Slashdot Log In
Librarian of Congress Posts DMCA Exemptions
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Oct 28, 2003 09:54 PM
from the fair-use-bleeds-in-ditch dept.
from the fair-use-bleeds-in-ditch dept.
MrNerdHair writes "The Librarian of Congress has posted a list of exemptions from the DMCA (also obtainable in PDF here.) Works falling in four 'classes' may be considered exempt from Section 1201 of the DMCA's prohibition against 'circumvention of a technological measure which effectively controls access to a work.' Among the list are blacklists of sites used in programs such as NetNanny and cracks to bypass dongles on abandonware. All in all, a very interesting read ..." Not just interesting: as Robin Gross writes, "Unfortunately, the ruling leaves the vast majority of consumers unable to access their own property, such as skipping commercials on DVDs, playing CDs in their PCs, and reading eBooks on PDA's without violating the DMCA." Update: 10/29 15:19 GMT by T : Take a look at Seth Finkelstein's site for an idea of how being pushy can sometimes be helpful; Finkelstein has loudly pushed for the importance of DMCA exemptions, including in Congressional testimony.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Librarian of Congress Posts DMCA Exemptions
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 324 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
What are my rights? (Score:1, Offtopic)
(http://home.mchsi.com/~toasty/)
Re:What are my rights? - it's a very short list. (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday April 17 2005, @07:20PM)
How do I get that job? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.redstream.org/)
She must be busy as hell!
Re:she? (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday February 24 2004, @06:10PM)
As a matter of fact, he is a he [loc.gov].
The LOC pretty much exists for two reasons:
- Writing reports for Congress
- Letting PhD candidates research
His job is to set library policies that further those two goals.The saddest thing (Score:2, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday December 24 2004, @08:49PM)
Both sides are wrong, but it was the copyright infringers who were wrong first.
Now we are stuck with these controls and a completely braindead law that makes it a crime to exercise what was once accepted as 'inalienable rights'.
Re:The saddest thing (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ganjablogger.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday January 05 2006, @05:36PM)
This has never been about people infringing copyright, it's about control and maximizing profit. These changes came about as a result of it being technology possible to restrict buyers this way, NOT as a result of people needing to be restricted.
Re:The saddest thing (Score:4, Insightful)
This is all about protecting a business model that political, social, and technological changes has rendered depreciated.
Take a look at the upheaval AC power created, and the underhanded, illegal and unethical (by today's standards) tactics used by "big business" to protect that monopoly.
The old saw about "...who ignore history..." has never been truer.
Re:The saddest thing (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.ganjablogger.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday January 05 2006, @05:36PM)
I won't let this degrade into a "did! did not!" debate. But if copyright infringement got worse PROSECUTE. Copyright infringement was ALREADY illegal. The only extension the DMCA added of significance is that it's now illegal to circumvent protective measures EVEN WHERE THEY EXTEND WELL BEYOND the limited controls given by copyright.
Remember the RIAA nor the musicians own the music, the people own the music. The people have said thankyou for their contribution by giving them LIMITED control for a LIMITED period of time over LIMITED aspects of OUR property.
Personally I think we need a new DMCA, toss out the old one, copyright holders (myself included, I have copyrights for books, poems, source code, and web content) should lose copyright if they choose technological protections in place of it. They should be mutually exclusive, either you depend on the law and press for it to be enforced, OR you depend on vigilante self enforcement.
"Effectively ..."? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://mecko.net/)
If it can be circumvented, then it's not really that effective, now is it?
