Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Maybe we should do an 'Ask Slashdot'. CmdrTaco can then submit the best 500,000 :o)
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
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!
A community-oriented lyrics site
They'll listen... especially if large numbers of ordinary people show up with torches and pitch forks.
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.
"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.
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.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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).
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.
Vuja De: That sinking feeling that this is going to happen again. Often occurs in meetings with Product Managers.
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.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
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".
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
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