Copyright Comments Redux

Andy Oram of CPSR has has a nice reply comment to the Copyright Office's Anti-Circumvention Rulemaking. As slashdot has discussed before, the Copyright Office has a mandate to examine a part of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and decide whether and how to implement it. If you haven't commented, today is your last chance - see the notice for the requirements for filing, and mark your submission as a reply to, say, Time Warner's comment. I just read an article noting that Stephen King would be in violation of this provision of the DMCA if he read his own e-book.

That's not the only goal...

So long as someone's making new ideas, the system is meeting its goals.

There are other goals involved in the copyright and patent systems. For instance, copyright was not intended to provide absolute control to the copyright owner. There is little benefit in that. It therefore explicitly protects "fair use" rights of consumers, so that they may, among other things, quote the copyrighted work for the purposes of comment, criticism, teaching, news reporting, etc. They also have the right to resell what they have purchased, as long as they do not sell duplicates while maintaining a copy for themselves. Additionally, consumers have always had the right to modify their copy of a work in any manner they like. They can tear pages out of a book, highlight passages, make footnotes, etc. Courts have also ruled that consumers have the right to make copies of the work for backup, archival, time-shifting, or space-shifting purposes. Big media companies would like very much to see these rulings viewed in a very narrow way, and have them applied only to the specific technology that the case addressed, rather than taken as a principle of fair use.

Many of these rights are in jeopardy now. The DMCA and UCITA both present a very clear threat to the rights of consumers, as does the lengthening of copyright lifetimes. All this has been done without offering any substantial evidence that the original creators of copyrighted works are in any clear danger of being harmed significantly enough to justify this major rewriting of copyright law to remove many rights of consumers. It seems to be a ploy by the media companies to grant themselves much greater control over the use of copyrighted material, under the guise of fighting copyright infringement, at the expense of consumers' rights, and it still won't do a thing about real commercial copyright infringement by the big "pirate" distributors.

Who's going to represent consumers at the hearing?

There's going to be a public hearing on these issues on May 2-4 in DC, and another at Stanford University on May 18-19. Who's going to represent the views of those of us to believe the DMCA is infringing on our rights? This could make all the difference in the world. If the right people speak for us, and enough people show up to support their views, it could make them sit up and notice that we're not going to let them give the corps what they want at the expense of our rights. I'd like to know what to expect. Does anyone know who's planning to attend these hearings?

Re:It's all software!!

You're right, but we've been over this before. The DMCA does not allow circumvention of copyright protection. That's the real problem. If the DVD was unencrypted, then you could probably get away with creating a reader to view the contents. Since they put some cheesy encryption on the discs, you can't view them with an unauthorized viewer without illegally circumventing the copyright protection. It's a bunch of BS, but that's why we're writing letters to the Copyright office about it.

First linked comments is very very good

I appluad the writers of the first comment that is linked in this story, and if you're skimming it to read why King can't read his book, take a step back and read this too. It not only focuses on the DMCA, but also addresses Napster, DeCSS, the Sony Playstation, and a bunch of other topics that are all very much in question under the DMCA.

A very strong point is the idea of "primary purpose", as the authors note. This generally is used in references to hardware, but the DMCA challenges it's use possibly in software, and this is legally defended, it opens a whole new can of worms. Suddenly, nearly any program, OSS or not, can be pointed to as a tool in piracy, including all basic TCP/IP apps to the Linux kernel to Microsoft Office and beyond. Definitely food for thought.

Unfortunately, we probably can't make the DMCA go away; the best we can hope for is that the Copyright Office makes very clear and favorable decisions in light of fair use, and that when a DMCA violation is challenged at the Supreme Court, they will favor the side of the consumer.

King's problem

Does this mean that if I took screen captures of the pages for King and then printed them up, all using Microsoft technology that Microsoft would be in contempt of the new Copyright laws?

It will be interesting

I've read many replies to the Copyright Office (there are too many to read them all), and from what I've seen, many good points have been made against the Act.

Being that it seems only large corporations are for the DMCA, I would hope that the Copyright Office would see the unfair limitations that enforcing the DMCA would impose. On the other hand, large corporations are the largest source of income to the Copyright Office.

