Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Your Rights Online

Library of Congress to Hold DMCA Hearings 122

Posted by CmdrTaco from the time-to-be-heard dept.
petong writes "The Library of Congress's Copyright Office will be holding hearings to find out if changes need to be made to the DMCA, according to News.com. 'Anyone with strong feelings about the DMCA, one way or another, may submit a request by Apr. 1 to testify during the public forums, the Copyright Office said in its announcement. The hearing dates in the U.S. capital will be Apr. 11, Apr. 15 and May 2. The dates and locations in California have not been set yet.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Library of Congress to Hold DMCA Hearings More

Library of Congress to Hold DMCA Hearings

Comments Filter:

  • Can this work? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cajunfj40 ( 611791 )
    It'd be nice if we got listened to this time.
    • Even just a little would be nice. At least not go so overboard at times.

      SuDZ

    • Re:Can this work? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @07:21PM (#5570463) Homepage
      Of course, whos going to do the talking is a big issue. All the people I can think of who've been most vocal about the DMCA (Katz, RMS, etc) are the absolute last people I'd want representing us - we'd look like lunatic fringe, and add credence to the yuppies pushing this thing.

      Whaat we'd need are well-spoken workers in computer technology and academics who can say that this limitation is bad for the economy and for progress/invention.

    • Education is key (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ralphart ( 70342 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @08:47PM (#5571124)
      Educating our legislators is key to all efforts. The supporters of DMCA have very effectively managed to make this all about college students downloading MP3s and bands of overseas pirates selling bootlegged DVDs.

      During the last election cycle I spoke with a congressional candidate about the evils of the DMCA and his only take on it was something needed to be done about blackmarket videos. And this from someone I considered an otherwise reasonable, intelligent candidate.

      Sadly, what is needed is a soundbite arguement to stick in the mind of those for whom soundbites are all that can be recalled.

  • April Fools deadline (Score:5, Funny)

    by codeonezero ( 540302 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:36PM (#5570056)
    I sure hope its not some sick joke by the Copyright Office :)

    Like have them get us all riled up about complaining only to go with recomendations by the MPAA or RIAA.

    Doh!!! Not another bad april fools joke ..

    Hehe :)

    • Re:April Fools deadline - Indeed! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by octalgirl ( 580949 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @10:39PM (#5571814) Journal
      First they blew [copyright.gov] the address to submit:

      Important Notice: The email address for submission of requests to testify that was posted on the Copyright Office website prior to 11:00 a.m., E.S.T. on March 19, 2003, was inaccurate. The correct email address is 1201@loc.gov and NOT 1201@nt3.loc.gov. Any requests that were sent to 1201@nt3.loc.gov were not received, and anyone who sent such a request must resubmit the request to the correct email address: 1201@loc.gov....

      If you read through the comments, especially'joint reply comment' 23 [copyright.gov], from the RIAA and MPAA and friends, it is not good. Things like
      "The justification for allowing someone to break through a protection today because it may not work tomorrow is unpersuasive."
      and
      "Finally, Submission 35(1), addressing copy-protected CDs, is out of the scope of this proceeding because, among other things, it appears that the proposal is directed at copy controls that inadvertently deny access by virtue of a malfunction, rather than to technical measures that control access in the ordinary course of their operation. In any event, this submission does not meet the requisite burden of showing a substantial adverse impact caused by Section 1201(a)(1)."
      and
      "If that is the case, a fear of malfunction does not convert a copy control technology into an access control, nor does it provide any legal basis for creating any exemption to Section 1201(a)(1).9"
      and
      "Turning to the submissions themselves, we do not believe that any of them carries the burden required to justify the recognition of any of the classes proposed in this area."
      It's basically full of things like this. First the LOC made it almost impossible to meet their requirments, and they only accepted 50 comments. We know there had to be a lot more than that. When they said they wanted facts to back it up they meant it. Now we can see why. Some of these companies are picking apart the original comments piece by piece, and if facts weren't not sufficient, they are trying to get them thrown out. And they haven't even gotten to court yet. I have a bad feeling about this.

      (to save time, the bashing begins around page 11)

  • And all you people (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:37PM (#5570066)
    Who bitch and moan and cry about the DMCA who don't submit to make your voice heard in a forum that actually matters (it's true.. /. doesn't matter) are hypocrites. (I'd wager a few bananas that's pretty much all of you).

  • Anyone here trying? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuDZ ( 450180 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:39PM (#5570086)
    So anyone here on sending in something? What about a collaborated effort here on slashdot, as maybe a draft and then send it?

