DVD Cases: Help by Commenting to Feds on DMCA 192
Paul Burchard writes "The Copyright office is
requesting comments
by Feb. 10, 2000,
on how broadly to interpret the exemptions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to its provisions against circumventing copy-protection technologies.
As these features of the DMCA have been cited by lawyers from both sides in the DeCSS cases,
the interpretation of the exemptions appears to still be up for grabs -- your comments could make a difference." Get involved and do this now.
DMCA does not apply (Score:2)
News for most americans: The rest of the world don't care about your laws.
Now when this is settled, let's talk about making this mirroring scheme more efficient. I'm talking spam. I'm talking buying the service of one of these hated spammers that ever so often sends you a nice pricelist of how many millions you can reach buy just paying $100, $200 or whatever the going rate is ...
I want to see the MPAA going after each and every single ISP, mailserver and end user receiving an email containing the CSS source. You know, those 3 millions or so ...
Cool! Spam all round, boys! (Score:1)
Don't forget to spell lots of words incorrectly.
Help (Score:5)
Join the EFF (Score:3)
Re:DMCA does not apply (Score:1)
I agree. I would love to see how the courts enforce the issue when the server is overseas.
I could just imagine the lawyers calling up a webmaster in another country demanding they remove the file/web page etc. I would imagine that the response would amount to a hardy laugh and a comment of "go frag yourself."
On the side note: Could this be actually a decent for spam? It would be neat to watch the lil lawyers try to track all the emails etc. I get the picture of lil boys running around trying to plug the crumbling dike with thier fingers.
Important how-to note from defendant (Score:5)
This case has more significant ramifications than the California case that I'm involved with.
Please read the OpenDVD advocacy how-to at http://www.opendvd.org/advocacy.html [opendvd.org]
Flamers... please skip the rest of this message. We don't want your help.
The federal government is accepting comments via email at 1201@loc.gov [mailto]. Use reason to argue why reverse engineering must be allowed for the purposes of interoperability.
The most obvious reason is that it promotes competition. It also empowers consumers.
Here's a summary of exactly what they are accepting comments on...
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is preparing
to conduct proceedings to make recommendations in accordance with
section 1201(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1), which
was added by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and which provides
that the Librarian of Congress may exempt certain classes of works from
the prohibition against circumventing a technological measure that
controls access to a copyrighted work. The purpose of this rulemaking
proceeding is to determine whether there are classes of works as to
which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their
ability to make noninfringing uses if they are prohibited from
circumventing such technological measures. This notice requests written
comments from all interested parties, including representatives of
copyright owners, educational institutions, libraries and archives,
scholars, researchers and members of the public, in order to elicit
information and views on whether noninfringing uses of certain classes
of works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by such
prohibition.
Re:DMCA does not apply (Score:1)
Screw it, it's time for a beer or 12.
electronic comment format (Score:1)
Addresses to send comments to (Score:5)
The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to determine whether there are classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses if they are prohibited from circumventing such technological measures. This notice requests written comments from all interested parties,
If you are going to respond by e-mail, here [mailto] is the address of the OGC.
If you are going to use snail mail, comments should be addressed to:
David O. Carson, General Counsel
Copyright GC/ I&R, PO Box 70400
Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024.
Never knock on Death's door:
Please Please PLEASE (Score:4)
Read the Advocacy FAQs. Proofread you letter. Get someone else (hopefully someone who disagrees with you) to read and comment on it. Having a flood of flamers attack the Copyright agency could be the worst disaster possible for the DeCSS case.
Once again. Please, show some sanity and some respect. Write well reasoned and informative letters. DO NOT FLAME.
--Nick
Get clever with Sherman Anti Trust (Score:2)
But this seems like a good thread to post case law
if you are a lawyer, or play one on DVD.
Some of this sounds more like "illegal tying" to force people to use particular playback technology for which royalties may be paid independent from those paid for the movies themselves. Also, what if somebody just doesn't want open source or Unix
users to be able to play DVDs. Could that be an "illegal boycott."
Re:Important how-to note from defendant (Score:4)
--
Re:Important how-to note from defendant (Score:1)
Slasdotted. Mirror here. (Score:4)
No text?! And please be responsible . . . (Score:2)
Also, I urge everyone to act responsibly. Show them that we can give well-reasoned arguments for why DeCSS isn't covered by the DMCA's prohibitions. Spamming them isn't going to do anything to help us, and will likely hurt us in the long run.
Be sure to stress how DeCSS is designed so that Linux users can watch legally-purchased DVDs, and how DVDs can be copied without needing to decrypt them. In all the articles on
Bureaucratic Policy Does Not Affect Court (Score:4)
I'm not sure if these comments will help as much as we might like. Federal bureaus establish guidelines as a practical way to put Federal laws into effect. The court would only pay attention to those rules if they had been in place long enough to constitute "common practice." And even then, the court could rule either that the law was bogus, or that the rules were.
Bureacratic guidelines are not law.
Since the Copyright Office hasn't even established the guidelines, they should not affect the judge's ruling. The judge might pay attention to strong public sentiment, but I believe the judge would be more likely to feel that, if the public wants the law changed (and the judge thinks the existing law is fine), then the public should vote for new representation.
The only way the comments would help is as evidence the EFF [eff.org] could use in court that DeCSS's intent is not piracy, but playback of legitimate content.
Re:electronic comment format (Score:1)
Talk on their level (Score:3)
Remember, these are not geeks we are talking to. Some of these people are smart (but not on computers), and others are stupid. (I also know some stupid geeks, so the score is even) You need to talk to their level.
I strongly recomend analgies that they understand. For instance, I bought a manual for my car published by one "Haynes" company. For those who don't know, this company buys a car, and takes it apart. Point out to the beurocrats that they are reverse engineering and that any decision to prohibit reverse engineering computers must also prohibit reverse this company from reverse engineering cars.
If anyone else can come up with good examples, please post them. It would be nice if /. would then find the best of the best for anouther artical, but that might be asking too much.
