Comments On The DMCA Published 121
vectro writes, "Well, the copyright office has published all the comments they've received. It looks like all the comments are pro-consumer, with the exception of those from media companies: Time/Warner (movies), Sony Computer (interestingly, comments focus on Playstation rather than movies or music), and the MPAA." These are in .pdf format, so you'll need Acrobat Reader.
Hasn't this been passed into law already??? (Score:1)
DMCA is law... since when does any gov't
agency solicit comments on laws that are
already passed... usually comments are only
solicited on pending laws...
PDF Viewer (Score:2)
You should also be able to use xpdf if you don't want to deal with installing Acrobat.
http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/ [foolabs.com]
Question: The role of the comments (Score:3)
I am not a lawyer, so I would like to post this question - Just how effective are the comments?
In other words, I want to know what's the role the comments play in the whole scheme of things.
Is it juat "comments" and then forget about it type, or is it I would really take your comments seriously and I will see what can I do?
What happens when there are opposing type of comments - as you have pointed out, the pro- and anti-consumer type, from different entities?
What will the copyright office do in such instance?
Will they base their future action on the comments on the businesses - anti-consumer - or will it be based on how many pro-consumer vs. the anti-consumer?
I just want to know, so, many thanks for any comments (yes, I take your comment seriously) that you may have.
It's not over yet... (Score:4)
Comment #224 has notes about one computer association's concern with DMCA, #209 concerns the input from the MPAA, and #43 is the yacking of Time-Warner. Some very interesting notes were posted by Universities and Museums.
If you want to play DVDs on your Linux box, and you have an interest in how Linux continues to develop, make your voice heard. Post replies to comments. Some of the comments are very well written and thoughtful.
Re:Hasn't this been passed into law already??? (Score:3)
Re:Hasn't this been passed into law already??? (Score:4)
235 Comments? (Score:3)
Re:PDF Viewer (Score:2)
DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself (Score:5)
Consider what would happen if an open-source encryption/decryption algorithm was created (like CSS, the strength of the algorithm is not important), with a license that explicitly forbade both commercial and governmental use. Now any warez/mp3/movie pirate could encrypt their warez and post them for the public consumption with complete impunity. No law enforcement agency or company could bring any action against this pirate, because in order to do so, they would have to prove that they performed an act of piracy in the first place, which would entail infringing upon the terms of the license of the encryption algorithm.
Perhaps the government has legal methods to work around this.. perhaps they are even built into the DMCA. Nevertheless, this sort of "restricted license" encryption, if employed by pirates, would make it more difficult for any company to protect their copyrights online.
Lets do it! :)
EFF's letter /rocked/ (Score:3)
I wonder how the LoC is gonna react to all of these excellent replies; it's so overwhelming, I'd be pretty surprised if they didn't declare DVDs exempt. Let's all cross our fingers.
Here's my [radiks.net] DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Re:Question: The role of the comments (Score:3)
So what's next? (Score:5)
Some of my favorite lies and FUD:
David Carson, General Counsel for Time WarnerGee Dave, how about a person who owns a Linux-based PC with a DVD-ROM drive (but not a set-top DVD player) who wants to legally purchase a DVD movie and watch it on his (legally purchased) computer hardware? What about an American who buys an obsure Japanese-language Anime DVD, but can't watch it on his legally-purchased DVD player because of the regional encoding? What about the person who hooks up his new DVD player thru his VCR, because his TV only has a 75-ohm input, and can't watch any movies because of the Macrovision feature? These are all perfectly legitimate scenerios where a law-abiding consumer would be forced to defeat "technical protection measures" (in violation of the DCMA) in order to use a legally-purchased product.
I'm sure you do, so long as it is Time Warner who is making fair use of someone else's intellectual property. They just have a problem if someone else wants to make fair use of their IP. Sorry, Davey; you can't have it both ways.
I really, really hope that some Federal judge out there has the stones to strike the DCMA down; or at least issue an injunction to keep it from being enforced till it makes it up to the Supreme Court. Even though the current Court has a pretty lousy track record in upholding civil liberties, at least they pretend to give a crap about the Constitution; which is more than I can say about Congress & the President.
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself (Score:1)
A basic idea would be, encrypt the program you suspect the warez guy is distributing, and compare the encrypted content...but it may not always work if the encryption is good.
Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself -anyone know? (Score:2)
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?
Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself (Score:1)
Re:235 Comments? (Score:1)
Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself (Score:4)
I sympathize with your goals here, but really, dream on. One thing I've come to realize over the years is that "schemes" that aim to turn law or finance to the benefit of the little guy generally are ill-conceived.
Essentially, what "would happen" is that the megacorp threatened by the warez distribution would convince a judge that there was reason to believe you were pirating their works. The judge would allow discovery, and you would be forced to decrypt the materials yourself.
Remember, big companies do not stomp on little people by winning court cases. They operate by threatening you with the inevitable bankruptcy that any form of legal action would necessarily entail for a person of average means. They realize you can't afford trial costs, and they know from experience that ther mere threat of a lawsuit is generally enough to have you eating out of their hands.
This law is tailored to harm us. It would be bettr to eliminate it, and failing that to protest it. Attempting to "use it to our advantage" will only work to our detriment as we turn our energies away from defeating an unjust law. Bottom line: I don't want to learn how to live with the DMCA. I want it dead.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
kudos to the CCIA (Score:3)
A lot of closed-source companies in there fighting for Linux rights. Good to see...
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?
Re:235 Comments? (Score:2)
On the other hand, having only one in a million people take the time to write and mail a letter isn't that far-fetched. Even if they are aware of the issue, most people won't bother writing a letter. This is why government (and companies) pay so much attention to (literate, rational) letters -- they know that for every person pissed off enough to write a letter telling them they are pissed off, there are tens of thousands of pissed off people who didn't bother to write in.
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself (Score:2)
I dont give a squat about linux DVD players... (Score:3)
In the future might it be possible, without this right, that all media will require decryption software that must be licensed per use no matter what the form of media it is or who owns it, just because the encryption is "owned" regardless of the media?
Why dont we fight for this right, and everything else (DeCSS, restrictive copy protection, ect) will fall into place under one big umbrella right? This is where the line needs to be drawn, and all these issues would reside on one side of this line.
I have no need of a Linux DVD player, however, I want the RIGHT to posess my media in readable format, and I will fight for that right, lest it gets chipped away at like so many other rights these days...
thousands? (Score:1)
Re:thousands? (Score:1)
One thing I find is interesting is just how many people knew nothing about 1201. How many knew about spectrum allocation at the FCC? I think that if the word were better distributed, there would be a much better showing. I have links for the EFF and the OpenDVD initiative on my website. I wrote two stories for zines on it. If the folks who did care about it treated it like a distributed-net project and networked their friends, there'd be a better turnout. Yes, it's a pain in the ass to write a coherent and cogent letter, but it's worse when you need to be familiar with the requirements for submitting your letter! It's worth it to me, anyway.
"Macrovision feature" (Score:1)
Macrovision dosn't stop the signal from passing through VCRs, it only stops it from being recorded to a VHS tape. If your going to rant, you should at least get your facts straight.
No need to get Acrobat Reader (Score:1)
But you can do with "gv" too, which is an X11 interface to GhostScript. It's installed by default on RH 6.1 systems for example. The author is Johannes Plass, if you need to search for it.
If it complains about "encryption in the
Re:"Macrovision feature" (Score:1)
Here's my [radiks.net] DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
International effects of teh DMCA (Score:2)
Set up Netscape to read PDF's (Score:3)
I suggest doing this for "Postscript Documents" as well. Makes life way easier.
Byzantine rules (Score:3)
many comments follow /. stories (Score:3)
--
Re:So what's next? (Score:1)
Re:"Macrovision feature" (Score:2)
That was what I thought until I bought a DVD player and connected it to my VCR. Real life beats theory every time. The picture on my TV had annoying variations in brightness, even though the DVD player's signal was just passing through the VCR to the TV set. It turns out to be a common problem. The solution is to directly connect the DVD output to the TV input. I don't have schematics for my VCR to determine why Macrovision causes a problem. I had to buy a mechanical video input switch for the TV because of Macrovision.
Re:Hasn't this been passed into law already??? (Score:3)
You can read more about a specific instance of this in the Go-Video's FAQs [govideo.com].
Can I use my Dual-Deck(TM) VCR to make copies of copy-protected tapes?
Go-Video Dual-Deck(TM) VCRs contain our patented "AmeriChrome" technology and proprietary software which allows a near-identical copy to be made from an original VHS tape. Some pre-recorded tapes contain anticopying signals that take advantage of single deck VCR design weaknesses, causing single deck VCRs to make poor or unusable copies of videotapes. Go-Video Dual-Deck(TM) VCRs are not normally affected by these signals.
