USCO Reviewing DMCA Anti-Circumvention Clause

ahknight writes "The United States Copyright office begins its required review of the effects of the anti-circumvention portions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act on November 2nd. This review period lasts until December 1, 2005. They will be accepting your well-thought-out opinions on the web and by mail. If you're reasonably ticked that you can't legally get around encrypted files to get at the media you've bought, start writing a coherent stance for the USCO today."

Comments

Coherent?

[gorbachev]

"...start writing a coherent stance for the USCO today."

DMCA is teh suxx0rszss!!!11!one!11

Re:Coherent?

[LTC_Kilgore]

OMGWTFBBQ?!?!!!11

Re:Coherent?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're joking, but there is a serious point here. When the British government held its "consultation" on ID cards they received far more responses by email than by post. Most of the letters they received were in favour of ID cards. Most of the emails were "form letters" against.

So the government counted all the emails as one response, and concluded that the public were in favour of ID cards.

They did eventually backtrack on this (but are introducing ID cards anyway). However, my point is that the USCO may ignore emailed responses if they receive a large number that are generic or spam. Don't take the piss.

A better idea ...

[aaronmcdaid]

> start writing a coherent stance

.. or just rip off a fellow slashdotter's comment.

Re:A better idea ...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. or just rip off another fellow slashdotter's comment.

Re:A better idea ...

[AlphaJoe]

Uhm.... he said coherent...

Re:A better idea ...

[bcat24]

Coherence and Slashdot are mutually exclusive.

Not a good idea to post that on /.

[J0nne]

I doubt their comment form has a moderation system, so any insightful comments will drown between all the goatse and tubgirl images and ascii pr0n that will undoubtedly be sent ;)...

Chance for change...

[squoozer]

...not likely. There is no way on Earth they will give up this power to control the market. In fact, there is no way anyone will ever give up any power unless a) it is taken from them (usually by force) or b) they can replace it with another power that is equal or stronger. The best that we can hope for is that the law will for the most part go uninforced because it is basically unworkable or unjust.

Re:Chance for change...

[klaun]

...not likely. There is no way on Earth they will give up this power to control the market. In fact, there is no way anyone will ever give up any power unless a) it is taken from them (usually by force) or b) they can replace it with another power that is equal or stronger. The best that we can hope for is that the law will for the most part go uninforced because it is basically unworkable or unjust.

As evidenced by by Indian independence movement from British Colonial rule.

Re:Chance for change...

[sjwaste]

With all due respect to the OP, this post should not have been modded insightful.

The best that you can hope for isn't that the law will go uninforced, but that it will be enforced upon someone with the willingness to litigate it. Courts decide whether a law violates your rights, and that's what you need in this case, a suit argued well by a competent attorney in the field. It needs to go to a jury and won there. You might argue that a judge or jury doesn't understand the injustice in the law, but that's why you need a good attorney to craft the argument.

As much as you people hate trial lawyers around here (I can't say I like the ambulance chasing types either).

Re:Chance for change...

[sunya]

Yeah, that worked real well against the Sonny Bono Coyright extension.

Re:Chance for change...

[cdrguru]

Indian independence was "won" from a country that tired of empire and decided to question their own ability and rightness. Many in England at the time thought it was simply wrong for their empire to exist and that England had no more right to rule than anyone else.

The result was they gave up their empire and retreated to their own shores for economic contraction and near-collapse.

This is the future that the US faces. While we don't have an empire, we do have the nattering nabobs that say we have no more right to "rule" than the savages that behead people on TV. We probably don't have any more "right" and this very admission will almost certainly lead to the dominance of those that would see the US contract and nearly collapse.

Re:Chance for change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please contact me personally. I have a need for people like yourself.

L. Ron Hubbard
This post is copyright and redistribution is prohibited

Re:Chance for change...

[keraneuology]

Which is why jury nullification is such an important aspect of the modern legal system. Since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - ie: congress will always take it upon themselves to pass idiotic and patently unjust laws (see previous comments about US Sen McCain, R-AZ declaring that money is more important than the Constitution) and judges will always side with modern interpretations of law over the US Constitution and common sense - the ability for the jury to declare a law unenforcible is paramount to a fair and equitable society.

A good reference is the American Jury Institute and Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA)

Some states get it right:

In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact (Maryland)

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. (Indiana)

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law (Oregon)

the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts (Georgia)

Chances of the federal government willingly accepting the concept that the lowly pee-ons of the citizenry are smart enough to spot a bad law when they see it? None to rolling of the floor laughing. And even in states where the juries have the right to judge the law the juries are often kept in the dark regarding the true nature of their position.

Other related takes can be found here and here.

Re:Chance for change...

[zootm]

Isn't it the media companies that are using this power to control the market, though? I'd like to be positive enough to think that you can't just equate the government and big business these days.

It's a nice thought, anyway.

Re:Chance for change...

[Councilor Hart]

And even in states where the juries have the right to judge the law the juries are often kept in the dark regarding the true nature of their position.
Wouldn't that problem be solved by mandating the presence of at least one person with a law degree (or a law student) in the jury? Or would that shift the problem elsewhere?

Re:Chance for change...

[keraneuology]

Wouldn't that problem be solved by mandating the presence of at least one person with a law degree (or a law student) in the jury?

The vast majority of judges in this country have law degrees (many states make this a codified requirement - I don't know about federal judges but the odds of a non-lawyer being appointed federal judge are pretty much 0 in a trillion). Many US Senators and Reps have law degrees. Many state senators and representatives and governors have law degrees.

No problem in the history of the world has ever been solved or even lessened by requiring lawyers to get involved.

If anything, lawyers should be banned from serving on juries.

Re:Chance for change...

[a1ok]

I'm not really sure that the non-violence movement was the major reason for the British to withdraw from India. Ever think that a whole lot of Commonwealth countries got their independence just after World War II, when British military might was very weak and they had enough problems at home to deal with? In fact, India became independent *later* than most of the other countries in Asia and Africa.

I'm an Indian, and had to read all about Gandhi's non-violence movement in History class at school. I consider him to be an idealist, while his intentions may have been good he just succeeded in getting lots of people lathi-charged (hit with batons), rendering them injured and crippled in some cases. I don't recall the British planning to withdraw prior to WW II.

Just stating my opinions, I know most people hold Gandhi personally responsible for our independence :-) Note that I do have a bias, I agree more with Subhash Chandra Bose (fight to the death against occupying armies) rather than M.K. Gandhi (let them beat you till they realize the error of their ways!).

To keep this from being completely OT - as GP said, people don't really give up power easily. More power = more choices on what you can do. Would you willingly forfeit existing rights / abilities in hopes that you will never need them? For e.g., I don't sign up for the online statements that banks like to pester me about, because they don't promise an easy way to switch back if I want. I would like to save paper, but not when I might have to pay if I ever need a copy of my statement; just because I clicked 'Yes' to an online pdf statement :)

Re:Chance for change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or c) it makes them tall stacks of cash.

Course allowing fair usage (and piracy) doesn't fall into that category, but hey, maybe when people realize they can't put the music from their CD onto their iPod, they will just buy all their music from iTunes, then burn CDs on their own, decreasing the companies' cash stacks and increasing Apple's (assuming they have higer margins on CD sales than iTunes song sales, which they must, as Apple needs their profit too)

Re:Chance for change...

[Urusai]

"...unworkable or unjust."

Exactly.

Re:Chance for change...

[smindinvern]

There is no way on Earth they will give up this power to control the market.

especially if nobody speaks out against it. I agree that they aren't likely to give up copyright protection, but they just might reconsider their methods if enough people reply to them about this.

Re:Chance for change...

[mengel]

As most people do, you completely misunderstand how Ghandi accomplished what he did. He got the British to leave economically. The people who got beaten and shot were the result of the British trying to enforce laws that they were passively resisting (i.e. making their own sea salt == not paying British salt taxes). Ghandi got people to stop doing the things that made the British money (paying assorted taxes, buying cloth made in British factories, etc.) to the point where it just wasn't worth it for the British to maintain their presence. And sure, some people got beaten and killed, but it was a lot fewer than would have died in a violent uprising, and a lot more effective, because it removed the politcal and economic pressure that kept the British in India.

People who think marches and protests are how nonviolence worked in India are just confused. They were simply the method to publicize the actions that made it work, and to demonstrate that the laws in question were essentially unenforcable, when violated in large groups.

People suffering from that same confusion are having war protests and anti-globalization protests here in the U.S. that are completely ineffective, because all they do is march up and down and say "we don't like this".

Re:Chance for change...

[omegahamlet]

No problem in the history of the world has ever been solved or even lessened by requiring lawyers to get involved.

That's a tough claim to make, seeing as you don't have knowledge of every problem that ever occurred in the history of the world. I argue that the point of requiring law degrees is so that the person is familiar with the law; how useful would a judge be if that person didn't understand his own role?

And as for the McCain quote, it is disingenuous to take it out of context. He said this during discussions on the money the federal government will be spending on the conversion to digital television. The argument he was addressing was that the government should wait until 2009 to do the conversion, because it would cost less. His point was that, by waiting so long, many people would be left out for a long time (~2 years), and he believes that it would affect their lives in a negative manner. This all leads up to the quote: money shouldn't be the most important thing to the government in this debate; the lives of the people should be paramount.

Re:Chance for change...

[servognome]

the ability for the jury to declare a law unenforcible is paramount to a fair and equitable society.

Which makes jury nullification just as worrisome. One of the keys of the judicial branch is it protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority (eg civil rights in the south during the early 20th century). Through jury nulification you have a small unaccountable group that can suspend the law at their whim through simple majority. Judges meanwhile are still accountable as public servants and can be checked through impeachment.

Re:Chance for change...

[orgelspieler]

mengel, I would like to hear more of your ideas on war protests. How do you think the peace activists can implement some of these Ghandinian economic tacticts for their purposes? I think you are right that economic resistance would work better, but I just can't figure out how that would work in this situation. I'm not a peace protester, but I know that some of the Slashdotters are into that sort of thing and might appreciate some new ideas.

Re:Chance for change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they teach Ghandi as part of the politics 101 in the US as an attempt to prevent anyone pissed of by the government from picking up a gun?

Ghandi really isn't the best example of a freedome fighter, just look at the state of the provinces where he started the revolt, there anarchic and controlled by crime lords.

Re:Chance for change...