    SuDZ

    • Re:Anyone here trying? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @07:00PM (#5570295)
      It should be like the interviews: everyone post drafts/revisions, top 10 moderated get sent in heheh

    • Re:Anyone here trying? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by wolf- ( 54587 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @07:11PM (#5570384) Homepage
      I commented during the first written comment period and will most likely request an appearence at these hearings.

      My clients include Universities, Colleges, and High Schools whose teachers are currently unclear in regards to fair use for educational purposes. Additionally, the DMCA on its face prevents them from media shifting their archives of older media to new formats.

    • Re:Anyone here trying? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Daniel_ ( 151484 )
      I can't make the trip to the meeting, but I did submit a proposal during the comment period. I requested that source code not be protected by the anti-circumvention provisions. (Essentially, reverse engineering code would no longer be a crime unless someone could prove it was actually protecting something.) Not sure if thats what you were looking for, but my 2 cents...
    • I live close enough to DC to attend this. I consider myself to be relatively well educated and articulate, but I consider this issue to be important enough that I would rather not speak on it without a certain level of confidence that what I had to say would be worthwhile and useful. Most importantly, I wouldn't want to go in and say the wrong thing, whatever that may be.

      So, if folks have suggestions as to what they'd like to see someone say at these hearings, feel free to let me know. If I get enough good

  • physical slashdoting? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:39PM (#5570088)
    Anyone with strong feelings about the DMCA, one way or another, may submit a request by Apr. 1 to testify during the public forums,

    will this be the first physical slashdoting ever?

    • Re:physical slashdoting? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cajunfj40 ( 611791 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:44PM (#5570154)
      Hmm. If you mean "overwhelming the resources with a crowd of people directed from the slashdot website" not likely.

      However, it's possible that if enough people who are interested in taking out the more nonsensical parts of the DMCA - and can make cogent arguments and come across as reasonable people - apply to speak, "we" could be in the majority there. (Where "we" are those who don't like the restrictions the DMCA imposes and "they" are the likes of the RIAA/MPAA/etc.)

      • Re:physical slashdoting? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by frdmfghtr ( 603968 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @07:46PM (#5570694)
        However, it's possible that if enough people who are interested in taking out the more nonsensical parts of the DMCA - and can make cogent arguments and come across as reasonable people - apply to speak, "we" could be in the majority there. (Where "we" are those who don't like the restrictions the DMCA imposes and "they" are the likes of the RIAA/MPAA/etc.)

        "We" may be in the physical majority, but who has the majority of numbers to the left of the decimal point in the bank balance?

        People don't lobby Congress, dollars do.

    • Re:physical slashdoting? (Score:5, Funny)

      by WTFmonkey ( 652603 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:55PM (#5570245)
      In other news, several RIAA higher-ups were crushed to death under a hailstorm of pocket-protectors, retainers, and taped-together eyeglassses.

  • Dear LOC committee, (Score:4, Funny)

    by rusty0101 ( 565565 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:47PM (#5570179) Homepage Journal
    I would like to point out that there is nothing in the DMCA that prevents you from continuing to persue the occupation you desire. You were interested in becoming a lawyer weren't you?

  • How about a massive rollback of IP law? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anik315 ( 585913 ) <anik@alphaco r . n et> on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:49PM (#5570189)
    IP law is supposed to promote innovation, but it has quite the opposite effect. We have really annhiliated the original 14 years was.

    Why not just pick a different value for each medium. Books get 30 years. Drugs get 5 years. Videogames get 7 years... etc.

    • Re:How about a massive rollback of IP law? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MisterFancypants ( 615129 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @07:08PM (#5570358)
      Not likely. Nothing of this sort would ever occur without first having massive changes in campaign law. It is damn near impossible to hold a national office without being completely financially indebted to all sorts of commercial interests want copyrights EXTENDED, not reduced...And that explains why this is the current trend, and will be for a long, long time.
      • It takes longer than that to get a drug through FDA testing.
        There are a lot of things wrong with the way the US healthcare system works but I think 20 year patent which leads to 10 to 15 years exclusivity on the market is about right to encourage the massive investment needed. Writing songs or books etc. requires almost no investment by comparison yet they get protection for up to 10 times as long.

    • Re:How about a massive rollback of IP law? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @09:20PM (#5571295) Homepage
      Because these two cures will be worse than the disease:
      • Every time a new medium is invented, a huge debate over what time should be assigned to it.
      • Constant attempts to classify new products as new media, followed by point 1.

