Slashdot Mirror


Library of Congress to Hold DMCA Hearings

petong writes "The Library of Congress's Copyright Office will be holding hearings to find out if changes need to be made to the DMCA, according to News.com. 'Anyone with strong feelings about the DMCA, one way or another, may submit a request by Apr. 1 to testify during the public forums, the Copyright Office said in its announcement. The hearing dates in the U.S. capital will be Apr. 11, Apr. 15 and May 2. The dates and locations in California have not been set yet.'"

122 comments

  1. Can this work? by cajunfj40 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It'd be nice if we got listened to this time.

    1. Re:Can this work? by SuDZ · · Score: 1

      Even just a little would be nice. At least not go so overboard at times.

      SuDZ

    2. Re:Can this work? by Pxtl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, whos going to do the talking is a big issue. All the people I can think of who've been most vocal about the DMCA (Katz, RMS, etc) are the absolute last people I'd want representing us - we'd look like lunatic fringe, and add credence to the yuppies pushing this thing.

      Whaat we'd need are well-spoken workers in computer technology and academics who can say that this limitation is bad for the economy and for progress/invention.

  2. April Fools deadline by codeonezero · · Score: 5, Funny

    I sure hope its not some sick joke by the Copyright Office :)

    Like have them get us all riled up about complaining only to go with recomendations by the MPAA or RIAA.

    Doh!!! Not another bad april fools joke ..

    Hehe :)

    --

    ....
    int main (void) { ... }

    1. Re:April Fools deadline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally April 1st is the end of the quarter, and thus lots of important happenings fall on the date. It's not surprising.

  3. And all you people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who bitch and moan and cry about the DMCA who don't submit to make your voice heard in a forum that actually matters (it's true.. /. doesn't matter) are hypocrites. (I'd wager a few bananas that's pretty much all of you).

    1. Re:And all you people by DeltaSigma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right, AC, because clearly every person in the United States who has a problem with the DMCA can afford air-fare, train-fare, or bus-fare to California or D.C. Did you even read the article?

      Of course not. Well here you go anyway, when it says "may submit a request by Apr. 1 to testify during the public forums." They mean, "This will present a chance for people to show up and make their case and build a good record."

      Notice the necessity of physical presence? Notice the other complaints on /. about people being out of work? Do you see any conflict here?

    2. Re:And all you people by MalcalypseTheYounger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As opposed to the people that actually vote for candidates that don't support this sort of crap. I guess it's much better to show up after the fact to say your elected representatives don't actually represent you.

    3. Re:And all you people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...Who bitch and moan and cry about the DMCA who don't submit to make your voice heard in a forum that actually matters (it's true.. /. doesn't matter) are hypocrites. (I'd wager a few bananas that's pretty much all of you)

      Wow, cool. This is a perfect time to reference something I read in LiveJournal perusal the other day. Why? Because it brilliantly summarizes why this anonymous coward is making a flawed and ridiculously unfair argument.

      On pro-war activists: I would like to propose that all pro-war people be drafted into the military and sent to the front lines. Money where your mouth is, folks.

      Sounds familiar? Here's the problem. The parent poster is trying to create a direct relationship between a person's stance on an issue, and their character, by saying those that don't attend this conference are hypocrites.

      From the lengthy LiveJournal thread:
      You're making an untestable proposition in order to attack the character - not the position - of those you disagree with.

      'Nuff said. Asking everyone who is against the DMCA and complains here to attend a conference which requires money and time to be thrown at the problem is unfair. I reserve the right to object to the DMCA on my own terms, thank you.

    4. Re:And all you people by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention all the people who live outside the United States but are affected by this kind of crappy law...

  4. Anyone here trying? by SuDZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So anyone here on sending in something? What about a collaborated effort here on slashdot, as maybe a draft and then send it?

    SuDZ

    1. Re:Anyone here trying? by Telastyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It should be like the interviews: everyone post drafts/revisions, top 10 moderated get sent in heheh

    2. Re:Anyone here trying? by wolf- · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I commented during the first written comment period and will most likely request an appearence at these hearings.

