DMCA Exemptions Desired To Hack iPhones, Remix DVDs

An anonymous reader writes "For copyright activists, Christmas comes but once every three years: a chance to ask Santa for a new exemption to the much-hated Digital Millennium Copyright Act's prohibitions against hacking, reverse engineering and evasion of Digital Rights Management (DRM) schemes protecting all kinds of digital works and electronic items. Judging from the list of 20 exemptions requested this year [19 shown], some in the cyber-law community are thinking big. The requests include the right to legally jailbreak iPhones in order to use third party software, university professors wishing to rip clips from DVDs for classroom use, YouTube users wishing to rip DVDs to make video mashups, a request to allow users to hack DRM protecting content from stores that have gone bankrupt or shut down, and a request to allow security researchers to reverse engineer video games with security flaws that put end-users at risk." Reader MistaE provides some more specific links to PDF versions: "Among the exemption proposals is a request from the Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic to allow circumvention of DRM protection when the central authorization server goes down, a request from the EFF to allow circumvention to install third party programs on phones, as well as a request for ripping DVDs for non-commercial purposes. There were also several narrow requests from educational institutions to rip DVDs for classroom practices."

Comments

How about this

[MikeRT]

Make DRM breaking illegal only when there is criminal intent, such as to share reproductions with others or to sell bootlegs...

Re:How about this

[Anonymous Coward]

but that makes too much sense!

Re:How about this

[pitchpipe]

It's a good goddam thing they be askin' The Santa instead of me, 'cause I'd break their fuckin' legs.

Regards,

Mafiaa

Re:How about this

[evanbd]

Sharing reproductions is not necessarily copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is usually not a criminal matter. Using correct and precise terminology is important to having an informed debate, as opposed to losing without the debate happening by letting your opponents set the terms.

Why is it that geeks have no trouble using the precise, correct terms when writing code, but so commonly fail to transfer that precision to other areas where it is equally important?

Re:How about this

[impaledsunset]

That would be just meaningless. And well, it will would render the anti-circumvention clause completely useless. That sounds like a very good reason to do it, I'm all for it.

Re:How about this

[FredFredrickson]

Most of those requests are stupid, and don't dig down to the core of the issue. They all are asking for special circumstances to do various fair-use related activities.

The exception needs to be "except for in fair-use situations."

Imagine ripping DVDs being illegal unless you're only going to make a mashup video for youtube? Sure that's part of fair-use, but if that's all you ask for, and that's what they grant, then we're all retarded. What the hell are these people thinking?

So many times people try to fight fires at the top of the flames, and wonder why they never go out. Talk about slippery slopes, eh? See? We're fair! We can remove your right of second sales, because look- we agreed to dvd rips for youtube mashups only!

GAAAAAWD! I get so angry. I need some pie brb.

Re:How about this

[Smitty825]

Maybe I've been coding at the wrong companies, but I've consistently seen geeks use bad terms for variable names, function names, and even comments!

Re:How about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that geeks have no trouble using the precise, correct terms when writing code, but so commonly fail to transfer that precision to other areas where it is equally important?

Show us the parse tree for English and we'll start using perfect grammar.

Re:How about this

[Lumpy]

Because our opponents in the RIAA are using an aimbot.

most geeks frown on cheaters.

Re:How about this

[tbrex33]

Or how about allowing consumer to fully use the digital file they download in the first place? The problem with most DRM issues is that the provider of the content never really leaves what they are providing, but always seems to be along with the ride.

Re:How about this

[characterZer0]

Do not judge too quickly. I have seen terms used for variables and functions that made sense once upon a time but the program has morphed around it such that 'cvs blame' would indicate the original developer was picking words from the dictionary at random.

Re:How about this

[Aladrin]

Why do you assume that the good coders are the same people who can't be precise when they are speaking?

Re:How about this

[MistaE]

Dude, I don't you get it.

As far as our government is concerned right now, ripping DVDs IS illegal when doing so circumvents the CSS, which is a violation of the DMCA. Everything that is being asked for is CURRENTLY illegal under the DMCA, regardless of what you or many other wishful thinking nerds believe. I don't understand why asking for these exemptions are a slippery slope -- how can you give up rights that you currently don't have under the law?

Now I understand your frustration, because it really is unfortunate that this is where we're at. But we don't succeed by ignoring the laws. We succeed by working with them, compromising, and then, hopefully, overcoming them with logic, common sense, and hopefully the backing of the American populace.

For example, one of the exemptions listed was for Media Film Studies education. The exemption was granted in 2006 and was a boon to that academic industry. This year, they are arguing that their 2006 exemption was so successful and necessary that they are asking to expand the exemption to encompass even more uses. They used clear factual examples, compelling legal arguments, and logic to show the LOC that it is necessary to expand their rights, and I hope that they get it.

To some (or most) these may seem like small potatoes sure, but they're a legitimate foot in the door. The odds of an exemption being granted that simply asks for something as broad as "everything that is under fair-use" is extremely unlikely. But, if we continue to succeed at these exemptions and show Washington that this is where the people are heading, this is what society needs, and these are the reasons why we are having issues, maybe that becomes one more brick in the wall to convince them that the DMCA is not a good idea.

Re:How about this

[Z34107]

Show us the parse tree for English and we'll start using perfect grammar.

The problem is, the parse trees for most sentences in the language are ambiguous.

Further complicating the fact is that English may not be enumerable - I know the way most people speak it, it's not even a recognizable language, let alone decidable.

French, however, I hear is Turing decidable. Why else would they be so smug...

Re:How about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of those requests are stupid, and don't dig down to the core of the issue. They all are asking for special circumstances to do various fair-use related activities.

The exception needs to be "except for in fair-use situations."

Imagine ripping DVDs being illegal unless you're only going to make a mashup video for youtube? Sure that's part of fair-use, but if that's all you ask for, and that's what they grant, then we're all retarded. What the hell are these people thinking?

So many times people try to fight fires at the top of the flames, and wonder why they never go out. Talk about slippery slopes, eh? See? We're fair! We can remove your right of second sales, because look- we agreed to dvd rips for youtube mashups only!

GAAAAAWD! I get so angry. I need some pie brb.

Your invective is misplaced, as anyone who has followed the exemption process knows that the Copyright Office has and will continue to summarily reject requests for blanket exemptions of fair use.

The commentators are just as frustrated on this front as you are; for example, this the EFF brief contains a novel and extensive suggestion about how better to accommodate fair use in general through the process.

Your slippery slope argument is simply false; many participate in the process while simultaneously advocating its abolition - because we don't want to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

The commentators have chosen to work with what they have and pursue exemptions for activities that they know people want to and should be able to engage in. If any of the exemptions is granted, we'll all have more freedom than would have otherwise - and that's hardly "stupid" or "retarded."

If you want to eviscerate the DMCA completely, you should write to your local congress-critter instead of insulting the people who are working hard to get exemptions that have some chance of actually passing.

[Disclaimer: I am involved in the commenting process.]

Re:How about this

[MobyDisk]

Computer geeks probably use correct computer terms.
Legal geeks probably use correct legal terms.

Also, this only applies to educated geeks.

Re:How about this

[cayenne8]

"Copyright infringement is usually not a criminal matter."

The trouble is, more and more there is a push (and seemingly some success) to make more and more and more copyright infringement cases prosecutable as a criminal offense.

Re:How about this

[Jaysyn]

One of the best coders I know (not saying a whole lot, really) can barely spell.

Re:How about this

[randalotto]

The thing is, "hacking" the protections covered by the DMCA for your own personal fair-use is already legal. Unfortunately, this really only helps the .0001% of the population technologically proficient enough to whip up encryption breaking schemes on their own.

Even if circumvention of DMCA protections would be fair use if you did it on your own, if anyone "manufactures, imports, offers to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics" that technology to anyone else, its a violation.

Thus, if I discover a way to rip a copy-protected CD to my iPod, in a way that is perfectly legal and covered by fair-use, its not a problem.

If I give the program to someone else, I'm screwed... How's that for messed up application of the law?

Re:How about this

[triceice]

Make DRM breaking illegal only when there is criminal intent, such as to share reproductions with others or to sell bootlegs...

That would make too much sense!! Instead only legal owners of the DVDs are unable to do anything with them.

Re:How about this

[Overzeetop]

As far as our government is concerned right now, ripping DVDs IS illegal when doing so circumvents the CSS, which is a violation of the DMCA.

Really? I was under the impression, based on several readings, that it is not illegal to circumvent CSS for fair use purposes, but it _is_ illegal to help anyone do so, though instruction, software, etc. The upshot is that you have to be able to decrypt it yourself (i.e. find the key and code the decrypter). That is, of course, nearly impossible for the vast majority of people, which makes it effectively impossible without making it illegal.

Hence, my ownership and use of AnyDVD - provided I use it for "fair use" purposes (which are subject to interpretation) - is legal, but nobody in the US may offer AnyDVD for sale. Were Slysoft not out of the US jurisdiction (Antigua, I believe) it would be illegal for them to sell that software. I happen to use it for making a copy for my car, as I used to with my tapes, CDs, and records, and for placing the discs (sans advertisements) on my media server, just as I have ripped my CD collection. The original discs are carefully stored and out of harms way. I do this now because a previous DVD player (Sony jukebox) destroyed 4 of my discs, two of which are out of print and irreplaceable.

Re:How about this

[syzler]

If the developers are writing comments then you are working at the right companies. I'd rather have a bad term or two used when commenting code than have no comments.

Re:How about this

[srussia]

but that makes too much sense!

Not really. Wanting to share reproductions in no way constitutes "criminal intent".

Re:How about this

[sumdumass]

Actually, you can shoot the water above the flames and put it out faster in most in house situations in a Grimwood's modified '3D attack strategy'.

Anyways, this isn't just an exception per se it is the definition of the fair use for which the anti circumvention applies.

The law says
(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).

This means that when the tech adversely effects your ability to use the copyrighted works in non-infringing ways, your suppose to inform the library of congress, if they agree, they add it to the list of what is considered fair use and unenforceable under that provision of the law. Telling them -using DVDs for video mashups or installation of third party software or to gain control of hardware you own but are locked out of by the manufacturer or whatever will become fair use according to the No person shall circumvent a technological measure law.

Of course the library of congress isn't a bunch of third graders who will make the exception for You Tube Only or for the Iphone only. They will use those examples to determine how adversely you are effected and if they determine it is legit according to a set of criteria set by law, they will issue a blanket ruling over the preceedure itself not being specific to any particular manufacturer or service. For instance, the issue of an piece of accounting software made by a certain company that require a specific dongle to be used in order for the program to run in which the manufacturer refused to supply new dongles prompted an overall exemption to all software like that which the manufacturer is out of business or otherwise incapable of providing replacements.

These exemptions still don't get past the manufacture and import restrictions on tech designed to defeat the process so your still up a boat. However, you need to understand the fight and take it to the right fields. This expands what is considered fair use. If you want more, like being able to buy a program to decode DVDs for fair use or the ability to unlock your TIVO or mod your Xbox to run Linux, then you need to lobby congress to change the laws (treaties forbid getting rid of it). That won't be too difficult if you have a good enough reason and don't stray into calling Disney or the RIAA evil and such.

Re:How about this

[MikeBabcock]

You're right, and so's the GP. The GP is right about how the law is written, but you're right about how the courts have chosen to interpret it.

Luckily, some judges have seen fit to ignore the letter of the DMCA and given people the right to do what they should always have been allowed to do.