[Anonymous Coward]

first people complain that the government doesn't listen to its constituents and therefore never changes. then when presented with the opportunity to voice your thoughts, people complain that it wont make a difference and sit on their hands.

this is the reason democracy sucks in america - apathy.

Re:Chance for change...

[Pentavirate]

This made me laugh:

Parent: No problem in the history of the world has ever been solved or even lessened by requiring lawyers to get involved.

Response: That's a tough claim to make, seeing as you don't have knowledge of every problem that ever occurred in the history of the world.

It reminded me of the quote from Napoleon Dynamite:

Napoleon Dynamite: This is pretty much the worst video ever made.

Kip: Napoleon, like anyone can even know that.

Re:Chance for change...

[keraneuology]

The argument he was addressing was that the government should wait until 2009 to do the conversion, because it would cost less. His point was that, by waiting so long, many people would be left out for a long time (~2 years), and he believes that it would affect their lives in a negative manner. This all leads up to the quote: money shouldn't be the most important thing to the government in this debate; the lives of the people should be paramount.

Actually, the money vs lives bit came from his declaration that the analog TV channels should be turned over to local fire/police departments sooner, rather than later, with the impression that doing so would save lives.

However, since there is no federal interest in ensuring that people have access to television it is painfully clear that Sen McCain's agreement to spend $3 billion on such a project is a direct acknowledgement that he believes money is more important than pesky questions of Constitutionality or even wisdom.

To put this in perspective, as of 2002 the nation was collectively spending about $3.5 billion/year on public transportation. So for the cost of getting countless millions of people to work - while many others can't work because they have no means of getting to work - the Federal Government will ensure that they can watch crisp, clean TV.

As for the person who rated the parent troll, I simply ask for examples where requiring lawyers to be present improved the situation. ANY situation. Lawyers don't argue the law anymore so much as they manipulate the presentation thereof.

Re:Chance for change...

[mengel]

If I had that figured out, I'd be doing it :-).

The people making the money are the companies like Halliburton, Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc. -- the "Military Industrial Complex" that Pres. Truman warned about.

Who gives them the money is Congress.

The only way I see to stop them getting the money is for Congress-critters to be publicly embarassed for giving them the money (i.e. as opposed to equiping the soldiers that we're sending out without body armor or suitably armored vehicles) to the point they start losing elections. For that you need an Anti-Rove -- someone who understands political science well enough to help the average middle-of-the-road American see the big military industrial companies, and their lobbying power over Concress, as an actively bad thing that they need to fix.

That certainly isn't me -- I find public reaction to these things completely mystifying.

Re:Chance for change...

[keraneuology]

Through jury nulification you have a small unaccountable group that can suspend the law at their whim through simple majority.

You think too poorly of the majority. If a jury pool selected at random without undue tampering and stacking can't come to unanimous conviction then the accused shouldn't go to jail. Keeping one innocent person out of jail outweighs by far putting 100 guilty people in jail.

For good or for bad the people are supposed to be running the government. The common population is supposed to pull the strings and the elected officials are supposed to dance. Giving the judges carte blanche until they really screw up before challenging them with a virtually impossible impeachment process is only asking for trouble. The judge who was steering public defense work to her adulterous boyfriend who killed his wife so he could openly hook up with said judge. As punishment she was given a six month paid vacati.. errr... suspension for lying to police during their investigation.

Re:Chance for change...

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the person who rated the parent troll, I simply ask for examples where requiring lawyers to be present improved the situation. ANY situation. Lawyers don't argue the law anymore so much as they manipulate the presentation thereof.

Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer, as I recall.

Re:Chance for change...

[servognome]

You think too poorly of the majority.

The majority is best represented through the election process. The problem with juries is you are choosing only 12 people which is a small cross-section of the majority. You can't always create a balanced jury through random picking, you face localization issues (eg some areas of the US are predominantly one race, religion, etc). It's also easier to use emotion to sway 12 people to disregard the law, than to convice thousands or millions to actually change the law.

If a jury pool selected at random without undue tampering and stacking can't come to unanimous conviction then the accused shouldn't go to jail. Keeping one innocent person out of jail outweighs by far putting 100 guilty people in jail.

It's not about just finding a person innocent, sometimes they disregard how the law tells them to interpret evidence and find people guilty, or award damages in a civil case merely out of gut instinct rather than the facts.

For good or for bad the people are supposed to be running the government. The common population is supposed to pull the strings and the elected officials are supposed to dance.

Yes, and if the people weren't apathetic, and actually informed and involved themselves it would work. If people just vote for the guy on TV the most ( those corporate dollars don't magically turn into votes) then who are they going to listen to?

Giving the judges carte blanche until they really screw up before challenging them with a virtually impossible impeachment process is only asking for trouble. The judge who was steering public defense work to her adulterous boyfriend who killed his wife so he could openly hook up with said judge. As punishment she was given a six month paid vacati.. errr... suspension for lying to police during their investigation.

And no juror has ever been tampered with, corruption will always exist. As for her punishment, I'm not familiar with the case so couldn't comment. I'm sure there are laws that exist for her to be removed.

Re:Chance for change...

[Anonymous Coward]

With all due respect, you're not correct.

a) Its spelt "Gandhi".
b) The economic interests of the British in India were not about selling British cloth to Indians (very few Indians were rich enough to buy powerloom made cloth), or collecting taxes. More than 60% of Indians didn't have enough to eat, which is not exactly a haven for a tax collecting imperial government.
c) The British East India Company made profit from India because they got everything 'Indian' very cheap. Spices for example. Or Silk. Or something called 'Neel' which was used in Europe as a bleach in laundry(believe it or not, it was crazy expensive. And the English were, even then, really fond of sparkling whites!) Or finished diamonds (India still has some of the most skilful diamond crafters). Or Muslin cloth, or coffee, or Darjeeling tea, or a thousand other things that India made and Europe wanted.
d) Gandhi's non-violent philosophy worked not because of economic hardship caused to the Britishers, but because of the administrative hardship. Its extremely difficult to govern a country when your prisons are full of non-violent offenders who didn't resist arrest (where do you put the 'real' criminals), or when (almost) all Indians leave the British police force. Its hard to govern when none of the laws you make are followed by the masses, and you can't even shoot anyone for it since they offer themselves to be arrested. Also, Britain was under a lot of pressure from all over the world because of non-violence, because non-violence makes such a wonderful story. Even The Times (London) would publish stories about British extremeties on a people who vowed away from violence!
e) South Africa is another example where this worked (Nelson Mandela was a big fan of Mahatma Gandhi), though international pressure also had a big hand.

OP: its amazing how far your views are from reality. I'd be interested to know where you read about this, seems like someone somewhere in the media likes playing down the role of Gandhi and non-violence.

Re:Chance for change...

[mengel]

a) apologies, I'm dyslexic.

b) actually, it was the trade in manufactured goods back to India which kept the shipping companies in business; especially once the opium trade from India to China dried up.

c) Well, they got the goods for basically the cost of shipping. When they couldn't fill the ships with things to sell back on the return trip, they cost twice as much. All of British Colonialism relied on some form of bidirectional or triangle trade to make each leg of the shipping route profitable. d) As I mentioned, the laws being resisted were unenforceable in any volume; thus the overflowing jails you mentioned.

You should note that just the salt tax was 5% of the tax income in India (see here )

While it isn't where I first read about it (which was so many years ago I'd be hard pressed to remember), you might try reading this summary of the writings of Arundhati Roy; in particular:

Roy has unkind words for people who treat nonviolence as political theater. They may indeed appeal to the conscience of the oppressors and seek to win hearts by self-suffering; they may get attention and dramatize their views; they may go to jail or on hunger strikes. But they do not make salt. It may be, of course, that the same people who are doing "picture demonstrations" in the morning to get anti-war images onto television screens, are busy in the afternoon running a food not bombs kitchen or a collective repair shop for recycled bicycles, in other words, making salt.

The second example Roy gives to show Gandhi's realism is the khadi based alternative economy, to which Gandhi gave most of twenty-five years of his life, when he was not in jail. Gandhi believed that the main motive that brought the British to India was to make money. He reasoned that on the day when they find that they can no longer make money, but could only lose money, they would leave. If Indians would practice, swadeshi, buying their own products, the British would lose their markets, and thus lose the main point of their presence on somebody else's subcontinent.

Roy implies that Gandhi wannabes who identify nonviolence with passive resistance have misunderstood him. They should learn from the master and get real. As Richard Deats has pointed out Gandhi never intended any separation of nonviolence from constructive program. *Nonviolence was constructive program. Constructive program was nonviolence. Gandhi always regarded the slow violence of economic injustice as equivalent to the fast violence of war. Nonviolence was their common antidote. The principles Gandhi believed would lead to economic justice - village self-sufficiency, non-possession, voluntary poverty, trusteeship... etc.-- were for him every bit as essential to a nonviolent way of life as submitting to the lati (steel-tipped baton) blows of the police without striking back.

hopefully

[akhomerun]

hopefully we can get something out of this if enough people leave some good comments.

bottom line is, if i buy a DVD, i should be able to make backup copies for myself. if the media companies are going to sell a license for their media, the disc shouldn't matter, i should be entitled to that license regardless. on DVD movies, the license is for home exibition in one household, and i am following that license agreement whether i have one or 50 copies, as long as i use only one copy at a time in one household.

Re:hopefully

[Capt James McCarthy]

You are assuming that you have any input into the license creation.

Re:hopefully

[OhPlz]

I don't understand the whole "backup copies" argument anymore. It made more sense in the days of floppies where you could look at one the wrong way and it would end up corrupted. I just can't see a rational person having two of every movie in their collection "just in case".

I agree with the benefits of a license working for both sides, but making backups is a pretty weak argument.

Re:hopefully

[SecretSauce]

What I think they are incapable of understanding about 'copies for use of a single household' is the fact that we are not just watching these movies on our Brand Name DVD player (where brand name has paid licensing to just use the damn DVD copyrighted logo etc and as such giving money to these people hell bent on taking all our rights) but have moved on to say hey, I'm travelling this week, I'll rip it to watch on my PSP while the wife and kids can still enjoy it on said Brand Name DVD player.

Me, My kids and my wife are ONE household. If I buy the DVD for OUR use and wish to rip it to my PSP, I'm not breaking the law....as much as they'd like to SAY I am.

