The Argument for Crackable Media 193
rubberbando writes "Wired is running a story about how the US Copyright Office is looking for input about a law that will allow some media to be legally cracked. This is aimed at certain uses such as cracking an ebook so that a blind person can use reading software with it and older software that requires a hardware dongle that no longer works." From the article: "The DMCA forbids cracking of copy-protected or encrypted digital media, with certain exceptions. When the law was passed, Congress mandated the register of copyrights revisit the anti-circumvention section every three years to make sure consumers have proper access to materials they purchased -- even if content creators have them locked down. If the copyright office finds instances where copy protection prevents fair use of the work, then those copy protections can be legally circumvented." We reported on the other side of the coin yesterday.
Fair Use? (Score:5, Insightful)
So... making a backup copy for when my kids destroy the CD/DVD (or when my hard drive crashes) isn't fair use?
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why shouldn't I be able to read or "bypass" what I own like the 1 and 0s on DVD/CDs/etc? Laws like the DMCA chill me because manufactures can put whatever in their variety of products and if someone tries to look into them they wave the DMCA and say "Ah, ah, don't go their bad boy!" How is the customer even supposed to protect themselves from bad products (faulty engineering, back_doors, worms, etc.) If feels Big_Brotherish. Or like Britain. (I think they had a restriction on reading frequencies not "meant" for you since WW2.)
If the secrets within products shouldn't be known (or bypassed), don't sell it.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2, Insightful)
Two things here. First, you don't seem to understand the Kelo decision; it's really nothing new, and not a big deal. Second, I disagree that other rights are founded on property rights. Property rights are basically utilitarian in nature, although they developed so organically that this wasn't really discovered
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, thanks for enlightening me with that convincing argument. Yes, that Eminent Domain for Public Benefit, as put down by the Constition, gets reworded to whatever (or whoever) promises to pay the most property tax dollars is no big deal - none at all.
"Hell, Jefferson specifically left them out of the Declaration -- "
First, the bill of right specifically states that because some rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean they exist.
Plus why then does the constitution address search and seizure, right to bear arms, disallowing troops from being quartered in your own home, as well as the eminent domain restriction if Property Rights weren't recognized? It's implicit in the entire constitution, without ownership, you cannot exercise any of your other rights because the goverment can indiscriminately take away whatever they like to oppress your rights (government doesn't like the New York Times print? Don't suppress their freedom of speech, just forcibly buy them out in the guise of public benefit! They don't want you to own a gun? Don't break the second amendment, just "convince" the guy to sell his gun at the government's declare fair price, etcetera)
"Second, I disagree that other rights are founded on property rights."
See above. Without property right, you don't even own yourself.
"Arguably because this also is part of the utilitarian scheme of copyright."
And this isn't big brother how?
Q:Why can't I read it?
A:Because you can't!
Q:What if theres something potentially damaging in there, shouldn't I have the right to my own property? How do I know you're not packaging something malicious if I can't take a look at it? And yet you want me to buy it and take it home?
A:..........
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not an argument, it's a fact. You may wish to see my other post on Kelo, on this page.
First, the bill of right specifically states that because some rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean they exist.
And the sky is often blue. I wasn't even discussing the Bill of Rights; you're bringing it up why?
Plus why then does the constitution address search and seizure
Privacy.
right to bear arms, disallowing troops from being quartered in your own home,
Di
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
No it's not fact. The "not a big deal" is an argument and interpretation.
But let's take your premise that it's nothing new even though I think the scope of it has reached unprecedented heights. Slavery was accepted until the 1860s. Yet was plainly unconstitutional the entire time, whether or the government decided to recognize that. Because it was nothing new, back then, did it make it any better?
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it was plainly evil the entire time. It was constitutional, however. If you disagree, please point to the part of the antebellum Constitution (i.e. everything before the 13th Amendment) that prohibited it.
Privacy is not even a right mentioned in the BoR
It's in the penumbra.
But protection against unlawful search and seizure specifically protects property.
The seizure in question is of one's person and of evidence to be used against that person. It's not related to takings, which is why you don't need a warrant to condemn property, and you don't need to pay a fair price to put the smoking gun in an evidence locker.
