Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Library of Congress to Hold DMCA Hearings

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the time-to-be-heard dept.

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.'"

7 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. 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: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.)

  3. 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!
  4. 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.

    --
    Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
  5. 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.

  6. 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)