USCO Reviewing DMCA Anti-Circumvention Clause 191
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."
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.
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.
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:give it a few days (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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)...
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.
Public Comment Peer Review (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:They won't really listen (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot is not the majority.
Slashdot users are not ordinary.
Determining whether they are informend or not is an excercise for the reader.
Barrier to competition, barrier to discourse (Score:2, Insightful)
How many otherwise cogent arguments will be lost in this sea of silliness?
How many otherwise fallacious arguments will make it through the process, because those with vested interests have lobbyists?
Hey, EFF, help us out here...
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.
Re:Chance for change... (Score:4, Insightful)
As evidenced by by Indian independence movement from British Colonial rule.
Not legally (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, that's the whole point of exemptions to the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. Though it'd be better just to repeal the DMCA. It was able to slide through congress with the help of the media which was giving 24/7 coverage of whether Lewinsky [netfunny.com] spit or swallowed.
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).
Re:Okay - some legitimate reasons for circumventio (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
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
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...
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Re:Licensing? You got hosed... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just my $0.025 (inflation ya know!)
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.
The proper response. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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".
Re:Chance for change... (Score:2, Insightful)
No problem in the history of the world has ever been solved or even lessened by requiring lawyers to get involved.
That's a tough claim to make, seeing as you don't have knowledge of every problem that ever occurred in the history of the world. I argue that the point of requiring law degrees is so that the person is familiar with the law; how useful would a judge be if that person didn't understand his own role?
And as for the McCain quote, it is disingenuous to take it out of context. He said this during discussions on the money the federal government will be spending on the conversion to digital television. The argument he was addressing was that the government should wait until 2009 to do the conversion, because it would cost less. His point was that, by waiting so long, many people would be left out for a long time (~2 years), and he believes that it would affect their lives in a negative manner. This all leads up to the quote: money shouldn't be the most important thing to the government in this debate; the lives of the people should be paramount.