While e-mail is okay, snail mail is better, so spend some money on stamps.
In case anyone is wondering.... (Score:2)
http://www.hackphreak.org/decss [hackphreak.org] (Note: You'll get a 404 immediately, but it'll be there tonight.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
How best to state your case (Score:4)
First, you can attack the "effective" clause. The DMCA only prohibits circumvention of things that "effectively controls access". You can say that the DVD encryption wasn't very effective to start with, though this is not a very strong argument.
You can encourage them to add DVDs to the exemption list because circumvention is necessary in order to gain fair use priviledges of the copyrighted work without using licensed players. The absolute denial of fair use priviledges without a license (or licensed player) from the DVD consortium should not be supported by law. Nowhere in the DMCA does it restrict fair use priviledges explicitly in this way.
Note that I am not a legal expert, etc, etc. Please read as much as you can from other posters and the various advocacy howtos to make sure your message is clear and makes a real positive difference.
Snail v. electronic (Score:2)
Important submission information (Score:1)
They also have very specific instructions regarding providing your name, address, etc.
Knowing government agencies, there runs a serious risk that our comments could get thrown out unless they are specifically in MIME'd PDF files. Be warned!
-Matt
Legal stuff... (Score:1)
This page isn't written in English as we know it, (I'm not fluent in Legalese) but at least it looks like they take e-mailed comments. And the bottom of the page is rather interesting too... Hopefully the government is getting a clue.
[...]
Dated: November 15, 1999.
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
Approved by:
James H. Billington,
The Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 99-30556 Filed 11-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:38:35 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.9 (Unix) Debian/GNU mod_perl/1.21
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<TITLE>200 OK</TITLE>
</HEAD><BODY>
<H1>OK</H1>
The server encountered an internal error or
misconfiguration and was unable to complete
your request.<P>
Please contact the server administrator,
webmaster@sailor.lib.md.us and inform them of the time the error occurred,
and anything you might have done that may have
caused the error.<P>
More information about this error may be available
in the server error log.<P>
</BODY></HTML>
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Please READ the link above ... (Score:3)
please write good,non-flaming,sophisticated comments and stick to the point. (the css case i 'an' example, not more - it's of course a very important one, at least for us.)
Hard copy (Score:2)
LetterJ
Re:electronic comment format (Score:1)
Re:DMCA does not apply (Score:2)
You know, child pornography is illegal in countries other than the US...
...Oh, my mistake. I got a totally different picture in my head...
Jay (=
Re:DMCA does not apply (Score:2)
With the exception of Berne Convention signatories, of course....
key point: this isn't copy protection (Score:4)
It serves no use in preventing people from illegally making DVDs, VHS recordings, or other format conversions. The bits can be copied identically onto other DVDs (with the appropriate manufacturing equipment), the video signal from a DVD viewer is sufficient to create production-quality VHS recordings, and one can video capture entire DVD movies with cheap and easily available computer hardware.
The primary purpose of this encryption was not to prevent copying, but to restrict viewing.
That means only viewing hardware produced under licence, and only in approved regions.
This is reverse engineering for the purpose of breaking the monopoly on DVD viewing devices (whether hardware or software). And the act of reverse engineering was done outside the country, so the US legality of whatever was done to produce the this tool is irrelevant, only the legality of its use and distribution.
Re:Addresses to send comments to (HOW to send them (Score:2)
If by electronic mail: Send to ``1201@loc.gov' '' a message containing the name of the person making the submission, his or her title, organization, mailing address, telephone number, telefax number and e-mail address. The message should also identify the document clearly as either a comment or reply comment. The document itself must be sent as a MIME attachment, and must be in a single file in either Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred), or in Microsoft Word Version 7.0 or earlier, or in WordPerfect 7 or earlier.
If by regular mail or hand delivery: Send, to the appropriate address listed above, two copies, each on a 3.5-inch write-protected diskette, labeled with the name of the person making the submission, his or her title and organization. The document tself must be in a single file in either Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred), or in Microsoft Word Version 7.0 or earlier, or in WordPerfect Version 7 or earlier.
Anyone who is unable to submit a comment in electronic form should submit an original and fifteen paper copies by hand or by mail to the appropriate address listed above. It may not be feasible for the Office to place these comments on its website.
All written comments (in electronic or nonelectronic form) should contain the name of the person making the submission, his or her title, organization, mailing address, telephone number, telefax number and e-mail address.
They don't want plain emails people. If you send comments, please try to put them in the preferred formats. Please try to write concisely and stick to the DMCA topic, not copyrights or DVD in general.
both get there Monday (Score:1)
Monday or Tueseday. Nobody will read E-mail until
Monday anyway.
.
Re:Born to be free (Score:1)
Re:electronic comment format (Score:2)
Well, I agree with you, plain text should be allowed.
But there should be a way for you to generate pdf. Are you using a *nix OS? Then use enscript to generate postscript, and ps2pdf to generate pdf. (There probably are many other ways to do this, but I thought off this way first).
There are probably ways to do it on most other OSs, but I also know a more general solution. Use this service [adobe.com] from Adobe - it let's you translate a limited number (10 ?) of files from many formats into pdfs.
I use it as a handy little Microsoft Word translator. Of course, I'm still stuck with pdfs. But at least I can read those easily.
My comments (Score:3)
Reverse engineering should be made totally legal. By reverse engineering, I refer to that done in a clean room, out of concern and respect for trade-secret and copyright holders. Whatever it is said, copyright is important, so we should bear in mind not to undermine it. (Subject to the legal restrictions of course. My finger to those who exploit IP/copyrights for their own selfish gain. e.g. Amazon 1-click nonsense).
Why should this be. Primarily becuase we live in a unfair world, where American businesses dominate a large part of the global economy. I think Americans should look beyond their shores and not see the world as people to exploit, but as partners, where there is great chance for mutual cooperation.