Bizaare? Have you ever read history and noticed that the societies w/o property rights are usually the most restrictive in all the other ways? Soviet Russia for one. Feudal Societies for another. There is a correlation there.
No, not really. They also didn't have free speech, for example. Does that mean that free speech is the basis of property rights? Of course not. Those sorts of societies didn't care about their people at all; it had nothing to do with any specific right that was infringed upon.
You are confusing "cannot" with should not.
Nope. This is a pretty standard part of civil liberties jurisprudence. It has its origins in the clever ways that segregationists would employ to deny minorities their rights when the blatant ones were overturned. No one was fooled, and the clever methods got overturned too.
we don't have the complete command of ourselves?
No, we largely do. Not entirely: it's unconstitutional for you to sell yourself into slavery, for example. But these are liberty interests, not property interests. People aren't property; this is part of how their freedom is ensured.
copyright has been completely perverted anyway because the flip side has been ignored
And I agree, which is why I'd like to see copyright fixed, and why I spend time working on that.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2, Insightful)
I read it here, but YMMV:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor sh
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Even under amendment XIV, it reads as if slaver could be used as a punishment (after due process) so.......
I think that you'd have difficulty getting that throug
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Informative)
Yep, and that's not a new concept by any means. Public use is not the same as public ownership. So, for example, back in the 19th century, the government seized land, gave it to railroad companies so that they could put privately owned tracks on it, serving the public by improving our
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
No, this is why I say that Kelo isn't anything new.
That the exercise of the eminent domain power requires that the state pay for the value of the condemned property is why I say it's not a big deal.
This is particularly so, since virtually no one objects to eminent domain generally. People recognize that it's necessary in order to build roads, for example. Even its critics, who are few and far between, still tend to consider it at worst a necessary evil. So few people seem to have a
Re:Stipulating your statements... (Score:2)
First, Kelo merely says that the Fifth Amendment doesn't prohibit this. State constitutions and laws are definitively interpreted, not by the federal Supreme Court, but by the state Supreme Courts. These laws and their in
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Constitutional? What does that have to do with anything? Apparently you haven't heard of the Benjamin Franklin Amendment: The one with the Benjamins gets to make the amendments.
This legislation was bought and paid for, period. Under the guise of legitimately protecting businesses from theft by piracy, etc, they have essentially given the businesses lock and key over what you purchase and thrown Fair Use out the window.
This country was founded upon the ideas of competition and free trade, but now there is a whole industry based on outmoded means of distribution (i.e., media companies who want to shackle us the _19th_ century modes of content distribution, or at least the functional equivalent). Sure I understand people are just illegally trading this stuff, but since almost every "innovation" in the industry is geared towards decreasing value and increasing hassle, they are making their own problems worse. iTunes, etc, is a start... not a great one, but a good step in the right direction. I know in my case, it's not that I want it free... I'm more than happy to pay for it, I just want it the way I want it with no restrictions on use. I want to be able to make a copy for my car, or a backup copy, or to be able to play it on my computer or PocketPC. At least we still have RedBook CD's, but I can forsee a day when it becomes illegal to sell them, in favor of some DRM'ed media (that has 0-day hacks for every upgrade...).
I sure wish I could buy laws, but you know the saying: one millionaire, one vote.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing is stopping you from doing just that. The law actually prohibits distributing, selling, and/or giving away such software. You are perfectly within your rights to write your own software to bypass what is on a DVD, etc. That is, as long as you are engaging in fair usage. (archival purposes, educational, etc.)
Thats one of the reasons I disagree with the DMCA in that you can write software to overcome encrypti
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Nothing is stopping you from doing just that. The law actually prohibits distributing, selling, and/or giving away such software. You are perfectly within your rights to write your own software to bypass what is on a DVD, etc. That is, as long as you are engaging in fair usage. (archival purposes, educational, etc.)
This law is still killing your freedom of speech. Unless I sign an EULA when I buy a DVD, I shouldn't be under these conditions.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, not so. The law prohibits manufacturing anti-circumvention devices also. So you can't write your own software either.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Douglas Adams once posited a program which, given a set of premises and a desired conclusion, would find a logical-sounding set of steps leading from one to the other. This decision appears
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
I agree that it's a "mighty fine" hair, and probably for the same reasons.
