DMCA Study Reply Comments Posted 176
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."
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:You've got to vote (Score:1)
Yes, particularly things like "Don't support the giving of special legal rights to corporations" and "Don't throw wads of taxpayer cash at already-wealthy corporations" and so on.
Believe it or not, it often seems to me that government involvement in business is usually to the benefit of Big Business. For example, the DMCA seems most certainly to be a misuse of government power to support Big Business to me. If the government hadn't gotten involved with business by creating the DMCA, I'd have been much happier.
And, finally, and sadly, The US Government is in essence (and perhaps literally as well) one of the biggest corporations in the world! Do you REALLY believe that taking power away from the second, third, fourth (etc.) largest corporations...and then giving all of that power to the largest US corporation (the Federal Government) would be a good thing???? In my opinion, the US Government is already a gigantic bludgeon used to beat down "little people" (and smaller businesses). I am not the least bit comfortable with having it get any bigger.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Re:You've got to vote (Score:1)
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:
1. Pick one at random
2. Pick an irrelevant candidate (any third party, write in, whatever)
3. Not vote
Ummm ... hello? I have never found a canidate that I agree with on all issues, but I always vote.
Why? Because there are issues that I care about more than others. I can always find something that I agree with on one of the canidates. When the choices of canidates are really poor and I disagree with both of them, then I view my role in voting like I'm a doctor. The patient is sick, but I must do no harm ... so I vote for whichever canidate is the least bad.
In fact, its impossible to enforce a postive (a canidate who agrees with you on all issues), so you have a responsiblity to cancle out the negatives and cull the worst views from the pot..... But, that could just be me.
PS: I've decided I support Gore, because of his plan to pay down the National Debt rather than give back the projected surplus which may never show up to the rich.
---
Re:You've got to vote (Score:1)
I certainly hope not. Now if it helped Harry Browne [lp.org], that would be cool. All Nader wants to do is put even MORE power into governments greedy paws.
Call to Action? (Score:1)
From there, I wonder how long will it be before things begin to get physical? Pie attacks on Bill Gates are one thing, but how long until we begin hearing about the "Unabomber II" who "targets members of the Entertainment industry for contributing to the death of the Bill of Rights" or equivalent...??
Re:Maybe not citizens, .. (Score:1)
another thing (Score:1)
"1 MR. MARKS: Another reason why we need
2 regional coding, why we do regional coding is that
3 the law in various territories is different with
4 regard to censorship requirements. So we cannot
5 simply distribute the same work throughout the world
6 in the same version. Local laws impose censorship
7 regulations on us that require us to both exhibit
8 and distribute versions of the films that comply
9 with those censorship requirements."
if that were true wouldn't US players play all regions since there is no censorship requirements inside the US?
The DMCA replaces Title 17 with a plugin exit. (Score:2)
I used to think that way too, but I've changed my mind.
Look, we all understand the concept of a plugin in software. You want to watch a flash file, you have to download the plugin that allows you to do so. Then, when you open a flash file, the flash program goes and does exactly what the author of the flash program wants it to do.
The DMCA has taken the concept of a plugin into the legal arena. The DMCA is a law that allows a publisher to replace Title 17, the entire copyright code, with a computer language "plugin."
Don't like that Title 17 Section 102 says that copyright is only available for original works of authorship? No problem! So long as your "plugin" also controls access to copyrighted works, you can take works from the public domain, encode them, and your "plugin" will eliminate that pesky part of copyright law. Glassbook is right on top of that. You can download such public domain classics as The Art Of War, The Federalist Papers, and The Politics of Aristotle -- and these public domain classics are just as protected by Glassbook's "Title 17 plugin" as if they were written yesterday.
Don't like that Section 107 allows people to make partial or complete copies of your work for fair use purposes? No problem! Your plugin can fix that!
Don't like that Section 109 allows people to sell their used books without your authority? No problem! The Glassbook plugin lets you put a stop to that. Or perhaps you would just like to charge people whenever they resell their digital books. Hey, there's no limit to what you can do, if you can replace Title 17 with your own programmed plugin!