Interesting (Score:1, Insightful)
It should be the other way round (Score:4, Insightful)
All in all.... (Score:1, Redundant)
(http://www.xaero.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 30 2005, @05:06PM)
one site text... (Score:1, Informative)
IP Justice Media Release
Contact: Robin Gross, IP Justice Executive Director
+1 415-553-6261 robin@ipjustice.org
October 28, 2003
US Copyright Office DMCA Ruling Issued
Consumers Still Unable to Make Lawful Use of Digital Media
Today the US Librarian of Congress issued its Ruling in the triennial proceedings pursuant to the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to determine possible exemptions to the DMCA's general ban on circumvention of technological restrictions controlling copyrighted works. Unfortunately, the ruling leaves the vast majority of consumers unable to access their own property, such as skipping commercials on DVDs, playing CDs in their PCs, and reading eBooks on PDA's without violating the DMCA.
The Librarian's ruling is based upon the recommendation of the US Copyright Office after conducting its public study on the adverse impact on the ability to make fair use and other lawful uses of digital media.
The US Librarian of Congress has created the following four narrow exemptions from the DMCA's general ban on circumvention for the next three-years:
1. Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software applications that are intended to prevent access to domains, websites or portions of websites, but not including lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer or computer network or lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email.
2. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.
3. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access.
4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format
The first two exemptions are very similar to the original two exemptions granted by the Librarian in the first DMCA Rulemaking in 2000. While the two new exemptions will be useful to a small handful of consumers, the Librarian's ruling still leaves the vast majority of legitimate consumer uses of digital media illegal under the DMCA.
During the Rulemaking, IP Justice requested the Librarian issue exemptions to permit consumers to access their DVDs, CDs, and ebooks on the devices of their choosing and in the manner of their choosing.
"Its disappointing that the US Copyright Office and Librarian continue to relinquish their power to protect the rights of American consumers to lawfully use their own property as Congress had intended when it created this rulemaking proceeding in 1998," said IP Justice Executive Director Robin Gross, who testified in both the 2000 and 2003 US Copyright Office Hearings.
Even though the Librarian's ruling creating exemptions to the DMCA's general ban on circumvention under 1201 (a)(1), all the tools that are necessary to practically carry out that exemption are still forbidden under 1201(a)(2).
In the 2000 US Copyright Office DMCA Rulemaking, two exemptions were issued to the general ban on circumvention.
1. Compilations consisting of lists of Web sites blocked by filtering software applications.
2. Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsolescence.
US Copyright Office Ruling of Oct. 28, 2003:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
The Recommendation of th
Question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Question... (Score:4, Insightful)
It does not invalidate the copyright on the game, and allow you to redistribute the rom, or to download the rom from somewhere else. It just lets you get at what you have bought to be used in a way the maker didn't design for you.
Using the term "abandonware" which people connect with downloading roms you have not purchased an original cartridge or software license for only confuses the issue.
Re:Question... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
For instance, in the publishing industry it is possible for a company to sit on a book that has gone stale for decades only to republish it someday when it looks to be profitable again.
Could you cite an example? Overwhelmingly, the copyrights on books are held by the books' authors, not by the original publishers. After a publisher puts a book out-of-print, the publishing rights revert to the author, or whomever has inherited his estate. If the book is republished at a later time, it's because the copyright holders resells the publishing rights. Publishers don't "sit on a book" -- they can't, they will lose the right to publish it.
I don't think the situation is analogous. A software company that holds the copyright to a particular piece of software that it has abandoned still has the right to prevent anyone else from exploiting that software, if it wishes. It can also make it clear that it doesn't care what anyone does with the software. What the Librarian of Congress has done is allowed a DMCA exemption that permits cracking encryption on obsolete software so that it is still accessible; the exemption doesn't by itself remove the copyright holder's privilege.
Michael
Re:Question... (Score:4, Insightful)
A good case for this would be Discreet's 3DS Max R3.x. It used a parallel port hardware dongle made by Rainbow. The dongles were exceedingly fragile and would blow out (thus rendering the software useless) quite often. The problem was so bad that eventually Discreet set up a web page to automate the process of entering complaints and getting new dongles sent out.
