Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Office: Everyone Uses MSIE, Right?
richardtallent writes "Tim Bray caught that the United States Copyright Office's upcoming copyright pre-registration web application apparently only works with Internet Explorer, and they are seeking written comments from anyone who might have a problem being forced to use IE. Slashdotters, start your snail-mail."
so first we convict them of being a monopoly, then we give them another one?
By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
Can I just say that if you do write in, don't flame. Be intelligent, clear, concise, to the point, and most of all RESPECTFUL. This isn't a rant, this is a opportunity to voice a legitimate gripe. Since they're requesting our opinions, they'll likely listen - let's not blow it.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
I'm willing to bet it's a combination of these factors and not out of malice or of spite for Firefox and other browsers. No need to get /.'s collective panties in a bunch, I'm sure they're willing to fully cooperate with said users to develo pa solution that satisfies all parties.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I simply tell people that IE's been discontinued for the macintosh. Everyone recognizes the Mac as a different platform that other people use, and the fact that IE is no longer shipping on it is a good motivator. Simple, easy to understand for non-techs, and respectful.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Anyone who actually cares about their web application reaching a larger audience will automatically make an effort to get firefox, netscape working regardless of what the law saids.
Yeah, right.
...and make sure the copyright office doesn't get told about it. Two birds in one stone.
Just how much did the Mozilla Foundation contribute to the Bush/Cheney campaign compared to Microsoft?
Install, Then Run
"Yes, we know that you are forced to deal with govvy programmers, but this is one case where you really need to put out an RFP for some DEVELOPERS to code up your app."
Bottled Crap volunteers in true Open Source 'no cost to you' style to redo your site. It's all that "lovin" don't you know?
A few years ago they probably would have assumed IE and skipped the public comment process. Now there's too many creatives using macs.
Now, asking for 5 copies of a comment letter is like saying "Unless you're a corporate lawyer representing a major publishing house, keep your comments to yourself. You serf."
And no, they don't care about Linux users since it's the office of copyRIGHT, not copyLEFT.. that office is located at creativecommons.org.
can we just slashdot the patent office website into oblivion? i think they'll get the idea.
Perhaps it should be mentioned that it's odd that Homeland Security said that it's best to use an alternative to IE, and the same government is requiring IE.
Remember kids, getting a copyright without Internet Explorer on a Microsoft operating system is the first step towards piracy. Look what happens when Amazon puts out a patent. Those are made on Apple computers. First thing after they are anounced they are proven to be weird. Don't take chances USE MICROSOFT!
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Pah! What is this? We aren't just some "other people"--we're the smartest, most creative, fashionable, and beautiful people on the planet. Certainly we make butt-scratching troglodytes out of the average Win/IE user. In my humble estimation, then, we Mac users are more entitled than anyone to copyright protection. The Copyright Office should be ashamed.
We "creatives," as you say, have always used Macs.
. . .only permitting people who drive stationwagons to enter the postoffice parking lot?
What genius CIO thought it would be a good idea to limit people who can use this to one, albeit large, sect of people?
If I said "hey boss, lets make a great web app, but lets only let MSIE people use it because I'm incapable of making it available to more than one browser and MSIE is the whore of internet browsers and lets anything in" he would laugh at me. Then fire me. And then laugh a lot more. And then have a heart attack, but that's just my CIO...
"I'm sorry ma'am, you can only apply for a patent if you only have 1 leg."
"But I have two legs, its much more effiecient and I'm much more stable!"
"Two legs huh? That's nice but my give-a-shit is broken today, so you're going to have to handicap yourself like everyone else to use this. And you have to get in the back of the line."
i don't care
"Might also be useful to point out that the Unix version of IE is no longer available either."
You say that like it's a bad thing?
Sounds like they hired the developers under the common practice of the "lowest bidder"
has anyone found a way to submit comments via he web? Having to submit comments in writing is silly, and inconsistent with what other US government agencies do.
IANAL
Assuming the site only works for IE, that means, chances are that the site is in violation of federal law.
I urge people to check all .gov and .mil sites in the US and urge them to comply with section 508. If they fail to do so, they may be vulnerable to a lawsuit in Federal Court.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Maybe the "United States Copyright Office's upcoming copyright pre-registration web application" was a pro bono work from "MS Business Solutions Development Group" with help from the "Win2003 Server Group"?
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
[Federal Register: August 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 149)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44878-44879]
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 202
[Docket No. RM 2005-9]
Preregistration of Certain Unpublished Copyright Claims
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
SUMMARY:
The Copyright Office is supplementing its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on preregistration of copyright claims, issued July 22, 2005. That notice proposed procedures to preregister any unpublished work being prepared for commercial distribution that is in a class of works determined by the Register of Copyrights to have had a history of pre-release infringement. Today's notice seeks information as to whether persons filing the electronic-only preregistration form prescribed by the Copyright Office will experience difficulties if it is necessary to use Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser in order to preregister a work.