Please, please, US Copyright Office, restore my faith that the system really does benefit the "little guy!" After all, wasn't the Copyright Office designed to protect the individual?

--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me

Here's my DMCA comment. I hope you sent yours

Here's my DMCA cooment, as submitted, minus a few paragraphs of credentals, personal ID stuff, which I'm sure is of no conceivable interest [Gov-types like credentials, but /. judges us by our ideas]
------------------------------------------------ -

This document is a comment on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304 (1998), specifically the new Chapter 12 to title 17 United States Code, with special attention to section 1201 provides that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." It is submitted as solicited

A brief review of the comments posted on the official internet site for the initial public comment period, shows that most of the points I intended have been made, and made well, so in the interests of clarity, I will add only two points that I feel deserve special attention, and which fall into my specific expertise.

[list of profesional qualifications deleted]
Though I do not hold these offices or represent these bodies in an offical capacity any longer, my experience in these positions suggest that there is absolutely no question that making access control a matter of 'vendor right' rather than 'user control of data', invites exploitation in ways that are almost impossible for men of good will to conceive.

The Impact of DMCA on Medical Records, Physician Office Management and Patient Care as a Specific Case of a More General Threat

I. Access control of user data
From the time of the first computerized office management systems (through, I imagine, the present), many physicians have found their office billing, scheduling and patient medical record data held hostage by the companies that owned the billing system. This data was deliberately stored in a proprietary format to keep it out of the hands of the physician, effectively holding it hostage. If physicians did not renew annual software license and maintenance contracts with their original vendor, they would lose access to all their data, despite having physical possession of it

The vendor wished to keep the customer, even if the vendor's product did not meet his or her needs; even if licensing fees had become exorbitant; even if another company's product offered improved patient care, better medical record security; etc. One might argue that vendors of inferior software might be especially interested in "locking clients into" their product (even if it were buggy or unreliable) to stay in business.

To change to better software, while retaining the existing data (to ensure best medical care), the physician was forced to hire a programmer to convert the data from the vendor's proprietary format to a public one, such a field delimited text. Numerous court cases were fought, where vendors argued that this conversion was a violation of their proprietary rights. I will not review them, because the details varied greatly.

Under DCMA, the physician would have no such recourse. His/Her data would forever be the possession, though not the property, of the original vendor, to be read only under the terms of the vendor.

This is just a specific case of a general evil of DCMA.

This abuse could be generalized to any form of program that manipulates or alters data (e.g. graphics program, database, word processor, audio 'studio' program, etc.) and stores it in a proprietary format. In each of these cases, the data clearly belongs to the user, not the vendor, yet the vendor controls access under DMCA. This is an implicit threat of most 'shrinkwrap licenses', come to life: "This program is not warranted for suitability for any specific user purpose, or any general purpose, whatsoever."

When combined with the 'license change' provision of UCITA (below) this creates horrific scenarios.

II. DMCA in conjunction with UCITA
It should also be noted that under the provisions of UCITA (which has already been passed in at least one state, Virginia, and is pending in many others), a vendor may change the terms of licensing, and the new license would apply to grantees under the old license. That is to say, that if a vendor license grants certain rights, the license may later be altered, and the granted rights lost.

Even id a vendor granted usage rights in perpetuity (e.g. allowing a physician to use the program to read the data stored in the proprietary format forever), he can now alter the license to revoke that grant. Under UCITA alone, this only prevented the physician from using the licensed program, but under DMCA, it would permanently ban his/her access to the data. In short, the vendor is granted rights. It also means that formats that are licensed for free public use under explicit licenses such as the GPL (Gnu Public License) could be converted to proprietary licenses at some later data. This would be a data boobytrap for even the most conscientious physician seeking to protect his/her access to his/her data.

The very review process to which this comment is being submitted accepts Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft Word 7.0 or older, Rich Text Format (RTF) submissions as MIME attachments, but not a plain text e-mail. Please be warned that if DMCA were in effect, and this comment were initially read in a Virginia office, the owner of these file format could alter their license to deny you the right to open this document, to convert it to another format, or perhaps even to transmit it to another jurisdiction like DC, where the 'access control' could be circumvented. They could even argue that hardcopy created with their word processor, and without their express license (revocable at their will, under UCITA) is a violation.

