Slashdot Log In
USCO Reviewing DMCA Anti-Circumvention Clause
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri Oct 28, 2005 06:49 AM
from the open-to-change dept.
from the open-to-change dept.
ahknight writes "The United States Copyright office begins its required review of the effects of the anti-circumvention portions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act on November 2nd. This review period lasts until December 1, 2005. They will be accepting your well-thought-out opinions on the web and by mail. If you're reasonably ticked that you can't legally get around encrypted files to get at the media you've bought, start writing a coherent stance for the USCO today."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Coherent? (Score:5, Funny)
DMCA is teh suxx0rszss!!!11!one!11
Re:Coherent? (Score:4, Interesting)
So the government counted all the emails as one response, and concluded that the public were in favour of ID cards.
They did eventually backtrack on this (but are introducing ID cards anyway). However, my point is that the USCO may ignore emailed responses if they receive a large number that are generic or spam. Don't take the piss.
Parent
A better idea ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A better idea ... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Send them a song! (Score:5, Funny)
Joan Baez would be proud.
Parent
Not a good idea to post that on /. (Score:4, Funny)
Chance for change... (Score:4, Insightful)
...not likely. There is no way on Earth they will give up this power to control the market. In fact, there is no way anyone will ever give up any power unless a) it is taken from them (usually by force) or b) they can replace it with another power that is equal or stronger. The best that we can hope for is that the law will for the most part go uninforced because it is basically unworkable or unjust.
Re:Chance for change... (Score:4, Insightful)
As evidenced by by Indian independence movement from British Colonial rule.
Parent
A chance for a change. (Score:3, Insightful)
It should also be noted here that the people making the descision are not the ones who benefit from the injustice in question - another reason to make the effort and write.
Re:A chance for a change. (Score:4, Insightful)
(In lots of places, the fall of Communism was similar.)
I don't mean to imply that the DMCA is comparable to communism and apartheid, but the music industry is in a situation where its power is likely to decrease over the next five or ten years rather than increase, and it might be in its own interests to manage that shift now, while it still has a fair amount of power, rather than waiting to see what gets imposed on it by a populist backlash some years down the road.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
Parent
Re:Chance for change... (Score:5, Insightful)
People who think marches and protests are how nonviolence worked in India are just confused. They were simply the method to publicize the actions that made it work, and to demonstrate that the laws in question were essentially unenforcable, when violated in large groups.
People suffering from that same confusion are having war protests and anti-globalization protests here in the U.S. that are completely ineffective, because all they do is march up and down and say "we don't like this".
Parent
Re:Chance for change... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best that you can hope for isn't that the law will go uninforced, but that it will be enforced upon someone with the willingness to litigate it. Courts decide whether a law violates your rights, and that's what you need in this case, a suit argued well by a competent attorney in the field. It needs to go to a jury and won there. You might argue that a judge or jury doesn't understand the injustice in the law, but that's why you need a good attorney to craft the argument.
As much as you people hate trial lawyers around here (I can't say I like the ambulance chasing types either).
Parent
Re:Chance for change... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, shit. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a lot of places where the Supreme Court has a murky-at-best mandate to be poking around at. But "for a limited time" sounds pretty unambiguous, as does "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Copyright as currently structured does neither---and extending the copyrights on already created works certainly does neither. I coulda gone for a bit of judicial activism there.
Re:Chance for change... (Score:5, Interesting)
A good reference is the American Jury Institute and Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA) [fija.org]
Some states get it right:
In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact (Maryland)
In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. (Indiana)
In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law (Oregon)
the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts (Georgia)
Chances of the federal government willingly accepting the concept that the lowly pee-ons of the citizenry are smart enough to spot a bad law when they see it? None to rolling of the floor laughing. And even in states where the juries have the right to judge the law the juries are often kept in the dark regarding the true nature of their position.
Other related takes can be found here [backwoodshome.com] and here [erowid.org].
Parent
hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
bottom line is, if i buy a DVD, i should be able to make backup copies for myself. if the media companies are going to sell a license for their media, the disc shouldn't matter, i should be entitled to that license regardless. on DVD movies, the license is for home exibition in one household, and i am following that license agreement whether i have one or 50 copies, as long as i use only one copy at a time in one household.
