Slashdot Mirror
US Register of Copyrights Says DMCA Is 'Working Fine'
Linnen writes "CNET News.com writer Anne Broache reports that the head of the US Copyright Office considers the DCMA to be an important tool for copyright owners. '"I'm not ready to dump the anticircumvention," [Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters] said in response to a question from an audience member who suggested as much. "I think that's a really important part of our copyright owners' quiver of arrows to defend themselves." The law also requires that the Copyright Office meets periodically to decide whether it's necessary to specify narrow exemptions to the so-called anticircumvention rules. (Last year, the government decided it's lawful to unlock a cell phone's firmware for the purpose of switching carriers and to crack copy protection on audiovisual works to test for security flaws or vulnerabilities.)'"
If you don't like the product then don't buy it.
Damn, there's a bunch of fucking complainers on this website.
Thought the copyright office was to serve the people not an individual? Granted an author should get special treatment on something he has created, but at DMCA is about limiting fair use on "the people". So no, it's not effective imho.
Demonstrates how appointed bureaucrats are out of touch with the people.
This is surprising how? The government lives to increase its power wealth and reach. DMCA was great as far as the copyright office is concerned. If anything they want more of it and a couple new government agencies to enforce it The only way the DMCA is going away is the supreme court or congress (super unlikely).
Harrasment Act is ?
either not, or he is paid well. by whom, you know.
Read radical news here
The assertion is absolutely correct. DMCA is working fine.
DMCA was designed to protect copyright, and it is protecting it.
The question we should be asking ourselves is whether or not copyright (the way it is righ now) is protecting public interest.
What does this tag have to do with anything?
Is this a new crapflooding technique?
It seems to appear on some of the previous articles too...
I think that's a really important part of our copyright owners' quiver of arrows to defend themselves.
Yes, and they have been using those arrows to shoot consumers and researchers full of holes. Look at how the DMCA has been used in practice since its inception: suing makers of compatible garage door openers, suing manufacturers of printer ink cartridge refills, suing university researchers, and basically causing substantial legal hassles for anyone that the copyright holder doesn't like (most of the cases are eventually thrown out). Meanwhile there are still 1-2 dollar DVDs available at flea markets, bazaars, and on street corners just about everywhere, downloads are still going full tilt, and legitimate customers are being harassed while the commercial pirates are not even inconvenienced. The bottom line is that we, as a society, have paid a high cost for this DMCA without achieving any noticeable progress towards the goals that it was designed to address. The DMCA clauses which make reverse engineering illegal under any circumstance which is not specifically granted an exemption for fair use need to be repealed. The burden should be upon the copyright holder to prove that the specific instance of reverse engineering is being used to infringe their copyright, not upon the reverse engineer to prove that whatever they are doing is not infringement.
Say system works fine.
News at 11.
"The US Gov't. Defending international megacorporations from our citizens since 1787."
Granted an author should get special treatment on something he has created
These days, authors usually don't retain the copyrights on their works. Their publishers get them.
I don't know if this is true of bookwriting, but it is true of music. Also, chemical/scientific patents of any form are usually held by a large corporation that provided funding, rather than the scientist/engineer who created it. The same goes for most non-open-source software. Also, the wealthy production companies wind up owning the copyrights on movies....not the actors, musicians, painters, stuntmen, scriptwriters etc.
So....in general...the talent doesn't own the work, but rather the investor owns the work. Hence, it is the investor that gets special treatment (which seems to amount to control over the private property (hardware) of millions of consumers across the globe) So these laws do not protect the workers so much as the large businesses that pay them.
It's just another case of the rule of the rich.
And this person is in charge of copyrights?
You know, there's a HUGE difference between a book and a DVD.
The fox declares that the henhouse is doing just fine.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I know the general opinion of the DMCA here on /. (and I tend to agree). That said, I have a question I wonder if anyone can answer. We hear lots about DMCA abuses (partly due to the standard thoughts on it). Can anyone point to one or more big cases where the DMCA helped and the person/people wronged would have been without recourse before the DMCA that aren't abuses?
Every time I hear about the DMCA it is being used to do something stupid or flat out illegal under the act (after all, just claim it as a reason for anything and many people will back off). Is anyone actually using it successfully and correctly where it provides a tangible benefit from before the act was enacted?
I think that is the litmus test of if it really was useful or good.
But as long as the RIAA/MPAA/whoever else get to "use" it to fix "problem" then it is "working."