Asking for these exemptions might cause the government to realize what total idiocy the DMCA is though.

Re:How about this

[nsheppar]

I think GP was implying more that it's a bad policy to settle for less than what we should have. Yes, getting exception for Youtube mashups and iPhone jailbreaking would be better than what we have now, but if we give the impression that we're willing to settle for less than full fair use rights, we may be doing more harm in the long run. It would be like giving Hitler some of the land he wanted in order to appease him and stop the violence. In reality, he would just want more, and you be right back to the same problem.

Re:How about this

[Overzeetop]

We can always hope...

Re:How about this

[jgtg32a]

So it's like Perl?

Re:How about this

[supernova_hq]

Aimbots would imply that they know exactly where their intended target is. I would consider it more like god mode with noclip and a BFG!

Re:How about this

[nabsltd]

You're right, and so's the GP. The GP is right about how the law is written, but you're right about how the courts have chosen to interpret it.

No, the GP is not correct.

The letter of the law specifically says that fair use is permitted and is not copyright infringement, even if the action would otherwise violate a portion of the DMCA:

17 USC 1201(c)(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

The DMCA was codified in Title 17, sections 1201-1205 of the United States Code (USC), and you can see by the text that anything otherwise permitted by Title 17 is not a violation of the DMCA portion.

It all works out to "for fair use, you can violate the DMCA, but contributory infringement is not fair use". Contributory infringement includes distributing devices or software whose primary purpose is to remove some sort of copyright protection mechanism, so that's why you can rip a DVD for personal use, but a company can't legally provide you with the software to do it.

Re:How about this

[BobMcD]

Except for all case where 'share' includes 'exchange for compensation'.

Re:How about this

[Miseph]

"Why is it that geeks have no trouble using the precise, correct terms when writing code, but so commonly fail to transfer that precision to other areas where it is equally important?"

Because there is an infinite amount of knowledge to have, and only a finite amount of time in which to acquire. Many people on Slashdot have dedicated a lot of time and energy into learning how to write good strong code in a variety of languages, few have dedicated much time or energy at all into doing the same for legal documents and discourse. You wouldn't ask a lawyer to design a building, or an architect to optimize code, so why would you ask a programmer for legal advice?

Re:How about this

[Anonymous Coward]

This post shows a clearly complete lack of any knowledge of even the basics of linguistics.

Re:How about this

[Firehed]

Hardly. It's possible to make sense out of French!

Re:How about this

[nobodymk2]

I run into this trying to price my "decent quality" like-new games (I resurface the disk with a professional resurfacing device and happen to have the original manual and case [but nothing else]) when bootleggers can sell for 99 cents, which actually causes you to lose money but you can make it up on most items with shipping credit by shipping USPS first class. (Shipping credit and commission fees aside.)
"If you don't like this, request DRM-free files."--XKCD tooltip.

I can go into detail, but it will sound like a rant. There are non-obstrusive DRMs for games and music if you intend to stick with iTunes or just buy DRM-free from Amazon.

Re:How about this

[plasmacutter]

Now I understand your frustration, because it really is unfortunate that this is where we're at. But we don't succeed by ignoring the laws. We succeed by working with them, compromising, and then, hopefully, overcoming them with logic, common sense, and hopefully the backing of the American populace.

because we overcame prohibition by not drinking right?

we overcame harsh labor conditions by not picketing and sometimes rioting right?

we overcame racial prejudice by staying OUT of the white soup kitchens and bathrooms and saying "yes massa" when they told us to stop marching in protest on major cities, right?

we overcame onerous british invasion of several generations of de-facto independence by NOT rising up in 1776, right?

Re:How about this

[plasmacutter]

. If you want more, like being able to buy a program to decode DVDs for fair use or the ability to unlock your TIVO or mod your Xbox to run Linux, then you need to lobby congress to change the laws (treaties forbid getting rid of it). That won't be too difficult if you have a good enough reason and don't stray into calling Disney or the RIAA evil and such.

yeah, this moderate approach has worked over the past decade, with a preponderance of evidence which makes the MAFIAA's side of the argument look like the funniest segment of "world's dumbest criminals".

The corruption is rife.

there are 3 ways to get around this:

-move your operation out of us jurisdiction
-deliberately disobey the law and go underground
-lock and load

1 and 2 are much more reasonable and less ethically/legally risky than the third, but i'm sure if they enforce things strictly enough or get too invasive someone somewhere will eventually choose option 3 and become the first domestic "copyright terrorist"

Re:How about this

[lawpoop]

Imagine ripping DVDs being illegal unless you're only going to make a mashup video for youtube? Sure that's part of fair-use, but if that's all you ask for, and that's what they grant, then we're all retarded. What the hell are these people thinking?

I think it would be nice to be able to do a mash-up with DVDs that you own, and if you share the mash-up Edit Decision List with another person who has already bought the DVDs, they could watch your mash-up. In fact, I think that would spur sales of DVDs.

Re:How about this

[sumdumass]

yeah, this moderate approach has worked over the past decade, with a preponderance of evidence which makes the MAFIAA's side of the argument look like the funniest segment of "world's dumbest criminals".

I don't know of anyone who has lobbies congress over the issue. At best, they just rant on Slashdot of some other venue and usually and up going on some binge over some evil corporation or scary agency that makes them look like a nut job. Hell, even your post here makes you look like an irrational nut job. Of course I suspect that you know I'm not congress and I'm not the ones you need to be rash and diplomatic with.

The corruption is rife.

No, Not really. Or at least as you would make it out to be. The DMCA and copyright law is the way it is today because of international treaties, not becuse of corruption. You might be able to claim that we signed on to the treaties because of the corruption but I can see benefits of the arguments without the Evil corps corrupting everything.

1 and 2 are much more reasonable and less ethically/legally risky than the third, but i'm sure if they enforce things strictly enough or get too invasive someone somewhere will eventually choose option 3 and become the first domestic "copyright terrorist"

I think I would have to support any punishment that they get. Especially for option 3.

Re:How about this

[plasmacutter]

I don't know of anyone who has lobbies congress over the issue.

The EFF, public knowledge, the american library association, the american conservative union, the christian coalition (in one instance), the FSF, google, and numerous independent media organizations, among many more.

At best, they just rant on Slashdot of some other venue and usually and up going on some binge over some evil corporation or scary agency that makes them look like a nut job.

over 60% of the US and even more outside the US think too much power is centralized in the hands of corporate owners/controllers. I guess that makes you the nutjob if you don't think so.
Further, this opinion is supported by a mountain of evidence which, if made physically manifest, would cause the universe to collapse under tremendous gravity. The newest example: companies so huge and posing such systematic risk to the economy that they can blackmail the government using the threat tens of millions of lost jobs. With the exception of military force, companies are more powerful than the most powerful government in the world at this point and are virtually unaccountable to the public. That should scare you.

No, Not really. Or at least as you would make it out to be. The DMCA and copyright law is the way it is today because of international treaties, not becuse of corruption.

please read up on the full history of the DMCA.

It was introduced in local legislatures first, and everyone told them they were nuts and to get bent.

They then brought it up in various trade organizations, and were again told to get bent

they then invented their own procedures and foisted the signed treaty on the government, saying "we signed this, fail to ratify it and everyone else who did will kill your economy"

The removal of decisions from elected officials into secret rooms is otherwise known as corruption.

I think I would have to support any punishment that they get. Especially for option 3.

I'm with you on option 3, but you can go to your local grocer and get beer right now because as many people broke the volstead act as do break the DMCA right now.

Re:How about this

[sumdumass]

The EFF, public knowledge, the american library association, the american conservative union, the christian coalition (in one instance), the FSF, google, and numerous independent media organizations, among many more.

And what have they said to congress?

over 60% of the US and even more outside the US think too much power is centralized in the hands of corporate owners/controllers. I guess that makes you the nutjob if you don't think so.
Further, this opinion is supported by a mountain of evidence which, if made physically manifest, would cause the universe to collapse under tremendous gravity. The newest example: companies so huge and posing such systematic risk to the economy that they can blackmail the government using the threat tens of millions of lost jobs. With the exception of military force, companies are more powerful than the most powerful government in the world at this point and are virtually unaccountable to the public. That should scare you.

Lol.. You really think I look like a nutjob because I pointed to where the problem was compared to you who pointed to breaking the law, evil corporations, and resorting to violence. Come back to reality.

You seem to be willing to rant to me as if I made a statement about companies or something. I have not, I said you can't call them name and look serious in front of congress when attempting to convince them to change a law to your favor. It makes you look like a nut job. Your comment is completely off topic.

please read up on the full history of the DMCA.

It was introduced in local legislatures first, and everyone told them they were nuts and to get bent.

They then brought it up in various trade organizations, and were again told to get bent

they then invented their own procedures and foisted the signed treaty on the government, saying "we signed this, fail to ratify it and everyone else who did will kill your economy"

The removal of decisions from elected officials into secret rooms is otherwise known as corruption.

Lol.. SO your into history revisioning now are your? The DMCA came from two copyright treaties that were part of the WIPO before we had the fist DMCA law introduced in the US. It was later turned into law as we ratified the two WIPO treaties. The bottom line is that the WIPO treaties existed before we made a law concerning it.

I'm with you on option 3, but you can go to your local grocer and get beer right now because as many people broke the volstead act as do break the DMCA right now.

Sure, And I would support their punishments too. It makes them more of a hero in a sense. Anyways, Without people constantly pressuring for the change, breaking the laws only Create criminals. There is a need for constant pressure as well as reasoned and sound pressure.

Re:How about this

[91degrees]

Fair point, but this isn't an ambiguity issue. Muddling criminal and civil law is similar to muddling functions and macros. The difference between them is quite clear.

Re:How about this

[91degrees]

The exception needs to be "except for in fair-use situations."

There already is this exception. The reason the judge ruled against DeCSS (which is probably the most significant case on this issue) was that the motion picture industry convinced the judge that the main purpose of the software was to copy DVDs, and the fair use exceptions were not significant enough to counteract the harm the software would do.

Imagine ripping DVDs being illegal unless you're only going to make a mashup video for youtube? Sure that's part of fair-use, but if that's all you ask for, and that's what they grant, then we're all retarded. What the hell are these people thinking?

It may or may not be fair use. It depends on many factors. Is it fair use to make a mashup video which contains the second half of the movie followed by the first half, with a different soundtrack? What if I make a mashup of that - take the first half then the second half and use the soundtrack from the original.

Re:How about this

[flickwipe]

Wow, a deep and insightful post.
You made some interesting points and I have a follow up question.

- What kind of pie?

Re:How about this

[FredFredrickson]

Apple.

Re:How about this

[FredFredrickson]

What if I make a mashup of that - take the first half then the second half and use the soundtrack from the original.

That clearly isn't covered by fairuse.

Re:How about this

[Michael Hunt]

Additionally, it would seem as though at least some of these submissions are quite well thought out given the scope of the exercise.

The submission concerning online DRM circumvention (for music and warez and such) seeks to establish an exception for anybody to bypass such DRM after the operator goes broke, but (and here's the good bit) for a developer to do so at any time before that happens. They then go on to qualify the fact that a lot of DRM circumvention is performed by amateurs and suggest that no formal qualification bar be set for such development. This gives anyone who wants it rights to the source code by default.

