The Argument for Crackable Media

rubberbando writes "Wired is running a story about how the US Copyright Office is looking for input about a law that will allow some media to be legally cracked. This is aimed at certain uses such as cracking an ebook so that a blind person can use reading software with it and older software that requires a hardware dongle that no longer works." From the article: "The DMCA forbids cracking of copy-protected or encrypted digital media, with certain exceptions. When the law was passed, Congress mandated the register of copyrights revisit the anti-circumvention section every three years to make sure consumers have proper access to materials they purchased -- even if content creators have them locked down. If the copyright office finds instances where copy protection prevents fair use of the work, then those copy protections can be legally circumvented." We reported on the other side of the coin yesterday.

Comments

Fair Use?

[jarich]

When the law was passed, Congress mandated the register of copyrights revisit the anti-circumvention section every three years to make sure consumers have proper access to materials they purchased -- even if content creators have them locked down. If the copyright office finds instances where copy protection prevents fair use of the work, then those copy protections can be legally circumvented."

So... making a backup copy for when my kids destroy the CD/DVD (or when my hard drive crashes) isn't fair use?

Re:Fair Use?

[crache]

It may be, but it would take an act of congress to make it legal.

Re:Fair Use?

[bennini]

there's a big difference. you are looking for a reason to copy the DVD before it gets trashed by ur rugrats. who's to control if it ever actually gets destroyed by them...or if it ends up at your friends house? the idea of the law is to allow media which can't be accessed anymore to be accessed. in your case...the law would allow you to glue the pieces of ur destroyed blu-ray disc back together, read the info off of it...and then create a new, proper disc with the original discs content.

Re:Fair Use?

[rm69990]

Copyright law allows you to make a backup copy.

Re:Fair Use?

[sumdumass]

I believe that you are allowed to make backup copies for archival purposes anyways. It is already part of the fair use. Also, copyrite law already make special provisions for copying computer software and data for "incase situations". If the DVD or CD is playable on the computer, I would bet it is already in that catagory. The problem is that only one copy can be used at once. I don't think your allowed to used both copies at the same time. You can however have more then one copy installed on more then one computer if the second computer is for backups. check here for some more on it

Re:Fair Use?

[Tim C]

I'm guessing two things, having read your comment:

1) You don't have kids

2) You've never tried to play a badly scratched DVD, let alone one you've pieced back together

Re:Fair Use?

[bennini]

read the parent.

he was implying that the new wave of discs (not hd-dvd since that apparently will allow for one, controlled back-up to be created) will possess DRM that prevents him from creating that one copy that "copy right law allows you to make" now, as you stated.

Re:Fair Use?

[Kjella]

Copyright law allows you to make a backup copy.

Please point us to the appropriate paragraph. For bonus points, find the exception in the copy protection paragraphs too. (If I encode my own CD to DRM'd WMA, I still don't have the right to break their encryption system. Copyright and copy protection systems have two different protections) You can find it here.

Re:Fair Use?

[rolfwind]

How is the DMCA even constitutional? It should take more than a act of congress because this rips apart all common sense property rights on which all other rights are based on (oh wait, the Supreme Court just shit on that back in June). If you don't have property rights, like dominos, everything else falls.

Why shouldn't I be able to read or "bypass" what I own like the 1 and 0s on DVD/CDs/etc? Laws like the DMCA chill me because manufactures can put whatever in their variety of products and if someone tries to look into them they wave the DMCA and say "Ah, ah, don't go their bad boy!" How is the customer even supposed to protect themselves from bad products (faulty engineering, back_doors, worms, etc.) If feels Big_Brotherish. Or like Britain. (I think they had a restriction on reading frequencies not "meant" for you since WW2.)

If the secrets within products shouldn't be known (or bypassed), don't sell it.

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

It should take more than a act of congress because this rips apart all common sense property rights on which all other rights are based on (oh wait, the Supreme Court just shit on that back in June).

Two things here. First, you don't seem to understand the Kelo decision; it's really nothing new, and not a big deal. Second, I disagree that other rights are founded on property rights. Property rights are basically utilitarian in nature, although they developed so organically that this wasn't really discovered until comparatively recently. We have them because they're useful, not because they're foundational to actual inherent rights. Hell, Jefferson specifically left them out of the Declaration -- he was quoting Locke, but substituted 'pursuit of happiness' for 'property' because he didn't think there were property rights beyond being able to simply defend what was in your immediate grasp, except by consensus, which is variable.

Why shouldn't I be able to read or "bypass" what I own like the 1 and 0s on DVD/CDs/etc?

Arguably because this also is part of the utilitarian scheme of copyright. Really, of course, those in power no longer care about the goals of the system and have become confused or corrupt. Personally I'm not opposed to DRM and legal support for it in theory; it's on the table, when considering policy. But I also don't think that it's ever really a good idea to engage in this, given the long-term effects and the minimal incentive it provides, so my position is very strongly anti-DRM.

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

If I encode my own CD to DRM'd WMA, I still don't have the right to break their encryption system.

Do you mean you own the copy of the CD, or you are the copyright holder for the work on the CD? If the latter, you do have the right to do so, actually, as circumvention is defined as being unauthorized by the copyright holder; if you're authorized, it's not circumvention, at least within 1201(a).

Remember, encryption is an access control. You can still copy the ciphertext. A copyright control mechanism is something that would prevent you from, for example, doing even that, even if it doesn't impair access to the work.

Access controls are far more common than copyright controls because they're easier to make, I guess.

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

Fair use doesn't necesssarily permit backing up. It might, or might not, depending on the circumstances.

17 USC 117 has a provision allowing for backups regardless of fairness, but it usually isn't applicable. The only people who can use it are people who own a copy (as opposed to licensing a copy), where the work being backed up is a computer program, and where backups are destroyed (or if you're selling the original copy, transfered along with, if you prefer) whenever possession of the original copy is no longer rightful (which would tend to limit this to lawfully made original copies).

Computer programs are defined as being statements or instructions used directly or indirectly with a computer to produce a certain result. Thus, I think you'd have a hard time saying that mere data is a program, even though there is no real good line between data and software.

(Also there's no clear limit on how many copies you can use at once, which is good, since between RAM, various caches, virtual memory, etc. there are a lot of distinct copies whenever you're running software. A court might not like it if you bought one copy of a program and put it on a hundred machines for a hundred users, but you'd have a leg to stand on for your side AFAICT w/o doing significant research on this.)

Re:Fair Use?

[ConceptJunkie]

How is the DMCA even constitutional?

Constitutional? What does that have to do with anything? Apparently you haven't heard of the Benjamin Franklin Amendment: The one with the Benjamins gets to make the amendments.

This legislation was bought and paid for, period. Under the guise of legitimately protecting businesses from theft by piracy, etc, they have essentially given the businesses lock and key over what you purchase and thrown Fair Use out the window.

This country was founded upon the ideas of competition and free trade, but now there is a whole industry based on outmoded means of distribution (i.e., media companies who want to shackle us the _19th_ century modes of content distribution, or at least the functional equivalent). Sure I understand people are just illegally trading this stuff, but since almost every "innovation" in the industry is geared towards decreasing value and increasing hassle, they are making their own problems worse. iTunes, etc, is a start... not a great one, but a good step in the right direction. I know in my case, it's not that I want it free... I'm more than happy to pay for it, I just want it the way I want it with no restrictions on use. I want to be able to make a copy for my car, or a backup copy, or to be able to play it on my computer or PocketPC. At least we still have RedBook CD's, but I can forsee a day when it becomes illegal to sell them, in favor of some DRM'ed media (that has 0-day hacks for every upgrade...).

I sure wish I could buy laws, but you know the saying: one millionaire, one vote.

Re:Fair Use?

[smashin234]

"Why shouldn't I be able to read or "bypass" what I own like the 1 and 0s on DVD/CDs/etc? "

Nothing is stopping you from doing just that. The law actually prohibits distributing, selling, and/or giving away such software. You are perfectly within your rights to write your own software to bypass what is on a DVD, etc. That is, as long as you are engaging in fair usage. (archival purposes, educational, etc.)

Thats one of the reasons I disagree with the DMCA in that you can write software to overcome encryption for fair use, but you can't distribute, or otherwise give it away. Or put another way, the wheel has to be reinvented everytime.

"How is the DMCA even constitutional?"

It was passed by congress, and does not trash any rights promised in the Constitution. There are only two ways to overturn this flawed law. The first is for a constitutional amendment which will probably never happen. And for congress to wake up.

"Oh wait, the Supreme Court just shit on that back in June. "

The supreme court simply interprets laws based on how your congress writes them. Blame congress for making such a flawed law. The only way the Judicial Branch overturns laws is if they are against the Constitution. And guess what, the constitution says that congress decides what rights intellectual property owners get.

So don't blame the Judicial Branch, they are just doing their jobs. They have no authority to overturn the DMCA at all.

Re:Fair Use?

[swv3752]

If works are protected and we are not allowed to circumvent the DRM, then how does the work enter the Public Domain. The only reason Copyright is allowed in for in the Constitution is to enrich the Public Domain. This is how the DMCA violates the Constitution.

Re:Fair Use?

[rolfwind]

"Two things here. First, you don't seem to understand the Kelo decision; it's really nothing new, and not a big deal."

Gee, thanks for enlightening me with that convincing argument. Yes, that Eminent Domain for Public Benefit, as put down by the Constition, gets reworded to whatever (or whoever) promises to pay the most property tax dollars is no big deal - none at all.

"Hell, Jefferson specifically left them out of the Declaration -- "

First, the bill of right specifically states that because some rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean they exist.

Plus why then does the constitution address search and seizure, right to bear arms, disallowing troops from being quartered in your own home, as well as the eminent domain restriction if Property Rights weren't recognized? It's implicit in the entire constitution, without ownership, you cannot exercise any of your other rights because the goverment can indiscriminately take away whatever they like to oppress your rights (government doesn't like the New York Times print? Don't suppress their freedom of speech, just forcibly buy them out in the guise of public benefit! They don't want you to own a gun? Don't break the second amendment, just "convince" the guy to sell his gun at the government's declare fair price, etcetera)

"Second, I disagree that other rights are founded on property rights."

See above. Without property right, you don't even own yourself.

"Arguably because this also is part of the utilitarian scheme of copyright."

And this isn't big brother how?

Q:Why can't I read it?

A:Because you can't!

Q:What if theres something potentially damaging in there, shouldn't I have the right to my own property? How do I know you're not packaging something malicious if I can't take a look at it? And yet you want me to buy it and take it home?

A:..........

Re:Fair Use?

[rolfwind]

Hi, thanks for making that clearer but one thing:

Nothing is stopping you from doing just that. The law actually prohibits distributing, selling, and/or giving away such software. You are perfectly within your rights to write your own software to bypass what is on a DVD, etc. That is, as long as you are engaging in fair usage. (archival purposes, educational, etc.)

This law is still killing your freedom of speech. Unless I sign an EULA when I buy a DVD, I shouldn't be under these conditions.

Re:Fair Use?

[russotto]

Nothing is stopping you from doing just that. The law actually prohibits distributing, selling, and/or giving away such software. You are perfectly within your rights to write your own software to bypass what is on a DVD, etc. That is, as long as you are engaging in fair usage. (archival purposes, educational, etc.)

Unfortunately, not so. The law prohibits manufacturing anti-circumvention devices also. So you can't write your own software either.

So don't blame the Judicial Branch, they are just doing their jobs. They have no authority to overturn the DMCA at all.

Sure they do. The device provisions are a direct violation of freedom of speech. They prevent utterance and publication of certain speech -- specifically, speech that can be used to instruct a computer how to bypass copy protection measures. Further, the DMCA, in the 2600 case, has been used successfully to prevent publication of speech which tells other people where to find such instructions. That's an even clearer violation, if you don't believe code is speech.

Re:Fair Use?

[dratox]

The Kelo Decision WAS a big deal - Yes, the constitution states that property may be seized for PUBLIC use, but Kelo stated that property could be seized for PRIVATE development, based on the argument that this would improve the local economy (i.e. by creating jobs).

