Beta
×

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!

Copyright Office: Everyone Uses MSIE, Right?

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the typical-myopia dept.

United States 101

richardtallent writes "Tim Bray caught that the United States Copyright Office's upcoming copyright pre-registration web application apparently only works with Internet Explorer, and they are seeking written comments from anyone who might have a problem being forced to use IE. Slashdotters, start your snail-mail."

cancel ×

101 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

so... (0, Troll)

HTL2001 (836298) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278705)

so first we convict them of being a monopoly, then we give them another one?

Be Respectful! (5, Insightful)

kajoob (62237) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278707)

Can I just say that if you do write in, don't flame. Be intelligent, clear, concise, to the point, and most of all RESPECTFUL. This isn't a rant, this is a opportunity to voice a legitimate gripe. Since they're requesting our opinions, they'll likely listen - let's not blow it.

Re:Be Respectful! (3, Funny)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278749)

Ha.
I can just see them getting goatscx pictures in the mail...

Re:Be Respectful! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13279815)

I sent them one and now have a patent for sending goatscx pictures.

Re:Be Respectful! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13282362)

Careful - I think sending someone a goatse picture through the US Mail would actually be illegal.

Re:Be Respectful! (4, Funny)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278877)

Dear US Copyright office:

zOMGWTFBBQ! J00 R NOT 1337! E4T SH17 4ND D13!

T3H 1337-533K1N9 Mi55i13!

Re:Be Respectful! (1)

takeya (825259) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279666)

I'm writing.

This is what I will send:

Hello, I am using Linux and I can not use the Internet Explorer web browser to access a system on your site, as detailed at the URL http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.htm l [copyright.gov]

I hope that this system becomes accessible from a browser that is available on my Operating system, such as Mozilla Firefox, or Opera. Thank you.

Re:Be Respectful! (3, Informative)

toddbu (748790) | more than 9 years ago | (#13280809)

Do you have to say that you're using Linux? Just say something like "I use the Firefox web browser which currently holds 10% of the browser market. I feel that it's important the U.S. government support at least the top two web browsers on its web sites as this will promote free market competition in this area."

Doesn't even need to be Linux (1)

arete (170676) | more than 9 years ago | (#13281741)

IE is no longer supported on the Mac, so they are cutting out all supported mac browsers to (Firefox + Safari)

I think that "all users of Firefox" and "all users of Apple" has even more weight, because EVERYONE knows who Apple is, even if they don't really know what the difference is.

Ben

Re:Be Respectful! (1)

Phillup (317168) | more than 9 years ago | (#13282199)

Do you have to say that you're using Linux?

Personally, I think it is important to say that you aren't using Windows and have no way to run IE.

Actually... I think that is all that you really should need to say.

...and add... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13292428)

Not to mention, the US government itself recommended people to switch to Firefox.

[It was last year during the security scares with IE--anybody remember the specifics?]

Lazyness or lack of resource? (2, Insightful)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278738)

I'm willing to bet it's a combination of these factors and not out of malice or of spite for Firefox and other browsers. No need to get /.'s collective panties in a bunch, I'm sure they're willing to fully cooperate with said users to develo pa solution that satisfies all parties.

Re:Lazyness or lack of resource? (2, Insightful)

FLEB (312391) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279465)

Incompetence or inability... could be those, too.

Re:Lazyness or lack of resource? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 9 years ago | (#13281210)

It's the government. Hanlon's Razor almost certainly applies.

Re:Lazyness or lack of resource? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13282021)

From the page in question:
Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect. Present users of these browsers may experience problems when filing claims.... Therefore, this notice seeks information whether any potential preregistration filers would have difficulties using Internet Explorer

Translation: They initially wrote their site without considering other browsers, but then realised the problem when they tested it (maybe they have a Firefox fan in their QA department), so they are already working on fixing it, but they're not ready with the fixed version yet.
You only need to contact them if you actually need to use the site in a non-IE browser before their fixed version is ready.

I'm glad someone posted that! (1)

munpfazy (694689) | more than 9 years ago | (#13292125)

What I wouldn't give for some mod points to spend on the immediate parent.

This isn't a case of someone trying to get away with a MS-only policy by floating a proposal for comment and hoping no one responds.

It's a case of someone who realized *too late* that their site isn't entirely accessible and who is now doing the right thing by telling us about it. They'remore or less asking for permission to put up the flawed site as it is while they work on fixing it.