The point is that DMCA goes both ways. The US should not always assume that they will continue to be dominant players in all sectors of the economy. Neither should they wish to (It is unfair - no nation should have that great a burden to bear. :-) )
Today, someone in Norway reverse enginneers American technology, producing DeCSS. Someday, the tables are going to reversed. Is the US going to be a hypocritical and laughed at by the rest of the world when it decides to break their own laws?
Like it or not, the DMCA is going to be piece of international law. It is inevitable as we move towards a global, integrated economy. It is necessary and essential that the US sets a good example now, by upholding the principle of reverse engineering. For the reasons of competition, innovation and interoperability.
It might be look like that today, industries represented by the MPAA are getting the wrong end of the stick. But things will change. These businesses do not, and will not take the long-sighted view. They are short-sighted. They want to hold on to their dinosaur like hegemony. They want to extend it. The government of the US cannot allow itself to become subservient to these corporations.
Personally, I have always believed that the greatness of a country is measured by how well it treats firstly, its own people and then next other small countries. Get your act together!
Simple Letters won't cut it. (Score:5)
5. Specific Questions
The Office seeks comment on the following specific questions.
Persons submitting comments need not address all questions, but are
encouraged to respond to those as to which they have particular
knowledge or information. Persons submitting comments are encouraged to
submit concrete evidence, examples and data supporting their responses
to these questions. Such submissions will carry greater weight than
unsupported allegations and predictions.
In response to each question, persons submitting comments are
requested to distinguish between (a) their response with respect to the
current state of affairs, and (b) their response with respect to the
state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. For example, in responding to
Question No. 3, persons submitting comments are requested to state (a)
what technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today, and (b) what new technological measures
that effectively control access to copyrighted works are likely to be
introduced between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. In discussing
the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003, persons submitting comments
should explain the basis for their projections.
A. Technological Measures
1. What technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today?
2. Do different technological measures have different effects on
the ability of users to make noninfringing uses? Can and should the
Librarian take account of those different effects in determining
whether to exempt any classes of works from the anticircumvention
provisions of section 1201? If so, how? In determining what constitutes
a class of works?
B. Availability of Works
3. How has the use of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such
works to persons who are or desire to be lawful users of such works?
4. Are there specific works or classes of works that, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become
unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works and explain how they have
become unavailable.
5. Are there specific works or classes of works which, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become less
available to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works, explain the ways in which
they have become less available, and explain whether those works or
classes of works are also available in other formats to which such
technological measures have not been applied.
6. If there are works that are available both in formats to which
technological measures have been applied and in formats to which
technological measures have not been applied, to what extent can the
works in the latter formats substitute for the works in the formats to
which technological measures have been applied?
7. Are there works or classes of works that are available only
electronically and only in formats to which such technological measures
have been applied? If so, what are they?
C. Availability of Works for Nonprofit Archival, Preservation, and
Educational Purposes
8. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit archival purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
9. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works created problems with respect to the
preservation of such works? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them and explain how they have been affected.
10. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit educational purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
11. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
nonprofit archival, preservation, and/or educational purposes? (E.g.,
``new broadcasts'' may not be an exempted class of works, but ``news
broadcasts used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a
nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place of
instruction,'' may be an exempted class.) Explain why or why not.
D. Impact on Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship,
or Research
12. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news
[[Page 66143]]
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research?
13. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses of such works,
including fair use and activities permitted by exemptions prescribed by
law?
14. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research has been
hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures?
If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered,
and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available
in other formats to which such technological measures have not been
applied.
15. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses
has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological
measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been
hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also
available in other formats to which such technological measures have
not been applied.
16. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,
or research? Explain why or why not.
17. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used in ways
that do not constitute copyright infringement, e.g., as fair use or in
a manner permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? Explain why or why
not.
E. Effect of Circumvention on the Market for or Value of Copyrighted
Works
18. In what ways can technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works be circumvented? How widespread is
such circumvention?
19. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the price of copyrighted works? Please explain.
20. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the availability of copyrighted works? In particular
formats or in all formats? Please explain.
21. Has such circumvention had any other impact on the marketing of
copyrighted works? If so, please explain the impact and which works or
classes of works have been affected.
22. Do the answers to any of these questions relating to the effect
of circumvention on the market for or value of copyrighted works depend
upon the class of work? Please explain.
F. Other Factors and Questions
23. For purposes of this rulemaking, what criteria should be used
in determining what is a ``class'' of copyrighted works?
24. With respect to any adverse effect on use of or access to
copyrighted works that has been identified in response to any of the
preceding questions, is there an explanation for the adverse effect
other than the presence of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works?
25. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in making copyrighted works more
widely available? Please explain.
26. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in facilitating lawful uses of
copyrighted works?
27. Are there other factors that should be taken into account? If
so, please identify and address those factors.
28. What other comments, if any, do you have?
29. Do you wish to testify at a hearing to be conducted by the
Copyright Office in connection with this rulemaking?
Not just Linux.... (Score:1)
This right-to-decode-your-dvd issue affects more than Linux. Every operating system can benefit from this. The code will get ported to [Insert Favorite OS here], newer third party apps can be developed for Win(9x,NT,2k). Please express this in your letters. The reader may only know of Linux users as "raging/ranting Zealots" (er.. don't quote me on that...), but know that they want to watch a movie on their own non-supported PC. Put it in terms they can understand.
Ok, time for me to get off my Milk crate....
Re:Born to be free (Score:1)
If a person (or company) produces a private letter (or movie) that they only want their friends (or paying customers) to see, they have the right to that privacy.
If you don't like the policy, don't watch DVDs. If you don't like the MPAA or RIAA's stance on crypto, copyright or whatever, DON'T CONSUME THEIR PRODUCTS. Don't warez them, don't distribute them, don't rent them, don't buy them.
People are free to invent a technology to replace DVD. Make a better drive and implement no crypto. Sell it to all the people who want to distribute their stuff for free.
Otherwise, realize that you live in a somewhat free-market economy, where people have the RIGHT to make closed standards.