To me, the most expressive way to describe an algorithm would be with a code example -- but code examples seem to be exactly the kind of speech the DMCA wants to prevent EVEN THOUGH the circuit acknowledged that code was free speech!
My gut says that if you "published" or "trafficked" some research that included a complete listing of a copyright-circumventer that you would surely get sued, but t
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
You can still be found guilty of violating the DMCA (for the manufacture of a un-permitted circumvention device) even if you are cleared from infringement under fair use. At least in that case it's only civil penalties
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Informative)
> "Why shouldn't I be able to read or "bypass" what I own like the 1
> and 0s on DVD/CDs/etc? "
> Nothing is stopping you from doing just that. The law actually
> prohibits distributing, selling, and/or giving away such software.
Correct. This, of course, requires every ordinary user in the world to roll his own software. The law doesn't "prohibit" exercising your fair use rights. It just makes doing so in fact sufficiently difficult that it become effectively i
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Apparently you don't know how the US legal system works. Here it is, in a nutshell (which is an appropriate receptacle):
1. All laws that are passed are legal.
2. Those laws which are subsequently determined to be illegal are illegal.
3. GOTO 1
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
So, where exactly are property rights enumerated in the law?
Hell, show me where in the Declaration or the Federalist papers, even, that it's argued that property rights are primary rights (that is, not a right given for the preservation of important rights.)
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Informative)
Please point us to the appropriate paragraph. For bonus points, find the exception in the copy protection paragraphs too. (If I encode my own CD to DRM'd WMA, I still don't have the right to break their encryption system. Copyright and copy protection systems have two different protections) You can find it here [cornell.edu].
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Do you mean you own the copy of the CD, or you are the copyright holder for the work on the CD? If the latter, you do have the right to do so, actually, as circumvention is defined as being unauthorized by the copyright holder; if you're authorized, it's not circumvention, at least within 1201(a).
Remember, encryption is an access control. You can still copy the ciphertext. A copyright control mechanism is somet
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Scenario:
1. I create some CD of myself singing in the shower
2. I create DRM'd WMAs using Windows' built-in ripper
3. I copy out the DRM'd file, and accidentally *cough* lose the license files
4. Windows is now unable
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Yes. Check out 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), but bear in mind that both of those are subject to the definition in (a)(3)(A).
No, something that prevents access without preventing copying is definately covered by the DMCA.
I never said it wasn't. There are three different types of offenses under 1201: Trafficking in tools to circumvent access controls; Circumventing access controls; Trafficking in tools to circumvent copyright controls.
(Circumventing copyright
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
1) You don't have kids
2) You've never tried to play a badly scratched DVD, let alone one you've pieced back together
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
17 USC 117 has a provision allowing for backups regardless of fairness, but it usually isn't applicable. The only people who can use it are people who own a copy (as opposed to licensing a copy), where the work being backed up is a computer program, and where backups are destroyed (or if you're selling the original copy, transfered along with, if you prefer) whenever possession of the original copy is no
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Still, I agree with your basic premise, and that's the central reason why I not only oppose DRM, but I think that the government should actively discourage its use (by, e.g. abolishing copyrights for works which have been DRMed under the authority of the copyright holder, and funding projects to crack DRM so that the automatically public domain works can be freely enjoyed).
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Note, however, that almost every DVD ever produced has menus that are instructions used by the computer control of the DVD player, and thus arguably fall under this definition. Music CDs, however, are generally pure data.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Gawdammit Slashdot. (Score:2, Informative)
Really Slashdot? How interesting. I wonder when the next review is due... Right now? [cryptome.org] Ya don't say! And comments are due by Dec 1, 2005!? Well fancy that. Certainly some kind souls out there must have submitted this information as a story. I wonder why we aren't reading about it? Ahhh, door handles of the future, I see. That's much more important. THAT is 'stuff that matte
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
Sure it is. You just need to figure out how to include DVD's CSS.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2)
You don't need to crack CSS to make a bit-for-bit copy, just a DVD-A blank for your DVD-R. Same as the big pirates do - you didn't think CSS was meant to stop piracy, did you?
Aimed at dead & obsolete hardware? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Aimed at dead & obsolete hardware? (Score:3, Funny)
I kid, I kid.