When you don't come up with any support for your thesis, you're the one that comes off sounind like you don't understand.

Re:Fair Use?

[LeonGeeste]

Hold on, your analysis seems a tad oversimplified. If the DMCA really is an unpopular policy, and only "the rich" support it, why haven't its supporters been voted out of office yet? Are voters so stupid they won't vote against politicians who support policies they oppose? Or could it be that voters genuinely like - or don't hate enough to change their vote - the DMCA? In any case, the problem seems to be voter ignorance, not a nasty cabal running the show.

Most people, rightly or wrongly, support intellectual property laws. They probably didn't see the DMCA as "that big of a deal". The solution is to educate them about how it abuses the concept of copyright, not blame it on a secret cabal.

Re:Fair Use?

[autophile]

How is the DMCA even constitutional?

Apparently you don't know how the US legal system works. Here it is, in a nutshell (which is an appropriate receptacle):

1. All laws that are passed are legal.
2. Those laws which are subsequently determined to be illegal are illegal.
3. GOTO 1

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

the constitution states that property may be seized for PUBLIC use, but Kelo stated that property could be seized for PRIVATE development, based on the argument that this would improve the local economy (i.e. by creating jobs).

Yep, and that's not a new concept by any means. Public use is not the same as public ownership. So, for example, back in the 19th century, the government seized land, gave it to railroad companies so that they could put privately owned tracks on it, serving the public by improving our transportation infrastructure.

If you look at the history of eminent domain law, you'll see that Kelo is not novel. Given that the government still has to fairly compensate the owner (and can be sued for more money if they offer too little), I don't see a big problem. These are forced sales, but they're not robberies.

Meanwhile, no one is suggesting that the eminent domain power extends to private takings with no ultimate public purpose.

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

Anticircumvention only pertains to works that are copyrighted, so there is an argument that it isn't unconstitutional.

Still, I agree with your basic premise, and that's the central reason why I not only oppose DRM, but I think that the government should actively discourage its use (by, e.g. abolishing copyrights for works which have been DRMed under the authority of the copyright holder, and funding projects to crack DRM so that the automatically public domain works can be freely enjoyed).

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

Gee, thanks for enlightening me with that convincing argument.

It's not an argument, it's a fact. You may wish to see my other post on Kelo, on this page.

First, the bill of right specifically states that because some rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean they exist.

And the sky is often blue. I wasn't even discussing the Bill of Rights; you're bringing it up why?

Plus why then does the constitution address search and seizure

Privacy.

right to bear arms, disallowing troops from being quartered in your own home,

Distrust of standing armies, distrust of the federal government by the states, and distrust of government generally.

as well as the eminent domain restriction if Property Rights weren't recognized

Who said property rights aren't recognized? Not me. I said that they weren't "the foundation upon which everything else rests" which was the bizarre statement I had responded to.

Property rights do exist, but only because they're convenient. They're subject to change if necessary, and this has happened before.

without ownership, you cannot exercise any of your other rights because the goverment can indiscriminately take away whatever they like to oppress your rights (government doesn't like the New York Times print? Don't suppress their freedom of speech, just forcibly buy them out in the guise of public benefit!

No. The government cannot use clever means to infringe on your liberties just as much as they cannot use straightforward means. If the government attempted to purchase a newspaper solely for the purpose of censorship, the taking would be unconstitutional right off the bat. Furthermore, since a fair price -- as determined by a court and jury, if you reject the government's offer -- must be paid, you can set up a new newspaper. The taking is pointless, so there's little danger of even possible abuse.

Without property right, you don't even own yourself.

People are not property at all. No one owns people, not even themselves.

And this [anticircumvention provisions in copyright law] isn't big brother how?

It's hardly totalitarian. It's merely the product of greed. I oppose anticircumvention laws because I don't think that they are effective means of pursuing the goals of copyright. I suppose, however, that it might be possible to argue otherwise (though I've yet to be convinced), so it doesn't seem as though it would be outright unconstitutional. Congress has a lot of options for copyright law. Even if Eldred had turned out differently, they'd still have a lot of options. The best way to fix these laws is to get Congress to pass better laws, rather than engaging in court battles that, even if successful, are of limited utility. Don't read this as a total abandonment of the use of the judicial system for reform, however. They do still play an important part, just not enough to get all of what we want.

Re:Fair Use?

[Eccles]

Computer programs are defined as being statements or instructions used directly or indirectly with a computer to produce a certain result. Thus, I think you'd have a hard time saying that mere data is a program, even though there is no real good line between data and software.

Note, however, that almost every DVD ever produced has menus that are instructions used by the computer control of the DVD player, and thus arguably fall under this definition. Music CDs, however, are generally pure data.

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

Still, there might be enough of a division between the menus and the actual movie for a counter argument that they are separate, even if the former is a program.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

We share another commonality with the British. It is illegal in the US to purchase or modify receivers to listen on the 900mhz (analog) cell phone bands. Not sure about the digital ones.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are voters so stupid they won't vote against politicians who support policies they oppose?

Yes.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

What idiot moderated this as "informative"? Not all of copyright law is contained within statute. A lot of it is contained in case law, or in the inherent rights humans have before the government takes them away.

Go talk to a lawyer please, Kjella. Yes, a few of the more common examples of fair use are codified in federal statutes. But please don't be so uninformed as to think that those few examples cover the entire field - they do not.

Re:Fair Use?

[rolfwind]

It's not an argument, it's a fact. You may wish to see my other post on Kelo, on this page.

No it's not fact. The "not a big deal" is an argument and interpretation.

But let's take your premise that it's nothing new even though I think the scope of it has reached unprecedented heights. Slavery was accepted until the 1860s. Yet was plainly unconstitutional the entire time, whether or the government decided to recognize that. Because it was nothing new, back then, did it make it any better?

"And the sky is often blue. I wasn't even discussing the Bill of Rights; you're bringing it up why?"

We were discussing rights, were we not? Why did you bring up Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration?

"Plus why then does the constitution address search and seizure"

Privacy.

"right to bear arms, disallowing troops from being quartered in your own home,"

Distrust of standing armies, distrust of the federal government by the states, and distrust of government generally.

That's one interpretation (I love how legal scholars read the minds of men, dead for over 200 years, or perhaps what a textbook told you), and take that as the only right answer.

Privacy is not even a right mentioned in the BoR or Declaration, AFAIK.

These rights imply that they protect you from something. But protection against unlawful search and seizure specifically protects property.

Who said property rights aren't recognized? Not me. I said that they weren't "the foundation upon which everything else rests" which was the bizarre statement I had responded to.

Bizaare? Have you ever read history and noticed that the societies w/o property rights are usually the most restrictive in all the other ways? Soviet Russia for one. Feudal Societies for another. There is a correlation there.

Even Eminent Domain respects property rights with its just compensation clause.

No. The government cannot use clever means to infringe on your liberties just as much as they cannot use straightforward means.

You are confusing "cannot" with should not.

Patriotic Act. Gun Laws. The BSA. Etcetera.

"Without property right, you don't even own yourself."

People are not property at all. No one owns people, not even themselves.

Maybe in the most technical jargon sense. Perhaps property would not make sense, but you own yourself - with nontransferable (ownership). Though You can sell your blood. You can give away your kidneys. You can tattoo yourself. You can contract yourself (time) out and subject yourself to what have you.

You are arguing on what hand that Thomas Jefferson only considered that we own grasp as our own property, but we don't have the complete command of ourselves?

"And this [anticircumvention provisions in copyright law] isn't big brother how?"

It's hardly totalitarian.

This is not what I argued, I said it's big brother. Big brother starts out in democracies to gain control and it's aim is total control - which DRM obviously is.

The copyright has been completely perverted anyway because the flip side has been ignored. Copyright is a contract between society and the "artist." Originally, for society's protection (which taxpayers have to pay enforcement), the works were to go to public domain after a limited time. With DRM schemes, this is a whole-hearted effort by the "artist" (manufacture) to restrict his work indefinitely. As such, he should not qualify for Copyright as he is attempting to fudge on his part of copyright - releasing the work into public domain.

Re:Fair Use?

[Arker]

So, for example, back in the 19th century, the government seized land, gave it to railroad companies so that they could put privately owned tracks on it

Yes, that was the beginning of corporate welfare. Also of the era of the 'robber baron' and the monopolist. And this is your defense?

These are forced sales, but they're not robberies.

A distinction without a difference.

If I pull a gun on you and demand you 'give' me your wallet, I'm mugging you, not soliciting donations.

And if I pull a gun on you and demand you fork over your wallet in exchange for something else, anything else, that's still a mugging, not a sale.

The essential difference between robbery and sale is coërcion. When you are forced to sell, that's not really a sale, it's just a robbery with a dress and some makeup on.

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

And this is your defense?

No, this is why I say that Kelo isn't anything new.

That the exercise of the eminent domain power requires that the state pay for the value of the condemned property is why I say it's not a big deal.

This is particularly so, since virtually no one objects to eminent domain generally. People recognize that it's necessary in order to build roads, for example. Even its critics, who are few and far between, still tend to consider it at worst a necessary evil. So few people seem to have a problem with the state uniquely being able to coerce a sale for public purposes, they just have some disagreement as to what such a purpose is. Which brings us back to the purpose in Kelo not being anything new, and not having been objectionable before, so why would it be now?

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

Slavery was accepted until the 1860s. Yet was plainly unconstitutional the entire time

No, it was plainly evil the entire time. It was constitutional, however. If you disagree, please point to the part of the antebellum Constitution (i.e. everything before the 13th Amendment) that prohibited it.

Privacy is not even a right mentioned in the BoR

It's in the penumbra.

But protection against unlawful search and seizure specifically protects property.

The seizure in question is of one's person and of evidence to be used against that person. It's not related to takings, which is why you don't need a warrant to condemn property, and you don't need to pay a fair price to put the smoking gun in an evidence locker.

Bizaare? Have you ever read history and noticed that the societies w/o property rights are usually the most restrictive in all the other ways? Soviet Russia for one. Feudal Societies for another. There is a correlation there.

No, not really. They also didn't have free speech, for example. Does that mean that free speech is the basis of property rights? Of course not. Those sorts of societies didn't care about their people at all; it had nothing to do with any specific right that was infringed upon.

You are confusing "cannot" with should not.

Nope. This is a pretty standard part of civil liberties jurisprudence. It has its origins in the clever ways that segregationists would employ to deny minorities their rights when the blatant ones were overturned. No one was fooled, and the clever methods got overturned too.

we don't have the complete command of ourselves?

No, we largely do. Not entirely: it's unconstitutional for you to sell yourself into slavery, for example. But these are liberty interests, not property interests. People aren't property; this is part of how their freedom is ensured.

copyright has been completely perverted anyway because the flip side has been ignored

And I agree, which is why I'd like to see copyright fixed, and why I spend time working on that.

Re:Fair Use?

[idlake]

Sadly, apparently it isn't. The content creators might argue that that kind of re-purchasing is already factored in into their "already thin" profit margins.

Re:Fair Use?

[rolfwind]

No, it was plainly evil the entire time. It was constitutional, however. If you disagree, please point to the part of the antebellum Constitution (i.e. everything before the 13th Amendment) that prohibited it.

I read it here, but YMMV:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Even under amendment XIV, it reads as if slaver could be used as a punishment (after due process) so.......

As for the rest, I do not want to be here all night:) Though I say amendment IV in it's entirety also has interesting implications with property in general - depending on interpretation.

As for the penumbra, that's very controversial I gather and not specifically stated in the BoR so much as implied - though the SCoUSA is on your side with interpretation and of course, privacy is a good thing.

I wish you good luck on that copyright work though - do you have a page on that?

Re:Fair Use?

[Kjella]

Do you mean you own the copy of the CD, or you are the copyright holder for the work on the CD? If the latter, you do have the right to do so, actually, as circumvention is defined as being unauthorized by the copyright holder; if you're authorized, it's not circumvention, at least within 1201(a).