Today, few documents are created by hand or manual typewriter from inception to final form. Access control can become very effective censorship on any subject.

Companies will and do censor criticism. Earlier this week, Mattel used DMCA to block distribution of a free program that allowed users to see data (stored on their own hard drive) which revealed that a Mattel consumer software program did not function effectively at its intended purpose. Mattel obtained an injunction on the basis that that data was stored in a file on the user's computer in a proprietary format, and acknowledged that it would harm their business if users could read it.

Access control can also be used to co-opt the property rights of any user. Most major graphics, audio, and work processing programs are stored in a proprietary file during the work process of creating a work, and only converted to exportable 'open' form on request. Under DMCA (especially in a UCITA state) any such program could begin to charge me fees to export, distribute or use my own work product.

I have heard testimony from physicians whose data has been held hostage, and read accounts of many more cases. Medical software vendors who invariably advertises the life-saving benefits of instant access to patient data will lock data knowing the effects are potentially lethal (in an ER there may be only minutes to determine previous drug reactions, allergies, and medical history). Put bluntly, though I know of no specific cases, it is easy to see that deaths may already have occurred due to this practice.

I think it is clear that less dramatic abuses of the principle of 'access control' will be the rule, rather than the exception. Why would it not? Access Control will be a legal right, arguably not an abuse at all.

CONCLUSION:
Please do not assume this provision of DMCA is simply about CDs and pirated videotapes. Its consequences could reach deep into you own family at any time, with tragic results.

Freedom of information is among the founding liberties of this nation, and rightfully so. When access to information is controlled, much else is controlled besides. We must act with utmost caution in this area.

__________

Re:I don't plan on replying.

You are making an amazing assumption: that the people that are opposed to DMCA are the same people that pirate. There probably is some overlap, but not much. What the pirates do was already illegal even before DMCA, so DMCA doesn't effect them much.

DMCA mainly just effects legitimate users who do pay for music, movies, books, and software. It places needless restrictions on how we can read/play media. Do you really think that it matters to a content producer, whether his paying customers are watching his content on a licensed player or not? Do you really think the copyright owners get a cut for the playing licenses, and that the license fee -- as opposed to the revenue from selling the media -- is their main incentive to produce content? That is totally ridiculous!

It will never be possible for a technological device to tell the difference between fair use (and I meal really morally fair use, like listening to music that I paid for in my car, while the CD that I bought sits in a cardboard box at home), and piracy. Since the hardware will never be able to know the difference, it will be in error if it just always assumes that copies should be prevented, or if just always assumes that copies should be allowed. It is certain that an error will be made. Apparently, you have decided that it is better to err on the side that inconveniences the buyer.

What I want everyone here to do is to head down to the local video store RIGHT now and pick up a brand new DVD, just to show that you appreciate the artists and all their hard work, and what the MPAA has done to make sure they get their share.

MPAA hasn't done anything to make sure they get their share. If someone wants to pirate the movie, they will, and it will be easy. The law that they bought, DMCA, doesn't change that a bit.

And the next time you watch the movie, you'll know that you supported all the hard work that went into it, instead of simply stealing from the real producers, little by little, like you usually do. And you'll feel better for it.

But that's just the problem with DMCA. It causes the issue to not be whether or not you supported the producers. It causes the issue to be whether or not you paid for a player license, and that you're watching it on "approved" equipment. Can't you see the difference?

Whether I watch the Robocop DVD that I bought on an licensed player, or an open source player, has no effect whatsoever on how "supported" the producers of the movie are going to feel. If I decrypt the DVD, put the master in a safe place, and store the movie on hard disk or reusable tape (maybe even re-encoding it, if I feel that MPEG2 is suboptimal), is totally irrelevant. Or at least, it would be irrelevant, if not for DMCA.

Are you one of those people who actually believed that the purpose of CDA was to protect children?

---

Re:I don't plan on replying.

> You are making an amazing assumption: that the people that are opposed to DMCA are the same people that pirate. There probably is some overlap, but not much.

Actually, the pirates are breaking ancient laws. Why should they oppose the DMCA? -- they will ignore it just as they ignore the other laws.

I suspect it's exclusively honest people who object to the DMCA, and they do so because it arbitrarily criminalizes things that they think are honest.