Re:Aimed at dead & obsolete hardware? (Score:2, Interesting)
There should also be a law giving companies a reason to help out emulator authors who want to emulate an obsolete system.
Re:Aimed at dead & obsolete hardware? (Score:2)
I'm all in favor for shorter copyright lengths, but not THAT short. I'd be happy with 15-20 years for things which can be played / read on systems still being produced today, and an immediate end when the systems cease being produced. This way, by now there would be ports of every sega cd game to the xbox, and / or my emulator would be legal (and that includes the Saturn and Dreamcast since they don
Re:Aimed at dead & obsolete hardware? (Score:2)
There is one problem with this idea[1]. If I buy a console, and the manufacturer discontinues it after six months, then I am stuffed. There probably aren't enough games suddenly in the public domain as a result of this to make my investment in the console worth while, and no one is going to invest in making a new game if it will hit the public domain as soon as they release it.
I would, however, like to see copyright contingent on distribution:
Re:Aimed at dead & obsolete hardware? (Score:2)
pretty broad: all media (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:pretty broad: all media (Score:2, Interesting)
If so, what's to stop me from using any normal audio recording application along with an appropriate soundcard (Like, say, a Lynx AES16 [lynxstudio.com] with the output looped back to the input? Sure, there'll be a very, very slight drop in quality (that no human should ever notice) since you're going from a full rate DSD stream down to a 24-bit/192khz PCM signal, b
Re:pretty broad: all media (Score:2)
Insane laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if your company goes bust, your customers data should remain accessible.
How the data is used privately should be up to the customer, and is not the concern of the producer. We will have laws soon telling us how to use toilet roll, and inspectors coming round arresting us for unlicensed operations.
Laws are already in place for improper sharing of copyrighted materials, so why on earth do we need anything else?
Re:Insane laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Insane laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Insane laws (Score:2)
GOD YES! I grew up in a household where toilet paper was always deployed as you describe. I continue the tradition in my own home. Why would you even bother the other way? Can't we all just get along...and do it my way?
Re:Insane laws (Score:2)
My roll holder is of the one-end-open type and it pivots on it's mount. If you do the over the roll method and pull slightly out and down, this pushes the roll against the sidewall and it binds, leaving you with inadequate paper.
Deploy under the roll and it pulls the paper out and up. One quick jerk and perfect paper every time
Re:Insane laws (Score:2)
Some years back, an incident at home convinced me otherwise. I'd just replaced a roll of toilet paper, and used the "under" method. When I came back an hour or two later, I saw a large pile of toilet paper on the floor, with a very happy kitten in the middle looking up at me with a "Look what I did!" expression on her face.
In installed a new roll, using the "over" method, and aside from a few claw marks
Re:Insane laws (Score:2)
Re:Insane laws (Score:2)
Re:Insane laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should a software company have to give up its intellectual property on the whim of legislators?
Because copyrights are granted on the whim of legislators.
Abandonware? (Score:5, Insightful)
Grrr...
Re:Abandonware? (Score:3, Informative)
Which is something quite different, really. Using Occam's razor, I think the answer is simply "Software is only free if your time is worth nothing". Selling it is probably an amount and a signature. Opening up the game means figuring out what third-party source code is in there, artwork, sounds, music and so on. A lot of this is pro
Re:Abandonware? (Score:3, Interesting)
All media can be cracked. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just don't get caught.
Seriously, less-broadly specified rights shall definitely trump precisely defined prohibitions. Like "fair-use", which is far more broadly defined than "thou shalt not circumvent © protections".
Or, put in other words, the exercise of a RIGHT cannot be prohibited to a given individual except by a court of law, the idea being to remove the law-making ability that has been put into private hands by the DMCA, for example.
Furthermore, more than ever, the Internet allows the "grass is greener" syndrome. The ability to send information instantaneously over great distances means that in any case, you'll always find a more favourable jurisdiction, rendering the prohibition moot.
For example, I live a day's drive away from the US federal capital, yet I can legally share music over the Internet, and nothing prevents me from running DeCSS on my computer, nor distributing crackster on my web server, things that would land me in jail if I had the foolish notion of embarking on a 30 minute drive (but fortunately, I don't have a car).