CSS is not copy protection (Score:4, Insightful)
I though the anti-circumvention clause was intended to stop people from getting free cable TV. Instead it prevents people from accessing stuff they actually paid for.
Parent
Licensing? You got hosed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Visiting a local video store there was a large poster and floor display advertising the new release of Disney's "Cinderella." The ad said: "Own it today". The key word in the ad was "own", not "license." This display (large cardboard thing that looked like a castle) came from Disney itself and was full of DVDs.
I bought one for the kid to watch and now I am the proud owner of a copy. Yeah, the disc says something about "licensed for in-home entertainment only" when played, but that was in the shrink-wrap and conflicts with the contract I agreed to when buying it. So Disney will just have to suck it up.
Perhaps one should collect these ads to present to a court if there are any DMCA issues. If I have an ad from a copyright holder (like Disney) that literally says I own the property I purchased (disc, case inserts and data on it) instead of licensing it then I am the owner of the copyrighted work that is affixed to the disc and can do with it as I (or anyone else who buys a disc) pleases. Perhaps this is Disney's way of releasing their classic films into the public domain?
Parent
Re:Licensing? You got hosed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it that slashbots are so uninformed about copyright law, and what it actually means and does? Either that, or you're being deliberately obtuse and playing on words.
Copyright law itself differentiates between an idea (a truly nebulous concept that literally exists only as a construct of the mind), a copyrighted work (defined as the semi-nebulous set and ordering of words, notes, digital bytes, or what have you that are the particular expression of an idea), and a copy (defined as the physical object upon which the set and ordering of words, notes, etc. are actually set down/recorded upon). Once you understand these three things, you'll better understand copyright law.
When you download a Linux distro off the web, to copyright law, the "copy" you downloaded is literally that little physical slice of your hard drive upon which the bytes are stored.
Copyright law is... drum roll... basically about the right to make copies - those physical copies. Because the nature of some works (like movies and recorded music, not so much books or written music) is that they are only "understandable" when actually performed (usually with the aid of a mechanical device), it is also about the right to control *public* performance of said work.
The problem is we use "copy" as a noun and a verb in the English language, and rarely differentiate between "first generation copy, the creation of which was authorized by the copyright holder" and "second generation copies, the creation of which was NOT authorized by the copyright holder."
Simply put, copyright law states that the copyright holder has the (mostly) exclusive right to authorize the creation of new copies. This right is separate and distinct from the physical copy itself. When he sells, trades, throws away, or otherwise disposes of a particular copy (the physical object, remember), he relinquishes control over how that particular copy is used - EXCEPT that he does not relinquish the right to forbid people from using that particular copy to make "Second generation copies" and/or publicly performing it. This is where the Doctrine of First Sale comes from - when Disney sells you a copy of Cinderella, they relinquish the right to forbid you from using the disc as frisbee, coaster, or (big) earring, for instance.
So yes, you own the DVD. Disney sold you a copy. But they did NOT sell you the copyright. These are two separate and distinct things. "Fair Use" might (IANAL, TINLA) allow you to rip/mix/burn copies for your own personal use. You could also argue that because copyright law defines a "computer program" as a set of instructions to be interpreted by a computer to achieve a desired effect, and your computer can interpret a DVD as a set of instructions to create the desired effect of playing a movie, you are authorized to back it up by the software backup clause of copyright (which provides you the right to make archive/backup copies of software - with no limiton the number of copies, I might add - provided that you dispose of all such archival copies when you dispose of the first-generation copy they came from).
Where Disney *IS* off its nut is in saying that the disc is "licensed for home use only." COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DO NOT HOLD THE RIGHTS TO LICENSE SOMETHING FOR "HOME USE!" They *only* hold the rights to license something for public display... in other words, they can say, "this is not licensed for public display" because they hold those rights... but telling you it's "licensed for home use" is misleading - when you purchase a lawful copy of something, you automatically have the right to use it in your home (that is not a "public performance") regardless of whether the copyright holder wants you to or not.