--

the next step:

Public hearings will be held in Washington, DC on May 2-4, 2000 and in Stanford, CA, on May 18--19, 2000. Requests to testify must be received in the Office of the General Counsel of the Copyright Office by 5:00 p.m. E.S.T. on April 14, 2000.

So - who speaks for the geeks? We've got about two weeks to get folks on the list.

(I'd volunteer, but I doubt the ravings of a longhaired zenarchist [negia.net] freak would help much.)

Re:No offence, but...

Wow. A bunch of geeks are whining to Congress about a law they just don't like. I bet everyone in Washington is simply dying to hear what 31337 Linux users who have repeatedly shown that they have no respect for IP laws think
about this.

Because they are voters. Voters matter to congress. Since people on slashdot are most likely people who are quite intelligent and in control of a large proportion of the nation's IT assets in one way or another we can conclude that their opinions matter in relms where laws are getting passed.

How can you scream about copyright reform when you're running Napster, downloading illegal MP3s?

Not everyone is going things like this and not all MP3s are illegal. Also you have to understand that each and every American including so called "criminals" should have equal access under the law to their elected representatives. That's why you can't have say a torture chamber in even death row. Even death row inmates have rights.

You brought this on yourselves.

Oh so I am walking home because my car broke down on the road and I am walking to a gas station. So guy robs me a gun point. So I guess I brought that on myself too right? How others choose to act in a giving setting is not directly proportional to how I have acted. If others act irrationally I am not to blame.

They saw that you were violating copyright laws, and that those laws were ineffective.

Exacly how have their pinned down the elusive "3l337 Linux users" and correlated them to some nebulous "crime" that's rich. Maybe if you actually looked and say that the main napster binary at the obvious site "http://www.napster.com" is in fact for windows and windows only. I think a fair percentage of napster servers are being run by people on windows platforms and not on linux machines.

As for gauging laws to be ineffective give me a break. Just because crime happens dosn't mean that the laws are ineffective. Right this minute I am running a gnutella client for windows on a windows NT machine. No don't bother tracing it beacuse it's in a public lab and not traceable to a unique id or anything so your dream of busting another "3l337 Linux user" won't work. The point is there are sufficient laws out there to punish pirates and others. Why you obviously don't realize is that it's the lack of enforcement of our current laws that makes the system or the laws supposedly "ineffective".

Imagine if no matter where you are in any country if you violate the speed limit you get a ticket and a fine. No imagine that this law is passed and strictly monitored.

That's right even if you go over the speed limit by as much a .000000001 km/h or mil/h you get a ticket and if this happens enough you loose your liscence. This theoretically could happen.

The same goes for copyright and patent issues. You have to actually enforce them with the standard set of laws to your fullest ability before you add more and more oppressive laws to your plate. Until then don't complain that crimes are happening unless you get everyone under the current laws.

I think Jack Valenti hired a few more people

And here are a few reasons why:

Oh this should be rich.

1. I like music.
2. I like movies.
3. I like books.
4. I like software.

I like all four of those things you mentioned.

And the DMCA's intentions are to ensure that I keep getting all four of those things.

I would disagree and state for the reccord that in fact the people who actually insure that you get those things are in fact getting jack shit under the current system. I don't want rich executives getting the money that I wanted to say give to people like Steven King, Donald Knuth, ZZ top, Pink Floyd, or Patrick Stewart. The people who get the money are talentless bums who couldn't cary a tune in a bucket, act if a group of terrorists forced them, write a story for a small town paper, or code their way out of a paper bag.

You think I'm trolling, right? Well, you would, considering that I'm logged in AC and expressing an unpopular viewpoint (people doing that are ALWAYS trolls, right?). Just open your mind (it's not THAT hard, honest) and
listen for a moment.

Still listening. The only compalint about the Ac account is that there is no way to contact the person in question of even believe that he/she will reply in any fashion to any well thought out post. It's depressing really.

As nice as it would be to get everything for free, there's no such thing as a free lunch. You can't just copy the nearest bit of work and not give the creator anything. Unfortunately, that's what the ravenous band of nascent pirates that
you are seem to want to do. "It doesn't hurt anyone if I copy this CD - never mind that the artist needs every last penny he gets!" "Oh, if I copy this DVD instead of buying it, I'm only hurting the fat cats at Disney, not the guy who
stayed up 72 hours straight in the editing room getting this film ready to go!" "Microsoft has enough money, they don't need mine."