Greg
Re:Legal stuff... (Score:1)
Perhaps someone should actually notify the webmaster and let them know. (actually i just did)
Re:DMCA does not apply (Score:1)
Zone Encoding (Score:2)
Re:No text?! Two birds with one stone? (Score:1)
Anyone who is unable to submit comments in electronic form (which I assume would include because they would not meet the submission format guidelines) should submit on original and fifteen paper copies by hand or in the mail to the appropriate address.
So, let's do it their way. Send a long, detailed explanation of reverse engineering, it's role in the promotion of competition, blah, blah all the other points that are truly relevant to the issue. You may also want to include a polite note of apology for not being able to conform to the submission guidelines, but that you have no applications that use those proprietary formats.
On an added note, summarize this issue and contact your U.S. Senators and Congressmen and ask them if only users of Adobe, Microsoft, or Corel products have an equal voice in government. Explain that it appears the Library of Congress is only interested in comments from large organizations and others that can afford more expensive software. Perhaps they are only looking for comments from those "interested parties" that have property to protect? Send that by snail mail too! Our congressional representatives give slightly more than ZERO weight to e-mail correspondence. For added measure, include your comment to the Library of Congress to your representative.
Things to address in comments (Score:2)
The interoperability issue is important here as well, one (or more) of the questions relate to how access control can limit legitimate use of content. DVD CSS is a prime example, you purchased a DVD, you're licensed to view it, but cannot because there is no viewer for the operating system you use. LiVid circumvents the access control technology for the purpose of legitimate use (viewing a DVD). The fact that it can be used for illegitimate uses is irrelevant to the Copyright Office.
A good strategy for your comments would be to copy the questions from the web site and submit answers to them point by point. These are the questions they want to resolve, those that clearly take the time to study and write clear, concise answers for each will receive more attention than the rambling flamebaiters.
Re:DMCA does not apply (Score:1)
However, DMCA is based on some world-wide treaties. Which just shows that we need to organize not just nationally, but internationally, to adequately protect our rights.
Simple Letters won't cut it. (Score:1)
5. Specific Questions
The Office seeks comment on the following specific questions.
Persons submitting comments need not address all questions, but are
encouraged to respond to those as to which they have particular
knowledge or information. Persons submitting comments are encouraged to
submit concrete evidence, examples and data supporting their responses
to these questions. Such submissions will carry greater weight than
unsupported allegations and predictions.
In response to each question, persons submitting comments are
requested to distinguish between (a) their response with respect to the
current state of affairs, and (b) their response with respect to the
state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. For example, in responding to
Question No. 3, persons submitting comments are requested to state (a)
what technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today, and (b) what new technological measures
that effectively control access to copyrighted works are likely to be
introduced between October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003. In discussing
the state of affairs that is likely to exist during the period between
October 28, 2000 and October 28, 2003, persons submitting comments
should explain the basis for their projections.
A. Technological Measures
1. What technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works exist today?
2. Do different technological measures have different effects on
the ability of users to make noninfringing uses? Can and should the
Librarian take account of those different effects in determining
whether to exempt any classes of works from the anticircumvention
provisions of section 1201? If so, how? In determining what constitutes
a class of works?
B. Availability of Works
3. How has the use of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such
works to persons who are or desire to be lawful users of such works?
4. Are there specific works or classes of works that, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become
unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works and explain how they have
become unavailable.
5. Are there specific works or classes of works which, because of
the implementation of such technological measures, have become less
available to persons who desire to be lawful users of such works? If
so, identify those works or classes of works, explain the ways in which
they have become less available, and explain whether those works or
classes of works are also available in other formats to which such
technological measures have not been applied.
6. If there are works that are available both in formats to which
technological measures have been applied and in formats to which
technological measures have not been applied, to what extent can the
works in the latter formats substitute for the works in the formats to
which technological measures have been applied?
7. Are there works or classes of works that are available only
electronically and only in formats to which such technological measures
have been applied? If so, what are they?
C. Availability of Works for Nonprofit Archival, Preservation, and
Educational Purposes
8. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit archival purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
9. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works created problems with respect to the
preservation of such works? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them and explain how they have been affected.
10. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works affected the availability of such works for
nonprofit educational purposes? If so, how? Are there specific works or
classes of works that have been affected in this respect? If so,
identify them, explain how they have been affected, and explain whether
those works or classes of works are also available in other formats to
which such technological measures have not been applied.
11. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
nonprofit archival, preservation, and/or educational purposes? (E.g.,
``new broadcasts'' may not be an exempted class of works, but ``news
broadcasts used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a
nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place of
instruction,'' may be an exempted class.) Explain why or why not.
D. Impact on Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship,
or Research
12. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in criticism, comment, news
[[Page 66143]]
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research?
13. What impact has the use of technological measures that
effectively control access to copyrighted works had on the ability of
interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses of such works,
including fair use and activities permitted by exemptions prescribed by
law?
14. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research has been
hindered because of the implementation of such technological measures?
If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been hindered,
and explain whether those works or classes of works are also available
in other formats to which such technological measures have not been
applied.
15. Are there specific works or classes of works with respect to
which the ability of interested persons to engage in noninfringing uses
has been hindered because of the implementation of such technological
measures? If so, identify them, explain how such activities have been
hindered, and explain whether those works or classes of works are also
available in other formats to which such technological measures have
not been applied.
16. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used for
purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,
or research? Explain why or why not.
17. For purposes of this rulemaking, in classifying works that are
to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access, should any classes of works
be defined, in part, based on whether the works are being used in ways
that do not constitute copyright infringement, e.g., as fair use or in
a manner permitted by exemptions prescribed by law? Explain why or why
not.
E. Effect of Circumvention on the Market for or Value of Copyrighted
Works
18. In what ways can technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works be circumvented? How widespread is
such circumvention?
19. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the price of copyrighted works? Please explain.
20. Has such circumvention (or the likelihood of circumvention) had
any impact on the availability of copyrighted works? In particular
formats or in all formats? Please explain.
