×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Who Owns Your Digital Media?

chrisd posted more than 11 years ago | from the do-a-little-for-freedom dept.

The Courts 216

Ren Bucholz writes "In what was designed to be a "safety valve," the Copyright Office is holding its tri-annual search for exemptions to the DMCA's prohibitions on circumventing access controls. The Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted comments last December that outlined four "classes of works" that should be exempt, including copy-protected CDs, region-coded DVDs, DVDs with unskippable promotional material, and public domain works that are only available on DVD. They are asking people to write in support of the four exemptions that they have proposed. The Copyright Office is only accepting comments until February 19th, so get on it!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

216 comments

This FP for Stef (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164773)

I 0wn y0ur digital m3dia.

I love you Stef!

Who Owns Your Digital Media? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164779)

Who Owns Your Digital Media?!!! more like celda

i have no idea.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164783)

but is this the ever elusive fp that I've been trying to get? :)

FIRST!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164786)

You are all watching the superbowl, eh?

who (3, Insightful)

OwlofCreamCheese (645015) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164796)

who owns the analog media?

Re:who (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164818)

w000t w0000t i doooo

Re:who (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164842)

that's a good question, but dont say it to loud.. we might be staring down the AMCA....
then the government will cut out our eyes, ears, and all of our creativity.... i better be careful, someones probably listening...

Re:who (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164963)

The Man.
He also owns your digital media.

Buyer Owns Analog Media (3, Insightful)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165080)

The buyer owns the analog media. When I buy a book, I own the book itself. What I don't own is the content: I am prohibited from reprinting what's in the book.

Re:Buyer Owns Analog Media (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5165175)

Prohibited? By whom? The U.S. gov? Fuck 'em, they're a joke. Do what you want. Those bought-off motherfuckers don't understand anything but money and guns.

Damn, I need a drink.

Who Owns Your Digital Media? (3, Funny)

thoolie (442789) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164797)

I do?

Re:Who Owns Your Digital Media? (5, Insightful)

anubi (640541) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164881)

I would certainly hope that all would consider that *I* own the media once I have legally *purchased* it. However, I do not consider that I own the work on the media. I see the media as only being a carrier for the work, much as I see a bag as a carrier for its contents. The way I see it, I have only purchased a copy of that work for my own benefit - whatever that is.

I still strongly adhere to the concept that I have purchased a copy of the work, and strongly defend what I consider as my right to transfer that work amongst other media I may have. I do not consider replication of that work for distribution to others so that they do not need to purchase that work themselves to be my prerogative, although I would bend as far as running off a sample.. kinda like I would share a swig of my Stolichnaya, but would be quite miffed if once they got a sample, they expected me to be their free source of it.

Personally, I think the content industry has went way too far though. I must know what it is that I am intending to buy because there is a lot of stuff out there that I have no interest in whatsoever. Walking into a record store and buying a CD, without knowing about it first, makes just about as much sense to me as walking in an auto parts store and buying a water pump, without knowing if the pump I am purchasing will fit the car under repair.

Why is 137? Why exactly 137?

What exactly is Digital Media? (5, Interesting)

civad (569109) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164926)

I was trying to find out myself what could "Digital Media' mean: Here are some of the meanings of the term "Media" (Re: Dictionary.com)
a. An ancient country of southwest Asia in present-day northwest Iran. b. A plural of medium. c. A means of mass communication, such as newpapers, magazines, radio, or television. d. The group of journalists and others who constitute the communications industry and profession. e. (Computer Science) An object or device, such as a disk, on which data is stored. f. A culture medium. g. A specific kind of artistic technique or means of expression as determined by the materials used or the creative methods involved: the medium of lithography.
These and many more meanings of the term bring the following thoughts to my mind:
Considering 'a' Digital Media could mean that the ancient country has been restored in a digital form. In that case, the 'owner' the digital media should be the person(s) who created it OR others.
Conclusion (on ownership:)Depends.

Considering 'b' plural of medium: I think the grammar of the language ownes it.
Conclusion: MPAA/RIAA can go to hell.