All VCRs, including the Dual-Deck(TM) VCR, are affected by Federal legislation that was passed in October 1998, commonly referred to as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [govideo.com]. One of the effects of this new law requires that all VCRs sold after April 28th 2000 recognize a type of anticopying signal that prevents consumers from making a usable copy of videotapes encoded with that type of anticopying signal.
We have modified our current models of Dual-Deck(TM) VCRs so that if they are purchased prior to April 28th 2000, they will continue to operate as originally designed for the lifetime of the VCR. If they are purchased after April 2000, they will recognize and respond to the anticopying signal as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Owners of Go-Video Dual-Deck(TM) VCRs are not required to have their units modified as a result of this law and can continue to enjoy their Dual-Deck(TM) VCRs for the unit's lifetime.
Re:"Macrovision feature" (Score:1)
Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself (Score:1)
However, it is the manner in which they are doing it that's the problem, the fact that it prevents that legally purchased property from being used by the buyer in a legitimate fashion, such as being able to play DVD's under Linux. Every argument founded on the ability to pirate merely undermines the entire cause and gives more ammunition to proponents of the DMCA. What we have to get them to realize is that CSS isn't going to be used to pirate films, but rather to allow people to view them in any way they choose, and that the content on those DVDs has become wholly separate from the media on which it's printed, and it should be treated as such. Helping their paranoia isn't going to help the cause.
Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself (Score:3)
That wouldn't work. Copyrights protect implementations of algorithms, not the algorithms themselves. An independent implementation of the encryption algorithm would not be subject to the conditions of the restricted license.
Another problem is that most judges will laugh at anyone who tries to avoid prosecution by claiming that the police lied or violated a contract.
Re:"Macrovision feature" (Score:2)
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Macrovision works by mangling a component of the video signal - TVs happily ignore this for the
most part, but VCRs try and correct for the errors in the signal, leading to all sorts of visual
artifacts, from color-shifts, to blank 'no signal' screens.
My DVD player is connected thru my VCR, and MV makes the video completely unviewable.
Luckily, I can disable MV, otherwise, I'd need a new TV...
--Kevin
=-=-=-=-=-=
Quite depressing (Score:2)
Warning! MPAA troll alert! (Score:1)
The sole purpose of DeCSS is to allow DVDs to be played on Linux machines. There's no "playback protection" involved, since encoded DVDs can be played on any DVD player. Encoded DVDs can be copied without need for decoding. The encoding in DVDs has nothing to do with copyright protection.
You and I both know what DeCSS will be mostly used for, and it won't be legal.
I know what DeCSS will be used for. You apparently pretend you don't know.
the ABC News story (Score:2)
Yes, the story we waited to see on ABC last month about Jon and DeCSS - it was on... sort of.
The story was about piracy. There was no mention of any other issue, and Jon's presence was about 3 selected lines that, in the context of the story, left the viewer with the inference that he was just one more teen cracker.
ABC followed the CSS story with one about napster, also spun down the piracy line.
You can download the wav of both stories at http://www.galstar.com/~mctech/abcnews.wav
You might also take ABC up on their invitation to tell them what you think... after you read the linux advocacy page, or course.
Re:"Macrovision feature" (Score:1)
Long term effects?? (Score:2)
Copyright office formats (Score:1)
It's good that they did put this up on the web and took results via email.
Will they listen to us?
Sony's interest in playstation (Score:2)
One should take some comfort from court decisions such as this one that respect the principle of "fair use". Comments to rulemaking bodies, letters to your representatives to Congress, serve to protect the narrow interests of, for example, legitimate users of DeCSS. Will you vote in November?
Keep in mind that the DMCA primarily exists to implement U.S. obligations under international treaties. The U.S. has probably the greatest interest in those treaties because intellectual property ("IP") is a significant contributor to U.S. citizens' higher than average standard of living.
It wasn't that long ago that copyright holders could not protect their IP in foreign contries. H.M.S. Pinafore was a great hit in the U.S. in the 1870's but Gilbert and Sullivan couldn't collect royalties. See here [savoyards.org]. If it was your ox being gored by a Chinese sweatshop reverse engineering your code and putting your company out of business by selling a copycat product in the U.S. via the internet, I expect you would look more kindly on the treaties and the DMCA that enable you to protect your company's IP and your job.
What to do next.... (Score:3)
I'd like to point out some brief excerpts from three of the comments. Others have rightly complimented the EFF comments [loc.gov] - which we can probably assume will be a good indication of at least part of the approach EFF's team will use in the courtroom.
