA, the MPAA, and the RIAA) have so far shown absolutely no concern for the content consumer's Fair Use Rights OR the content producer's (in the form of artists, programmers, musicians, etc). rights of control over their own creations.
A balance MUST be struck, and thus far no organization or group has had the resources to combat the huge amount of money that corportate lobbiests have used to further their own profit-driven goals.
Copyright and intellectual property rights exist for the Public Good, not an unlimited, government-guaranteed revenue stream. HR 1066 is a start to bringing those ideals back to what our founding fathers had in mind when they established this great country.
I would like to close with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
" If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
Please SUPPORT HR 1066, and oppose any further laws that seek to erode our Fair Use Rights.
Please, Oh Please, don't give them ideas.
I know this isn't strictly on-topic; my point is just that you conclude from the fact that Congresswoman Lofgren has the same position you have on this issue that she's the greatest leader our nation has ever seen. Keep an eye on her, and judge her by her entire record, not just her most recent bill.
I write in my journal
Does anyone else find irony in the fact that the bill is distributed in Adobe PDF format? I seem to recall them bringing a certain Sklyarov character running afoul of them and the DMCA a few years ago....
The government needs to at least provide the option of PostScript, text-only or other non-corporate formats for bills and laws.
I find it mildly disturbing that American copyright law ultimately decides the law for the rest of the world
Hey now, you don't want us to give up on copyright inspectors do you? If he doesn't disarm his weapons of mass P2P, then we will disarm him.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
What should they do? Make software cheaper, and make software better. Same goes for audio CDs.
I want more for less. And the fact that I can't have it is somehow indicative of a fatal flaw in our economic or political system. Waa.
I write in my journal
I would like to apologize to you on behalf of all of us who have occassion to belong to the moderator class of /. user.
Clearly one of us has been ignoring his doctor's advice to stop sniffing glue.
Had your post been moderated down as "Overrated" or perhaps even "troll," I wouldn't have agreed, but I would have let it slide without comment, even in metamoderation.
Not being one to care overmuch about protecting my karma, however, I feel it behooves me to make this gesture in your behalf and beg your indulgence in not holding the single act against an entire class.
Now *this* post, in the limited sense, is offtopic. Of course that's only if you take the limited view and don't see the validity of comments on the topic as being on topic. Personally I believe a certain amount of metatopical discussion only adds to the depth and intelligence of the overall base, but clearly there are those who differ.
Or sniff glue.
Yours,
KFG
If this is passed, I can't imagine a situation where someone will be found guilty of breaking the circumvention law, where their action wouldn't have already been a crime in 1997.
Can anyone think of a situation where the circumvention provisions won't be useless?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This bill has been refered to the Judiciary Committee and from there will most likely be sent to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Everybody ought to lick the stamp and write there Rep. but if you vote in the districts of any of the following it is especially important.
Thank you,
JFMILLER
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) [Chair]
Lamar Smith (R-TX) (Sub Committee chair)
John Conyers, Jr (D-MI) * [Ranking Democrat]
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) *
Henry J Hyde (R-IL) *
Richard Boucher (D-VA) *
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) *
Robert C Scott (D-VA)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)*
Jerrold Nadler (D NY)
William L. Jenkins (R-TN) *
Melvin L. Watt (D-NC)
Spencer Bachus (R-AB) *
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) * [Bill's Sponcer]
Mark Green (R-WI)*
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Rick Keller (R-FL)*
Maxine Waters (D-CA) *
Melissa Heart (R-PA) *
Martin T Meehan (D-MA) *
Mike Pence (R-IN) *
William Dalahunt (D-MA) *
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) *
Robert Wexler (D- FL) *
John Carter (R-TX) *
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) *
John Hostettler (R-IN)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY) *
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Adam B Schiff (D-CA)
Chriss Cannon (R-UT)
Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA)
Steve King (R-IA)
Howard Coble (R-NC)
Steve Cabot (R-OH)
Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Chris Cannon (R-UT)
* -- Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
I don't argue that kazaa, et.al. are not a part of the problem, merely that they aren't, by far, the most economically damaging form of distribution. And anyway, it can be argued that, in some cases, the p2p method of distribution is just as mass production as the piracy rings.
The point being that the DMCA, and the various forms of copy protection don't actually DO anything to stop this behaviour. Copyright law prior to the DMCA had all the necessary legal footing to pursue copyright violators.
My original point still stands, pursue the violators (p2p or otherwise), don't make laws that penalize valid use, and don't treat legal users as criminals (which is what these mechanisms do in practice, if not in principle).
More importantly, don't penalize the technology (p2p, etc.) to address the problem.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
Representative McDermott,
I wish to express my support of California Representative Zoe Lofgren's Balance Act (H.R. 1066). It promises to fix the gross injustice imposed on consumers with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that inhibits fair use and ultimately restrains trade. It makes illegal the circumvention of technological restrictions in any case, even that which involves fair use such as the compression of a copyright-protected CD for use in an MP3 player or the burning of a "mix" CD of licensed songs. When a consumer buys a CD, they do it not for the media that a song is recorded on, but rather the song itself. The DMCA unreasonably limits the consumer's rights over their own property and makes criminals out of those who attempt to regain them.
Furthermore, the DMCA fails in its original intention of addressing the very real problem of Internet piracy. Draconian restrictions do not fix the problem, but rather exacerbate it by alienating consumers by effectively requiring illegal activity for fair use. It places special and unreasonable restrictions on digital recordings; someone can sell a used book or lend it to a friend but cannot with a digital recording that is lawfully obtained.
