Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Who Owns Your Digital Media? 216

Ren Bucholz writes "In what was designed to be a "safety valve," the Copyright Office is holding its tri-annual search for exemptions to the DMCA's prohibitions on circumventing access controls. The Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted comments last December that outlined four "classes of works" that should be exempt, including copy-protected CDs, region-coded DVDs, DVDs with unskippable promotional material, and public domain works that are only available on DVD. They are asking people to write in support of the four exemptions that they have proposed. The Copyright Office is only accepting comments until February 19th, so get on it!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Who Owns Your Digital Media?

Comments Filter:
  • Unlikely... (Score:4, Informative)

    by SoSueMe ( 263478 ) on Sunday January 26, 2003 @10:42PM (#5164847)
    From the Reply Comment Submission Form [copyright.gov]

    Commenters should familiarize themselves with the Register's recommendation in the first rulemaking, since many of these issues which were unsettled at the start of that rulemaking have been addressed in the final decision.

    Like that's going to happen...
  • Go EFF! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 26, 2003 @11:18PM (#5164950)
    At least as far as I've gotten which is the CD section (1/4 exemptions). The issue here is this: If I buy a CD with copy protection and it does not work in my cd player (for the purpose of playback) should I be allowed to modify that CD in a way to make it work without risking going to of breaking the law. We all know this can be as simple as using a black marker. In this CD case EFF's argument is that:
    * The labels don't tell people which cd's include copy protection.
    * A large number of stores won't take the CDs back (accept for an exchange of the exact same cd).
    * Many works are only available on CD as vinyl cassette and 8track have died (ok i added the 8track part).
    * CD copy protections measures will not ever be 100% fool proof (in providing copy protection AND in ensuring playback on devices that should be able to playback the material)
    * The problem is only going to get worse. As this problem occours on any device that is capable of reading multisessions disks. Your DVD Player, Game Console, MP3/CDPlayer, and PC are all affected.

    Remember this is specifically under fair use! That is the exemption would only be for modifications that allow playback of the material on a device that was not previously able to.

    I think this is common sense. Its certainly not far reaching. Consumers should have the right to buy products and use them for their intended purposes (and maybe not their intended purpose, but that out of the scope of this argument!). Most people 90% or more of america would be really pissed if they found out that cd companies were selling cd's that might not work in their equiptment - and that making a simple modifications to their equiptment or cd to make audio playback work could put them in serious trouble.

    If 90+% of the people in the US would support the EFF here, that means an open minded group like slashdot should be around 112% right? :) SO SHOW YOU CARE. Spam the copyright office with support for the EFF and make things happen.
  • Re:who (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 26, 2003 @11:22PM (#5164963)
    The Man.
    He also owns your digital media.
  • Get the format right (Score:5, Informative)

    by octalgirl ( 580949 ) on Sunday January 26, 2003 @11:49PM (#5165067) Journal
    This format of class/summary/facts and/or legal argument should be repeated for each reply to a particular class of work proposed.

    You'll notice that only 50 comments made it in on the first round. Now you're supposed to comment on the accepted comments. Format is everthing. When they say number the class, they mean it. Start the paragraph with a 1. class, 2. class, etc.(although I notice they are not asking for a number this time?)
    --Provide a fact, a legal argument, or something from the news, or incident that happened.
    --A summary means your paragraph must start with "In summary" or identify the paragraph as a summary paragraph.
    --Don't forget to include your name on the attachment.
    This time they are also adding "whether in opposition, support, amplification or correction", so state it.
    Missing just one of these steps will get your comment rejected.
    (Mine was rejected, but after correction (I added the words 'In summary') they were accepted. We still don't know how many were actually submitted the first round.
  • by Cerlyn ( 202990 ) on Sunday January 26, 2003 @11:55PM (#5165089)

    As another proposal submitter from the first round, I would like to point out that there are a variety of proposals [copyright.gov] put forth by commenters on the table. If you find that you are more comfortable supporting a proposal other than the EFF's, more than one proposal, or a combination of several people's proposals, you may freely comment about as few or as many proposals as you choose. If you disagree with a proposal, and wish to have it modified to make it acceptable to you, you may comment about what changes you feel need to be made as well.

    To state the obvious: DO NOT COMMENT BLINDLY WITHOUT READING THE RULES. Before I wrote my proposal of possible exclusions, I spent several days simply doing research on what was accepted/not accepted during the previous cycle. I also read the details of what was wanted during the current comment request, and the results of the prior comment period. Doing so greatly helped me tailor my arguments to better address what was being looked for.

    Another issue you should note: THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE WANTS TO SEE REAL EVIDENCE THAT NEAR-TERM HARM WILL OCCUR UNLESS AN EXCLUSION IS GRANTED. Contrary to what many slashdotters' think, the copyright office is being very good as to telling us what they want. If you comment during this reply period, *please* provide real-world examples as to why an exclusion should be granted/not granted/granted in modified form/etc. Simply stating "if this is not granted, I will not be able to enjoy my l33t p0rn" likely will not sway anyone to your cause.

    Finally, BE SURE TO CITE ALL SOURCES YOU USE SO EVERYONE CAN CONFIRM THE HARM YOU DESCRIBE IS REAL. By doing so, you prove you did your homework, that you read previous commenters' work, and your comment *will* stand out as being from an intelligent person. Try to get reliable sources that have not been used before; simply repeating previously used evidence will not get you very far.

  • by waffle zero ( 322430 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @12:14AM (#5165162) Journal
    that is why listen to public domain music ( mozart)

    The sheet music itself may be public domain, but any performances of them are the owner of the performer and subject to copyright. You could download the sheet music and perform it, but downloading an orchestral recording would be a violation of the law.

    Furthermore, some public domain music old enough that it must be transcribed and rearranged to work in a modern orchestra because of variations in the pitches produced by instruments of later eras. This arranged music is also copyrighted by the arranger, who is entitled to compensation for use/purchase.

    So if you're looking for some music , may I suggest some Irving Berlin? His work is (relatively) recent and quite upbeat. By now, older performances are probably public domain, as well.

  • by PotatoHead ( 12771 ) <doug.opengeek@org> on Monday January 27, 2003 @01:58AM (#5165612) Homepage Journal
    They say they have over 8,000 dues paying members. This is not a lot folks.

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Working...