Re:hopefully

[dhanes]

You, sir, obviously don't have children. I've bought the friggin' Lion King DVD at least 3 times (before I built a MythTv). At 3 years of age, children don't understand that the shiny round thingy that has their 'Simby' on it isn't unbreakable or can't be scratched.

Re:hopefully

[sp3tt]

"You, sir, obviously don't have children." You must be new here.

Re:hopefully

[toddestan]

Kids or other people being careless with your DVDs. Scratching and scuffing from normal use. Fungus and molds that are known to attack DVDs and CDs in some areas. Protection agianst the DVDs being lost or stolen. Cheap DVD players eating DVDs. There are plenty of reasons to make backup copies of DVDs.

Re:hopefully

[good-n-nappy]

Forget about going so far as backup copies. I just want to be able to control the original DVD I purchased in the DVD player I purchased (I'm talking about "prohibited user operations" here folks). If that isn't frickin' fair use, I don't know what is.

give it a few days

[v1]

It's not open for comments just yet. They're accepting your feedback starting November 2. Warm up your keyboard and give 'em a piece of your mind!

Re:give it a few days

[Breakfast Pants]

Seriously, work on your comments from now until then if this is an issue you really care about. And then make sure to snailmail your comments. It is much mnore effective no matter what they say.

Re:give it a few days

[dotc]

Argh! Comment submission doesn't start till Nov 2nd -- to maximize the Slashdot effect, the editors probably should re-post this article then.

(although, let's face it... with the frequency of article dupes, they probably will re-post it as part of the normal Slashdot practice)...

Re:give it a few days

[Aumaden]

"will" not "should"

Re:give it a few days

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. The last time I submitted a story to begin submitting comments to stop an act like this it was rejected. We did get several dupes about it after it already occurred in the negative with plenty of rants...

Accepting and considering are two different things

[Zro Point Two]

"They will be accepting your well-thought-out opinions on the web and by mail."

But that doesn't necessarily mean that they will read them or even consider them...just that they will accept your opinionated letter/email.

They won't really listen

[c0d3h4x0r]

Come on -- do you really think they are going to seriously listen to what the majority of ordinary people want? Everyone knows the government in this country is controlled by rich special interest and corporations. Public feedback requests like this are only conducted to try to make the masses feel like they're being listened to even though they really aren't.

Re:They won't really listen

[George Tirebuyer]

They'll listen... especially if large numbers of ordinary people show up with torches and pitch forks.

Re:They won't really listen

[m4dm4n]

Yup, it's much better if you do nothing at all.

Re:They won't really listen

[Vo0k]

No. But we can submit our voices, then watch as they are disregarded, then have something to bitch about for another 5 years or so.

Re:They won't really listen

[Anonymous Coward]

and a response when they're bloody and disemboweled and saying "but no one ever said..."

Re:They won't really listen

[91degrees]

They do listen to what the majority of ordinary people want. They don't listen to what a minority of informed people want.

Slashdot is not the majority.

Slashdot users are not ordinary.

Determining whether they are informend or not is an excercise for the reader.

Re:They won't really listen

[goldspider]

I imagine that that same cynicism prevents you from voting too.

Did you ever consider that such cynicism breeds apathy, and perpetuates the very problems you lament?

Get off your ass and take a little responsibility.

Re:They won't really listen

[rizole]

Well yes and no. I imagine that the very problems he laments breeds apathy and perpetuates cynicism.

I get off my ass and take a little responsibility and I don't think they really listen.

Biggest demonstration in the world ever and no one in power even blinked.

Re:They won't really listen

[SB5]

This is the United States of America we are talking about. The reason for the whole Second Amendment wasn't placed in there for hunting reasons. It was placed in there so that we could rise up and would not have to result to using torches and pitchforks like others in the past had to when they revolted against the government. The other reasons for it is defense against invading armies or militias.

Oh and zombie invasions.

Re:They won't really listen

[goldspider]

Tony Blair was re-elected, wasn't he?

Where were those 2 million on election day?

Re:They won't really listen

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine that that same cynicism prevents you from voting too.

So... you're encouraging someone who doesn't understand the issues to vote??

Re:They won't really listen

[ronjeremysjohnson]

Is there room in your raid party?

Re:They won't really listen

[Anonymous Coward]

Cynical != uninformed

Re:They won't really listen

[bcat24]

I don't even care about apathy.

Re:They won't really listen

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear they are missing parity.

Re:They won't really listen

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, given the current hubbub about terror, I'm not sure that's advisable.
However, it's almost Halloween, so you might be able to get away with it...

I wonder how many we could get for a protest at the Library of Congress?

Re:They won't really listen

[rizole]

Where was he on demonstration day?

Sorry....my bad...I thought democracy was a two way street.

does the DMCA...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the DMCA prohibits circumvention
in every medium. For instance, would it be illegal
to re-bind a book, because doing so would involve
removing the binding which is a step required
for photocopying?

Re:does the DMCA...

[hplasm]

..that which is not expressly allowed is not permitted..

Can't remember where that comes from, but it's getting that way :

Re:does the DMCA...

[Vo0k]

Not really. The binding is a structural element, not a copyright circumvention device. You are still allowed to take the cover off your XBox and mod it as much as you desire, as long as it plays only copyrighted media.

Re:does the DMCA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only thieves run public domain software.

Re:does the DMCA...

[Anonymous Coward]

No... The D means DIGITAL... You need not even read the act.

Take the Patriot Act for instance, that is for patriots to vote on.

No need to read it either.

How about...

[mustafap]

Maybe we should do an 'Ask Slashdot'. CmdrTaco can then submit the best 500,000 :o)

Re:How about...

[aug24]

...and then ScuttleMonkey can dupe them and bring up the million!

A Good Idea, but Let's Solve the Problem

[duerra]

While writing to the Copyright Office and expressing concern over whatever anti-circumvention technologies you would like access to is still a good idea, it's addressing symptoms, and not the problem.

Let's not be like the medical industry here. There is a proposal for cure out there. It's called HR 1201, "Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005". Write your local congressperson and get this legislation passed!

Re:A Good Idea, but Let's Solve the Problem

[Overzeetop]

What's funny is that the bulk of the law looks like a mattress labeling law ("it shall be unlawful to remove or mutilate, or cause or participate in the removal or mutilation of, any label required by this section"). What really matters is the Section 5 Fair Use amendments. In just a few lines, Rep Boucher has probably sent most of the content industry apoplectic.

Unfortunately, there is one line missing from the law: "It shall be prohibited for an entity hold the patent on both a content control method and the associated mechanism for circumvention. It shall furthermore be prohibited for any entity with a business interest in or association with a business interest in content generation or content protection to hold a patent for a protection circumvention method or mechanism."

No doubt the policy wonks in DC can craft a less drafty version, but it's going to be necessary, I believe. Macrovision generally patents both protection methods and every possible workaround they can think of before they put a "product" on the market. It would be nice to try and stop that kind of restraint.

Re:A Good Idea, but Let's Solve the Problem

[Anonymous Custard]

What really matters is the Section 5 Fair Use amendments. In just a few lines, Rep Boucher has probably sent most of the content industry apoplectic.

Yup, this is perfect:

`and it is not a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in order to obtain access to the work for purposes of making noninfringing use of the work'

Re:A Good Idea, but Let's Solve the Problem

[Myria]

This is exactly the problem with Macrovision. The law *specifically requires* devices to refuse to record Macrovision-protected content. In order to make a device do that, you must pay Macrovision patent royalties.

The Government has no right to say "you must license patent X", when X doesn't cover what you want to make.

This would be equivalent to building the only road between two cities through private property then expecting you to pay tolls to the property owner.

Melissa

Get there before the RIAA does!

[Dekortage]

I'm sure "members of the public" will surreptitiously submit support for the RIAA on this topic.

Anyway, from the page: "...which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention."

Well, there's the argument that DMCA locks you to a specific vendor (Microsoft or Apple, basically) and therefore is a monopoly-style problem for consumers, but the Gov'mt is likely to think this is akin to complaining that you can't listen your LP's on your CD player. Yeah, the format is locked to a vendor or kind of equipment, but there are ways of transferring it if you really want to. (Yes, there are. Stop complaining.)

Then there's the argument that consumers ought to be able to back up the media they buy in case something happens to the original. This is true. Of course, you could say the same thing about books, but nobody actually photocopies a whole book (and it wouldn't be the same thing, anyway). But maybe you should be able to. If I've paid once for rights to use media, are my terms of agreement limited to the physical state of the data? Or to do they apply to continued use?

And there is also the general idea that prohibition rarely works. Digital locks only keep digital crackers in business. If all media was unprotected, it wouldn't be so thrilling to get something illegal.

Finally, if the media industries took all the time and money that they've spent on DMCA and put it into producing better works, we'd have much better music and movies... or maybe CDs that cost less than $10.

Re:Get there before the RIAA does!

[Loonacy]

Yeah, the format is locked to a vendor or kind of equipment, but there are ways of transferring it if you really want to. (Yes, there are. Stop complaining.)

Yes, there are... BUT THEY'RE ILLEGAL!

Re:Get there before the RIAA does!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the software to crack the encryption is illegal? Yeah. You mean that other more laborious ways (e.g. burn it to a CD, rip it back to your computer in whatever format you want) are illegal? Nope.

Re:Get there before the RIAA does!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples and oranges. Photocopying a book is not cost effective, also they aren't subjected the same sort of wear and tear as DVDs are. Dead tree editions are more durable and can be utilized (for now) for a multitude of uses unforseen by the manufacterer. A DVD is sensitive dies when its surface becomes damaged, a book for the most part can be salvaged. Besides people need books, how would extremists create bonfires without them?

Re:Get there before the RIAA does!

[Anonymous Coward]

if the media industries took all the time and money that they've spent on DMCA and put it into producing better works, we'd have much better music and movies... or maybe CDs that cost less than $10

Agreed. And if millions of people hadn't been making copies of the music and movies, and making those copies available for free to millions of others for the past few years, then maybe we wouldn't be having this discourse, because DRM and the DMCA and software copy protection and activation and all the rest would be unnecessary.

Re:Get there before the RIAA does!

[Dekortage]

That's fine for music, but what about DVDs, software, etc.???

Re:Get there before the RIAA does!

[araemo]

Burning a protected song to an unprotected audio CD and them re-ripping it back in could be argued to be circumvention of the protection mechanism. You're just as likely to get busted for that as for Hymning your iTunes files.