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Seeing as the US federal government was bought and paid for by large US business, I would agree that they have no problems with it. Meaning, the core issue we are facing is not what they think, but rather the current situation we are in. The Feds decision to lower the funds rate today backs this up even more... Help the market fat cats, and leave it to the basic consumer to pay more for everything...
the head of the US Copyright Office considers the DCMA to be an important tool for copyright owners
I didn't realize that the Defense Contract Management Agency dealt with copyrights. Obviously, the US government is even more screwed up than I originally thought...
or the intent of the word reguardless of the mis-overlooked-spelling?
the answer: yes you do, the point got across
now shut the fuck up
What do you want copyright industry, DRM or DMCA? Right now, we the consumers live in the worst of both worlds, and the RIAA and their cronies aren't getting what they want either. The system is obviously broken. DRM has been an unmitigated failure, there isn't a single DRM system that can't be bypassed, and customers hate it. But because of the DMCA anti-circumvention people are not able to publicly challenge crappy DRM by making tools for Joe Blow to break them.
So we have the worst of all possible worlds, the makers of DRM fool around pretending that their broken DRM still works and spread fear that if a publisher releases anything without their DRM it will be instantly stolen. But their DRM is already broken!
It's turned a simple clean purchase into a complicated 'license' where the user is getting totally screwed over.
It's caused a massive loss of sales. All the sales they could have had if they hadn't gone the DRM route are lost. It's going to take them a long time to recover.
It's led to fake claims, a person making a DMCA takedown claim does not need to show any evidence that they are the copyright owner and because the DMCA claim is made to a third party, there is no interest in that third party ensuring the claim has even the basics of legitimacy.
Dumb shit has been slotted in as copyright clauses, like the UK's no parallel imports, so I can't import Vista from the US (not that I have any desire to mess with that monster), even though it's a quarter the price, because it's been made an offence under a copyright statute! Now everyone if claiming copyright to block imports of their products from cheaper markets and UK consumer is getting screwed over paying inflated prices.
On the 0th day, God created C
"Thought the copyright office was to serve the people not an individual"
There is no "The People". Society is made up of individuals and for society to work like our founders intended. An agreement was made up amongst those individuals that had the skill, talent, and time to create. The beneficiaries were to be those that didn't have, time, talent, or skill. Make note that the individual has to prosper before "The People" can prosper. Serving "The People" without serving the individuals first is backwards and defeating behavior.
If you want a partial list of how the DMCA has been abused, and other damages it has done even when it was not being abused, visit eff.org and find their report "DMCA: Unintended Consequences". Everybody should visit the site regularly, anyway.
I might disagree with the EFF in one respect, though: I do not believe that ALL the negative (from a consumer point of view) consequences were unintended. On the contrary, I think that industry lobbied Congress to put some of those provisions in there, with full knowledge of what it would do.
Prime example of why the copyright laws are borked - arrows aren't used for defense. They're used for offense. If that's the sort of analogy being thought up by those in power, if gives you an idea of their mindset...
Just curious, is this U.S. Register of Copyrights, "Marybeth Peters" a Bush appointee from the RIAA or MPAA or some other industry with a conflict of interest, by any chance?
Bush has a sordid history of doing this at the FDA, NASA, and elsewhere.
I heard Bush even chose his VP running mate from industry and then the guy pushed for a war on bogus grounds that ended up benefiting his former company.
I this case just the opposite, also mentioned in the article she dislikes the only good parts of that heinous law, the exemption that allows Google search, MySpace, YouTube and most of the internet to exist. Initially she only liked the anti-first-amendment clauses of the DMCA, but she "came around" on the part that allows her to decide whether it's legal to watch a DVD.
FYI She still opposes DVD watching and she is a self-proclaimed Luddite and doesn't own a computer.
That someone who doesn't own a computer has been put in charge of regulating the high tech sector of the second largest economy in the world frightens me to the same level that the horse lawyer put in charge of terrorist and emergency response did after the Katrina fuckup.
Where do they find these people? Is it the same type of process by which they find jurors who have never seen or heard any news for years for high profile cases? Ms. Peters, have you even read a book? No. Have you ever seen a computer? No. Have you ever visited a library? No. Do you know what a library is? My papa said it's a den of reds! Yes quite correct, now the next question, do you know what a Television is? No. Are you sure? Yes. Ms. Peters, you're HIRED! But I'm just here on a field trip.. Never mind that, you are now in charge of the technology sector of our economy. Make sure you listen to this guy from the RIAA and this other guy from the MPAA, don't worry they will tell you exactly what to do. Yes, Sir Chaney, Sir! Whatever you say, Sir!
"It's caused a massive loss of sales. All the sales they could have had if they hadn't gone the DRM route are lost. It's going to take them a long time to recover."