Here's an idea
Don't like that Section 109 allows the owner of a copy to display that work without permission of the copyright owner? No problem! The "CSS" plugin replacement for Title 17 allows DVD publishers to deny owners of DVDs the right to view their DVDs, unless they use "industry approved" equipment that pre-degrades the signal. And forget about extracting sections of digital video for fair use purposes
Or perhaps you'd like to replace Section 109 with a different flavor. Want people to pay every time they press the play button to watch their own DVD? How about a book that charges you by the page to read it
Anything becomes possible when you allow copyright owners to provide a "plugin" replacement for the entire copyright code, that does what they want it to do instead of what the copyright code says. Never mind that the copyright code, developed over 225 years, contains a system of checks and balances that protect both the rights of copyright owners and the rights of owners of lawful copies. That can all be cast away, and the DMCA is the law that gives copyright owners that power. The power to disregard the copyright code and impose whatever "copyright law" they can dream up. And if you circumvent someone's invented "copyright law plugin", you're risking five years in jail and a $500,000 fine.
That's what's wrong with the DMCA. It absolutely eliminates all the safeguards in copyright law that protect your right to learn; to self-educate; to have your own library; to trade in used books; to archive literary materials. Under the DMCA, you have no rights
... unless those rights happen to be part of the "plugin" you are using.
So what to do about it?
You can directly attack the access control schemes, but that doesn't fix the problem. Broken access control schemes will quickly be replaced with better ones. This is a recipe for a never-ending, destructive arms race.
And honestly, we shouldn't have to get our hands dirty with this nonsense.
Think of things this way.
The law is the machine language of justice.
If there's anything that hackers understand, it's that when you find a broken system, and you know how to fix it, you do so. In order to fix the broken legal system, computer programmers are going to have to put down their C compilers, and get involved in learning the machine language that controls the broken legal system, and work to replace the defective subroutines with ones that perform their correct function.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that this is someone else's problem. Before the DMCA, we had laws that protected our right to learn. Not anymore. Now copyright law means whatever the publisher of a work says it means. A plugin exit has been placed in the wrong spot. The only way to remove this dangerous program misfeature is to work to have the DMCA either repealed, or struck down as unconstitutional.
Who exactly voted for the DMCA? (Score:1)
Is there any written record of who was present that day the law was voted into effect? Did anyone tape C-Span that morning?
Personally, I would hold them all responsible until each individual sentor/congress-person could prove their dissent (innocent until proven guilty need not apply). I also think its (faintly) amusing that the issues of "copyright" and "fair use" aren't making their way to public discussion, what with the election year and all. But then again, why should the television stations give any dissenting opinion (given that they are owned by the same "Big Media" who pushed for the DMCA)?
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
Re:You've got to vote (Score:2)
Then all Congresscritters are for it, by definition, unless they weren't on the job that day. Write them and tell them that you're using that definition to deny them their attempt to escape their responsibility.
/.
The rest of the world can help with DMCA... (Score:1)
...not to mention any other Bad Laws(tm) that might be in danger of being "pushed" on the rest of the world by US Government, inc.
This kind of thing DOES affect the rest of the world, although indirectly at first. I sincerely, and with some embarassment at our government here in the US, hope the rest of the world can help us.
Get involved with your respective governments, and make sure THEY understand what's going on. Make sure they don't implement similar laws. Further, encourage them to put pressure on US Government, inc., to stop restricting YOUR rights to legally purchase and use goods (such as DVD's) from the US. For example, New Zealand, I hear, has outlawed the "region encoding" of DVD's. Can we get more countries to do the same? If enough countries ignore region encoding, the reason for having it becomes moot.
I'm thoroughly saddened and disgusted to even feel compelled to post a message like this, but as too much of the US apparently doesn't care about it's rights, my only hope seems to be that the rest of the world cares about THEIR rights...
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Mine's not there either! (Score:2)
Re:Then obviously, you're breaking the law. (Score:1)
Unfortunately, I hear that they don't want us. Can't say that I blame them...they probably don't want a huge influx of apathy moving north to ruin THEIR government, too...
(Not intended as flamebait...just a lament on the apparent state of the 'sheeple' of the US [as opposed to those of us in the US who actually DO care...])
Wonder what it would take to get rid of the Electoral College?
Joe Sixpack is dead!
My reply comment isn't there either! (Score:2)
Is this the same set of comments that were requested months ago?
What about anti skip memory in cd players.... (Score:1)
Vermifax
Re:Is that it? (Score:2)
"How can you steal what you already own?"
Okay, it's not a slogan, but rather a concice arguments...
Sorry, I'm sleep deprived and my mouth is too minty from Penguin Mints.
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?