How about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
* Also allow (legalize) any sort of cracking.
* Enforce copyrights, as long as the complainant is the original author/performer. Third-parties (such as the RIAA) would not be legally able to benefit from any judgements.
* Along with this, make Intellectual Property available at a lower cost than much of it is today. For example, to download a song, pay what the recording artist/production team/etc would normally make, plus a small amount to cover the cost of the webserver (which would be less if files were distributed via BitTorrent.) The artists get their compensation (more, with increased volume); the public gets much lower cost content. The only losers would be the middlemen, who would then be free to go and get real jobs.
Right on. Same results, fewer steps: (Score:2)
2. Let The Market Decide (TM).
Of course that would require more honesty and intelligence from our politicians than usual... paradoxically, even moreso from *ahem* those who supposedly have faith in "the market."
Re:How about this... (Score:2)
Rather than this, why not make it so that copyrights belong to the original author/performer, are non-transferable, and cannot exceed the life of the copyright holder.
retract the DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
The labels should be responsible for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at, for example, the DRM schemes of today: The end user can consume information he/she legally purchased from only one point, and is restricted in terms of where he/she can transport his/her media. Did we have such laws before? Was it possible to pass legislation, or release content for that matter, that would limit the end user's rights to consume it? Could Sony's label release a CD that would only play 3 times, or that would only play on PC's and Sony CD players, without causing a public outrage? I think not.
It is sad to see the consumer, who is essentially the sole reason these companies make money, reduced to a state where he/she is forced to swallow limitations on the media purchased, and risk legal prosecution by choosing to use that media for himself in a way that the content distributors never intended. It is even more sad to see users succumb to this.
Legislation like this is a good step in the right direction, but I, for one, will not purchase a single file or disc until I can use it any way I want. Until I can insert my newly bought CD/DVD into my computer and have the CD's software offer to make me as many backup copies as I want, as many "friend" copies as I want, and as many transfers to any other device I wish, I will not buy a CD.
It's not enough to place the responsibility for monitoring the validity of the DMCA on some obscure board that will review a couple of formats once every three years, I should have the right to demand that my media plays in the way legally intended by the DMCA, at least, and the burden for ensuring this should be placed on the people that release the media. I should be able to sue, and win the lawsuit automatically, if I cannot use my media in the way I am legally entitled to without resorting to third-party solutions on shady sites the average consumer has never heard of, and will never find out about. I shouldn't have to re-encode my audio files through three different formats and manually rename and reconstruct the ID3 tags so that I can properly use my media, I should be offered to have everything done in a clean, quick, and effortless way by the CD itself, or at the very least be forwarded by the CD to a reliable website with clearly labeled instructions on how I can easily and effortlessly do so. Until then, our rights as consumers are not being enforced, and nor are the labels' responsibilities.
Re:The labels should be responsible for this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The labels should be responsible for this... (Score:2, Interesting)
We exist to consume what the companies make. If we don't do that we are not fulfilling our purpose in life and must be adjusted.
It shouldn't be "consumers", it should be "customers" and it shouldn't be passively "consuming" the products, but rather actively deciding what we want and, if it already exists, getting it. If it doesn't already exist then start your ow
Makes sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM (Score:2, Insightful)
without a media player ready to go out of box, linux is less appealing to the average user.
Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM (Score:2, Informative)
XMMS on Fedora Core won't play MP3s. IIRC, they even yanked the MP3 decoder source out of the SRPMs. I had to download a real copy of the XMMS source and compile it from scratch to play MP3s on FC.
Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM (Score:2)
You can play those two legaly.
And about DVD's, true, while HD-DVD does not exist yet.
Re:Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM (Score:2)
If they are taking ideas for revisions (Score:5, Insightful)
If the U.S. Copyright Office is soliciting ideas on this concept, a method exists to address accessibility for those disabled, and the "lost due to bankruptcy" sides. Two parts address each side.
Part 1: Copyright holders should be required to register each anti-circumvention method with the copyright office in exchange for which a number (which has no legal value) will be assigned to the method. IP firms which specialize in protection methods could register their methods as "base classes" for others. References to patent numbers might also be helpful.