Oooh "the ravenous band of nascent pirates" reading the gutenberg webster's from 1913 are we you scroundrel you :)

You must understand the ammount of money that the creator of the work receives it almost next to nothing. That guy who stayed up 72 hours straight after he has slept for a couple of days will wake up to receive a check for some small pittance of what the film actually made in any form. I think people should make money in some way but not at the expence of the average person.

I have one question: if everyone had attitudes like that, would anybody have bothered to create what you now so gleefully steal in the first place? I thought not. Or even Mattel - you so zealously defend those who steal their list of
blocked websites - Mattel's OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - and give anyone else the means to steal this same list and create their own software which simply leeches off Mattel's list maintenance staff and budget!

I have one answer: people who really enjoy creating would still create. Writers back in the old days had absolutely no possible way to assume that their works would actually be read. They created for the sake of getting their ideas out and allow for people to read them. The fact that their ideas were bought, accepted, and thought about allowed them to gain popularity and fame.

I assume that if Thoreau was still alive you would call him a red-pinko-commie-bedwetter who was destroying the role of "business" in America.

Secondly considering that a list is not proprietary in nature and that database law has not clearly backed up Mattel's point of actually having complete claim over that list. When you create a list of sites that can potentially break free speach and clients may be harmed it is a noble thing to do.

How fair is this?

In reality if the opensource movement so choosed I believe they could very effectively do something like this much better. Than even mattell. Geeks don't have any need for censorship.

What I want everyone here to do is to head down to the local video store RIGHT now and pick up a brand new DVD, just to show that you appreciate the artists and all their hard work, and what the MPAA has done to make sure
they get their share.

The MPAA is just trying to make shure that the MPAA gets their fair share.

It's not that hard. And the next time you watch the movie, you'll know that you supported all the hard work that went into it, instead of simply stealing from the real producers, little by little, like you usually do. And you'll feel
better for it.

You know I really don't feel better at all. In fact I can just see A group of MPAA execs laughing at this over drinks at a private party and cheering our stupidity.

My Comment and Reply Comment are in

How about yours?

Someone else speaks of "Whining Geeks". There are certainly lots of us in there. But there are also librarians, teachers, and even Alladin. (Ghostscript) It turns out that the anti-circumvention measures, misapplied, limit their ability to render fonts.

Herein lies the crux:

Other than the Library of Congress review, there is no check and balance for the anti-circumvention measure. Other than the "Whining Geeks", there are clearly some other problems and groups of people and business with problems.

This is the mechanism.
Now is the time.

I prefer the Motley Fool's (financial newsletter) take on this: How many other industries treat their customers as their enemies? My take: Could it be that they feel that they are ripping us off, and are afraid of the treatment they deserve? IMHO, the cost to price ratio of the audio CD compared to that of the audio cassette tape certainly supports this view.

I'm sick of you geeks

The unfairly moded poster got it right, you asked for this yourselves. I'm suprised you have been tolerated as long as you have by the law.

You have the audicity to claim that you should have some kind of "fair use" nonsense. Let me explain something, these media companies work their arses off to provide you with top notch, affordable entertainment. If they want to limit how you view their media, then by golly they have that right. Just because you geeks have can't accept a "real" OS and need some kind of command line only junk doesn't mean you have to right to break laws. you don't "own" a DVD you buy, you just get to listen to it. The only people who would want to make copies are criminals, and DeCSS is ONLY GOOD FOR MAKING COPIES.

I read somewhere on ZDnet that all you guys do is break encryption laws and pirate MP3's anyway, it makes me wonder if Linux even has legimate uses! I hope the DMCA gets you all for this kind of ungrateful, illegal, nonsence.

Finkployd

http://earnestdesigns.com/dvd

Some responses to Time Warner's comment....

I've just been browsing Time-Warner's comment, and I'm appalled at the flawed thinking in this document!

For example, Mr. Carson writes:

For one thing, Section 1201(a)(1) prohibits circumvention of technological measures that effective control

access to copyrighted works. The Copyright Office, in its summary of the DNCA, said the the section "...does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological protection measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited". To put it in less technical terms, a fair use defense might allow a user to quote a passage from a book but it does not follow that the user is allowed to break into a bookstore and steal a book.