  • This is not a license to act stupid (Score:5, Informative)

    by NixterAg ( 198468 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:49PM (#5570192)
    This is an excellent opportunity to show that the DMCA is crap but please, those of you who attend don't make fools of yourselves. That means dress nice (no DeCSS t-shirts and wear a tie) and that means bathe, shave, and shower. That also means wear both shoes.

    The objective is not to be seen, it's to convince others that your position is the correct and just position.
    • Note: This above does not apply if RMS wants to speak.
    • This is an excellent opportunity to show that the DMCA is crap but please, those of you who attend don't make fools of yourselves. That means dress nice (no DeCSS t-shirts and wear a tie) and that means bathe, shave, and shower. That also means wear both shoes.

      Bah! Shoes are for people who go outside, not geeks!

  • Now is your chance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hamstaus ( 586402 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:49PM (#5570194) Homepage
    Considering the huge amount of "article time" given to YRO and the DMCA over the last while, I would expect that there will be many people taking advantage of this. In fact, there are very many of you out there that would be quite foolish to not take this opportunity... hypocritical even!

    This is going to be like that old political standby... if you don't vote, then you can't complain about the results. The difference here is that there actually is a good candidate that you can vote for!

  • I'm not optimistic.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by debest ( 471937 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:51PM (#5570208)
    I may just be cynical, but...

    The copyright office probably just wants to give the DMCA opponents an official chance to voice their opposition. They can't claim to be fair and impartial if they don't hear these complaints. Then, after "weighing all the arguments" (which will include 99% negative feedback on the DMCA), they will determine that everything is just fine as it is.

    In fact, this conclusion will be further ammunition to the **AA. Why, if some restrictions are acceptable, *surely* more will be better!

  • Our lords actually care what we think? yeah right (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:52PM (#5570218) Homepage
    This won't change anything. People have been speaking out against this since day one. Lot's of very eloquent commentary from every political faction has been written against it and nothing has changed. It won't change because our political class has forsaken then principles of our founders. To our politicians, they're keeping the bread and butter on the table. The ignorant peasants are being served in the "big picture" by loss of liberty in the smaller ones in their minds. Our wealth matters more to politicians than our freedom. I'm sick of those who argue that we can't know what the original intent of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is because our founders gave us our first IP laws.

    • Re:Our lords actually care what we think? yeah rig (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hamstaus ( 586402 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @07:04PM (#5570317) Homepage
      That's pretty cynical, but then again, we are talking about the US here. The difference here is that this is an 'official' hearing... theoretically the results will be taken into account by the government, unlike the mass of unorganized and unofficial protests that have all come before it.

      So, I suggest that before you go too deep into the 'ignorant peasants and loss of liberty' stuff that you give it a shot and see what happens. Otherwise you're pegging yourself as a hypocrite. "DMCA bad! DMCA bad! What's that? You're going to listen to us? Uh... no! You're not going to listen, I just know it!" I mean, what do you want them to do, repeal it outright without giving it any thought? This is government people... it takes a bit of momentum to change these things.
      • Where when you say momentum you really mean money?

        hrmm. The war is making me overly cynical today methinks...
      • Excuse me, but if the government was going to listen to any argument based on our rights and on reasonable access to information the DMCA would never have become law in the first place. As it stands today, post 9/11, they are even less interested in arguments based on rights, freedom and progress. It is very legitimate to note this and see these proceedings and an irrelevant fop thrown to the sheeple. But then that should lead to something a bit stronger as a followup than apathy.

      • Re:Our lords actually care what we think? yeah rig (Score:5, Informative)

        by Dyolf Knip ( 165446 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @08:40PM (#5571078) Homepage
        The difference here is that this is an 'official' hearing... theoretically the results will be taken into account by the government, unlike the mass of unorganized and unofficial protests that have all come before it.

        Are you familiar with the UCITA? It's like the DMCA of shrink-wrap licenses. Basically, "Software can have _absolutely anything_ in the license you can't read until you've agreed to it. Software companies are absolved of any and all responsibility for damages from the software they write. Software companies are allowed to put back doors in their software and can disable it on your system if you so much as look at them funny." They try to run something like it through Congress every now and then, but fortunately it's 'only' been passed in two states.

        The UCITA is so bad that even the lawyers have said that it's a terribly bad piece of legislation. And yet they were ignored in Maryland and Virginia. So don't ever buy software written by companies in those states.

