Slashdot Log In
DMCA Study Reply Comments Posted
Posted by
Hemos
on Thu Sep 07, 2000 12:50 AM
from the read-'em-and-weep dept.
from the read-'em-and-weep dept.
richardbowers writes "The Library of Congress has posted the replies it received to comments collected about DMCA enforcement. Kudos go to several individuals who submitted comments, people who have also been strong contributors to the OpenLaw discussions on these topics.
Big business is also represented. If you have missed the last fifteen Slashdot stories on the aim of big business to take away ownership and replace it with rental, you can see it again here. Since the reply period is now closed, you will need to take up your disgust with your Senator or Representatives, or just give something to the EFF to help them defray the costs of the inevitable and continuing lawsuits."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
DMCA Study Reply Comments Posted
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 176 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Is that it? (Score:3)
A lot of /., k5, advogato etc readers are not US citizens, and so can't really comment in that kind of forum. In addition, there is the IANAL problem. Many of the submissions (e.g. Time-Warner) contained legal argument (a lot of which turned out to be wrong; read the submission from the Copyright Office to see one example). The average geek cannot be expected to reply to such an argument because they don't know how. I'm sure that more than one bowed out precisely to improve the quality of the submissions past "Uhm... uhh... it's wrong! I don't know why, but it's just WRONG!"
Sometimes people reason, rightly or wrongly, that it's easier to leave this sort of thing to the experts.
Re:Who Are These Individuals? (Score:5)
There seems to be some confusion by several people saying "hey, where's my comment". There were several different opportunities to submit comments:
1201(a) Rule Making Comments [loc.gov]
1201(a) Rule Making Reply Comments [loc.gov]
1201(a) Rule Making Post-Hearing Comments [loc.gov]
Section 109 & 117 Comments [loc.gov]
Section 109 & 117 Reply Comments [loc.gov]
Encryption Research Comments [loc.gov] from July 1999
Hmmm... (Score:3)
B. Archival/back-up copying
Section 117(a)(2), which allows the owner of a copy of a computer program to make an archival copy of it without the permission of the copyright owner under certain conditions, is a narrow exception to the exclusive reproduction right. Under no circumstances does section 117(a)(2) allow the
creation of "back-up copies" of works such as sound recordings, music, audio-visual works, or databases. As at least two initial round submitters have pointed out, many pirates and distributors of pirate software products have actively disseminated misleading statements about this provision in order to give their operations a false air of legitimacy, see Interactive Digital Software Association at 5-6; SIIA at 3-4.
If I read this correctly, wouldn't this forbid the ripping of CDs, let alone the copying of MP3s based on those ripped tracks to a player that you own?
You've got to vote (Score:5)
The majority of people in this country don't vote. The politicians know this. They keep very close tabs on what kind of people do vote because these are the people the politicians must keep happy in order to stay in office. Why do you think politicians from both major parties continuously pander to senior citizens? Why do you think Gore is proposing that the rest of us pay for their prescription drugs? Because senior citizens vote more than any other age group in america. Therefore what they want and need will always be represented and taken into account when any decision is made on capitol hill or the white house
Laws like the DMCA get passed because we aren't holding our elected officials accountable for how they vote. The average person is oblivious to whats happening in their government. All they know is what they hear on TV, which most of the time is nothing but propaganda put out by rival political factions. Everyone knows that Clinton was getting it on with a 24 year old intern, but how many people know what bills he signed and vetoed last year? How many are aware of executive directives he issued and their effects?
But whats really sad is the fact that we're all being had. Not voting has been covertly promoted for some time now. The idea that our vote doesn't count has been spoon fed to us by those who don't want to see us vote. Here we are in a country where the government is ultimately controlled by the people. Today most of them have been suckered into laying that power and responsibility down and walking away from it. Later, when that forfeited power is used against them, they do nothing but pout or maybe complain to each other and wonder what the world is coming to.
It may not be possible to fool all of the people all of the time. But clearly it is possible to fool enough of the people enough of the time (or make them look the other way) to pass legislation which screws over everyone all of the time.