The submission by the EFF, whilst loquacious, hits the nail on the head with the DVD circumvention thing, too. By defining an arbitrary class who are (by definition) non-infringing (DVD mashup authors are hardly unique in this regard, it could have just as easily been school teachers with Final Cut Pro or any other arbitrary fair use,) the software all of a sudden becomes legal to distribute, and possess, simply not to use in any way other than (in this example) ripping a DVD for the purposes of creating a fair-use collage. By the time the bits are ripped, the DMCA has become irrelevant and you still have the ripper.

It would appear that the motivations behind both of these submissions are to work within an incredibly narrow framework and ease the chilling effect the DMCA has on upon their respective sets of circumstances. If you gotta do something, you'd do something like this.

I approve.

Re:How about this

[Michael Hunt]

I think I would have to support any punishment that they get. Especially for option 3.

You, sir, are a dickhead.

Re:How about this

[91degrees]

No. But as the creator of the mashup, I give everyone else authority to use my IP in this way.

Re:How about this

[sumdumass]

And you are such an eloquent speaker. Tell me, did you have to graduate the third grade to put that much thought and poise behind your post?

Re:How about this

[plasmacutter]

Lol.. You really think I look like a nutjob because I pointed to where the problem was compared to you who pointed to breaking the law, evil corporations, and resorting to violence. Come back to reality.

you mean the reality you are implying in which corporations are not abusive, manipulative, and out to subvert public process at its most fundamental levels for financial gain?

You live in a delusion if you do not acknowledge this

But go ahead, do prattle on about the holy, blameless corporations.

Lol.. SO your into history revisioning now are your? The DMCA came from two copyright treaties that were part of the WIPO before we had the fist DMCA law introduced in the US. It was later turned into law as we ratified the two WIPO treaties. The bottom line is that the WIPO treaties existed before we made a law concerning it.

History revisioning?

This oversimplified assertion of yours is true, the treaty which resulted in the DMCA came through wipo.

What I have said is also true. Before this, it was bandied around the backrooms of congress, where even the most totalitarian nutjobs told them to sod off. It was then brought to several international bodies where others told them the same. THEN it was reintroduced in closed meetings just like ACTA is today, signed by unelected appointees, and used to twist the arms of congress into ratification.

Re:How about this

[plasmacutter]

oh yeah. forgot to add:

I said you can't call them name and look serious in front of congress

None of the lobbying organizations i've listed to you have ever done this. However, your implied accusation of this behavior against the ACU makes me wonder whether you've been away from your Rand shrine a little too long.

Re:How about this

[sumdumass]

you mean the reality you are implying in which corporations are not abusive, manipulative, and out to subvert public process at its most fundamental levels for financial gain?

That has exactly what to do with the fact that you have to convince congress to alter or remove us from a treaty in order to the the DMCA laws substantially replaced or removed? The evil corporation can be fucking your sister and kicking your dog for all I care, it does squat to the fact that the DMCA laws are implemented because of a treaty which will need to be deal with if you expect them to be changed.

You see, this is what makes you look crazy. Here you are complaining about corporations and business as the problem and missing the real problem that it is ingrained in international treaty. When a senator or congressman looks at your words, he will simply dismiss you as yet another deranged lunatic charging windmills. Your disdain for the cheer leaders of the law have no bearing on the realities of it. Put your fucking emotions in check, quite acting like an old lady going through menopause and start being constructive.

You live in a delusion if you do not acknowledge this

But go ahead, do prattle on about the holy, blameless corporations

First of all, your the one living in a delusional world. I have said nothing about the corporations concerning the copyright. You cannot find where I have- at least within the thread or any posts I made inside this story. Second, even if you can find it outside this story, I doubt you would have the wherewithal to understand the comment. You have trolled me and attempted to claim I have said things I havn't in this thread, I would have to see what it would be like if your attempting to process a conversation from another thread.

BTW, Don't confuse the cheerleaders for the players in the game.

History revisioning?

This oversimplified assertion of yours is true, the treaty which resulted in the DMCA came through wipo.

What I have said is also true. Before this, it was bandied around the backrooms of congress, where even the most totalitarian nutjobs told them to sod off. It was then brought to several international bodies where others told them the same. THEN it was reintroduced in closed meetings just like ACTA is today, signed by unelected appointees, and used to twist the arms of congress into ratification.

Oh, you have special insight into the back room of congress and deals being made. By all means, please explain how this came to be, did you get hit on the head and recieve special psychic powers? It doesn't matter because regardless of what you want to say, it went through a process that got input from more then 150 different countries, became a posted treaty, and the US government signed on to it. It doesn't matter that Clinton put together a copyright reform comity in 1993 which suggested most of the changes in the DMCA, or that this group went around looking for support and so on until such time that Clinton's agents got it introduced into the WIPO organizations. What matters is that it is a flopp, a major failure and it causes grief to legitimate users who have legitimate and non-infringing uses of copyrighted materials. If you want to change this law in light of these failures, you need to start by understanding what needs to be done. Congress has to either pull us from the treaty or get the administration to renegotiate one and the need to reason to do that other then you not liking "evil" corporations.

If you present your argument to them in a way that accuses them of wrong doing (taking bribes) or use key words used in nutjob activist groups, they will totally ignore you. If you present your argument intelligently and diplomatically, they will at least listen. You need them to listen in order to be persuasive. If you are persuasive, they will act even if only to verify your complaints and work from there. There is nothing inherently evil or flawed about the copyright law that cannot be fixed if you understand what needs to be done to fix it. Railing on about evil and oppressive corporations does nothing to that.

Re:How about this

[sumdumass]

I see that you refused to answer the actual question on this and instead associate it with something I specifically said to you. So what have they said? Lets see, I checked and as far as I can tell, at least from their press releases,

Lets see, the EFF has contacted the copyright office, refused to contact the copyright office, participated in legal cases, filed legal cases and not one mention of lobying congress whatsoever at all.

The American library association has contacted the copyright office and the library of commerce to influence their reports to congress but I can find no mention of them directly lobbying congress. Of course they do have a action commity designed to put you in contact with your senator and representative but their organization seems to be a little shaky. Of course when I select the copyright link in their issues and advocacy page http://capwiz.com/ala/issues/, I get a Page Not Found error.

I could go on but I'm going to assume the rest if about the same. They either release some statement that congress will probably never read or hear of until afterwords or they talking to other groups who will talk to congress. Of course that is like you asking me to make sure someone else knows what you think, I'm only going to do it if is furthers my cause.

What I'm talking about isn't needle dicking around, I'm talking about lobbying congress directly. Of course you probably incorrectly assumed they were already doing this. I'm basing the incorrect part of your ability to incorrectly assume as presented by you Idea that I would have anything to do with a Rand Shrine in the first place and what I gathered from the first two organizations you mentioned. They haven't lobbied congress and I don't think you have a right to get upset over someone else doing so and getting their way when you can't figure out how to lobby them.

Jailbreaking

[stei7766]

I was under the impression that jailbreaking an iphone is not illegal (or at the most against their TOS not the DMCA), but Apple can do whatever they want to make it as difficult as possible.

Is this incorrect? Is what is being requested a requirement that Apple not block jailbreaking?

Re:Jailbreaking

[FredFredrickson]

The act of circumventing ANY protection scheme is what the DMCA outlawed. Jailbreaking an Iphone could be construed as such.

Re:Jailbreaking

[Smitty825]

I believe that a few years ago, it was deemed that SIM locks are ok to break on phones. That way, you can use your phone with whichever wireless carrier you phone would support.

However, I think that jailbreaking an iPhone to run unauthorized apps would be considered a grey area at best.

Re:Jailbreaking

[Penguinoflight]

The act of "jailbreaking" an iPhone is not illegal, unless the _owner_ of the device has agreed to some TOS/EULA disallowing such an act. The responsibility falls on the owner of the device, not any individuals or corporations aiding in a modification.

Using a unlocked phone to circumvent copy protections may be illegal (DMCA), but I don't know of any media where such circumvention would be necessary simply for use on a hacked device. Of course applications may have EULA's or TOS disallowing their use apart from licensing through for example the applications store.

I believe you are correct; in the few cases involving phone jailbreaking, the case was over the intentional disabling of said phones by a network. Intentionally disabling a device for use on other networks is anti-competitive behavior, which is illegal in the US.

Re:Jailbreaking

[lordkuri]

The act of "jailbreaking" an iPhone is not illegal, unless the _owner_ of the device has agreed to some TOS/EULA disallowing such an act.

No, No, NO! Why do people continue to perpetuate this?

Violating a company's EULA is not illegal. Period. Full stop.

illegal
-adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.
-noun
3. Informal. illegal alien.

Tell me which law or statue I'm violating by doing something that isn't allowed by an EULA.

Re:Jailbreaking

[cayenne8]

"I was under the impression that jailbreaking an iphone is not illegal (or at the most against their TOS not the DMCA)..."

Not to mention, that we recently have a nice new precedent in the Lori Drew case...where if you break the TOS, you can get charged with some pretty bad fines and jail time. I mean, it *is* just a little more of a stretch to convict someone of breaking the TOS for a phone plan. Remember..she was NOT convicted in any way of hurting that girl that committed suicide.

Seems like a fair stretch of the imagination now...but.....

Re:Jailbreaking

[compro01]

Possibly contract law, which would be illegal in the civil sense (i.e. they can sue you about it.), if the EULA can be considered a legally valid contract.

Re:Jailbreaking

[randalotto]

Actually, given the recent holding of MDY v. Blizzard, if you violate the terms of the EULA, you are making an unauthorized copy when a program is copied into RAM.

Thus, when you violate the EULA, (according to the ridiculousness that is our current IP law,) you are violating the Copyright Act. Minimum statutory damages of $750. There's your statute.

thankfully, this decision is from a low level court and hinged largely on the classification of WoW as a license system and not a sale... still - the case law is out there.

Re:Jailbreaking

[supernova_hq]

That's ok, just get someone else to do it. You are safe because you didn't jailbreak it and they are safe because they didn't agree to anything!

Re:Jailbreaking

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Tell me which law or statue I'm violating by doing something that isn't allowed by an EULA.

I thought I heard that, in some jurisdictions, an EULA was considered an implied contract, and thus breaking it would be a breach in contract (but I really have no idea).

Re:Jailbreaking

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats the terrorist strat!

Are you a terrorist?

Re:Jailbreaking

[Anonymous Coward]

The fundamental difference between iPhone and the Lori Drew case is that concept of legal title.

When you purchase an iPhone or iPod Touch, title to the physical device passes to you. You can do with it whatever you wish; it is your device, no longer Apple's. Apple has no legal say in what you do with that piece of equipment. The only agreement with you is the license terms to use the iPhone software.

Use of MySpace does not pass title to MySpace physical equipment. MySpace owns the equipment. The TOS are thus not just for software, but also for the use of the equipment owned by MySpace.

Big difference.

Apple could, in theory, revoke a jailbreaker's license to use the iPhone software, but would likely have to buy back the iPhone.

This above refers to US title law. The law in other countries may be different.

how about

[Coraon]

having the DMCA only apply when and if the person or persons infringing are intending to do so for a profit. That would make the DMCA a law I could get behind.

Re:how about

[qoncept]

That's pretty worthless. Who the hell is even a big player that is violating the DMCA and making money now? Why, if people could already distribute all of this content legally anyway, should the fact that someone is trying to make a profit be illegal?

Re:how about

[Scutter]

Even if you personally aren't making a profit, you could be impacting the profit of the copyright owner, which is the whole point of the DMCA.