    • They may not care, but this is our opportunity to actually go on official government record in opposition to the DMCA. The government must at least acknowledge all evidence and testimony that is submitted at a hearing. It's a matter of it being on the government's record.

  • However... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ThePlague ( 30616 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:54PM (#5570232)
    Your comments become the property of the Federal Government, and viewing of the final report requires agreement to the license agreement.

  • A good time to bring up H.R. 1066 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:55PM (#5570250)

    This /. thread from two weeks ago comes to mind: Lofgren Introduces BALANCE Act to Modify DMCA [slashdot.org]

    I haven't read the bill, but I did check out Representative Lofgren's website. Her points on the issue seem to be quite close to what we have all been clamoring about since the whole DMCA mess got started.

    It may not be a perfect solution, but I would certainly point to it as evidence that this is a real problem and that something needs to be done. I already wrote to my Representative asking him to support the measure. I even got a (seemingly) live e-mail response from an intern saying that my comments were forwarded to the congressman.

  • Writen comments (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mpost4 ( 115369 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @06:57PM (#5570263) Homepage Journal
    They have a call for people who want to make a statement in person, I wonder if they will take staments in writing for people who can not go for what ever reason.

  • I can see it now (Score:5, Funny)

    by bjtuna ( 70129 ) <brian@@@intercarve...net> on Friday March 21, 2003 @07:03PM (#5570310) Homepage
    Library of Congress guy: "We will now hear from the community delegate from the Slashdot.org website..."

    sl4sHd0TT3r: In Soviet Russia, the MILLENIUM copyrights YOU!

    LoC guy: ?

    sh4sHd0TT3r: goatse.cx!

    LoC guy: ~whimper~

    sh4sHd0TT3r: IANAL, but the DMCA's bad mmkay?
    • you forgot

      War Bad

      Goverment bad

      Religon bad

      those are other opions that exist stronly here on slashdot.

      • those are other opions that exist stronly here on slashdot.

        Those opions (?) are hardly unique to slashdot; and therefore don't make for good satire.

    • Re:I can see it now (Score:1, Redundant)

      by RLiegh ( 247921 )
      Hilarious! I think it would go more like this, though:

      Library of Congress guy: "We will now hear from the community delegate from the Slashdot.org website..."

      sl4sHd0TT3r: In Soviet Russia, the MILLENIUM copyrights YOU!

      LoC guy: ?

      *sh4Hd0TT3r drops pants, bends over and exposes (ahem) himself
      sh4sHd0TT3r: goatse.cx!

      LoC guy: ~whimper~
      LoC *faints,vomits*
    • LoC guy: ?

      RIAA/MPAA lawyer: prophet!

  • Red Herrings.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by joshsnow ( 551754 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @07:04PM (#5570321) Journal
    I thought the title said, "Library of Congress to Hold DMCA Herrings"
    Just proves you see what you want to see...

  • LA Dates and Locations (Score:5, Informative)

    by pastorBernie ( 629093 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @07:07PM (#5570345)
    The Washington Post did a similar story in which they confirmed the Los Angeles dates and locations:

    Los Angeles City Hall
    April 17 : 10:00 am - 4:00 pm
    April 18 : 10:00 am - 4:00 pm
    April 25 : 10:00 am - 3:00 pm

    Mark your calendars.
  • are distracting, destructive and a thing of the past. Haven't you been listening? Stop being so selfish and unpatriotic. Now go unlock your doors. It makes it easier for us to check your homes for illegal content while you sleep.

  • Please Note: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rorschach1 ( 174480 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @07:11PM (#5570385) Homepage
    Testimony becomes the sole property of the Library of Congress. Unauthorized redistribution or reproduction is expressly prohibited. By submitting your request, you agree to these terms and conditions.

  • The hearing dates in the U.S. capital...

    Shouldn't that be capitol?
    • Depends. If it's merely someplace in D.C., then it's the capital and the article is correct. If it's in the white stone building with the dome, then it's the capitol and the article is wrong.

  • How about Copyright Hearings? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @07:25PM (#5570508)

    The real problem isn't the DMCA - it's copyright monopolies being taken to their logical conclusion. If you don't cut the vine off at the root, then it will never stop trying to choke you off.