Want to see it change? Want the DMCA and similar issues,such as the MPAA's desire to prevent you from taping TV shows, become nothing more than a bad dream? Then vote. Don't like any of the major party candidates? Vote for one from a "3rd party."
To stand by and watch as our country is ruined makes you just as guilty as the ones doing it.
Lee Reynolds
Re:You've got to vote (Score:3)
Check out Nader's views at his site [votenader.org]. He is very much more socialist than anything. (For a quick look at the five points in the political field, check out the libertarian party's main page [lp.org]. Quickly, though, they are: libertarian, authoritarian, conservative, liberal, and centrist.)
In every one of his views, Nader supports giving government more control, and removing control from us. Want an example? Just pick ANY of his issues. Taxation: "we should tax things we don't like." WHO DECIDES the "things we don't like"? Government, that's who! On EVERY issue, he supports giving control to government.
Please, please, dear Slashdotters, vote Libertarian this year. Our political system has been so corrupted by corporate influence that it barely resembles what our forefathers had in mind. They were a bunch of libertarians, favoring personal responsibility over government control. This is obvious in everything they did. Don't believe me? Go read the constitution of the United states [thefed.com] and other documents found there (the Magna Carta (on which our constitution is based), Federalist Papers, Bill of Rights, and the declaration of independence). These are amazing documents.
Today, we have a two party system by design. We have been socially engineered to (as has been pointed out earlier) not vote. We have been socially engineered to think that political activism is wrong. Political activism is not wrong. It is not bad or immoral. Political activism is what got us our great country today, courtesy of George, and many others.
For the first time in my life, I will not vote with my party (and will be changing my affiliation soon). I supported Ronnie in the 80s, and George after him. Most recently, I supported Mr. Bob Dole. This year, I do not support my party's nomination. Why? OK, I have changed somewhat, but my party and this political system have changed radically over the last few years.
Today, (as I said earlier) our system is ruled by corporations. We must vote this year for a return to the land our forefathers built. We must vote the way they would have us vote. We must vote libertarian.
Join me, dear Slashdotters, in a vote to send this message to our congressmen (and women). If we continue to vote for the status quo, status quo is what we'll get. And it seems that status quo is not what many of us here on Slashdot want. So there it is, Slashdotters. A call to action. Either vote your heart - let them know how you feel - or SHUT UP.
There are more than two points of believe in this system (I mentioned them earlier), but that's not what the system has taught us to believe. We have more than two "choices," sure, but I see only one choice. And it's not one of the "big two" any more. The "big two" (republicans and democrats, which a friend calls republicrats) don't stand for us any more. They stand for corporate interests and their own interests.
Let them know who is boss. Vote to return our nation to its great beginnings.
Pshew. If you read this far, you have my thanks. If you vote with me, you have my sincerest gratitude.
It's nice... (Score:4)
To the Honorable Lamar S. Smith (Score:5)
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
__________________________________
To the Honorable Lamar S. Smith:
I am an Oracle database consultant in your district. I work at Randolf Air Force Base in San Antonio, supporting the Air Force Recruiting Service.
I write to you to express my very strong concern that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which passed in 1998, is a bad law that urgently needs to be revised or even repealed. I believe that the law does not adequately reflect the "delicate balance" that several hundred years of copyright jurisprudence has created. The troublesome section is 1201 of the Copyright Act (Title 17).
My objections to this law are as follows:
- It guts "Fair Use" completely
- It stiffles competition, especially that of "open source" software
- It risks antitrust abuse by creating two separate rights "access" and "copyright" that industry trusts exploit through tying and collusion
- The reverse engineering 1201(f) exception is too narrow and is unclear
- The encryption research 1201(g) exception is too narrow and is unclear
- Despite 1201(c)(4) and 1203(b)(1), the law is being used to chill open discourse and free speech on the science of computer security matters
- The law is ambiguous if copyright owner authority to access can be retained after "First Sale" of the copy, contradicting the "just rewards" purpose of the copyright monopoly and diminishing property rights
- Protecting insecure systems with laws fosters insecurity not security; Most computer scientists support "full disclosure" of security flaws.