Considering 'c' means of mass communication,now here's where the picture begins to blur. Going purely by the dictionary meaning; media = means of mass communication; if I own a TV set, I should also own the media, right? In that case, the form of the media does not matter (digital or otherwise)
Concluion: More research needed

'd' is most interesting media= group of journalists. I wonder how the term 'digital media' could be interpreted in this case. A cyber-clone of Larry King???
***At this point, I have lost my ability to conclude. The very idea of a digital journalist has shocked me. Imagine being interviewed by a robot... :)

'e' makes the most sense. Means of storage....However, if I go to say Best Buy and buy a pack of 50 CDs, then I own the 'digital media', right? Now the contents of MY digital media is a different story. I think nobody has the right to impose upon me what I should keep in my house/ car, etc. The same applies for digital media. (However that does not mean I have a right to steal others' stuff and keep it in my house/car, correct??)

Considering 'f' culture medium: I wish I were a Biology major to comment on it. Any takers????

Finally, 'media' means artistic expression.....so if the artist expresses something be it acting/ vocal/painting, etc...) then the artist is the owner of the 'media'...right? Then why should we even bother about the Music Labels/ Movie Studios? Arent they middlemen who are trying to milk both tte artist and their 'patrons/ audience?' Just a (more than a) few thoughts....

Well... (2, Insightful)

aerojad (594561) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164800)

If all this already exists, what is the copyright office going to do about it to prevent the big companies to just keep chugging along?

public domain audio and e-text (4, Interesting)

stonebeat.org (562495) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164802)

that is why listen to public domain music ( mozart) public domain films (charlie chaplin) and read public domain text (projct gutenberg).....

Re:public domain audio and e-text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164886)

Do you also get news that way?

gee (1)

SweetAndSourJesus (555410) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164904)

that's swell and all, but some good stuff has been produced in the last 75 years.

Do you mean you comsume public domain media exclusively, or is it part of a balanced diet?

gutenburg (4, Insightful)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165032)

I doubt any copywritten work of literature can be as good as 1984.

The problem with the DMCA isn't that copyrights are evil and that we should boycott them. The problem is that it protects works on too many fronts. Traditionally you either protect it technologically (touch my book and die, bitch!) or legally (through copyright). If you use the former, anyone who breaks the lock can copy the book and the latter it must become public domain in given time.

What's happening is that companies have enough influence to get both technological and legal protection that will never go away. Better than that, their technological protection has legal protection of its own.

Those of us that don't want to pay $15-$25 for a crappy CD won't habe $15,000-$25,000 to bribe congress.

Re:public domain audio and e-text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164954)

In addition to your gross arrogance, you must be pretty boring.

Re:public domain audio and e-text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164969)

If restricting yourself to public domain content does that to your spelling and grammar, perhaps I won't mind paying for my content in the future ;)

R u sure? (1)

dark-br (473115) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165072)

Public domain music must be played and recorded by not so public domain artists and recording companies. It the same for the films. Maybe the Gutenberg stuff u can have freely.

Re:public domain audio and e-text (5, Informative)

waffle zero (322430) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165162)

that is why listen to public domain music ( mozart)

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

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

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

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164804)

digital medias 0wn0rZ you!

The RIAA does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164816)

Haven't you read the DMCA?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164823)

SOVIET RUSSIA trolls post YOU!

Err? Shouldn't there be... (4, Funny)

The Pi-Guy (529892) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164824)

DVDs which cannot be played on alternative systems? (For the purposes of compatibility)

Or maybe not. Oh yes. And this comment is ROT26 encrypted so if you read it you're violating said law. kthxbye

--NonToxic

Re:Err? Shouldn't there be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164942)

And this comment is ROT26 encrypted so if you read it you're violating said law.


you ripped that from a post of about a couple of weeks ago. jackass

More copy protection isn't the answer (5, Interesting)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164839)

Who Owns Your Digital Media?
Obviously the artists who make it.

But more copy protection isn't the solution to all this pirating going on. Music, movies, TV shows, and other forms of digital media should be made downloadable on the website of whoever owns it. The owner could still profit quite handsomely from advertisements on the website, seeing as how more people will visit it to grab all the free media they would offer. Video media such as TV shows and movies would have built-in ads within them too.

Hey, what better way to "pollute" or "stop" the P2P networks than making your product perfect quality and free! Who would want to download a movie off Kazaa when you can get it off the corporate website where you know your download won't get cut off? If you rip your own product into a file, you can throw as many ads into it as you wish. Granted, there would still be P2P around, but it'd be harder to find video and audio media without ads. Most people would be subject to ads, still, and the profit would still be there, just not at the expense of the user. This system discourages pirating.

Perhaps if these companies would grow a set of balls and try something new (actually old.. TV has been doing it for decades) then they could stop worrying about copy protection. If a user downloaded your movie off your website laced with Ads you get paid for, then mass distributes it via P2P, their bandwidth is actually making you money. Why haven't these companies thought of this yet?