Interesting. Were these sales "lost" the same way "illegal downloads" are a "loss"?
Incorrect in at least two respects:
First, the DMCA was designed not to protect copyrights, but to extend them... far beyond what was allowed by law before.
Second, it is not "working fine". I think most people agree that it has done a shitty job of "protecting" anything except Corporate interest in a defunct business model. Further, it has hurt the market, consumers, and industry in general. If you want to know how, see the "unintended consequences" report on the eff.org website.
Copyrights were established to encourage the arts and sciences, in order to further the public interest in these fields. Those are the words that were used when the laws were first established. Copyrights were allowed for a limited time, so that people would have an incentive to create original works. After that, the public gets them. But the main interest has always been that of the public! The problem was that the public could not just take what others created, because then individuals would have no reason to do the creating. Copyrights were a compromise.
Today, certain copyright laws exist in the interest of not the public, but of private interests who want to preserve those rights and profit from them forever. That is NOT in the interest of the public, and was NEVER the idea behind copyright or patent law. Until now.
The DMCA and similar laws passed since were always bad ideas. I would say that they have outlived their usefulness, but I think it is obvious now that they were never really "useful" to society in the first place.
Register, as in putting money into the corporate cash registers, is a more appropriate in describing the current balance of power within the copyright system.
Yes, the DMCA works great, some people may object when it is used en masse by large corporations, but it is the most effective tool for the little guy. Content creators have always had trouble protecting their rights without expensive, protracted lawsuits. But I've regained control of my own copyrighted materials, quickly and simply, merely by filing a DMCA notice. I've helped other "little guys" do the same.
Copyright works for content creators, and the DMCA covers my back. I like the DMCA.
Here is the link.
Of course that is what they wanted! Do you think it is coincidence that industry implemented DRM and lobbied for the DMCA at the same time? Don't be silly! Once they had DMCA, they could implement draconian DRM, and they thought the market would have to follow.
They did not want one OR the other, they wanted both, because they thought they could force people to continue following their outdated business model. Hint: Some industry old-timers actually thought they deserved to continue making outrageous profits, just because they had been for so many years prior.
However, they should have listened to a few smart people who told them, even then, that this plan would not work in the long run.
Now, will somebody please get it through their heads that IT DID NOT WORK on audio, and the writing is on the wall: it is doomed to fail with video, too! But they have kept trying...
That page was written in 2002. Here is a link to the updated report:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php
"I think that's a really important part of our copyright owners' quiver of arrows to defend themselves."
Please can somebody tell her that the MPAA is not a motherfucking elf?
The problem with the circumvention clause, at least to me, is that it disallows an activity which seems to me as though it should be perfectly legitimate.
I want to buy a DVD, take it home, and rip it to my hard drive, then store the DVD itself in my closet. Then I want to stream it to the media center connected to my TV. That is to say, I want to give them money and then use the video in my own home. I don't want to share it with friends, I don't want to sell it, and I don't want to waste my bandwidth sharing it with the world. I just want to watch it without having to deal with the physical disk.
Alternately, I could buy a movie download. But then I would still want to use my own media player, not whatever software they thought I should use, so I would still have to circumvent.
However, thanks to the anti-circumvention clause, I might as well skip the money-to-them part and just pirate my movies. I'm breaking the law either way.
Computers need to explode more often.
Sir, you overlook the fact that not one horse was reported drowned in Hurricane Katrina!
No statement is true, not even this one.
What's even scarier is that she's been serving in this position since 1994. That's over thirteen years of copyright policy advice to Congress (part of the office's job description) from a person who doesn't own a computer.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
As someone else points out register is right.
If that was the only word from US law with a tortured meaning, we would all be in better shape. The purpose of new speak, as Orwell understood it is to make sure no one would ever understand the language of the Enlightenment and documents like the US bill of rights. Simple words like "cruel and unusual", "limited duration", "shall not be infringed", "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" and "make no law abridging the freedom of speech" are widely missunderstood even when they are remembered.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
"I wouldn't call this consequence unforeseen. I think the purpose of the anti-circumvention clause is not to protect copyrights, but to protect business models."
Coincidently bypassing anti-circumvention devices does make it easier for some* to violate copyright.
"It's the DMCA that keeps you from taking songs from iTunes and using them on non-Apple portable players. That forces you to follow Apple's vertical business model."
And it's the policy I signed with Farmer's insurance that's "forcing" me to follow their business model. Darn I wished there was no contract law making me.
"Selling multiple copies of the same DVD is a part of the movie industry's business model. If you can back up your discs, you'd only buy one."
