Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government United States News Your Rights Online

TEACH vs. DMCA Showdown Looming 136

Posted by timothy from the shuttle-at-the-ready dept.
TVmisGuided writes "A copyright showdown between the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and the Teach (Technology Education and Copyright Harmonization) Act is brewing that will have serious implications on the future of higher education on-line. The article from Chronicle.com spells out the upcoming brouhaha. IMO, this will be one of the strongest litmus tests of the DMCA since it was signed into law in the U.S."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TEACH vs. DMCA Showdown Looming More

TEACH vs. DMCA Showdown Looming

Comments Filter:

  • Article text (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    A group representing college media centers is warning the
    U.S. Copyright Office about a possible conflict between two federal
    laws, one meant to limit electronic access to copyrighted material and
    the other designed to broaden access to the same material for online
    education.

    At issue are the Technology Education and Copyright
    Harmonization Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The first
    measure is known as the Teach Act and was signed into law in November.
    It amended copyright law to allow college inst

  • How many... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LePrince ( 604021 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @03:47PM (#5593380)
    How many "one of the strongest test" will we need to go against DMCA ?
    • Well.. hopefully this will actually be a catalyst in dismanteling the DMCA. The threats of using the DMCA against honest people in creative projects has been abusive especially this last year.

      Personally I say "Burn Baby Burn!"

      • Re:How many... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Slack0ff ( 590042 )
        Well.. hopefully this will actually be a catalyst in dismanteling the DMCA. The threats of using the DMCA against honest people in creative projects has been abusive especially this last year.

        Im conufsed it sounds like your saying that it is only a threat? If the DMCA is not dismantled then the software industry is in deep.
        • " Im conufsed it sounds like your saying that it is only a threat?"

          My point was that the DMCA has been mainly used as a threat over the last few years especially this last year. Look at what HP did for example? All they did was threaten with a DMCA lawsuit and the company they were attacking stopped what they were doing (forget the details but it was a slashdot story a few months ago).

          It's simply too broad and doesn't protect what the founders "claimed" it would.
      • The threats of using the DMCA against honest people . . . . .

        Once Microsoft finishes off their 'secure OS' design, they're going to declare Linux an 'circumventing technology' and get it declared illegal.

        • Re:How many... (Score:2, Interesting)

          by mmol_6453 ( 231450 )
          Not necessarily Linux. Much more likely the "open source" concept. There are sections in law that allow open source projects to export strong encryption outside the United States, for example.

          I'm sure the dept of Homeland Security would simply love to wipe that section out, and what better way to do it than use existing, nonconflicting law?
          • There are sections in law that allow open source projects to export strong encryption outside the United States, for example. I'm sure the dept of Homeland Security would simply love to wipe that section out

            And...?

            *shrug*

            The USA doesn't have a monopoly on cryptographers, mathematicians or programmers, or on students or hobbyists interested in any of the above.

            As the field of "permitted research" in the USA becomes more and more restricted, more and more research and development will simply be done
            • Not only does the USA not have a monopoly on cryptographers etc, but some other countries such as Israel have a better track record of cryptography than does the USA.

  • to bad .. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jonny Ringo ( 444580 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @03:47PM (#5593382)
    The hearing is copyrighted so if you accidently hear it, your ears will have to be removed as it is away to circumvent non-hearing.

  • What's new? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pc486 ( 86611 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @03:51PM (#5593420) Homepage
    We've known for a while that the DMCA collides with other laws and rights for a while, most notably fair use. So my question is what makes this any more of a legal victory other than the Copyright Office making an oppinion on this particular issue? How can this collision be any stronger than other colliding laws?
    • How can this collision be any stronger than other colliding laws?

      Because the Technology Education and Copyright Harmonization has a much cooler acronym.

    • Re:What's new? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ParticleGirl ( 197721 ) <SlashdotParticleGirl AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @03:57PM (#5593462) Journal
      We've known for a while that the DMCA collides with other laws and rights for a while, most notably fair use. So my question is what makes this any more of a legal victory other than the Copyright Office making an oppinion on this particular issue? How can this collision be any stronger than other colliding laws?