Re:Quoth Time Warner (Score:1)
I don't see why you even have to make the argument about bands. This is obvious bullshit posturing. Like, Time Warner *really* expects anybody to believe that they will not sell content if this law does not go my way? What kind of irrational business decision would that be? They would get sued by their stockholders if they tried anything of the sort.
And anyway, if their claim were true, well, I guess a world with one less power hungry USian media megacorporation trying to get into the net is only a good thing.
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:Is that it? (Score:2)
Re:Is that it? (Score:2)
No, because I'm Canadian and the DMCA doesn't apply to me.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Sigh (Score:1)
Never mind whether you're allowed to or not, I say, "Please do so!". If you (or anyone else outside USA inc.) are so inclined, there's no reason I can think of not to also send comments to various Executives and Managers (e.g. Senators, State Governors, the US CEO/President, etc.) voicing legitimate concerns of US influence on your own governments and the international implications of these laws. I suspect a disturbing number of the US Governments executives just don't realize how much of an international issue this sort of thing really is.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Re:Debates and /. (Score:1)
Re:You've got to vote (Score:1)
Personally, I like "TweedleRep and TweedleDem". :-)
Joe Sixpack is dead!
It's still (partly) their fault (Score:1)
However, those that were opposed (if there were any) could have spoken up and pointed fingers at the majority members that requested a "voice (i.e. secret) vote" and voted in favor of the DCMA
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.
Re:Maybe not citizens, .. (Score:1)
Um... no. The republican system is not intended to (and would not be effective for) preserving minority representation. (Our particular implementation of that system give the rich more power than anyone else, but that's not the point of the whole thing.) To help preserves the rights of the minority, we have the constitution, which effectively sets the ground rules. (That's why it takes more than a majority vote to amend it.) This is why we need the court system.
Re:Who Are These Individuals? (OpenLaw) (Score:1)
Anyone was able to submit comments and reply comments - only a few did, but those few pointed out some important points.
Re:Maybe not citizens, .. (Score:1)
Whether or not that will counter-balance the huge donations being made by the RIAA and MPAA is a matter of opinion.
It's nice... (Score:4)
Who Are These Individuals? (Score:2)
Becktel describes himself as "Primary (Senior) Oracle, Lyricist and Artist." Brian Taylor describes himself as "a private individual." Paul Fenimore's comments just come out as a series of Braille-like dots on xpdf. Arnold Reinhold describes himself, simply, as a resident of Cambridge.
What exactly are we looking at here?
-Waldo
-------------------
Re:Who Are These Individuals? (Score:2)
Re:Maybe not citizens, .. (Score:2)
Rami
--
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
Actually though, I don't think he is quite that extreme. That seems to just be his starting position, to contend with the MPAA/RIAA's position of "We control all data. We control all movies/music. All data is licenced. Copies belong to us". He has a lot of arguments that seem to support reducing IP protection while still rewarding the creaator.
Re:Symptom of the vacuity of the USian spirit. (Score:2)
As for examples that the United States are more interested in control than in cooperative management, here are two broad examples:
the Gulf War, and
the Kosovo situation
That's specific enough for you? Yes? Then please bend over and shove that condescending attitude up your ass. Thank you.
Re:An interesting comment... (Score:2)
There's a lot in the legislative history (not all in the LOC comment, unfortunately) to suggest that Congress intended an "authorized person" approach to the access control provisions, and not the "authorized device" interpretation pushed by the MPAA and its avatars (DVDCCA, MPA, etc.).
rst
Libertarianism hurts big business (Score:2)
Yes, it would give them more freedom to screw us over, but it would take away a huge amount of their power to screw us over. Have you forgotten the context of this discussion? DMCA!
Imagine a world where corporations can no longer buy legislation. The laws that they want to buy, would be deemed as "off topic" -- outside the scope of what is legislatable.
---
Re:You've got to vote (Score:2)
No, but they do monitor the number of people by demographics - age, income, type of job, gender. How many Americans reading Slashdot are male, making well above the poverty line, working in IT, and 18-30? I thought so.
I don't think we can make Gore or Bush make a big deal of it this election, but we can establish ourselves as the demographic to suck up to for the next one.
Re:You've got to vote (Score:2)
If you set a precedent that third parties can get votes, then you increase the viability of a hypothetical party that represents your values. Break the republicrat cartel, and some day you might get to vote for a candidate that you like. If you don't break the republicrat cartel, then there is no hope for you at all (unless you happen to be a republicrat).
---
Re:You've got to vote (Score:2)
And in the current political environment he would is right.