(IE, if you're not redistributing them, you aren't going to get busted. You may be breaking the law, but I doubt anyone will notice.)

Re:Get there before the RIAA does!

[hicksw]

Then there's the argument that consumers ought to be able to back up the media they buy in case something happens to the original

Let them lock the media down. Make them supply free replacements for damaged/failed media forever. Fair enough use, then?

In Corporate America...

[Anonymous Coward]

They will be accepting your well-thought-out opinions on the web and by mail

... and large amounts of corporate "donations" in small denomination, unmarked bills.

Re:In Corporate America...

[Overzeetop]

Don't worry about the unmarked bills in small denominations, just send a honkin' big check to T. Delay, he'll make sure the right people get the money they need ;-)

Re:In Corporate America...

[MS-06FZ]

Oh wait, I know this one! I've heard this joke before....

In Corporate America, DMCA circumvents you!

Did I get it right? It's my first time... Be gentle...

Public Comment Peer Review

[OpenGLFan]

While I enjoy the illusion of public participation in government as much as the next guy, if you're going to submit a comment to this thing, PLEASE make it a consise, well-written comment. Run it by a few friends or post it as a reply here; we're all about the open-source, many eyes make all bugs shallow philosophy, right? Our legislature is typically motivated more by gift certificates to Dennys than the letters of its constituents, but if we are going to be heard, I'd rather our message not be represented by "n00b, j00 sux0r."

Great, a Victory for the RIAA

[Wingie]

Damnit! Now that the RIAA and MPAA and co. leet haxored /. and posted this here, the USCO site will be flooded with drooling idiots and "HURHUR ME NO LIKE DMCA COZ IT NO LET ME RIP FITY CENT AN HIS CD AN I CAN NOT LISTEN TO MUSIK AND LOOK AT UNDERAGE PORN WHILE $%%$@@#ING YO MOMMA!!!!!1111!!~ - Billy, /. ReADER REPRESENT!!!".

Much more cost effective than hiring their own drooling idiots, I'd say.

OP's priorities need adjusting

[jasen666]

If you're reasonably ticked that you can't legally get around encrypted files to get at the media you've bought,

Bah, who cares about that? DMCA hasn't stopped me from getting to my media.
The real problem is when printer companies start using the DMCA to try and prevent other companies from making accessories (ink cartridges) for their printers. When console companies use the DMCA to say that installing a modchip onto a piece of hardware you own is illegal.
So whoop-ti-do about DRM, there will always be a way around that. Generally sourced from a country not under jurisdiction of this draconian law. My concern is with all the companies that would love to spin the law for their own purposes, when it was not designed for that.

Re:OP's priorities need adjusting

[Anonymous Coward]

There may not always be. What happens when they say "ok, drm isn't enough, next step, trusted computing"?

Eventually it'll get ratcheted down so tight it won't be possible. What are you going to say then?

Re:OP's priorities need adjusting

[jasen666]

I can't see it ever getting to that point. Even if it did, I'd be buying black market PC components from Europe/Japan with no TCP chips/devices. And/or wait for the crack to come out.

Re:OP's priorities need adjusting

[bcat24]

Some of us will have to live in America for a while and would like to avoid breaking the law just to listen to their music, music that they purchased legally.

Re:OP's priorities need adjusting

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you will be sent to Camp X-Ray or some other detention camp for economic terrorists like yourself. Remember, the Constitution is just a piece of paper and means nothing.

Re:OP's priorities need adjusting

[Dare nMc]

> legally get around encrypted
does the DMCA have any effect on wether the parents actions are legal?
supposed to prevent you from disclosing/selling the know-how. But I didn't think their was any non-copyright rules that keeps us from ripping DVD's in linux, or recording the output from a licensed player, etc, etc.

Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumvention

[91degrees]

These are things that a lot of people actually do, rather than what a small minority of people with way too much time do:

• Make a mix CD from music on copy protected CDs.
• Copy music downloaded from iTunes to a playerthat's not an iPod.
• Copy music downloaded from other music services to a an iPod.
• Timeshift something recorded on Tivo More than a week after it was recorded.

Now, I'd quite like to be able to legally back up a DVD and various other things as well, but really quite a small number of people really care. People do, however, copy music and record TV shows, and it is perfectly legal to do this (according to the Audio Home Recording Act and the SCOTUS Betamax decision), except the DMCA makes it illegal.

In Addition To Coherent

[lbmouse]

"start writing a coherent stance for the USCO today."
 
.My wife works with the USPTO on a daily bases and she suggests that in addition to writing coherently, you should also write for the lowest common denominator in their audience. In her opinion you should aim for no more than an 8th grade level.

Re:In Addition To Coherent

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty sad, considering that most newspapers and magazines aim for a 6th grade level. These are supposed to be professionals. Sigh.

Barrier to competition, barrier to discourse

[Gothmolly]

So you visit the page, where you can "leave comments through this webpage". There's no obvious way to do that. Then you click another link, and it takes you to something that looks like either an Internet RFC, or the text of a congressional bill. Somewhere on this page, there is a link to an official form that you have to use... but after you read the ominous "if you mail it , we might not get it" page, and click the link, it takes you back to the first page.
How many otherwise cogent arguments will be lost in this sea of silliness?
How many otherwise fallacious arguments will make it through the process, because those with vested interests have lobbyists?
Hey, EFF, help us out here...

Re:Barrier to competition, barrier to discourse

[operagost]

It says right on that page that they are not accepting comments until November 2.

OK, here are my examples:

[meringuoid]

... and no, 'I can't watch DVDs on Linux' isn't one of them. These people probably neither know nor care what Linux is, nor are they particularly bothered that we can't watch our imported-from-Japan DVDs of Naruto, so don't bother.

1: it kills 'fair use'. Traditionally, we've been allowed by copyright law to use small amounts of a given work for quotation, for review, for parody... However, the DMCA kills that off. Even if I'm allowed to use that small segment of the copyrighted work for my own purposes, I can't do so if it's technologically protected, even in the feeblest manner: the DMCA forbids that.

2: it encourages monopolies. Other than by means of Hymn, or burning to CD and then re-ripping, I can't play music downloaded from Apple on anything other than an iPod. Or, conversely, if I own an iPod I can't play music downloaded from anyone other than Apple on it. This has a chilling effect on the free market.

3: it threatens free speech itself. Even scholarly, academic discussion of cryptography has been curtailed by the DMCA, in cases where it touched on techniques that have been used to protect copyrighted works. Is it really more important to protect Hollywood's latest blockbuster than to have a free research base driving technology forward?

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[g2devi]

You forgot two big ones:

* Information rot. If copyright is tied to a specific physical device and no circumvention is allowed, that information will disappear disappear when the physical device dies. Information needs to be copied by third parties in order to be preserved for the future.

* Eternal copyright. Related to the first point, if no circumvention is allowed, things are locked up forever

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[interiot]

Linux should be an example, but it's only one example among many.

When compact discs were designed in the 80's, there was no way they could forsee that people would be carrying around all of their CDs in a player that fits in their shirt pocket, would be able to use them in ringtones, make backups, have cheap kareoke machines, organize them in a library in iTunes, etc.

This is in stark contrast to DVD's, where they're not going anywhere in 20 years. Any device made to expand their uses in ways not forseen by the original designers will be illegal in most cases, or, if you're rich enough, you get the big industries to agree to your innovation. But that's in stark contrast to the open source philosophy. Open source shows that any random person can have a good idea, and if they can implement it and send that code to everyone else, that lone-individual model is an engine for innovation.

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[MROD]

Just a minor correction to item (2) where you say:-

Or, conversely, if I own an iPod I can't play music downloaded from anyone other than Apple on it.

My iPod shuffle plays MP3s fine.

Though I guess that you're talking about other online vendors' DRM'd music files and no unencrypted MP3s.

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[Sancho]

In your reading of the DMCA (you did read it, right? You didn't just blindly repeat the rhetoric?) you missed this tidbit in the section on Circumvention of Copy Protection Systems:

`(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./tem p/~c105TQi7RV:e11962:

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[Surye]

But the issue is, you must circumvent before you can exercise fair use, and before you can circumvent, you need technologies or tools to do so. Since the creation, utilization, and distribution of these are illegal under the DMCA, you never have the oppertunity to exercise fair use. That clause is a red herring, as it distracts you from the truth, you could never actually exercise that clause. One most people arn't falling for (which is why these discussions happen).

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[sweetnjguy29]

Dear Congressman:

I recently bought an Intel (or AMD) computer with a DVD drive that can run the Windows XP operating system from a business that is in your district. However, I chose not to buy/install Windows XP but chose to install a free operating system known as Linux. I also recently bought a DVD movie entitled "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" from a store located in your district.

Unfortunately, I discovered that the software needed to view the DVD on my DVD player on my Linux computer is illegal under the DCMA. On the other hand, if I were to buy the Windows operating system, (or if I use the windows portion of my hard drive) it would be completely lawful. This is strange because the DVD player for the computer I bought contains windows software which would allow me to watch the DVDs under windows, but doesn't work under linux.

It is only fair that I should be allowed to watch DVDs on my computer without being beholden to Microsoft. It is fair use, but is unlawful under the DCMA.

I guess I am going to have to return my computer and my DVDs to the store now, and put another business in your district out of business...

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[Sancho]

I do not believe that the creation of such tools is illegal. Only the distribution thereof. Fair Use is not affected because you can create the tools yourself.

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[Surye]

`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

You believe wrong.

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[Sancho]

Don't know how I missed that, but it would seem that if "Nothing in this section shall affect ... fair use", and the only way to exercise fair use is to create a tool which removes the copy protection, then that part of the clause must be illegal and would be found as such in court.

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[Surye]

The same tool for piracy is for fair use. The problem here is labeling technology as the "bad" thing. The tool isn't a "fair use tool", it's just a tool that may be used as such. So what is there to prove in court? "I swear I was going to only use it for fair use!" Who wouldn't say that?

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[Sancho]

Well that's why it's up to the court to decide based upon the evidence, isn't it? Perhaps if the person created the tool couldn't show a single instance where s/he used it to exercise fair use, he should be found guilty (remember through all this that copyright infringement is illegal except in certain cases, almost all of which fall under fair use).

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I would drop that last sentence if I were you. Threats are not good. (S)He's likely to ignore your whole letter with that in there.