Two problems: (2, Insightful)

mbredden (641756) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164866)

1) Television shows in syndication don't show the same exact set of commercials each time the show is rerun. This would be changing the way advertisers purchase ad-time from the networks, being that their advertisements would be a permanent part of the show being distributed for free via the corporate website/p2p.

2) The content that makes its way for distribution on p2p networks, will, most likely have the advertising stripped out of it. Have you ever seen an episode of The Simpsons on a p2p network with the commercials intact?

Re:Two problems: (2, Funny)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164894)

Have you ever seen an episode of The Simpsons on a p2p network with the commercials intact?
Yes, yes i have. In fact some have the commercials ffwd through, you get the lines and everything plus the guy backing it up when he goes too far. The worst by far was one (CABF19 - Treehouse of Horror XII - 85,452KB) that was from a digital video camera pointed at a tv playing a tape of the episode.

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (4, Insightful)

God! Awful 2 (631283) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164890)


Music, movies, TV shows, and other forms of digital media should be made downloadable on the website of whoever owns it. The owner could still profit quite handsomely from advertisements on the website, seeing as how more people will visit it to grab all the free media they would offer. Video media such as TV shows and movies would have built-in ads within them too.

Cough! Yet another stupid commment by someone who has no clue about economics. If you had been paying any attention whatsoever for the last 3 years you would have noticed that most of the websites that were 100% advertising are now out of business. Then let's consider how much advertising revenue you get from a single hit on your website. It sure ain't the $5 you currently pay to rent a movie or the $17 that a CD would cost you. Plus after someone downloads your movie, edits out the commercials, and sticks it on P2P then you're right back where you started. Get a fucking clue!!!

-a

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (1)

SoSueMe (263478) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164971)

Plus after someone downloads your movie, edits out the commercials, and sticks it on P2P then you're right back where you started.

This would be true if the average user of P2P knew that the material they download could be edited.
Truth is editing would be too much trouble for the average viewer. It's not as satisfying to actually do something about a problem as it is to bitch about it.

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (1)

God! Awful 2 (631283) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165002)


This would be true if the average user of P2P knew that the material they download could be edited.
Truth is editing would be too much trouble for the average viewer. It's not as satisfying to actually do something about a problem as it is to bitch about it.

Someone will write an open source program to do it for them.

-a

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (2, Funny)

SoSueMe (263478) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165022)

Someone will write an open source program to do it for them.

Will it do something about the problem or bitch about it for them?

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (1)

God! Awful 2 (631283) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165040)

Commmercial skipping algorithms have already been developed for VCRs. Someone will write the equivalent program for digital media.

-a

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (1)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165052)

f you had been paying any attention whatsoever for the last 3 years you would have noticed that most of the websites that were 100% advertising are now out of business.

These companies go out of business because they have nothing to offer on their websites that keeps people coming. If you could download each new episode of The Simpsons from their website each week, wouldn't you keep coming?

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (1)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165098)

"If you had been paying any attention whatsoever for the last 3 years you would have noticed that most of the websites that were 100% advertising are now out of business."

For somebody who claims to understand economics, you sure don't seem to understand why those sites failed. The reason they failed is that they didn't reward the customer for viewing the ad. Instead, they put banners up in the corner that people learned to ignore because there was no value there. If they were smart and put cartoons or something up there, they might have had a loyal advertising audience.

" It sure ain't the $5 you currently pay to rent a movie or the $17 that a CD would cost you."

How many people aren't renting movies because they're too tired after work to do so? I think this would add to their revenue, not replace the rental system. Other than that, I think you're right.

"Plus after someone downloads your movie, edits out the commercials, and sticks it on P2P then you're right back where you started. Get a fucking clue!!!"

Who'd wanna do that? That has to be the dumbest thing I've heard today. If it's free on the website, what's the incentive for somebody to want to download it from your 256k connection? I'd rather get it off a fast server with ads than download the edited from you over the period of a day.

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (4, Insightful)

SoSueMe (263478) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164901)

Your point is exemplified in the wired.com article [wired.com] from the earlier SlashDot article [slashdot.org] .
After hearing of all the dot bombs that based their business model on internet ad revenues and failed, it interesting to see that it can be profitable if you give the people what they want.

It's also too cool to see the "pirates" show the Corporations how it should be done.

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164912)

Absolutely brilliant. I agree with you 100%. I wouldn't care about downloading an extra 10mb of advertisements on my pirated cartoons, as you can always just skip them with whatever media player you use. :)

Sailing the seven seas of piracy,
Alex D.

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164928)

Analysis of your system identified the following potential communications

issues :

SR8 : Windows 2000 Service Pack Not Installed

Your Windows 2000 system does not have the latest service pack installed.

For best results using IR connectivity, you should install service pack 2

or later. Windows 2000 service packs are available to download from

http://www.microsoft.com.

It is recommended that you resolve any of the issues mentioned above

before running this Setup program. If your unable to resolve these

issues, go to http://www.mot.com/consumer/support for more information and

contact numbers.

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164955)

Who Owns Your Microwave Oven?

Obviously the company who made it.

You just paid for the right to use it in your home!

Private property is the cornerstone of our society. Or was anyway. Welcome to New Capitalism!

That won't work at all (1)

Razzak (253908) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165081)

Do you think 1 ad impression for 50-700MB's of data is going to offset the money they make from selling it and implementing copy protection?

1 Free Stuff!
2 ..
3 PROFIT!!!

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (5, Insightful)

tannhaus (152710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165084)

No, I disagree totally. First, the artists do not own MY cd. The artist contracted with a record company. Any standard record contract gives the rights to that cd to the record company. The record company is the one screaming save the artist! while at the same time bending that selfsame artist over the table for a little woo woo.

Ok, now that we've established that the artist doesn't own the music, the record company does, let's follow that cd to a store. That cd is on a rack. I want that cd, so I buy it. Now, I have bought the recording...it's mine. I am not free to give away COPIES of that recording, however, I am free to give away that recording if I wish..it's mine. If I want to copy that cd and put the original away so it doesn't get scratched, that should be my right. It's my recording. If I want to copy that cd and put the copy in the car, that should be my right. I bought the recording. The record company holds the rights to distribute that recording. I do not. But, I do hold the rights to listen to my recording however I wish.

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (1)

rzbx (236929) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165168)

I agree. There would be more incentive to create better quality content at the same time. If your content is popular enough, you may get away with more ads within the content than if your content is less popular. So the next time you see a Jackie Chan movie, he might be wearing some (name a shoe maker) shoes, driving a (name a car), and maybe even have him going to see another movie thats coming out next month. Advertising within the movie would create a whole new method of advertising that would be less obvious, but most likely just as powerful. That is why you see artists and athletes that advertise a product. Athletes also get sponsers which help pay for their particular sport and advertise themselves at the same time. As the internet grows larger and faster, it is only logical to use this sort of strategy to distribute content. Maybe some company will start making content that is based around their product, or should I say maybe some more will. Check out bmwfilms.com for an example. I still have yet to see the clips though.

Unlikely... (4, Informative)

SoSueMe (263478) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164847)

From the Reply Comment Submission Form [copyright.gov]

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

Like that's going to happen...

Educating the Public (5, Insightful)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164856)

"They are asking people to write in support of the four exemptions that they have proposed. The Copyright Office is only accepting comments until February 19th, so get on it!"
I question whether this is the right approach. Is flooding the Copyright Office with the same requests really going to have any sway whatsoever? I mean, if the number of letters that come in support of or against the DMCA determines how the Copyright Office will make up their mind, then the battle is already lost since the corporations have the money and resources to fake millions of letters. And since I seriously doubt that they're doing this, wouldn't our time be better spent doing something a bit more proactive than sending letters? These days, no one in the government is even reading e-mail. I think organizing protests that get noticed on local news stations or, better yet, national news is a much more valuable use of time than having every send off an angry letter. It will lead to more public attention. I mean, we all know that the DMCA is awful because we understand the implications but the public at large still doesn't. We need a campaign to educate the public because I don't think the copyright office is going to side with a flock of nerds over multi-national corporations when the public doesn't even care about the issue. There's no reason for any government burecrat to stick their neck out over this until it means trouble for him or her if he doesn't stick his neck out.

Just my $0.02

Re:Educating the Public (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164919)

You could always just break the laws you disagree with, claiming that it is your right to act in a manner that serves you best under the religion you follow: Selfishness.

It worked for the Rastafarians...

Undermining society,
Alex D.

Re:Educating the Public (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164945)

Sheesh, we're talking about something that takes maybe ten minutes of effort here. I think people can handle this and talking with friends, organizing protests, etc. Heck, organizing their thoughts here might even make those other things easier later on. Imagine that!