Personally I have yet to see any candidate that represents my views. Most of the time each candidate "claims" to represent one or two things I believe in and a whole bunch that I don't. Whom do you vote for in that kind of circumstance? The least bad one?
Ex-Nt-User
Re:You've got to vote (Score:2)
I would love to see how most of these regulations would turn out if the constituents were to vote for the issues, and depending on the majority there, the congressperson would be required to do the same. I bet things like the DCMA and UTICA would fall flat, though others like the CDA would pass with a large majority. There is some advantage of the democratic/representative gov't, but corruption easily destroys it.
Re:You've got to vote (Score:2)
Actually, if you've ever studied macro economics, you would learn that taxing the things that are harmful to others (aka pollution) is a basic role of government if capitolisim is supposed to work. Basically the explination is that in a market, for every good you reseave from a supplier you obviously pay said supplier, but for there to be proper balance the supplier should pay you for every bad it forces down your throat without asking, aka pollution. As there is no way for the individuals to collect from the suppliers for many of these things. The government has a role to act as a middle man, and collect such fee's for the people.
Re:Maybe not citizens, .. (Score:2)
That's something that you should ask yourself the next time you read or hear something that congress or the senate does.
(Yes, I realise that not everyone has a degree in law, and therefore cannot know the intricacies of any given issue, but therein lies the problem. Law is too complicated and too obfuscated. It should be within the reach of the common man, after all, it is he/she that the burden of the law falls on. Also, everyone has an opinion, why not allow people to exercise theirs instaed of giving greedy politicians the continued opportunity to sell their votes.)
Rami
--
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:2)
None of the above
Reminicent of "Brewster's Millions" if anyone is an 80's fan.
-Michael
Logic and 117(b) (Score:2)
This is their entire argument for throwing out 117(b), the portion of the law which permits you to make a backup, archival copy of your software. They are saying that since pirates are trying to hide behind it, well, throw it out.
Is it me or is that like saying we should get rid of the fifth amendment because of all the people who claim the rights afforded to them by that amendment but are then convicted anyway? There's no logic there. They aren't challenging the meat of 117(b), they're just saying that since pirates CLAIM it as protection even though it isn't, get rid of it anyway.
The IDSA goes one step further and claims that since computers are more reliable now (bwahahaha), we don't really need the ability to make an archival copy. More reliable? Hellooooooo?
Public Education (Score:2)
---
$100 = EFF (Score:2)
Re:You've got to vote (Score:2)
Voting for a 3rd party candidate is often like saying "none of the above" to the major party candidates, but that sends a message too. Big brother isn't keeping track of who you vote for, but the fact that some anonymous person voted for party X is noted.
What you're saying goes right back to the idea that our votes are wasted. You've been sold on a lie ok? Your vote is only wasted if you don't use it.
Politicians DO monitor the views of the people. They conduct poll, they do studies, etc. etc. Then they figure out which types are most likely to vote and those are the people whose views get represented in government. The groups less likely to vote are just plain screwed. Increased voter turnout WOULD change the function of government because politicians owe us for their jobs. You are right that the average person is oblivious to politics, but isn't the the exact thing I said was the problem? People don't care because they've been taught that it is futile to care. So rather than worry about things they feel powerless to change, they simply look the other way or bury their head in the sand. But the secret is, they can change things.
Lee Reynolds
Re:You've got to vote (Score:2)
I have always, and always will vote libertarian. Just because there's a very high chance that the candidate you vote for won't win doesn't mean you should just pick one of the other ones. Your vote still counts. You're taking 1 vote away from the other candidates with the views you hate and giving it to a party that needs it. A high percentage of the population will vote democrat or republican just because they know one of those candidates will win, even though they don't agree with their views. Please don't use that rationale for voting, if you have to do this, you might as well not vote at all.
Re:You've got to vote (Score:2)
Lee Reynolds
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.
--
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Owning a CD means you own one copy of the music, and the U.S. record industry believes you should be able to make whatever personal use you choose. For example, you may make a compilation recording (on tape or on a CD) to use in the car or while exercising.
I guess this contradiction between the RIAA's own page and the comment they submitted to the Library of Congress should be interpreted to say, "Yeah, go ahead and rip those CDs - we're not worried, 'cause when the DMCA comes into effect we're gonna make sure that you can't do it anymore".