Re:OK, here are my examples:

[keytoe]

4: Mix DVDs. I have the entire Monty Python's Flying Circus on DVD - all 14 disks. Trouble is, I never watch the damned things because I usually think to myself "I'd like to see the parrot sketch" - and then I have to figure out which disk it's on, which episode it's in, then where in that episode it is (thanks for the abysmal TOC, guys). Why am I not allowed to make a 'best of' disk for myself? I could do it if I had the VHS version, but for some reason attempting that with the DVD version is a criminal offense.

Not legally

[SgtChaireBourne]

Well, there's the argument that DMCA locks you to a specific vendor (Microsoft or Apple, basically) and therefore is a monopoly-style problem for consumers, but the Gov'mt is likely to think this is akin to complaining that you can't listen your LP's on your CD player. Yeah, the format is locked to a vendor or kind of equipment, but there are ways of transferring it if you really want to. (Yes, there are. Stop complaining.)

Not legally there's not. That's covered by the DMCA under circumvention. If you have the EUCD instead, then even talking about it 'in an organized manner' is illegal. That means that if the vendor doesn't want you to access the file on your brand or model, then you're S.O.L. legally speaking. Sure there are ways to get around most things, but computer crime is up there with armed robbery in terms of punishment these days.

Anyway, that's the whole point of exemptions to the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. Though it'd be better just to repeal the DMCA. It was able to slide through congress with the help of the media which was giving 24/7 coverage of whether Lewinsky spit or swallowed.

Everyone post!

[ptarjan]

Please please please... everyone post your ideas on the website. If all of slashdot gets together we will make a difference. Just do your part. 5 minutes out of your day is worth it if you don't have to be a criminal to access your media.

Re:Everyone post!

[theJML]

Yeah, let's all leave messages there... that poor server, yet another one down due to the slashdot effect.

Bound to happen

[Qbertino]

This was bound to happen. The DMCA is some crazy piece of sh*t sprung from the mind of people unable to think the thing all the way through.
There are US american judges who even say that the DMCA is unconstitutional and thus doesn't apply where anti fair-use lobbys would like to have it.

This goes to show that even the US can only bear so much insanity in laws before people wake up and backpedal. We'll probably see a fair amount of trim-down on the DMCA until it's actually usable. Those are the big upsides of having a democracy, even if the individual democracies have their very personal system flaws.

Re:Bound to happen

[meringuoid]

The DMCA is some crazy piece of sh*t sprung from the mind of people unable to think the thing all the way through.

No, it sprang from the minds of people who could and did think it all the way through. These were evil people. People at the *AAs. People who hate the public domain, except insofar as it provides stories for Disney to remake and earn a fortune from, and despise fair use.

It was then passed into law by people unable or unwilling to think the thing all the way through. These were lazy or greedy people. Your elected representatives. People who care little for the public domain, and are really more interested in campaign contributions, and don't like fair use because of that bit about parody, because parody is usually aimed against politicians...

Re:Bound to happen

[rhetoric]

No, it sprang from the minds of people who could and did think it all the way through. These were evil people. People at the *AAs. People who hate the public domain, except insofar as it provides stories for Disney to remake and earn a fortune from, and despise fair use. It was then passed into law by people unable or unwilling to think the thing all the way through. These were lazy or greedy people. Your elected representatives. People who care little for the public domain, and are really more interested in campaign contributions, and don't like fair use because of that bit about parody, because parody is usually aimed against politicians...

This should read: It was then passed into law by the good friends and business associates of the evil people mentioned above. =D

Re:Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumventio

[Subrafta]

Anyone with small children cares about making backup copies of DVDs. You'll care too the first time your three year old is still crying at 1 am because Dora or Peep is to scratched to play. Fragile media targeted at 3-5 year olds needes to be backed up.

Re:Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumventio

[91degrees]

Yes it does neeed to be backed up, and I sympathise with this, but it's only a minority concern. A large number of people simply lack the technical capability to do this. It's also not a right people have come to expect in the last decade. Very few people copy video because it's too much effort. And a typical response wil be "Just go and buy another copy then!".

The best arguments are ones that appear show the way this works is clearly unfair, and any defence makes the defender look stupid.

Please Dupe This

[3vi1]

This is the first time I'd actually like to see an article duped.

I'm glad this was posted now, because it gives us time to discuss this and compose a rational argument. But, since the site isn't taking comments until Nov 2nd, a lot of people will forget.

Bookmark it and put it on your calendar now! Finally, a reason to use the KOrganizer alarm daemon!

This Review Does not matter.

[plasmacutter]

This review happens by law under the DMCA every few years, this is NOT a hearing to determine if the DMCA should be repealed... another poster already pointed this out, but even if some use is made "exempt" from the dmca in these proceedings the law STILL prohibits production of the tools which would enable you to cirumvent the copy protection for said use. The issue of the DMCRA had already been settled years ago, when in a fair hearing the fair use crowd blew the **AA's out of the water and gained full support from the commerce committee (which is why, i assume, the judiciary won't let it onto the roster). The only reason it's not going anywhere is because key leaders (sensenbrenner) are thoroughly bribed, and let's not forget ms mary bono (sonny bono copyright extension anyone?) who vowed to oppose it at every opportunity.

Last go around

[Kr3m3Puff]

My comment [PDF] from a few years ago (via the EFF) still appears in the top 10 pages for my name when you search on Google.

This go around, I don't know if I am any more confident. Mine does fall under one of the valid reasons for legal circumvention of not being able to watch legit videos purchased in other regions. Even though the case was marked "Region 0" it appeaars it was encoded as "Region 2" and I live in "Region 1". The problem is the blanket exceptions. I would be fine if there was a "affermative defenses" clauses in the law that allowed you to get around it for things like making backup copies, transferring media, etc. The only one allowed is artistic or scientific pursuits because those laws appear to supercede the others.

Hm.

[ryuuzin]

If you're reasonably ticked that you can't legally get around encrypted files to get at the media you've bought, start writing a coherent stance for the USCO today.

Coincidentally, NaNoWriMo is all of November...

Rejected before

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a Wired News article http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,69115,00 .html?tw=wn_tophead_5 a while back about this. It seems that the copyright office has rejected requests to circumvent copy protection technology on CD's, DVD's, and video games. I do not hold out much hope this time around.

Re:Rejected before

[Sigma 7]

I read a Wired News article http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,69115,00 .html?tw=wn_tophead_5 a while back about this. It seems that the copyright office has rejected requests to circumvent copy protection technology on CD's, DVD's, and video games. I do not hold out much hope this time around.

Bypassing copyprotection is already permitted for obsolete systems. If CDs suddenly go out of production (alongside CD-readers), feel free to apply or create whatever no-CD crack you need. Likewise, if Windows XP goes out of production, feel free to use whatever anti-StarForce protection system you want (since there are no StarForce drivers for the x64 platform.)

A blanket request to circumvent copy-protection is the equivalent of repealing the law, and is not covered by the perodic review. If you want that, either challenge the law in the court system, or write to your congress representative.

Dmitri

[slavemowgli]

Not being able to legally watch DVDs you bought because your OS isn't supported and you're not allowed to do it on your own (essentially) sucks, yes, but I actually think that there are more serious abuses of the DMCA.

Examples? Dmitri Sklyarov (who, if you don't recall, was arrested when he gave a talk at a conference in the USA because the company he worked for had created a product that allegedly violated the DMCA - nevermind that the company was based in Russia and thus not subject to US-American law) comes to mind, as does the 2600 case (you think that not being able to watch DVDs is bad? How about being told that you are not even allowed to link to sites that tell you how? I really don't see how this cannot be a violation of freedom of speech), or countless other things like printer manufacturers suing third-party companies for making compatible ink cartridges, or garage door companies suing for compatible third-party garage door remote controls (Chamberlain vs. Skylink), or Google being censored and not allowed to return certain websites in their search (some stuff relating to Kazaa, IIRC - Google for "Kazaa", and you'll get a link to the request they got) and so on.

Besides, pretty much *any* cease and desist letter sent to BitTorrent trackers etc. seems to reference the DMCA these days (witness the Pirate Bay's "legal threats" page for examples), even when there is no legal reason for it - it's merely included to scare and threaten people. And that certainly is not a good thing, either, because even if people do something that's wrong and/or illegal, you still shouldn't mispresent what they actually are doing, or try to tell them that what they're doing is a violation of this and that law when in reality, it isn't (I think this is implicit in the right to a fair trial).

"iPod with video" - halo effect applied to laws!?

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

now that the iPod with video is out I think the ridiculous nature of the DMCA has become more apparent to some people.

if you live in USA and you copy your legally owned DVD to your iPod then you are a criminal facing the possibilty of a massive bitchslap. most people not living in "the land of the free" are fine.

imagine if it had been the case with CDs, this whole mess would have been sorted out earlier. but maybe now with portable video starting to take a few more steps it will be sorted out.

there was a DMCA case where (if I remember correctly) an automatic-garage-door manufacturer sued another company for making generic remote controls that could activate their doors. the judge said something along the lines that even though some encryption was circumvented in producing the generic remote the DMCA wasn't supposed to prevent people access to their own property (garage). this is similar to the DVD->portable video case.

how about this?

[at_slashdot]

I bought a DVD player and I could not plug it directly to my VCR because of its "antipiracy" technology, however I just wanted to get the signal through the VCR because my TV set doesn't have the right connectors.

Yes, there are solutions: buy a new TV, get a FR modulator (by the way, is that legal under DMCA?) Anyway the point is that it's my VCR and by TV and my DVD and I sould be able to connect them however I want, but if I try to circumvent the stupid "antipiracy" I break the law -- that's stupid.

Re:how about this?

[Rob the Bold]

I bought a DVD player and I could not plug it directly to my VCR because of its "antipiracy" technology . . .

This happened to me when I got my sister a DVD player -- she has a TV/VCR. I was gonna get her some DVDs to go with it, but I had to spend that money instead on an RF modulator. MPAA's loss is Radio Shack's gain, I guess.

Re:how about this?

[evilneko]

WTF? How does this work? Does it only work on S-Video or Optical connections, or something? IIRC, my dvd player is hooked up to my VCR. It's connected with RCA connectors, though. No optical/s-video available. Cheap equipment.

Re:how about this?

[mako1138]

It's probably Macrovision protection, which adds stuff to the signal, even on composite. If your VCR is old/cheap enough, Macrovision won't have any effect. Consider yourself lucky.