Re:how about

[mcgrew]

Not me. I would not only like it completely repealed, but a new law with the DMCA name on it passed that said if you protect your work technologically it loses copyright and enters the public domain.

DRM is a useless fantasy. There is no reason for the law to protect useless fantasies.

Re:how about

[MobyDisk]

Profit isn't the problem. If you say that, then people could duplicate copyrighted works and give them away for free.

Re:how about

[Chaos Incarnate]

What defines "protecting [my] work technologically"?

If I only distribute a program in binary form, is that protecting it technologically? After all, you don't have access to my source code.

If I only distribute lossy versions of music/movies, is that protecting them technologically? After all, you don't have the original lossless files used to create it, and are beholden to whatever quality level I used.

If I use a firewall on my computer, is that protecting any work that I have on it technologically? After all, you don't have access to my work (if I did my job creating the firewall right).

Re:how about

[syzler]

How about changing the DMCA so that any copyright holder who uses DRM agrees to only a 17 year copyright term on the DRM encumbered work. If they want the longer (I.E. unreasonable) length term then they have to forego DRM.

Re:how about

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is a clear NO if you are operating as an individual and a clear YES if you are operating as a corporation.

Right now corporate rights > individual rights, at least in practice. Thanks, George (and Bill)

Re:how about

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say a good definition would be to use the definition of a protected work that the DMCA uses.

Re:how about

[sumdumass]

I would go even further. I would require that any company employing DRM must ensure that the files, program, whatever is usable in non-infringement ways for the entire length of the copyright plus 20 years and if that is not possible, they must provide the ability to remove the DRM free of charge with no strings attached.

Re:how about

[Anonymous Coward]

right, but they aren't entitled to or guaranteed that profit. that's everyone else's point. you can't take away profits until they are already in the coffers and then it's just plain theft.

how can it be illegal to detract from the profits a company thinks they would have had (a number they get to calculate for themselves)?

the 9th amendment gives us the right to make copies of copyrighted media; since it is a right not enumerated in the previous 8 amendments it is a right retained by the people and for that same reason we have the right to break DRM willy nilly.

in the US it's the *people* who are sovereign and we grant some of that sovereignty to our elected officials. somewhere along the line we let the folks with guns and badges forget that bit.

Re:how about

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

How about changing the DMCA so that any copyright holder who uses DRM agrees to only a 17 year copyright term on the DRM encumbered work. If they want the longer (I.E. unreasonable) length term then they have to forego DRM.

The original term of copyright in the USA was 14 years plus another optional 14 if the author was (a) alive and (b) made the effort to renew. And there was no DRM.
So, why should DRM users get any copyright at all? I say make it like trade-secret vs patents - if you want to keep it locked up, then you don't get copyright protection. Just like if you keep the details of your invention a secret, you don't get patent protection on it.

Educational Use

[tbrex33]

Allowing professors the right to rip sections of movie's should be highly considered. I am currently in a class that uses movies primarily to show real life value to what is being taught in class. Sometimes watching a movie is the only way to get some concepts and topics across to the student. If reduced movie revenues and increased piracy are primary reasons for not allowing it, my response to that is that is I usually end up buying or renting a movie I watch in class if it was good. It is merely additional advertising if anything in my opinion. Why restrict our nation's youth to a potential increase of learning through the use of current media?

Re:Educational Use

[yetijoe]

In these hard economic times it is obvious that big media can not only make money off of the class time use of a film, but every subsequent use.

Think about the corporations! who's looking out for them?

Too late to file?

[powerlord]

Is it too late for Psytar to file for an exemption? ~

Re:Too late to file?

[zippthorne]

Was their plan to sell non-apple laptops with otherwise legitimate copies of OSX, or just to copy it a bunch of times over? "Pre-loaded" is a very suspicious software term.

Re:Too late to file?

[I'm not really here]

Their plan (which they were actively implementing) was to sell desktops with legitimate copies of OSX. The only thing they did that was "wrong" was challenged the validity of that small piece of the EULA that states that you agree to only install the software on Apple hardware. Psystar's contention was that Apple's EULA stifled competition, and effectively was a monopoly in the OSX industry. This was shot down in court (I believe) as Psystar's definition of "industry" was deemed too narrow.

Personally, I believe that the spirit of the anti-monopoly laws is being violated by Apple, but the letter of the law allows for it, sadly.

So, there was nothing illegal about the OSX distribution, only the "pre-installed" part. Psystar still seems to be selling the machines, only their called Open with Mac OSX (instead of OpenMac).

Re:Too late to file?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's called OEM

The test of whether one supports copyright:

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want to do your job for free?

Do you want to not get paid for any work you do?

If not, then you support copyright restrictions. Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[CorporateSuit]

Do you want to do your job for free? Do you want to not get paid for any work you do? If not, then you support copyright restrictions. Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them.

I get paid when I work. I don't get paid today because I worked 4 years ago for one week, and people still benefit [sic] from what I did. Violation of copyright says "You did you job, good job. Now get over it and get BACK to work like the rest of mankind!" and not "I don't think you should get paid for what you do."

I have zero sympathy for those untalented hacks who spent a whole week in a recording studio and now want me to feed them, their whores, and their children for the rest of their pathetic lives. If they want to eat, they need to go out and win bread like the rest of us!

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[TheLinuxSRC]

Your logic is astounding.

Do you want to do your job for free?
Strawman.

Do you want to not get paid for any work you do?
Strawman.

If not, then you support copyright restrictions. Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them.
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[chihowa]

Yeah, why dig that ditch yourself when you can just copy the one that somebody else dug.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[MikeBabcock]

Agreed. I believe in Copyright only inasmuch as others shouldn't be able to claim they wrote something that I wrote (or created, more generally).

If Tom Clancy wrote a novel and some hack copied and republished it as his own, that should be wrong.

If however, I loan the book to a friend or cite a few paragraphs as an example of how he foresaw the future of warfare (or not), that should not be illegal.

It seems so common-sense, until the government lobbyists get involved.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[uncreativeslashnick]

I get paid when I work. I don't get paid today because I worked 4 years ago for one week, and people still benefit [sic] from what I did. Violation of copyright says "You did you job, good job. Now get over it and get BACK to work like the rest of mankind!" and not "I don't think you should get paid for what you do."

The problem with this logic is that without copyright protection in some form, it would be much harder to be a self-sufficient producer of original work whether that be writing, movies, etc. Without copyright, you could spend years working on a novel, and only sell a few copies, since someone could legally reproduce your novel, distribute it, and not give you a dime.

I think we need some form of copyright protection to encourage people to create, but I would agree that what we have now is protection that lasts too long and is a bit too onerous.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[Urza9814]

See, here's my problem: After Tom Clancy dies, he no longer benefits from sales. So why should it be illegal for some hack to copy and republish his book? As copyright stands today, if you live slightly longer than average, anything you write after you're 8 years old will be copyright until after you're dead. That's bullshit. Why should some company that didn't even _do_ anything continue to profit from someone else's work for so long? It should be illegal to copy and resell someone's work until they have had enough time to produce a new work. That's it. Most of the sales come in the first year or two anyway, so what the hell is the difference between a 10 year copyright and a 70 year copyright? And why the _hell_ should it be possible for my children or even _grandchildren_ to still be getting royalties off of something _I_ did?

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[guruevi]

I can understand the reason for getting paid royalties and having your own work copyrighted but I have no sympathy for the untalented hacks their children or whores are (whether they are corporate (Disney) or individual (Yoko Ono)) years after the original artist or group has ceased (benefitting from his work). I also have no sympathy for the hacks that are trying to profit from the same work MULTIPLE times from the same people.

There should be a limit that cannot be extended for work done and it shouldn't be 40 years after the artist has died, it should be given up as soon as the artist or the artists as a group can't benefit from it anymore (whether it be death of a member or split from their record label).

It should also be allowed for the buyers to reclaim their own copy of a work they bought rights to in different (new) formats. I paid for the song that I wanted to listen to and I don't want to become deprived of my product simply because the format they chose 20 years ago (like DAT tapes) didn't keep up with current technology both in terms of quality as well as portability. Asking me to buy a new media-version of the identical product is like asking me to pay off my car all over again simply because I changed the tires or part of the engine or asking me to lug around a portable turntable so I can listen to the White Album while working out.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[someone1234]

If you cannot sell the rights of your book, you might as well die out of starvation.
So, to make you able to sell your book, it must have some value to the buyer.
The buyer needs some kind of assurance that the book is still valuable after you suddenly die out of a car accident.

Also, most people (not all) feel it incentive that their children or grandchildren benefit from their work. If writing books is not working this way, but earning money by dish washing is, most people would give up on writing books in favour of washing dishes.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[Urza9814]

But see, your child doesn't get paid because you washed dishes. Your child gets paid because you save money and give it to them. Same can be said of writing books.

Copyright isn't supposed to protect the publishers, it's supposed to protect the artists. If you happen to die of a car accident...well, that sucks, but you don't need the money, and I doubt the publisher does either. It'd just be an additional risk of business. Though honestly I don't think copyright should expire when the artist dies - it just shouldn't last so long that it's virtually guaranteed that the artist will die long before the copyright expires. Perhaps 10 years? Long enough the publisher and artist will most likely get the same amount of money.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[BobMcD]

I agree with the 10 year limit, in general, but I fear that the actual quality of the content being produced would go way down. You see, since they can't reset the clock by extending the original copyright, they will simply produce and push a new work every ten years. Quantity will go way up, but eventually everything will begin to resemble reality tv.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[Anonymous Coward]

Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them.

No.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[spazdor]

most people would give up on writing books in favour of washing dishes.

In other news, dishwashing is a way more popular career than book-writing.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[spazdor]

When was the last piece of commercially produced culture you saw that you honestly believe will continue to have cultural relevance after a decade or 2?

I mean, I agree entirely that the content industries are producing more, faster, worse content than ever before, but I don't think copyright terms really have a bearing on that fact. I'd say it has more to do with the fact that:

a) it's cheap to produce
b) financial turnaround for such productions happens within a year or three in 99% of cases
c) they've taught all our kids to have ADD.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[BobMcD]

Mickey Mouse
Chronicles of Narnia
Lord of the Rings
etc, etc, etc

It isn't common, but it happens.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I have zero sympathy for those untalented hacks who spent a whole week in a recording studio and now want me to feed them, their whores, and their children for the rest of their pathetic lives. If they want to eat, they need to go out and win bread like the rest of us!

OK, fair enough. What about the other 99% of artists, who do spend more than a week in the recording studio (or on location at a film, or in their studio painting, etc), or who some consider to be talented, or who can't get anywhere near the equivalent income from selling their art as any other skilled person? Do you have sympathy for them? Or do you lump all artists into that extremely tiny subcategory just to make yourself feel better when you rip them off?

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Strawman

They're rhetorical questions, not strawmen. The idea is that you answer an emphatic "no" to the both questions (obviously), and then the last ties it back copyright infringement. He's not misrepresenting someone else's argument, he's merely creating his own.

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Sure it's technically fallacious, but he's most of the way there to a decent argument. What he missed was the premise that if you want to be paid for your work, then you want the same for everyone else. It's true that you may well be an asshole, and want just yourself to be paid, and you could give a flying Foxtrot if anyone else gets paid for their work.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[plasmacutter]

The problem with this logic is that without copyright protection in some form, it would be much harder to be a self-sufficient producer of original work whether that be writing, movies, etc.

your utterly specious argument is debunked by:
programmers
web developers
architects
graphic designers
garage, small time local, cult, and underground bands
every "new sound" that's ever arisen (how long before rap was "acceptable" to established labels?)