In 1998, the CTEA was passed completely unnoticed by the public. Now look how much mainstream press the Eldred case got. That's progress. Keep it up and Disney won't be able to buy its next extension in 2018 at any price.

Frankly, your post is just lame rationalization for your doing nothing at all. I'm going to do my part, but in the end, people get the government they deserve.

You missed the point; you're probably dumb (1)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165042)

"lame rationalization for your doing nothing at all"
I believe I was suggesting more involvement than simple letter writing, as you noted in your first paragraph. I was trying, although you missed it apparently, to explain that if people want to get this changed something far more proactive than simple letter writing has to be done. It is because of the lack of public understanding of the issue that we need to do something other than write letters. You cite the CTEA as evidence of the public getting wind of something. How does the public become alerted to the DMCA by writing letters to the Copyright Office? That's what I thought.

Frankly, you're just an AC that can't actually read for understanding.

Re:You missed the point; you're probably dumb (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5165118)

The problem is that the same people who say what you've said usually just turn around and bash the next course of action someone suggests:
"Challenging the DMCA in court will never work, we need Congress to repeal it!"
"Congress will never listen to us, so vote them out."
"Voting is useless because both parties suck and third parties never win."
"Boycotting the media industry is hopeless; they'll just blame the loss on piracy."
"Civil disobedience won't work, they'll just use that as an excuse to pass even more stupid laws."

It's all a bunch of defeatist crap that gets us nowhere. Forget choosing. Do all of the above! Or as many as you can. No one says you have to pick one tactic and cling to it forever. Nor does it have to take an inordinate amount of time. I wrote and submitted my comments in the time it took you to reply to my first message.

How does the public become alerted to the DMCA by writing letters to the Copyright Office?

Here's one scenario:

  1. /. user submits his comments to the Copyright Office
  2. /. user realizes, "Hey, these examples are really easy for Joe Sixpack to understand! A lot of non-techie people I know have probably experienced at least one of these four."
  3. /. user forwards the handy link [eff.org] to Joe Sixpack.
  4. Joe Sixpack, who has never heard of any of this before, thinks, "So that's why I can't fast forward my @%&*@! Disney DVD for my kids!"
  5. Joe Sixpack adds his comments to the chorus.
  6. Joe Sixpack is now at least slightly more aware of the issue. He may even be sympathetic to the next link you forward him.

No it won't save the world by itself, but it's something.

no, write the letter. (-1, Flamebait)

twitter (104583) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164947)

Thanks for the flame, dick-head, I'm going to write. My individual well considered letter is not "flooding the Copyright Office with the same request" and I refuse to be give up because some companies might "fake millions of letters." I don't consider myself part of a "flock of nerds". My letter is good practice for talking to my peers and others about the issue. My letter, and many other well considered individual opinions will give the Copyright Office much food for thought, and the statistical backing for their plans. They asked for it, they want it, they will be able to filter out the crap and they will do good things with it.

It beats reading posts by someone who's head is filled with Acidic_Diarrhea .

I never said not to write a letter (1)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165028)

"Thanks for the flame
/me checks score of post.
Looks like it's not a flame son. I'll ignore the fact that you called me a "dick-head." My intention was not to say not to write a letter but question the effectiveness of such a policy. The Copyright Office is a political body and just like any other, responds most to public opinion delivered through news sources. I hate to break the news to you since you are obviously so naive, but letters written to Congressmen and your President and pretty much any national government official have very little impact. I was not using the term "flock of nerds" as an insult. I was merely suggesting that the majority of people who aren't technical and don't read Slashdot have no understanding of this issue and it should be more of a priority to get them up to speed than worry about getting the Copyright Office on board because...(and here's where you need to follow closely)...the Copyright Office isn't going to respond until there's significant public pressure and letters don't show public pressure; news stories on national outlets provide pressure. You really did read most of what I said incorrectly and that's why I am a little annoyed that you decided to flame me. It's rather childish of you but, I'll forget it. Thanks for the flame! :D

Re:Educating the Public (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164966)

Is flooding the Copyright Office with the same requests really going to have any sway whatsoever?

Yes, that would be silly!

That would be like, lots of people wanting the same guy for president, and then they go and they vote for just one guy out of like two or three. How lame! If you want a new president, overthrow the government with a well-planned coup!

What do people think this is? Some kind of representative-based democratic system where each "individual" has some sort of effect on the whole?

Get real people! One dollar equals one vote! Start working hard like Bill Gates and maybe you'll have the capital to make a real difference!