While Discreet is on R6 of Max now (with software based licensing schemes), R3 is still a valid product and can be used on modern hardware. A lot of motherboards don't have parallel ports, though. And, even for those that do, Discreet doesn't support R3 any more. They won't replace dead dongles. I don't think that Rainbow is around any more, either. So, when (not if, because it will happen) your dongle goes PFFFFT you will probably be out of luck.
Now the LoC is saying that in such an instance downloading, or creating, a hack to 3ds max R3 that circumvents the dongle check would be allowable. That is a good thing.
of COURSE! (Score:1)
Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://quantumphilosophy.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:23PM)
1. Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software applications that are intended to prevent access to domains, websites or portions of websites, but not including lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer or computer network or lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email.
2. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.
3. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access.
4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format
Windows 95 is considered obsolete and unsupported by Microsoft, right? And doesn't that end many questions on MAME?
I can't wait for the next round of exceptions.
Sorry, but no. (Score:5, Interesting)
This ruling merely creates exceptions to the DMCA, i.e. cracking the protection on a work, not distributing it. Therefore, as Windows 95 is a copyrighted work and you don't need to crack its protection to get it to work on a PC (its native format), this ruling does not affect Windows 95 in any way. And the only thing it changes for MAME is that it makes it legal to crack the protection on arcade boards to decrypt and emulate them. It's still illegal to trade abandonware ROMs/ISOs.
Re:Sweet (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the way I read this (IANAL), it now seems legal to break the whatever copyright protection was installed onto a game if the format of the game has become obsolete, and which in unaltered form would require the original media/hardware to use. So basically, if you own an old, obsolete arcade game, you can legally circumvent the copyright protection so that you can extract the ROM and use it on your PC.
Now, how many MAME users actually own old arcade hardware, and intend to use MAME to play that arcade game? Distributing the ROMs to anyone is still illegal, but I guess it would now be legal for me to tell you how to rip the ROM out of your own board yourself.
Windows 95 is considered obsolete and unsupported by Microsoft, right?
Yes, Windows 95 is considered obsolete by Microsoft, but the format it is distributed on (CDs) are not. Furthermore, there's not really any DRM on the Windows 95 cd anyway, aside from the installation program asking for a valid key, so the point is moot.
What this exemption really means is that if, in the future, software was distributed on DRM enabled media, and then further into the future, the DRM media they 'obsolete' and few people had drives that could read them, it would be legal to tell someone how to extract data from that media and use it on the current hardware.
Does #3 legalize emulators and old ROM's?!?! (Score:1)
(http://www.chalker.org/)
(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
Doesn't this make emulators like MAME and the use of ROMS legal now?
No, Circumvention != Copying (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://blockwars.com/)
Unfortunately no. Section 2 & 3 specifically state (emphesis mine):
2. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.
3. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
So this says you are allowed to bypass and DRM or other copy protection necessary to access the software if it is no longer feasable to do it legally... BUT you must own the software in the first place to do this. Otherwise it could still be considered piracy.
Blockwars [blockwars.com]: multiplayer gaming... free!
Text from the website of the exemptions (Score:1)
(http://www.chalker.org/)
(1) Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software applications that are intended to prevent access to domains, websites or portions of websites, but not including lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer or computer network or lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email.
(2) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.
(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
(4) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format.
Definitions. (1) ?Internet locations? are defined to include domains, uniform resource locators (URLs), numeric IP addresses or any combination thereof.
(3) ?Obsolete? shall mean ?no longer manufactured or reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.?
(3) ?Specialized format,? ?digital text? and ?authorized entities? shall have the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 121.
All aspects of the DMCA are easy to circumvent (Score:1, Funny)
Go NOW before they figure it out.
Leave before the building of the.
Two transcontinental walls.
You will have a better chance.
with appropriate aluminum headgear.
You own the disc. (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://s87365085.onlinehome.us/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 28 2003, @04:22PM)
Considered, But Not Recommended (Score:3, Funny)
If you haven't already... (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://plato.stanford.edu/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 15 2005, @10:46AM)
Open Source/Free Software Freight Train (Score:2, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday February 20 2006, @09:53AM)
Quick! Name three buggy whip vendors! Ah
The GNU battering ram is going to level Microsoft, Sun, SCO, SGI, and it'll take a large bite out of Cisco, Nortel, Avaya, and the like as well.