Without copyright, you could spend years working on a novel, and only sell a few copies, since someone could legally reproduce your novel, distribute it, and not give you a dime.

restrict copyright only to commercial production and that ceases to be an issue. This is done quite nicely with the print media example, as it's expensive for both the reproduction and enforcement sides. With audio-visual it's much more lopsided.

But, once again, if not getting paid stops you from writing a book (in your spare time if necessary) then I question whether it's a book worth reading.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[spazdor]

Would any of these projects have been scrapped if the producers knew they'd only get to collect the first 10 years' worth of commercial revenue?

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[plasmacutter]

OK, fair enough. What about the other 99% of artists, who do spend more than a week in the recording studio (or on location at a film, or in their studio painting, etc), or who some consider to be talented, or who can't get anywhere near the equivalent income from selling their art as any other skilled person? Do you have sympathy for them? Or do you lump all artists into that extremely tiny subcategory just to make yourself feel better when you rip them off?

Show me one of those who buys laws every few years to deprive the public of more and more rights
Show me one of those who abuses the DMCA like a cudgel against everything that moves
Show me one of those who houses an army of lawyers in his basement with which to launch horribly asymmetric attacks against defenseless individuals often on the edge of poverty.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[plasmacutter]

Strawman

They're rhetorical questions, not strawmen. The idea is that you answer an emphatic "no" to the both questions (obviously), and then the last ties it back copyright infringement. He's not misrepresenting someone else's argument, he's merely creating his own.

The fact it's rhetorical doesn't change the fact it's a straw man. Its a fallacy so obviously misrepresentative as to be absurd.

Being paid for your work is not the same as being paid in perpetuity for work you once did.

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Sure it's technically fallacious, but he's most of the way there to a decent argument. What he missed was the premise that if you want to be paid for your work, then you want the same for everyone else. It's true that you may well be an asshole, and want just yourself to be paid, and you could give a flying Foxtrot if anyone else gets paid for their work.

The disconnect in the fallacy is not the implied idea that everyone should be paid for their work, it's the equation of (not) paying someone for their work with paying someone forever for work they did.

The question I'd suggest to ask GGP is:

"So, when I spend a day flipping burgers, I should then, until 70 years after I die, be paid whenever someone eats a burger from that establishment?"

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[CorporateSuit]

OK, fair enough. What about the other 99% of artists, who do spend more than a week in the recording studio (or on location at a film, or in their studio painting, etc), or who some consider to be talented, or who can't get anywhere near the equivalent income from selling their art as any other skilled person?

Touring, selling t-shirts and stickers on their website, and having day jobs if they're not making enough money off their hobbies... like the rest of us do. I live and work in Los Angeles, and so I have friends (the kind who actually consider ME their friend) who range from small time entertainment to international superstars that are used to seeing their faces on the front of tabloids. I'm not so detached from the industry that I'm unaware at how a change like this would affect them personally, and I tell them the same thing. "No such thing as a free ride." It keeps them in the black for now, and when their draconian royalties payment system catches up with the rest of the world's economic flow, they probably won't be left to starve.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[bws111]

You wrote the words, but you still don't seem to grasp the meaning: you get paid WHEN YOU WORK. People/corporations who are producing copyrighted materials are NOT getting paid when they work, they get paid in the future, when the works are actually sold. You unilaterally deciding that they don't need to get paid is no different than you picking up your paycheck and finding your employer decided that Wednesday was work-for-free day.

If you don't like this system, change it. Go out and hire some musicians to create a new, unseen, unheard work. Negotiate a fair price. Pay them up front. Pay all of the expenses up front. Since this is now a work-for-hire, you get to keep the copyright. When they finish the work, give it away for free. See how long you can sustain that.

If you have zero sympathy for the 'untalented hacks', why do you want their music? If some musician is truly untalented and/or produces a bad work, don't buy it, but don't just take it either.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[bws111]

What are you talking about? Every one of those jobs gets the exact same copyright protections that also apply to musicians, etc. And certainly the bulk of people in those fields are doing it to get paid. What exactly are you claiming is debunked? How many students would select computer science, architecture, graphic design, etc if there was no opportunity to be paid for doing that work?

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[bws111]

Of course you, as a burger flipper, would not continue being paid. You took no risk. You went to work for a day and got paid for it. Even if no-one came in and bought one of your flipped burgers you still got paid. However, the guy who took the risk (the business owner) WILL still be being paid every time someone eats a burger in that establishment (and I mean profit, not just the marginal cost). As long as there is a demand for his burgers, he gets paid. When he dies, the business goes to whoever is in his will and THEY get paid for every burger, and there is no artificial time limit on how long that can go on.

Now, if your contract with the guy was 'flip burgers for free for a year, and I will give you 10% of the profits for the next 70 years', then yes, I suppose you would still be expecting to get paid all those years later. And you would probably (hopefully) expect that if you died before that time your heirs would continue to receive YOUR MONEY.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[bws111]

So what is to prevent some other band, which doesn't have to worry about things like taking time to write songs, from performing the exact same show and reducing their ability to sell tickets? And unless I am very mistaken, the images on t-shirts and stickers are protected by the very same copyright laws, so surely downloading those images and making your own t-shirts and stickers is perfectly acceptable, so why would anyone go to their website to buy them?

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[plasmacutter]

No they dont.

Do you get to charge license fees in perpetuity for the lines of code you write for your employer? If you do they're morons, because that's not standard.

architects don't either.. they're paid hourly or salary
same for graphic designers
local bands are paid by the gig and for merchandise by fans

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[plasmacutter]

Now it's risk is it?

My uncle, who is a doctor, took the risk of launching his own practice.

I guess he should be paid in perpetuity by every one of his patients until his grandson is 40.

Risk does not "entitle" you to be compensated for work you have long since ceased doing.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[bws111]

Yes, they do, just indirectly. Obviously I do not get to charge license fees for things I wrote for my employer. They paid me to write those things. Even if my code is total crap and never sees the light of day, I was still paid. My employer, on the other hand, does get to collect license fees for the things I wrote. And I am pretty sure I (and many, many others) would not have a job if my employer could not charge fees for things I wrote. So the only reason I have a job is because my employer can make money selling the things I wrote, and the only reason they can make money selling it is because copyright laws protect the work.

The same is true of architects and graphic designers.

The only one of your examples that is accurate is the local band. And most 'local bands' are local bands simply because they are not good enough to be more than that. So those bands are doing it for the fun of it, not to make a living. The same is not true of the other professions.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[Dan541]

No its not, I did not hire any of the people who's content I download from bittorrent.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[bws111]

When your uncle gave up his practice, did the entire value of it just vanish into thin air, or did he sell the practice to some other doctors? Most likely, unless he was a bad business man (or he let the value of the practice run down to nothing), he sold the practice, in which case yes, he was still profiting from all those years, and the risk he took those years ago.

And when did anyone, anywhere, suggest being paid for things that happened in the past? When you buy a song you are not paying because the artist wrote it, you are paying because you want to hear it. That is now, not in the past. The contract society has made with content creators is that we pay when we use the content, not when it is created.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[Eskarel]

I agree, though copyright in the sense of attribution should be perpetual(you can publish my book but you can't claim credit for it without making substantial modifications), and that some provision has to be taken into account for ideas which are not immediately marketable(if you can't find a publisher for 5 years your books is already worth half as much, which isn't really right).

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[Urza9814]

I'll agree to the first part. As to the second - I highly doubt your book is worth half as much. The majority of the sales will probably come within those first 5 years. Besides, you've had 5 years to create a new work...and if you can't sell the rights within 5 years, then it's apparently not worth much in the first place.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[MikeBabcock]

I'm pretty sure JRR Tolkien didn't get any of the money from the movie anyway, despite Copyright and his successors.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[orasio]

Well, if copyright ceased at death, then killing artists would be even more in the interest of business. That is not good for the artists.
I dislike copyrights for most things, and I think a good compromise would be reasonable fixed terms, like 10 years after it becomes public, and only if you register it.
Right now there is no need for editorials to do the actual publishing. The only services they provide is promotion and distribution, actual publishing is cheap enough right now for authors to publish themselves.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[Anonymous Coward]

*clap clap clap*

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[CorporateSuit]

People/corporations who are producing copyrighted materials are NOT getting paid when they work, they get paid in the future, when the works are actually sold.

They're paid for their distribution and investment.

You unilaterally deciding that they don't need to get paid is no different than you picking up your paycheck and finding your employer decided that Wednesday was work-for-free day.

The record companies do NOT work for me. If they cannot deliver a product to me in a better way than their competitors, they do not deserve my money any more than their competitors do. I cannot be sued by Burger King because I prefer eating at McDonalds unless I am sponsored by Burger King to eat only at Burger King.

If you don't like this system, change it. Go out and hire some musicians to create a new, unseen, unheard work. Negotiate a fair price. Pay them up front. Pay all of the expenses up front. Since this is now a work-for-hire, you get to keep the copyright. When they finish the work, give it away for free. See how long you can sustain that.

Do you work for the RIAA? Can you not see the train of progress rolling by without you aboard? The old ways are dying. The model of extorted distribution is completely obsolete. People don't HAVE to pay $20.00 for a $0.15 CD to listen to the music they want to hear anymore. Music is not dead, but its distribution model is -- it just hasn't noticed yet. Like the typewriter manufacturers had to do when the computer became popular, they need to either abandon their current business practices or radically change them to a new, profitable, beneficial-to-society model. Simply because the recording industry isn't made up of small businesses doesn't mean it's immune to failure if they lose their market niche.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[plasmacutter]

My uncle IS a doctor, not "was". he still practices, and he now runs, if I remember correctly, 8 clinics.

And when did anyone, anywhere, suggest being paid for things that happened in the past?

persons like yourself who claim artists should be paid for their work.

When you buy a song you are not paying because the artist wrote it, you are paying because you want to hear it. That is now, not in the past.

Did they work to create that extra copy? I contend they did not, because I can click an icon, click 3 more times, and it have 4 copies of the file. Copying is not work.

The contract society has made with content creators is that we pay when we use the content, not when it is created.

that contract was made before the internet came along, and most importantly it was made for limited times and with much more limited scope.

Since then, the powerful publishing interests which have emerged from this contract have been altering it against "our" (the public's) interest for almost a century now.

At this point, it's no longer even about just controlling distribution, it's about ruling the god damn world by proxy through the DMCA. Let me know when ford can demand full regulatory control of all roads and businesses accessible through their vehicles.

The denial of free speech rights, the slow strangulation of the greatest technological advancement since the steam engine, and the pillaging and extortion of tens of thousands of defenseless people, among many other things, were not part of this contract.

They breached it first, they shot first, and just like japan, they have awakened the sleeping giant.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[Eskarel]

I didn't say it was perfect, I just said there was probably some more thought required to go into that sort of thing because sometimes it takes a while to get yourself out there in the first place, and as books can take quite some time to write you'd have to sort out exactly where the copyright started from if you were looking at a really short period.

Re:The test of whether one supports copyright:

[Urza9814]

Alright, sure. But 70 years? No. 10 would be good. Or even 20. Hell, I could tolerate 30. But 70??? That's just obscene. And we're talking about books, which I would imagine are one of the more difficult to produce works covered under copyright law. Why do you need a 70 year copyright on music, when your band puts out a new album every two years? Makes no sense.

Even better

[SanityInAnarchy]

Make it legal, always, period.