The heart of the EFF comment is this:
Second, the MPAA comments [loc.gov] are extremely revealing - and will probably be important in the courtroom, too. In essence, they argue that CSS gives them important protection against more than just piracy:
And, the third (and final) excerpt I want to quote is this [loc.gov], from the Computer and Communications Industry Association. They point out an absurd conclusion that the law might lead to if there is is not a broad protection for interoperability.
Now, here's what happens next. The court cases are going to proceed - which I think is plainly thuggish behavior on the part of the MPAA and the Copy Control Authority. Court procedures are slow, but so is the regulatory process. It is conceivable that some of the court cases will be in the appeal stage before the Copyright Office makes any final decision.
Slashdot users can do two things:
The rules for sending reply comments appear here [loc.gov]. If anyone is unclear about how to send these reply comments, or wants to send their comments in PDF format (which is not necessary), I would be willing to help clean them up or convert them to PDF and send them on to the Copyright Office as a service to the
2. Keep fighting the battle of public opinion. Most people don't know anything about this issue, and those who have heard of it largely don't grasp its importance. Tell your friends and family - and, if you can, write letters to your local newspaper. Anything you can do to move the battle from the online world to meatspace will help.
This is going to be a long fight.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society [tecsoc.org]
Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself (Score:1)
Note that I have no plans whatsoever to do much of anything with DVD... but I'll have the DVD consortium understand this... my purchases of DVD's have slowed down tremendously because of this crap, and I don't ever intend on playing DVD's on my computer!
_______
computers://use.urls. People use Networds.
Re:Sony's interest in playstation (Score:1)
Re:Long term effects?? (Score:1)
anyone notice... (Score:1)
Re:PDF Viewer (Score:1)
The pdf format has a few problems with being viewable by all. The largest is the LZW compression algorithm, which is patented. Adobe, of course, has a license. Not all pdfs must use LZW - zlib is also supported and better.
The second problem is that it CAN use protected encryption. In that case, no US free software can read it. Xpdf international can. Acrobat reader can.
The spec for pdf is proprietary but open. And downloadable from Adobe. The main issue is that Adobe's software for reading it sucks rocks. Xpdf is much better, but its font rasterizer sucks rocks. It'd be cool if someone built Freetype's rasterizer into xpdf - maybe next weekend's project
Which basically means the only really nice way to read a pdf now is to print it.
Of course all this consumer oriented software looks better under Windows, but then you have to put up with the OS sucking rocks.
Re:I don't need Acrobat Reader - I use Ghostview. (Score:1)
Ghostscript does not support many constructs in pdf format - it is horribly incomplete.
gs version 6 is better, but not there yet. The GNU version is now 5.5, and Aladdin's
version 6 differs in pdf compatibility by quite a bit.
Xpdf is by FAR the best at accessing the most of the pdf spec among free (as in speech, not beer) software.
None of these is as nice at the display as Acrobat Reader. And Acrobat Reader is a truly painful program to use in other respects.
Not only that... (Score:2)
---
Re:235 Comments? (Score:2)
For example, you wouldn't want people writing a lot of letters to the Supreme Court if the DMCA ever gets before them, in the hopes that massive opposition to the thing would get it declared unconstitutional, would you? I mean, I've yet to hear of anyone proposing a letter writing campaign to the judiciary, though I have been asked to write letters to the executive and legislative branch.
The reason why is that it wouldn't work. Think about it, the courts are usually the ones who make the unpolitical decisions and shut down stuff like the CDA. This is because a good jurist is supposed to follow the law, and nothing else. He/she is not supposed to be swayed by public opinion. One good legal opinion, in this case, will outweigh a million, "The DMCA sucks," letters.
My personal opinion on this is that if you couldn't write an intelligent opinion on this one, you should've taken a pass on it, because then you are just noise in relation to signal.
Now, to be realistic here, if the Copyright office got X numbers of letters against the DMCA, being human beings, it might influence them. However, the people in the office will tell you that the point of this exercise is:
1. It's a new law and it hasn't really been tested that much in the courts yet.
2. The copyright office wants guidelines on what the law actually means. They aren't in a position to repeal the law. If the US government had passed a copyright law which says everyone must wear green hats while watching DVDs, the copyright office can't repeal it.
The main thing I was hoping the copyright office would do in this case was examine the reverse engineering clause in the agreement and decide whether or not it trumps the "copy protection scheme" clause. However, even if they issue good guidelines on that, the DMCA will still be around and still be a bad law. The only difference is that it won't be possible to use it to prevent people from watching DVDs under Linux, though it could still be used to interfere with fair use.
