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?

[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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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".

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.

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)...

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

[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:A better idea ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

How about...

[mustafap]

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

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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...

[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

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: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.