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
--
Where are our heavyweights? (Score:2)
Ken
An interesting comment... (Score:2)
I think another point (and it is hard to read this legalese!) they make is that the copyright law and in particular the DMCA was not supposed to give copyright holders a stranglehold on access to copyrighted works so long as the "authorized user" had a legitimately acquired DVD disc. In other words, I don't think the MPAA can control the access to DVD. This makes it seem like their practice of giving a license to companies to make "authorized players" is illegal because they should be able to make players for legimate copies of DVD without a license.
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
Choice nugget (Score:2)
The whole issue is nicely and succinctly summed up in one choice nugget from Michael A. Rolenz's commentary (emphasis added by me): "The use of access controls of digital media has the ability [to] create a perpetual monopoly on copyright[ed] material. This is counter to the basis of copyright law."
(I couldn't help but notice the irony of Adobe Acrobat preventing me from copying and pasting that phrase. I had to type it in manually.)
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:Approval voting is what we need (Score:2)
I think that for the house and senate we could go with a proportional system where the number of seats a party gets is proportional to the number of votes they recieve. So, for example, if there are 10 seats, a given party gets a seat for every each 10% of the vote they capture. That system is used in some other countires because it allows for more than two viable parties. It allows for more diversity that the "winner take all" system we currently have. Perhaps we could even increase the total number of seats to make this system even more viable.
The districting and delagate situation is also a total mess. That system seems to be explicity designed to protect a 2 party system.
.
Re:Maybe not citizens, .. (Score:2)
I don't know how to break this to ya, bub, but we don't exactly live in an impartial world as it stands right now. Instead of having a tyranny of the majority (where the majority are at least free thinking, more or less, and the minority are a bunch of wacko extremists), we have a tyranny of the rich. If you have a lot of money, and you want to use it to buy the politicians, you can. If you have no money, then you can vote, but your vote doesn't really count anymore because the people and issues you are voting on are either on the take (money, power, whatever you want to call it) or the issue you are voting on can be overturned by those with money to spend on keeping thier interests intact (read: keeping money and power in their pockets).
.
I just wanted to let you know that coke came out of my nose when I read that.
BTW: By presuming to think me juvenile (and hence calling me schoolyard names) you only make yourself look stupid and weaken your already weak arguments further. You are right, you do not express an elitist attitude, an elitist attitude has more polish and punch than anything you could muster.
Call us back when you've logged in and stopped trolling.
Rami
--
Re:You've got to vote (You've got to participate!) (Score:2)
I have to work full-time and go to school just to try to make sure I will be able to survive in the future. I don't have the time or money to run for office. I'm not even old enough to run for most serious offices. Unless you have the kind of money that allows you to devote your full attention to running a campaign, you don't have much of a chance of getting elected.
Re:Maybe not citizens, .. (Score:2)
Perhaps $5-10M is in excess, but I'm sure that in the past politicians have recieved huge ($100K+) donations by 'interested parties'.
Rami
--
Excellent letter... (Score:2)
Lamar Smith is my representative as well. I think I will follow your lead on this and write my own letter. I don't expect him to act on it, which is why I will not vote for him in the future, and I will write another letter to tell him that.
Re:Who Are These Individuals? (Score:2)
Ummm. How sad. The RFC was open to the general public. You seem to think that this doesn't include you, and that "lots of people" [besides yourself, obviously] will handle it.
I thought Paul's comments were very cogent. Paul has participated since day 1 at Openlaw. Your submission, on the other hand, was vapor (actually not even that), so I don't think you have earned the right to criticize.
Oh, and you spelled my name wrong. I do describe my self as "a private individual", because that's what I am. I was "chosen" by a self-selection process similar to the way most contributors are chosen in open processes: I got off my ass and did something.
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:You've got to vote (You've got to participate!) (Score:2)
Obviously survival comes first. Hopefully at some point you will be more secure in life, and better able to consider making a civic contribution. If you view running as a sacrifice, that's good: that's the sort of attitude public servants should have.
I don't have the time or money to run for office. I'm not even old enough to run for most serious offices.
One of my friends ran for the Montana State House at 17, and almost made it. He had all the wealth of your typical art student backing him.
Unless you have the kind of money that allows you to devote your full attention to running a campaign, you don't have much of a chance of getting elected.
Depends on where you are, I suppose. I know lots of State Rep races are uncontested here in Iowa, and the sole candidate is often a member of one of the local parties who got more or less drafted.
And these are the people who vote on things like UCITA.
