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

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...

[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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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: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)...

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.

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."

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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!

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: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...

"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.

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.

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.

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!)

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.

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.