      It's important if it (or any of the others) go to a high enough court that it can recognize how poorly written the DMCA is and do something to get rid of it. The clearer-cut the collision or violation, the more likely it is to illustrate the inanity of the DMCA and to help us get rid of it.

      • With this Supreme Court? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by GQuon ( 643387 )
        After the Mickey Mouse Protection Act [slashdot.org], I doubt 7 of 9 will be striking this down. Argh!
        All hope left is for them to step down and be replaced.
        Or that the law makers come to their senses.
        Or that the rest of the World replace the Berne Convention.
        Argh!

      • Best solution - civil disobedience (Score:4, Interesting)

        by argoff ( 142580 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:30PM (#5593710)

        ...It's important if it (or any of the others) go to a high enough court that it can recognize how poorly written the DMCA is and do something to get rid of it. The clearer-cut the collision or violation, the more likely it is to illustrate the inanity of the DMCA and to help us get rid of it.

        There is a problem with this. The DMCA is just a symptom of trying to impose copyrights in the information age. If we don't get to the source of the problem, copyrights, we will forever be providing a revenue stream to those determined to impose controll over all information we use.

        • The DMCA is just a symptom of trying to impose copyrights in the information age. If we don't get to the source of the problem, copyrights, we will forever be providing a revenue stream to those determined to impose controll over all information we use.

          A very insightful statement. But don't stop there! Let's not forget idiotic software and business model patents while we're at it.

          Like him or not, RMS has a very good approach when it comes to educating others about these issues: simply refuse to disc

      • As far as I know, the only way for a federal law to be illegal is for it to be unconstitutional. There doesn't seem to be any constitutional challenge here.

        Suppose that it is proven in court that the DMCA and TEACH do collide. So what? The result would be a ruling on what happens where the DMCA's restrictions intersect TEACH's liberalizations. The best we could hope for is a clarification stating that copy-protection circumvention is explicitly allowed for instructional use, which seems to be TEACH'

    • A more recently passed law says "X is permitted". This overrides the earlier one which said "X is prohibited". This is distinctly stronger than discussions about possibly overriding the prohibition.

      • Re:What's new? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Shagg ( 99693 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @05:01PM (#5594029)
        A more recently passed law says "X is permitted". This overrides the earlier one which said "X is prohibited". This is distinctly stronger than discussions about possibly overriding the prohibition.

        TEACH says "X is permitted".
        DMCA says "Doing Y in order to get X is prohibited".

        Think of placing a piece of information in a locked box. The issue is that TEACH allows them to use the information for their classes, but DMCA says they are not allowed to unlock the box.

        • Re:What's new? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by The_K4 ( 627653 )
          Actualy i think in this case the DMCA would say they are not allowed to pick the lock. Because if they get permission from the copyhold and are given the key, they can unlock the box legally. :)
        • Did DMCA not also state it did not remove (or infringe upon) any existing fair use rights?

  • Why the hell is this "a bruhaha showdown"? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ||Deech|| ( 16749 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @03:54PM (#5593441)
    This is a little silly, I think. They just submitted comments that the laws "may, in certain situations" collide. This hasn't occurred yet, therefore there isn't any "bruhaha" court battle or anything silly like that... so how is this some major battle to reshape the DMCA?

    • It's only a bruhaha to us. Regardless of what happens in court, the established publishers will not let this become an "issue" of public disscusion. The four or five broadcasters in the US, owned by Disney, M$, GE, Westinghouse etc are all heavily vested in information control. They are activly working on shutting down all other publishing sources and will charge heavily for real information. Any debate will be more like a tempest in a teapot, brought on by a few independently minded people who will be
    • "so how is this some major battle to reshape the DMCA?"

      Every challenge to the DMCA should be a major battle. It is backed by corporate autoritarianism and stands against the principles of fair use (among other things) that one would expect in a "free" country.

      My grandfather fought against Nazi totalitarian federalism in WW II.
      DMCA, PATRIOT (I & II), SSSCA, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1995... these aren't the principles that he fought to defend.

  • I think that the DMCA is far too open to abuse to be effective - one blatant example is how Lexmark uses it as a shield to prevent cheaply remanufactured ink cartridges from being produced.

    I hope it goes down in a big flaming ball of greasy smoke. With no survivors.

  • More about the teach act (Score:4, Informative)

    by Palos ( 527071 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @03:56PM (#5593455)
    The Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act [ala.org] This site gives a bit more background into why it was considered necessary, as well as examples of how it is to be implemented.
  • Even if this throws out the DMCA, RIAA and the MPAA will just try again with another law to ensure that you are only listening/watching things THEY signed, and making sure you pay WAY to much for them. As long as they have $$ there will be plenty of copyright laws.

    McD

    • Re:Only for educators. . . (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Maeryk ( 87865 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:14PM (#5593585) Journal
      Even if this throws out the DMCA, RIAA and the MPAA will just try again with another law to ensure that you are only listening/watching things THEY signed, and making sure you pay WAY to much for them. As long as they have $$ there will be plenty of copyright laws

      Bear in mind.. the DMCA was passed, not as an enforcement tool for the RIAA and MPAA, but as protection for virtually all vendors of copyrighted material, and producers of commercial products that dont fall under patent or copyright areas.

      The use of it as a strongarm tactic is just a by-product of what was intended to be (and should be, basically) a just and good law. But like many things, it was worded too vaguely, and unfortunately, the number of lawyers who are willing to work for nearly nothing to challenge these things is small (but dedicated and laudible) compared to the number who smell blood in the water and are on corporate retainers.

      Maeryk
      • Bear in mind.. the DMCA was passed, not as an enforcement tool for the RIAA and MPAA, but as protection for virtually all vendors of copyrighted material

        You're kidding, right? You're not that naive, are you? The DMCA benefits NOBODY but the **AA. All it does is criminalize the digitization of media currently produced, which means that companies represented by **AA don't have to modify their business plans.

        The DMCA was passed to put the US in compliance with the WIPO treaties. These treaties were crea

        • Re:Oh, Come ON!! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Maeryk ( 87865 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:42PM (#5593831) Journal
          You're kidding, right? You're not that naive, are you? The DMCA benefits NOBODY but the **AA. All it does is criminalize the digitization of media currently produced, which means that companies represented by **AA don't have to modify their business plans

          No, Im not. It also protects content not owned by the MPAA and the RIAA. Keep that in mind. Also keep in mind, that in a "perfect world" no-one would be all pissed, because NO ONE WOULD BE PIRATING THIS STUFF!.

          The DMCA was passed to put the US in compliance with the WIPO treaties. These treaties were created expressly to combat the use of digital technologies that threaten current big business.

          Please provide me with an example (either real or theoretical) where anyone else needs or could use the DMCA instead of the remaining existing copyright law.

          You answer your own question there. It was to put us in complaince.. regular old US copyright law for a couple of reasons didnt meet "international" criteria. (dont get me started on how I dont care if it did or not).

          Basically, the majority of the people I see bitching about the DMCA are those who want to freely pirate and rip media. Now, fair use aside, my suggestion to them is A) pay for what they want, or B) shut the hell up.

          I agree fair use needs some work.. but then again, "fair use" is confusing in and of itself. If a school wants to use clips of "gangs of new york" to illustrate points during a class on the history of the bowery, etc, more power to em. Fair Use as far as I'm concerned. However, if it wants to play that movie in the auditorium, and charge students 2 bucks a head to see it, that is _not_ fair use. So saying "schools are paying to use it" is not clear enough.

          Maeryk

          • Re:Oh, Come ON!! (Score:2, Insightful)

            by hobbesmaster ( 592205 )
            Some of us would like to be able to play DVDs on Linux legally. Thats fair use last time I checked.
            • Some of us would like to be able to play DVDs on Linux legally. Thats fair use last time I checked.