Part 2: The holder then keeps a list available for public viewing which indicates the works and which copy protection methods they have employed. (Example: ebook "How To Be A Dummy," published 8Oct2005, document format: PRC, DRM method: 1,554,776 (Ref 334,665) ). Note that this is not registering your works. Ideally, this list should be notarized, either electronically or physically to prevent post-litigation tampering.
Part 1 takes the good old cryptography rule to heart, "The algorithm is never the secret. The input key is the secret." Two things happen here: bad protection is shamed away from being used, and the court system has a public notice of intent on the behalf of the holder requesting that the DMCA provide anti-circumvention enforcement. Then the U.S. Courts would only need to prove or disprove that the declared method was actually in use and attempting to protect the work in question. If expert commentary were recognized on at least "base class" methods, then prebuilt testimony could be used in courts to make enforcement of base-64 encoding methods an embarassment to the litigant.
Part 2 gives the courts the benefits of documentation regarding protected works. It also lets those who provide support to disabled individuals have a course of action with regard to legal circumvention. So it could, for example, allow someone who converts DRMed ebooks to audiobooks to become a limited, authorized agent to perform such action with nothing more than some paperwork from the copyright holder. If the copyright holder has disappeared (death or otherwise), then the method is publicly known and could be cracked within governed rules.
In short, there exists the potential to not take the teeth out of the DMCA while still executing it a more efficient way. Hopefully the methods described above represent ideas that tilt more power towards the public without actually removing any power of the copyright holder. Yes, many of us believe it should disappear, but the U.S. did sign an international treaty [anti-dmca.org] of which the DMCA is only a manifestation. Since the U.S. is a WTO member, it was a willing participant [ifpi.org], although it could have fought back a little harder.
It Works (Score:5, Funny)
I crack media all the time (Score:2, Funny)
Just watch out for the shards.
Here's the details (Score:5, Informative)
SUMMARY:
The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is preparing to conduct proceedings in accordance with section 1201(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, 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 circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention. 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 evidence on whether noninfringing uses of certain classes of works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by this prohibition on the circumvention of measures that control access to copyrighted works. DATES: Written comments are due by December 1, 2005. Reply comments are due by February 2, 2006.
Patching the symptoms. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for it. (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is, using a freely-available program I was able to extract all of side one to my hard drive and watch episode 3. Episode 6 is beyond saving, from the look of it, but I haven't given up yet.
I'm not copying disks to sell or pirating anything, all I'm doing is using a third party tool to watch something I paid for which is otherwise unwatchable.
Re:I'm all for it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm all for it. (Score:2)
I believe the program I used to read the files off the disk has to bypass encryption to do so. I don't care what it does/did - I had a non-working disk which I paid good money for, and it was the only way I could think of to view the content.
I d
The LAW is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that copyright owners have a right to legal protection from those that would blatently copy their works and distribute for a profit. Anything that is no more damaging than a public library is fair game. That means it is not illegal for you to load a DVD to your friend before returning it to the rental place, nor is it illegal to 'loan' your copy to a friend.
Now making tons of copies and selling them at a local market... that's wrong, should be illegal.
Fair-use is not an illegal activity aimed at defauding the copyright owner, and any, *ANY* device or mechanism designed to prohibit your fair use of something you have paid to use is NOT the intent of copyright law.
What we have here is a need to re-educate and moderate the law.
Well, IMHO anyway
To allow access once Copyright expires. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a reasonably fair trade.
The DMCA (and encryption in general) overturns that trade. It allows the owner the protection of the law - but it doesn't give the public their rights to eventual open use.
That's not fair.
IMHO, people who encrypt their products should be denied copyright protection - in just the way that people with technical innovation can choose to keep that innovation as a Trade Secret instead of getting Patent coverage.
In the absence of this, historians of the future are going to have a very hard time finding out about our society. If most or even all media of the next century ends up locked away behind almost unbreakable encryption - with DRM hardware locking that encryption to a particular computer - it may become impossible for someone a few hundred years from now to read our newspapers, books or watch our movies. That would be a terrible thing.
It's bad enough that we've been primarily responsible for screwing over the planet for our descendents - but now we're working hard towards denying them access to our greatest musicians, authors and other media?