      My clients include Universities, Colleges, and High Schools whose teachers are currently unclear in regards to fair use for educational purposes. Additionally, the DMCA on its face prevents them from media shifting their archives of older media to new formats.

      --
      ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
    3. Re:Anyone here trying? by stmintz · · Score: 4, Funny

      That really doesn't seem like a bad idea. I for one think it'd be great to see. Everyone here complains, might as well put it to some use.

    4. Re:Anyone here trying? by Daniel_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can't make the trip to the meeting, but I did submit a proposal during the comment period. I requested that source code not be protected by the anti-circumvention provisions. (Essentially, reverse engineering code would no longer be a crime unless someone could prove it was actually protecting something.) Not sure if thats what you were looking for, but my 2 cents...

      --
      The number you have dialed is imaginary, please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
  5. physical slashdoting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone with strong feelings about the DMCA, one way or another, may submit a request by Apr. 1 to testify during the public forums,

    will this be the first physical slashdoting ever?

    1. Re:physical slashdoting? by cajunfj40 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hmm. If you mean "overwhelming the resources with a crowd of people directed from the slashdot website" not likely.

      However, it's possible that if enough people who are interested in taking out the more nonsensical parts of the DMCA - and can make cogent arguments and come across as reasonable people - apply to speak, "we" could be in the majority there. (Where "we" are those who don't like the restrictions the DMCA imposes and "they" are the likes of the RIAA/MPAA/etc.)

    2. Re:physical slashdoting? by WTFmonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other news, several RIAA higher-ups were crushed to death under a hailstorm of pocket-protectors, retainers, and taped-together eyeglassses.

    3. Re:physical slashdoting? by frdmfghtr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, it's possible that if enough people who are interested in taking out the more nonsensical parts of the DMCA - and can make cogent arguments and come across as reasonable people - apply to speak, "we" could be in the majority there. (Where "we" are those who don't like the restrictions the DMCA imposes and "they" are the likes of the RIAA/MPAA/etc.)

      "We" may be in the physical majority, but who has the majority of numbers to the left of the decimal point in the bank balance?

      People don't lobby Congress, dollars do.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
  6. Dear LOC committee, by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would like to point out that there is nothing in the DMCA that prevents you from continuing to persue the occupation you desire. You were interested in becoming a lawyer weren't you?

    --
    You never know...
  7. How about a massive rollback of IP law? by Anik315 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IP law is supposed to promote innovation, but it has quite the opposite effect. We have really annhiliated the original 14 years was.

    Why not just pick a different value for each medium. Books get 30 years. Drugs get 5 years. Videogames get 7 years... etc.

    1. Re:How about a massive rollback of IP law? by MisterFancypants · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not likely. Nothing of this sort would ever occur without first having massive changes in campaign law. It is damn near impossible to hold a national office without being completely financially indebted to all sorts of commercial interests want copyrights EXTENDED, not reduced...And that explains why this is the current trend, and will be for a long, long time.

    2. Re:How about a massive rollback of IP law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a decent idea, it'll never fly past them congresscritters who are in bed with the IPDroids. The fallacy about the Stock Market and US markets is that it's a "free market". First off, the market is over-regulated when it comes to preserving the status quo, and under-regulated when it comes to protecting consumers. Congress picks it's people who get on board at the various agencies and they know how they'll act/react, so they know what stocks to shove in their pockets! IP gets bought up by corporations, and the benifits to consumers and our planet, never see the light of day, all in the name of protecting profits of industries. You can tell from the series of corporate layoffs, congress's massive giveaways to corporations without strings attached, that the only thing congress and it's agencies care about is PROFIT and MAKING THINGS MORE EXPENSIVE. The easiest solution, is to blow up the damn planet, then all those people screwing over the public and consumers, can sit there with a heap of rubble, feeling quite selfish and bad, wondering how did things get like this, with only themself to blame.

    3. Re:How about a massive rollback of IP law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just pick a different value for each medium. Books get 30 years. Drugs get 5 years. Videogames get 7 years... etc.

      I imagine John Ashcroft also had this idea... With the Bible as an exception of course!