There are already laws against the criminal things you've suggested. I really don't see why it should also be illegal to break DRM with the intention of doing that -- why should the intention matter at all? Maybe you broke it with the intention of watching it on your Mythbox, and later got the idea (independently) of using the cracked version for something criminal?

No, that's all needlessly vague and complex. If you want to make it hurt more to pirate stuff, change those laws -- which wasn't even a criminal offense until recently, but rather, a civil matter.

Think about that -- it is a federal crime to crack the DRM. It's merely a civil offense to redistribute the music. One goes on your record, the other doesn't. WTF?!

Tag says it all: justrepealit. Or, if you're going to ask for exemptions, don't ask for such pathetically small ones -- are iPhones mentioned specifically? Why can't I crack an iPod Touch, then?

Re:Even better

[zippthorne]

Legislators love specific exceptions much more than just getting he law right generally in the first place. This is because they measure their output by quantity. They seem to think that the job of a good congressman is to pass a lot of bills, or better yet introduce a lot of bills that get passed. It's a miracle that anything gets voted down *at all*.

It's not entirely their fault though. IMO, the ideal congressman sits on his ass all day because nothing needs changing. How many voters really feel the same way.

Re:Even better

[SanityInAnarchy]

This is because they measure their output by quantity.

That's fine -- just measure it as a combined quantity of bills passed and bills repealed.

Or measure it as a quantity of money you saved the taxpayers, or of people who have actually been positively affected by what you're doing.

IMO, the ideal congressman sits on his ass all day because nothing needs changing.

But do you actually believe nothing needs changing? Would you bother to vote for an incumbent if you were so content? You'd probably be much more interested in voting the bums out when you aren't content...

I agree, in principle, but in practice, there's far too much broken, and it takes Congress far too long to address most of it, for any congressman to sit on his (or her) well-dressed, re-election-campaigning ass.

Re:Even better

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting catch to the whole DRM that most people think only applies to music and movies. Check this...

Our company produces and sells forms and charts for doctors and other financial institutions; you know, those charts and records that doctors and bankers fill out or have you fill out and file away somewhere. Regardless of the debate about how printed media is going away "real soon now" and stuff, we have very few competitors.

There was one competitor, however, that took a sample of our product and used to to produce their own form. We had the copyright symbol on it, too!

We tried to sue for copyright infringement, simply because they were now selling our product. Turns out the courts do not agree, since it's not possible to copyright a blank form. Period. They did not violate our copyright because we cannot have a copyright on the image printed on the paper.

Now, I met with our CxO about this issue which he had conceded that there's nothing we can do about losing control over our product, especially if someone calls up and wants a PDF of a form to look at, proof, or whathaveyou. I mention that it is possible to put DRM into that PDF so that it's not possible to copy it. He says, "But it's meaningless if we cannot have a copyright on the file." I tells him that isn't important, because they won't violate a copyright when they try to copy it, they will violate the DMCA when they try to break the lock that prevents them from copying it.

See why I'm so on the fence about the DRM/DMCA thing?

Re:Even better

[plasmacutter]

Legislators... they measure their output by quantity. They seem to think that the job of a good congressman is to pass a lot of bills, or better yet introduce a lot of bills that get passed. It's a miracle that anything gets voted down *at all*.

It's not entirely their fault though. IMO, the ideal congressman sits on his ass all day because nothing needs changing. How many voters really feel the same way.

Repealing acts also require bills, and republicans could win virtually the entire 12-35 demographic if they promise to repeal this one.
They seem to like repealing many other laws, so I don't see why this one should raise objections.

Re:Even better

[SanityInAnarchy]

The right approach here is to fix copyright law, not to introduce insane new, completely different kinds of law.

In other words, if copyright cannot cover a blank form, try patents. If that doesn't work, try making the case that such a blank form is sufficient IP that it should be protected. Write your congressmen, etc.

But what you are doing is going to break sooner or later -- or so I hope. Far too much control is being exerted over content through DRM -- much of it, as in your case, to prevent your customers from doing something entirely legal that you don't want them to do.

Re:Fist Prose

[camperdave]

Rocky hammered on his opponent, his fists writing a soliloquy of destruction on Apollo's face. Each blow was a finely crafted metaphor of pain. Shifting his focus to the abdomen, Rocky pummelled paragraph after paragraph up and down Apollo's ribcage. After finishing the body of his exposition, he topped it off with a climactic sentence to the jaw. Apollo went down for the count.

add bypassing of hardware locks / lockin software

[Joe The Dragon]

add bypassing of hardware locks in software so people can BUY mac os x and run it on any system that they want. There also been other apps and that used other types of hardware lock in as well. Also add bypassing printer ink lock out chips used to keep 3rd party's out.

You should also have the right to add bigger hd's to game consoles / drvs and other devices that try sell you there own hd size upgrades at very high cost.

Smart phones also need to have the right to bypass any type of sim locks / network locks / even phone app network locks as well.

Playing Movies on Free Operating Systems?

[gQuigs]

Is someone at least requesting it?

I suppose if we get an exception we could play both DVDs and BluRays on Linux.. legally. Well except for the codecs, but shh.

Re:Playing Movies on Free Operating Systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can they? You'll need a css license. If you want to legally play them without the likes of libcss you can purchase powerdvd, and have been able to do so since 2004.

Re:Playing Movies on Free Operating Systems?

[Repossessed]

If they allow me to legally bypass CSS in order to watch the movies I own then what will I complain about?

We need exemptions for any software used to do the

[Joe The Dragon]

We need exemptions for any software used to do the same type of stuff form cars to printer ink.

Which is bullshit

[Moryath]

If I put up a sign next to a shitty restaurant saying "Do not patronize restaurant X, the food is crap", that's my free speech right.

If a city puts in a new highway that means less people drive down a service road that was previously the highway, and a number of businesses don't get as much impulse "I think I'll stop there" business, they either adapt or move or die, they don't get recompense.

Nothing should be different with DRM. DRM is a method by which the companies try to infringe on the CONSUMER'S right to fair-use activities like space-shifting, nothing more. DRM itself should be illegal.

Re:Which is bullshit

[srussia]

Nothing should be different with DRM. DRM is a method by which the companies try to infringe on the CONSUMER'S right to fair-use activities like space-shifting, nothing more. DRM itself should be illegal.

Agree, except for the last part. Company X should be able DRM all they want, as there will always be Company Y that will not use it. Let the people decide who survives.

Re:Which is bullshit

[sumdumass]

If I put up a sign next to a shitty restaurant saying "Do not patronize restaurant X, the food is crap", that's my free speech right.

Assuming that you have the necessary permits to hang a sign and aren't trespassing to do it, it is still different because those are your words, not mine or someone else'. DRM would be me not letting you tresspass to do it.

If a city puts in a new highway that means less people drive down a service road that was previously the highway, and a number of businesses don't get as much impulse "I think I'll stop there" business, they either adapt or move or die, they don't get recompense.

Adapting and moving on because of a public good (and yes a highway is a public good) is one thing, adapting and moving on because you are in essence dinning and dashing without paying your bill, well that's another. In other words, copyright is in place to benefit society. Putting in a freeway is too. They aren't compatible to you taking something without permission and treating it as your own. To keep them comparable, it would be more like you going into the restaurant, bringing in your own food and fixing the meals and serving the same guests but pocketing the cash or giving the meals away. I'm not so sure you can justify that as easily. DRM would be like me putting locks on the doors so you can't do it.

Nothing should be different with DRM. DRM is a method by which the companies try to infringe on the CONSUMER'S right to fair-use activities like space-shifting, nothing more. DRM itself should be illegal.

I see what your saying. In most ways, I agree. Your examples were way off and one sided though.

If you want to change the DRM portion of the DMCA, you need to lobby congress and get the laws changed. When doing so, keep in mind that it is part of a requirement for a WIPO treaty so you will have to convince congress or the president to renegotiate the treaty or to pull out of it. Small changes could probably be made without coming into conflict with the treaty but I doubt they will be enough for you.

Re:Which is bullshit

[Solandri]

Except controlling distribution of your creative work is a Constitutionally protected right:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

So to make your analogies work, it'd be like you setting up a large sign in front of a restaurant's doorway, blocking its customers and employees from entering - violating their right to operate and associate freely Or building the new highway on land owned by someone without compensating them - violating their right to property ownership.

This is why copyright reform has to happen at a Constitutional level, and why the Supreme Court cases are so important. As it stands right now, copyright holders are within their rights to protect their works using any passive means such as DRM, even if it ends up violating fair use rights. Someone using a fair use exemption is protected from prosecution for copyright infringement. It does not (currently) mean the copyright holder has to go out of their way to accommodate access for fair use.

Re:Which is bullshit

[Moryath]

Uhm, no.

Congress gives you the right, legally speaking, to control commercial production of your intellectual property. That is, if you write a screenplay or theater play, or a book, or produce some other piece of art, you have the right to stop others from reproducing it unless you give them permission (possibly, but not always, in exchange for some form of restitution).

What you do NOT have the right to do is block the public's fair-use privileges, such as quoting a limited portion of the work, space-shifting it (digitizing the book into a private archive for example), posting a screenshot of a video game, etc.

A further problem is this is the ridiculous theft that has gone on with changing copyright so that works no longer need registration. Registration's key point is that it ensures a copy is retained for when the work eventually enters the public domain. Think seriously now: how many computer programs, how many books, how many movies are now simply lost to us because someone technically "owns" the copyright and has sat failing to distribute the work, but the only available copies are either (a) degraded to uselessnes due to bad storage or (b) nearly unrecoverable due to DRM implementations tied to nearly-nonexistent hardware.

Consider the number of supposedly "copyrighted" TV show serials for which no known copy of certain episodes exist. Like the absolute ton of BBC productions. This is why not mandating copyright registration, with the provision of a copy to a national repository, is a BAD idea.

Copyright is a temporary monopoly given to artists with the contract that their work enter the public domain. Ever since big corporations got involved, they've done everything they could to rape the shit out of the public domain and not put a single bit back into it, and they've even gone to the extreme of trying to prevent people from doing things like time-shifting and space-shifting. Hell, the NFL has harassed churches for holding super bowl parties (consisting of members of the church) and watching the game on a projected screen, claiming it was a "public reproduction" of a "Copyrighted performance", yet it's something they freely put on the airwaves.

Enough is enough. Time to stop the madness.

Re:Which is bullshit

[plasmacutter]

Nothing should be different with DRM. DRM is a method by which the companies try to infringe on the CONSUMER'S right to fair-use activities like space-shifting, nothing more. DRM itself should be illegal.

On the contrary, the laws "protecting" drm from commercial circumvention should be repealed.

Many proponents of DRM claim "the free market" will sort out whether people want DRM, carefully masking the fallacy that the DMCA makes it illegal for firms to provide remedies for this cancer.

DRM did exist before the DMCA, for a very long time. The difference is companies could manufacture circumvention tools, so anybody who didn't want it could get rid of it.

I'm by no means a free market fundamentalist, but in this case the free market really does work, provided it really IS free.

Re:Which is bullshit

[plasmacutter]

Company X should be able DRM all they want, as there will always be Company Y that will not use it. Let the people decide who survives.

this is a fallacious argument because it's not DRM alone, it's two products being inseparably bundled, which under all other circumstances would be prosecuted under the sherman anti-trust act.

the media contained within is an exclusive monopoly, and anyone who wants to publish it is required to agree to any terms no matter how onerous, including the inclusion of DRM.

