Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Exemption Time
jvillain writes "Contentagenda notes that the Copyright Office is taking submissions for exemptions to the DMCA. They do this every three years. There's a description of the six exemptions made last time to give you some ideas. So fire up the keyboard and let the Copyright Office know what needs to be changed. If you don't get in now, it'll be another three years before you can try again."
Can anyone tell me: how strong does encryption have to be to make breaking it illegal?
Say I create an "encryption algorithm" for images which when it comes down to it does nothing more than invert the image, is anyone selling software which can "break" my encryption now breaking the law?
What if I use nothing more than thousand year old classic like a Caesar cipher to encrypt my media- Is any kid who writes a trivial program to crack such ciphers(specific to my media or not) then breaking the law?
Is thinking about breaking encryption illegal? Is it limited to digital devices or is it illegal to write down a mathamatical formula on paper which can be used to break an encryption scheme?Is it illegal to give the formula to people? How about emailing it to people? How about if the formula is written in a manner than can be parsed by a computer? Or if it's simply example source code for such a program with no executable? that same source code compiled?
Where's the line?
When circumvention is used to transfer content from one device* to another, (or from one owner to another in such a way that the original user no longer has access to the content [such as uploading a file, then deleting the local copy]), in a circumstance which would not normally be permissible due to technical, but not legal, restrictions of the scheme being circumvented.
*"device" is a poor choice of phrase, as this should also cover use of other operating systems or players on a single physical "device".
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
not to say that i actually support Real Media, but for once they made a useful application for people. so lets add this exception:
"Software circumvention of protection can be allowed for personal use in the event that no more then one copy is made and the new copy adds a new and at least equivalent layer of protection. This added protection must not be obsolete and must allow for an identical and identifiable copy."
I dont think that is TOO opened ended, and it would give legit dvd-decryption a boost, as well as make "overcopying" identifiable, at least to a piece of software, a particular DVD or CD, or a user or computer.
they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
According to exemption 6 on the list only CDs can legally be bypassed. That seems awfully ignorant being that Blu-ray, HD-DVD, and even DVD protections pose far greater threats to computer security. Besides, that restricts an owner from having full access to his hardware should really be ruled unconstitutional as a seizure violation. Sure, it is the media distrubuters implement this, but the DMCA is even worse than Kelo vs. City of New London when it comes to the government making it okay for one person to deprive another of the use of their property.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I suggest the exemption "Works protected by copyright where copying or circumventing technical protection measures is performed for purposes that would be traditionally considered fair use?"
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
Am I right in thinking that some printer companies use the DMCA to go after those that make compatible cartridges?
If that's true, then I think it's daft and an abuse of the act. If it carries on, we'll have electronics small enough that sheets of paper will start being compatible with specific printers...
How about a simple exemption for "fair use?"
This would of course cover your examples, plus the 6 already listed and any number of other situations where the value of the intellectual property is not in any way lessened.
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
Just keep copyright bound to a person and not to a company.
I generally agree.
And let the copyright be valid only 5 years after the death of that person to let it be able to cover for funeral costs in case that's needed.
I disagree. We should not have laws or rules on the books which -encourage- the one hit wonder, or the 'create ONE work, live forever off of it' mentality.
Public Domain is our friend.
You are not a library or an archive. This exemption does not apply to you.
Most of these exceptions are incredibly narrow. Read carefully.
IANAL, but my common-sense understanding says that it's not specifically permitted, which means it is at least ambiguous enough to tie you up in court for several thousand dollars to try to prove your use is OK.
Why are private libraries invalid in your world? They were extremely important as the foundation of public libraries. You know why? buncha idiots thought asinine restrictions were good for sales.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
> There's already an exception for computer software which is no longer supported.
> I think we need an exception for computer software that requires a potentially expensive phone call to activate.
> Needs a better argument than EA are idiots though. Having to call and explain why you've
> installed 3 times already doesn't sound such an onerous task until you have to actually do it.
Make it a bit broader. In any case where the manufacturer/activator fails to provide reasonable access to activation. Then we can start to define reasonable terms:
- local or toll-free activation number
- phones answered promptly at all hours
- activation phones properly staffed with people trained to resolve activation issues, not just read a script
- open reasonable hours; if the software is US only, minimum of say, 8 AM EST to 10 PM PST M-Sat. If worldwide, 24/7/365.
- permanent unlock option available if the support must be discontinued
- burden on manufacturer to unlock permanently if they fail to resolve recurring issues for a customer in a reasonably period of time.
- legally defined minimum definitions of reasonable time. Some already exist for other regulated industries; these might be used as a guideline.
And this should be extended to all "Digital Media."
It already exists. The problem is that it's illegal to sell, trade, or give away any program or information which helps the end user circumvent the protection for any purpose, including fair use. It's like making guns legal, but outlawing the manufacture and publication of instructions on how to make guns, ammunition, and propellants.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Any right they can take away from you, they can sell back to you. So, from a publishers point of view, all fair use rights lessen the value of a work.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Computer programs, video games, and multimedia content in digital format which, in order to operate in the desired manner, require activation to Internet servers which no longer function or are decommissioned. An Internet activation server shall be considered not functioning after one month of downtime.
They're using their grammar skills there.
"And let the copyright be valid only 5 years after the death of that person to let it be able to cover for funeral costs in case that's needed."
A problem with death + 5 years is that for very lucrative works (e.g. Harry Potter) then it becomes profitable for people to assassinate the author simply in order to get rid of copyright on a work.
Death + 50 years or at a push 20 years might do it, and the current 75 years is too long - especially when it is extendable e.g. Mickey Mouse never going out of copyright...
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
No, the law is very specific in preserving existing fair use rights. What it prevents is anyone providing the means for circumvention to exercise those rights. So if you are allowed, under fair use, to format shift then you are allowed to do so for a DRM encrypted file as well. The only challenge is that it is illegal for anyone to sell software to crack the encryption. Note that I didn't say that it was illegal to buy cracking software - only to sell it. It's like telling you that you can drink as much as you want, but it is illegal for anyone to give or sell you anything to drink. You can't even pay someone to dig a well for you, or sell you a pump - you have to do it yourself, or find someone who is outside of US jurisdiction to do it.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Bingo.
Sell, or give away. At least within US Jurisdiction. Thankfully, the Internet is global.
My own personal addition would be:
"Sales or gifts of software designed to aid in the decryption of protected works where that decryption is performed for uses defined under Fair Use principles."
Let's just get the Copyright office to gut the law this time around.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory