New Anti-Circumvention Rulemaking Coming Soon 81
zurab writes "According to CNet, copyright regulators are considering a rare public comment (pdf) process on the controversial DMCA law. The article states they are mostly looking for what kind of exceptions they should make to the law." If you recall, the Librarian of Congress is required by law to conduct a review process every three years to see if there are any specific types of works which should be exempted from part of the DMCA. You can see loc.gov for some information about the current and previous rulemaking procedures, and this piece I wrote after the last rulemaking was finished, examining what did and didn't work to convince the bureaucrats.
Fritz' hit list (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fritz' hit list (Score:1)
Why not they are with Patent Applications.
Re:Fritz' hit list (Score:3, Interesting)
To summarize:
The DMCA says you cannot build a 'device' that can circumvent(blah blah) a copy or access control system. To use this to their advantage, Sony decides to build a new DVD player and markets matching DVDs that are only authorized to be played on those systems.
Ding! Instant monopoly position. But I digress...
Anyway, Time Warner and Disney also get the bright idea to do something like this at the same time (maybe because of reading some slightly anarchistic postings on a popular online message board?)
At this point you are not allowed to play a Sony DVD on a Time Warner DVD player, or vice versa.
This gets ugly for both the Corps and the consumers.
Sound like fantasy? So would have the DMCA ten years ago.
Re:Fritz' hit list (Score:1)
Re:Fritz' hit list (Score:1)
That's how I'd like to see it handled. If the copy protection isn't effective, the law shouldn't be enforced. ROT-13'ing something isn't effective, as one example.
Kierthos
Dont exampt anything! (Score:5, Interesting)
And no, code has not been ruled as free speech according to the courts. Linux will not qualify as speech and will be unprotected by the us constitution. The judge presiding over the case of the MPAA vs Jon Johnshon ruled that code was a series of "actions" rather then "expressions" and will remain how courts look at code untill another judge questions this.
If the dmca is ever overturned then we can port linux to pallidium and the xbox without a mod chip and ms wont be able to do shit.
Please common on about the unconsitutionalality of the law but do not write comments about specific bad sections which may help the EFF in court.
Re:Dont exampt anything! (Score:1)
Somehow I don't think that this will entirely be legal, but it won't be illegal under the DMCA, and thus hopefully give a little more wiggle room for the eventual legal battle over "hardware protectionism".
Re:Dont exampt anything! (Score:3, Informative)
Why not? Don't be brainwashed into this thinking by the big media companies. It is only illegal under the dmca to reverse engineer something. Ms does not own your motherboard or xbox after you purchase it. You do.
Could you clone it? No, that would be fraud and the hardware may be copyrighted.
But you can do whatever it is you want this it.
Copyright laws today give patent like powers to copyright holders which is wrong. I think its bs that a company can claim to own someting you bought. The dmca gives them these powers. It gives them a limited set of rules that a consumer can't do.
Also if it were actually illegal to reverse engineer hardware, then all computers except IBM's would be illegal.
After all compaq must of broken the law by writing their own bios and creating the first pc clone. Right?
Re:Dont exampt anything! (Score:3, Insightful)
Severability? (Score:2)
Re:Severability? (Score:2)
Because just striking out a sentence or two might make the law silly, the courts provide some detail as to what should be considered valid and invalid, so other parts of the patch may also be invalidated, but not necessarily all, just those that are related to the bad bit. Then, of course, congress goes to work on crafting another patch, hopefully trying to avoid the particular mess they stepped into the first time.
That's my understanding, anyway. I'm not a lawyer, a judge or a constitutional scholar, so I could be completely wrong.
Misguided (Score:4, Informative)
The LOC doesn't give two rats whiskers about the constitutionality of the law. Do not write to them about the constitutionality of the law. They have one mandate, and that is to examine if there are "classes of works" for which enforcement of the DMCA would "substantially harm" legitimate, non-infringing use of those classes of works.
The legal battles to have the law overturned as unconstitutional are a logically seperate issue from what the LOC rules. If the LOC exempts certain classes of works (as it has already two), then either the law will be declared unconstitutional for another reason or enough works will be exempted (due to legitimate argumentation from interested/harmed parties) that the DMCA will be unenforceable by its own mandate.
The best solution would be to argue to the LOC according to its terms, conceding its strict mandate and forming coherent reasons that everything worthwhile should be exempt (one class at a time, like the PDF requests), and fight the battle of unconstitutionality in the courts. Any spurious assertions or argumentation will be posted on the LOC's webpage, but nobody will read past the first paragraph.
Funny definition (Score:2)
So I suppose cooking recipies aren't protected either? After all, they're nothing but a series of actions rather than "expressions".
Oh well, at least I don't have your US problems, we make up enough of our own...
Kjella
Re:Dont exampt anything! (Score:1)
In Bernstein, a US Appeals court ruled that code is speech. In 2600 Magazine, the court ruled that code is both speech and a device. Could you cite a single case where a US court has ruled that code is not speech? Note that the Johansen case was in Norway, well outside US jurisdiction.
They could always... (Score:1)
Discussion of security vulnerabilities (Score:5, Interesting)
It makes little sense to be allowed to post a patch containing C code to fix a security vulnerability to a public mailing list, and yet not be able to post English text that contains the same information.
I don't particularly care about not being able to "make mp3z from my cdz", but I don't want my webservers rooted just because somebody wasn't allowed to post a patch.
If somebody doesn't patch their server, they are being irresponsible, not the person who posts details of the vulnerability.
At the end of the day, if your server is vulnerable, disconnect it from the network. If you don't like the idea of download, use software that doesn't have a terrible track record of security flaws.
Re:Discussion of security vulnerabilities (Score:1, Funny)
-download
+downtime
I have to wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
Think about it: it's obvious the government doesn't want to eradicate the DMCA, but they do want to appease the [voting] linux/oss/internet croud.
Just don't get your hopes up; they also want to appease their campaign funding hollywood/MS/Whomever . So, instead, lobby to mold it to our means, since it's become obvious it is not going away.
Just turn it into a mosquito, as opposed to the flesh eating monster we have now.
Code is speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of a favorite analogy of algorithms as 'recipes'. They can't ban "The Anarchists Cookbook", just stop you from actually cooking something up and using it. Any judge should be able to understand it this way.
Re:Code is speech (Score:1)
I'd have to say you're right. I too, beleive code is speech; we just need to prove it. And you analogy is a good one. =)
What's broke? (Score:3, Interesting)
Make a change? Then ensure that no matter what, peoples right to fair use and free speech cannot be infringed by this law.
Re:What's broke? (Score:2)
Armed with just a felt tip marker, music fans and technology tinkerers figured out a way to beat Sony's copy-protection scheme for CDs released in Europe.
Low quality, inept, weak designs should not be protected by any law, but should be made to serve only as a potential foundation for future ideas. It is human nature to take apart, inspect, turn over, disect then discuss and compare anything from an insect, to a rock; from a drop of water to a drop of blood, and most especially all things technological, in an effort to explore,learn, and possibly improve. It should not be against the law to do this just because it's "digital".
What they should except from the DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously, you can't pick apart this law, because its only teeth are the same words that prevent perfectly legitimate products and acts? The whole thing must go. Congress might come up with a laundry list of devices that are legitimate (Dreamcast serial cable) vs. devices that are often illegitimate (Xbox mod chip - hold the flames), but such a list would be instantly outdated. And then there's the problem of multiple classifications when people want to run Linux on their Xboxes and make all kinds of wonderfull new toys and usefull setups out of them. That is not copyright infringement, and yet it's prevented by a law that purports to be all about copyrights.
The DMCA should be taken off the books and the problem should be reapproached with new cooperation between enforcement and lawmakers, as well as a renewed ownous on industry to create solutions. Big media has ignored companies offering (more) secure solutions for years and let many of those companies dry up. It could have been a significant boon to the economy had the uber-rich media giants invested in these solutions rather than on lawyers and lobyists. Too often I heard them saying that Bertlesman / Napster was a test case and that its failure was their reason for reluctance. But what they failed to see was that Napster didn't have the desire to change their ways, let alone the experience and skill to come up with a valid solution. If these giant record labels and movie studios don't grow some balls and try some solutions...invest in some budding technologies, they deserve to fail.
I'm not an expert, but it appears to me that the DMCA doesn't protect copyrights that weren't already protected under existing laws.
Perhaps the legislative efforts should be focused on giving enforcement more ways to go after blatantly illegal networks and their users. Less public sharing channels could be gone after much the same way law enforcement goes after the mob. They don't outlaw baseball bats and guns, they catch someone in the act go up the tree from there by getting information and following known mobsters until they trip up.
Can someone explain something to me... (Score:1)
The law obviously is strong on preventing people discussing/exploiting security vunrabilities, but is there an escape clause for in-house discussions?
Is it illegal for a business who developes server software to hire people to test the security of their systems, and then discuss what they find?
This is all wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just so you know I wrote this three times. I was so angered the first time that the draft made no since and the second time I wrote too emotionally. This time I wrote it too fast, but now I'm tired of writing it.
Re:This is all wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
Therefore I have nothing but good things to say about the DMCA: It has many wonderfully organized words, the authors are very intelligent, and the Federal Register is a well-organized piece of literature.
SERIOUSLY: GET SOME PRIORITIES (Score:1, Interesting)
After they violently OVERTHROW the government and take control of the OIL FIELDS they announced their plan is to OCCUPY the country indefinatly with GEN. TOMMY FRANKS as DICTATOR until such time as they find a acceptable PUPPET to install.
And if you think this is about ANYTHING besides OIL then you haven't been doing your reading.
So while you cry about not being able to pirate mp3s your government is getting ready to INVADE a country and INSTALL A MILITARY DICTATOR!
GET SOME FUCKING PRIORITIES!
SERIOUSLY!
Re:SERIOUSLY: GET SOME PRIORITIES (Score:2)
Remember that income tax was introduced as a "temporary measure" to fund the First World War. It wasn't widely criticized, as the winning the war seemed a much more important issue than the "slight" privacy invasion of having to report our income to the government. Well, the war is long since past, but we still pay enormous amounts of income tax.
Ban regional coding. (Score:3, Insightful)
Regional coding is the kind of thing that I would expect from China, not the USA.
Re:Ban regional coding. (Score:2)
Like the typical American consumer, I've never run in to a problem with regional coding. All the DVDs I buy from the store work just fine in my DVD player and on my computer. I can understand how this can be frustrating if you want to watch imported DVDs, but as you said, they WILL work on an imported DVD player.
Audio CD copy protection is another matter. I do not own a portable CD player, nor do I have any desire to purchase one. I primarially listen to music on portable MP3 player or on my computer. If I CANNOT format-shift a purchased CD to MP3, it is WORTHLESS to me. Right now, the music I get for FREE from P2P has more value to me than a purchased CD. I want to support the artists that produce the music I enjoy, but if I do so I get a product that is of no use to me. There is something wrong with this picture and if a law has to be changed to make the media giants realize it - so be it.
Re:Ban regional coding. (Score:1, Informative)
As a European consumer it's even easier. I can use the same player for DVDs regardless of their source or encoding.
I think it is the intent and direction of these laws that people have a problem with. The fact that their success rate is only very marginally better than zero is no reason not to worry that laws have been introduced to empower a cartel.
Re:Ban regional coding. (Score:2, Interesting)
Exemptions (Score:2)
How bout EVERYTHING. I mean seriously, does anyone else think it's a little amusing that the same little notice that says it's a federal crime to use say paint thinner for anything other than its intended purpose applies to a freakin Xbox as well. I mean, we all know we need to be protected from ourselves, but this is out of hand
Limiting the Reach (Score:3, Insightful)
How about in general the U.S. limit their laws to people who live in the States.
I don't see the problem here. (Score:1, Flamebait)
And when you say that the offenders didn't do the original crime yet then you must also demand that terrorists are only captured after they blown up something and not before their crime. From a legal point of view it's all the same.
Re:I don't see the problem here. (Score:2, Insightful)
It certainly is all the same, and thank goodness for that! Are you seriously proposing that we arrest "terrorists" before they have committed any crime? How can they be terrorists if they haven't done anything yet?
But you know, maybe you are right. We should arrest people who buy cars because that is preparation for vehicular manslaughter, driving under the influence, reckless driving and numerous other crimes. Clearly by purchasing a car they are preparing to commit a crime and we certainly what to arrest people before any crime is actually committed.
Re:I don't see the problem here. (Score:2)
In Canada you can make personal copies of music for your own use, circumventing the copy protection on a CD just allows you to do something that IS legal.
There are many non-criminal circumvention purposes (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the copy-protection mechanisms often force people to use circumvention techniques to perform the above legal activities. There are many legally justified reasons for using circumvention techniques, but the entertainment industry wants to make circumvention itself illegal even though it often is not used as "an action for preparing for a crime".
Re:I don't see the problem here. (Score:2)
The question then becomes "Is a CD/DVD more like a car, or a piece of software?" The reason for this question is that so far as I know, CDs and DVDs do not come with an end user licence agreement. A copyright notice is not an EULA, though it may be part of one. If a product is not covered by a EULA, then I do not know of any way that you can prevent a purchaser from legitimately using the contents of the CD in any way that they choose. You may restrict their ability to "re-distribute" the contents, that is part of the copyright, but if someone wants to convert their old record player into a device that can read a CD or DVD, (which requires knowledge I do not posess) a copyright notice is not sufficient to prevent this.
Other examples of things that can be used in "preparing a crime" include screwdrivers and paperclips, (which can be used in concert to pick a variety of locks) Pry bars (which can pry open windows) rocks (which can break windows) and many other devices which also have legitimate uses.
The fact that I posses these tools, does not imply that I have prepared for a crime, and is not sufficient on it's own to put me in jail. It may be enough for someone to start asking questions. In some countries that may be grounds for arrest, but not in the US.
I still have not seen the question of expired copyrights being adressed. What steps are being taken to verify that when a copyright expires, putting a creative work into the public domain, that that work will be available? Are DRM tools being developed that check to see if a copyright is expired?
Does your DVD player have the inteligence to know that 95 years after a work was copywritten by RCA that there are no longer any restrictions on who may distribute that work?
-Rusty
Re:I don't see the problem here. (Score:1)
This seems to be a key issue that I don't hear mentioned too often. I would hope that there would be such a thing in the protection, but honestly I don't think there is.
Seems to me that DRM can be a good thing, if done properly; the problem is that every implementation (and possible implementation) I've ever seen/heard/read anything about has no protections for fair use, which IMO makes such a technology (the specific implentation, not DRM in general) illegal.
Interfering with the functioning of the program... (Score:2, Interesting)
That must make DeCSS legal then because without it a perfectly good DVD player can't play a perfectly good DVD on a Linux box. Same for encrypted CDs because copyprotection interferes with the program functioning in certain environments.
Not a Librarian (Score:2, Offtopic)
Here are some links relating to info about him:
His official bio [loc.gov]
http://www.deepinthestacks.com/ [deepinthestacks.com] - some commentary
Real exemption for scientific research (Score:5, Informative)
It annoys me greatly when someone tells me the DMCA contains an exemption for scientists. This supposed exemption is an extremely thin, virtually nonexistent concession to the scientific community.