Scenario:
1. I create some CD of myself singing in the shower
2. I create DRM'd WMAs using Windows' built-in ripper
3. I copy out the DRM'd file, and accidentally *cough* lose the license files
4. Windows is now unable to play content I'm the copyright holder for. Can I now develop tools and recover these legally? I think Microsoft would be mighty pissed if I did.

Remember, encryption is an access control. You can still copy the ciphertext. A copyright control mechanism is something that would prevent you from, for example, doing even that, even if it doesn't impair access to the work

No, something that prevents access without preventing copying is definately covered by the DMCA. The DVD encryption, CSS is clearly covered by it. I can create as many copies of the DVD as I want without breaking CSS (on my harddisk, professional DVD burner or DVD printing press, not on consumer DVD burners), it is only required for playback.

Re:Fair Use?

[David Rolfe]

But this has already been decided, until you mount a new challenge, or get Congress to chance the law:

• Joining a growing consensus among courts across the country, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York found that computer code is speech and therefore entitled to some First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution. But the court concluded that the material in this case is "content-neutral," and therefore entitled to considerably less protection than "expressive" content such as poetry or a novel.
  
  "Neither the DMCA nor the posting prohibition is concerned with whatever capacity DeCSS might have for conveying information to a human being, and that capacity...is what arguably creates a speech component of the decryption code," the unanimous three-judge appellate panel wrote in a 72-page opinion that leaned heavily on the reasoning of a lower court.
  
  http://news.com.com/2100-1023-276353.html (url also includes link to complete decision)

That is -- while the code to break stuff is protected speech, the breaking still isn't. I can describe an algorithm to you in the most expressive means available that may circumvent a protection (as outlined in the DMCA) but --and this is where I diverge from your understanding-- as soon as your computer compiles or interprets that information, or you enact those instructions yourself by hand, you have broken the law (the act of manufacturing a device, using a device, and the circumenvention itself are all against the law, but there is no law against the description of said device). In short, you can write the program to circumvent something but it is illegal to compile it, run it, or follow it (and without a long battle in the courts you may not be able to distribute it [the code], "traffic" it, or discuss it in acedemic research). As the Act says: "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device (or) component [that is primarily for circumventing copy protection]". Describe and research aren't in that list.

Of course, IANAL :-D

Re:Fair Use?

[smashin234]

"nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use..."

That is from the DMCA. Its pretty clear that you are fine as long as what you are doing falls under fair usage. This includes writing your own software to overcome encryption on your legally purchased DVD's.

I am not going to argue with you on the free speech issue. That means I do disagree with you, but what the heck. here are the reasons I think the DMCA should be repealed:

1. The law contradicts itself in at least 2 places.
2. Favors copyright owners more then it should.
3. Circumventing encryption is too general of wording. Makes putting encryption on devices a powerful tool to keep people from enjoying fair usage. Like with DVD's...

Re:Fair Use?

[QuestorTapes]

A couple of comments; note that IANAL.

> "Why shouldn't I be able to read or "bypass" what I own like the 1
> and 0s on DVD/CDs/etc? "

> Nothing is stopping you from doing just that. The law actually
> prohibits distributing, selling, and/or giving away such software.

Correct. This, of course, requires every ordinary user in the world to roll his own software. The law doesn't "prohibit" exercising your fair use rights. It just makes doing so in fact sufficiently difficult that it become effectively impossible for most people.

> You are perfectly within your rights to write your own software
> to bypass what is on a DVD, etc. That is, as long as you are
> engaging in fair usage. (archival purposes, educational, etc.)

Of course, you may still be sued by the MPAA or RIAA. The fact that you are not guilty doesn't mean they can't abuse the legal system against you. You may win, but defending yourself may be expensive.

> "How is the DMCA even constitutional?"

> It was passed by congress, and does not trash any rights promised
> in the Constitution.

Correct; fair use rights are not enumerated in the Constitution, and their effective removal by DMCA is a technical side-effect. As explained above, these rights still exist. It's just prohibitively difficult to exercise them.

> There are only two ways to overturn this flawed law. The first is
> for a constitutional amendment which will probably never happen.
> And for congress to wake up.

Actually, three. The courts could still overturn it, or at least overturn some of the provisions. But someone would need to find a legal reason for them to do so, that hasn't yet been ruled on. This is somewhat unlikely.

Good response. Thanks.

Re:Fair Use?

[grahammm]

Part of the problem there is that it is not possible to vote against a politician, you have to vote for one. It is almost certain that you will not agree with all of the policies of any candidate/party. So you have to weigh up all the issues and often end up voting for the 'least bad' candidate. It would be much better if every election had to have a 'none of the above' choice on the voting paper.

Re:Fair Use?

[deaddrunk]

I'd say lack of time and/or ability would prevent all but the truly determined and they would not be allowed to tell everyone else how to do it.

Re:Fair Use?

[Nuskrad]

It would be much better if every election had to have a 'none of the above' choice on the voting paper.

If you're using the the traditional cross-in-the-box system there's always the option to spoil your ballot. It should still be counted in the voter turnout numbers (at least it is in the UK). Of course, if your using a mechanical or electronic voting system, you may not this option.

Re:Fair Use?

[agraupe]

Correct me if I'm wrong... is it still legal for me to obtain the software from someone else, provided I do not redistribute it (provided I were as US citizen, which I'm not)? If so, I think the DMCA has been blown much out of proportion, because then (as I interpret it) as long as the distribution servers of decss, or circumvention program X are located outside of the US or a similar jurisdiction, there is no way to make such a thing illegal provided it is not being used for piracy.

Re:Fair Use?

[russotto]

The section of the DMCA which says it doesn't affect defenses to copyright infringement (which is mostly covered by 17 USC 106) doesn't make it legal to write your own software to overcome technical protection measures. That section was put in there to make the bill look "fair and balanced", but it actually has no effect. This is because fair use is NOT and never was a defense to violation of the DMCA device provisions in 17 USC 1201(a) and (b).

Re:Fair Use?

[russotto]

Since, with software, there's no good distinction between the description of device and the device itself, the court is splitting a mighty fine hair there. It's pretty clear why, too -- they wanted to uphold the law (because of who the plaintiffs and defendants were, mostly), despite it's damn clear unconstitutionality.

Douglas Adams once posited a program which, given a set of premises and a desired conclusion, would find a logical-sounding set of steps leading from one to the other. This decision appears to be the output of such a program (but actually lawyers and judges have been doing that for millenia)

I suppose it could be worse. The US Justice Department takes the position that instructions -- whether intended for a computer or a person -- aren't protected speech full stop.

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

Can I now develop tools and recover these legally?

Yes. Check out 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), but bear in mind that both of those are subject to the definition in (a)(3)(A).

No, something that prevents access without preventing copying is definately covered by the DMCA.

I never said it wasn't. There are three different types of offenses under 1201: Trafficking in tools to circumvent access controls; Circumventing access controls; Trafficking in tools to circumvent copyright controls.

(Circumventing copyright controls is ordinary copyright infringement, so it doesn't need to be in 1201)

Most DRM is of the access control variety. The reason that this is interesting is because trafficking in tools to circumvent copyright controls doesn't seem to be ok where authorized by the copyright holder, despite the fact that the copyright holder can of course permit circumvention (i.e. otherwise infringing acts). Thus it might depend a little on the kind of DRM you've got in front of you.

Re:Fair Use?

[Planesdragon]

So... making a backup copy for when my kids destroy the CD/DVD (or when my hard drive crashes) isn't fair use?

Sure it is. You just need to figure out how to include DVD's CSS.

Re:Fair Use?

[Planesdragon]

It should take more than a act of congress because this rips apart all common sense property rights on which all other rights are based on

So, where exactly are property rights enumerated in the law?

Hell, show me where in the Declaration or the Federalist papers, even, that it's argued that property rights are primary rights (that is, not a right given for the preservation of important rights.)

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

You do realize that that's the 5th Amendment, right? On its own, it only applies to the federal government. This is why we had to pass the 14th Amendment, which contains a due process clause that applies to the states. In fact, the 14th Amendment due process clause is the basis for making the states finally abide by the rights in the Bill of Rights.

Even under amendment XIV, it reads as if slaver could be used as a punishment (after due process) so.......

I think that you'd have difficulty getting that through the 8th Amendment, however involuntary servitude generally is constitutional: that's why if you're a duly convicted prisoner, you can be ordered to work smashing rocks, or whatever they do nowadays.

As for the penumbra, that's very controversial I gather and not specifically stated in the BoR so much as implied - though the SCoUSA is on your side with interpretation and of course, privacy is a good thing.

It's not that controversial. And the penumbra is indeed the implied part of the Constitution. For example, there is a clear right to free speech. However, there is no clear right for people to listen to that speech. Is the government not allowed to deny one, but allowed to deny the other? No, because the former only makes sense where there is also the implied latter. Like I said, it's not really that controversial.

Re:Fair Use?

[smashin234]

Studio 321 manufactured software that overcame encryption on DVD's so that you could make legal copies of it for your own use. They went out of the way to keep people from pirating DVD's, and yet they were still shut down in the case 321 studios Vs. MGM. Completly unfair.

And yet, their software has never been deemed illegal to own, its just illegal to sell it and/or distribute it. So, in the context of simply owning the software, you shouldn't get prosecuted. Then again, you never know as was said.

Re:Fair Use?

[agraupe]

Well, to be fair, they were kinda stupid to sell it (even if it is a stupid law). I'm talking more about things like mplayer and xine, which are essential to watching dvds on a computer, provided you don't run windows or OS X.

Re:Fair Use?

[David Rolfe]

(sorry for the typos in my original post)

I agree that it's a "mighty fine" hair, and probably for the same reasons.

To me, the most expressive way to describe an algorithm would be with a code example -- but code examples seem to be exactly the kind of speech the DMCA wants to prevent EVEN THOUGH the circuit acknowledged that code was free speech!

My gut says that if you "published" or "trafficked" some research that included a complete listing of a copyright-circumventer that you would surely get sued, but that you may still be able to win the case. At which point, it makes the 2600 decision quite suspect... how is linking to a code example different from including it in research? Is it because you don't have to re-type or copy-and-paste it with the link?

Slippery slope if you ask me.

Re:Fair Use?

[David Rolfe]

Exactly, fair use is only a defense to copyright infringement! Great point!

You can still be found guilty of violating the DMCA (for the manufacture of a un-permitted circumvention device) even if you are cleared from infringement under fair use. At least in that case it's only civil penalties ;)

Re:Fair Use?

[bill_mcgonigle]

So... making a backup copy for when my kids destroy the CD/DVD (or when my hard drive crashes) isn't fair use.

You don't need to crack CSS to make a bit-for-bit copy, just a DVD-A blank for your DVD-R. Same as the big pirates do - you didn't think CSS was meant to stop piracy, did you?

Re:Fair Use?

[RespekMyAthorati]

The "anti-circumvention" clause of the DMCA was created specifically to combat the manufacture and sale of the (then common) satellite-signal piracy devices like the "Mikobu II". And it is absolutely illegal to use one, whether you created it yourself or not. So, this must also apply to DVD-decrypting software as well.

Re:Fair Use?

[sumdumass]

In reality, the "data" might not be pure data in the strictest sence. We are taking an understanding in what we believe it to mean but the law deliberatly left the definition open to mean "A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result." I don't take this to mean somethign isn't considered a program if it uses another program to bring about the certain results. CD and DVD data shouldn't be either becuase it indirectly "bring about certain results) thru the use of other programs.

With this in mind, the certain results indirectly are either the visual or audible display or the work. A book wouldn't fall into this catagory but an Ebook may vary well. So might a DVD or Music CD if it contains instructions or statments to bring about a certain result. However, i don't think you can use the backup outside the original intent of rth original or simular hardware. Interestingly the library of congress has already issued exceptions to the DMCA for media that no longer has hardware supporting it redily availible (like atari games and such). They also have issues exception for software no longer supported by companies and software that requires dongles that are no longer availible. Of course all these exceptions asume you have legaly aquired the media as well as have a right to use it. I don't think it covers you if you download product X from some warez site and then crack the dongle requirments so you can avoid buying the latest version from the rightfull owners or some company that went out of business.