If you examine the process, you'll see it is not designed to get an accurate gauge of public opinion:
I'm pretty sure that they added ASCII and RTF because people suggested that over reliance on MS Word documents was undermining the public perception of objectivity. I wonder if that's the first time they ever had that problem? I wouldn't be surprised if it were, I bet they were expecting the majority of comments to be from lawyers and experts on the technical side of the issue.
At any rate, people who submitted comments to the copyright office should still write their legislators to try to get the law repealed. It is my opinion that the law is too deeply flawed for anything but a slight mitigation of terms from the copyright office, they can't overturn it or repeal it.
Re:Copyright office formats (Score:1)
Re:"Macrovision feature" (Score:1)
For those of you who haven't heard of the Apex AD-600A, look here [nerd-out.com].
Reference for reply comments (Score:1)
This comment helps us make the point that the encryption restrictions hurt not only the honest end user who wishes to play DVDs from another region, connect their DVD player to a coax-only TV, make a backup of a DVD, or play a DVD in their Linux machine, but also honest businesspeople.
Please take the time to write a reply comment-- it doesn't have to be long, just make your point concisely and with references to actual facts. Please feel free to cannibalize my comment [loc.gov] if you need a place to start. (it probably isn't the most beautiful of comments, but I tried)
How to overturn the DMCA (Score:1)
The most worrying thing about the DMCA, and its biggest weakness, is that it provides legal support for any usage restriction that can be implemented in technology. The restriction doesn't even need to work well, you just need to prove it's in there.
So, to defeat the DMCA, all you need to do is to implement a copy protection mechanism that does something clearly unconstitutional. Then all you need is a friend who can afford millions of dollars worth of legal fees to circumvent your copy protection mechanism. Oh, and of course you need to be able to afford millions of dollars worth of legal fees yourself so you can keep on sueing them all the way up the court system. But you didn't really expect to be able to change the law without being rich, did you?
Re:I don't need Acrobat Reader - I use Ghostview. (Score:1)
None of these is as nice at the display as Acrobat Reader. And Acrobat Reader is a truly painful program to use in other respects.
Not to mention that Acrobat Reader's "Linux" version is actually an x86-only binary, which is useless to users of other architectures.
Important info (Score:1)
I'm henceforth-heretoforonout OpenSourcing my comments to the Librarian, #16. [loc.gov]
Everyone needs to read the comments also by the big companies so that we can punch holes in their arguments and also try to find the comments by companies that ARE hurt by this (as opposed to us normal users).
Re:"Macrovision feature" (Score:1)
(Not to mention my friend says my VCR is macrovision proof, but I haven't tried it - would be ironic tho, since its JVC, and they're the guys who put in all the strict rules and threatened removal of liceneses for VHS if makers didn't use dumb AGC systems that are affected by macrovision.. or so I think the story goes?)
From "Commentor" #140... (Score:1)
Now that responses to the comments are due by 3/20, and it's only 3/11, I have plenty of time to review the comments submitted and prepare a rebuttal to the blatanly false assertions by DMCA proponents.
I strongly encourage you and all other /. readers to do the same!
Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself (Score:2)
The MPAA argues that an independent implementation of the CSS decryption algorithm is illegal, I'm sure a similar license could be made so that a new encryption/decryption algorithm can not be used by the MPAA (or any other commercial/government organization) without violating the same laws that the MPAA claims DeCSS violates. You shouldn't even need to keep the algorithm secret, give it to everyone who agrees to the license, and if the MPAA gets their hands on it, they've either stolen a trade secret or had it leaked to them, in either case they're not allowed to use it (according to them, anyways).
Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself (Score:1)
Unfortunately The world is going this route. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. And the rich will always be able to crush the poor. The big corporations will be able to get whatever they want despite what the little guy wants or feels is fair. If anyone thinks that our current political system in the U.S. will do a damn thing to support the little guy they are living in a dream world. NO amount of votes or phone calls or letters to political figures will change the golden rule "Those who have the gold, make the rules". The only way outside of revolution to change that is to convince big companies that the law or rules will hurt them. At that point the big company can put thier Gold up to try and make a rule. We as little people just do not have what it takes to change anything. Even if everyone of us were to vote against every political joker on capitol hill we would still lose out. Why? because there is a long line of dumb a$$ politicians waiting in line to get their shot. Legislation = Policy makers + Big companies.