21. Has such circumvention had any other impact on the marketing of
copyrighted works? If so, please explain the impact and which works or
classes of works have been affected.
22. Do the answers to any of these questions relating to the effect
of circumvention on the market for or value of copyrighted works depend
upon the class of work? Please explain.
F. Other Factors and Questions
23. For purposes of this rulemaking, what criteria should be used
in determining what is a ``class'' of copyrighted works?
24. With respect to any adverse effect on use of or access to
copyrighted works that has been identified in response to any of the
preceding questions, is there an explanation for the adverse effect
other than the presence of technological measures that effectively
control access to copyrighted works?
25. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in making copyrighted works more
widely available? Please explain.
26. Has the use of technological measures that effectively control
access to copyrighted works resulted in facilitating lawful uses of
copyrighted works?
27. Are there other factors that should be taken into account? If
so, please identify and address those factors.
28. What other comments, if any, do you have?
29. Do you wish to testify at a hearing to be conducted by the
Copyright Office in connection with this rulemaking?
Use pdflatex (Score:2)
Say "pdflatex letter.tex"
You should get a letter.pdf. You can verify it's readible with gv/gs (Assuming you have the Alladin GS that can read PDF files) or acroread (Assuming you have a libc5 system or the libc5 compatability libraries.)
Question for non-Americans (Score:2)
Well, I think this is a good opportunities to express yourself and your position (and please DON'T FLAME, this would be worse than a suicide because you would cause harm to every consumer) but I am an European and I would like to know if they would accept letters from us non-American.
I ask that because they say "This notice requests written comments from all interested parties" and given that America has a distasteful habit to put pressure on other countries to adopt their ways (like the software patent stuff) I feel myself concerned with the outcome of all this.
Do you think I should send them a letter and specifiy clearly that I a not a citizen of the US of A???
On the same subject, if you are not American I don't think this would be a good idea to mess things up by posturing AS an American, this would be as bad (if not worse) as flaming them.
Re:Please Please PLEASE (Score:1)
>Proofread you letter.
It's just so ironic that the only error in the post was on hte line that told people to proofread...
You may now continue with your lives...
Re:DMCA does not apply (Score:2)
Use the Source (Score:2)
- Download LyX [lyx.org]
- Use the "letter" template to write your letter
- Export to postscript
- use ps2pdf to create a PDF file
- Send it to the LOC.
Alternately, you could print it out from the PS and wow everybody with the awesome typesetting quality of TeX.Glad to be of service,
jwb
Re: Platform independence and closed source (Score:1)
What i find interesting about this is the choice of required submission file formats. Although i believe that adobe is available for *nix, word perfect or microsoft word is certainly showing an OS preference, which started this mess in the first place! (and yes, i know about StarOffice)
It would have been nice and neutral to allow submissions in plain text (why don't they *always* ask for that!?!), postscript, or even HTML!
Even if we ignore the platform independence thoughts, all the formats in which they want to receive the information are closed source!
I think the ideals of this case need to be explained more fully to the court.
Important quotes from their request for comments (Score:1)
1. They prefer electronic form
The Copyright Office will be placing all comments and reply comments that are submitted in electronic form on its Website (http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201). Because of this, the Office prefers that comments and reply comments be submitted in electronic form, in one of the following formats...
Plus, as you can see by the quote below, your comments are more likely to get posted to their web site if you submit them electronically.
2. If you send it via snail mail...
Anyone who is unable to submit a comment in electronic form should submit an original and fifteen paper copies by hand or by mail to the appropriate address listed above. It may not be feasible for the Office to place these comments on its website.
Yep, 15 copies. You'd probably better do this unless you want somebody who doesn't feel like making copies h(im|er)self to set your comments aside and forget about them.
This is a terrible example (Score:1)
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Reverse engineering (Score:2)
Well, for one they are giving away the product of their reverse engineering...Reverse engineering has a precedent...but giving it away doesn't
should it matter?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
Reverse engineering (Score:3)
Well, for one they are giving away the product of their reverse engineering...Reverse engineering has a precedent...but giving the results away might not
should it matter?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
Software is like a book (Score:2)
I suggest using an analogy similar to this in your letters.
Just some thoughts (Score:2)
The Scarlet Pimpernel
Constitutionality of the DMCA? (Score:1)
Why?
If it was Congress's intent to ban software like the LiViD project, then they would be effectively granting the members of the DVD CCA a permanent copyright on the material on the DVD. That is, Congress would be making it permanently illegal to copy the contents of the DVD in any manner not approved by the DVD CCA, simply by virtue of the fact that technical means had been used in an attempt to prevent such copying.
Congress does not have the power to grant permanent copyright! Article I, section 7, grants it the power
(emphasis mine) Thus, if Congress had intended to make a program like the LiViD project illegal dispite its legitimate uses, the DMCA would be unconstitutional!What do you all think of this argument?
Do your homework (Score:2)
The Library of Congress is empowered to study only particular aspects of the affects of 1201(a)(1). This is not a forum to attack other bad aspects of the copyright law, such as the length of copyrights, and it emphasises actual and expected harms to yourself. The form of submission and the exact questions are explictly laid out in the RFC [lib.md.us]
Other resources you might want to consult are. The text of the DMCA [loc.gov] itself. Relavent sections are 1201(a)(1) (the section under review),and sections 1201 (c),(d),(e),(f),(g),(h),(i),(j) (exceptions to the section under review).
As the questions in the RFC make clear. Personal experience as a copyright producer, distributor, or consumer is the most valuable. Actual harms, such as not being able to view a DVD under your chosen operating system are valid are probably the most persuasive. Try to come up with monetary costs of compliance. Like "it would cost me $100 for Windows + $50 worth of harddrive space + $X for a DVD viewing program to view my legal DVD's on my computer without using a program contravened by 1201(a)(1)". Note that inconvenience in and of itself is not at issue.