Re:how about this?

[evilneko]

Thanks for the info. The DVD player itself is only about two-three years old (forgotten really), the VCR is new, but cheap. Cheap devices for teh win, I guess.

Backups

[GWTPict]

Got kids? My niece trashed several DVDs before she was old enough to understand why she couldn't watch The Lion King again.

Re:Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumventio

[Subrafta]

Woohoo! I'm a minority!

Re:Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumventio

[operagost]

Since the industry keeps claiming that you are not buying a work but merely the license, they need to start treating it as such and accept a few limitations. Perhaps we need a regulation mandating that all media covered by the DMCA be replaceable by the vendor in case of damage for only the cost of the media. Of course, since everyone is a thief the cost will have to be set as well-- probably at 10% of the original sale price or a maximum of $10, adjusted for inflation yearly. Otherwise, we'll have them claiming that the media cost for a $14.99 Olsen Twins DVD is $14.50.

Send them a song!

[MS-06FZ]

I have this great MP3 tune I could send them. Sure, most of the verses are nonsense like "This function is void, it takes two parameters, the first is 't', the encrypted title key" and so on, but it has this great chorus that goes like "I hate the DMCA, it steps on me and I'm not free"...

Joan Baez would be proud.

Voting Machines

[smchris]

If you're reasonably ticked that you can't legally get around encrypted files

Haven't seen anyone mention yet that it would be nice if our officials could learn how our voting machines work. Not as important as ripping CDs, I guess.

CSS is not copy protection

[gr8_phk]

CSS is not copy protection - you can copy the encrypted data without any problem. CSS is access control. It prevents you from making sense of the data. It's used to control the player market. Sheesh, if you do something they don't like they'll stop putting your key on future DVDs so your existing players won't work. Once the player makers are all playing along, we get region coding - again, that's not copy protection. No form of encryption is really copy protection.

I though the anti-circumvention clause was intended to stop people from getting free cable TV. Instead it prevents people from accessing stuff they actually paid for.

Re:CSS is not copy protection

[ratboy666]

Say what?

Of course CSS is copy protection. DVD readers have two paths (mandated). The media keys are NOT accessible through the unencrypted data path.

What this means is that if you copy DVD data (not via the CSS play mechanism), you DON'T get the media keys. The result is designed to be useless!

Of course it is possible to brute force the media key, which is implemented, allowing play from a data DVD copy.

But, the play mechanism that supports this is not "legal" -- it is a US DMCA violation.

If the backup you made of your DVD is useless (unless you buy another DVD) -- why bother with the backup at all?

Ratboy.

Re:CSS is not copy protection

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the backup you made of your DVD is useless (unless you buy another DVD) -- why bother with the backup at all?"

Please note that you admit it's no problem to copy the encrypted data. It's making sense of the data that counts. CSS prevents you from making sense of it but does not actually prevent the copying. This makes it an access control of sorts, not copy protection. If someone makes a CSS decryptor and you use it to play that "backup" it's not the decryptor that made the copy - it only allowed you to view it.

Another way to look at it: Is it legal to download encrypted DVD movies via p2p? No? That's copying? CSS doesn't do anything to prevent that copying? exactly - it's not copy protection.

A chance for a change.

[NickFortune]

Ignoring the troll, if I might be so bold, the original point was that no one ever gives up power voluntarily. Characterise it as you will, the disolution of the Empire stands as an eloquent counter to this assertion.

It should also be noted here that the people making the descision are not the ones who benefit from the injustice in question - another reason to make the effort and write.

Re:A chance for a change.

[Beowabbit]

Ignoring the troll, if I might be so bold, the original point was that no one ever gives up power voluntarily.

No, but some read the tea leaves and decide it's in their own best interest to give up some power sooner than absolutely forced to, in the hope of a better long-term outcome. The National Party in South Africa is an example of this; they could have held onto power a little longer, but at the expense of the inevitable majority-rule government that replaced them being a lot more vengeful and a lot less willing to negotiate. They chose instead to relinquish power while they were still able to negotiate a peaceful transition.

(In lots of places, the fall of Communism was similar.)

I don't mean to imply that the DMCA is comparable to communism and apartheid, but the music industry is in a situation where its power is likely to decrease over the next five or ten years rather than increase, and it might be in its own interests to manage that shift now, while it still has a fair amount of power, rather than waiting to see what gets imposed on it by a populist backlash some years down the road.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Re:A chance for a change.

[NickFortune]

the music industry is in a situation where its power is likely to decrease over the next five or ten years rather than increase

Indeed. The RIAA are in an untennable position since their power depends on the control of a channel that has been torn wide open. Even if they succeed in bottling up the current musical back catalogue, new music is going to increasingly find it's own channels.

Still, we should remember that there are more combatants in this dustup than just the music labels. There's also film studios, software houses, publishers, and every tuppeny-hapenny wannabe monopolist who thinks they can use the DMCA to lock out potential competition.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

That's probably very wise :)

Re:A chance for a change.

[Fordiman]

Generally when a government "gives up" power, it's because the power has turned into a liability. The dissolusion of the British Empire was because, for what having an empire got them, it was also a political headache - both from foreign powers, and from the english population. When India won its independance, it was because they were sending people and resources to deal with a population that simply refused to play ball with them - thus providing no return. Eventually they gave up.

The American revolution worked the same way, but for different reasons. Basically, the British government, at the time, was busy defending itself from the French. As such, it couldn't afford to send troops half-way around the world to rule people who didn't want their rule (No, we did not kick the brits' asses. We just picked a very good time to be disobediant.)

This works in corporate situations as well. When Shell was going to dispose of the Brent Spar oil rig (with full governmental permission, I might add) through deep-sea sinkage, Greenpeace was able to (with Shell's misguided help - Shell fired Greenpeacers off the rig with water cannons that make firehoses look like territorial pissing) get press attention, sparking a large-scale European boycott. Their decision had become a problem. They ended up making the rig into a pier at an inordinate cost - but less than that of a continued boycott.

You want to fix copyright law? I'm not talking about just the DMCA, I'm talking about copyright law in general.

Complain. Loudly. Convince your friends, convince anyone who'll listen. Then ignore the law itself. And when the feds come, let them take you, and complain loudly in court. Appeal. Appeal again. And again. Essentially, do your part to make sure that enforcing copyright law in the face of modern technology is so prohibitively expensive - both to the corporations who attempt to enforce it and to the government who must deliberate trials - that it either fades into the realm of "blue laws", or it is repealed outright.

While you're waiting, fill senators' mailboxes with e-mail concerning your right to use a song that was written before you were born, or to use a cartoon that's been around since before your parents were born. CC those e-mails to the top mofos of the MPAA, RIAA, book publishers, magazine editors, news agencies, and any other content creator or media outlet you can think of. You'll cost them a few bills in time and bandwidth, and maybe - if you're a well-spoken orator - you might even change a mind or two.

This is a war. This is a battle for public knowledge, and the freedom of that knowledge. This is a fight to bring public domain back where it belongs - 17 years behind content creation.

Me? I'm going to go watch a movie. I mean, I don't really have that much time on my hands.

Of course, neither do most of you, which is why the DMCA is here to stay.

Re:A chance for a change.

[NickFortune]

Generally when a government "gives up" power, it's because the power has turned into a liability. The dissolusion of the British Empire was because, for what having an empire got them, it was also a political headache - both from foreign powers, and from the english population.

You can be as mean sprited about it as you like. We were still the first empire in history to do the right thing and stand down with needing to be overthrown. I think we deserve credit for that, personally.

Wandering back on topic..

You want to fix copyright law? I'm not talking about just the DMCA, I'm talking about copyright law in general.

mmm... and I assume you're talking to slashdot in general, since my point was that fixing the DMCA (specifically, since that is the piece fof legilation where we have a shinging opportunity at this current time. Just because we have a chance to change the DMCA doesn't mean we can't continue to work for copyright reform afterwards.

Of course, neither do most of you, which is why the DMCA is here to stay.

That rather remains to be seen, doesn't it?

Licensing? You got hosed...

[rworne]

Disney had better word their ads and store displays more carefully in the future.

Visiting a local video store there was a large poster and floor display advertising the new release of Disney's "Cinderella." The ad said: "Own it today". The key word in the ad was "own", not "license." This display (large cardboard thing that looked like a castle) came from Disney itself and was full of DVDs.

I bought one for the kid to watch and now I am the proud owner of a copy. Yeah, the disc says something about "licensed for in-home entertainment only" when played, but that was in the shrink-wrap and conflicts with the contract I agreed to when buying it. So Disney will just have to suck it up.

Perhaps one should collect these ads to present to a court if there are any DMCA issues. If I have an ad from a copyright holder (like Disney) that literally says I own the property I purchased (disc, case inserts and data on it) instead of licensing it then I am the owner of the copyrighted work that is affixed to the disc and can do with it as I (or anyone else who buys a disc) pleases. Perhaps this is Disney's way of releasing their classic films into the public domain?

Re:Licensing? You got hosed...

[pixelpusher220]

I suspect the fine print would say that you "Own" the DVD, and "License" the content on the disc...

Just my $0.025 (inflation ya know!)

Re:Licensing? You got hosed...

[rworne]

Possibly, but there was no fine print on the display. I'm trying to find a picture of it on the 'net, but all I can find are the promos that came out before release - these displays came out with the DVDs and possibly a few posters as well.

Re:Licensing? You got hosed...

[pimpsoftcom]

I just wish somebody with the funds had the brass ones to actualy do that; But the ones with the money will always protect that.

Re:Licensing? You got hosed...

[The Sigil]

IANAL, TINLA.

Why is it that slashbots are so uninformed about copyright law, and what it actually means and does? Either that, or you're being deliberately obtuse and playing on words.

Copyright law itself differentiates between an idea (a truly nebulous concept that literally exists only as a construct of the mind), a copyrighted work (defined as the semi-nebulous set and ordering of words, notes, digital bytes, or what have you that are the particular expression of an idea), and a copy (defined as the physical object upon which the set and ordering of words, notes, etc. are actually set down/recorded upon). Once you understand these three things, you'll better understand copyright law.

When you download a Linux distro off the web, to copyright law, the "copy" you downloaded is literally that little physical slice of your hard drive upon which the bytes are stored.