    4. Re:How about a massive rollback of IP law? by Have+Blue · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Because these two cures will be worse than the disease:
      • Every time a new medium is invented, a huge debate over what time should be assigned to it.
      • Constant attempts to classify new products as new media, followed by point 1.
  8. This is not a license to act stupid by NixterAg · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is an excellent opportunity to show that the DMCA is crap but please, those of you who attend don't make fools of yourselves. That means dress nice (no DeCSS t-shirts and wear a tie) and that means bathe, shave, and shower. That also means wear both shoes.

    The objective is not to be seen, it's to convince others that your position is the correct and just position.

    1. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by svallarian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Note: This above does not apply if RMS wants to speak.

      --
      I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
    2. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 0, Troll
      If Stallman wants to speak, he shouldn't be allowed to. I have always found him to be such an unappetizing human being with his holier than thou attitude that even when I agree with what he is trying to say, I am annoyed. Imagine what people who don't even understand the issue think when they're confronted with him. His radicalism hurts the cause because he tries to make everything into some sort of quasi-religious debate. That is the wrong approach as it won't stand up against the argument from the other side of the aisle - namely an argument based on faulty logic, faulty studies, and further incorrect data. The arguments need to be made using someone with an ability to speak rationally and discuss something in a civil manner. Stallman can do neither of these.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    3. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Damn, another false lead.

      I keep trying to get a license to act stupid, but so far, it had been fruitless. If anyone knows where I can get one, I would really appreciate it.

      Until I have a license, I am afraid to act stupid, because I might get caught.

    4. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by FatalTourist · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is an excellent opportunity to show that the DMCA is crap but please, those of you who attend don't make fools of yourselves. That means dress nice (no DeCSS t-shirts and wear a tie) and that means bathe, shave, and shower. That also means wear both shoes.

      Bah! Shoes are for people who go outside, not geeks!

      --


      Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
    5. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by samantha · · Score: 0, Interesting

      What in the ***# does how you dress have to do with delivering a cogent point? I don't see that dressing like a lawyer, veep or someone in marketing (apologies to folks in each of these categories where appropriate) makes your view one bit more likely to be heard and considered. Politicians are used to suits. But this makes suits really irrelevant. Something different might even be more advantageous. Go with what makes you comfortable, confident and strong. If suits aren't your normal thing then suits probably aren't it.

    6. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let us know how far you get once you join the real world, mmmkay?

    7. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by NixterAg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't about you, it's about your audience. You won't get treated professionally if you don't look professional. That's just the way the world works. It doesn't matter how sage your points are if noone is listening.

    8. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wake up, you are in the real world.
      People in authority are far more likly to listen to you if you dress approprietly.
      Politcians and lawyers where suits because they know this.
      It shouldn't matter, but it DOES matter.

      Everybody should have at least 1 suit, perferrably 3 Black, grey, and blue. Get them tailored so they're are more comfortable.

      Black:weddings and funerals.
      Grey:meeting new clients, looking for work/contracts
      Blue: Business dinner, Meeting with established clients, Back-up for business trips.

      This is a reality of society. I write code, generally I am in levis/dockers and a button shirt. I don't like ties, but there are occasions where they should be worn.

      Even rock stars wear suits to court.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Stallman wants to speak, he shouldn't be allowed to.

      Yeah, I always hated that first amendment too.

    10. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you dumb fucking jackass - i was saying he should be prevented from speaking by his peers, not the government. why don't you read what i posted and try to pull your head out of your ass you worthless shit?

    11. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you agree that government shouldn't be allowed to prevent people speaking but you think that private groups should be able to? So if we don't like what you say we can come round and beat you to a pulp, or what machanism do you suggest? You're a moron.

    12. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no you idiot! i'm not saying stallman should be physically restrained from issuing a statement. i am saying that people with power within the GNU franchise should talk with stallman and let him know that his comments will only hurt the cause. jesus christ, you can't understand a fucking thing can you? you must be the dumbest motherfucker ever.

    13. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when you said he "shouldn't be allowed to" you meant "he should be encouraged not to"? Maybe you should stick to posting in your local language, English seems a bit tricky for you.

    14. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by AB3A · · Score: 1
      Congratulations, you have just proven your complete nerdiness. I bow to your massive mental capacity.