The fact that they've made this public statement at all, combined with specific references to mozilla, suggest that they're *already* onboard when it comes to the demand for a standards compliant web.

As much as I hate MS-only policies, this isn't one of them. Let's not waste our time and theirs writing to tell them that we don't have windows pcs. The best that can possibly happen is that they'll ignore the flood of irrelevant mail. In the worst case, they'll decide that we linux heads are a bunch of nutballs and bring that grudge to their next project.

Unless you're planning to release a film in the US in next couple of months and your company doesn't have access to a windows pc, your comments won't really mean much. That is, after all, the only people who are affected by this issue.

- Erik

Re:I'm glad someone posted that! (1)

munpfazy (694689) | more than 9 years ago | (#13292152)

For those browsing at >0 points, by "immediate parent" I mean this comment:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158499&cid =13282021 [slashdot.org]

The way slashdot displays threads containing below-threshold posts sure is strange.

My caustic response (-1, Flamebait)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278754)

Therefore, this notice seeks information whether any potential preregistration filers would have difficulties using Internet Explorer (version 5.1 or higher) to file preregistration claims, and if so, why.

Because your idiot monkey ASP programmer can't write a line of valid Javascript to save his life, that's why. I mean, how farking hard is it to do document.getElementById("name").value? No, 'document.forms.name.value' is stupid (even IE sometimes gets confused with that), and you're stupid for allowing your monkey to write it.

Yes, we know that you are forced to deal with govvy programmers, but this is one case where you really need to put out an RFP for some DEVELOPERS to code up your app.

Oh, and the 'why' is because IE is an insecure, low-tech POS [secunia.com] .

My Lovin' response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13278925)

"Yes, we know that you are forced to deal with govvy programmers, but this is one case where you really need to put out an RFP for some DEVELOPERS to code up your app."

Bottled Crap volunteers in true Open Source 'no cost to you' style to redo your site. It's all that "lovin" don't you know?

Re:My Lovin' response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13279329)

> idiot monkey ASP programmer
> govvy programmer

hit a little too close to home?

The best answer I usually give.. (5, Interesting)

Lally Singh (3427) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278788)

I simply tell people that IE's been discontinued for the macintosh. Everyone recognizes the Mac as a different platform that other people use, and the fact that IE is no longer shipping on it is a good motivator. Simple, easy to understand for non-techs, and respectful.

Re:The best answer I usually give.. (1)

nocomment (239368) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278888)

Might also be useful to point out that the Unix version of IE is no longer available either.

The best answer I usually give..Mu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13279038)

"Might also be useful to point out that the Unix version of IE is no longer available either."

You say that like it's a bad thing?

Re:The best answer I usually give.. (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279762)

Yeah, and it seems the Linux version of IE isn't available anymore, nor was it at any point unless you count Wine'd IE.

Re:The best answer I usually give.. (2, Interesting)

nocomment (239368) | more than 9 years ago | (#13280371)

Well I was thinking you can illustrate that not only is market share for IE going down because of things like Firefox, and people switching to other browsers, but the platforms that IE used to run are also no longer being supported. e.g. Solaris, HP-UX, Mac OS[0]. Not only that but whatever features they are considering that "require" IE will probably alienate a large section of Windows users as well.

[0]Well, sorta. You can still get it, AND it comes pre-installed in OS X, but when was the last update to it? Is the bug (err feature) that are thinking of implementing require the Windows version of IE? probably.

Re:The best answer I usually give.. (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | more than 9 years ago | (#13280677)

It seems then that a decent reasoning behind making this system non-IE based would be that a decent number of people either don't use 1) an OS supported by IE or 2) a version of IE that will implement these "technologies." The USPTO could end up being just plain annoying to the decently large number of people using Firefox, Opera, Links or any other browser and even those who use older versions of IE. Fire up that there pen & paper!

Re:The best answer I usually give.. (2, Informative)

chromaphobic (764362) | more than 9 years ago | (#13282101)

it comes pre-installed in OS X

Not anymore it doesn't. At least it didn't with my copy of Tiger, and I did a default installation.