In other words, they're telling you that they're giving you a license/right to (a) something you ALREADY had the right to do and (b) something they do not have the legal right to restrict you from doing anyway. It may sound stupid, but it's a semantics game, and a nasty one at that, bec
Parent
Re:Licensing? You got hosed... (Score:3, Informative)
Your information is ten years out of date. Since DVDs are protected by CSS, and CSS is protected by the DMCA, your rights are those that don't violate copyright or CSS. Since the copy-protection can be as restrictive as it wants, the copyright holder effectively sets all your rights. First sale? Not if the DRM doesn't let you transfer it. Fair use? Everything that involves making a copy in whole or part is gone thanks to the DMCA. What's left are a few bits and pieces l
It only takes one good comment (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:hopefully (Score:3, Informative)
give it a few days (Score:5, Informative)
Re:give it a few days (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:give it a few days (Score:4, Insightful)
(although, let's face it... with the frequency of article dupes, they probably will re-post it as part of the normal Slashdot practice)...
Parent
Re:give it a few days (Score:3, Funny)
Accepting and considering are two different things (Score:4, Insightful)
But that doesn't necessarily mean that they will read them or even consider them...just that they will accept your opinionated letter/email.
They won't really listen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They won't really listen (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:They won't really listen (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you ever consider that such cynicism breeds apathy, and perpetuates the very problems you lament?
Get off your ass and take a little responsibility.
Parent
How about... (Score:5, Interesting)
A Good Idea, but Let's Solve the Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not be like the medical industry here. There is a proposal for cure out there. It's called HR 1201, "Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005" [loc.gov]. Write your local congressperson and get this legislation passed!
Re:A Good Idea, but Let's Solve the Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, there is one line missing from the law: "It shall be prohibited for an entity hold the patent on both a content control method and the associated mechanism for circumvention. It shall furthermore be prohibited for any entity with a business interest in or association with a business interest in content generation or content protection to hold a patent for a protection circumvention method or mechanism."
No doubt the policy wonks in DC can craft a less drafty version, but it's going to be necessary, I believe. Macrovision generally patents both protection methods and every possible workaround they can think of before they put a "product" on the market. It would be nice to try and stop that kind of restraint.
Parent
Get there before the RIAA does! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure "members of the public" will surreptitiously submit support for the RIAA on this topic.
Anyway, from the page: "...which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention."
Well, there's the argument that DMCA locks you to a specific vendor (Microsoft or Apple, basically) and therefore is a monopoly-style problem for consumers, but the Gov'mt is likely to think this is akin to complaining that you can't listen your LP's on your CD player. Yeah, the format is locked to a vendor or kind of equipment, but there are ways of transferring it if you really want to. (Yes, there are. Stop complaining.)
Then there's the argument that consumers ought to be able to back up the media they buy in case something happens to the original. This is true. Of course, you could say the same thing about books, but nobody actually photocopies a whole book (and it wouldn't be the same thing, anyway). But maybe you should be able to. If I've paid once for rights to use media, are my terms of agreement limited to the physical state of the data? Or to do they apply to continued use?
And there is also the general idea that prohibition rarely works. Digital locks only keep digital crackers in business. If all media was unprotected, it wouldn't be so thrilling to get something illegal.
Finally, if the media industries took all the time and money that they've spent on DMCA and put it into producing better works, we'd have much better music and movies... or maybe CDs that cost less than $10.
Not legally (Score:3, Insightful)
Not legally there's not. That's covered by the DMCA under circumvention. If you
Public Comment Peer Review (Score:5, Insightful)
OP's priorities need adjusting (Score:4, Insightful)
Bah, who cares about that? DMCA hasn't stopped me from getting to my media.
The real problem is when printer companies start using the DMCA to try and prevent other companies from making accessories (ink cartridges) for their printers. When console companies use the DMCA to say that installing a modchip onto a piece of hardware you own is illegal.
So whoop-ti-do about DRM, there will always be a way around that. Generally sourced from a country not under jurisdiction of this draconian law. My concern is with all the companies that would love to spin the law for their own purposes, when it was not designed for that.
Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumvention (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I'd quite like to be able to legally back up a DVD and various other things as well, but really quite a small number of people really care. People do, however, copy music and record TV shows, and it is perfectly legal to do this (according to the Audio Home Recording Act and the SCOTUS Betamax decision), except the DMCA makes it illegal.
Re:Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumventio (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumventio (Score:3, Interesting)
In Addition To Coherent (Score:5, Informative)
.My wife works with the USPTO on a daily bases and she suggests that in addition to writing coherently, you should also write for the lowest common denominator in their audience. In her opinion you should aim for no more than an 8th grade level.
OK, here are my examples: (Score:5, Interesting)
1: it kills 'fair use'. Traditionally, we've been allowed by copyright law to use small amounts of a given work for quotation, for review, for parody... However, the DMCA kills that off. Even if I'm allowed to use that small segment of the copyrighted work for my own purposes, I can't do so if it's technologically protected, even in the feeblest manner: the DMCA forbids that.
2: it encourages monopolies. Other than by means of Hymn, or burning to CD and then re-ripping, I can't play music downloaded from Apple on anything other than an iPod. Or, conversely, if I own an iPod I can't play music downloaded from anyone other than Apple on it. This has a chilling effect on the free market.
3: it threatens free speech itself. Even scholarly, academic discussion of cryptography has been curtailed by the DMCA, in cases where it touched on techniques that have been used to protect copyrighted works. Is it really more important to protect Hollywood's latest blockbuster than to have a free research base driving technology forward?
Re:OK, here are my examples: (Score:5, Insightful)
* Information rot. If copyright is tied to a specific physical device and no circumvention is allowed, that information will disappear disappear when the physical device dies. Information needs to be copied by third parties in order to be preserved for the future.
* Eternal copyright. Related to the first point, if no circumvention is allowed, things are locked up forever
Parent
Please Dupe This (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad this was posted now, because it gives us time to discuss this and compose a rational argument. But, since the site isn't taking comments until Nov 2nd, a lot of people will forget.
Bookmark it and put it on your calendar now! Finally, a reason to use the KOrganizer alarm daemon!
Last go around (Score:3, Interesting)
This go around, I don't know if I am any more confident. Mine does fall under one of the valid reasons for legal circumvention of not being able to watch legit videos purchased in other regions. Even though the case was marked "Region 0" it appeaars it was encoded as "Region 2" and I live in "Region 1". The problem is the blanket exceptions. I would be fine if there was a "affermative defenses" clauses in the law that allowed you to get around it for things like making backup copies, transferring media, etc. The only one allowed is artistic or scientific pursuits because those laws appear to supercede the others.
"iPod with video" - halo effect applied to laws!? (Score:3, Insightful)
if you live in USA and you copy your legally owned DVD to your iPod then you are a criminal facing the possibilty of a massive bitchslap. most people not living in "the land of the free" are fine.
imagine if it had been the case with CDs, this whole mess would have been sorted out earlier. but maybe now with portable video starting to take a few more steps it will be sorted out.
there was a DMCA case where (if I remember correctly) an automatic-garage-door manufacturer sued another company for making generic remote controls that could activate their doors. the judge said something along the lines that even though some encryption was circumvented in producing the generic remote the DMCA wasn't supposed to prevent people access to their own property (garage). this is similar to the DVD->portable video case.
how about this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, there are solutions: buy a new TV, get a FR modulator (by the way, is that legal under DMCA?) Anyway the point is that it's my VCR and by TV and my DVD and I sould be able to connect them however I want, but if I try to circumvent the stupid "antipiracy" I break the law -- that's stupid.
Voting Machines (Score:3, Insightful)
Haven't seen anyone mention yet that it would be nice if our officials could learn how our voting machines work. Not as important as ripping CDs, I guess.
The proper response. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bound to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it sprang from the minds of people who could and did think it all the way through. These were evil people. People at the *AAs. People who hate the public domain, except insofar as it provides stories for Disney to remake and earn a fortune from, and despise fair use.
It was then passed into law by people unable or unwilling to think the thing all the way through. These were lazy or greedy people. Your elected representatives. People who care little for the public domain, and are really more interested in campaign contributions, and don't like fair use because of that bit about parody, because parody is usually aimed against politicians...
Parent