Aside from being limited to "encryption research" (only one component of security research, which did not cover the SDMI researchers,) the exemption contains a ridiculous requirement that scientists first ask permission from companies before collecting data or performing experiments---data which, coincidentally, might embarrass those companies. Is there any good reason why third parties should have themselves written into the scientific method?
Another major problem with the exemption: it only permits one step in the scientific process, the actual collection of data, the act of circumventing a DRM system. The next step, publishing or sharing that data with the scientific community, doesn't seem to be exempted, and has been the target of legal disputes in the past.
What I'd like to see: an exemption for the entire scientific method, which doesn't require the scientific community to be restructured or centralized or authorized by an entertainment industry or any other arbitrary group who can write laws.
Re:Real exemption for scientific research (Score:2)
Phew! (Score:3, Funny)
I guress that's what happens when you read slashdot before you've had your first cup o coffe in the morning.
Note to self: Keep coffe machine by the bed.
Woah there, tiger! (Score:4, Insightful)
The LOC has a narrow mandate and they lay out very clearly what they will listen to and what they will not.
If you hope to submit a comment, or have any effect on the DMCA as a member of the general public, short of getting elected to congress or becoming a defendant, for god's sake read the PDF and construct a coherent argument according to their guidelines.
Last time around, these guidelines were not available as the LOC had a short time to prepare and didn't really know what they were looking for. This time the rules of the game are more clear. I think this provides circumvention advocates with a clearer path to a beneficial rulemaking.
Examples of things they don't want to hear about:
What they do want to hear about:
This isn't exhaustive. Read the PDF. Thanks.
The most frightening thing I've seen yet on /. (Score:2)
Constitutionality
Sneakers (Score:1)
My less glib response (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd be wasting everyone's time.
Exemption (Score:1)
1. the conduct of "circumvention" of technological protection measures that control access, and
2. trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that protects either access to a copyrighted work or that protects "the rights of the copyright owner".
These exemptions are required because the first restriction prevents people from enganging in fair use on items which the manufacturer's have not provided any means to do so, and the second exemption because any segment of code can be construed as a "component or part" of a restricted technology, product, service, or device. To make trafficking in any code whatsoever illegal impinges far greater restrictions on a far larger segment of the population than the current act protects.
Dammit. Post a coherent argument we can send them. (Score:1)
Re:Dammit. Post a coherent argument we can send th (Score:1)
How about a public forum to get rid of it? (Score:2)
How about everything? The law is flawed and Unconstitutional. There shouldn't be any exceptions because the law shouldn't exist in the first place. Holding a public forum to try to placate the public is not an acceptable method of creating Consitutional laws.
How about a public apology and a repeal? (Score:2)
Federal copyright regulators are opening the door for new exceptions to a controversial copyright law that has landed one publisher in court and a Russian programmer in jail.
We locked the guy up for fsck's sake. He didn't kill or rape or hurt anybody. He wasn't selling methamphetamines to unsuspecting school kids. What kind of message are we trying to send here? It's okay to embezzle bazillions of dollars as the head of a corporation with not so much as a slap on the wrist, but if we publish information a la those "How It Works" children's books, we can be thrown in jail with a complimentary ass pounding.
It makes me sick to know my tax dollars are supporting this kind bassackwards bullshit.
Encrypted distrib. shouldn't be protected at all. (Score:2, Interesting)
Encrypted distribution can be used to prevent the limited term and the necessary public access required by the Consititution. Works can be rendered unreadable after the copyright expiration. Therefore, I would suggest that encrypted distribution should only be protected under copyright law if provision is made for release of unencrypted distribution at term expiration. This provision should be that the copyright holder should provide an unencrypted rendition of the work of equivalent (or higher) quality to the Library of Congress. Until this is provided, the copyright of the encrypted work should be considered invalid.
Not to mention the obvious comments that all circumvention devices have fair-use potential and should therefore be permitted.
Where's the rulemaking for protecting... (Score:2)