YRO: What would Scot McNeely say? (Score:2)
(and the misspelling was intentional)
You have the right to purchase (rent) what we deem you should purchase at the price that we see fit.
You have the right to view/play/listen to that in the (destructible) formats that we sanction with playters that we sanction (extracted large participatory licensing fees from manufacturures) with no chance at archival or transformation of format.
PULL!
Fire away.
see you down in Arizona Bay.
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.
Re:Is that it? (Score:2)
- 235 Comments [loc.gov]
- 129 Reply Comments [loc.gov]
- 28 Post-Hearing Comments [loc.gov]
- 16 Post-Hearing Reply Comments [loc.gov]
Since most of the opponents made their strongest points in the first or second round of comments, there's fewer and fewer submitted in each following round.--
Re:Is that it? (Score:2)
I never expect them to my voice in drawing up their stats, but I'm sure it must have some influence. After all, if someone half the world away has noticed that you're doing something stupid, you've got to start wondering if everyone has noticed...
--
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.
Re:Preferential Voting, Compulsorary Voting (Score:2)
All subsequent elections should be treated as if they had their actual level of chosen turnout -- namely, zero -- to determine the credibility level of parliament's mandate.
/.
Re:You've got to vote (Score:2)
In reality, big business hates the idea of cutting back government to what libertarians consider its proper level, because they'd lose the ability to buy special favors from politicians (with the government's powers cut back, the politicians simply wouldn't have very many favors to sell).
/.
Sigh (Score:2)
- Time Warner on current DVD encryption methods: "In no way does this disadvantage consumers or any other public interest"
- Regarding licenses to make DVD players: "there is no restriction on the availability of licenses to manufacture them"
I stopped reading there, I really can't be bothered wasting my time reading corporate crap and getting annoyed, Time Warner etc are lying, and they know they are lying, that irritates me.Normally I would say 'Thank God I don't live in America', however I suspect they'll be shoving the DMCA down the throats of the rest of the world RSN.
<Sigh>
(Are non-US citizens allowed to submit comments to the US copyright office re DMCA, based on the probability that the DMCA will be used to screw up copyright laws for overseas countries? : ))
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!
Store it, but DON'T ACCESS IT! (Score:2)
So if you have a legal copy on your hard drive, the action of putting it into RAM, in order to run it, or otherwise access it, falls under copyright law.
It seems that there is a fundamental disconnect somewhere here...
___
Debates (Score:2)
Does anyone know how to contact whatever committee it is that runs them? Perhaps it'd be possible to suggest some questions dealing with the DMCA or even just more generic internet/copyright ideas.
It'd be nice to get some PRIME TIME answers from the presidential candidates. It'd also raise public awareness outside of the this arena.
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:Who Are These Individuals? (Score:2)
Yeah, but how many varieties of "PHIR5T P05T" and "DmCa sux H0t Gr|tZ" did they really need?
Quoth Time Warner (Score:2)
Hmm... So if the protection of first sale is not preserved artists will no longer place mp3 or other digital content upon the internet? I would disagree, a great deal of unsigned bands out there already disperse content to allow for free viewing and continual dissemination which helps provide support and revenue by increased concert attendance.
not everyone wants to rape the consumer
Re:Preferential Voting, Compulsorary Voting (Score:2)
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, how many legs does a cow have if I claim that a tail is a leg? (Answer: four)
/.
Re:You've got to vote (Score:2)
The DMCA is the U.S. implementation of the WIPO treaty. "IP" stands for "intellectual property" and, as far as these trade treaties is concerned, is now just some infotainment that the U.S. makes a lot of money exporting. "W" stands for "World."
Few nations have signed the treaty. Many poor nations believe it discriminates against them. You have the right to see how the law is being applied in the U.S. and speak to your own political representatives if you wish the same or different to be carried out where you live.
But only the U.S. citizens can claim that the DMCA violates the Constitution. And, in spite of all the chat here about voting, all our political representatives have to swear to uphold the U.S. Consitution. So voting for or against them won't force them to obey it. We have to take it to the courts instead.
Re:Who Are These Individuals? (Score:2)
I could've sworn that I submitted comments. I'm generally just about obnoxious enough to stick my nose into every discussion that it'll fit into. I figured that they just weren't good enough to be included. Clearly, I did not actually submit a damned thing.
Your submission, on the other hand, was vapor (actually not even that), so I don't think you have earned the right to criticize.