Of nothign else, it is somethign to think about. Does the DMCA stop you from using existing copyright law or does it have to be aplied in acordence with it. If it does negate existing law, then why doesn't it mention that fact liek almost every other law would. If it is ment to stand alongside existing law then why doesn't it mention that either. I believe that it doesn't terminate any existing laws and is meant to be aplied with the idea that someone is already breaking copyright law and the DMCA is an added tool to punish for the intent of the crime. If this is true, then making a backup in case your systems crashed or somethign happened to the original would be ok and making copies to distribute on warez channels would still be a violation.Maybe we should ask, Has anyone ever been prossecuted under the DMCA where they were in violation of it while following the rules set for in existing copyright law?

Re:Fair Use?

[ConceptJunkie]

Who's oversimplifying?

There isn't a single member of Congress that anyone form the most gun-happy, Bible-thumping conservative to the most amoral, tree-hugging liberal couldn't find a legitimate reason to vote out. If we all voted against people who did the kinds of things we object to, who could we vote _for_?

Given that Congress' approval rating is usually around of even below 20% these days, I'd have to ask back to you, why haven't we thrown the bums out? Unfortunately, we don't have much to choose from, and while there are some members of Congress who seem to be honest and earnest in their support of certain policies (e.g., Tancredo on immigation reform and Boucher on computer-related issues), the fact is that you gotta pick somebody and it's guaranteed that that candidate will have something you don't like. This is exacerbated by the fact that 99% of the candidates belong to The One Big Party(TM) or The Other Big Party (U.S. Pat. Pending, All Rights Reserved).

The DCMA probably doesn't get a lot of brain cycles outside of nerdatoria like /. or the fever swamps of Hollywood big business, but even if it did, there are other issues which almost everyone considers more important. Given issues like war, national security, crime, taxes and medical care, you are probably not going to put as much emphasis on the craziness surrounding IP law no matter how bad it gets... no one can really be a one-issue voter... you get everything the candidate (and usually his whole party) stands for. Against capital punishment? Fine, but you gotta vote for abortion. For greater school choice? Well, then you gotta take the pro-gun stance. You get everything from column A or everything from column B, even if that means the stringy mushrooms or the mushy lo-mein.

Of course, in the case of caving to the media companies, it seems you lose almost regardless of your choice. Congress doesn't have much interest in Fair Use or Consumer Rights when there's, gasp, Piracy going on (Bom! Bom! BWOOOOMMMMM!). "Steamboat Willie" is going into public domain? That's OK, Disney will buy an extension to the Copyright Law. Digital Recorders? That's OK, there'll be a broadcast flag. And so on...

You can show me a bum to throw out and a better guy to vote in for each topic I'm interested in. The problem is they won't all be the same guy or the same party. SO in the grand scheme of Life, the Universe and Everything, this issue won't be in the front row, but that doesn't mean it's not important.

p.s. And I never said the cabal was secret... they are operating right there in the sublight.

Re:Fair Use?

[SirPavlova]

[I]nvoluntary servitude generally is constitutional: that's why if you're a duly convicted prisoner, you can be ordered to work smashing rocks, or whatever they do nowadays.

I had a thought on this once... it's only the current interpretation which actually says you can't have slaves. The current interpretation places precedence as follows, correct?

Section 1. Neither slavery nor ( involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted ), shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

However, it could easily, & from the punctuation more correctly, be interpreted like so:

Section 1. ( Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ), except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

This second would allow slavery as punishment as a result of criminal conviction. I don't doubt the first interpretation was the intended one & this is just a result of bad wording, nor do I believe the latter will be adopted any time soon, but it's an interesting academic point. To me at least.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Two things here. First, you don't seem to understand the Kelo decision; it's really nothing new, and not a big deal."

Gee, thanks for enlightening me with that convincing argument. Yes, that

[snip]

"Hell, Jefferson specifically left them out of the Declaration -- "

First, the bill of right specifically states that because some rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean they exist.

No, the bill of rights specifically states that because some rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean they don't exist. In other words, they may exist.

Q:What if theres something potentially damaging in there, shouldn't I have the right to my own property? How do I know you're not packaging something malicious if I can't take a look at it? And yet you want me to buy it and take it home?

A:..........

Gee, thanks for enlightening me with that convincing argument.

Re:Fair Use?

[sumdumass]

I don't think licensing as aposed to a copy has much difference here. The definition of a copy referes to the medium in wich the work is distributed in and reference any future technoligies created after the law was writen. I would take this to clearly mean that you do have these rights when licensing or buying.

As for the amount of copies, I think you are limited to the number of uses the product was intentionaly purchased for and to the machine is was designed for. I maybe wrong on this though. I get the idea that you cannot copy the item, and run in on more then one machine or device except in the process of doing backups and repairs as it describes.

I guess it would be interesting to find the existing case law on this and see if it clears anythign up. If this hasn't been hammered out in the courts, it could open some doors that needs clerifying. The simple fact that you and i both can reaad the same law and come to different conclusions points to this. Also as i have posted in other areas and am wondering what you think aboutthe DMCA and how it plays along with this. One has to wonder if the DMCA was meant to override these laws or if the DMCA was intended to work alongside them? I haven't seen were it clearly states aither way so i asume it is meant to only limit rights not allowed by other laws. I know the DMCA allow the libary of congress to place restrictions onto what it applies to (like technioligy no longer redily availible and such) In many cases the intent of the lawmakers at the time weighs into the aplication of the law. I have seen and heard many cases were the literal definition of a law limits more then the intent of the law and the courts have either struck down the law or made it clear in how it could be used.

PS.. sorry about the length of time it took to respond to your post. I thought i already had done so before i went hunting over the weekend.

Aimed at dead & obsolete hardware?

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

They should call it the Sega Act

Re:Aimed at dead & obsolete hardware?

[zaguar]

And for software - it should be the BSD act!

I kid, I kid.

Re:Aimed at dead & obsolete hardware?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Given that most Sega video game systems are no longer manufactured (along with some early Nintendo systems, and IDK about the original PSX), YES it should be called so, and it should allow copy protection circumvention on Sega and PSX games.

There should also be a law giving companies a reason to help out emulator authors who want to emulate an obsolete system.

Re:Aimed at dead & obsolete hardware?

[TrekkieGod]

Well...since you can buy ps2's, and they're backward compatible, your argument doesn't hold for psx games.

I'm all in favor for shorter copyright lengths, but not THAT short. I'd be happy with 15-20 years for things which can be played / read on systems still being produced today, and an immediate end when the systems cease being produced. This way, by now there would be ports of every sega cd game to the xbox, and / or my emulator would be legal (and that includes the Saturn and Dreamcast since they don't make the systems anymore).

Re:Aimed at dead & obsolete hardware?

[soft_guy]

This is america, can we at least call it the Atari act?

Re:Aimed at dead & obsolete hardware?

[TheRaven64]

immediate end when the systems cease being produced

There is one problem with this idea[1]. If I buy a console, and the manufacturer discontinues it after six months, then I am stuffed. There probably aren't enough games suddenly in the public domain as a result of this to make my investment in the console worth while, and no one is going to invest in making a new game if it will hit the public domain as soon as they release it.

I would, however, like to see copyright contingent on distribution:

1. If you do not distribute a work at all, then you are covered by trade secret protection, and unauthorised distribution counts as theft of trade secrets.
2. While you are distributing a work, you are protected by copyright (for, say, 20 years)
3. If you stop distributing, you have a grace period in which to re-start distribution (e.g. 2 years) before copyright lapses. This allows you to discontinue one edition and clear all stocks before releasing a new edition.
4. To prevent the previous point being abused by publishers, all distribution rights automatically revert to the original author(s) half way through the grace period.
5. The protection should be contingent on worldwide distribution. If you only distribute in certain geographical regions then you are only protected in those regions. If you release a film in the US only, then you are not protected in other countries until you release it there (for example).

[1] Note that this idea revolves around closed-source software, and therefore only counts as a problem if your name is not Richard M. Stallman. If it is, please ignore this post.

pretty broad: all media

[Anonymous Coward]

so with all the failed attempts at bulletproof DRM and anticopying, is there actually any UNcrackable media?

Re:pretty broad: all media

[shobadobs]

Yes. Unencrypted text printed on pages of a book, sold in a bookstore near you, is uncrackable. No, ROT-26 doesn't count.

Re:pretty broad: all media

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bible Code nuts would disagree. :)

Re:pretty broad: all media

[mini me]

Google begs to differ.

Re:pretty broad: all media

[skamp]

I have yet to see software allowing to rip SACD's with a retail DVD-ROM drive... and no, ripping the CD-DA layer of a hybrid disc doesn't count.

Re:pretty broad: all media

[Kickasso]

Can a DVD-ROM drive even physically read SACDs?

Re:pretty broad: all media

[bombshelter13]

I'm not that familiar with the SACD standard, so forgive me if I'm missing something obvious... but can a normal DVD-ROM drive play back the audio from an SACD?

If so, what's to stop me from using any normal audio recording application along with an appropriate soundcard (Like, say, a Lynx AES16 with the output looped back to the input? Sure, there'll be a very, very slight drop in quality (that no human should ever notice) since you're going from a full rate DSD stream down to a 24-bit/192khz PCM signal, but you'd have to drop down to at least that to burn your backup copy to a DVD-A disk anyhow, so it shouldn't really matter, should it?

Re:pretty broad: all media

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, anything unreadible.

Re:pretty broad: all media

[cobras2]

That (uncrackable) is totally impossible.
If all the information is physically on the media then you *can* read it.
It just might be kind of hard to do so.

Re:pretty broad: all media

[TheRaven64]

A normal DVD (or CD) drive can play the bottom layer of a SACD, which contains CD audio, but it can not play the DVD layer. In order to do this, you require special software on the computer,and to the best of my knowledge none exists. The reason it is not possible to copy SACDs is:

1. They are dual layer disks, with the top layer being a UDF filesystem on DVD, and the bottom layer being CDDA, and there are no writable disks with this structure.
2. You can copy the UDF filesystem, but no one has written software to convert this to something you can listen to.
3. No one cares enough to bother.

way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

you are doing heck of a jog,us copyright office

Re:way to go

[BottleCup]

you are doing heck of a jog,us copyright office

hopefully all that excercise will help it lose some weight ;)

Insane laws

[LiquidCoooled]

Why not just add a law mandating documented file formats?
Even if your company goes bust, your customers data should remain accessible.

How the data is used privately should be up to the customer, and is not the concern of the producer. We will have laws soon telling us how to use toilet roll, and inspectors coming round arresting us for unlicensed operations.

Laws are already in place for improper sharing of copyrighted materials, so why on earth do we need anything else?

Re:Insane laws

[Pig Hogger]

Why not just add a law mandating documented file formats? Even if your company goes bust, your customers data should remain accessible.

The law could say that they have to deposit the file format in the library of congress in order to protect that information, and it should be renewable every so often, paying the protection fee at each renewal. If the company goes under or does not support the data format anymore, it won't pay for renewal and the format becomes publically accessible.

How the data is used privately should be up to the customer, and is not the concern of the producer. We will have laws soon telling us how to use toilet roll, and inspectors coming round arresting us for unlicensed operations.

To this, however, I object. Toilet paper should be deployed ABOVE the roll, not below, so there should be a law prohibiting this, with roaming teams of toilet-paper inspectors.

Re:Insane laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Which intellectual property would that be, jackass?

Re:Insane laws

[tritesnikov]

First of all, file formats shouldn't even be intellectual property. That's like saying the shape of my water bucket is somehow intellectual property. The program that manipulates the file can be copyrighted, and that's understandable, but I fail to see how the file format itself can be intellectual property.