The Mac Demographic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13278985)

Pah! What is this? We aren't just some "other people" [devnulled.com] --we're the smartest [com.com] , most creative [imageshack.us] , fashionable [imageshack.us] , and beautiful [imageshack.us] people on the planet. Certainly we make butt-scratching troglodytes [fi.upm.es] out of the average Win/IE user. In my humble estimation, then, we Mac users [imageshack.us] are more entitled than anyone to copyright protection. The Copyright Office should be ashamed.

Re:The Mac Demographic (1)

nes11 (767888) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279036)

you forgot to add humble & modest.....oh wait

Re:The Mac Demographic (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13279135)

I bet you're about 500 pounds and you haven't seen sunlight in sixteen years. How many times a day do you jerk off to these pictures you seem to keep finding?

And just as a personal touch, I like the Mac, but those women you keep digging up are one-hitters. They aren't particularly attractive, beyond projecting a slutty aura. None of these photos really says creative to me, either. The best I can say I get from them is "competent snapshot taking," and even that only applies to half of them. Not particularly artistic subjects, the composition is frankly boring, the lighting isn't ever really that great, and in most shots the tie to apple is tenuous at best. Plus, again, the people. They basically look like NYC hipster assholes that I would use and laugh at.

Re:The Mac Demographic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13279211)

At least you got the right city [imageshack.us] .

Re:The best answer I usually give.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13279152)

I wouldn't mention the MAC. I bet they have heard that Apple went out of business. "Please buy a current computer with Windows"

Re:The best answer I usually give.. (1)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279523)

Probably, because MAC's arent computers, they're Media Access Control codes for your ethernet device.

For the rest of your post, I have no idea where you'd get that kind of an idea, so I'm gonna just leave it be.

"You design for IE? Does it work in IE7 as well?" (2, Interesting)

Penguin (4919) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279948)

Another possibility is to mention that IE7 renders the page different than IE6 - and leave the question whether they want to "design for IE6", "design for IE7" or design according to standards.

When people state that they are "designing for Internet Explorer", it is pretty easy to ask what version they are "designing for". When they get uneasy about the upcoming (and apparently unexpected) IE7 and the memories of (poor design with) several stylesheets, several conditional scripts, the DOM/standards argument is pretty good.

Sample Letter for printing (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 9 years ago | (#13288005)


Copyright GC/ I&R

P.O. Box 70400

Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400





Dear Sirs,


Regarding your request for comments1 [slashdot.org] regarding “The Copyright Office is supplementing its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on preregistration of copyright claims” announcement. I would like to state my comments as follows with regard to the exclusive use requirement of the Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer web browser for electronic-only preregistration forms.


  1. That product, the Microsoft Internet Explorer web browser, is not supported nor available on the computer systems we use.

  1. That product is known to not support world wide standards for displaying web content as described by the W3C2 [slashdot.org] organization. Such a lack of standards support prevents millions of Americans from accessing web content designed specifically for Microsoft Windows operating system and its web browser(s).

  2. There is an openly supported and publicly controlled web browser( Mozilla Firefox ) which has become very popular as security, reliability, and standards support has wavered on the Microsoft Windows platform. Also, many businesses and individuals have come to rely in it. For example, Novell, Oracle, and IBM just to name a few. This web browser is available for free on all versions of Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac, UNIX, and GNU/Linux.



Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the issue of public access to the services provided at the US Copyright Office.



Kind regards,


Your Name

Your Address

Your City, State, Zip

1 [slashdot.org] http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.ht ml

2 [slashdot.org] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/

Web Application (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278797)

Anyone who actually cares about their web application reaching a larger audience will automatically make an effort to get firefox, netscape working regardless of what the law saids.

The address (RTFM iz hard) (4, Informative)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278807)

for mail:
Copyright GC/ I&R
P.O. Box 70400
Southwest Station
Washington, DC 20024-0400

Re:The address (RTFM iz hard) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13278901)

Be sure to send an original and five copies (!) by Aug. 22.

Re:The address (RTFM iz hard) (1)

leloup (844869) | more than 9 years ago | (#13280630)

Don't forget to make 5 copies.

FAX but no email!!! (1)

js7a (579872) | more than 9 years ago | (#13281448)

I just got off the phone with Alicia and Denice at 202.707.8380.

You can fax to 202.707.8366, but be sure to send six faxes total.

Just get the RIAA/MPAA sysadmins to deploy Firefox (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13278876)

...and make sure the copyright office doesn't get told about it. Two birds in one stone.

Its all about Campaign Contributions (1)

johnnytv (899977) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278899)

Just how much did the Mozilla Foundation contribute to the Bush/Cheney campaign compared to Microsoft?

Re:Its all about Campaign Contributions (1)

doctormetal (62102) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279051)

Just how much did the Mozilla Foundation contribute to the Bush/Cheney campaign compared to Microsoft?

Isn't contribute to campaign something that other countries call bride?
Paying politicians money to get what you want?

Re:Its all about Campaign Contributions (1)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279125)

No, they call it a bribe...

Re:Its all about Campaign Contributions (1)

doctormetal (62102) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279460)

No, they call it a bribe.

hmm, forgot the preview button

Re:Its all about Campaign Contributions (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 9 years ago | (#13280222)

Isn't contribute to campaign something that other countries call bride?

No, they call it a bribe...

I suppose it depends on just how you're "contributing" to the campaign...

Re:Its all about Campaign Contributions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283479)

Buh DOm bom

The Internet Explorer Demographic (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13278902)

This makes no sense. Don't those boneheads realize that Win/IE users [fi.upm.es] aren't likely to create anything of value? In my experience, the creative [imageshack.us] ones [imageshack.us] tend to be Mac [imageshack.us] users [imageshack.us] . And everyone knows that no self-respecting Mac [imageshack.us] user [imageshack.us] would touch IE with a fifty-foot feather.

Bah. The whole thing makes me sick.

At least they're asking! (3, Interesting)

freality (324306) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278930)

A few years ago they probably would have assumed IE and skipped the public comment process. Now there's too many creatives using macs.

Now, asking for 5 copies of a comment letter is like saying "Unless you're a corporate lawyer representing a major publishing house, keep your comments to yourself. You serf."

And no, they don't care about Linux users since it's the office of copyRIGHT, not copyLEFT.. that office is located at creativecommons.org.

"Creatives" on Macs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13279026)

We "creatives," [imageshack.us] as you say, have always [imageshack.us] used [imageshack.us] Macs [imageshack.us] .

Re:"Creatives" on Macs (0, Flamebait)

freality (324306) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279101)

only foot-licking creatives use macs. the real [freality.org] inspired [freality.org] among us [freality.org] do use linux [w00tix.org] , hate to say it. ;) [freality.org] .

Re:"Creatives" on Macs (1)

brunson (91995) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279487)

You lost all my respect the instant you mentioned "Java API". Go buy a Mac, Java Fan-Boi.

Java API :) (1)

freality (324306) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279838)

Java API Java-API Java API. Java API Java API
Java API. "Java API" Java API Java API-Java API.
Java API; Java API .Java API Java API. Java API
Java API Java-API Java API. Java API Java API
Java API. "Java API" Java API Java API-Java API.
Java API; Java API .Java API Java API. Java.

Re:At least they're asking! (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279087)

"And no, they don't care about Linux users since it's the office of copyRIGHT, not copyLEFT.. that office is located at creativecommons.org."

Heh, yeah, I'm sure the group working on the copyright website is all about the politics right now.

Re:At least they're asking! (3, Informative)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279097)

No, no, the reason they want you to make 5 copies of the letter is because they want to distribute it to 5 different people and they don't want to get caught copying it themselves in case you have copyrighted it.

Re:At least they're asking! (1)

rekrutacja (647394) | more than 9 years ago | (#13281850)

Who rated parent as "funny"? I'm really afraid it's "insightful"!

can we just slashdot them? (0)

capoccia (312092) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278945)

can we just slashdot the patent office website into oblivion? i think they'll get the idea.

Security (5, Insightful)

Gadren (891416) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278955)

Perhaps it should be mentioned that it's odd that Homeland Security said that it's best to use an alternative to IE, and the same government is requiring IE.

Re:Security (1)

nexxuz (895394) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278982)

That just goes to show you how much they listen the 'their own' when it comes to advice

so what makes me think that they would actually listen to 'outsiders'?

Re:Security (2, Informative)

BlueFashoo (463325) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279759)

Because even the government doesn't trust the government.

Re:Security (1)

skintigh2 (456496) | more than 9 years ago | (#13280177)

That is a damn good point and one I completely forgot. I will have to remember to mention that the next time I clean 700 viruses and 250 pieces of spyware of my relative's computer (those numbers are NOT exaggerated).

As much of a PC person as I am, my new stock suggestion to relatives is "if you can't build your own PC, but a Mac."