              I thought there was a free, available, DVD player for linux now?

              Maeryk

              • Re:Oh, Come ON!! (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Flower ( 31351 )
                Yes, but if you break CSS and, more importantly, put that code into the player you are breaking the DMCA. I bought the DVD therefore I have a right to view it.

                If I buy a book with a lock on it I have a right to pick/break/remove that lock to access the contents of the book. I do not require a key from the publisher nor their consent to read the book under the stipulation that I must possess the original key. Even if I have a Xerox machine next to me. Just because I have the ability duplicate the work does

          • It also protects content not owned by the MPAA and the RIAA.
            Sure, in theory it does, but the whole point of the Act was to make it commercially imposible for any competion, using a new business model that utilizes digital media, to be successful.

            You answer your own question there. It was to put us in complaince.. regular old US copyright law for a couple of reasons didnt meet "international" criteria. (dont get me started on how I dont care if it did or not).
            No, I did NOT answer my own question, and nei
          • If a school wants to use clips of "gangs of new york" to illustrate points during a class on the history of the bowery, etc, more power to em. Fair Use as far as I'm concerned. However, if it wants to play that movie in the auditorium, and charge students 2 bucks a head to see it, that is _not_ fair use. So saying "schools are paying to use it" is not clear enough

            In either case, the school makes money. In this light, tuition is another kind of cover charge. It's just that people generally agree it's ok

      • ...The use of it as a strongarm tactic is just a by-product of what was intended to be (and should be, basically) a just and good law...

        Hmmm... I suspect that the intent behind the overbroad provisions of the DMCA was more in the minds of lobbyists and campaign committees than it was in the minds of the legislators that actually voted on it. You want an ass to follow your lead, dangle a carrot. If its a politician you want, the bait is a nice full war-chest for the next reelection campaign. Neither one th

      • Lets assume that the DMCA was passed, not as an enforcement tool. That means that the representatives passing this bill had no knowledge of the possibility of the DMCA for "strongarm tactics" by the RIAA and the MPAA. Since this bill is benefitial to the RIAA and the MPAA, we can assume they would back such a bill. Anyone who was given money from the RIAA and/or the MPAA can be assumed to be a supporter/proponent of the RIAA's and the MPAA's use of this bill. Since the RIAA and the MPAA did in fact lobb
      • [The DMCA is intended to be] a just and good law. But like many things, it was worded too vaguely

        There's no such thing as a vaguely worded good law. Such a law is a bad law by definition. For example, "thou shalt not kill" is a poor law, because it makes no exceptions for self defense, capital punishment, euthanasia, and is unclear on abortion. If any of these exceptions are vaguely defined, somebody can, for example, kill you and explain that you asked him to euthanise you.

      • the DMCA was passed, not as an enforcement tool for the RIAA and MPAA, but as protection for virtually all vendors of copyrighted material, and producers of commercial products that dont fall under patent or copyright areas.

        The use of it as a strongarm tactic is just a by-product of what was intended to be (and should be, basically) a just and good law

        Why should producers of commerical products that aren't copyrightable or patentable get protection? If they should get protection, then there should be a l

  • What would be nice (Score:5, Informative)

    by mesach ( 191869 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:02PM (#5593501)
    Since we all know what the DMCA is, would be to have a link or two to the TEACH act for those of us who dont know what its about

    The house... [house.gov]
    www.ala.org/washoff/teach.html [ala.org]

    Couldnt find a good senate one... but thats a start

  • Lawless Teacher (Score:5, Interesting)

    by A Swing Dancing Dork ( 324614 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:06PM (#5593529)
    I have often taken a scene out of a rented movie for educational purposes. Re-encoded that scene into divx movie clips of interest. And used them as source materials for topics of discussion. Used the matrix "battery" scene in philosophy for several reasons. Used the "Strange Days" reply scenes in censorship/reality conversations. Technically I am circumventing copyright protection, re-encoding, and electronically distributing these clips. I see that it is no different than when I used to watch the clip in class with borrowed VCR's and a rental tape. Except now the Research questions and materials I ask can be for homework.

    The end results are the same. Law, or no law, it's not going to stop this educator.

    • Re:Lawless Teacher (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Maeryk ( 87865 )
      I have often taken a scene out of a rented movie for educational purposes. Re-encoded that scene into divx movie clips of interest. And used them as source materials for topics of discussion. Used the matrix "battery" scene in philosophy for several reasons. Used the "Strange Days" reply scenes in censorship/reality conversations. Technically I am circumventing copyright protection, re-encoding, and electronically distributing these clips. I see that it is no different than when I used to watch the clip in

      • Re:Lawless Teacher (Score:3, Informative)

        by davebarz ( 546161 )

        Actually, Departments at my school, Vanderbilt University [vanderbilt.edu], are forced to pay in the THOUSANDS to show a movie to a classroom or provide to the class a chapter of a book. I'm not sure about the legality of taking clips, but I know we are currently paying to do so.

      • Re:Lawless Teacher (Score:3, Informative)

        by Arethan ( 223197 )
        He's not questioning his legal right to use the clips as he is, you're right in that the DMCA does not cover this. However, the DMCA does prevent him from legally unencoding the DVD streams to generate the clips that he's using. The DMCA also covers the creation of the clips, even if the DVD is not encoded, since creating DivX clips of various scenes is not one of the original manufacturer intended uses.

        In other words, the clips themselves are not in question, it is the method in which he's obtained them.

      • Re:Lawless Teacher (Score:5, Informative)

        by Olinator ( 412652 ) <olc+sdotNO@SPAMhex.cs.umass.edu> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @06:05PM (#5594596) Homepage
        Blockpoth the quoster:
        [...] Technically I am circumventing copyright protection [...]
        I could be wrong, but if I remember my reading properly, you are not in violation of any law doing what you are doing. [...]

        In fact, technically that is breaking the law, and it's the reason we get all worked up about it. The DMCA makes it a crime to "[...] circumvent a technical protection measure that [...] protects a copyrighted work [cornell.edu]". Nowhere does the DMCA say that the crime occurs only when the subsequent use of the work would constitute copyright infringement. (It does make a limited exception for enumerated classes of works; such enumeration is the province of the Librarian of Congress, and so far that office has not granted many exceptions. DVDs are definitely not within the exception to date.)


        "But what about Fair Use?"
        Fair use is a defense only to an accusation of copyright infringement. Since infringement doesn't have to be alleged in a DMCA case, you never get to raise the issue of fair use.

        IANAL either, but I have spent an enormous amount of time discussing this on the DVD-discuss list.

        Ole
    • until they pressure the school board to stop you or get rid of you.

    • It will stop you when Disney sues your school district and they fire you.

      It sounds to me like your uses fall within Fair Use, which for multimedia is generally interpreted as 10 minutes or 15%, whichever is less. (multimedia copyright info [indiana.edu]) TEACH [ncsu.edu] allows you to use materials in the same way online that you always used them in a live classroom, but the materials must be password protected and protected from further copying (generally interpreted as streamed).

      If you are interested in copyright, check o

  • Educators and Copyright (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:09PM (#5593550)
    Many educators I know (Elementary school teachers, so take that into account) honestly beleive they are completely immune from copyright law because they are educators.

    I routinely hear of a teacher buying or borrowing a book and then copying that book in its entirety on a xerox machine, and then distributing copies to students or other teachers. When asked about it, the response is invariably the same. "Oh, it's okay. I'm a teacher."

    Personally, I think this is the way it *should* be, even if this practice falls well outside fair use. As a matter of fact, this same mentality will help this situation come about. After all, if enough people believe it's okay, general consensus will eventually trump legislation.