      If people didn't evaluate ideas based upon the appearance of the person delivering them, then why do so many TV News anchors dress for the camera?

      In a perfect world we would all think, we would all be considerate, and we would all ignore first impressions. Clearly that rarely happens in government. Think of it as respect for the institutions of our society dress for the occasion.

      --
      Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    15. Re:This is not a license to act stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's funny nigger. if you had read the context and understood it, you would have been able to easily discern that i did not mean he should be legally prevented from speaking but rather prevented by his peers. you're a dumb fucking douchebag and i hope your fight with AIDS ends in a loss soon.

  9. Now is your chance by Hamstaus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Considering the huge amount of "article time" given to YRO and the DMCA over the last while, I would expect that there will be many people taking advantage of this. In fact, there are very many of you out there that would be quite foolish to not take this opportunity... hypocritical even!

    This is going to be like that old political standby... if you don't vote, then you can't complain about the results. The difference here is that there actually is a good candidate that you can vote for!

    --
    I moderate "-1, Fool"
  10. I'm not optimistic.. by debest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I may just be cynical, but...

    The copyright office probably just wants to give the DMCA opponents an official chance to voice their opposition. They can't claim to be fair and impartial if they don't hear these complaints. Then, after "weighing all the arguments" (which will include 99% negative feedback on the DMCA), they will determine that everything is just fine as it is.

    In fact, this conclusion will be further ammunition to the **AA. Why, if some restrictions are acceptable, *surely* more will be better!

    --
    Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
  11. Our lords actually care what we think? yeah right by ShatteredDream · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This won't change anything. People have been speaking out against this since day one. Lot's of very eloquent commentary from every political faction has been written against it and nothing has changed. It won't change because our political class has forsaken then principles of our founders. To our politicians, they're keeping the bread and butter on the table. The ignorant peasants are being served in the "big picture" by loss of liberty in the smaller ones in their minds. Our wealth matters more to politicians than our freedom. I'm sick of those who argue that we can't know what the original intent of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is because our founders gave us our first IP laws.

  12. However... by ThePlague · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your comments become the property of the Federal Government, and viewing of the final report requires agreement to the license agreement.

    1. Re:However... by DanThe1Man · · Score: 1

      You'r name wouldn't happen to be John Baer, would it? I used to have a friend that I lost that used the name "The Plague".

    2. Re:However... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plague... as in hackers?

    3. Re:However... by ThePlague · · Score: 0

      No, sorry, different plague I guess

  13. A good time to bring up H.R. 1066 by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This /. thread from two weeks ago comes to mind: Lofgren Introduces BALANCE Act to Modify DMCA

    I haven't read the bill, but I did check out Representative Lofgren's website. Her points on the issue seem to be quite close to what we have all been clamoring about since the whole DMCA mess got started.

    It may not be a perfect solution, but I would certainly point to it as evidence that this is a real problem and that something needs to be done. I already wrote to my Representative asking him to support the measure. I even got a (seemingly) live e-mail response from an intern saying that my comments were forwarded to the congressman.

  14. Writen comments by mpost4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They have a call for people who want to make a statement in person, I wonder if they will take staments in writing for people who can not go for what ever reason.

  15. Life is offtopic by mpost4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because life does not stop because a war is going on. I don't think life will ever be on topic

    1. Re:Life is offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because life does not stop because a war is going on

      tell that to the thousands of Iraq sucking down on B-52 delivered Incindergel.

  16. I can see it now by bjtuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    Library of Congress guy: "We will now hear from the community delegate from the Slashdot.org website..."

    sl4sHd0TT3r: In Soviet Russia, the MILLENIUM copyrights YOU!

    LoC guy: ?

    sh4sHd0TT3r: goatse.cx!

    LoC guy: ~whimper~

    sh4sHd0TT3r: IANAL, but the DMCA's bad mmkay?

    1. Re:I can see it now by mpost4 · · Score: 2

      you forgot

      War Bad

      Goverment bad

      Religon bad

      those are other opions that exist stronly here on slashdot.