Re:Security (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 9 years ago | (#13288271)

That's because we now need a Central Homeland Security Agency. Its purpose would be to oversee the operations of the Department of Homeland Security, and all the other agencies of subversion created under the Bush Administration.

It's what Dick Cheney is working on now but won't tell anybody. ;-)

LoB

Microsoft Bob here to save the day! pt. 2 (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 9 years ago | (#13278973)

Remember kids, getting a copyright without Internet Explorer on a Microsoft operating system is the first step towards piracy. Look what happens when Amazon puts out a patent. Those are made on Apple computers. First thing after they are anounced they are proven to be weird. Don't take chances USE MICROSOFT!

Re:Microsoft Bob here to save the day! pt. 2 (1)

Tachikoma (878191) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279179)

. . .Internet Explorer on a Microsoft operating system . . .
I believe you meant GENUINE Microsoft operating system...

Isn't this like. . . (5, Funny)

Tachikoma (878191) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279035)

. . .only permitting people who drive stationwagons to enter the postoffice parking lot? What genius CIO thought it would be a good idea to limit people who can use this to one, albeit large, sect of people? If I said "hey boss, lets make a great web app, but lets only let MSIE people use it because I'm incapable of making it available to more than one browser and MSIE is the whore of internet browsers and lets anything in" he would laugh at me. Then fire me. And then laugh a lot more. And then have a heart attack, but that's just my CIO...

"I'm sorry ma'am, you can only apply for a patent if you only have 1 leg."

"But I have two legs, its much more effiecient and I'm much more stable!"

"Two legs huh? That's nice but my give-a-shit is broken today, so you're going to have to handicap yourself like everyone else to use this. And you have to get in the back of the line."

Re:Isn't this like. . . (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279667)

. . .only permitting people who drive stationwagons to enter the postoffice parking lot?
And the worse is that they don't make station-wagons anymore... Just minivans and big-ass SUVs...

Re:Isn't this like. . . (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 9 years ago | (#13280668)

And the worse is that they don't make station-wagons anymore

Well, there's the Malibu Maxx [chevrolet.com] , but they call that a "5-Door Extended Sedan", and I don't know whether it'd qualify as a station wagon or not.

There's also the Dodge Magnum [dodge.com] , but if by "they" you're referring to US companies, that doesn't really count. (If you're not referring to US companies, the same corporation that makes the Dodge Magnum also makes other wagons [mbusa.com] . Here's another wagon [citroen.com] from a non-US company, but those aren't sold in North America, except perhaps through the gray market.)

Re:Isn't this like. . . (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 9 years ago | (#13281895)

We call them estate cars in Britain, and there's still lots of them around. The Ford Mondeo is probably the most popular.

Re:Isn't this like. . . (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 9 years ago | (#13296946)

And the worse is that they don't make station-wagons anymore...

See the Subaru Legacy and Impreza [subaru-global.com] and the Toyota Matrix [toyota.com] .

Re:Isn't this like. . . (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 9 years ago | (#13282981)

only permitting people who drive stationwagons to enter the postoffice parking lot

Correction:
Only permitting people who drive Fords to enter the postoffice parking lot. And lets restrict admittance to the building to people wearing Nike shoes while we're at it.

-

software design government style (4, Interesting)

Captain BooBoo (614996) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279098)

At this point in the process of developing the Copyright Office's system for online preregistration, it is not entirely clear whether the system will be compatible with web browsers other than Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.1 and higher. Filers of preregistration applications will be able to employ these Internet Explorer browsers successfully. Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect. Present users of these browsers may experience problems when filing claims.

Sounds like they hired the developers under the common practice of the "lowest bidder"

Re:software design government style (1)

Taevin (850923) | more than 9 years ago | (#13281866)

And they'll probably rehire the developers to fix the code so that it can work with other browsers. Sounds like a new business plan to me:
  1. Code website to standards but add IE only hacks that break support for other browsers.
  2. ???
  3. Profit!
  4. Get rehired for twice the price and spend 5 minutes removing IE only hacks.
  5. ???
  6. Profit!

Using contracts for fun and profit (1)

Passman (6129) | more than 9 years ago | (#13282421)

Of course you could turn this around if you prefer alternative browsers.

Build a site that works fine in Firefox/Opera/Safari/Etc. and breaks/crashes IE. All you would really need to do for this is design the site using CSS2.

Then when they come to complain hand them a supplemental contract to add IE support.

Might be a bit more work then what the parent proposed, but it's a lot more likely to work.

Just make sure the initial contract doesn't require IE support :)

Web Submissions? (1)

north.coaster (136450) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279102)

has anyone found a way to submit comments via he web? Having to submit comments in writing is silly, and inconsistent with what other US government agencies do.

Re:Web Submissions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13279153)

has anyone found a way to submit comments via he web?

Yeah, but the submission form only works in IE.

Contact webmasters regarding section 508 (1)

Cyphertube (62291) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279121)

IANAL

Assuming the site only works for IE, that means, chances are that the site is in violation of federal law.

I urge people to check all .gov and .mil sites in the US and urge them to comply with section 508. If they fail to do so, they may be vulnerable to a lawsuit in Federal Court.

Re:Contact webmasters regarding section 508 (1)

Gothic_Walrus (692125) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279216)

Section 508 requires that electronic and information technology developed, procured, used, or maintained by all agencies and departments of the Federal Government be accessible both to Federal employees with disabilities and to members of the public with disabilites, and that these two groups have equal use of such technologies as federal employees and members of the public that do not have disabilities.

How is the IE-only decision in violation of Section 508, exactly?

Is using IE over another browser difficult or impossible for people who are disabled?

Re:Contact webmasters regarding section 508 (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279584)

Yes, IIRC IE is the least WAI standard compliant web browser.

Re:Contact webmasters regarding section 508 (1)

GryMor (88799) | more than 9 years ago | (#13280281)

Good luck finding a screen reader that works with IE.

More importantly, good luck having a site that makes any sense at all to someone using a screen reader that only renders properly in IE.

Re:Contact webmasters regarding section 508 (1)

cloak42 (620230) | more than 9 years ago | (#13281434)

Funny, but I always figured that it was the IE users who WERE disabled.

*rimshot*

Re:Contact webmasters regarding section 508 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283518)

> Good luck finding a screen reader that works with IE.

Actually, most Windows commercial screen readers embed IE. The common idea around here that screenreaders are based on Lynx is a joke.

Re:Contact webmasters regarding section 508 (1)

elemental23 (322479) | more than 9 years ago | (#13281415)

It is if they're using anything other than Windows.

Good resaon why IE only.... (1)

NoSuchGuy (308510) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279147)

Maybe the "United States Copyright Office's upcoming copyright pre-registration web application" was a pro bono work from "MS Business Solutions Development Group" with help from the "Win2003 Server Group"?

Re:Good resaon why IE only.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13279577)


I think it much more likely that the "United States Copyright Office's upcoming copyright pre-registration web application" was a lucrative sub-contract for a group of sleazeball government contractors, with a fictive 8(a) at the top and someone like Dyncorp pulling 49% of the work on paper. (Oh yeah, and the female/minority "owner" of that 8(a) just happens to be a cousin of a newly-minted DynCorp junior associate partner.) And the real labor was done by a $25k/year kid who just finished his Visual Basic programming classes at NoVA [cc.va.us] .

Then it was after the USCO took posession of the deliverable (and released the remaining contract funds) that anyone raised the issue of standards compliance and the existence of a non-IE world. And that only happened because some medium-high-up person at the USCO tried testing the application from his recently-cleaned-of-spyware computer at home, where his son's friend who fixed it convinced him of the need to use Firefox instead of IE.

At least, that was the way things operated back when I lived and work inside the beltway.

The Letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13279231)

[Federal Register: August 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 149)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44878-44879]
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 202
[Docket No. RM 2005-9]
Preregistration of Certain Unpublished Copyright Claims

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
SUMMARY:

The Copyright Office is supplementing its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on preregistration of copyright claims, issued July 22, 2005. That notice proposed procedures to preregister any unpublished work being prepared for commercial distribution that is in a class of works determined by the Register of Copyrights to have had a history of pre-release infringement. Today's notice seeks information as to whether persons filing the electronic-only preregistration form prescribed by the Copyright Office will experience difficulties if it is necessary to use Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser in order to preregister a work.
DATES:

Comments are due no later than August 22, 2005. Reply comments are due no later than September 7, 2005.
ADDRESSES:

If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401 of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by mail, an original and five copies of any comment should be addressed to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays in processing receipt of such deliveries.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel, or Charlotte Douglass, Principal Legal Advisor, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024-0400, Telephone (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005 (the ART Act), Title I of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 109-9, 119 Stat. 218, the Copyright Office recently proposed implementing regulations for preregistration of eligible copyright claims. 70 FR 42286 (July 22, 2005). To be eligible for preregistration, a work must be unpublished, in the process of being prepared for commercial distribution, and in a class of works that the Register of Copyrights determines has had a history of copyright infringement.