The US will try to restrain it, the rest of the world will embrace it, and after a brief period of agonizing over brainstem companies like M$ that just don't realize they're mostly dead already, the tide will reverse. Its going to take a generation and I don't mean an internet time generation, but the outcome is inevitable.
Buggy whip vendors? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://deron.meranda.us/)
You mean like,
What are dongles (Score:3, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday February 26 2004, @12:47AM)
Re:What are dongles (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.seanadams.com/)
Essentially, anything that dangles.
Law should never have been passed (Score:1)
-Seriv
Does the third exemption make mod chips legal???!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I could see possibly some help for DeCSS-specifically the section of I believe the first exemption relating to the restriction of fair use.
Art (Score:1)
(http://www.valleytechnologiesllc.com/)
Code == art right?
Rule 4 (Score:4, Interesting)
PR Tactic (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~coolmacdude | Last Journal: Sunday March 23 2003, @12:22PM)
Definition of Property (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Thursday February 26 2004, @12:47AM)
Legally, the physical media is the property of the consumer. The consumer only owns a limited access to the information stored on the media. This law does not affect the consumers access to their own property, but it does affect thier access to other people's property.
Before people get up in arms ... (Score:1)
I'll say it again
Your Right in 2030 (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 10 2002, @04:09AM)
You're arguing with your wife again. It seems she's missed her spending quota again this quarter. A proud patriot, you have no problem spending 85% and sometimes 90% of your income on consumer goods, yet she can't manage to spend even close to the 75% required by law. It's that foreign mentality, you suppose--that's what happens when you are educated overseas and without the benefit of a corporate sponsor. You have to remind her that if the Internal Consumer's Service (ICS) catches her, she'll be doing time in Philip Morris(TM) Prison like her uncle.
Oh well, hopefully a night at the town's AOL-Time-Warner-Clear-Channel-Blockbuster(TM) Authorized Media Distribution Center will smooth things over with her. That reminds you--you need to have your eye- and ear-implants inspected for this quarter again, otherwise you won't even be allowed in tonight.
You haven't attended church services for a while. Although your wife is a devout follower of God's Customers(TM) and shops in the Church Store at LEAST five tiems a quarter, you're not yet convinced that converting from Consumers For Jesus(TM) was that sound an investment.
Your son Rick has just graduated from the local McDonalds(TM) High School. You want him to go to Pepsi(TM) University like his sister, but he wants to go to Coke(TM) College. Not that it matters--the permits you get at either school are the same. Although he really wanted to attend Stanford(TM), his corporate sponsors rejected that proposal, based on what it might do to his credit rating.
Your youngest daughter just graduated Pepsi(TM) U. It was expensive, but she is all set now, having received a Creative Thought Permit and a Entrepreneurship License. On top of that she's accepted a job at Fortune 10 corporation. Of course almost everyone works for a Fortune 10 nowadays, there being only thirty-some corporations left. It's too bad she had to sign all those NDA's though--you'd really like to be allowed to know where she would be living and how to get in touch with her. Ahh well, it's the price you pay for our corporate security.
Your older daughter, after twenty quarters of employment, was finally permitted to tell you that she is working in middle-management at AT&T. Of course, every job in the United Corporations of America is middle-management. The cheaper--skilled--labor is all outsourced to Those Other Countries, whatever they are called. In ten more quarters, assuming her credit rating remains good and she has attained Shareholder status, she'll be allowed to talk face-to-face (no encrypted channel) with us again!