    • Re:Educators and Copyright (Score:4, Informative)

      by ParticleGirl ( 197721 ) <SlashdotParticleGirl AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:22PM (#5593650) Journal
      Educators and Copyright (Score:2)
      by Bonker (243350) on 15:09 Tuesday 25 March 2003 (#5593550)
      (http://www.furinkan.net/)
      Many educators I know (Elementary school teachers, so take that into account) honestly beleive they are completely immune from copyright law because they are educators.
      I routinely hear of a teacher buying or borrowing a book and then copying that book in its entirety on a xerox machine, and then distributing copies to students or other teachers. When asked about it, the response is invariably the same. "Oh, it's okay. I'm a teacher."

      But educators are exempt from copyright laws in many ways that common folk are. There are four factors outlined in Section 107 of the copyright law that determine fair use for educators:

      The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes.

      The nature of the copyrighted work.

      The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.

      The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

      So it's essentially a "good faith" doctrine: is the copied portion brief? Is this use of the work likely to threaten its market potential? Is your intent to avoid paying for copyrighted materials?

      Educators definitely have rights and privilages outside of mere mortals. They do not have blank checks or blanket protection-- but they certainly are exempt in many ways. If that was the last copy of an out-of-print or hard to find book, or a book that those other educators or students would otherwise not be able to obtain (ie, cost prohibitive) and their copies would not be further distributed (here, we re-collect and/or destroy copies like that once we're done with them) then it is fine.
    • Copying brief excerpts of material for educational use should be okay, but copying entire works should not be. If it were, there'd be no incentive to create educational works (i.e. those primarily or only intented to be used by educators, like textbooks), since nobody would pay for them.

      • Re:I don't think that's how it should be (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It isn't. Educators do have some rights under TEACH and other applicable copyright laws, but they can't just completely copy an entire work/piece, etc. A teacher can still be held liable for copyright infringment, etc, if the appropriate judicial body concludes that they violated the "fair use" clauses in applicable copyright law. In other words, you wanna use a few pages from somebody's book? Fine. You want to jack every book they've every written...probably not ok.

        p.s. Having once worked in a bookst
    • So what you're asking for is a world without textbooks, or perhaps a world where textbooks are insanely expensive. I work for a science publisher. Textbook prices are very high because you're always dealing with an economy of scale--if you're going to make a big colorful book and sell it to a few thousand people, you've got to charge enough to at least cover the printing costs. If teachers are allowed to copy entire books and distribute them for free, there would be no way we could continue to produce tex
    • I routinely hear of a teacher buying or borrowing a book and then copying that book in its entirety on a xerox machine

      Personally, I think this is the way it *should* be, even if this practice falls well outside fair use

      What you are feeling is an echo of the original copyright laws of the United States, which only lasted for 14 years with the possibility of extention if the author were alive. You feel as if though you should be able to copy older works, which compose the vast majority of printed material

  • TEACH Act, huh? Convenient that it has to do with education...

    Who's with me that the acronym for something should be the letters(whatever they happen to be) for the thing's real name, instead of someone thinking of a clever word they want to have as their acronym and massaging the things name to have those letters?

  • PLEASE, cut the vine off at the root! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:11PM (#5593570)
    I think at this time it is important to understand that the real problem isn't the DMCA, but copyright monopolies. The DMCA (and also infinite extensions) are just a consequence of trying to impose copyrights in the information age. If you don't cut the vine off at the root, it will just keep growing back to choke us off in other ways.

  • Taking bets: Public good vs. Moneyed interests (Score:5, Funny)

    by revscat ( 35618 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:14PM (#5593588) Journal

    Lessee....

    Pro-market Administration: Check.

    Mostly conservative Supreme Court: Check.

    Decreased interest in public works by the public: Check.

    Right wing propaganda machine: Check

    Bookoo gajillions of greenbacks going into politicians pockets in favor of DMCA: Check.

    • Pro-market Administration: Check.

      No, see, that's the thing. Insane copyright monopoly extension, protection of convicted monopolists from punishment, big government subsidies for buisnesses, import taxes on steel --- these things aren't pro-market. Not in the short term, and certainly not in the long term. They are completely anti-market.