Second of all, I reference the Massachusettes vs Microsoft mess as a counterargument. Undocumented file formats cause more people more harm than good. You put your data into the trust of one organization that has sole control over the file format and sole program that can read it decently. Sure people could reverse engineer or whatever, but no business is going to trust the reverse engineering for important enough documents. They'll stick with the program that is made by the only organization that actually knows how to program for that format, and get fucked by the company with outrageous license terms and fees in the process. Even then, your not fully protected, because, hey, no business is actually responsible for any bugs that are in their program. Yes, I know, businesses actually having to produce bug-free code is an impossible thing to implement and a detriment to FOSS software (I'm a software developer myself), but that only underscores how important it is that file formats can be read by lots of programs without having to get permission. If one fucks it up, maybe another one can retrieve it. It doesn't even have to be a bug in the program that mangled a file. Just see all of the stories about how newer versions of Office can't read old Office documents, and OpenOffice can perfectly. I doubt a law is the right answer, but neither is being able to have a file format be intellectual property.

Re:Insane laws

[NMerriam]

Indeed, and peanut butter belongs on the top half of the sandwich, the way God intended. Anything else should be a felony.

Re:Insane laws

[pallmall1]

Indeed, and peanut butter belongs on the top half of the sandwich, the way God intended. Anything else should be a felony.

Didn't Microsoft patent this method?

Re:Insane laws

[EzInKy]

Why should a software company have to give up its intellectual property on the whim of legislators?


Because copyrights are granted on the whim of legislators.

Re:Insane laws

[JoshWurzel]

Toilet paper should be deployed ABOVE the roll, not below, so there should be a law prohibiting this, with roaming teams of toilet-paper inspectors

GOD YES! I grew up in a household where toilet paper was always deployed as you describe. I continue the tradition in my own home. Why would you even bother the other way? Can't we all just get along...and do it my way?

Re:Insane laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a tradition in your family to drive cars in reverse?

There is a right way and a wrong way. The way where you can reach the paper is the right way.

Re:Insane laws

[anethema]

I disagree!

My roll holder is of the one-end-open type and it pivots on it's mount. If you do the over the roll method and pull slightly out and down, this pushes the roll against the sidewall and it binds, leaving you with inadequate paper.

Deploy under the roll and it pulls the paper out and up. One quick jerk and perfect paper every time :D

Re:Insane laws

[jc42]

Deploy under the roll and it pulls the paper out and up. One quick jerk and perfect paper every time :D

Some years back, an incident at home convinced me otherwise. I'd just replaced a roll of toilet paper, and used the "under" method. When I came back an hour or two later, I saw a large pile of toilet paper on the floor, with a very happy kitten in the middle looking up at me with a "Look what I did!" expression on her face.

In installed a new roll, using the "over" method, and aside from a few claw marks, had no further problems. I've used that method since.

Actually, we now have birds rather than cats, due to allergies. We once installed a TP roll using the "under" method, thinking it was safe from birds. Then one day I watched as a cockatiel flew up, grabbed the dangling end of the paper, and proceeded to happily unroll a large pile of it. I reversed the roll, and let her rip up the pile she'd made. Many parrots consider tissue paper one of the best toys there is.

Re:Insane laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you even bother the other way?

Because your cat is more likely to unspool your roll if the loose end is on top.

Plus, it just looks tidier without the paper dangling over the front of the roll.

Re:Insane laws

[Stripe7]

Would it not be simpler to pass a law mandating open document format compatiblity?

Re:Insane laws

[tilrman]

Forget the file formats. If you want any work protected by the DMCA, you must register a description of the circumvention procedure with the Library of Congress. Every three years, for each work, you must explain why you have a right to protect each work. If you cannot justify the protection, the DMCA no longer applies to the work.

Alternatively, we should just put all of Congress in a big pit. Armed guards monitor the pit and shoot anyone who tries to escape. Every three years, the guards hold a hearing for each person. The public is given an opportunity to present written arguments to free or not to free their Congressperson. Unless the people can convince the guards, it's back to the pit.

Re:Insane laws

[modecx]

I have to put it going under the roll, so that pulling it makes the roll rotate clockwise.... Why? Because it's the only option in small bathrooms, otherwise the lose paper tickles your leg. @$*#! I hate that. So, even with a ginornmous bathroom, I still do it. My own personal hell is sure to be mostly composed of barking dogs and poorly installed rolls of toilet paper. meh.

Re:Insane laws

[satmech]

ah... was that *reams* of inspectors? :-D

Re:Insane laws

[The Lerneaen Hydra]

You mean you can't use the shells?

Re:Insane laws

[Forbman]

Does one still have to pay the TV Tax in Britain (to support the BBC), where inspectors drive around with their super-het detectors to track down rogue TV receivers?

Re:Insane laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I just leave my roll of TP standing upright on top of the cistern. Hell, the stuff's mostly for decoration, anyway -- I nearly always do Big Business at work.

Re:Insane laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since the detector vans are themselves using superhet receivers, they ought to be detectable. I can imagine a "TV detector van detector" comprising a TRF receiver tuned to the detector van's local oscillator frequency, with a relay to cut the power to the TV set as soon as a detector van comes into range.

A TRF TV receiver is another possibility. This could be a retrofit device: plug aerial into external receiver, dummy load into TV's aerial socket to absorb TV's LO signal, and external receiver into TV's SCART socket. Or even build TVs with a different IF, so the LO would be sufficiently out-of-band that it could safely be filtered out. {Broadcast radio uses an IF of 10.7MHz and so the LO is in-band from 88.0 to 97.3. Fortunately, the signal doesn't travel far enough to cause a problem: if someone else's radio was tuned 10.7MHz above yours, it would have to get close enough for you to hear their audio well before it was close enough for the LO to swamp your RF signal. In the UK, only a few TV channels [all UHF] are used from any transmitter, so I guess the LO interference may be in-band but in theory but fall out-of-catchment-area in practice.}

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

boo hoo hoo! I cry tears for you.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

because you touch yourself at night.

Re:Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the market won't solve this.
Disabled people may be a very small minority, but through no fault of their own they are unable to experience the things we can.
We should do all we can to help them experience and enjoy life as we do, and throwing stupid laws in the way just makes it miserable.

You answer your own innate flame by pointing out the government shouldn't help them, your absolutely right but by the same tune, they shouldn't hinder them either.

Another point, why should they have to pay more for something that they will only get partial use out of, if anything, audio or visual only recordings of movies should be available - at around 1/2 the price of the dvd.

Abandonware?

[st1d]

Will this have some effect on the abandonware issue? It's sad that companies can buy [comparatively unsuccessful] software for pennies on the dollar, only to bury it (to kill competition). More directly, there are a lot of old games that are unavailable, simply because their holding companies are waiting for someone to meet a "pie in the sky" bid to rerelease them.

Grrr...

Re:Abandonware?

[Kjella]

More directly, there are a lot of old games that are unavailable, simply because their holding companies are waiting for someone to meet a "pie in the sky" bid to rerelease them.

Which is something quite different, really. Using Occam's razor, I think the answer is simply "Software is only free if your time is worth nothing". Selling it is probably an amount and a signature. Opening up the game means figuring out what third-party source code is in there, artwork, sounds, music and so on. A lot of this is probably licensed just for the game. Often, the entire team that once worked on it is gone. Someone have to take an interest to it and do quite a bit of work, none of which will bring in any revenue. Even if you do it for free, if you have to make any meetings, travel and so on, you might actually end up in a net loss. And you may still end up with some other company who has rights to some part of the code turn you down. Overall, you have to go through a whole lot of effort to get an obscure sourceforge page someone might take an interest in. Big whoop.

Re:Abandonware?

[TheRaven64]

The source code to old games has potential value. You can port them to mobile 'phones, for example, and sell them. The binaries have less value. A stipulation that you have to run them on the original hardware would protect against this, but not make the people who want to play them on emulators happy. Perhaps this could be dealt with by a provision that they are legal on any platform except those where they have been re-released.

All media can be cracked.

[Pig Hogger]

All media can be cracked.

Just don't get caught.

Seriously, less-broadly specified rights shall definitely trump precisely defined prohibitions. Like "fair-use", which is far more broadly defined than "thou shalt not circumvent © protections".

Or, put in other words, the exercise of a RIGHT cannot be prohibited to a given individual except by a court of law, the idea being to remove the law-making ability that has been put into private hands by the DMCA, for example.

Furthermore, more than ever, the Internet allows the "grass is greener" syndrome. The ability to send information instantaneously over great distances means that in any case, you'll always find a more favourable jurisdiction, rendering the prohibition moot.

For example, I live a day's drive away from the US federal capital, yet I can legally share music over the Internet, and nothing prevents me from running DeCSS on my computer, nor distributing crackster on my web server, things that would land me in jail if I had the foolish notion of embarking on a 30 minute drive (but fortunately, I don't have a car).

How about this...

[FlyByPC]

* Allow (legalize) any sort of encryption.

* Also allow (legalize) any sort of cracking.
* Enforce copyrights, as long as the complainant is the original author/performer. Third-parties (such as the RIAA) would not be legally able to benefit from any judgements.

* Along with this, make Intellectual Property available at a lower cost than much of it is today. For example, to download a song, pay what the recording artist/production team/etc would normally make, plus a small amount to cover the cost of the webserver (which would be less if files were distributed via BitTorrent.) The artists get their compensation (more, with increased volume); the public gets much lower cost content. The only losers would be the middlemen, who would then be free to go and get real jobs.

Re:How about this...

[Reverend528]

Enforce copyrights, as long as the complainant is the original author/performer.

Rather than this, why not make it so that copyrights belong to the original author/performer, are non-transferable, and cannot exceed the life of the copyright holder.

Re:Oh please

[goobster]

So what if the 'special media' doesn't exist? Should a handicapped person be denied access to something because there isn't enough interest in it by the 'market'? I'm sure you're narrow viewpoint would be different if you were blind yourself. You're sympathetic to blind people? Oh please indeed.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Media cracks YOU.

retract the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA is one of the worst laws enacted in history. The best and simplest solution that would benefit most would be to retract the DMCA. It could be replaced by laws that are less restrictive and exclusive rather than inclusive.

The labels should be responsible for this...

[accelleron]

Is it just me, or has the end user become completely dieregarded in recent years?

Look at, for example, the DRM schemes of today: The end user can consume information he/she legally purchased from only one point, and is restricted in terms of where he/she can transport his/her media. Did we have such laws before? Was it possible to pass legislation, or release content for that matter, that would limit the end user's rights to consume it? Could Sony's label release a CD that would only play 3 times, or that would only play on PC's and Sony CD players, without causing a public outrage? I think not.

It is sad to see the consumer, who is essentially the sole reason these companies make money, reduced to a state where he/she is forced to swallow limitations on the media purchased, and risk legal prosecution by choosing to use that media for himself in a way that the content distributors never intended. It is even more sad to see users succumb to this.

Legislation like this is a good step in the right direction, but I, for one, will not purchase a single file or disc until I can use it any way I want. Until I can insert my newly bought CD/DVD into my computer and have the CD's software offer to make me as many backup copies as I want, as many "friend" copies as I want, and as many transfers to any other device I wish, I will not buy a CD.

It's not enough to place the responsibility for monitoring the validity of the DMCA on some obscure board that will review a couple of formats once every three years, I should have the right to demand that my media plays in the way legally intended by the DMCA, at least, and the burden for ensuring this should be placed on the people that release the media. I should be able to sue, and win the lawsuit automatically, if I cannot use my media in the way I am legally entitled to without resorting to third-party solutions on shady sites the average consumer has never heard of, and will never find out about. I shouldn't have to re-encode my audio files through three different formats and manually rename and reconstruct the ID3 tags so that I can properly use my media, I should be offered to have everything done in a clean, quick, and effortless way by the CD itself, or at the very least be forwarded by the CD to a reliable website with clearly labeled instructions on how I can easily and effortlessly do so. Until then, our rights as consumers are not being enforced, and nor are the labels' responsibilities.

