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.'"
So anyone here on sending in something? What about a collaborated effort here on slashdot, as maybe a draft and then send it?
SuDZ
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.)
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!
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.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
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.
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.
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.
Lawrence Lessig seems stable enough. And weren't there some economists that said copyright was hurting the economy.
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
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 and and and 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)