      Lots of people who think they're conservatives routinely confuse policies that bail out current large buisnesses with being pro-market. They are very different

    • Right wing propaganda machine: Check

      Last I looked most of the media outlets (i.e. Disney) were NOT parts of the vast right wing conspiracy. Most right wingers were very disappointed at the passage of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act and are not in favor of chilling or ending free speach. Of course, the left would like the right to be:) Reality is that copyright interests don't fall to the left or the right. In other words, you don't do the cause good when you attempt to lay blame on the wrong demon, gh

      • Most right wingers [...] are not in favor of chilling or ending free speach [sic].

        Then who was in favor of the USAPATRIOT act?

        • Then who was in favor of the USAPATRIOT act?
          Everyone but Russ Feingold (D) in the Senate [senate.gov]. Four Republicans voted against in the House [house.gov] (I guess the right was the smallest bit more opposed). There were a total of five votes against Patriot - four "right wing" and one "left wing".
    • Pro-Market Administration?
      Corporate Welfare is *not* pro-market. It's anti-market. When the government hands out large sums of cash or public resources or military action to a company that is selected for these benefits due to political connections, it's no different than the Soviet Union handing large sums of cash to the Mikoyan design bureau to build a new MiG fighter.

      It just blows my mind that these activities are supported by so-called conservatives as pro-market, when they're not.

  • Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:18PM (#5593614) Homepage Journal
    "one of the strongest litmus tests"

    Yeesh, what a hackneyed misuse of an already overworked phrase. A litmus test, in common parlance, is some issue used to put something into one category or another, just like a real litmus test determines whether a substance has acid or base ph. One example would be a Supreme Court nominee's opinion on abortion used as a determiner as to whether they are conservative or liberal. You could call this a stress test, I suppose, but hardly a litmus test.

    Sorry to get picky, but sometimes sloppy diction gets my hackles up...

    • how will we separate the people who know from the people who THINK they know?

      I use this all the time in testing the technical limits of clients, prospective co-workers, and random techie people. You start a casual conversation about some absurbly technical topic, and wait for the buzzwords/jargon to come out--then you tease them into a potential mis-step, and see whether they fall in it.

      People who honestly don't know what you're talking about won't feel pressured into lying to cover it up (unless there's

    • Sorry to get picky, but sometimes sloppy diction gets my hackles up...

      Your choice of words is ironic. My first thought was that you were being sloppy yourself. I've never heard "diction" used to mean "choice of words". I can only recall it being used to mean "clarity or correctness of vocalization." But a little browsing convinces me that your usage is better established. Still, I don't intend to say "diction" instead of "choice of words" because people who share my former ignorance might misunderstand m

      • Stress tests are something relatively few people do.

        "Relatively few"? Please. Have you seen how American drivers on the roads treat their cars nowadays?

        • Are you saying I'm a bad driver? Fking socialist, I know how fast I can drive safely. It's those stupid hippies in their VW busses that are dangeours. And people who drive 63 miles an hour in the fast lane. And all these cameras and radars are against the constitution. I don't care what it says, the fking light was green! Well, maybe yellow. BUT I AM NOT STRESSED!

  • Forward-looking legislation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hillct ( 230132 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:18PM (#5593621) Homepage Journal
    When drafting legislation it's critical that the drafters are forward-looking so the legislation can adapt to conditions not net concieved by the drafters, and acomodate situations of the sort Mr. Clark describes. Certainly the situation hasn't yet occurred, but then again classes are still primarily tought using print media. There are vary few classes for which the purchase of a text book is not required. Consider for a moment, a situation where the materials for a course are distributed as an ISO image of a DVD-ROM containing all the published works to be utilized in the class (an englsih class for example). Consider that one of the works is a clip from a movie adaptation of one of those publsihed works. The TEACH Act clearly states that a license is not required for usage for academic purposes, yet it is illegal to distribute, aquire or use the circumvention tools needed for implementation of the fair use exceptions spelled out in the TEACH act.