I do not support piracy, and recognize that authors deserve financial reward as inducement to create. I note however that there is no "intent" language in the law: it reaches far beyond piracy into the realm of legitimate activity. The attempt to create enumerated exceptions fails miserably to address this. Just as fair use must be judged on a case-by-case basis, so too would a claim of "fair access".
This bill appears to go beyond what is needed by granting wholesale control of the use of sold works to the copyright holder, who all to often isn't even the actual author, but is a corporate mammoth. I am not willing to sacrifice my intellectual property rights as a consumer to line the coffers of the MPAA and RIAA. I am certainly not willing to stiffle the free speech rights of open source programmers, who give generously to the intellectual commons, and exemplify copyright's calling "to promote the progress of science".
Re:You've got to vote (You've got to participate!) (Score:3)
There's something even more important that you can do. It isn't fun and it takes more time than beating Diablo II on Hell level. Here it is: Run for office.
How many times have you complained about the idiots we have running the country? What would it take for you to do better?
One nice thing about Slashdot readers is that we tend to move in herds. There are geographical regions that are packed with nerds (nerd-herds?), and could probably support city council or state legislature positions for people with brains. If we get enough of a critical mass at the lower levels, it shouldn't be too hard to move up.
Even if you won't run, or can't, try finding those candidates that can and helping them out. It could be financial help, or it could be coding them a new web page. It could be offering to speak at a party fundraiser, if you are well-known enough, putting a link on your home-page, submitting stories about their good works to Slashdot, whatever - just do something.
============================================
Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. -- Aaron Burr
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3)
So while you probably can't make a backup set of CDs (although I wouldn't worry about it - one of the important things that has to be looked at is how you've harmed the copyright holder. In the case of backups, probably not at all) you can rip stuff to mpeg players... as long as you're really gonna listen to it.
Funny old world, huh?
Of course, while pirates make a lot of misleading statements, it's also well known that groups like the RIAA and MPAA make their own fair share of misleading statements. You want something more clear? Don't trust any of 'em - read the decisions of the relevant court cases.
Re:You've got to vote (Score:3)
I was under the impression that Libertarians favor a very small government, and this means more of a hands-off role with business. If so, then a Libertarian government is just going to give businesses more freedom to screw us over.
--
Maybe not citizens, .. (Score:4)
I do, however, agree wholeheartedly with you that the responses the government (in the US, now, perhaps in the future, otherwise) recieves should be courteous and well-informed. I would personally like to see hundreds upon hundreds of well-written, thoughtful, and though-provoking letters pile up on the desks of the politicians in the US. Unfortunatly, the simple fact of the matter is that there is a distinct lack of informed and (this is the sad part) intelligent people that have the knowhow, ability, and urge to write to congress and their representatives.
I have read through this thread a few times, and I have come to the conclusion that the problems at hand won't be solved by votes. They will be solved by public awareness (do I hear a drum beating?) and a large campaign that is in the spotlight. There are thousands of kids out there that not only buy CDs (and they do, en masse) but downloads MP3s. It is in their best interests to be aware of the problem and at least take a stand. This is particularly important because we all know that most people over 30 DON'T CARE. (Fire? No, I don't smell fire. Flames? What? What?). Personally, I am writing to the papers and the media in the hopes that I can get in the editorials of maybe be able to get a reporter to do a good, honest, and unbiased story on the DMCA and it's repercussions.
Write your politicians,
Write your local media,
Vote,
Organize the young and untainted,
DO SOMETHING!
Rami
--
Re:Are you sure it doesn't apply to you (us)? (Score:3)
Outlaw any and all region code honoring DVD devices, as they do infringe on the GATT (WTO).
It is ILLEGAL to sell a region code honoring DVD device in New Zealand, and it should be the same way in every nation which has signed the UN charter.