  • Old arguement, stil works... (Score:5, Informative)

    by b0bd0bbs ( 592231 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @07:29PM (#5570534)
    Here [cmu.edu] is a link to the DeCSS program, defined as a prime number.
    DeCSS is illegal under the DMCA. Is the prime number that defines it then also illegal? How is a number illegal, exactly? Do you have to skip it when you are counting and if you don't you get arrested under the DMCA?
    Of all the arguements I've heard, this one is the most obvious to me on how broken the DMCA is. It's lunacy. I think I'm breaking the law just linking to the program.
    • Bad argument, for two reasons. First, imagine trying to get through to anyone but a geek with it. Second, one could also convert computer viruses, kiddie porn, or lists of stolen credit card numbers to prime numbers, but this does not make the laws against possessing them nonsensical.

      • Re:Old arguement, stil works... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Dyolf Knip ( 165446 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @10:06PM (#5571635) Homepage
        Since when is a list of stolen credit card numbers illegal? I mean, what is it about the mere existence of a list of other people's credit card numbers that is fundamentally wrong? The credit company themselves certainly maintain a list of previously used numbers, many of which were likely stolen at one point. Shouldn't they be prosecuted?

        Or do you mean instead, the act of stealing credit card numbers is bad? Or perhaps, it's using those numbers to other people's detriment that should be illegal? It's a small but very important distinction. Otherwise the parent's scenario of pulling the wrong set of 16 numbers out of one's ass being a felony becomes a legal reality. Your average transcendental number would certainly have more than a few 'illegal numbers' tucked away somewhere.

        An act or piece of information should never, in and of itself, be illegal (but man, how they do try!). The circumstances surrounding it are what matter. Fire is legal, arson is not. Killing is legal, but only if it is suicide, self-defense, or state-sponsored (i.e., executions and war). Taking pictures of naked kids is legal (how many did your parents take of you in the tub or wearing nothing but a hat?), but if intended for sexual purposes they're not. Technically, DeCSS should be legal and stealing DVD's illegal, but good luck trying to convince Valenti of that.

        You may notice that the War on Drugs totally ignores this. Mere possession of what are in some cases naturally occuring substances earn you a few years as a guest of the state. Prohibition that doesn't even wait for you do actually _do_ something bad is not altogether popular and is becoming less so each passing year. And not even The Big Lie approach is succeeding in keeping it in place.

        • Killing is legal, but only if it is suicide, self-defense, or state-sponsored (i.e., executions and war).

          Just a small quibble: In a lot of places, suicide is in fact llegal.

          • I think I can assure you, it's not. _Attempted suicide_ may very well be prohibited, but if you do in fact succeed, I can safely guarantee you they won't try to prosecute you.

            Hmmm, on second thought, some organizations are indeed stupid enough to conduct posthumous trials [uga.edu].

            • I think I can assure you, it's not. _Attempted suicide_ may very well be prohibited, but if you do in fact succeed, I can safely guarantee you they won't try to prosecute you.

              Well, I know suicide is illegal in England [buenonet.com]. Physician-assisted suicide is certainly illegal in a lot of places in the US.

              In addition, unprosecuted illegal acts do not make those acts legal. I was thinking more about places that have laws or legislation against suicide. Sure, it is impossible to enforce, and that makes it a stu

    • If I encode child pornography as a prime number, is it still illegal/obscene?

  • And, if you can't attend.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sir Network ( 183139 ) on Friday March 21, 2003 @08:46PM (#5571121) Journal
    Give the EFF a few bucks.
    Support those who can attend.

    The first one seems more realistic for those like myself who are stuck in the Midwest on the wrong side of everything. the second is for those of you who are more daring or better connected with people with strong feelings on the issue.

  • Question: DMCA and IBM PC Clones? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ch-chuck ( 9622 ) on Saturday March 22, 2003 @10:52AM (#5573817) Homepage
    Here's a discussion quesiton: if the DMCA had be in force in 1980, would Compaq computer's PC clone have been illegal? If not, wouldn't a simple XOR encryption make cloning 'circumvention' and thus illegal? What effect would the DMCA have had on the fantastic growth of the PC clone industry if clones were illegal, not to mention Microsoft's fantastic profits?

    Next: The Lexmark toner cartridge case. Isn't it dangerous to allow manufacturers to totally lock in parts and supplies simply by putting a microcontroller in it, which must be reverse engineered to create? Consider this hypothetical: GM makes 'smart' brake shoes, with embedded controllers and software (say they monitor temperature and wear). Couldn't GM then use the DMCA to make any competitive brake shoes illegal, thus creating a monopoly on replacement parts and charging whatever price they want for them? Would you want to have to buy a 'smart air filter' for your car for $250, with only one legal source of them?

Slashdot Top Deals

If you teach your children to like computers and to know how to gamble then they'll always be interested in something and won't come to no real harm.

Close