Re:The labels should be responsible for this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony (or whoever) is free to start selling a CD that self destructs after 3 times you play it. They're also free to market the hell out of it. They are NOT free to whine to anyone but themselves when people don't buy their product because it stinks, though.

Re:The labels should be responsible for this...

[mmdog]

It's not just you, it may in fact be just me and you but let's face it, what you are talking about goes way beyond DRM and digital media.

People in general just don't fight back anymore. I'm going to cut this short as I feel a major rant coming on, but our politicians have failed us horribly. End Users, consumers, customers, whatever you want to call them are not protected; the companies that are paying to get politicians elected are the ones who get protection and the rest of use get screwed.

We all need to fight back, teach our children to do so as well, and encourage others to do more of both.

Re:The labels should be responsible for this...

[Wazukkithemaster]

The new Foo Fighters CD only plays in Windows Media Player due to some sort of Licensing/DRM (my friend told me about it, haven't witnessed it first hand). I'm assuming my friend is being dumb and its just that the files are windows proprietary as i dont believe that anybody would be stupid enough to restrict HOW you played your music on your computer. But then again... people suck...

Re:The labels should be responsible for this...

[cobras2]

I think the entire problem lies in the word "consumer" which, to the "consumers", is just a word, but which, to the companies, is actually an idea.

We exist to consume what the companies make. If we don't do that we are not fulfilling our purpose in life and must be adjusted.

It shouldn't be "consumers", it should be "customers" and it shouldn't be passively "consuming" the products, but rather actively deciding what we want and, if it already exists, getting it. If it doesn't already exist then start your own company.

It seems that legislation is, for whatever reason (although I can think of a few, myself) more interested in (forcibly, by which I mean by force of law) adjusting the attitudes of "consumers" than in adjusting the attitudes of companies. Which is not a good thing, because although I think both companies and customers need some adjusting of attitudes, these laws aren't the right adjustments.

The right adjustments would be for the attitudes - and I must stress, of *both* companies *and* "consumers" - away from the "consumer" idea and towards the actual idea of the company providing a service the user actually *wants*. People shouldn't *be* buying flashy new movie X on DVD if it also has a pain in the butt 'region encoded, DRM scheme DVD encryption' on it which they don't want, simply because the company produced it that way.

And for the record, I am of course just as guilty in this regard as anyone else you can point a finger at.

Makes sense...

[Slashdiddly]

If before we were able to crack a book open, how ebooks are different?

Re: Makes sense...

[princessduplux]

There is a diffence! If you crack and Ebook - all the numbers fall out.

Re: Makes sense...

[Slashdiddly]

If you crack and Ebook - all the numbers fall out.

Not all - only 0's and 1's. And I think I saw a 2!

(Sorry, Bender)

Re: Makes sense...

[princessduplux]

It's ok if you see a 2, just as long as you don't tell anyone. 1 and 0 are all the numbers... (no problem, Princess)

Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM

[plasmacutter]

FOSS software, e.g. linux, has been hindered in its ability to adequately compete for the desktop environment because it's illegal to market distros with fully functional digital media playback facilities.

without a media player ready to go out of box, linux is less appealing to the average user.

Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM

[Tink2000]

I've been reading /. for five years now, and I don't think I've ever seen one post with two sentances full of more shit than yours.

Congratulations, here's your kewpie doll.

I've been using computers on a personal productive goal basis since 1992 (I know, a very short time in comparison with some of you), and I absolutely think that the "average user" should be taken out back and shot in the head. Twice.

When someone turned me on to mp3s back in the day, I thought "how wonderful, I never have to change my cds out of the computer again." Then someone pointed out Napster, and I thought "Fuck. Now every AOL idiot capable of pointing and clicking will be doing this, word will spread, and the whole thing will go to shit." I was half-right: today we have Digital Audio Players thanks to those Napsterbots of Yesteryear, but we also have bullshit DRM and **AA awareness of what used to be a rather inside geeky thing.

Even my grandmother knows what an mp3 is nowdays.

What the hell do you want out of a media player ready to go out of the box beyond the ability to play mp3s & cds? XMMS does a great job of this and is standard on every ready built distro I've used (FC and DamnSmallLinux).

Or maybe I've just been trolled.

Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM

[plasmacutter]

"What the hell do you want out of a media player ready to go out of the box beyond the ability to play mp3s & cds? XMMS does a great job of this and is standard on every ready built distro I've used (FC and DamnSmallLinux)."

how about the ability to legally play dvd's? ogm? xvid? HD-DVD?

in competition it's not about being "as good as" your competitors, it's about outstripping them.

You may hate the average users; I certainly find them annoying. Yet, without their support OSS will be crushed beneath the jackboots of the DMCA with barely a whimper from the small long-tail techie community.

Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM

[justsomebody]

ogm? xvid?

You can play those two legaly.
And about DVD's, true, while HD-DVD does not exist yet.

Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM

[Khaed]

OSS seems to be doing just fine the way it is, without a whole hell of a lot of input from the average users.

Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM

[schleyfox]

Well, most distros aren't actually allowed to umm... include the mp3 libraries. Fedora, SuSE, and Ubuntu require that they be installed seperately, and the process isn't as easy as one would expect for installing full featured media packages, on SuSE you have to download special builds off of a third party server, uninstall all the old things, and force your new packages in.

Your argument against the GP was that because average users like mp3s, we shouldn't worry about them. Average people caused the RIAA to make life hell. While they certainly didn't help, the industry trade groups have always tried to destroy new things and it is the fault of the RIAA and corrupt politicians that we have these laws. This is essentially the same as a rapist arguing that the girl had it coming, and was just asking for it. If you know what you are doing, mp3/media support isn't a big deal, but in many cases it is still a PITA to get these packages set up, and more so if the user expects mp3s to just work. That said, I use gentoo, no mp3 problems there.

Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM

[Waffle Iron]

What the hell do you want out of a media player ready to go out of the box beyond the ability to play mp3s & cds? XMMS does a great job of this and is standard on every ready built distro I've used (FC and DamnSmallLinux).

XMMS on Fedora Core won't play MP3s. IIRC, they even yanked the MP3 decoder source out of the SRPMs. I had to download a real copy of the XMMS source and compile it from scratch to play MP3s on FC.

Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM

[manarth]

FOSS software, e.g. linux, has been hindered in its ability to adequately compete for the desktop environment because it's illegal to market distros with fully functional digital media playback facilities.

In the case of MP3, it cannot be distributed under the GPL. MP3 may be an ISO standard, but it's still protected by patents (see http://www.mp3licensing.com/>).

The licencing fee for MP3 playing software is US $0.75 per unit or a one time payment of US $50,0000 - $ 60,000. The fee for an encoder is $2.50 - $5.00 per unit.

Microsoft do have a licencing program for WMA, and I'm sure they'd love the thought of selling it to *nix.

Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. MP3 playing and encoding software can legally be distributed under the GPL in any jurisdiction where patents on mathematical operations are not allowed. The incompatibility with patented software only arises because the GPL quite reasonably forbids the imposition of additional restrictions when you redistribute software which you received because of the GPL, and a requirement to obtain a separate patent licence would be an additional restriction. The GPL is only a copyright licence, and cannot give permission for acts which are beyond the scope of copyright law. But in the UK, where a patent granted against software is not worth the paper it is printed on, there is no additional restriction and so it is quite legal to distribute. If the recipient was in a foreign country which supported the absurd position of mathematical patents, they probably could legally obtain and use the software, since proving a patent violation {if one has even occurred; some limited measure of personal use may well be exempted} would likely involve a breach of privacy. But they probably could not distribute the software any further.

Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

how about the ability to legally play dvd's? ogm? xvid?

Are you saying that I have illegal DVD playing software on my computer? It's in portage so it cant be illegal or it would have been removed. In fact I would say that linux DVD support is better than windows, it took a lot less crap to get multi-region working on linux than it did on windows (this is important as I live in the UK and some stuff is expensive/released later/not released at all over here), you would think that this is the sort of feature microsoft could build into their OS; it's not like they're budgets are limited, maybe in vista.

Apparently OGM is now open source (according to wikipedia) so thats ok, same for xvid althought there are patent issues.

Maybe you just need to realise that you can afford to ignore some laws, unless you go and download 200gb of music every month its pretty unlikely that anyone is going to look at your pc or can you get searched coz someone felt like it now?

Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM

[agraupe]

In the US, the DMCA does make DeCSS, and thus playing dvds, illegal. In the rest of the world, the status is murky. I have also heard that distributing or creating the circumvention device (DeCSS) is illegal, but using it for fair use is not.

If they are taking ideas for revisions

[Midnight Warrior]

If the U.S. Copyright Office is soliciting ideas on this concept, a method exists to address accessibility for those disabled, and the "lost due to bankruptcy" sides. Two parts address each side.

Part 1: Copyright holders should be required to register each anti-circumvention method with the copyright office in exchange for which a number (which has no legal value) will be assigned to the method. IP firms which specialize in protection methods could register their methods as "base classes" for others. References to patent numbers might also be helpful.

Part 2: The holder then keeps a list available for public viewing which indicates the works and which copy protection methods they have employed. (Example: ebook "How To Be A Dummy," published 8Oct2005, document format: PRC, DRM method: 1,554,776 (Ref 334,665) ). Note that this is not registering your works. Ideally, this list should be notarized, either electronically or physically to prevent post-litigation tampering.

Part 1 takes the good old cryptography rule to heart, "The algorithm is never the secret. The input key is the secret." Two things happen here: bad protection is shamed away from being used, and the court system has a public notice of intent on the behalf of the holder requesting that the DMCA provide anti-circumvention enforcement. Then the U.S. Courts would only need to prove or disprove that the declared method was actually in use and attempting to protect the work in question. If expert commentary were recognized on at least "base class" methods, then prebuilt testimony could be used in courts to make enforcement of base-64 encoding methods an embarassment to the litigant.

Part 2 gives the courts the benefits of documentation regarding protected works. It also lets those who provide support to disabled individuals have a course of action with regard to legal circumvention. So it could, for example, allow someone who converts DRMed ebooks to audiobooks to become a limited, authorized agent to perform such action with nothing more than some paperwork from the copyright holder. If the copyright holder has disappeared (death or otherwise), then the method is publicly known and could be cracked within governed rules.

In short, there exists the potential to not take the teeth out of the DMCA while still executing it a more efficient way. Hopefully the methods described above represent ideas that tilt more power towards the public without actually removing any power of the copyright holder. Yes, many of us believe it should disappear, but the U.S. did sign an international treaty of which the DMCA is only a manifestation. Since the U.S. is a WTO member, it was a willing participant, although it could have fought back a little harder.

Re:If they are taking ideas for revisions

[Jason75082]

At first glance I thought this was a fairly workable solution, but then I realized that it wouldn't work. The reason is that the holder has to keep a publicly viewable list of works protected. A private person or company ought to have the right to protect their works from copy without having to list those works publicly. Before the flames begin, let me give some examples to illustrate why. 1. Say I am an amatuer inventor with a really good new idea. I am working on the designs for my idea using computer software like CAD. Further, let's say I'm paranoid and always encrypt my data. Now these designs are covered by copyright and should be covered by the DMCA as well since I have gone to the trouble to encrypt them, and I should not have to reveal to the world what I am working on or even that I have something to hide in order to get the protection of the law. 2. You own a company that sells products online. Any purchase made has an invoice generated which is kept in encrypted form. You and your customers have a right to privacy, a right compromised by either a third party stealing and cracking the invoices or by the necessity of law forcing your publication of their existance.

It Works

[mlmitton]

I'm not sure I understand....my girlfriend says a hardware dongle always works.

So Bloody Simple

[t_allardyce]

Then why not just get rid of the DMCA? for fucks sake it makes no sense to have a DMCA and an add-on law that says you're only breaking the law if you break protection to violate copyright - why not just simplify the whole thing and get rid of the DMCA - if you break protection for piracy then you've already broken the law, the fact that you broke the protection should mean nothing, otherwise, why not just implement DRM that can be by-passed by clicking on 'turn off DRM' which then shows you a legal agreement you must accept?