Maybe we're reading different posts? I didn't criticise anything or anybody. I wanted some perspective on how the selection process worked. Turns out that there is none. Thanks to all that explained this.
-Waldo
-------------------
Re:You've got to vote (Score:2)
The other problem , as it is apparent this election, is that issues that have higher social impact, such as health care, is overshadowing the smaller issues - as it is , while 10 years from now the DMCA and like could be VERY important to all citizens, it's really only important to a small fraction (those in the entertainment/software industry and the /.-type crowd), and while you might be able to privately get a word from your rep on the issues, it's unlikely to be a platform stance that will be made apparent in public forums.
The better thing to do is to educate the masses, rather than the reps -- send letters to the editors to local papers and (calmly) explain the problems with the DCMA -- and the fact that our elected officials passed this anonymously, fear of consumers in their districts showing their dislike of this law by voting against them. Make sure that you explain the future implications of all these laws and how they are anti-consumer. Maybe that will help Nader get some more presidental votes...
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:My reply comment isn't there either! (Score:2)
- One concerning the "rule-making" for granting exceptions to 1201(a)(1)
- One for a "study" on the DMCA and section 109 (First Sale) and 117 (Computer Programs).
Each lasted two rounds: comments and reply comments.
Actually, there was another one on encryption research, but it went forward in July of 1999. The Copyright Office concluded it was too early to make any conclusions.
When nobody fits.... (Score:2)
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
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.
DMCA Votes (Score:2)
Pretty scary huh? I believe this was also voted on upon at an off-hours time but that may be FUD. The important thing to realize here is that OUR representatives must have KNOWN that this was controversial legislation and wanted to make sure that no one knew how each of them voted upon it!
Frankly, that scares the crap out of me. These bastards KNEW that when people began to figure out the ramifications of this that they'd be pissed and wanted to dodge those angry voters - and they did it didn't they?
The public voted down DIVX with their wallets, yes? Guess what - it's coming back only this time we won't have a choice. We'll no longer be able to BUY a piece of media and have rights to what's on that media. Instead we'll be leasing or renting the material on it! Just wait for DVD Audio - I'm quite sure it'll protected and that breaking it will cause all sorts of havoc. Let's just hope that MP3 players that provide large amounts of music per CD get a strong toehold before DVD Audio manages to make it's way to the market place. The only advantage I see to DVD audio right now is play time - lot' of music. If we can get some sort of compressed music player out there first perhaps the DVD Audio won't have as much allure.
Trouble is it's companies like AIWA and Kenwood that are making these players. $600 for the Kenwood and $300 for the AIWA - IF you can find them. Won't surprise m at all if the likes of Sony\Aiwa sabotages getting the MP3 players to market (shiver).
Re:Store it, but DON'T ACCESS IT! (Score:2)
This is actually true. For computer programs, it is explicitly allowed as non-infringment under section 117. For other things, it's almost certainly fair use following Betamax and Diamond Multimedia.
In fact, this is an important point to make when considering shrinkwrap/clickwrap licences. You don't actually get anything you didn't have by virtue of buying the software, so if the "contract" asks you to waive things like the right to reverse engineer, then there is no "consideration" (contracts require each side to give up something), and hence there is no contract.
Re:International readers? (Score:2)
Answer: TALK TO YOUR MP (as long as you don't live in She-Lied Copps' riding)
Talk to the Alliance members in your riding (whether they have seats or not) - most of them are not career politicians (or haven't been for long enough that you can still get through to them)
Re:Is that it? (Score:5)
Re:Is that it? (Score:3)
Buy or rental? (Score:2)
Of course "Big Business" loves this idea. It only takes a little while, even at 'cheap' rates to equal and/or exceed the list cost of any given software application (of course, you all already realize this, being Slashdot fanatics).
So what to do? Convince all of your friends to go with Open Source apps or freeware. If Microsoft wants to go to a rental format for software, let them. I'll convert every single person I know to Unix that much easier with that kind of thing going on.
My question is, how do the software companies think they can get away with this? Sure, rental methods exist for a lot of things (cars, for example), but how can they honestly think that it will work with software? I'm sorry, but no one in their right mind is going to "rent" a lot of the apps that exist. (I ignore certain games like Evercrack as a useful nuisance that keeps more Anonymous Cowards off of Slashdot.)
Is Open Source and freeware not that much of a threat yet? Beats me for sure, but in the paraphrased words of Yoda, "It will be..."
Kierthos