Apparently, her five year old daughter has been grounded again, this time for racking up a $6000 fine--singing "Happy Birthday(TM)" at a party without a Media Distribution License. She really needs to be taught a lesson--that as a patriotic Consumer of the UCA, she needs to respect the rights of Shareholders and property owners. What a dangerous thoughts she has! She thinks she should be allowed to say whatever she pleases, no matter what it does to someone else's portfolio! No one can get it through to her that terrorist ideas like that will land her in one of those "special" schools--and she'd be subjected to a lower quarterly limit on all her credit cards.
Fax from your wife--she'll be late tonight. Corporate HQ has re-instated fourteen-hour work days until the end of this quarter. It's too bad she's not allowed to quit her job--you could get her a pretty sweet management position any time in your department at Microsoft.
Orignal post [slashdot.org] by Accord MT [slashdot.org].
God Bless the DMCA (Score:1)
(http://www.kylehamilton.com/ | Last Journal: Friday July 25 2003, @03:24PM)
Read aloud (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if they make an ebook available for $5 without read-aloud, but make a special edition available for $200,000, this exemption does not apply.
In fact, the exemption says nothing of the availability of a read-aloud edition. If a publisher were to create one single edition and sell the only license to his nephew, then it will no longer be the case that "all" existing ebook editions have read-aloud disabled and you would not be able to circumvent the access controls. Even though no read-aloud version is available to you, one does exist so you are SOL.
Awwwww, too bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh my! What should I do about all these awful copies of DeCSS all over the Internet?
Um, so sorry, but no one is going to tell me what I can or can not do with property that I posess. It's mine, I paid for it, I traded CASH for property. I buy property, I don't license it. Licenses are invalid and un-enforceable anyway, just ask SCO. I'll take any and everything apart I own and study it and tell people about it as I see fit.
I always have and I always will.
When I was 5 years old a kid game me a 9 transistor pocket radio circa 1966 that was broken. I fixed it by taking other radios apart and seeing how they were put together.
This DMCA is bullshit designed to keep the elite few at the top in total control.
It stiffles innovation and creativity.
A hell of a lot of inventions were the spawn of someone trying to improve upon an existing design. You stop people from doing that and you are killing progress.
DMCA is a draconian and oppressive tool that keeps the rich, rich and the dumb, dumb.
It's all about the almighty dollar. Greed makes the world go around..
Dongles (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Thursday April 28 2005, @06:02PM)
They should have extended this to ALL programs protected by dongles -- as long as you have a valid license -- simply on the basis that dongles suck.
skipping commercials (Score:1, Funny)
(http://realities.cjb.net/)
Politically Relevent Information? (Score:2)
But maybe I'm just a tad touchy because I just decided to mirror the documents. And I don't want to be sued.
Obsolete systems? (Score:3, Insightful)
As eBay has many Atari 2600, Colecovision, Intellivision, etc. systems listed, is anything really *not available*?
Similarly, is a program that was introduced on 5 1/4" floppies, and then taken off the market, considered a "format no longer manufactured"?
I firmly belive that (Score:1)
(http://slashdot.org/)
*Sigh* It was a nice thought though wasn't it?
Did anyone notice...? (Score:3, Redundant)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Ok, so if you have a DVD that consists entirely of material that is in the public domain, it is legal for you to use DeCSS to access that material, yes? Am I reading this incorrectly?: "the prohibition on circumvention will not be applicable." So how can it be illegal to post DeCSS to a website, if the code can be used for legitimate purposes? The premise of the MPAA's case against 2600 was that DeCSS violated the DMCA by providing an illegal circumvention technique. But if this circumvention is only illegal when misused by the end-user, isn't DeCSS more akin to the FastTrack network -- or, for that matter, to VCRs, MP3 players, Xerox machines, etc.
In other words, if there are instances in which the prohibition on circumventing CSS is not applicable, then telling someone else how to circumvent CSS should not be illegal, yes? What am I not getting here?
Michael
Hmmm (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Saturday August 06 2005, @12:21AM)
So we just have to wait 20 years... (Score:2)
(http://www.codevis.com/)
Maybe a step towards getting copyrights knocked back down to 20 years? Seems like all personal computing technologies are obsoleted in 10 years or less these days.