The problem here is that when I buy a DVD (for instance) I am buying the right to access the material stored on it, as well as the media it is stored on. This means that I am by and large entitled to do anything I want to it, whether it be to copy that DVD for my own personal use or to just toss it into the microwave and watch the pretty sparks. To use Mr. Carson's analogy above, I have for all intents and purposes bought the bookstore the book resides in, and therefore I am within my rights to smash the locks and get inside any time I darn well please, and if someone else happens to have a decent crowbar I can use (DeCSS), all the better.

Mr. Carson goes on to argue that such access controls don't hinder anyone's ability to access the controlled work, as they "need only follow the same steps as [they] would in the absence of technological protections...". Unfortunately, those steps currently force me to buy a product that I don't want in order to gain access to content that I've bought the right to view. This is like saying "Okay, you've paid me for this nice hotel room, but you can't actually get in to use it until you go buy one of our special keys from George over there"; ridiculous! Afterall, I've already bought the access rights, but I'm not allow to excercise them until I pay for them twice.

Mr. Carson further argues that since there are alternative means of distributing content other than DVDs, I as a consumer can freely choose to use the non-access controlled media if I disapprove of the restrictions DVDs might impose on me in order to view them. Admittedly, he has a point here....for now. The problem arises that these alternatives aren't guaranteed to be around in the future (in fact, I strongly suspect that if the current model of access control holds up in court, VHS and other freely accessible media will quickly disappear). Since access controlled media is inherently more profitable (you get the money paid for the access rights plus the licensing for the media reader; on top of that, if the current model holds, then it's only a tiny step to impose a pay-per-view model ala Divex, which we wouldn't be able to do a thing to legally circumvent), the media publishers will have every reason to embrace strong access controls if the DMCA actually holds up.

-- WhiskeyJack, too disgusted to continue.

Copyright and Ex Post Facto

The original point of patents and copyrights was to promote the common good by giving intellectual property rights to the holder for a limited time period.

However the greedy powers that be have bribed our congress. Copyrights have been retroactively ammended twice, once in the 1970s and again in the late 1990s. This is unconstitutional.

When the shylocks who run the media companies realized that many popular albeit older movies, music,and books were going to fall into the public domain, they bribed your congressman to extend the copyrights retroactively. This is wrong. The copyright contract is a contract between the government, the holder of the copyright, and the People. That contract goes into effect when the copyright is granted. Like any other contract, those terms are fixed at the time of the contract. Can you imagine if the terms of your house mortgage were changed without your permission after the contract had been signed?

One of the basic principles of American law is the Ex Post Facto, which means that no individual can be guilty of retroactive violations of the law. For example, if a law is passed saying drinking in public is illegal, you can not be charged with violating that law if it was not in effect at the time you had a drink in public. Retroactive laws are unconstitutional. Likewise, if a copyright is granted, then the length of that copyright should be that in effect when the copyright was granted. At present (2000), copyrights granted prior to 1925 should be expiring. But because of the illegal copyright extension, all works after 1923 are granted an extension, in violation of Ex Post Facto.

Re:I don't plan on replying.

Books and music existed before the notion of copyrights. Suprisingly enough, they were quite popular. I suspect that if movies and software had been around at that time too, they would have also been commonplace forms of expression.

Furthermore, you are shortsighted in your appraisal of copyrights/patents in general.

Copyrights and patents DO NOT exist with the intention that the creators of given work or invention will make money. That's entirely secondary. The point, as you'd know just by looking in the relevant part of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) is to increase the amount of works that enter into the public domain.

In order to encourage the creation of works which are not controlled in their use, Congress can grant monopolies of limited time to the creator. But the intent is clearly not in favor of the creator, and there must be a time limit which additionally favors the public over the creator.

Well suprisingly enough, virtually no copyrighted material has entered the public domain in recent years. This clearly indicates a breakdown in the existing copyright law.

Is there such a thing as a free lunch? YES. Thoughts are not chattel. Any minute amount of 'intellectual property' is not only not real property, but it is not natural in the least. For millenia there have been no significant restrictions on people's abilities to think or create (aside from cultural clashes - religion being a biggie, but that's a whole different kettle of fish)

Given as how a lot of great works were created in times when there were no protections, I sincerely doubt that you're correct in believing that in the absence of copyright the media would dry up. I think that it would just get bigger.