It's also a part of COPY-right. Business model or not, copyright governs the making of copies and has even before there was the big business model to bash. Remember copyright just like other laws are for all members of society. Something slashdot has a tendency to forget.
"Others have attempted to use the DMCA to force you to buy a certain manufacturer of printer ink or garage door openers."
And yet no one seems to have a problem with buying cheap printers or cellphones. How odd.
"If anyone has ever checked out the Pirate Bay they'd learn that the DMCA has not made any dent in the actual protection of copyrights."
The thing with the decay of a society isn't the "I'm in it for myself". Nor is it the "I'm doing it for others". It's the imbalance between the two were the former ultimately subsumes the later.
*Yes I'm aware of the mass "I got me a stamping machine" pirate. Funny how a burner, and the Internet creates the same effect without the middleman.
"First, the DMCA was designed not to protect copyrights, but to extend them... far beyond what was allowed by law before. "
Interestingly enough. No "out of copyright" material has ever been circumvented to test this theory.
"Second, it is not "working fine". I think most people agree that it has done a shitty job of "protecting" anything except Corporate interest in a defunct business model."
Well once you lose your obsession for big business. The DMCA seems to work for the copyright holder without deep pockets.
"Copyrights were established to encourage the arts and sciences, in order to further the public interest in these fields. Those are the words that were used when the laws were first established. Copyrights were allowed for a limited time, so that people would have an incentive to create original works. After that, the public gets them. But the main interest has always been that of the public! The problem was that the public could not just take what others created, because then individuals would have no reason to do the creating. Copyrights were a compromise. "
Well! At least something we can agree on.
"Today, certain copyright laws exist in the interest of not the public, but of private interests who want to preserve those rights and profit from them forever. That is NOT in the interest of the public, and was NEVER the idea behind copyright or patent law. Until now. "
Yes that non-deep pocket person I mentioned earlier also seems to benefit as well. When does the GPL expire again?
"The DMCA and similar laws passed since were always bad ideas."
Yes any law that legislates human behavior is going to be bad. Now if you'll excuse me I have someone to, ahem...rub out.
Everything is Fine with your High on Meth.
But seriously does this person live in a cave or under a rock to see that the DMCA is being abuse when ever people see fit.
Another Bush crony.. what can you expect.
Amnesia is a common illness around here. Let me refresh this forums memory
"DMCA takedown notices are being used as a harrasment tactic for otherwise lawful and free-speech protected Web sites by folks such as the Church of Scientology."
I have a big book to my right containing the US legal code. Care to show me those laws that haven't at some time been abused by someone?
Mind you I don't agree with abusing the law, but I don't think that an abused law is equal to a bad law. Otherwise I'd throw this big book out the window.
"The DMCA has allowed printer manufacturers like Epson to lock out all competitors in the field of ink supplies."
Anita didn't get this, maybe you will? Why should the consumer be allowed to buy the cheap razors and decline the blades?*
"And, it continues to be a tool used by the clueless morons over at the MAFIAA to strong arm computer illiterate grandmothers and small children."
And what about the guilty. Won't someone think of the guilty?
"What, exactly, constitutes 'working fine' in any of the above?"
Since you're presenting it? Nothing.
*And before you say it's a flawed model. You may want to think of the consequences for the consumer in it's absence.
Actually, the "!linuxsucks" tag appeared only after the "linuxsucks" tag had already gone away:
first page load:
linuxsucks
second page load (hours later):
third page load (hours later still):
!linuxsucks
For the record.
--AC
Oh sure, the DMCA works just fine.
So did the Ford Pinto.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
I thought it was gonna say "Worthless" and not "Working"...damn you RSS feed for cutting off letters!
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
"Well, I don't care for 'necessary evil' because copyright is not even necessary. While Jefferson was not one of the framers, he was influential, and you'll recall that he said:"
I disagree, and I disagree with Jefferson for the simple reason that neither Jefferson nor you can ignore the realities of life. The only evil would be ignoring that, and forcing everyone to follow an idealistic model of the world that doesn't fit.
"Naturally, if there is no copyright that could yield a net public benefit, then we'd be best off without any. But I don't think that's presently true."
Well I get the impression that you wish there was some kind of seperation between policy and authors benefit. Unfortunately until we all turn alturistic in thoughts and deeds presently and in the future some form of copyright will always be needed, especially for a technologically sophisticated society who's knowledge outpaces it's wisdom in using it.
"So, while it's a mouthful, I'd suggest that the copyright should be that which yields the greatest net public benefit. And at present, it is not doing so, and might even be yielding a net public detriment!"