Re:So Bloody Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

why not just implement DRM that can be by-passed by clicking on 'turn off DRM' which then shows you a legal agreement you must accept?
So you can break the DRM by yourself and not have any agreement to accept?

I crack media all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Best way to destroy a CD.

Just watch out for the shards.

why make it so complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

why not make a whole new act which allows an owner of an information to be able to transfer it to any media, provided there is only one user accesing the information at a time.
I always deemed this to be a better answer than rewriting a whole act.

Re:Why fucking bother (off topic)

[Anonymous Coward]

[grand] parent might be jewish; the religion prohibts use of the word 'god', spoken or written.

interesting side-note, the reason the 'o' is omitted is that the original name of god could only be spoken by the high priest on yom kippur, so any written representation of god's true name was written without vowels (generally seen as 'YHWH', called 'the tetragrammaton', said 'yahweh' or 'jehova').

Here's the details

[Bob9113]

http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr57526.htm l

SUMMARY:

The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is preparing to conduct proceedings in accordance with section 1201(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which was added by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and which provides that the Librarian of Congress may exempt certain classes of works from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention. This notice requests written comments from all interested parties, including representatives of copyright owners, educational institutions, libraries and archives, scholars, researchers and members of the public, in order to elicit evidence on whether noninfringing uses of certain classes of works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by this prohibition on the circumvention of measures that control access to copyrighted works. DATES: Written comments are due by December 1, 2005. Reply comments are due by February 2, 2006.

Re:Oh please

[Kjella]

You answer your own innate flame by pointing out the government shouldn't help them, your absolutely right but by the same tune, they shouldn't hinder them either.

I disagree, simply on the "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [...]" basis. I think it should be part of the government's job to ensure that disabled people are treated as equals with the rest of us. In general, I rarely have a problem with benefits to those who really can't help their condition, whether it is from birth, through illness or injury. If we "shouldn't help them", there's a lot of people in social security (people who avoid work), healthcare (lifestyle diseases, alcohol, smoking, drug problems), public sector (social security by any other name) and so I'd stop helping first.

Another point, why should they have to pay more for something that they will only get partial use out of, if anything, audio or visual only recordings of movies should be available - at around 1/2 the price of the dvd.

You and I may buy the same phone, but I could use it five times as much as me or vice versa, or use completely different features and so on. It's a really bad metric. I'm simply willing to put accessability for the disabled as one of the ground rules, like environmental protections, work safety and so on. As long as everybody is bound by the same rules, it shouldn't affect free competition. Mostly because it's usually not a lot that is required, and denying it to them feels like kicking someone that's already down.

Patching the symptoms.

[dismentor]

I'm not sure they get it. They are taking rights away/extending the privileges of the copyright holder; All these circumstances where this causes trouble are /symptoms/ of the problem, not the problem itself. DRM is not a valid extension of the copyright holders' privilege to restrict public display and distribution; that is the issue.

Re:Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were equal they wouldn't need special treatment.

I'm all for it.

[Spacejock]

I just recieved a Las Vegas season 2 boxed set from overseas. (Original) Ep3 and Ep6 don't work, and Ep2 and Ep5 have skips (It's a double-sided disk, and there's obviously a load of bad sectors.) Sending it back is not really an option - two more lots of international postage will cost more than the boxed set did in the first place.

The point is, using a freely-available program I was able to extract all of side one to my hard drive and watch episode 3. Episode 6 is beyond saving, from the look of it, but I haven't given up yet.

I'm not copying disks to sell or pirating anything, all I'm doing is using a third party tool to watch something I paid for which is otherwise unwatchable.

Re:I'm all for it.

[HermanAB]

Yes, you are allowed to do that. Layman tend to read laws in isolation. Lawyers look at the big picture - many laws are unconstitutional or otherwise overuled by other laws, principles and case law. In essence, if a CD/DVD is yours, then you can do whatever the hell you need to do in order to perform the CD, except make an exact copy. Therefore, if you bought a CD, then you may copy it to a hard disc in order to perform the CD, but you are not allowed to copy the CD onto another CD.

Re:I'm all for it.

[Spacejock]

I live in Australia, where (I think) it's not legal to back up content. E.g. ripping tracks from a cd and putting them on an mp3 player is verboten. Common sense prevails, in that you don't get police kicking your door down to forcibly search for infringements.

I believe the program I used to read the files off the disk has to bypass encryption to do so. I don't care what it does/did - I had a non-working disk which I paid good money for, and it was the only way I could think of to view the content.

I did try a direct read of the dvd, but there were too many sector errors and it failed. This way I managed to salvage something.

Re:I'm all for it.

[GigsVT]

Are you just making this up as you go along?

Why would it matter if you put it on a different format?

Re:Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

Handicapped people need to be shot down in the street like the scum they are.

Right on. Same results, fewer steps:

[happymedium]

1. Repeal the DMCA, etc.
2. Let The Market Decide (TM).

Of course that would require more honesty and intelligence from our politicians than usual... paradoxically, even moreso from *ahem* those who supposedly have faith in "the market."

Common Sense

[CriminalNerd]

Why can't our laws just have one line where it says:

"All acts that are obviously done due to the absense or ignorance of "common sense" will be punished accordingly."

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Common sense is not very common though...

Re:Oh please

[Slashdiddly]

Of course the market won't solve this.

The market would have solved it had it not been tampered with repeatedly. By definition, every IP law tampers with the free market.

The LAW is wrong...

[zappepcs]

Remember of course, that IANAL, but it seems to me that copyright law, especially that which upholds legal recourse for such small matters as fair-use is just not what the founders intended, nor is it in the best interest of the population.

I believe that copyright owners have a right to legal protection from those that would blatently copy their works and distribute for a profit. Anything that is no more damaging than a public library is fair game. That means it is not illegal for you to load a DVD to your friend before returning it to the rental place, nor is it illegal to 'loan' your copy to a friend.

Now making tons of copies and selling them at a local market... that's wrong, should be illegal.

Fair-use is not an illegal activity aimed at defauding the copyright owner, and any, *ANY* device or mechanism designed to prohibit your fair use of something you have paid to use is NOT the intent of copyright law.

What we have here is a need to re-educate and moderate the law.

Well, IMHO anyway

Re:The LAW is wrong...

[Ashe Tyrael]

The trouble with this is that to most law-makers, the idea is that rather than lots of little laws that cover every case, it's better to create one law that covers the worst-case scenario.

That's what laws are, mostly, the absolute worst-case scenario and the way of dealing with it. Which, of necessity, cuts out all those niggling "but if.." situations that a buttload of court-cases seem to be about. that's whjat the DMCA appears to be, the idea that if you are doing any of this behaviour, you must be doing it for the worst of reasons.

Which probably says as much about human nature as it does about any technological fact.

Re:Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the market won't solve this.

As long as something's for sale, the market will figure it out. Meddling by lawmakers just make it take longer.

To allow access once Copyright expires.

[sbaker]

Copyrights and patents exist in order that the holder may gain some period of commercial value - protected by the state, in return for which, the work returns to the public domain once that period has expired.

It's a reasonably fair trade.

The DMCA (and encryption in general) overturns that trade. It allows the owner the protection of the law - but it doesn't give the public their rights to eventual open use.

That's not fair.

IMHO, people who encrypt their products should be denied copyright protection - in just the way that people with technical innovation can choose to keep that innovation as a Trade Secret instead of getting Patent coverage.

In the absence of this, historians of the future are going to have a very hard time finding out about our society. If most or even all media of the next century ends up locked away behind almost unbreakable encryption - with DRM hardware locking that encryption to a particular computer - it may become impossible for someone a few hundred years from now to read our newspapers, books or watch our movies. That would be a terrible thing.

It's bad enough that we've been primarily responsible for screwing over the planet for our descendents - but now we're working hard towards denying them access to our greatest musicians, authors and other media?

Right now, it seems like a computer from a few hundred years into the future would be able to break any of our codes quite easily - but when Moores' Law runs out of steam, the most powerful encryption systems we have on that day will probably be *FOREVER* uncrackable.

Re:To allow access once Copyright expires.

[Sloppy]

IMHO, people who encrypt their products should be denied copyright protection - in just the way that people with technical innovation can choose to keep that innovation as a Trade Secret instead of getting Patent coverage.

That was my thinking a few years ago too, but it has a problem in it. Suppose I make a movie, "The Story of Sloppy." I hold the copyright. Then I publish it in unencrypted form, on VHS tape. So far, so good. Then I publish it on super-high-resolution, uncrackably-super-encrypted Next generation DVD.

Decades later, in the future, when my copyright would run out, PD wouldn't be denied "The Story of Sloppy." It's right there on unencrypted VHS. Nobody can seriously say I've subverted the process of copyrighted works falling into PD. So I shouldn't be denied copyright.

But the future only gets the crappy low-res version. The high-res version is still uncrackable, and the DRM systems no longer allow it to be played since I put an expiration date into it, because I wanted people to keep buying new copies every 5 years. (Because I'm an evil son of a bitch.)

Have I fucked over the future generations, or haven't I?

I can't make up my mind about that. Should I lose the copyright as soon as I publish the encrypted DVD, or should I not lose it?

Or should the VHS tape be considered protected by law, and the DVD not protected? That can lead to some really weird possibilities, like when someone cracks my "uncrackable" DVD and legally sells PD videotape copies for half the price of my own copyrighted videotapes...

Re:To allow access once Copyright expires.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we could remove any CSS mandate from the DVD spec. Release an open DVD, get distribution protection., Release encrypted DVD, you're protecting yourself.

Obviously the better choice is copyright protection since no encryption works anyway. As a result this will never happen because our government likes its corporate sugar daddies.

Re:To allow access once Copyright expires.

[sbaker]

That strikes to the heart of what we're going to call 'The Work'. If the encrypted digital version is identical to the analog version then I guess the fact that the analog version is freely available means that the public has access to the work in the future so copyright protection is a fair trade. Of course the temptation would be to make and sell just one copy of the VHS in order to meet my hypothetical copyright law - then ship the remainder as encrypted digital copies - so I guess that wouldn't work. Even if you required an unencrypted version to be lodged at the library of congress or some such repository, you could make that copy be so blurry and noisey as to be essentially unwatchable.

However, if the digital version is significantly different (in the way that you can improve on an existing patent and patent the result for example) - then it must be treated as a different work.

A third option would be to say that the work is conferred copyright privilages only so long as it's not shipped in an encrypted form...so having released the VHS version under copyright law would effectively prevent you from ever releasing an encrypted digital version without losing your rights to the analog version. I don't like that option at all.

I think my preference would be to say that the digital version is treated as a separate work. So the analog version is protected by copyright law - but if you, the owner of the copyright, subsequently decided that you'd prefer to rely on encryption to getting copyright law protection - then you could release an encrypted version which (as you say) could be legally copied if the encryption was broken.

It is difficult - no doubt.

Re:To allow access once Copyright expires.

[sbaker]

> Or we could remove any CSS mandate from the DVD spec.
> Release an open DVD, get distribution protection.,
> Release encrypted DVD, you're protecting yourself.

This goes beyond the DVD standard...which carries no legal force anyway. This problem exists in all digital media.

> Obviously the better choice is copyright protection since
> no encryption works anyway.

That's only true as long as future computers are much faster than present day machines.
It typically takes a vastly more powerful computer to break a code than the computer that does the encoding - or the one that decodes using the official key. However, when Moores' law runs out of steam, computers will no longer be getting faster and the most sophisticated encryption scheme that can be devised at that point in time will be well-neigh impossible to crack unless there is some horrible loophole in the encryption math. With all the people studying encryption these days, that prospect vanishes too.

Remember, nobody 'cracked' the CSS scheme - the original author was given the key-code by somewhat nefarious means. If the CSS key had remained secret, DeCSS would not exist. Notice for example that the X-box encryption scheme has not been broken - despite an awful lot of effort. In that case, the key is only required by one manufacturer - so it's remained a close-kept secret. The CSS key was required by dozens of manufacturers of DVD players - so it was eventually leaked.