    2. Re:I can see it now by RLiegh · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Hilarious! I think it would go more like this, though:

      Library of Congress guy: "We will now hear from the community delegate from the Slashdot.org website..."

      sl4sHd0TT3r: In Soviet Russia, the MILLENIUM copyrights YOU!

      LoC guy: ?

      *sh4Hd0TT3r drops pants, bends over and exposes (ahem) himself
      sh4sHd0TT3r: goatse.cx!

      LoC guy: ~whimper~
      LoC *faints,vomits*
    3. Re:I can see it now by Noksagt · · Score: 1

      LoC guy: ?

      RIAA/MPAA lawyer: prophet!

    4. Re:I can see it now by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      those are other opions that exist stronly here on slashdot.

      Those opions (?) are hardly unique to slashdot; and therefore don't make for good satire.
  17. Re:Our lords actually care what we think? yeah rig by Hamstaus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's pretty cynical, but then again, we are talking about the US here. The difference here is that this is an 'official' hearing... theoretically the results will be taken into account by the government, unlike the mass of unorganized and unofficial protests that have all come before it.

    So, I suggest that before you go too deep into the 'ignorant peasants and loss of liberty' stuff that you give it a shot and see what happens. Otherwise you're pegging yourself as a hypocrite. "DMCA bad! DMCA bad! What's that? You're going to listen to us? Uh... no! You're not going to listen, I just know it!" I mean, what do you want them to do, repeal it outright without giving it any thought? This is government people... it takes a bit of momentum to change these things.

    --
    I moderate "-1, Fool"
  18. Red Herrings.. by joshsnow · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought the title said, "Library of Congress to Hold DMCA Herrings"
    Just proves you see what you want to see...

  19. Re:Our lords actually care what we think? yeah rig by RMacolyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They may not care, but this is our opportunity to actually go on official government record in opposition to the DMCA. The government must at least acknowledge all evidence and testimony that is submitted at a hearing. It's a matter of it being on the government's record.

  20. LA Dates and Locations by pastorBernie · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Washington Post did a similar story in which they confirmed the Los Angeles dates and locations:

    Los Angeles City Hall
    April 17 : 10:00 am - 4:00 pm
    April 18 : 10:00 am - 4:00 pm
    April 25 : 10:00 am - 3:00 pm

    Mark your calendars.

  21. So what is the fuss about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can some one post important issues wrt DMCA especially things most people on /. don't seem to like.

    For knowledge of general public.

  22. Non-corporate rights ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 1, Funny

    are distracting, destructive and a thing of the past. Haven't you been listening? Stop being so selfish and unpatriotic. Now go unlock your doors. It makes it easier for us to check your homes for illegal content while you sleep.

  23. Please Note: by Rorschach1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Testimony becomes the sole property of the Library of Congress. Unauthorized redistribution or reproduction is expressly prohibited. By submitting your request, you agree to these terms and conditions.

    1. Re:Please Note: by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

      Insightful? It was a joke, and not a very good one. I would have done better, but I wasn't feeling terribly inspired.

      Sheesh.

  24. Capitol? by NickDngr · · Score: 1

    The hearing dates in the U.S. capital...

    Shouldn't that be capitol?

    --
    Yoda of Borg am I! Assimilated shall you be! Futile resistance is, hmm?
    1. Re:Capitol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about Slashdat here.

    2. Re:Capitol? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      Depends. If it's merely someplace in D.C., then it's the capital and the article is correct. If it's in the white stone building with the dome, then it's the capitol and the article is wrong.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  25. Uhh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be 'capitol'. The capital of the US is the dollar. The capitol of the US is DC.

    That will be all.

    1. Re:Uhh. by L7_ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do to you're consul, they will site you're principal bank account two the affect of too million dollars.

      You loose.

    2. Re:Uhh. by bleak+sky · · Score: 1

      No, the capital is the city (Washington, D.C.); the capitol is the building in which Congress holds its meetings. (It also serves as a museum of United States history and art.) Capital always refers to the city in which the capitol resides. :)

  26. Re:Our lords actually care what we think? yeah rig by Telastyn · · Score: 1

    Where when you say momentum you really mean money?

    hrmm. The war is making me overly cynical today methinks...