Here is something to chew on, this will really make you wonder.
The richest 20 percent of U.S. families own roughly four-fifths of the country's entire wealth. High up in this privileged category are the to 5 percent of families-the "very rich," who own more than half of all property. Richer still-with wealth into the tens of millions-are the 1 percent of families that qualify as "super rich" and possess about one-third of this nation's privately held resources. And capping the wealth pyramid, the one dozen richest individuals have a combined net worth approaching $150 billion. This equals the total property of 1 million "average" families, including enough people to fill the cities of Alexandria, Virginia; Akron, Ohio; Anchorage, Alaska; and Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Scary huh? Anyone on
I feel that if we as "geeks" ever want to get anyhing done we will have to do it "underground". The world as we know it is becoming more and more anti-geek. I forsee a time in the future where just being a geek will be a criminal offense. Because we will be considered, criminal hackers, pirates - warez d00dz, and such. Regardless of what we actually are.
Just think about what I have said before just flying off the handle.
Gabriel/TSS!
"Take your average person, then realize that half the people in the world are dumber than THAT!"
- George Carlin
If you read only one comment... (Score:2)
As a "lawful" Viper V550 owner... (Score:2)
He may not be aware, but we do exist. I have a Diamond V550 AGP retail, which included a copy of Zoran's Software DVD player. Playing recent games with it necessitates using nVidia's reference drivers since Diamond, as a part of S3, no longer has access to nVidia's driver source. There are recent drivers from Diamond, but they are nothing more than the nVidia reference drivers with Diamond's InControl tools and install utility.
With the nVidia reference drivers, the Zoran softDVD - for which I hold a perfectly valid legal license - will not play DVDs. It just tells me that my hardware does not support Macrovision. The most recent drivers that will allow the DVD player to work are dated March of 1999 and are obsolete. Requiring me to use those drivers is totally unreasonable, especially given the target demographic of the V550 was gaming.
Does anyone know if people from other countries (I'm Canadian) can submit a formal response to these comments? If it's possible, I'd like to let them know that if the customer ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.
100 citizens == 1 Time/Warner? (Score:2)
- 1 citizen == _2_ Time/Warners
- for every citizen speaking up, there are _10_ Time/Warners asking favors.
This is the way it works: the citizen actually counts for more than you think in these matters, but very few get involved. In a way, it's _because_ so few get involved that they carry weight: the default assumption is that no citizens will be bothered enough to speak up. If any do, that's a red flag right there. This applies especially to elected officials like senators and representatives- every dirtball corporation is hitting up these people for more favorable laws and zoning regulations and so on and so on- but it's not anywhere near as common to hear from a constituent/voter.Apex (Score:1)
Works really well, considering how much it cost!
--Kevin
=-=-=-=-=-=
Why not sue for not allowing lawful view on linux (Score:1)
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/04
"4)I am aware of no works... because of technical protection measures, become unavailable to persons who desire to be lawful users..."
5) same thing but "become less available"
Let's try this. Lots of DVD and videos go out of print, so they do become less available.
And Linux users cannot use them without resorting to "illegal" software, so I guess linux users are not lawful users.
Of course, they might argue that you can always go out and get a consumer DVD player.
But then you might argue that region encoding is not being used for the prupose intended. To allow for video release in areas where the film has been released, and to prevent viewing in areas where is has not been released. Instead movies which have been widely released are region encrypted to encourage maxiumum profit.
Re:235 Comments? (Score:1)
Playstation copy protection (Score:1)
I'm rather pissed I cannot create a copy of a game I have. Final Fantasy Tactics is a rare game on the Playstation now, but is the best one I've found. So if I should break this particular game, I'm S.O.L.
Imagine being cheezed you just broke your $49 Playstation game and then finding out you _can't_ get another copy. (Except at Ebay for $80) Squaresoft has stopped making the game, years ago. And all this because they see fit to stomp on fair use.
That being said, if anyone knows of a CD-R, CD-RW, or CD-ROM drive that will allow me to read a data track as raw audio, let me know. I want a backup!
Re:the ABC News story (Score:1)
Same lies, same hype and propaganda. Choice excerpts:
"Illegal to copy a movie to your harddrive"
No it's not. It is specifically legal in the US anyway.
"Do YOU think you should be allowed to download movies and music from the internet?"
That's not what it's about you mealymouth-ABC-spoon-feeding-corporate-clones.
