Slashdot Mirror
Librarian of Congress Posts DMCA Exemptions
MrNerdHair writes "The Librarian of Congress has posted a list of exemptions from the DMCA (also obtainable in PDF here.) Works falling in four 'classes' may be considered exempt from Section 1201 of the DMCA's prohibition against 'circumvention of a technological measure which effectively controls access to a work.' Among the list are blacklists of sites used in programs such as NetNanny and cracks to bypass dongles on abandonware. All in all, a very interesting read ..." Not just interesting: as Robin Gross writes, "Unfortunately, the ruling leaves the vast majority of consumers unable to access their own property, such as skipping commercials on DVDs, playing CDs in their PCs, and reading eBooks on PDA's without violating the DMCA." Update: 10/29 15:19 GMT by T : Take a look at Seth Finkelstein's site for an idea of how being pushy can sometimes be helpful; Finkelstein has loudly pushed for the importance of DMCA exemptions, including in Congressional testimony.
The saddest thing about this whole DMCA fiasco is that there were enough people illegally distributing copyrighted works that the publishers saw fit to put these idiotic controls in.
Both sides are wrong, but it was the copyright infringers who were wrong first.
Now we are stuck with these controls and a completely braindead law that makes it a crime to exercise what was once accepted as 'inalienable rights'.
meep
Windows 95 is considered obsolete and unsupported by Microsoft, right? And doesn't that end many questions on MAME?
This ruling merely creates exceptions to the DMCA, i.e. cracking the protection on a work, not distributing it. Therefore, as Windows 95 is a copyrighted work and you don't need to crack its protection to get it to work on a PC (its native format), this ruling does not affect Windows 95 in any way. And the only thing it changes for MAME is that it makes it legal to crack the protection on arcade boards to decrypt and emulate them. It's still illegal to trade abandonware ROMs/ISOs.
If you haven't already read The Right to Read, do it while you still have the right to do it. From what I witness it might change in the near future. Funny that we all were laughing at Richard when he wrote his "dystopian science fiction which will never happen outside of a paranoid mind guarded with a tinfoil hat" and at the same time we all kept allowing it to slowly happen. And who looks like a fool now? Not Richard but us. It certainly doesn't make me feel proud at all.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
When the 'iron horse' was making its way across the plains the communities along the way made up all sorts of laws restricting what could and could not be done with a train. The most shrill DMCA supporters are the twenty first century equivalent of buggy whip makers from the nineteenth century.
... can't think of any, can you?
Quick! Name three buggy whip vendors! Ah
The GNU battering ram is going to level Microsoft, Sun, SCO, SGI, and it'll take a large bite out of Cisco, Nortel, Avaya, and the like as well.
The US will try to restrain it, the rest of the world will embrace it, and after a brief period of agonizing over brainstem companies like M$ that just don't realize they're mostly dead already, the tide will reverse. Its going to take a generation and I don't mean an internet time generation, but the outcome is inevitable.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Y'know, I want to agree with you, I really do, but I just can't bring myself to do it.
Copyright was not originally intended to provide a way to allow creators to restrict how their works are distributed - that was a deliberate side-effect of the actual purpose of copyright at the time, which was to promote further creation. In other words, "if you keep on writing books/painting pictures/whatever, you get to say what people can do with that - but only for a little while, because any creative work eventually should become the property of the people".
Now, before somebody starts foaming at the mouth about how that was then, this is now, and books, movies, music, etc. are big business and thus more control should be given to those who create them - I do agree with you, to a point. If I wrote a book and the next day had it spread around the world without my consent, I'd be pissed.
The problem is, we're reaching a point in history where, for the very first time, it costs virtually nothing to store, replicate and distribute creative works. In the old days, a book had to be laboriously handcopied, or re-typeset, or be run through a photocopier a page at a time. Now, any book on the planet fits into my USB keyring a thousandfold.
At this point in time, don't we want to rethink what the meaning of restrictions on copying are in a world where there is no physical basis for those restrictions?
Isn't the whole point of creation to enrich your life and the lives of those around you? (I exclude Britney Spears songs, "books" by anyone with the first name Danielle, and movies that feature the incumbent Governor of California from this.) Surely we can figure out a way that someone who creates something worthwhile can make a reasonable living doing so, without forbidding everybody else to pass such a creation to other people without restriction?
Reading the article, it seems to me like the third exemption makes mod chips for video game consoles legal. It specifically states that it covers current (non-obsolete media) and allows for the circumvention of copy protection when a copy can be made, but not used, without circumventing copy protection. The same exemption also specifically mentions video games.
Also, I could see possibly some help for DeCSS-specifically the section of I believe the first exemption relating to the restriction of fair use.
Rule 4 seems to say that if you can't get a copy of an ebook that a screen reader can read (basically plain text or html) then you're allowed to make a program to get said plain text. It doesn't specify that you are blind to be able to use this exception... Doesn't this allow you to do basically anything you would want with your ebook, just phrased in a way no one can argue with it?
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
If they want to clam we don't own it, they why do they say "OWN IT NOW ON DVD" in most, if not all, of their ads?
but not including ... lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email.
If I suspect some commercial entities blacklist software has blacklisted my domain, I can't reverse engineer the list to confirm that without running afoul of the DMCA.
I hope there's a case that allows a First Amendment challenge to that one real soon. That looks like a very dangerous exclusion.
Um, so sorry, but no one is going to tell me what I can or can not do with property that I posess. It's mine, I paid for it, I traded CASH for property. I buy property, I don't license it. Licenses are invalid and un-enforceable anyway, just ask SCO. I'll take any and everything apart I own and study it and tell people about it as I see fit.
Just what, exactly, gives you the right to do anything you want with no regard for anyone else? Just because you bought a physical object doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it, from a moral or legal point of view.
Stop having such an egocentric view of the world. Make it a point to look at every other person you pass tomorrow and realize that they've got the same rights you do, and therefore, you've all got limited rights for the good of all.
Gr@ve_Rose
!ekoj on si aixelsyD