Please vote for H.R. 1066 and encourage your fellow representatives to do likewise.
I don't picture the executives saying literally, 'Let's counter fair use', but what they do say is, 'How can we make more money off of our content'? And in some cases, they come up with the idea that making it difficult or illegal to engage in fair use activities might make someone buy an extra copy, etc.
In addition, many of the apologists or spokespersons for the industries, such as Valenti, have stated outright that they don't consider fair use to be a valid concern for digital media. Bear in mind, that many of these people do see fair use as a threat to their bottom line, or their control of their content
I'm definitely all for capitalism, and I do understand the circumstances under which many of these decisions are made, but they are the wrong decisions, nonetheless, if for no other reason that treating your customers like criminals is most assuredly contrary to the profit motive, no matter how good it looks on paper. In addition, such methods are FAR more likely to result in the loss of customers than otherwise.
As before, the correct solution to these problems is to actually address the violations (and the violators) of the law, to treat your customers as though you really want their business (instead of begrudgingly treating them like a commodity), and to convince the general public that your product has enough value to justify their purchase.
The legal framework of copyright had sufficient strength to address actual copyright violators prior to the DMCA.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
that *with* the DMCA in place, as she is writ, the easiest way for me to play a DVD on my Linux install, or to have a backup copy, is to avail myself of the pirate market, thus driving that very market which the act was ostensibly intended to forstall.
Go figure.
This is always a good sign that a bad law was written for the wrong reasons. The Lexmark case is a real life example of a reductio ad absurdum argument agains the DMCA. I believe the correct Latin term of legalese for this is "doofey."
Another irony is that the very existence of the DMCA serves to retain VHS as the major consumer media. People like to copy shit. They will continue to use whatever medium is available to them to do so freely. Thus, VHS will also remain a valid market for pirates.
But think of this. I have a DVD legally purchased. I have a legal DVD player as well. I am thus licensed to output the content *without any violation of the DMCA.*
So, I use this to pump output to a VHS recorder and BINGO! I'm in the VHS pirate business, each VHS tape a first generation copy of the digital source, with perferctly legitimate licenses for everything but the final VHS.
The DMCA isn't an antipiracy tool. It *enhances* the output of analog piracy. Legally.
What's wrong with this picture? As you so eloquently show, the DMCA is *not* an antipiracy measure. It is a control of the legitimate licensee measure, and one step on the road to pay per view/read/listen.
I keep buying books, on paper. I advise you do the same. It beats the hell out of trying to memorize them on a pay per read basis.
KFG
The real evil isn't the DMCA, but copyrights being taken to their logical conclusion. In the mind of the RIAA - the DMCA is just a way for them to secure rights they've always been told that they have.
If I told someone that they owned a house, but then said they couldn't sell it, rent it, go inside it, use it, or even take a loan out on it - it would be a fraud. Either they own the house or they don't, and the same is true with copyrights today. We cant keep crying out that copyrights are some type of glorious rights that will help artists, and expect people never to try and transfer, sell, or secure them from new technologies that threaten them, like the internet.
That is why this whole compromize debate is pitifull. It reminds me of the people who insisted and desperately believed that the free states could peacefully get along with the slave states in the 1850's. Then as today, they just couldn't see that the root cause of the problem was people trying to exercise rights that they've been told they have, but didn't.
IMHO, the sooner we get to the point that copyrights are not really a just right - and get rid of them, the sooner we will be able to get on with the information age and make everyone happy.
"encourage your representative to support the bill."
I don't have that much money.
For those who may not know it, Zoe Lofgren is representing Silicon Valley in congress.
So rather than being a rare honest and insightful figther for What's Right, she is just another politician running the errands of the corporations in her district. These just happen to be corporations whose agenda is aligned with the average Slashdot reader.
That doesn't mean this legislation isn't "right". But it's naive to believe that is why she is pushing for it.
Kang: Abortions for all
Crowd: (boo)
Kang: Very well, no abortions for anyone.
Crowd: (boo)
Kang: Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
Crowd: (cheers)
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
What I'd like to know is why we (in the form of our government) should even grant a copyright for material that is only released in a copy restricted format?
After all the point of a copyright is that the material belongs to the public and is "leased" back to the author for a period of time. But if the public can't access the material once the copyright term has expired...?
In my experience, it's usually better to take incremental improvements rather than insist on perfection or nothing. The "perfection or nothing" attitude usually results in nothing. Congresswoman Lofgren's bill is way better than what we have now. Like everything, this bill can be improved, and by participating in the process, we can help implement those improvements. But if we walk away from the table, we lose all influence in the process.
Many posters also seem to assume that they have little or no practical influence. In my experience, that is quite untrue. It's the small actions you take every day that make the difference. Do something every day to support freedom on the Internet. Make it a habit. Do it even if it's only sending a single email. Put it in your calendar so that you are reminded every day to do one thing, no matter how small, to support freedom on the Internet. Many days, you will do a great deal to support the cause. Every day, you will do at least a little something. By spending five minutes a day supporting something you care about, you can multiply your influence by a factor of at least 365, more as you gradually learn which actions are the most effective.
Give it a try for a couple months. Once you get used to it, it's easy, quick and pleasant. Focus on creating the right causes, and the effects will take care of themselves. Do the right thing without worrying about the eventual outcome, or how much progress you're making. It's like walking to a far-away city: put one foot in front of the other, and sooner or later you'll wake up and see the city gates in the distance.
That's debatable.