"Everyone is downloading music through the website 'napster.com'"
Idiots. Pure idiocy.
They probably had a great 1-hour interview with our friend in Norway. We get two sound bites.
But what did we expect.
kabloie
Re:Quite depressing (Score:1)
Read more carefully - these comments were solicited by the U.S. Copyright Office in order to get legal opinions on how exactly the DMCA should be enforced. The comments weren't solicited by big corporations in a token effort to prove that they got input from all sides. Theoretically these comments really can make a difference.
Re:So what's next? (Score:1)
He didn't lie. Unavailable is a relatively broad term - I may not be able to play DVD's on Linux legally, but I can still purchase a DVD player for my TV that will play the (encrypted) DVD.
While it's not explicitly stated, it's of David Carson's opinion that so long as any possibility exists to play the DVDs then the DMCA is lawful. It's your job, as a comment writer, to point out the monetary or time costs imposed by such a stance is an infringement of what the law is meant to protect.
Library of Congress reserves the right to crack! (Score:1)
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright /1201/comments/175.pdf [loc.gov]
This paragraph in particular:
In short, if CSS gets in the way of their mission to archive important material, they're going to crack it. That's the sort of thing we want to hear, since it acknowledges CSS as "access control", rather than an anti-piracy measure.Re:I don't need Acrobat Reader - I use Ghostview. (Score:1)
Acrobat Reader is one of those amazing programs that choke when you try to run them at 24bpp under XFree86... Very annoying.
Re:If you read only one comment... (Score:2)
Re:DMCA Can Be Turned Against Itself (Score:1)
The simple fact that DMCA prevents me from viewing and using a product as I see fit after buying it, out of the paranoia that I'll send it off to a few thousand of my closest friends is absurd. This whole thing really is akin to the crusade against DAT and VHS/Beta way back when. In the case of VHS/Beta (I forget which if it was one or the other) the big media companies lost and the format succeeded because it was unstifled. There was piracy, sure, but the industry did just fine because of the freedom. The model for making money simply shifted from selling movie tickets to renting the tapes. In the case of DAT, the format was stifled by the industry to such a degree that no one who isn't a music professional has a DAT player despite the inherent advantages of the medium.
The media industry needs to realize that the rules are changing again, but the basics of the game remain the same: that the product with the most freedom will succeed. Movies and music are no longer tied to the physical medium, so new methods of making money are going to have to be found. How is RedHat going to make money on a product that they make freely available? This shift in thinking: that the product isn't the product anymore is what the media companies are going to have to realize as well. Despite the fact that pirated bootleg movies are available on the internet, people still go to the theater to see them. The music industry will still make money off CD's, for those who can't download a whole MP3, as well as concerts and T-Shirt sales, the same way they always did. MP3's are merely taking some of the space away from Radio and MTV, which is just as well considering both are being overrun by massive corporations who are only content with playing the same old shit. MP3's provide a kind of advertising for the band.
I know all this sounds like an advocacy for pirating, which it isn't meant to be. Everyone knows the rules have changed, but no one seems to realize that they have to change their practices along with those rules if they want to stay on top of the game. There are ways for these companies to make money despite pirating, as was the case with video rentals. It just takes a little insight and guts to go for it.
Re:If you read only one comment... (Score:1)
Doh!
That was my first ever post on /. Newbie scew-up.
Sorry about that.
Hmm.. preview dosn't seem to be working I hope this msg comes out ok!
PDF == Acrobat only? (Score:1)
I rather have my ox gored !! (Score:1)
>If it was your ox being gored by a Chinese
>sweatshop reverse engineering your code and
>putting your company out of business by selling
>a copycat product in the U.S. via the internet,
>I expect you would look more kindly on the
>treaties and the DMCA that enable you to protect
>your company's IP and your job.
Do you know what? I am SICK AND TIRED of the RACIST thing that is going on on Slashdot.
ALmost everytime when you guys want to dump your trash on, you dump it on the Chinese.
In your little minds, it's CHINESE SWEATSHOPS that are doing harm to you. And it's your little mind that can never think that SWEATSHOPS is never a Chinese phenomena. You have AMERICAN SWEATSHOPS in America, but you well "Chinese sweatshop" at the drop of a hat just because it is fashionable to do so.
Shame on you !
And on the other matter, the copyright acts do NOT protect you from being REVERSED ENGINEERED !!
You go read the legal documents first.
REVERSE ENGINEERING happens all the time. In the Open Source arena, MOST OF THE DRIVERS were the result of reverse enginnering, simply because the vendors doesn't want to provide any details about their products.