  27. they'll change copyright law to conform to DMCA by wardk · · Score: 0, Redundant

    the dmca gets "fixed" sometime after hell freezes over

    1. Re:they'll change copyright law to conform to DMCA by wardk · · Score: 1

      I personally feel that it's only redundant if I actually read the other responses before posting. I forgive you.

  28. How about Copyright Hearings? by argoff · · Score: 4, Insightful


    The real problem isn't the DMCA - it's copyright monopolies being taken to their logical conclusion. If you don't cut the vine off at the root, then it will never stop trying to choke you off.

  29. Old arguement, stil works... by b0bd0bbs · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is a link to the DeCSS program, defined as a prime number.
    DeCSS is illegal under the DMCA. Is the prime number that defines it then also illegal? How is a number illegal, exactly? Do you have to skip it when you are counting and if you don't you get arrested under the DMCA?
    Of all the arguements I've heard, this one is the most obvious to me on how broken the DMCA is. It's lunacy. I think I'm breaking the law just linking to the program.

    1. Re:Old arguement, stil works... by return+42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bad argument, for two reasons. First, imagine trying to get through to anyone but a geek with it. Second, one could also convert computer viruses, kiddie porn, or lists of stolen credit card numbers to prime numbers, but this does not make the laws against possessing them nonsensical.

    2. Re:Old arguement, stil works... by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      If I encode child pornography as a prime number, is it still illegal/obscene?

    3. Re:Old arguement, stil works... by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Since when is a list of stolen credit card numbers illegal? I mean, what is it about the mere existence of a list of other people's credit card numbers that is fundamentally wrong? The credit company themselves certainly maintain a list of previously used numbers, many of which were likely stolen at one point. Shouldn't they be prosecuted?

      Or do you mean instead, the act of stealing credit card numbers is bad? Or perhaps, it's using those numbers to other people's detriment that should be illegal? It's a small but very important distinction. Otherwise the parent's scenario of pulling the wrong set of 16 numbers out of one's ass being a felony becomes a legal reality. Your average transcendental number would certainly have more than a few 'illegal numbers' tucked away somewhere.

      An act or piece of information should never, in and of itself, be illegal (but man, how they do try!). The circumstances surrounding it are what matter. Fire is legal, arson is not. Killing is legal, but only if it is suicide, self-defense, or state-sponsored (i.e., executions and war). Taking pictures of naked kids is legal (how many did your parents take of you in the tub or wearing nothing but a hat?), but if intended for sexual purposes they're not. Technically, DeCSS should be legal and stealing DVD's illegal, but good luck trying to convince Valenti of that.

      You may notice that the War on Drugs totally ignores this. Mere possession of what are in some cases naturally occuring substances earn you a few years as a guest of the state. Prohibition that doesn't even wait for you do actually _do_ something bad is not altogether popular and is becoming less so each passing year. And not even The Big Lie approach is succeeding in keeping it in place.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    4. Re:Old arguement, stil works... by clonebarkins · · Score: 1
      Killing is legal, but only if it is suicide, self-defense, or state-sponsored (i.e., executions and war).

      Just a small quibble: In a lot of places, suicide is in fact llegal.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    5. Re:Old arguement, stil works... by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      I think I can assure you, it's not. _Attempted suicide_ may very well be prohibited, but if you do in fact succeed, I can safely guarantee you they won't try to prosecute you.

      Hmmm, on second thought, some organizations are indeed stupid enough to conduct posthumous trials.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    6. Re:Old arguement, stil works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Ireland, sucicide is not illegal... BUT... At least until recently, legally, if you suicided, you were considered to be insane (you just killed yourself => insane.), and therefore your will was nullified... oops.

      Didn't actually reduce suicide rates that much, but the figures for "death by misadventure" thanks to understanding coroners sure were huge.

    7. Re:Old arguement, stil works... by clonebarkins · · Score: 1
      I think I can assure you, it's not. _Attempted suicide_ may very well be prohibited, but if you do in fact succeed, I can safely guarantee you they won't try to prosecute you.

      Well, I know suicide is illegal in England. Physician-assisted suicide is certainly illegal in a lot of places in the US.