> As a result this will never happen because our government likes
> its corporate sugar daddies.

Indeed.

The copyright office will probably do due diligence, collect public comments, pass them on to the law makers - who will ignore them and extend the life of copyrights again and again until they are effectively infinite.

Try to imagine a day when Mickey Mouse becomes public domain. Now try to imagine a world in which he never does. Which seems more plausible?

OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

LETS ALL GET SMAHHED LOL11!!!onetwo

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

This is good.

[Douglas Simmons]

Legalizing this will accomplish a few things: It will strengthen the competition in the market for professional cryptographers, and it will ultimately improve the quality of the product which is good because the people we need to defend ourselves from tend to be the type that ignores the law.

So why the hell not.

Re:Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I'm as sympathetic as the next guy to blind people but they should buy special media if they need to use it. If they can't afford to then there's clearly not a market for the material and why should they get the government to help them break the law?

The next guy is Attila the Hun, right?

Gawdammit Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

When the law was passed, Congress mandated the register of copyrights revisit the anti-circumvention section every three years

Really Slashdot? How interesting. I wonder when the next review is due... Right now? Ya don't say! And comments are due by Dec 1, 2005!? Well fancy that. Certainly some kind souls out there must have submitted this information as a story. I wonder why we aren't reading about it? Ahhh, door handles of the future, I see. That's much more important. THAT is 'stuff that matters' I tell ya. Well, if anyone is still interested after reading about said door handles... here are some other interesting links regarding the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions:

• Lexmark brings DMCA lawsuit against SCC for refilling Lexmark printer cartridges.
• SCC brings lawsuit against ISV for refilling Lexmark printer cartidges after beating the same rap itself in the Lexmark case.
• Makers of universal garage door remotes slapped with DMCA lawsuit.
• Robot dog modders threated with DMCA.
• Mobile phone services stifling competition with DMCA.

Hmm... looks like the DMCA is being used to make lawyers rich and stomp on innovation and competition. And to think, I thought copyright was about 'promoting progress.' Silly me.

Exemption is practically worthless.

[russotto]

Please note that while the copyright office can grant exemptions to allow the act of circumventing technical protection schemes, they cannot grant exemptions to allow the manufacture or trafficking in devices which can circumvent those measures. So even if your special pleadings get you an exemption, you can't legally make or purchase a device which can do the job.

Re:Exemption is practically worthless.

[plasmacutter]

Just as the RIAA and their political lapdogs planned it in 1998.

The idiots who were reviewing it let it pass to stop the incessant whining (at least from Rick Boucher's account), and now their political lapdogs continue to prevent change in the law by blocking it's approval in key senate committees.

I hope satan makes a special level of hell for these guys.

In dantean hell, i think the most interesting place would be crammed up the arses of those who were crammed up the devil's arse, and then a pineapple or 2 crammed up THEIR arses.

Re:Exemption is practically worthless.

[klang]

would that be the "special hell", reserved for child molestors and people that talk in the cinema?

Re:Oh please

[Obsi]

IANAL, but doesn't format shifting fall under fair use? (ebook to audiobook) And wouldn't it be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act to actively prevent disabled persons from having the same opportunities as an able-bodied person? I think they're doing exactly that by standing in the way of the ebook-audiobook format shift.

Congress needs a lesson in Contract Law

[serutan]

From the previous article...
No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but that's what HR-1201 permits.

That's also what Congress did when it passed the Bono Act in 1998, which extended copyright terms for another 50 years and retroactively placed all audio recordings made before 1972 under copyright until the year 2067. Many of these works were already in the public domain. But even the wax cylinders recorded by Edison in the 1890s are now copyrighted until 2067 because of this law.

Copyright isn't a fact of nature or a divine right, it's a contract between copyright holders and the public. The public agrees to respect a copyright and pay taxes to enforce it for a specific number of years. At the end of that time the public expects the work to become public domain. Every time Congress extends copyrights it's like declaring that all 30-year mortgages are now 60-year mortgages. Or in some cases, giving the house back to the bank after it's been paid up. Great news if you're the bank, bad news if you're the one making the payments.

What sane person would enter into a contract that allows the other party to disregard its terms at will? The average American citizen. Oops, I mean "consumer."

you failed to note his mischaracterization of 1201

[plasmacutter]

No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but that's what HR-1201 permits.

what a TERRIBLE mischaracterization.

if you enter into a contract and you breach that contract, then you pay, weather the law allows fair use or not

what HR-1201 allows people to do is to develop their own media access/playback systems for DRM'ed media WITHOUT ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT AT ALL.. which is how the copyright system worked before 1998, and how the free market works everywhere else.

You don't see ford getting their own pet law which forces tire companies to sign a contract for the "priveledge" of making tires for fords, nor do you see honda getting a pet law which forces snapon tool company to sign a contract for the "priveledge" of making tools which work with honda engines. The same free market principles should apply to copyrighted works.

Copyright is the exclusive right to produce and distribute, not the exclusive right to determine access.

THE WAY I SEE IT

[Anonymous Coward]

Renting tapes and taping them off and renting DVDs and burning them off are illegal, but who hasn't done it? Video copy protections schemes (Macrovision, encryption, ArCCos) have all been cracked and programs to defeat them are widely available on the net (DVD Shrink 2.3 and DVD Fab Decrypter are two of the best). No doubt Blu-Ray and HD-DVD protection schemes will be cracked and programs will be made available.
People debate on video sites about what is legal and what is illegal. Who freakin' cares?! With a computer, DVD burner, and the right programs you can rent and burn till your heart's content, and who's gonna know? Who's gonna care? If you make personal copies in the privacy of your own home, for your own personal use (and don't do anything stupid like try to sell them), what would you be worried about? Even if everybody in town knew, who would care? You think the cops are going to come break down your door and say, "Well, lookie here. This guy's got an illegal copy of 'Napoleon Dynamite'!"? Trust me, if the authorities have reason to raid your home, a few burned discs are the least of your worries.

'Encryption' should be defined.

[chris_sawtell]

The word 'encryption' should be defined so that simplistic methods invented about 2000 years ago are excluded from the legal definition. IOW the encryption methods should be strong and the key to the data held other than on the medium carrying the data. It is morally wrong to manufacture criminals out of intelligent teenagers overflowing with curiosity. Remember that the corollary to "... and lead us not into temptation", is "Thou shall not tempt others".

One of my DVD's has a crack in it - is it legal

[zenst]

SO one of MY DVD's has a crack fom the centre hole, so should I sue the company that made it or is my DVD player in violation of cracking DVD's :D.

In Australian News : Sony Vs Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Just one.
A court order for the supplier to supply an unlocked copy for those who need it - and penalties - like $50,000 per day for not producing it, and being automatically exempted after that.

Why? - They can read foreign Law findings too.

The Australian High court found against Sony , decreeing modchips legal, where fair use is prevented/ and or consumer choice (region coding) harmed - but upheld DRM generally - they were just not buying the 'all or nothing' argument. Hopefully a class action by all those injured between now and when Sony offers Australia region free players will occur.

The Blind, or shall we say the 'sight impared' population is still being discriminated against by technological idiots - flash, web bug and no alt-text tags etc.
Even DVD's STILL lack subtitles, let alone braile or inpicture handmovements.

Backstory comment, bunch of links...

[Dave21212]

I mentioned this in my journal almost 2 years ago (yet another rejected submission:) All links are still good, mostly covering the e-book and fair access for the blind.

There are over 10 million visually impaired people just in the US who are being blinded by the DMCA. On the back page of Software Developer, Warren Keuffel has a commentary (free reg) that summarizes what he found to be issues still brewing over the use of the DMCA to prevent people from implementing technology designed to translate eBooks into Braille. XML is being used now to facilitate the translations of eBooks and other electronic formats and to help disabled people get simple access to reading material that others of us may take for granted. The DMCA effectively blocks many of these new innovations (go figure). Is short, the American Federation for the Blind has sent comments the US Copyright office, Congress is looking at the issue, The Association of American Publishers is fighting it, all the while fair-use and disabled students continue to suffer.

What? Practically every DRM scheme!

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the copyright office finds instances where copy protection prevents fair use of the work, then those copy protections can be legally circumvented."

A) Then why the @#$#@$#@! doesn't the law already SAY that?

and

B) Practically every DRM scheme I have encountered is an "instance where copy protection prevents fair use of the work". If I try to send video through my stereo receiver or another vcr (even if not recording), Macrovision messes up the signal on the way to the TV. If I try to play certain, old games on a win2k or XP system, the game would play fine, but the copy protection isn't compatible, so it has to be circumvented to make it work. And if my significant other wants to copy music from her Nora Jones pseudo-CD, she can't do it like all the ordinary, genuine "Red Book" CDs. The DRM has to be circumvented.

The law should be simple: circumvention of *any* DRM method should be legal for activities that, on their own, would have been legal, such as "fair use". It makes no sense to have a law that makes it technically impossible to exercise "fair use" rights.

It's like having a law saying you can buy a cake from the bakery, but you can't legally breach the tape keeping the box closed if you want to eat the cake, because the creator of that work (the baker) put the protections on there, and circumvention of cake protections is illegal. Why not? You wouldn't want pirates to start easily copying cakes illegally, would you? The baking industry would collapse!

Stipulating your statements...

[msauve]

in the State of Michigan the yearly increase in "taxable value" for property taxes is capped to 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. This cap is removed when a property sale occurs, so the new owner pays based on the actual "assessed value." The net effect is that for equally valuable property, newly purchased property has higher taxes than property which has had the same owner for years.

Under your argument and Kelo, it appears that government could use eminent domain to force the sale of properties (government buys, then resells to the same or another party), effectively circumventing that cap. The public benefit would be increased tax revenue.

Is that correct, and if not what argument do you offer which is not at odds with Kelo?

Re:Stipulating your statements...

[cpt kangarooski]

I suppose it's possible. Similar things have happened before, e.g. Hawaii siezed land and immediately resold it to break up monolithic landowners, and this was found constitutional about 20 years ago. There are practical limits on eminent domain, which you're conveniently ignoring, however.

First, Kelo merely says that the Fifth Amendment doesn't prohibit this. State constitutions and laws are definitively interpreted, not by the federal Supreme Court, but by the state Supreme Courts. These laws and their interpretations can independently prohibit the state from exercising the eminent domain power to the limits permitted federally. In fact, a quick google indicates that the Michigan courts have a considerably stricter standard for takings and that your scenario cannot happen there (except perhaps for redeveloping blighted areas). Of course, I'm not a MI lawyer, and I'm not going to do extensive research for a /. post, but I wouldn't worry much.

Second, there is a political check. Even if a state's present law permits this, enough people seem to be upset about it that their legislators may take action to change the law to make them happy, or if they won't, they might get voted out in favor of someone who listens to their constituents more.

Third, your hypo was specifically considered by the Court in Kelo. They said that first, this wasn't that sort of situation, as these takings were part of a comprehensive development plan that had been carefully deliberated and promised additional benefits beyond merely more taxes. If what you describe were to arise, they said, they would be more suspicious of it. However, they're not going to worry about it now, since the present case was different. If your scenario comes to pass, they'll consider it on its own merits in the future, and perhaps figure out how to allow the one and not the other, but only when they actually need to.

Re:Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

You answer your own innate flame by pointing out the government shouldn't help them, your absolutely right but by the same tune, they shouldn't hinder them either.

Oh no! Oh no! AC used the wrong form of "you're"! Let's stop discussing the issue at hand and harp about spelling and grammar and, ooh, pronouns!

Harp harp harp!

Tinkle tinkle.

Re:Oh please

[wayland]

If we "shouldn't help them", there's a lot of people in social security (people who avoid work), healthcare (lifestyle diseases, alcohol, smoking, drug problems), public sector (social security by any other name) and so I'd stop helping first.

Agreed, except the "First" part. Just because they're wasting money doing other things doesn't mean that they should waste more :).

Re:YRO: Edited by the Swedish Chef

[g0bshiTe]

Thats fuckin hilarious. One of the best random /. posts I've read.