Geeeeesh... you guys who want to place restriction on ANYTHING will do ANYTHING to protect your own selfish interests. Now you even want to get on the turf of reserse engineering.
What's next?
One look at your product and we must buy it, or you'd say we "stole" the "look" of your product and "embedded" it into our minds?
Gimme a break !!
I rather have my ox gored than to kow tow to assholes like you. If my ox being gored, then I just go and get another ox. After all, this world is build on innovation, not protection of OLD AND OBSOLETE IDEAS !!!
Re:So what's next? (Score:1)
Just a Note- Ghostview works for PDFs (Score:1)
Another way to turn DMCA against itself (Score:2)
I've said this before, but got little response. Perhaps someone can explain if there's a real problem with this or not.
I think I see a way to make DMCA eat itself. DMCA prohibits defeating the access control, except under a few circumstances. Let's take the good old popular DVD CSS case as an example. I don't see anything in DMCA that makes it legal for any DVD player -- whether it was licensed by the DVD CCA or not -- to decode a DVD.
I know that sounds weird, but consider this: CSS is unpatented. Anyone can encode things with CSS, and there's nothing in DMCA to prevent this. If I make my own DVD disk, encoded with CSS, what right does the DVD CCA have to grant anyone a license to access my work? None that I see, at least from looking at DMCA. Except for the major points made about reverse engineering, evaluating security, etc., there's nothing in there that seems to give DVD CCA (or anyone else) any authority at all.
As far as I can tell, all DVD players are in violation. It's just that since no one except the MPAA members (who are in cahoots with the DVD CCA) are making CSS-protected DVDs, there is no one to sue the manufacturers.
DMCA effectively outlaws copy protection, since no one is allowed to play the works (except for reverse-engineering purposes, blah blah) -- license or not. Because no one has the authority to grant such a license. In fact, even if DVD CCA had a patent on the CSS algorithm and therefore had some way to claim "ownership" of the algorithm, they still wouldn't be able to use it w/out violating DMCA. But even that's just hypothetical, since no one owns that algorithm.
To kill DMCA, simply create a work whose technological-access-protection algorithm is compatable with a bunch of existing devices, and then start suing people right and left. I suggest CSS, since it seems to be on everyone's mind. Once this causes the price of DVD players rises to a few thousand dollars per unit, I think the appropriate bribes, blowjobs, drugs, blackmail threats, etc. will quickly be given to our men in Washington to repeal or ammend the DMCA.
---
My favorites of the 235 (Score:2)
Re:"Macrovision feature" (Score:1)
Here's my [radiks.net] DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
DMCA Probably Can't Be Turned Against Itself (Score:1)
Besides, a license is a contract, and contract terms which are contrary to the public interest are unenforceable (in US courts, at least). License terms forbidding the use of the algorithm by law enforcement would certainly be held as contrary to the public interest, and if you tried bringing a case against a police agency for using your algorithm you'd probably be slapped with fines by the court for bringing a frivolous action (if you could get the case to court at all).
Don't forget, the system is rigged to support the interests of the people who've bought it and run it. You have to be more clever than that to trip the lumbering giant which is the establishment.
--
Re:Another way to turn DMCA against itself (Score:1)
Yes, exactly. That authority can only be granted by the copyright owner of the content (e.g. The Matrix), not the CSS algorithm. Presumably, the MPAA has given the DVD CCA the authority to grant permission to DVD player manufacturers -- for playing the MPAA's movies. But you and I never gave DVD CCA any authority regarding our works.
A DVD player doesn't know who owns the copyright on the DVD it is playing, so there is no way for it to know whether or not it has been authorized to subvert the technological measure that effectively controls access.
Therefore, even DVD players that have been licensed by the DVD CCA, can violate (unless players end up being judged as being within fair use). And furthermore, DVD CCA (by selling their hefty CSS licenses) traffics in technology, products, and services that is primarily designed to circumvent the protection. There is just no way that what DVD CCA does, can possibly be legal, if DeCSS' descrambling code isn't. They do the same thing.
It looks to me like, if you can make a DVD without granting DVD CCA any authority, then you can match the MPAA, move for move. If they go after the DeCSS author, then you go after DVD CCA. If they go after open source DVD players, then you go after consumer DVD player manufacturers. Every single argument that they use, you can copycat.
---
Re:If you read only one comment... (Score:2)
That, IMO, utterly vindicates DeCSS.