DATES:
Comments are due no later than August 22, 2005. Reply comments are due no later than September 7, 2005.
ADDRESSES:
If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401 of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by mail, an original and five copies of any comment should be addressed to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays in processing receipt of such deliveries.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David O. Carson, General Counsel, or Charlotte Douglass, Principal Legal Advisor, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024-0400, Telephone (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In accordance with the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005 (the ART Act), Title I of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 109-9, 119 Stat. 218, the Copyright Office recently proposed implementing regulations for preregistration of eligible copyright claims. 70 FR 42286 (July 22, 2005). To be eligible for preregistration, a work must be unpublished, in the process of being prepared for commercial distribution, and in a class of works that the Register of Copyrights determines has had a history of copyright infringement.
Section 104 of the ART Act directs that preregistration procedures must be in place by October 24, 2005. 17 U.S.C. 408(f)(1). To comply with this time frame and to facilitate efficient processing of preregistration claims, inter alia, the proposed rule calls for filing such claims by electronic means only. At this point in the process of
[[Page 44879]]
developing the Copyright Office's system for online preregistration, it is not entirely clear whether the system will be compatible with web browsers other than Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.1 and higher. Filers of preregistration applications will be able to employ these Internet Explorer browsers successfully. Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect. Present users of these browsers may experience problems when filing claims.
In order to ensure that preregistration can be implemented in a smooth
Of course you must first validate that you are using a GENUINE Microsoft operating system.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was pro-bono by Microsoft (or some scandalous way of getting some microslave do it)
The old way of 60 patents a month just wasn't cutting it, now with an IE method, they can bump up to 90.
Seriously who patents clicking of the mouse. Software patents blow.
Not just written responses, but justifications! Smart to make it writing though, seriously, who knows how to write these days? I mean, with their hands? Who does that...? Why don't I just 'hunt' my ramen noodles with a spear I made myself, and then 'grow' my own coffee?
i don't care
The article doesn't make it very clear what this is talking about, but here's what I've pieced together from the various links:
* "The ART Act amends section 408 of the Copyright Act to add a new subparagraph (f), which directs the Register of Copyrights to allow reregistration for any work that is in a class of works that the
Register determines has had a history of infringement prior to authorized commercial distribution."
In other words, if in danger of infringement, you can register your copyright in advance. (Remember that under U.S. (and many others) law, you HAVE copyright from the moment of creation, but REGISTERING lets the government know. I'm guessing from context that they normally only let you register upon publication.
So this is enacting a law to let studios sue more easily when their movies get pirated on day 0.
Later:
* "Therefore, this notice seeks information whether any potential preregistration filers would have difficulties using Internet Explorer (version 5.1 or higher) to file preregistration claims, and if so, why. More generally, in the interest of achieving support for browsers in the Office's preregistration processing environment, this notice inquires whether (and why) an eligible party who anticipates preregistering a claim on the electronic-only form will not be able to use Internet Explorer to do so, or will choose not to preregister if it is necessary to use Internet Explorer."
So: Unless you are someone who is going to file one of these, they don't care about your comments. Slashdotting the postal system isn't likely to get a response. (Of course, they COULD respond to the comments anyway, but they aren't asking for them)
This is bullshit! I can't believe a government website would be allowed to make a site only viewable to one brand of browser, and only one OS. Then again, the US Patent office is clearly lacking in the computer skills they need from the kind of shit they've let get copywritten. >:(
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
1. Linux is free (as in beer).
2. Windows is not free.
3. The applicable statute and federal regulation establishes a right for any developer of a work in the covered class to preregister that work for copyright.
4. Requiring the use of a web browser only available with a non-free operating system amounts to the requirement of an additional fee. This fee is not permitted by statute, because the Copyright Office is not given permission to cause fees to be collected by other agencies. Nor could any subsidy to Microsoft be considered to be "fair and equitable and give due consideration to the objectives of the copyright system" (17 USC 708(b)(4)).
Note that this argument doesn't apply the other way around. The government can feel free to "subsidize" free web browsers that work on free operating systems, because no cost is incurred to the preregistration applicant.
Date
#-triple space
Copyright GC/ I&R
P.O. Box 70400
Southwest Station
Washington, DC 20024-0400
#-Double space
To whom it may concern:
#-Double space
Body
#-Double space
Seperated by double spaces #-Double space
Sincerely,
#-Triple space (for signature)
Print Name
Return Address Seperating by single spaces
Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
The anti-copyright crowd and the anti-MSIE crowd are pretty much one in the same. A Venn diagram of the two would probably look like a basketball in a red/green stereoscopic photo. Where's the problem? People that don't/won't use IE are likely never to transact any business with the Copyright Office, other than to deluge them with comments about how if they ever were to file for Copyright protection, they would have to *gasp* use a technology that is readily available? Unbelievable.
main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,
From the federal register link in the /. article:
"Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect. Present users of these browsers may experience problems when filing claims."