Use as many other examples as you can think of, variety is the spice of life. Security information is another major issue. Notwithstanding the relief granted by 1201(j), 1201(a)(1) seem to prohibit sites like rootshell and bugtraq which may not be able to freely post reverse engineered security information because it facilitates infringment.--
Re:Important how-to note from defendant (Score:1)
Re:Cool! Spam all round, boys! (Score:1)
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Re:Please Please PLEASE (Score:1)
It's funny. About half my posts are apologies for misspellings and other errors. I guess that should be a sign to me somehow. =)
--Nick
Re:Bureaucratic Policy Does Not Affect Court (Score:2)
Re:This is a terrible example (Score:1)
Actually, the auto manufacturers have invented systems that could be considered copy-protection on their intellectual property. Proprietary screwheads, one-way bolt heads, various wiring shrinkwrap mechanisms, the 'computer' in any modern car. I'm sure there are other examples. The real point here is that broadly worded legislation can be manipulated to apply to a lot of things which are quite unrelated to the original intent. Bringing this to the attention of those who do such interpreting sounds like a good thing.
BTW, the argument that copy-protection fuels a monopoly on the player devices is good, as well.
createpdf.adobe.com (Score:1)
For those of you without a copy of Word or WordPerfect handy (which I suspect may be a lot of us *nix users), it seems that Adobe has a free service which will turn any file into a PDF and e-mail it to you [adobe.com]. You get 10 conversions per e-mail address you register with them. It accepts text and HTML uploads, and the output from an HTML file is pretty reasonable. (I had some trouble with a file with links in it though, so you might want to get rid of any before using this.)
Let's kill two birds with one egg (Score:1)
From what I've read it appears that if anyone attempts to reverse engineer what I've stored using a copyrighted technique then this action is considered illegal and is punishable with powerful action. I've been browsing through Knuth's Art of Computer Programming vol III and I read of an early sorting program whose sole purpose was to produce optimized copyrighted sorting programs --- an automatic copyrighted code generator. So, here is what I'm thinking:
We create a similar product which creates copyrighted encryption programs. We then use these copyrighted encryption programs to talk about whatever we damn well please. If our communcations are intercepted and decrypted we cite the DMCA and use it against whoever decrypted our message. These programs don't have to be snazzy encryption products, they could and should fit within what is exportable by law. This way, we can use the power of the DMCA to protect our secrets.
Laws and software and such (Score:1)
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
Re:Please Please PLEASE (Score:1)
Those who want to serve the community as proofreaders would be most helpful if they would read at level 0 or 1 since a lot of the letters won't get moderated up.
I hope we can have an effect here.
so? (Score:2)
anything that increases public awareness of what the DVD forum is doing to restrict freedom of information is good. public opinion _does_ affect both court and law.
Re:Snail v. electronic (Score:1)
Reverse Engineering created the PC industry (Score:1)
If a law had prevented them from using what they had learned in the clean room to produce their own BIOS chips then we would not the vibrant PC industry that we have today.
Re:The need for an ambassador (Score:1)
ROTF,LMAO. Let's get Stallman on Ricki!!!!
Access to copyrighted work (Score:3)
Copy-protection schemes merely add another level of encoding to the information, requiring different information to be applied in order to extract it, but not differing qualitatively in that the information needs to be decoded regardless. So as far as I can see, this section of the code adds no protections whatsoever to copy-protected or encrypted information.
But in order for the lawyers to see that, they have to be able to understand how the law as phrased relates to the processes they are regulating. It's clear to me that they do not.
sounds fishy.... (Score:1)
As usual, what appears to be a good step taken by the govt. turns out to be more sinister than imagined.
-----Charlie Benante
Re:Important how-to note from defendant (Score:1)
I expect Symbian [symbian.com] to change all that though :)
If only I had moderator points... (Score:1)
I hope high-profile autorities in the Linux community will respond to their request.
Don't get me wrong, I'm going to write in, too, even though I'm in no way autoritative or high-profile. On the other hand, I'll be writing with a copy of the request document in hand.
"Space exploration is not endless circles in low-earth orbit." -Buzz Aldarin
Re:Born to be free (Score:2)
Right, and I think 'possessions' is at or near the crux of the matter. If you buy a DVD, your perception of your rights to use that recorded media as you see fit ovbiously are different than what the DVD CCA would like. You want to be able to play it whenever you like on whatever device you prefer. They don't want you to play it on a device or system that they can't control and exact some kind of membership fee or other tax.
I've seen arguments back and forth about whether piracy is an issue with the prohibitive costs and bandwidth restrictions, but I think a far more compelling motivation in all this is to keep all the lisencees in lock-step and keep under their control who can manufacture systems that can play DVD CSS'ed information.
Re:Important how-to note from defendant (Score:2)
Re:Help (Score:2)
Re:Hard copy (Score:2)
They intend to post the comments on their web site. To that end, they have said that they PREFER e-mail to hardcopy. To quote:
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:Talk on their level (Score:2)
Wrong! To quote them:
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:Snail v. electronic (Score:2)
Steven E. Ehrbar
HOW TO MAKE PDF FILES WITH LaTeX (in brief) (Score:2)
\documentclass{article}
\title{*YOUR TITLE HERE*}
\author{*YOUR NAME HERE*}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
Then, you can go ahead and type your comments; remember LaTeX ignores spacing between words and sentances, it modifies the spacing to format the document better. % and $ need to be escaped with \, and when you are done with the document, end it with this line:
\end{document}
That's the whole banana. Now run latex *filename.tex and then dvips *filename*.dvi -o *filename*.ps and then ps2pdf *filename.ps* *filename.pdf* to get a PDF file. If you want to do it in a slightly more complicated way, you can add \usepackage{hyperref} right between \documentclass{article} and \title{*title*} and then run pdflatex *filename*.tex to get a better PDF file out.
Better introductions are available on the net, as are good books and good help.
Daniel
Re:Bureaucratic Policy Does Not Affect Court (Score:2)
This is a little short-sighted. The MPAA, RIAA, DVD CAA, and many others will abuse the hell out of the DMCA as long as it is profitable to do so. The guidelines might at least make it a little harder (and less profitable) for them to do so in the future.