By your standard it is unfair for Disney to make a movie version (a bad one too) of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Little Mermaid."

By your standard it is unfair for Microsoft to make mice and keyboards without paying the creators of those devices, who you must think ought to still hold the patents on them.

By your standard it is unfair for the RIAA to be associated with a recording of "The Star Spangled Banner" seeing as how Francis Scott Key's descendants didn't get a penny.

Or for Mattel to make jigsaw puzzles that weren't licensed from the original creator. Or use games involving dice, which they didn't invent either.

So are you getting the picture? All of the companies involved in extending copyright and hiding behind it are both:
*Unable to compete on a level playing field
*Themselves guilty of building upon other people's works.

Strikes me that things are generally improved when you have the freedom to use other people's ideas. I'd be in favor of limiting copyrights and patents to somewhere between 10-20 years and never extending them. The lack of a never-ending supply of money actually gives people MORE incentive to create. The current system lets creators coast on one or two works, and is itself plainly defeating the purpose for which it exists.

Yikes! "Designated viewer technology" only!

Yikes, the implications of the 'our viewer only' rulings (e.g. DeCSS/DVD and the Glassbook cited in the Stephen King article) can effectively control the distribution of thought (especially when combined with the UCITA 'retroactive license change' provision.)

There's just one generalizable example of the half dozen broad abuses that just occurred to me in five minute's thought: word processors (and other output producing programs like studio, graphics, or databases). Until now, the 'work product' has always separate from the software that made it. However now MS could decide (retroactively) that documents produced with MS-Word could only be viewed with MS-Word, and that conversion to other formats (including printed output for use by anyone except the licensed user) is a 'circumvention of their access control', They could also revoke the license to their public viewers, like Wordpad.

Rrsult: Better hope you had a straight text copy of your Great American Novel and Monday's Big Presentation. Or your company database. Because the word Processor could steal some very major rights to your use of your own work. You wouldn't be able to send your word-processed novel to the publisher, even in hardcopy (e.g. King w/ Glassbook) etc. or allow public access to your previously accessible database-generated data without a specific negotiated license from the publisher. Who cares if you bought the word processor or database to specifically do these things and that you've been doing them for decades? Read your Shrinkwrap licence: the program is not guaranteed to be suitable for any specific purpose. You knew it. Everyone knew it. We all laughed at it. It's been in the SWL for decades. No excuses.

This is not outlandish. This exact thing happened with many medical office administration programs in the 70's/80's/90's. Physicians could not access their own office/billing data or their patient medical info unless they renewed their contract with the original software company. [And a court ruled that booting a proprietary program to erase it or to retrieve/convert the data was unauthorize d access. Fortunately, you *could* remove the hard drive and have a programmer read/convert it on his system. Under DMCA, even this would be illegal!)

There are many similar, more public examples of brazen corporate greed: the sudden demand for licensing fees for usage of GIFs is a very recent one. In short, when they figure out they can do this, the only thing that would stop them would be fear of angering enough people to cause a change in the law -- and even then, they might decide to draw a year or two of profit, since if they didn't risk overturning the apple cart, they'd be left out in the cold when some other company overturned the apple cart. [i.e. MS would 'seize control' of all MS-Word docs, though a new laws would surely be passed in a year or so, because if MS didn't, they'd lose the rights in a year or two anyway, when WordPerfect or Star triggered the backlash]

I don't know how I could have missed this implication (I was deeply involved in physician data issue on a high level many years ago), but I guess we'll be stumbling across unintended consequnces for years

[or is it actually 'unintended'? Whether this specific strategy is planned or not, there's no question that the industry would like nothing more than full control on a pay-per-view basis of all media. Should we be surprised that disparate elements directed at a common end can combine to further that end in unexpected ways? ]

Unfortunately, there is no safe way to change intellectual laws quickly. We'd have to institute a moratorum so that each major change (e.g. DMCA) could be understood and explored in the coursts before the next change (e.g. UCITA) was passed.

And I'd have to admit, in that case, justice defered would be justice denied.

__________