-- iCEBaLM
Approval voting is what we need (Score:3)
This lets people express their vote much better than standard methods. Do you like Nader but don't think he has a chance to win, and would rather not see Bush win? Vote yes to Gore and Nader and no to everyone else. Hate the major parties? Vote no to Bush AND Gore, and yes to everyone else. Fed up with the whole process? Vote no to everyone. This last option actually has influence under approval voting-- imagine how it would look if the winning candidate was approved by less than 30 percent of the voters. A side benefit is that it encourages candidates to not engage in negative campaigning, since it's easier to increase their own approval than decrease everyone else's.
The best part is that implementing this doesn't require changing the Constitution, or anything so drastic. Local voting laws are all that need to be changed. Personally I believe that all we'd need is one state to implement state-wide approval voting, and the natural publicity from that would take it from there.
---
Re:It's nice... (Score:3)
Re:You've got to vote (Score:3)
I must respectfully disagree. I believe that the most important thing you can do, in a case like this, is to educate the candidates.
As leyreno points out, politicians like to know who's voting, and what they care about. As the case presently stands, most of them know little about these issues, and have no idea that some of their constituents care strongly about them.
Think about it... do you have an anti-DMCA candidate running in your district? Probably not... so simply voting won't likely do any good. Besides, if all you do is vote, the candidates don't know who you voted for or why. But if you write a few letters, or explain the issue on the phone to a staffer, the issue begins to pop up on the fellow's radar.
Some politicians, if they come to understand the issues at stake, will tend to agree on their own accord. All of them take notice when a significant number of people tell them about the issue that will decide their vote. It's different dealing with an incumbent than with a challenger, but the basic tactic is the same: bartering your promised votes for their promised votes.
For the highly motivated, there are local party platform committees. Not to mention simply running for office yourself... state legislature seats are often uncontested. Yeah, I know, not the most pleasant prospect, but somebody's got to do it.
Re:Who Are These Individuals? (Score:3)
Remember all those highly moderated posts on the numerous DCMA articles on slashdot exhorting us to write congress, etc.
These are the people who actually wrote and called instead of karma whoring on slashdot and preaching to the choir.
Is that it? (Score:4)
It's time for the anti-IP community to put its money where its mouth is. Contact your Congressmen, write some editorial letters, stage a demonstration, e-mail the Library of Congress -- just do something. We can't win this fight by sitting back and bragging about how much smarter we are. Is there any sort of organization devoted to opposing IP? An organized resistance with some key spokespeople -- RMS, or Linus himself, or Shawn Fanning, or some other household name -- would do wonders for our cause. Right now, we're suffering from a PR problem: Big business has successfully spun this into an issue of thievery. We need to put the issue back in favorable terms; convince people that this isn't about stealing, but freedom and the right to fair use. And what about a catchy slogan?
Remember, all that is necessary to evil to triumph is the absence of good. Let's put aside our elitism and bring back the forces of good. Stop talking about what you could do and do something.
What I thought was interesting in the replies.. (Score:3)
Since the replies they are attempting to throw out are lucid and well thought out, I'd wager they feel threatened by the logic. This is reminescent of the "if I can't see them they can't see me" mindset.
The DMCA and UCITA are starting to remind me of the Salem Witch Trials. "IF THEY'RE NOT PROVEN INNOCENT, THEY'RE GUILTY!" When did the golden law only become used in a criminal court, and when you're not guilty there you get sued in a civil court because the requirements for "liable" are less than "guilty"?
Yes, I am an Elite Hacker (sorry, 3l33t 4ax0r or whatever). I rip MP3s to my HD for distribution to the world. No, really, I do. With my 128kb upload rate, I welcome the world to my 20GB of MP3s! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT MY STEREO IS IN THE OTHER ROOM AND THE SPEAKERS ON MY COMPUTER ARE BETTER THAN MY STEREO (sad, but true).
My wanting to play DVDs has *nothing* to do with an unsupported box. Do I have access to Windows? Yes, but that doesn't mean I want to slap a DVD drive in that box!