Vote Dammit! (Score:1)
The Librarian (Score:2, Funny)
"clit" for converting MS E-Books (Score:2)
(http://bill.herrin.us/)
Doesn't this mean that clit is now legal where the ebook isn't available in another format?
Kudos to Paramount (Score:2)
I bought the Indiana Jones box set last week. Got home, popped in Raiders, and the first thing that shows up is the menu, with PLAY right there, ready to go. No legal threats, no unskippable commercials, just the available options on the disc.
Thank you, Paramount!
If you don't like the way media is presented... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can't handle the fact that you're not legally allowd to fiddle with a DVD to get around commericials that have been inserted in there, why are you buying DVDs? Yes, it's stupid, and it should be fought hard, but why are you people buying DVDs in the meantime?
I don't buy music on CDs because I don't care for the copy protection regime, and I'd rather not have some idiot corporate lawyer looking for a test case try to eat my life. It's easier, and they can't legally touch me for not buying stuff. I couldn't care less if anyone calls me unpatriotic. Whooptie doo. I can call them the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler, but just because it's personally insulting doesn't make it true, or worth more than the lungfull of air it took to spew it. I truly do not understand why people allow themselves to be railroaded into things, if they hate those things so much.
Just don't buy DVDs or CDs. Watch ones your simple minded sheep friends have at their house. Stops you from watching the idiot box all day, at worst. There is stuff that is released in a format that conforms to your wishes. Find it, use it, and patronize the people who produce it, and punish the big guys by, horror of horrors, NOT SPENDING YOUR MONEY ON THEIR STUFF.
Legal mame Roms! (Score:2)
(http://www.epithna.com/)
"(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace."
Some exemptions that should be added (Score:2)
1.exemption that makes it not a DMCA violation to defeat copy protection and copy music, movies, TV shows and other audio-visual content from media for which players are no-longer manufactured commercially onto current formats.
2.exemption that makes it not a DMCA violation to copy public domain content or content for which you have secured the permission of the copyright holder to make copies.
3.exemption that makes it legal to figure out how a copy protection method works to enable your piece of hardware or software to sucessfully play copy-protected works on the condition that the software only allow the playing of original works and not copies.
This would allow e.g. WINE to crack copy protection so that origonal copy-protected games would run (but only if games that arent origonals are prevented from running)
4.an exemption that makes it legal to violate the DMCA if the "protected" content is part of either:
1.a consumable device featuring hardware
or 2.a device taking consumable devices that feature hardware
and is used to prevent 3rd party companies from cloning the consumable device.
The definition of "consumable device featuring hardware" as it applies above is any device that:
A.gets used up/worn out as part of the normal operation of the device and requires regular replacement
and B.consists of something other than "media" (that way, the exemption wouldnt apply to e.g. disposable DVDs)
Media is defined as anything where the sole purpose is to store information, i.e. Floppy Disks, Hard Disks, Optical Media, Casette Tapes, Rom Chips, Flash Memory and so on.
and 5.a blanket exemption that makes it legal to defeat copy protection where that protection prevents a disabled person (e.g. deaf, blind) from using that copy protected work (would apply to software, movies, music, books etc).
This only applies if a usable copy of the work is not commercially available.
The rationale behind each of these is:
1 would make it legal to defeat copy protection for audio-visual media for which players no-longer exist
2 would make it legal to defeat copy protection for content (software, books, music, movies or whatever) which is in the public domain or for which you have permission from the copyright holder to make copies.
This also means that if you have used a program to create a work that contains copy protection (e.g. the new M$ Office 2003 with DRM features), you can legally crack copy protection on this work since you own the copyright on the work.