      In addition, unprosecuted illegal acts do not make those acts legal. I was thinking more about places that have laws or legislation against suicide. Sure, it is impossible to enforce, and that makes it a stupid law, but it still is illegal for as long as the law exists. I wonder, though, if any of the places where such a law exists have a statute of limitations on committing suicide....?

      Hmmm, on second thought, some organizations are indeed stupid enough to conduct posthumous trials [uga.edu].

      Why does this not surprise me....?

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

  30. Mirror of transcripts by Billly+Gates · · Score: 0, Troll

    A mirror of the transcripts are here.

  31. Re:Our lords actually care what we think? yeah rig by samantha · · Score: 1

    Excuse me, but if the government was going to listen to any argument based on our rights and on reasonable access to information the DMCA would never have become law in the first place. As it stands today, post 9/11, they are even less interested in arguments based on rights, freedom and progress. It is very legitimate to note this and see these proceedings and an irrelevant fop thrown to the sheeple. But then that should lead to something a bit stronger as a followup than apathy.

  32. Re:DMCA PROTESTORS ARE UNIFORMED HIPPIES! by kableh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hippie uniforms? Is that tiedye shirts and sandals?

  33. D-M-C-A! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Young man, don't download that thing.

    I say, young man: neither think 'bout hack-ing.

    I say, young man: someone else owns those files, and if we see - you - smile, imply law-breaking.

    D-M-C-A; don't read or laws!

    D-M-C-A; we give-out negative averment!

    We have all the toys, between you and your wires, and we incriminate regardless how much encription you use

  34. The INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE creates a "taxpayer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, submitting a *voluntary* contract, the 1040, constitutes becoming a "taxpayer" and grants the IRS a fiduciary relationship with your TRUST FUND (SSN), as well as violats the 1974 Privacy Act and construes itself saying the SSN _is_ the iTIN and a TIN is issued if they can't secure the iTIN.

    The IRS incorporated within Baltimore, Maryland. The IRS has its own Secret Service and Department of Treasury. Wonderful, eh?

    Where's Osama; he has not finished his *task* :-)

  35. Re:Our lords actually care what we think? yeah rig by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 4, Informative
    The difference here is that this is an 'official' hearing... theoretically the results will be taken into account by the government, unlike the mass of unorganized and unofficial protests that have all come before it.

    Are you familiar with the UCITA? It's like the DMCA of shrink-wrap licenses. Basically, "Software can have _absolutely anything_ in the license you can't read until you've agreed to it. Software companies are absolved of any and all responsibility for damages from the software they write. Software companies are allowed to put back doors in their software and can disable it on your system if you so much as look at them funny." They try to run something like it through Congress every now and then, but fortunately it's 'only' been passed in two states.

    The UCITA is so bad that even the lawyers have said that it's a terribly bad piece of legislation. And yet they were ignored in Maryland and Virginia. So don't ever buy software written by companies in those states.

    --
    Dyolf Knip
  36. And, if you can't attend.... by Sir+Network · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Give the EFF a few bucks.
    Support those who can attend.

    The first one seems more realistic for those like myself who are stuck in the Midwest on the wrong side of everything. the second is for those of you who are more daring or better connected with people with strong feelings on the issue.

    --
    Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid. --John Wayne
  37. Education is key by ralphart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Educating our legislators is key to all efforts. The supporters of DMCA have very effectively managed to make this all about college students downloading MP3s and bands of overseas pirates selling bootlegged DVDs.

    During the last election cycle I spoke with a congressional candidate about the evils of the DMCA and his only take on it was something needed to be done about blackmarket videos. And this from someone I considered an otherwise reasonable, intelligent candidate.

    Sadly, what is needed is a soundbite arguement to stick in the mind of those for whom soundbites are all that can be recalled.

  38. Re:troll !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderators, please follow the link before you mod up! Sheesh.

  39. Doing the talking? by hackwrench · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lawrence Lessig seems stable enough. And weren't there some economists that said copyright was hurting the economy.