We're obviously dealing with organizations that don't give a rat's ass who they hurt (even if it's everybody) as long as there is profit to be made. They have tremendous amounts of resources that they can use against individuals and smaller organizations to silence them even when they aren't doing anything illegal.
I'm sure they see the DMCA as a way to strengthen their position even more, to give them that much more ammo to use against would-be competition and anyone else that gets between them and potential profit. Comments submitted stand to dilute the added power the DMCA gives them. The comments could possibly even undermine other laws that the industry abuses but that's probably overly-optimistic on my part--I'd love to have someone tell me I'm wrong.
They're too powerful already. They are not scared to threaten our freedoms publicly in courts of law. They think they are untouchable, but I hope they are wrong. One thing that I am certain of is that we can't afford to miss any opportunity to erode their power.
These organizations may claim that piracy over the Internet will be a death sentence for them. This is not true, but if it was it would be well deserved. Maybe if we can make an example of them other corporations will learn to step a little more lightly. We have a great equalizer now--we'd best use it.
Sorry about the rant and topic drift. I'm going out for a pint or six of Guinness.
numb
Re:Snail v. electronic (Score:2)
Re:Help (Score:2)
my letter says: (Score:4)
------------------>8 cut here---------------------
21 January 2000
A Comment.
Librarian: I seek to comment on questions 3, 4, 18, 21 and 22 posed in DOCID:fr24no99-23, "Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" with regard specifically to the class of copyrighted works known as DVD (Digital Versatile Disk).
DVD's are a popular new format for the distribution and playback of motion pictures. The DVD format is controlled by a standards organization known as the DVD Consortium. To ensure and safeguard against unlawful duplication, the content has been encrypted; only a DVD player (a console unit or computer software) authorized by the DVD consortium is allowed access to a decryption key. This key is necessary for playback.
Computer software for the playback of DVDs is widespread and common for both Apple Macintosh computers and PC's running Microsoft Windows. However, there is currently no software for several other PC based operating systems: Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS/2, and several others, nor do any companies with a license from the DVD Consortium have any plans for creating such software. Thus, there is a significant population of computer users who cannot lawfully use DVD technology, namely those running Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS/2 or any other non-Microsoft Windows operating system.
It is my opinion that those who reverse engineer DVD encryption systems to ensure interoperability of DVD products on officially unsupported platforms should be exempt from the clauses in the DMCA prohibiting circumvention of access control technologies. I have in mind, of course, the authors of deCSS, software designed to defeat DVD encryption, and the LiViD project, a group working on creating a DVD player for Linux (which relies on deCSS, and is intended for legal viewing of properly acquired DVDs).
This leads into question number eighteen, twenty-one and twenty-two: with the widespread availability of deCSS, nearly anyone with a computer and some knowledge of computer programming may decode a DVD. To this point DVD encryption has been very weak; this of course facilitated its circumvention. Even if it had been strong, though, it would have been circumvented eventually: no security is perfect. Suppose, for example, that DVDs have been given newer, incredibly strong encryption technologies that ensured only licensed players could decrypt a DVD: it could still be circumvented by merely tapping the cable that connected a player to a television: this signal could be captured and recorded onto another format. Take also into account that most motion pictures are released onto VHS tapes: this format has no built in security at all, yet motion picture producers still use the format widely, because it is popular. Thus, even if copying DVDs becomes widespread, I dare opine that sales of motion pictures in any format will not be harmed.
Thus, I posit for your consideration, that access control technologies are in the end potentially harmful to consumers, as it can, under certain (and not uncommon) circumstances limit availability of copyrighted works to those who wish to lawfully obtain them, as evidenced by the problems with DVDs. Further, I posit that a lack of access control technology has not hurt copyright holders in the past: if illegal copying of VHS cassettes or CD audio disks had been widespread enough to cut deeply into their sales, entertainment companies would have dropped the format for something different: neither VHS nor CD format have been dropped, nor are there publicly available plans to do so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I further argue that any circumvention of access control technology does not and cannot harm producers of copyrighted content; further, I conclude that the availability of access control circumvention is a boon to the consumer, allowing for greater choice of formats and an insurance that any given format will be interoperable with any and all hardware and software that are capable of interoperating with said format.
-------------->8 cut here-----------------
Just like Southpark: "I AM ABOVE THE LAW" (Score:3)
(but we'll say you stole trade secrets)
yes, you did it without signing an NDA
(but we'll say the shrinkwrap license counted)
yes, you did it without stealing code
(but we'll say you illegally reverse engineered it)
yes, you did all this solely for the purpose of viewing dvds
(but we'll say you did all this solely for piracy)
yes, you purchased your dvd discs and drive legally
(but we'll say that your fair-use rights don't count)
yes, you have never created an illegal copy of any of our titles
(but we'll say that you are a thief and a pirate)
we are above the law because we have more money than you
we control your courts and we write your laws
democracy, freedom, liberty... not for you...
Open source community: create an ad banner! (Score:3)
How many people will see this article two days from now, after it has faded into the archives of "old slashdot news"? I suspect that there will be a bombardment of comments to the copyright office today that will trickle off as we near the deadline.
I propose that an ad banner should be created, pointing to a central source for advocacy, (http://www.opendvd.org [opendvd.org] maybe?) ... Containing by then a copy of this story, an advocacy mini-howto, and a link to the copyright office comment box. If this ad were to run on the Andover network of sites (and maybe also be picked up by traffic-heavy sites with opendvd-friendly admins as well... linux.com [linux.com]?), we might get more thurough feedback on this important issue, even after the slashdot effect dies away.
What do you think?
-Mike
The biggest controversy no-one ever used (Score:2)
The key issue - tying (Score:4)
The "reverse engineering" exemption in the DMCA must be interpreted to permit any activity with the effect of overcoming illegal tying by content vendors.