    Organizations such as the MPAA have the stated position that copyright should be absolute in nature, indefinate in durration and that fair use does not exist. Clearly, the TEACH act is in direct conflict with this position, but instead of stepping up to work within the law, the Motion Picture Association of America chooses to bend the law, then have it re-written to accomodate it's whims.

    Clearly, by implication of the TEACH Act, circumvention tools are in fact not only legal to develop, distribute and use, but encouraged. This is good news for all who wish to see the creative works of the past preserves in accessible forms for future generations.

    --CTH

  • well... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by deadsaijinx* ( 637410 ) <animemeken@hotmail.com> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:19PM (#5593632) Homepage
    I beleive that TEACH is inherently flawed, in that it really doesn't give any incentives to the original creators of the copyrighted materials. Afterall, why should a teacher be allowed to copy a scene from a movie and I can't. HOWEVER, I feel that the DMCA is lawful rape of the consumer, and I personally support any peice of legislation that weekens it. After all, it assumes that all people are criminals until proven otherwise. I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A BACKUP, since your shity cds will inevitabley SCRATCH!

  • Well, as long as the MITOpenCourseWare [mit.edu] is unaffected I'm fairly happy. This is a use of the internet that I applaud loudly.

  • I hope the DMCA wins (Score:3, Insightful)

    by I Want GNU! ( 556631 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:49PM (#5593900) Homepage
    And I hope the DMCA wins every battle. Only when people realize how absurd the law is will the force to repeal it be strong enough. It's like civil liberties. If Ashcroft tried to take them all away at once the opposition would be too strong, but if he does it slower then people won't notice it as strongly. If the DMCA slowly defeats logic it could win, but if it is absurdly clear how illogical it is then perhaps it can be repealed.

    Of course, this is the philosophy Ralph Nader used in the 2000 election, so I could be wrong...
  • In Canada, the government has OKed some people for medical uses of Marijuana. These people have little cards saying that they have the right to buy and use small volumes of pot.

    Problem is, there's nobody legally allowed to supply them.

    The impending TEaCH/DMCA clash is looking like a different version of the same problem.

    • Interesting analogy.

      In the case of medical marijuana I suppose one could grow it and avoid giving money to the criminals[1] that typically supply it.

      In the case of this I suppose one could write their own circumvention devices and avoid the "criminals"[2] that supply it.

      Footnotes:

      1. Yes, like it or not, eventually your weed dollar could go to some asshole in another country and support terrorism. However, the simple solution here is to make marijuana legal and thus avoid all of the problems of sending mo
  • So they already got the Teachers! I hope the DMCA Cops go after the Librarians next. Those copyright-flouting socialistic liberal peaceniks have it coming, indisriminately sharing out media to people and not charging! Haven't they read Ayn Rand? Don't they know that's against The Free Market? Shame on them! Shame on them!
    • Does every fscking thing have to be about marketing and dinero?? I mean, I write software for fun. That is why I open-source it. If I were to write something for someone else, I probably wouldn't open-source it. I don't do it for the money; therefore, I expect no money. If people scratch an itch, they ought to release what they want when they want how they want, free or for cost (or both), and that's their fscking prerogative.

      -uso.
      Rants "R" Me.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Most rape victims consume ice cream. Therefore, if you do not eat ice cream you will be less likely to get raped.

    Most copyright violations occur after circumventing protections. Therefore, if you criminalize circumvention you will get less copyright violations.

    (Boolean) Logical Fallacies [infidels.org]:
    Denial of the antecedent
    This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false". The truth table for implication makes it clear why this is a fallacy.
    • Following the syntax of your first statement the second should read

      Most copyright violations occur after circumventing protections. Therefore if you do not circumvent protections you are less likely to violate copyright. This is probably true.

      What you may have meant was perhaps "Most copyright violations occur after circumventing protections. Therefore if you circumvent protections you must be intent on copyright violation" It may be true but not necessarily. Your statement about ice-cream is true but

Slashdot Top Deals

Always look over your shoulder because everyone is watching and plotting against you.

Close