Right now, it seems like a computer from a few hundred years into the future would be able to break any of our codes quite easily - but when Moores' Law runs out of steam, the most powerful encryption systems we have on that day will probably be *FOREVER* uncrackable.
Re:To allow access once Copyright expires. (Score:2)
Re:To allow access once Copyright expires. (Score:2)
> Release an open DVD, get distribution protection.,
> Release encrypted DVD, you're protecting yourself.
This goes beyond the DVD standard...which carries no legal force anyway. This problem exists in all digital media.
> Obviously the better choice is copyright protection since
> no encryption works anyway.
That's only true as long as future computers are much faster than present day machines.
It typically takes a vastly more powerful comput
This is good. (Score:2)
So why the hell not.
Exemption is practically worthless. (Score:5, Informative)
Congress needs a lesson in Contract Law (Score:5, Insightful)
No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but that's what HR-1201 permits.
That's also what Congress did when it passed the Bono Act in 1998, which extended copyright terms for another 50 years and retroactively placed all audio recordings made before 1972 under copyright until the year 2067. Many of these works were already in the public domain. But even the wax cylinders recorded by Edison in the 1890s are now copyrighted until 2067 because of this law.
Copyright isn't a fact of nature or a divine right, it's a contract between copyright holders and the public. The public agrees to respect a copyright and pay taxes to enforce it for a specific number of years. At the end of that time the public expects the work to become public domain. Every time Congress extends copyrights it's like declaring that all 30-year mortgages are now 60-year mortgages. Or in some cases, giving the house back to the bank after it's been paid up. Great news if you're the bank, bad news if you're the one making the payments.
What sane person would enter into a contract that allows the other party to disregard its terms at will? The average American citizen. Oops, I mean "consumer."
you failed to note his mischaracterization of 1201 (Score:5, Insightful)
what a TERRIBLE mischaracterization.
if you enter into a contract and you breach that contract, then you pay, weather the law allows fair use or not
what HR-1201 allows people to do is to develop their own media access/playback systems for DRM'ed media WITHOUT ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT AT ALL.. which is how the copyright system worked before 1998, and how the free market works everywhere else.
You don't see ford getting their own pet law which forces tire companies to sign a contract for the "priveledge" of making tires for fords, nor do you see honda getting a pet law which forces snapon tool company to sign a contract for the "priveledge" of making tools which work with honda engines. The same free market principles should apply to copyrighted works.
Copyright is the exclusive right to produce and distribute, not the exclusive right to determine access.
'Encryption' should be defined. (Score:4, Insightful)
Backstory comment, bunch of links... (Score:4, Informative)
I mentioned this [slashdot.org] in my journal almost 2 years ago (yet another rejected submission:) All links are still good, mostly covering the e-book and fair access for the blind.
There are over 10 million visually impaired people just in the US who are being blinded by the DMCA. On the back page of Software Developer [sdmagazine.com], Warren Keuffel has a commentary [sdmagazine.com] (free reg) that summarizes what he found to be issues still brewing over the use of the DMCA to prevent people from implementing technology designed to translate eBooks into Braille [daisy.org]. XML is being used now [w3.org] to facilitate the translations of eBooks and other electronic formats and to help disabled people get simple access to reading material that others of us may take for granted. The DMCA effectively blocks many of these new innovations (go figure). Is short, the American Federation for the Blind has sent comments [afb.org] the US Copyright office, Congress is looking at the issue [afb.org], The Association of American Publishers is fighting it [copyright.gov], all the while fair-use [eff.org] and disabled students [cast.org] continue to suffer.
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
Disabled people may be a very small minority, but through no fault of their own they are unable to experience the things we can.
We should do all we can to help them experience and enjoy life as we do, and throwing stupid laws in the way just makes it miserable.
You answer your own innate flame by pointing out the government shouldn't help them, your absolutely right but by the same tune, they shouldn't hinder them either.
Another point, why should they have to pay more for something that they will only get partial use out of, if anything, audio or visual only recordings of movies should be available - at around 1/2 the price of the dvd.
Re:Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree, simply on the "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [...]" basis. I think it should be part of the government's job to ensure that disabled people are treated as equals with the rest of us. In general, I rarely have a problem with benefits to those who really can't help their condition, whether it is