  40. Re:April Fools deadline - Indeed! by octalgirl · · Score: 4, Interesting
    First they blew the address to submit:

    Important Notice: The email address for submission of requests to testify that was posted on the Copyright Office website prior to 11:00 a.m., E.S.T. on March 19, 2003, was inaccurate. The correct email address is 1201@loc.gov and NOT 1201@nt3.loc.gov. Any requests that were sent to 1201@nt3.loc.gov were not received, and anyone who sent such a request must resubmit the request to the correct email address: 1201@loc.gov....

    If you read through the comments, especially'joint reply comment' 23 , from the RIAA and MPAA and friends, it is not good. Things like
    "The justification for allowing someone to break through a protection today because it may not work tomorrow is unpersuasive."
    and
    "Finally, Submission 35(1), addressing copy-protected CDs, is out of the scope of this proceeding because, among other things, it appears that the proposal is directed at copy controls that inadvertently deny access by virtue of a malfunction, rather than to technical measures that control access in the ordinary course of their operation. In any event, this submission does not meet the requisite burden of showing a substantial adverse impact caused by Section 1201(a)(1)."
    and
    "If that is the case, a fear of malfunction does not convert a copy control technology into an access control, nor does it provide any legal basis for creating any exemption to Section 1201(a)(1).9"
    and
    "Turning to the submissions themselves, we do not believe that any of them carries the burden required to justify the recognition of any of the classes proposed in this area."
    It's basically full of things like this. First the LOC made it almost impossible to meet their requirments, and they only accepted 50 comments. We know there had to be a lot more than that. When they said they wanted facts to back it up they meant it. Now we can see why. Some of these companies are picking apart the original comments piece by piece, and if facts weren't not sufficient, they are trying to get them thrown out. And they haven't even gotten to court yet. I have a bad feeling about this.

    (to save time, the bashing begins around page 11)
  41. mod parent up by Snover · · Score: 1

    this is hilarious. at least, I *hope* the AC was trying to poke fun at patriotism in this country.

    --

    [insert witty comment here]
  42. Question: DMCA and IBM PC Clones? by ch-chuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here's a discussion quesiton: if the DMCA had be in force in 1980, would Compaq computer's PC clone have been illegal? If not, wouldn't a simple XOR encryption make cloning 'circumvention' and thus illegal? What effect would the DMCA have had on the fantastic growth of the PC clone industry if clones were illegal, not to mention Microsoft's fantastic profits?

    Next: The Lexmark toner cartridge case. Isn't it dangerous to allow manufacturers to totally lock in parts and supplies simply by putting a microcontroller in it, which must be reverse engineered to create? Consider this hypothetical: GM makes 'smart' brake shoes, with embedded controllers and software (say they monitor temperature and wear). Couldn't GM then use the DMCA to make any competitive brake shoes illegal, thus creating a monopoly on replacement parts and charging whatever price they want for them? Would you want to have to buy a 'smart air filter' for your car for $250, with only one legal source of them?

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  43. Re:Anyone here trying? - I will by bkocik · · Score: 1

    I live close enough to DC to attend this. I consider myself to be relatively well educated and articulate, but I consider this issue to be important enough that I would rather not speak on it without a certain level of confidence that what I had to say would be worthwhile and useful. Most importantly, I wouldn't want to go in and say the wrong thing, whatever that may be.

    So, if folks have suggestions as to what they'd like to see someone say at these hearings, feel free to let me know. If I get enough good suggestions and I feel confident that I have solid material to deliver, I may try to sign up for it.

    And yes, I do work for America Online, but they don't think for me, and I don't speak for them.

  44. DMCA Parody Song by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parody of YMCA http://boycott.dmusic.com/

  45. Drugs 5 years?! by accountant · · Score: 1

    It takes longer than that to get a drug through FDA testing.
    There are a lot of things wrong with the way the US healthcare system works but I think 20 year patent which leads to 10 to 15 years exclusivity on the market is about right to encourage the massive investment needed. Writing songs or books etc. requires almost no investment by comparison yet they get protection for up to 10 times as long.

  46. Re:DMCA PROTESTORS ARE JUST UNINFORMED HIPPIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmmm. I think this should have been moderated "Funny", not "Flamebait."

  47. Re:breaking news -- america is under attack by Blackneto · · Score: 1

    Dude hit the eject button, you're watching Independance day again.

    --
    Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...