It doesn't seem that they plan on restricting usage to IE users only, and in fact sounds more like they have the position, "it might work on firefox, but we haven't tested it."
Java API Java-API Java API. Java API Java API .Java API Java API. Java API .Java API Java API. Java.
Java API. "Java API" Java API Java API-Java API.
Java API; Java API
Java API Java-API Java API. Java API Java API
Java API. "Java API" Java API Java API-Java API.
Java API; Java API
Another possibility is to mention that IE7 renders the page different than IE6 - and leave the question whether they want to "design for IE6", "design for IE7" or design according to standards.
When people state that they are "designing for Internet Explorer", it is pretty easy to ask what version they are "designing for". When they get uneasy about the upcoming (and apparently unexpected) IE7 and the memories of (poor design with) several stylesheets, several conditional scripts, the DOM/standards argument is pretty good.
- Peter Brodersen; professional nerd
It is so kind for them to ask. In other places I've seen IE-only solutions being done out of ignorance.
You can fax to 202.707.8366, but be sure to send six faxes total.
IE is no longer supported on the Mac, so they are cutting out all supported mac browsers to (Firefox + Safari)
I think that "all users of Firefox" and "all users of Apple" has even more weight, because EVERYONE knows who Apple is, even if they don't really know what the difference is.
Ben
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Of course you could turn this around if you prefer alternative browsers.
:)
Build a site that works fine in Firefox/Opera/Safari/Etc. and breaks/crashes IE. All you would really need to do for this is design the site using CSS2.
Then when they come to complain hand them a supplemental contract to add IE support.
Might be a bit more work then what the parent proposed, but it's a lot more likely to work.
Just make sure the initial contract doesn't require IE support
Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
Will you be happy when they make it a simple cross browser form where you can upload a MS Word doc? :)
Copyright GC/ I&R
P.O. Box 70400
Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400
Dear Sirs,
Regarding your request for comments1 regarding “The Copyright Office is supplementing its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on preregistration of copyright claims” announcement. I would like to state my comments as follows with regard to the exclusive use requirement of the Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer web browser for electronic-only preregistration forms.
That product, the Microsoft Internet Explorer web browser, is not supported nor available on the computer systems we use.
That product is known to not support world wide standards for displaying web content as described by the W3C2 organization. Such a lack of standards support prevents millions of Americans from accessing web content designed specifically for Microsoft Windows operating system and its web browser(s).
There is an openly supported and publicly controlled web browser( Mozilla Firefox ) which has become very popular as security, reliability, and standards support has wavered on the Microsoft Windows platform. Also, many businesses and individuals have come to rely in it. For example, Novell, Oracle, and IBM just to name a few. This web browser is available for free on all versions of Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac, UNIX, and GNU/Linux.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the issue of public access to the services provided at the US Copyright Office.
Kind regards,
Your Name
Your Address
Your City, State, Zip
1http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.ht ml
2http://www.w3.org/Consortium/
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
What I wouldn't give for some mod points to spend on the immediate parent.
This isn't a case of someone trying to get away with a MS-only policy by floating a proposal for comment and hoping no one responds.
It's a case of someone who realized *too late* that their site isn't entirely accessible and who is now doing the right thing by telling us about it. They'remore or less asking for permission to put up the flawed site as it is while they work on fixing it.
The fact that they've made this public statement at all, combined with specific references to mozilla, suggest that they're *already* onboard when it comes to the demand for a standards compliant web.
As much as I hate MS-only policies, this isn't one of them. Let's not waste our time and theirs writing to tell them that we don't have windows pcs. The best that can possibly happen is that they'll ignore the flood of irrelevant mail. In the worst case, they'll decide that we linux heads are a bunch of nutballs and bring that grudge to their next project.
Unless you're planning to release a film in the US in next couple of months and your company doesn't have access to a windows pc, your comments won't really mean much. That is, after all, the only people who are affected by this issue.
- Erik
Not to mention, the US government itself recommended people to switch to Firefox.
[It was last year during the security scares with IE--anybody remember the specifics?]
Here is part of an answer I got from Library of Congress when I as an active writer sent them a protest that their proposed site woulf be IE specific and not simply follow w3c standards.
Hold on to yer hats and glasses cause this is priceless...
Quote" "We have received an email from you regarding the proposed rulemaking on electronic-only preregistration.
The comments you submitted cannot be considered because they were in the form of email."