I suggest mentioning tying when commenting on this issue. Tying arrangements, sometimes called "tie-in sales", where you have to buy something you don't want to get something you do want, are the issue monopolies usually lose antitrust cases on. IBM lost this one several times (compatible mainframe peripherals) AT&T lost (long distance), and the movie industry lost (forcing "B" movies on theater owners). So there's good history here to remember and exploit.
Re:The biggest controversy no-one ever used (Score:2)
Now shall I be forced to use only a restricted group of software/hardware to see DVDs? In many countries, Russia included, there are a set of provisions allowing reverse engineering to provide functionality on areas a software/hardware producer left untouched. I can adapt software hardware systems to my needs, upon the condition that I am not running over the rights of the copyright owner. I can, in certain cases, offer my own functionality add-on, upon condition that it does not impair the rights of the copyright author.
Frankly deCSS falls in middle of a copyright embroglio. First it adds a non-supplied functionality to a system. Second it may be used to pirate copyrighted stuff. And here it does not matter how many people use or don't use it.
However there is something that may turn the arrows against MPAA. It seems that many slashdotters don't realize that DVD piracy is becoming a HUGE industry. And it started long before this deCSS stuff. Frankly it took me less than 10 minutes to find two sites dealing with several ways to break DVD restrictions. One of these sites claims to be an year and a half old: dvdpiracy.com. Considering the content, the methods, the level of hardware/software "hacks", one wonders why such a small thing like deCSS came to rise such a noise.
Considering what goes on it seems that MPAA is not interested on restricting piracy but controlling the market. By restricting the use of their production to a subset of software/hardware (btw Apple's Mac and *NIXes have also problems with DVD compatiblity). Why they do that is still a bit in the shadows. But the fact is that, presently, not everyone can use DVD. And when one tries to overcome this problem MPAA and alikes rise a BIG noise about it.
If it comes to the fact that deCSS got the attention of MPAA because they do not want to have Linux in their market then we are dealing with monopoly policies. In such case the curse may turn against the curserer...
Re:my letter says: (Score:2)
And you were doing so good there.
Re:OSS Screwed (Score:2)
Oh God! This is funny! I've never read a more blatant (and stupid troll).
You think the commercial piracy operations in Thailand, China, Russia and other countries haven't been working on decrypting the pathetic 40-bit encryption [wired.com] for the day when they won't be able to sell videotape through their channels? You think they don't have access to anyone who has a good hacking mind and who they can pay a really good salary?
Oh, incidentally, the point of eliminating fair use, controlling the players, etc. is because they could care less about your DVD collection. They want you to have to buy the same content again... and again and again and again and again. And if they eliminate the idea that you actually own the DVD you bought and have a right to view its content, then they'll be able to do just that.
Oh, and don't assume that every radical dude wearing a Linux T-Shirt is unarmed and hasn't spent time at a firing range... you might be unpleasantly surprised. (At least you won't look stupid by posting poorly written trolls to Slashdot... ever again.)
You know, you lawyers for the DVD CCA are getting really desperate...
Region codes? (Score:2)
From what I picked up in an earlier discussion, they sound like nothing more than software support for a price-fixing scheme. If this is the case, then it should perhaps be mentioned in our statements (and may well be grounds for a class-action lawsuit, to boot).
But if "price fixing" is a misinterpretation/misrepresentation of the function of region codes, then of course they should not be mentioned. So if you've got a clue on this, please share it with those of us who don't. Thanx.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
No, you've got it basically right. (Score:2)
Actually this has been ruled illegal in some countries (or at least one: New Zealand). It probably would be in the US, if it wasn't that it is profit mainly for US companies, and most of the releases come out first in the US.
key point: it is access protection (Score:3)
Private fair use puts some reasonable limits on copying, but private access to legally purchased copyrighted materials is a fundamental right and the DMCA restricts it by making the tools to achieve that access illegal.
--
Re: Platform independence and closed source (Score:2)
--
A nice thought but... (Score:2)
Even worse, congress seems bent on extending Copyrights indefinitely. Disney can't loose the copyright on Mickey after all. Copyrights have been extended retroactively (how's does retroactive copyright promote art?) at an average rate of one year per year since 1962. So if you think that DMCA is unconstitutional on time grounds, read Opposing Copyright Extension [asu.edu] and be prepared to get really mad.
--
Re:Bureaucratic Policy Does Not Affect Court (Score:2)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Talk on their level (Score:2)
No, snail mail is not better in this case, they specifically said in the link that they are posting all submissions to their website and they really prefer email! If you send snail mail you have to send 15 (that's FIFTEEN) copies and it probably WILL NOT make it to the website, so they are saying PLEASE PLEASE SEND EMAIL [mailto] NOT SNAIL MAIL!!
From the link:
1. Written Comments
The Copyright Office will be placing all comments and reply comments that are submitted in electronic form on its Website (http:// lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201 [loc.gov]). Because of this, the Office prefers that comments and reply comments be submitted in electronic form, in one of the following formats: If by electronic mail: Send to ``1201@loc.gov [mailto]' '' a message containing the name of the person making the submission, his or her title, organization, mailing address, telephone number, telefax number and e-mail address. The message should also identify the document clearly as either a comment or reply comment. The document itself must be sent as a MIME attachment, and must be in a single file in either Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred), or in Microsoft Word Version 7.0 or earlier, or in WordPerfect 7 or earlier.
If by regular mail or hand delivery: Send, to the appropriate address listed above, two copies, each on a 3.5-inch write-protected diskette, labeled with the name of the person making the submission, his or her title and organization. The document itself must be in a single file in either Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred), or in Microsoft Word Version 7.0 or earlier, or in WordPerfect Version 7 or earlier.
Anyone who is unable to submit a comment in electronic form should submit an original and fifteen paper copies by hand or by mail to the appropriate address listed above. It may not be feasible for the Office to place these comments on its website.
All written comments (in electronic or nonelectronic form) should contain the name of the person making the submission, his or her title, organization, mailing address, telephone number, telefax number and e- mail address.