Thus, there will be seldom if any cases of a "company Y that will not use it", because company Y is directly beholden to originator z, which is a paranoid, anti-consumer luddite.

case and point: apple putting the same "black screen" crap that vista has into their new mac lineups as a requirement to accept and play some unnamed company z's media.

Repealing the proibition on manufacture and trafficking would decide who survives.

Re:Which is bullshit

[plasmacutter]

Adapting and moving on because of a public good (and yes a highway is a public good) is one thing, adapting and moving on because you are in essence dinning and dashing without paying your bill, well that's another. In other words, copyright is in place to benefit society.

stop spewing shameless propaganda.

The MAFIAA said the same thing about piano rolls, and the phonograph, and radio, and the VCR, and the dual cassette deck, and now MP3's/internet.

Don't say its different because it's on a massive scale either. How many hundreds of millions of dual cassette decks with "high speed dubbing" and blank tapes were sold?

Every technology before has been clearly vindicated and proven not to be the industry's downfall, and this one is suddenly treated differently, even though it's arguably an exponentially greater good to the public than some extra home appliance.

The internet and copyright are mutually exclusive principles. Nearly every single webpage carries hundreds if not thousands of copyright violations. We should not neglect the necessary reforms simply because few people choose strict enforcement.

I quote harry potter:

"neither can live while the other survives"

make your choice:
internet or copyright(as it is now)

There is only one option which will prevent this:
a strict bifurcation between commercial and noncommercial use, with broad exemptions for the latter.

Re:Which is bullshit

[plasmacutter]

Except controlling distribution of your creative work is a Constitutionally protected right:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

sorry, it's not. Here's the full quote, with the part you conveniently left out (emphasis mine)

The Congress shall have power To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

You see, in 1776 it was little more than a generation after the crown finally abolished copyright, which had given rise to one of the most abusive publishing cartels prior to the 20th century.

They understood copyright to be contrary to liberty on numerous levels, such as freedom of expression and giving rise to permanent aristocracy. If they were to come forward to 1998, they would probably have explicitly forbidden copyright law in the constitution.

Jefferson in particular recognized an already rising corporate political machine, and if he saw our nation today would either die of heartbreak or launch into a psychotic, assault weapon wielding rage.

Let's compare this to the bill of rights, which are amendments to the constitution. I'm pretty sure any lawyer will agree that amendments are supposed to take precedent over previous portions of a given piece of legislation, including the supreme law of the land.

thus, copyright law should only go so far as they don't violate:

the first, fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments. They have traveled far beyond that point.

This is why copyright reform has to happen at a Constitutional level, and why the Supreme Court cases are so important. As it stands right now, copyright holders are within their rights to protect their works using any passive means such as DRM, even if it ends up violating fair use rights. Someone using a fair use exemption is protected from prosecution for copyright infringement

the exemptions don't matter because people who are exempt are not able to buy the tools, the construction of which is illegal with no exceptions.

It does not (currently) mean the copyright holder has to go out of their way to accommodate access for fair use.

they have gone out of their way to actively prevent access for fair use. It is illegal under all circumstances to manufacture tools for circumvention, even if they're meant to be used for purposes exempt from anti-circumvention law.

This is directly comparable to weapons control laws. Imagine hunting being legal but the manufacture and sale of any weapon being prohibited without exception.

Re:Which is bullshit

[sumdumass]

Wow.. I have incurred your wrath twice now in a matter of minutes and I didn't even mention global warming.

stop spewing shameless propaganda.
The MAFIAA said the same thing about piano rolls, and the phonograph, and radio, and the VCR, and the dual cassette deck, and now MP3's/internet.

Just because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean the message is bad.

Don't say its different because it's on a massive scale either. How many hundreds of millions of dual cassette decks with "high speed dubbing" and blank tapes were sold?

I'm sorry, you lost me, what does that have to do with anything I have said? Oh putting a highway in to rob business from a restaurant is like having a dual cassette deck?

Every technology before has been clearly vindicated and proven not to be the industry's downfall, and this one is suddenly treated differently, even though it's arguably an exponentially greater good to the public than some extra home appliance.

Ok, first of all, who the fuck are you arguing with? I didn't say anything of the sorts that you did. MAybe you got an comprehension problem or your confusing posts or something. I said his examples are junk because they simply aren't comparable and that if you wanted change, you had to lobby congress and keep in mind that the DMCA is there because of treaties. I dind't say that some object shouldn't exists or that the law was right. if you want to change something, you will first have to understand it.

The internet and copyright are mutually exclusive principles. Nearly every single webpage carries hundreds if not thousands of copyright violations. We should not neglect the necessary reforms simply because few people choose strict enforcement.

And your point was what? Get the shit changed, I don't care, I was actually showing where the set backs will be. Namely the treaties that caused the DMCA to be passed in the first place. I would prefer a much shorter copyright term and an entirely different structure on the penalties.

I quote harry potter:

"neither can live while the other survives"

make your choice: internet or copyright(as it is now)

There is only one option which will prevent this:
a strict bifurcation between commercial and noncommercial use, with broad exemptions for the latter.

perhaps you can collect your thoughts and reorganize them and then get back to me.

Re:Which is bullshit

[Toll_Free]

Jesus Fucking Christ.

So goddammed emboldened by the fact you got linux to run on your laptop.

Copyright and patent both are older than MPAA and RIAA. Therefore shut the FUCK up.

--Toll_Free

Re:Which is bullshit

[plasmacutter]

Just because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean the message is bad.

No, the message is bad because it's deliberately fallacious.

copyright infringement is not remotely equivalent to theft, nor is it a fixed concept like theft.

I've provided you examples of other technologies/activities over the past century these self-interested paranoid luddites have equated to your little "dine and dash" analogy which have been time and again ruled "fair use".

The legal definition for copyright infringement is completely divorced from the legal definition of theft for a reason, and the rampant graft and propaganda used by a media industry with a direct conflict of interest between copyright and its role in preserving an educated populace has not changed the moral equation: Participating in your culture through non-commercial sharing of what you consider valuable is NOT evil.

Re:Which is bullshit

[sumdumass]

No, the message is bad because it's deliberately fallacious.

copyright infringement is not remotely equivalent to theft, nor is it a fixed concept like theft.

I never said it was now did I? Exactly how many people are part of this conversation? Perhaps you should direct the comments towards what they say when you are addressing their points.

I've provided you examples of other technologies/activities over the past century these self-interested paranoid luddites have equated to your little "dine and dash" analogy which have been time and again ruled "fair use".

And this is why you both look and sound like an idiot. Well, that and your complete inference of other conversations either with other people or yourself but that is besides the point. In all those devices you listed, Not all uses are fair use and not illegal. If I buy a series of VCRs and chain them together to copy one tape to sell them, then they are illegal. If I put a dozen dual casset decks together and copy a tape or CD to sell, I have broken the law. You see, the difference between me sounding responsible to normal people and you sounding like a koook wackjob is that even though there are fair use uses, it isn't always fair use and the fact that fair use uses exists in no way legitimizes the non-fair use and infringing uses. When you realize this, you will probably craft your statements better and not end up looking like a nut case.

The legal definition for copyright infringement is completely divorced from the legal definition of theft for a reason, and the rampant graft and propaganda used by a media industry with a direct conflict of interest between copyright and its role in preserving an educated populace has not changed the moral equation: Participating in your culture through non-commercial sharing of what you consider valuable is NOT evil.

Again, who the fuck are you talking to? I never said copyright infringement equals theft. If your just a crazy old man ranting then do it somewhere else.

Rip clips from DVDs

[Jason Levine]

I'd want to expand on this one: "university professors wishing to rip clips from DVDs for classroom use"

Make it: "Allow home users to rip DVDs for personal use"

So if you rip the video off of the DVD to put it on your home media server, you're fine. If you rip a bunch of children's DVDs to compile a single DVD with your kid's favorite episodes, you're ok. Basically anything you do where the video doesn't leave your "personal zone" would be allowed. Things like sharing clips, classroom use, or YouTube mashups would be a separate exemption.

Then, perhaps, we could get set top boxes that would take DVDs in, rip them to an internal hard drive, and allow home users to choose from hundreds or thousands of movies without handling any discs. As any parent with little kids will tell you, you want to keep the discs away from kids' hands, but keep them in reach enough that you can access them quickly and easily. A set top box like this would be ideal.

Re:Rip clips from DVDs

[WaXHeLL]

Didn't you read the article summary, where it says the EFF submitted a request for ripping DVDs for non-commercial use

Re:Rip clips from DVDs

[MikeBabcock]

This is in fact being asked for.

Personally, I'd rather someone asked for the right to invalidate any digital Copyright system that violates the rest of Copyright as it stands. That is to say, a DRM system that doesn't allow personal backups would be invalid. A DRM system that won't let me pull out a clip of a song for a review would be invalidated too.

I have nothing against DRM, IF it works within the confines of the law and my rights and that includes self-sacrificing the DRM layer when the law says that file becomes public domain.

Re:Rip clips from DVDs

[Anonymous Coward]

don't you see, they already have you beat. they've convinced you that you have to play by their rules and request each right piecemeal which is a lie.

Re:Rip clips from DVDs

[Anonymous Coward]

The EFF requested an exemption for "audiovisual works on DVD, where circumvention is undertaken solely for the purpose of extracting clips for inclusion in noncommercial videos that do not infringe copyright."

I proposed an exemption for "motion pictures protected by anti-access measures, such that access to the motion picture content requires use of a certain platform." This was targeted at the inability of Linux users to legally watch DVDs on Linux: no legal DVD player exists for most Linux distributions. I argued that converting DVDs to video files for personal viewing was fair use, and that the anticircumvention rule harmed consumers' ability to use their legally purchased media. I also argued that it harmed Linux developers, who cannot compete with Windows and Mac OS X on fair ground. This is because DVD players cannot be included with any Linux distribution that is free to download (for royalty reasons), and the appeal of Linux to ordinary users suffers commensurately. Without this exemption, the DMCA favors major incumbent operating systems, and thwarts the possibility for a disruptive and innovative technology like Linux to enter the market.

I thoroughly doubt that this exemption would be granted, but I will be interested to read the Register's response.

Mark Rizik

Re:Rip clips from DVDs

[Toll_Free]

dvddecrypter / dvd2avi

XBMC and 75 dollar used XBOX. :)

Just what my 2 yr old, 3 yr old and 5 yr old ordered.

--Toll_Free

Re:Rip clips from DVDs

[Jason Levine]

Can you store the movies on the old XBox? I have a computer upstairs that could act as the file server, but the the XBox would need to connect via a wireless network. My wife refuses to let me run cables and considering how old the house is/the problems we've had with it/how much of a novice I am running cables, it's probably a good call.

Re:Rip clips from DVDs

[Toll_Free]

Yes, you can replace the HDD in the XBOX with (in mine) a 120 gigger.

I also use mine with my fileserver. XBMC also runs SMB (as well as a couple other services), streams from the internet, has weather update options, etc.

Take a look at it, XBMC is a great product. My 3 yr old can navigate mine (you can modify the menus from the UI), and it supports profiles (the pr0n is only in my profile) :)

--Toll_Free

One step at a time, there

[Voyager529]

IMO I think that the list in TFA is a reasonable step in the right direction. Try taking too much, and the house of cards will come down. bypassing hardware lock-in for OSX will come across as exactly what it is - a full-scale attack against Apple's business model. While I'm all for that, the DMCA is already hard enough to append because of the *AA. Adding apple to the mix gets the *AA and Apple on the same side again, in which case the odds of any of the other exemptions getting approved are slim.