BTW, I didn't submit to the LOC (as stated below or above depending on how you thread) but I can say I've written my congressman. That doesn't require legal ability; it only requires me to express my opinion in a lucid manner. Whether the information I "think" I know on the DMCA is FUD or not, the perceived can be as powerful as the reality.
-- Talonius
Re:You've got to vote (Score:4)
This is a common argument, but it always fails in the same way:
In most elections, when you look at most any issue, both of the candidates (eg., the ones with a possibility of winning that is not exactly zero) will act the same on that issue. You might say, "Well, they'll vote the same, but candidate B is less of a scumbag" but that's still dodging the issue.In a representative democracy, you're supposed to vote for the person to represent you. If neither candidate represents you, then there's little point in voting. You can basically:
- Pick one at random
- Pick an irrelevant candidate (any third party, write in, whatever)
- Not vote
The first is essentially being dishonest, while the second means that your vote is basically useless: You voted, but you will not under any circumstances be represented. The only advantage to this over not voting is really just to artificially enhance the voter turnout numbers, to no particular advantage to your position.Perhaps some will hope that the winning candidate will give the poll results a quick glance and say, "Oh! 2% of the people voted for the Wurlitzer Party! I must pay attention to their needs." But of course, this is ridiculous. 40% voted for the Other candidate, so under that logic their needs would be nearly the most important. In reality, the winner always takes winning as a vindication for their own ideas: they won, so they must be right.
There are ways to influence politicians, but just arbitrarily increasing the voter count won't do it. It's not like anyone monitors the number of Voters Who Require Sensible Copyright Laws, nor would anyone care if such figures existed. Most people are happy as long as they don't get arrested, aren't starving, and don't think they're less well off than the next guy. Abstract things like rights? Pah. And Civil Liberties? Damn those new-age punks, always trying to take their indecent liberties and such!
Re:You've got to vote (Score:4)
1.Pick one at random
2.Pick an irrelevant candidate (any third party, write in, whatever)
3.Not vote
You always have the option to spoil your ballot, or to go into the booth, don't pick anyone, leave the booth. This is recorded as not voting for anyone -- a fairly clear mandate if enough of us were to do so.
They'll know that you care enough to vote and that you reject the system. That's about all you can hope for.
--G
Re:You've got to vote (Score:3)
I suppose that if you're force-fed lies all your life, you'll come to believe Lies are Good Food.
I've noticed since I was a child that the media, particularly in the US, spends a great deal of time discouraging votors from voting for third party candidates. As such, most Americans seem to have come to the conclusion that third party candidates are a wasted vote and nothing will change that.
I've never been sure what underlies this sort of misinformation. Is it that the media has a vested interest in keeping the same sorts of parties in power and thus have little potential change to the playing field they have mastered? Is it that they don't wish to offend powerful corporate interests that may well be harmed by the policies of third party candidates, should they be successful? Perhaps it could be the long-standing "US Number One" myth that holds that the US political system is superior to all others and thus has no need for change? I really don't know. It could be none of these, yet the myth persists.
Others have pointed out exceptions to this spurious rule (or rather, self-fulfilling prophecy, when spread witht he weight of the American Media Machine) such as Jesse Ventura. Let me add the entire Canadian system. At one point no one took the New Democratic Party seriously. Nobody thought the Bloc Quebeqois would evern amount to anything outside of Quebec. The Reform Party was just a regional party full of reactionary rednecks. Yet they have all prospered on the Federal stage. rightly or wrongly, whether I agree with their policies or not, their presence, and their use of votes which have definitely not been wasted, has stimulated debate on political issues in this country on an unprecedented level.
Personally, I believe the US political system has a great deal of potential, if only you can abandon your cherished myths against third party candidates and allow new voices into the mix.
Re:You've got to vote (Score:3)
If the choice is really so bad, write in "None of the Above'. There is a movement about to make this a valid choice for elections. If the 'None of the Above" wins, the election if forfeited and new candidates are selected. It is a novel idea, if nothing else, and it guarantees that the person in office is who the people really think that they want.
Re:Is that it? (Score:5)
Re:Is that it? (Score:3)