Re:Protests (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165083)

I can see it now:

"Please follow the uniformed police officer to the designated 'Free Speech Zone' behind the building marked 'Garbage Dumpster.' All protesters are advised to leave before Tuesday morning so that waste management may complete their assigned duties. God Bless America!"

Come and get me. (4, Funny)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164879)

I've got a blank CDR here. I'll keep it blank forever! It will be my only CD that no one but me has any rights to what-so-ever! Bwahahahah!

As for the others, anyone want any War3z copies AOL 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0?

Re:Come and get me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164929)

Why in the name of GOD almighty would you offer to copy and distribute America Offline?

No accounting for taste I suppose... Come and get me 3lit3 h@ckerz!!!

Alex D.

WAR IS PEACE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164880)

Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Bliss

Exclude anything on Kazaa ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164884)

Everyone knows that the people using Kazaa only host uncopyrighted material ;-)

Re:Exclude anything on Kazaa ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164941)

Naturally. :)

Sailing the seven seas of piracy,
Alex D.

Sorry folks, DeCSS is a criminals tool. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164888)

Most of you people who use it ought to be serving life sentences in prison for using it too since three felonies (3 counts of DMCA violation) is three strikes. You people are criminals and support such monsters as Sklyarov, Felten, Corely, etc. so don't except any support on this one. The DMCA is here to stay and much more restrictive legislation is on it's way so get used to it. There is nothing you can do about it. This is a socialist country which means that anything which increases the scope of the government is the norm. Quit being a criminal and learn to obey the law and report criminal monsters like copyright violators, illegal gun owners, drug users, libertarians, people who quote the constitution etc to the authorities. People who do the above are terrorists. If you don't believe that the government doesn't consider them to be terrorists then why did THIS [leesburg2day.com] happen if they don't consider it terrorism?

Re:Sorry folks, DeCSS is a criminals tool. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164948)

You poor Americans... :) I am soooooooooo glad I live in the land of the free. Canada!

Seeing reality in my own special way,
Alex D.

Parent post is SATIRE, but LINK is not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5165086)

mod it up simply for that fact. i think people need to see that.

Leesburg Raid (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165136)


Federal Agents Raid Leesburg Home [leesburg2day.com]

"Some neighbors reported being told by agents that the investigation involved a copyright issue."

But if the agents really are jack-booted thugs, do we take them at their word? (Assuming the neighbors got it right in the first place.)

MOD THIS UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5165137)

g0aTSE.cX is k0oL!!!

too little too late (5, Insightful)

ldspartan (14035) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164921)

I'm tired of being reactive. All the letter writing in the world isn't going to make the DMCA any less of a bad law, so why try? Be proactive - vote for a congressman who doesn't support big business and its want to walk over the wants of the citizenry in the name of control. Write your congressman. Inform your neighbors that the officials they elected are rapidly signing away their rights.

If we keep be reactive, the opposition will always be a step ahead of us, because they will continue to control congress and write the laws.

Re:too little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164958)

Why not do both? Is there some finite amount of political awareness in the world that you're afraid of using up?

Re:too little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5165020)

Be proactive - vote for a congressman who doesn't support big business and its want to walk over the wants of the citizenry in the name of control.

Moving out of state isn't really an option for me at the moment.

Re:too little too late (2, Insightful)

inkswamp (233692) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165035)

vote for a congressman who doesn't support big business and its want to walk over the wants of the citizenry in the name of control. Write your congressman. Inform your neighbors that the officials they elected are rapidly signing away their rights.

Um... yeah, I've done all that. Your point?

The problem is that there are virtually no congressmen left who won't support big business over personal rights. Most congressmen don't actually read your letters. Most people you try to inform don't know how this will hurt them in the long run and it's hard not to come off sounding like some Art Bell-like conspiracy theorist in explaining it.

Re:too little too late (1)

titzandkunt (623280) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165058)


You can write to your congressman as much as you like but unless your letter includes a five-figure bribe^H^H^H^H^H "Campaign Contribution", it will be stored in the big round metal filing cabinet on the floor next to his/her secretary's desk.

Money talks, and the RIAA's cash is shouting!

T&K.

Re:too little too late (3, Funny)

arubis (68392) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165102)

Gee, that sounds great! All we need to do is go out and vote for the politicians that favor the citizenry over corporate cash!

So, uhh...

Who are they again?

Re:too little too late (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165173)

The problem with that is that most Democrats in this area aren't worth voting for... Here's to CA Democratic Govenor Davis, who stuck his head in the sand when the power companies raised prices exponentially, and drove the 5th largest economy in the world, hundreds of millions of dollars into debt.