Copyright law is... drum roll... basically about the right to make copies - those physical copies. Because the nature of some works (like movies and recorded music, not so much books or written music) is that they are only "understandable" when actually performed (usually with the aid of a mechanical device), it is also about the right to control *public* performance of said work.

The problem is we use "copy" as a noun and a verb in the English language, and rarely differentiate between "first generation copy, the creation of which was authorized by the copyright holder" and "second generation copies, the creation of which was NOT authorized by the copyright holder."

Simply put, copyright law states that the copyright holder has the (mostly) exclusive right to authorize the creation of new copies. This right is separate and distinct from the physical copy itself. When he sells, trades, throws away, or otherwise disposes of a particular copy (the physical object, remember), he relinquishes control over how that particular copy is used - EXCEPT that he does not relinquish the right to forbid people from using that particular copy to make "Second generation copies" and/or publicly performing it. This is where the Doctrine of First Sale comes from - when Disney sells you a copy of Cinderella, they relinquish the right to forbid you from using the disc as frisbee, coaster, or (big) earring, for instance.

So yes, you own the DVD. Disney sold you a copy. But they did NOT sell you the copyright. These are two separate and distinct things. "Fair Use" might (IANAL, TINLA) allow you to rip/mix/burn copies for your own personal use. You could also argue that because copyright law defines a "computer program" as a set of instructions to be interpreted by a computer to achieve a desired effect, and your computer can interpret a DVD as a set of instructions to create the desired effect of playing a movie, you are authorized to back it up by the software backup clause of copyright (which provides you the right to make archive/backup copies of software - with no limiton the number of copies, I might add - provided that you dispose of all such archival copies when you dispose of the first-generation copy they came from).

Where Disney *IS* off its nut is in saying that the disc is "licensed for home use only." COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DO NOT HOLD THE RIGHTS TO LICENSE SOMETHING FOR "HOME USE!" They *only* hold the rights to license something for public display... in other words, they can say, "this is not licensed for public display" because they hold those rights... but telling you it's "licensed for home use" is misleading - when you purchase a lawful copy of something, you automatically have the right to use it in your home (that is not a "public performance") regardless of whether the copyright holder wants you to or not.

In other words, they're telling you that they're giving you a license/right to (a) something you ALREADY had the right to do and (b) something they do not have the legal right to restrict you from doing anyway. It may sound stupid, but it's a semantics game, and a nasty one at that, bec

Re:Licensing? You got hosed...

[rworne]

I am fully aware of the points you bring up. I also (in my original post) made it apparent I knew about the licensing vs. owning issue.

My point was this was the first time I saw an offer from a copyright owner (and a good example of one too!) stating that I own the product I am purchasing when they usually make it clear that I don't actually own the content, I'm just licensing it.

If it were an ad from Best Buy or Circuit City stating "Own any of these DVDs for $19.99", I could not say what I did because they did not have the rights to do so in the first place. Where they become vulnerable is the fact that if I do buy a DVD for $19.99 and find out I DON'T own them, they made a false offer where I don't actually own the product. If I did actually own the product, I could do with it as I wish.

If they wanted no controversy, the store display should have read:

"Now Available for a Limited Time Only: Buy a License for Viewing Cinderella Today!* Free DVD media included!"

"* licensed for in-home viewing only, all other rights reserved"

Re:Licensing? You got hosed...

[The Sigil]

No, the semantics of the ad are in fact correct. The semantics of the (shrinkwrap) licensing are bullcrap. You ARE buying a copy (the physical object) of Cinderella. You are NOT buying the right (license) to make further copies, nor are you buying the right (license) to display it publicly. Buying the copy (the physical object) grants you all *other* rights pertaining to use of that copy (specifically including private home display/performance, which as I indicated above, is an inherent right that goes with ownership of a particular physical copy and is *never* held by the copyright holder except when he never sells or otherwise parts with a physical copy).

Re:Licensing? You got hosed...

[Kjella]

[Longish rant about copy vs copyright]

Your information is ten years out of date. Since DVDs are protected by CSS, and CSS is protected by the DMCA, your rights are those that don't violate copyright or CSS. Since the copy-protection can be as restrictive as it wants, the copyright holder effectively sets all your rights. First sale? Not if the DRM doesn't let you transfer it. Fair use? Everything that involves making a copy in whole or part is gone thanks to the DMCA. What's left are a few bits and pieces like news commentary. Forward through the ads? Nope. All DMCA violations. Buying a DRM-protected media is like buying something locked in a safe with a glass window. It doesn't matter what rights you have to the object inside, since you're forbidden by law to open the safe. The current legal practise is that nothing gives you the right to open that safe, for any reason. Unless the safe lets you do something, you have no rights to your own property (short of using it as a paperweight). That is why they say they are "licensing" it instead of selling it. They "license" you the rights you got left, even though in every other way it is like a sale. And the hardware will do as they say, not you.

Kjella

Re:Licensing? You got hosed...

[Alsee]

No, I think you still do not understand copyright law and the ownership issue. When you buy a book, you do indeed own that copy of that text. You receive no license at all with the book because you do not need any license. There is no such thing as a "license to read".

When you buy a CD, you do indeed own that copy. You receive no license at all with the music because you do not need any license. There is no such thing as a "license to play/listen".

When you buy a DVD, you do indeed own that copy. You receive no license at all with the movie because you do not need any license. There is no such thing as a "licensce to watch".

When you buy software, you do indeed own that copy. They stuff a contract offer in there called an EULA, however you are perfectly free to decline that contract offer. Under copyright law you do not need any license to install and run software you bought. YOU DO NOT NEED ANY LICENSE. This is explicitly covered in US law Title 17 section 117. They attempt to use other methods to corner you into accepting the EULA contract offer, but they have absolutely no basis whatsoever in copyright law. It is not copyright infringment to install and run software you bought.

The only time you ever need a license is to create and distribute new copies, and for public performance. Doing those things without a license is copyright infringment. Those are the only rights that a copyright holder can ever licence to you, because those are the only rights a copyright holder has. Under copyright law reading is unrestricted and unlicensed. Listening is unrestricted and unlicensed. Watching is unrestricted and unlicensed. Installing and running software is unrestricted and unlicensed. "Using" things is unrestricted and unlicensed.

When publishers talk about "licenses", most of the time they are spouting PR nonsense with no basis in law. When you go to the mall and buy a book or any other copyrighted work it is entirely license-free.

-

3 parent

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't seen anyone mention yet that it would be nice if our officials could learn how our voting machines work.

It'd also be nice if we could prevent illegal aliens from using them.

Re:3 parent

[Bassman59]

"Haven't seen anyone mention yet that it would be nice if our officials could learn how our voting machines work."

"It'd also be nice if we could prevent illegal aliens from using them."

Funny, here in Arizona, the wingnuts pushed through the ridiculous Prop 200. One of the arguments for Prop 200 was that it was necessary to prevent illegal immigrants (read: Mexicans) from voting.

Of course, there was and has never been any proof that undocumented immigrants have actually been voting, but don't forget that the wingnuts use FUD better than Microsoft defending itself against Linux.

Re:Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumventio

[Anonymous Coward]

Me TOOO!... I would say that this minority is HUGE!!!

It only takes one good comment

[Sarcasmooo!]

I hope it's not too late in the thread to have this article seen, and I apologize for piggy-backing on the parents comment (hopefully it's close enough to being an on-topic response anyway), but I wanted to point out to people that one person really can change minds inside the government with a well written arguement (you'll have to read a bit to see him mentioned). I wouldn't pretend to know what might get you your 'foot in the door' in regards to changing the mind of a person subjected to lobbying and writing campaigns on a regular basis, but my suggestions are simple.

• Start by not sounding partisan, you weren't always an 'activist', explain why a rational and average American like you would come to your conclusion.
• On that same page, leave whatever philosophy you might have on the approach of a plutocratic revolution where corporate rule enslaves mankind for another letter -- even if you do think it's the root of the problem.
• And again relating to the above, don't speak in a letter as if the recipient is the greedy benefactor of corporate dinners and exotic vacations. Even if they were, making them your villan will put them on the defensive, and no matter what perversions of rational thought are required they will find a way to justify ignoring your statements.
• Don't subscribe to write-in campaigns. Form letters are already ignored, and to combat such an easily abused practice you can bet many letters will be ignored just for resembling eachother or arriving from activism websites themselves.

Re:It only takes one good comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Great points. I'd like to add one more suggestion:

5. Write whatever you plan on writing, and then DON'T SEND IT. Re-read it again the next day. Make any changes you feel are necessary - look out for hubris, arrogance or haughtiness. Repeat this process until you feel no more changes are necessary. Then, send your comments to YOURSELF. Yes, actually email them to yourself. Again, make any changes you feel are necessary. Repeat until you are satisfied that you don't come across like an arrogant prick posting on slashdot.

You'll learn a great deal from this process.

Well, shit.

[Grendel Drago]

Now I kinda want to cry.

There are a lot of places where the Supreme Court has a murky-at-best mandate to be poking around at. But "for a limited time" sounds pretty unambiguous, as does "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Copyright as currently structured does neither---and extending the copyrights on already created works certainly does neither. I coulda gone for a bit of judicial activism there.

Make it count: know the existing exemptions

[Kaseijin]

Information rot. If copyright is tied to a specific physical device and no circumvention is allowed, that information will disappear disappear when the physical device dies. Information needs to be copied by third parties in order to be preserved for the future.

Be aware that there are already narrow exemptions for computer software tied to specific hardware, among other things. The problem you describe is broader than that, but any mention of it without acknowledging the current rules probably will be passed over as a solved problem.

Re:Accepting and considering are two different thi

[MightyMartian]

Considering that the corporate interests basically own the government now, writing letters at this point won't matter all that much. Better to ask your Congressmen and Senators why they so enjoy selling you, the supposedly real power of the US, to a bunch corporate goons like Walt Disney.

This is absolutely not what the summary says

[Ath]

The summary describes this as a review of the anti-circumvention clause. That is an overly broad statement about what the USCO is doing here. The USCO has absolutely no authority to discard the anti-circumvention clause, and they say as much in their summary. What they do have the authority to do is to periodically review whether certain "classes of works" should be exempted from the anti-circumvention restriction.

"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."

Don't get your hopes up that commercial DVDs or FairPlay / WMA protected files will be considered in those classes of works.

The proper response.