3 would make it legal to make a piece of software or hardware that is capable of playing copy protected works as long as it can only play origonal works and doesnt provide a means to defeat the protection. (for example, XBOX emulator that can only play origonal XBOX disks wouldnt be illegal or e.g. WINE implementing support for origonal valid copy-protected games wouldnt be illegal as long as an origonal CD is required to play and it doesnt defeat the protection)
4 would make it legal for 3rd parties to clone things like printer cartridges or car parts even where copy protection is used to prevent this (e.g. in the lexmark printer cartridge chips case)
5 would make it legal to defeat copy protection to enable disabled people to access content they wouldnt otherwise be able to access
MAME, et al. (Score:3)
(http://eoti.org/~malachi)
So, I guess that will make MAME, et al, very happy. From the way I read this section, things like Sega Genesis or TRS-80 games are not protected?
--Malachi
Using it how I want to use it (Score:2)
You miss the point completely. (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.johnkramlich.com/)
If I buy a DVD of a movie, I want to be able to skip there damn promos. I don't want the disc or player telling me that I HAVE TO WATCH THEIR ADVERTISEMENTS.
It's asine. It would, according to the DVD spec, be possible for them to produce a movie which would not allow you to pause, fast forward, or rewind.
What if I want to get up and take a piss?
If I transfer that DVD to something like VHS, so that I can pause it to get up and take a piss, I AM A CRIMINAL. This has nothing to do with stopping piracy.
Re:Woohoo! (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Friday March 11 2005, @02:01PM)
Re:but it's NOT the consumers property (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.seanadams.com/)
Suppose I wanted to *lease* a DVD player (like a car) - then the lessor can impose restriction whatever restrictions he wants on me modifying HIS property, and I don't think anyone would find this unreasonable.
However, if I want to modify my DVD player THAT I PAID FOR, FAIR AND SQURE, so I can skip commercials, then I should be free to do so. And if I want to write a program that can play the stuff on the DVD disc THAT I PAID FOR, then I should be free to do so.
We are not asking for NEW allowances. The old copyright law was fine. It's the DMCA that has to go.
Re:but it's NOT the consumers property (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright was not originally intended to provide a way to allow creators to restrict how their works are distributed - that was a deliberate side-effect of the actual purpose of copyright at the time, which was to promote further creation. In other words, "if you keep on writing books/painting pictures/whatever, you get to say what people can do with that - but only for a little while, because any creative work eventually should become the property of the people".
Now, before somebody starts foaming at the mouth about how that was then, this is now, and books, movies, music, etc. are big business and thus more control should be given to those who create them - I do agree with you, to a point. If I wrote a book and the next day had it spread around the world without my consent, I'd be pissed.
The problem is, we're reaching a point in history where, for the very first time, it costs virtually nothing to store, replicate and distribute creative works. In the old days, a book had to be laboriously handcopied, or re-typeset, or be run through a photocopier a page at a time. Now, any book on the planet fits into my USB keyring a thousandfold.
At this point in time, don't we want to rethink what the meaning of restrictions on copying are in a world where there is no physical basis for those restrictions?
Isn't the whole point of creation to enrich your life and the lives of those around you? (I exclude Britney Spears songs, "books" by anyone with the first name Danielle, and movies that feature the incumbent Governor of California from this.) Surely we can figure out a way that someone who creates something worthwhile can make a reasonable living doing so, without forbidding everybody else to pass such a creation to other people without restriction?
Re:but it's NOT the consumers property (Score:3, Informative)
(https://addons.mozil...&application=firefox)
The consumer owns the disc. The copyright holder, once it's sold, does not. Copyright doesn't grant ownership of the movie, it only grants exclusive right to copy. Have you not read any of the explainations posted on /. describing the difference between property and copyright? I'd go over it again, but no one ever seems to listen...
Re:but it's NOT the consumers property (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 14, @10:49PM)
Re:but it's NOT the consumers property (Score:1)
Of course, you could be using the classic fifth-grader tactic of accusing those who disagree with you of being retarded, but that would require you to either be a pre-teen or an imbecile. And I'm sure you're neither, right?