Sorry, as much as I hate the DMCA, there are many things that are FAR worse. I'd rather petition my officials asking for them to reject the DMCA, rather than voting for a complete moron who happens to go against the DMCA.

Why not ALL? (4, Interesting)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164931)

Why didn't they suggest ALL DVDS, seeing as we have the legal right already to space-shift media we have already purchased?

Two sides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164937)

I own the media, but someone else owns the format. I cannot say I own both. Also I cannot be told what I can and cannot do with my *legally* owned media, -- regardless of the format.

One more (3, Insightful)

jsse (254124) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164944)

outlined four "classes of works" that should be exempt, including copy-protected CDs, region-coded DVDs, DVDs with unskippable promotional material, and public domain works that are only available on DVD.

and materials adopting silly encryption that insults the intelligence of citizens.

Otherwise, next time Adobe would publish ebook with ROL-26 encryption and sue those who merely look at it and don't pay up. (am I going to an extreme? that's just an example to inspire thoughts)

Typo? (1)

Vainglorious Coward (267452) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165013)

Adobe would publish ebook with ROL-26 encryption

Surely you meant ROFL-26?

Re: your sig. I personally don't see it as an improvement either, but I do note that one can't now see the numbers of moderations, and sometimes that tells a story in itself...*cough* post of doom *cough*

Go EFF! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164950)

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

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

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

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

Re:Go EFF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5165071)

Spam the copyright office with support for the EFF and make things happen.

Right, because we all know how well spam makes us buy herbal viagra and recycled printer cartridges, no?

Spam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5165141)

D00d I don't pay any damn attention to spam, why would they??? wtf.

who owns your digital media? (5, Interesting)

MoFoYa (644563) | more than 11 years ago | (#5164970)

I own my digital media.

If I bought it, I should have the right and ability to use it as i see fit. If I want to load my new audio CD into my MP3 player and take it with me without having to lug around a player and CDs, I should be able to do that easily.

The P2P problem is another issue alltogether. People have been sharing music and videos for decades, but now that we can do it online in such great numbers it's starting to hurt(so they say). This battle should not be fought by changing the media. Besides, I can still make an MP3 or Mpeg from a CD/DVD with copy protection --- Analog Inputs. This method just makes it a much longer and difficult process to manipulate MY media.

Question - Why have we not heard so much as a buzz from software companies? Software is shared via kazaa(and others) in the same way music and video is.

Even the unskippable FBI warning is atrocious (5, Interesting)

semios (146723) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165007)

Here's the comment I made to the EFF:

I find the fact that the FBI warning isn't skippable on my DVDs disturbing. A message pops up on my television from my DVD player that my DVD is disallowing me from jumping to the main menu. My DVD player is *disallowing* me to fast forward. No where else do we suffer being controlled by our own devices. Imagine if CD players imposed such bizarre rules such as forcing you to listen to something as obnoxious as the this before you could play the disc, "The following music you are about to listen to is copyrighted material. Any unauthorized copying of this material is a felony offense."

I have some better questions.... (5, Interesting)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165014)

...who is your representative in Washington? How do you contact them? Do you know what their position is on the issue? Have you (intelligently) made them aware of your position on the issue? Do you still buy Digital Media? Are you just bitching because you want to be one of the people who steals it?

I think a lot of people need to stop talking and start doing something. This issue pops up on /. what... every 20 or 30 minutes? What good is it going to do you to keep voicing your opinion here? You're just preaching to a choir of people who are preaching to the choir.

If you're so absolutely lazy that you can't be bothered to write up a logical, intelligent e-mail, join EFF [eff.org] and at least use their default e-mails to mail your reps and let them know that corporate ownership of your life is NOT acceptable and you WILL help "throw the bums out" if they don't do something about it.

I'm sure a lot of people here do take action against the crooks in Hollywood, but I also guarantee it's not enough....

Who owns my Digital Media? (2, Insightful)

Metallic Matty (579124) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165029)

Well, perhaps this is over simplifying, but since I bought this DVD & this CD; are they not mine?

DRM this, RIAA that (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5165048)

Is anyone else bored to death of story after story on slashdot about how horribly painful it is to buy DVDs and CDs, how horribly evil DRM and RIAA and MPAA are, how incredibly cool P2P is, ad nauseam et infinitum?

If you want a copy of a song or movie, go buy the damn media and quit bitching.