Unfortunately everyone has a stake in their position and hence the issue gets clouded to the detriment of clarity. Maybe it is, and maybe it's not, but as long as everyone's looking at their patch of ground, no one will see the forest.
In other news, it's time to rid ourselves of the US Register of Copyrights...
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
"Interesting post. I've often wondered how people can protect digital content without something like the DMCA. "
Doubly so because technology makes it easier for someone to indulge their base desires without getting caught.
"It's not an answer to just trust people, because time and again there are people who are just untrustworthy."
And some will fight even that statement for the simple reason they don't want to be viewed as that "untrustworthy" person. It's the OTHER person that is.
"The DMCA seems to have the teeth, but I'm not sure the level of fairness is right for enough people (it is for you, which is a definite positive)."
The fairness needs to be adjusted, but see my two statements above.
The problem is section 1201, anticircumvention.
It's redundant as far as actual piracy is concerned.
It merely serves as a hook on which to hang lawsuits, lawsuits which are used to maintain a complete regulatory stranglehold on technology, which since 1998 has pretty much stagnated save very cautious pioneering by only the world's largest corporations.
Heck even the new versions of vcr's dont have permanent archivable media like their analogue counterparts.
Section 1201 could be abolished and 99.999% of slashdot, as well as the eff, would be satisfied. You would also not lose this important tool of which you speak.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Hello Slashdot, This is my first post through your network. From what I read, it may not be all that popular, but I can tell you from "direct experience" (I wonder how many of your readers can say that?) that what I say is the market reality, not simply my opinion. Thanks for bringing this "debate" to the members of the Slashdot community. These DMCA issues are extremely relevant, and vitally important, in today's world. I know Ms. Peters and I think she is an excellent Register of Copyrights. I also know the former Register. Ms. Peters is both intelligent, analytical, and fair-minded. She won't be swayed by the massive truckloads of anti-copyright advocates, lawyers, and PR agents employed by companies like Google, and others, these days. She understands the importance of property rights, both physical and intellectual, to this country. Whether she has a computer at home or not is none of any of our business. Since when do we have the right to impart our values on others? This is a matter of law ... it's all that pure and simple. If you don't like the law, then invite one of your congressmen/women to join you at Google for a free gourmet lunch, and see if they'll try to change it for you.
The market is solving the anti-circumvention "debate" on its own, but why copyright infringers believe they have a vote is simply beyond me. I wonder what they (the infringers) would say if we told them they couldn't put up a fence around their back yard or pool?
And how can Google help to organize all of the world's information, including the infringers' (whether we want them to or not) with those security systems in place in all their houses?
There is no real need to change the DMCA here. Our problem is enforcement, and ethical industry leadership, not Constitutional rights or the law.
Ms. Peters makes an excellent point about the "safe harbor" provisions of that same law (the DMCA), however. It was NEVER meant to give known pirates a safe harbor to sail their infringement vessels into. I have never seen a clause so incorrectly interpreted (purposely I might add) by so many, with such market power, in my entire career. And I've been at this game since the mid 70s.
Google, and other major search engine players in this country, and in others, intentionally, and routinely, misuse, and misrepresent the "safe harbor provisions" of the DMCA. In short, they break the law. I know. I was in the middle of a huge copyright infringement lawsuit when the DMCA first became law in 1998. It was NOT designed to encourage copyright infringement, to give unscrupulous web site publishers and distributors a place to hide, or to place the burden of policing violations on those who cannot control the distribution networks.
Statements to the contrary are NONSENSE!
The law was never intended to give a large publicly funded company, such as Google, an escape from liability for obvious copyright infringement activity. They are not analogous to the telephone company. They deliver proprietary content, and sell advertisements, every single time they infringe. Google's attorneys have simply used the technical confusion to mislead those in our "judicial" society that decide such things - the court appointed mediators, arbitrators, judges, and juries ... let alone uninformed politicians. Back in my IBM days, we called it the spreading of the "FUD factor" ... Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
We are fortunate to have a strong woman, such as Ms. Peters, at the helm up here in Washington. If only her judicial counterparts would use a little "common sense", we'd all have a better, and safer, Internet to browse, surf, and search.
Please let me hear from you if you disagree and have real "facts" to back up your claims.
It's a pleasure to join your network.
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.com
Copyright holders have the legal right to restrict how their content is used, reproduced, etc. They have laws preventing the infringement of these rights.
Individuals also have rights, such as the right to time shift or media shift content that they have purchased. Why do individuals not have laws preventing the infringement of these rights? E.g., why does the law prevent circumvention of copy protection, rather than preventing copy protection itself?
Thomas Galvin
More guns than Robert E. Lee had I guess?