[Belial6]

The right way to do this is to count the number of DVDs that have been damaged. The grassroots movement needs to fight money with money. While the **aa makes up numbers on how much "piracy" has cost them, we need to start counting up how much they have stolen from us by licensing us media, that we can not access because the media is damaged, and the **ia intentinally prevented us from securing via backup. We should also list the costs to industry for the media players and hard drives we did not buy because we could not copy our movies to video jukeboxes. We just need to show that the DMCA is more expensive than the increase of "piracy" without it.

Re:Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumventio

[Anonymous Coward]

Several key problems with this law are:
1) It threatens criminal penalties (brought by a prosecutor) for the use of material--even if that material was abandoned by the copyright owner (not necessarily the author) or the copyright owner was dissolved or died without transfer of the rights;
2) It creates an in-terrorem effect around all material when corporations repackage material already in the public domain;
3) Because all licensing and property laws are state laws, it creates the bizarre situation in which the state of Washington (or a surrogate) could criminally prosecute an Ohioan for violation of Washington commercial laws (which might be drafted to favor a specific person).
Generally:
    Anytime a narrow federal law is brought to bear in a broad area of state law, preposterous outcomes result;
    Anytime ciminal laws are brought to bear in what are essentially civil law areas, preposterous outcomes result.

One more

[Anomalyst]

Step 1: Edit out the time-stealing advertisments and corporate logos. How many times do we have to see/hear THX, Tinkerbell, a lion or some kid with the moon in his butt-crack? These are almost legtimaite compared to the "pre-views" blatently beating you upside the head.

Step 2: An internet database of these edits so other consomers can create a properly pruned and more watchable DVD.

We have already given them our money, we should not be required to pay again and again with no choice in watching this useless content.

Whoa

[Anonymous Coward]

I though the title said "anti-circumcision" laws at first. Ouch.

Yes I do

[Sycraft-fu]

Politicians are happy to listen to companies and special intrest groups when what they want doesn't bother ordinary people all that much. However when it looks like it's going to cost them the election, they stop listening and start worrying about what it'll take to appease voters.

However bitching on Slashdot and then refusing to participate because "my opinion doesn't matter" makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. By refusing to do anything, you make your opinion not matter. When you fight, you make it matter. You alone won't be the tipping point, but the more voices, the more weight the stance carries.

Re:Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumventio

[NullProg]

Anyone with small children cares about making backup copies of DVDs.

Ditto. I just sent Blizzard a nasty gram after learning I can't image Diablo2 for my 12 year old. They emailed me back stating that I could make one backup copy but no CD software will read the CD properly. I mean WTF? I emailed them back saying that I owned the box, license, and documents and that I would be dowloading a cracked ISO off the internet. I also informed them I would not be purchasing anymore games from them. We don't let the kids play from the orginal media.

Enjoy,

LOL I Tried This

[Anonymous Coward]

If they do not feel your reply is focused on one single thing as in one item or case. If they feel you do not fit a harmed party. If the example is not real enough to them. If they feel there is any way to get the same information as in using VCR, this was still an option when I last wrote about animation classes needing clips from DVDs, they will say your message does not fit their requirements and will not even allow it in the review. The odd thing in that last one being I would still have to violate DMCA by using a Macrovision filter. They seem to not pay as much attention to long defeated technologies. Another words if they just plain feel like it, they will not listen to you. In my case, I wrote a clear letter specifying multiple examples that brought into question the whole premise of DMCA applying to most any work that would now or ever have a fair use in education. They basically said there was no such thing or need, that this was not a form of harm as there were other options, and that I was not directly affected. This is just a big pacifier for the people, they will never allow anything that entertainment industry does now want to allow no matter the fact that one can clearly demonstrate examples across the board of how people have been hurt by this. I think one reason they will never allow things like DVD cracking is the plain fact that if you allow even one DVD to be cracked the tools for this are made legal and can then be provided to anyone on that premise. Now what may be interesting will be Blue-Ray these discs are being made in such a way that you could build a tool to crack one disc on one reader alone. So we might be left with having to fight disc by disc for a right we used to have. BTW: Did anyone notice I did not use making backups as a reason at all, they do not accept that as a valid reason anymore. I used the need to take clips and to be able to mix and breakdown scenes from DVDs for classes. I used to help with professors creates these so I know that the inability to do this is a serious issue for educators. It effects any lesson that needs to use a part of a video or combine parts of various videos. Since VCRs are no longer an option for a lot of new content, they seem to think a professor can always go and get several monitors and DVD players and then stand there and control each one to do this. This not only is ridiculous but also requires a physical person to control the presentation. This does not work for on line learning and it prevents the creation of annotation and video lecture inclusion during and between the scenes. This means that lately video is not longer being used as it used to be in these classes. History, animation, science, and art along with many other subjects suffer because of DMCA. Oh well I guess in they just do not matter anymore.

Re:LOL I Tried This

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they didnt read it because you didnt use paragraphs?

Re:Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumventio

[MooseTick]

"You'll care too the first time your three year old is still crying at 1 am because Dora or Peep is to scratched to play"

What's your 3 year old doing up at 1am? She may be crying because she is tired! I don't know about you, but if you are implying that you can't get a Dora DVD at 1 am, you are in the minority. I am within 30 minutes of 10 Wal-Marts and 5 24 hour WalGreens. I'm sure all have Dora DVDs.

greenspan sounding like a marxist on IP issues

[montale127]

i'll get to that. gimme a build-up moment here...

so, if you want to STREAM your content from your home-PC-turned-personal-media-server, say, using a piece of free-as-in-beer software from Orb, can you do THAT without violating the DMCA?

yupp

as some of you know, Virgin are working with us (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT =104&STORY=/www/story/09-28-2005/0004133661&EDATE/ ) to ensure you can get the content you've purchased through them (which is WM10 DRMed) streamed for free from your home (WinXP) PC to ANY device with a Web browser and a streaming audio player: mobile phones, PDAs, Linux, Mac, Wintel lappers and boxes

this works cuz we're part of the WM10 licensing program

but THERE'S NO LICENSING PROGRAM for the so-called FairPlay DRM from our friends in Cupertino

this is beyond ridiculous - the DMCA should AT MINIMUM require that there be a licensing program for every DRM paradigm

but as several of you above have said, there's NO pressure for this to happen that Congress or the USCO is likely to notice

someone suggested to me last week that there ought to be a one-week boycott on iTunes Music Store in order to raise visibility about this, but my reaction was, why would that make ANY difference??

i mean, fun stunt, right? but come onnnnn...

as (of all people, and i can't even believe i'm quoting him, really) alan greenspan even said a couple years back (i'm too lazy to google the link, but y'all kind find it easily), the existing paradigms of IP law, conceived during an economic era overwhelmingly concerned with the production of physical goods, are moving from being ENABLERS of economic growth (read: innovation, both in product and in channel) to being FETTERS on economic growth

weird times when the head of the Fed and former member of ayn rand's inner circle is sounding like a frosh quoting from The German Ideology about the relations of production fettering the forces of production...

which all comes back to why the USCO should insist that the DMCA at the VERY LEAST require a licensing program, to ensure that existing channels of use and therefore of value-generation aren't the ONLY things enabled

Re:Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumventio

[Anonymous Coward]

"You'll care too the first time your three year old is still crying at 1 am because Dora or Peep is to scratched to play"

'What's your 3 year old doing up at 1am?'

Uh, better question: what the hell are any of you letting your kids watch Dora for? Talk about piss-poor parenting. Good Lord. And, if your kid is STILL crying at one o'clock in the morning over a fucking DVD and/or fictional character, you have failed as parents.

thoughts from the future ...

[Anonymous Coward]

heyya, if missa blackhat would
think like the movie and music
industry(*), i would say that a super
rigid DMCAct (no that's not
de-militarised-cone-act) is super!
finally we will have these filthy
neon light cyperphunk back allies in
chiba, where behind a ugly facad a
super-high-tech laboratory awaits the
newest DMCA technology for breakfast!
yeah! (they prolly also have some
super-mega-gigabit connection to the
internet 3 backbone, re-textualise
the sh1t and spit it back out).
new playing field for the rank l33t, eh?
*("hedging bets"-bets!)

Actually, that's not the really good part....

[Overzeetop]

The key line is, "Except in instances of direct infringement, it shall not be a violation of the Copyright Act to manufacture or distribute a hardware or software product capable of substantial noninfringing uses."

This is the dagger into the hearts of the content police. The fair use stuff is just smoke an mirrors if the end user can't code a hack themselves from scratch to circumvent the protections. Most of us can't, or don't have the time. This last line I quoted makes it explicitly legal for real programmers to code up decryption/backup/recompression programs for the masses to use. THIS is the holy grail. The only catch is that is has to have a legitimate use (backup/format shift) and be marketed as such. The non-infringing use can't be a mere byproduct of an illegal scheme, but since time shifting and/or backup of personally owned works has generally be estabilished as substantial noninfringing uses I'm guessing they're in the clear. I wouldn't include a yenc utility, or a public p2p client embeded in the software, though.

HOWTO: Write a coherent stance

[Anonymous Coward]

Only reason I'm responding here is that the OP didn't do a very good job of explaining what this review is all about, and there's no reason people need to fish through hundreds of posts to find out what's really going on. Posting AC so you can mod this up (and so I can ask you to) with a clear conscience.

See this EFF article for more info - they mention an article by Seth Finkelstein on how to properly write a comment that is of sufficiently limited scope and that meets the requirements the USCO is looking for, so that you can get your suggestion approved.

Re:HOWTO: Write a coherent stance

[Lord Flipper]

Well, wouldn't you know, i have no mod points today...yet, so I'll just say, that this is an incredibly informative post, for the links, and the idea that coherence can be quantified, somewhat. Thank you.

want to understand? look up the guy who wrote this

[Anonymous Coward]

"And when neither their property nor honor is touched, the majority of men live content" (second paragraph, book 19 of "The Prince").

Tongue-in-cheek though that book might have been, that author had an understanding of political science that shows Rove is still journeyman-class.

Three words for the USCO...

[AWhistler]

Lexmark Toner Cartridges

Coherent responses

[wayward]

Haven't there already been some well-written commentaries on the DMCA? The U.S. ACM (particularly Barbara Simons) have been quite vocal. See http://www.acm.org/usacm/Issues/DMCA.htm

Fair use

[jommelli]

The DMCA turns fair use into no use. If for no other reason at all, the criminalization of fair use copying needs to be ended.