Re:DRM this, RIAA that (0, Troll)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165145)

Is anyone else bored to death of story after story on slashdot about how horribly painful it is to buy DVDs and CDs, how horribly evil DRM and RIAA and MPAA are, how incredibly cool P2P is, ad nauseam et infinitum?

If you want a copy of a song or movie, go buy the damn media and quit bitching.

Is anyone else bored to death of troll after troll on slashdot about how horribly painful it is to steal copyrighted music, how horribly evil pirates are, and how p2p serves no other purpose but theft, ad nauseum et infinitum?

If you want to hear about something else, go listen to a song or watch a movie and quit bitching.

Get the format right (4, Informative)

octalgirl (580949) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165067)

This format of class/summary/facts and/or legal argument should be repeated for each reply to a particular class of work proposed.

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

DVD purchase vs. rental (4, Interesting)

mat catastrophe (105256) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165077)

In the days of VHS, there was a difference between tapes that you rented and tapes that you bought, as I recall. If you went out to the video shop and rented some movies, then you would likely sit through three to five "upcoming features" trailers (as time went on, they were advertising things other than films as well) before the "Feature Presentation" was to begin.

And, that to me is fine. After all, it's a rental and they do have the "right" to attempt to get my attention about upcoming films, right? Sure, that's no biggie. But, those ads were never present on VHS tapes that were purchased (naturally, we're not talking "Previously viewed" purchases from that same video store).

And that's also the way it should be. After all, this isn't a tape/DVD that you'll be watching once or twice this weekend and taking back. You'll be watching this thing maybe once a month for the next ten years, and losing lots of time watching the crummy previews (likely for movies that you also bought later on). That's just unacceptable.

Skippable or not, ads at the *front* of a DVD are an affront to the purchasing public. Sure, put those ads in, but do it in the same manner you might put in the bonus features, in a menu option. Why is this so hard for the movie moguls to do?

But, more importantly, why is this sort of bad behavior on the part of Hollywood less vilified by the public?

I'll stop here, before I digress....

SUPERBOWL (-1, Offtopic)

WHeeeLZ (577085) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165079)

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH TAMPABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY ALLLLLLLLL THE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY, watch out for next year cause they are gonna dominate AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YYYYYYYYYYEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAHHHHHHHHHh...ok one more beer i promise!!!!!!!

Write in favor of the other comments too! (4, Informative)

Cerlyn (202990) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165089)

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

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

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

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

Re:Write in favor of the other comments too! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5165139)

THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE WANTS TO SEE REAL EVIDENCE THAT NEAR-TERM HARM WILL OCCUR...

I cut myself on a "do not copy" warning label from my CD. Does that count?

Also let me take the time to mention that using too many caps is like yelling.

Microsoft patents ones and zeros (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward +1 (645038) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165127)

With all the copying going on, in this day of digital information wanting to be free, who is to say what's right or wrong? Digital information wants to be anthropomorphized, indeed.

Fuck that (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5165130)

I'll copy whatever the hell I feel like copying. Mickey Mouse, billion dollar Bill, the congress and the senate can collectively lick my scrotum.

meeting half way? (2, Insightful)

jdkane (588293) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165156)

They are asking people to write in support of the four exemptions that they have proposed.

Exemptions are good. However by supporting the four exemptions, are we also supporting the fact that other items are not exempt? I admit the proposed four exemptions are very broad in scope so to have them all pass would be good.

The situation sort of has the feeling of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Remotely. But it's still there.

'defecive' disks ... 20 ywears ago it was VHS (2, Interesting)

TomDLux (28486) | more than 11 years ago | (#5165176)

In the mid 80's I worked in a video duplication agency .. a place studios came to to get 20,000 copies of 'Kansas City' or Alien, 300 copis of the tape showing an interesting dental surgery to send out to subscribing dentists, etc.

I those days, many people put garbage in the 'vertical sync' signal, which wouldn't affect the display of the movie, but would produce garbage if you tried to dub the movie on your boring home VCR.

I have no idea who won that war, since I could never figure out why people would want to use up a $5 cassette on a movie they could rent for that price .... Who would want to watch any movie more than two or three times at most, more often, ,once is enough.

So the studios put garbage in the table of contents section of the disk, users come up with ways to decode it anyway. Studios demonstrate their total deddication to profits, fans display their insatiable need to listen to music .... Hmm, is this picture looking strange? Do studios figure out how to supply a craving for music, or do studios go out of business?

TomDLux
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...