Joey

Re:One step at a time, there

[sumdumass]

Lol.. Do you really think it is the **AA's and not the WIPO treaties that require the protection to be there?

Don't confuse the cheerleaders for the players in the game.

Parse tree for English

[chihowa]

Here you go. Now, I'll be checking up on you guys in a week and I expect to be impressed.

Re:Parse tree for English

[supernova_hq]

Damn You! Damn You To Hell!!!

In.tel anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

in.tel anyone?

You are getting / paying a copy of mac os x on eac

[Joe The Dragon]

You are getting / paying a copy of mac os x on each system. Dell and others per load images on there systems apple likely does the same thing as well.

"Abandonware" should also include version antics

[grandpa-geek]

I've had two situations in which I had a legally-obtained older version of software for which the provider had dropped support, which included dropping support for the DRM built into the products.

In one case, you had to call in, give them your product ID and get a DRM key. I wanted to move the product from an older machine to a newer one. I called in and they told me they had dropped support, including handling the DRM keys, and to buy their new product. The old product served my needs, and the new one had improvements that were useless to me. Luckily, one tech support person was nice and told me where I could find the DRM key value in the old installation, that I hadn't yet deleted. Had I needed to reinstall for any reason, I would have been stuck.

In another case the DRM required either an internet connection or printer access during installation. This was not explained in the installation instructions. I was installing software on a new machine and hadn't yet set up either internet or printer. With that (early) DRM, if you didn't go through the procedure at installation time, there was no opportunity to do it later. The provider later came out with other versions and dropped support for this version. I moved on to using a FOSS product, so I never tried to resolve the issue, but I have a useless copy of that particular software. It didn't set me back any cost, because I had won a copy of the product in a drawing at a trade show booth for people who sat through a demo of something.

If DRM support is dropped for a version of a product, it should be treated as an abandoned product, even if the DRM is maintained for later versions.

Devil's Advocate

[Overzeetop]

I presume if you are watching clips in class, the professor has either a computer or a DVD player hooked to a large monitor or projector. Why not just cue up the particular discs? Especially with licensed DVD player software it's easy to jog forward to the clip necessary and the professor need only mark the time code on his notes to find the clips quickly. Nothing here is restricted, it's just less convenient and make take an additional 15-30 seconds of load time, during which the professor may be discussing the upcoming clip. It's easy enough to carry a portable case which holds 20, 30, or more DVDs for a lecture - certainly more than you could reasonably watch and discuss in a 50 or 75 minute standard lecture period. If it's a matter of worrying about moving the DVDs from case to lecture book and back, there are 3 ring binder sleeves which the professor could use to permanently place the DVD in his or her lecture binder. Sure, that might mean buying a second copy, but that's a small price when compared to what it would cost him to actually purchase the rights for his "public performance" he seems to do every class, even on an academic pricing scale. And what is the cost of 100 or so DVDs (say, $1500-$2000 at retail) for a lecture which is likely to generate over a hundred thousand dollars in tuition revenue (and/or state funds) for the university over the course of four or five years? You would cheat someone spending millions of dollars on content out of just 2% of your revenue stream for the sake of your convenience? Look at real estate agents - they get 6% of the sale of a home...they only want a small fraction of that, and as a one time fee. I've had graduate classes where the cost of the textbooks for the class (a 12 person lecture series) cost more than $2000.

Of course, that's a bunch of bullshit. But if you say it with a straight face and an "honest day's pay for an honest day's work" mannerism, it makes the MPAA sound like they're just looking to ensure that they are justly compensated for their work. And, sadly, many won't see through it.

Re:Fist Prose

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, Apollo Creed won.

Ever heard of this little law

[MikeRT]

Called the No Electronic Theft Act which makes non-fair use reproduction of copyrighted goods automatically a federal criminal offense? In other words, you're free to share a copy of a history program with your department at college. You share a copy of the latest DVD with your neighbor back home, you've just put yourself in line to have broken the NET Act.

I wish people would fly closer to the truth.

[argent]

I have found a number of places where people have exaggerated the effect of DRM on their use cases far beyond reality. Others have quoted officers of corporations who were clearly lying about the reasons they made business decisions to restrict access, and attempting to direct the blame to other companies. I wish people wouldn't do this, because these errors of fact are clear to anyone with a reasonable familiarity with the situation, and cast any argument against DRM... even the many many valid ones... into disrepute.

Re:I wish people would fly closer to the truth.

[plasmacutter]

that would be the entire point.

There are huge think tanks dedicated to fabricating controversy and providing plausible explanation through fallacy or fraud for legislative efforts against the public interest.

The two most successful of these groups, technology and economics, have accomplished their goals by taking advantage of a lack of proper education among the populace.

A simple request

[slapout]

I would like to request this exemption: Let me do what I want with the things I paid for.

DIVX

[HTH NE1]

Among the exemption proposals is a request from the Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic to allow circumvention of DRM protection when the central authorization server goes down

Which first lists Circuit City's Digital Video Express (DIVX) disks under "DRM-based Stores Have Failed In the Past":

1. Circuit City's Digital Video Express (DIVX) Service
2. Google Video Store
3. Microsoft's MSN Music Store
4. Yahoo Music
5. Wal-Mart's Music Store

I hope it includes allowing for the authorization of my lawfully purchased copy of DVD X Copy Gold which I didn't get activated before the company was served with a cease-and-desist. That would be sweet irony.

so why would you ask a programmer for legal advice

[spazdor]

Because Code is Law?
</lessig>

Re:Fist Prose

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on which movie you're watching, I suppose.

Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic

[vrmlguy]

They're proposal is very similar to one I made here and at Content Agenda (it's the last comment on the page) a month or two back. Their proposal seems much more detailed.

I would've sworn that I submitted my version to copyright.gov, and got a confirmation, but I can't find any evidence of it now. Hopefully, it will be considered as an additional vote for this version.

Unfortunately, you're correct...

[Anonymous Coward]

> but that makes too much sense!

Unfortunately, you're quite right. Under their interpretation of the law, they have all kinds of crazy statutory restrictions on what they can grant.

And they'll only grant you powers with respect to a particular class of works (e.g. audio-visual works on CD) not something nice and broad like "any copyrighted work." There's also crap about access restrictions vs. use restrictions and other stuff I don't even remember.

Long story short, the EFF all but gave up on asking for more restrictions a long time ago because it's a complete waste of time. At best, we get small victories like the ability to figure out what sites censorware blocks (though that one may have expired?) or the one we got last time to get rid of the Sony DRM rootkit.

In case you're wondering, I know this because I was one of many people who requested that anti-Sony exception that they ultimately granted. Though I think that the other people did more good than me, because the replies pretty much ignored me. Even so, I only sent it in to show them that random private citizens care enough about it that they should get their butts in gear.

Re:Unfortunately, you're correct...

[vyrus128]

And they'll only grant you powers with respect to a particular class of works (e.g. audio-visual works on CD) not something nice and broad like "any copyrighted work."

I was wondering about this. What exactly is the source of the rule that says they can't make an exception for "any noninfringing use of any work; or any action which does not involve any copyrighted work"?

NOT big enough!

[Jane Q. Public]

The anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA should be trashed altogether. The only reason they are there is to "guarantee" profit for big corporations, at the expense of innovation and even research.

Anti-circumvention regulations have a chilling effect on education and small business, and form a defacto barrier to entry to competition in important areas of technology. Further, it drives business and innovation to take place in other nations that do not have such regulations.

Like the encryption export regulations of old, these need to go away. Completely.

You'd Be Breaking The Computer Fraud & Abuse A

[Anonymous Coward]

> Violating a company's EULA is not illegal. Period. Full stop.

I would have agreed with you until this happened. Wired even interviewed the jurors and found that they didn't question whether breaking a EULA should be illegal, only what "tortuous" meant. Here's the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act if you want to read it.

Here's one quote from the Groklaw story (which itself is a quote from Orin Kerr, one of Drew's attorneys)

The jury agreed that it is a federal crime to intentionally violate the Terms of Service on a website, and that Drew directly or indirectly did so, but it acquitted Drew of having violated Terms of Service in furtherance of the tortious act. That is, the jury ruled that Drew is guilty of relatively lower-level crimes for violating MySpacs Terms of Service (for being involved in the setting up of a fake MySpace account). It acquitted Drew for any role in inflicting distress on Meier or for anything related to Meier's suicide. The maximum allowed penalty for the misdemeanor violations are one year in prison for each violation, although the majority of federal misdemeanors result in a sentence of probation.

(emphasis added)

Yes, this is a bad precedent. Terrible, in fact. But someone has, in fact, been convicted merely for breaking a ToS. Worse, when MySpace reserves in that ToS the sole right to determine whether or not someone is violating it!

Mod Parent Up

[earlymon]

You make an EXCELLENT point, one that I'd like to amplify.

I keep odd hours and like the History and Science channels. In the very early morning hours, there are short shows specifically called out for classroom use. HERE'S THE KICKER: At the end, there's a statement to teachers recording the info for classroom playback that copyright restrictions require them to erase and not use the given program after some certain date. From my memory, it is a VERY short time span.

No way do I believe that this has anything to do with updating current research or anything else kind-minded - it's just a pointless restriction.

Another amplification - what do film and music students get stuck with because of these restrictions????

PLEASE MOD PARENT UP.

What the EFF Requested

[Mark Rizik]

The EFF requested an exemption for "audiovisual works on DVD, where circumvention is undertaken solely for the purpose of extracting clips for inclusion in noncommercial videos that do not infringe copyright."

I proposed an exemption for "motion pictures protected by anti-access measures, such that access to the motion picture content requires use of a certain platform." This was targeted at the inability of Linux users to legally watch DVDs on Linux: no legal DVD player exists for most Linux distributions. I argued that converting DVDs to video files for personal viewing was fair use, and that the anticircumvention rule harmed consumers' ability to use their legally purchased media. I also argued that it harmed Linux developers, who cannot compete with Windows and Mac OS X on fair ground. This is because DVD players cannot be included with any Linux distribution that is free to download (for royalty reasons), and the appeal of Linux to ordinary users suffers commensurately. Without this exemption, the DMCA favors major incumbent operating systems, and thwarts the possibility for a disruptive and innovative technology like Linux to enter the market.

I thoroughly doubt that this exemption would be granted, but I will be interested to read the Register's response.

Mark Rizik

UCITA

[Anonymous Coward]

Uniform Computing blah blah blah google it

Re:You are getting / paying a copy of mac os x on

[dangitman]

But how do you know? Mac OS installers are not serialised. They could just be selling the one copy over and over again, and just telling you that you are buying your own copy.

free world

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just move to the free world where none of this shit counts anyway :p

Case in point...

[argent]

that would be the entire point.

You seem to be displaying exactly the kind of cynicism I'm concerned about.

Do you really think some of those exemption papers were written deliberately with the intent of derailing the efforts to fight the wildfire growth of DRM technologies?

Re:You are getting / paying a copy of mac os x on

[Joe The Dragon]

And if you get a box with each system then how are they pulling it off?

19 Requestors, 20 Exemptions Requested

[Anonymous Coward]

The EFF made two requests, that is why you only see 19 on the list not 10.

Re:You are getting / paying a copy of mac os x on

[dangitman]

By copying the packaging? It's almost as easy as copying discs.