Section 104 of the ART Act directs that preregistration procedures must be in place by October 24, 2005. 17 U.S.C. 408(f)(1). To comply with this time frame and to facilitate efficient processing of preregistration claims, inter alia, the proposed rule calls for filing such claims by electronic means only. At this point in the process of

[[Page 44879]]

developing the Copyright Office's system for online preregistration, it is not entirely clear whether the system will be compatible with web browsers other than Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.1 and higher. Filers of preregistration applications will be able to employ these Internet Explorer browsers successfully. Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect. Present users of these browsers may experience problems when filing claims.

In order to ensure that preregistration can be implemented in a smoothly functioning and timely manner, the Office now seeks comments that will assist it in determining whether any eligible parties will be prevented from preregistering a claim due to browser requirements of the preregistration system. Therefore, this notice seeks information whether any potential preregistration filers would have difficulties using Internet Explorer (version 5.1 or higher) to file preregistration claims, and if so, why. More generally, in the interest of achieving support for browsers in the Office's preregistration processing environment, this notice inquires whether (and why) an eligible party who anticipates preregistering a claim on the electronic-only form will not be able to use Internet Explorer to do so, or will choose not to preregister if it is necessary to use Internet Explorer.

The Office requests that responses to this supplemental notice of inquiry be made part of the responders' comments on the July 22nd Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Whether or not accompanied by comments on the proposed rule, the response to this notice of inquiry should be submitted by the due dates for comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, i.e., no later than August 22, 2005, with reply comments due no later than September 7, 2005.

Dated: August 1, 2005.
Tanya Sandros,
Associate General Counsel.

Must use IE . . . (1)

Tachikoma (878191) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279272)

Of course you must first validate that you are using a GENUINE Microsoft operating system.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was pro-bono by Microsoft (or some scandalous way of getting some microslave do it)
The old way of 60 patents a month just wasn't cutting it, now with an IE method, they can bump up to 90.

Seriously who patents clicking of the mouse. Software patents blow.

Not just written responses, but justifications! Smart to make it writing though, seriously, who knows how to write these days? I mean, with their hands? Who does that...? Why don't I just 'hunt' my ramen noodles with a spear I made myself, and then 'grow' my own coffee?

What this is (2, Informative)

SwiftOne (11497) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279371)

The article doesn't make it very clear what this is talking about, but here's what I've pieced together from the various links:

* "The ART Act amends section 408 of the Copyright Act to add a new subparagraph (f), which directs the Register of Copyrights to allow reregistration for any work that is in a class of works that the
Register determines has had a history of infringement prior to authorized commercial distribution."

In other words, if in danger of infringement, you can register your copyright in advance. (Remember that under U.S. (and many others) law, you HAVE copyright from the moment of creation, but REGISTERING lets the government know. I'm guessing from context that they normally only let you register upon publication.

So this is enacting a law to let studios sue more easily when their movies get pirated on day 0.

Later:

* "Therefore, this notice seeks information whether any potential preregistration filers would have difficulties using Internet Explorer (version 5.1 or higher) to file preregistration claims, and if so, why. More generally, in the interest of achieving support for browsers in the Office's preregistration processing environment, this notice inquires whether (and why) an eligible party who anticipates preregistering a claim on the electronic-only form will not be able to use Internet Explorer to do so, or will choose not to preregister if it is necessary to use Internet Explorer."

So: Unless you are someone who is going to file one of these, they don't care about your comments. Slashdotting the postal system isn't likely to get a response. (Of course, they COULD respond to the comments anyway, but they aren't asking for them)

Re:What this is (1)

Chris Snook (872473) | more than 9 years ago | (#13301147)

On the flip side, preregistration allows a creator to secure their claim prior to entering negotiations with a publisher. Then you don't get years of litigation about which stuff you did before you signed the contract and which stuff you did afterwards. This is just one more step towards putting distributors in their place, which is that of a business providing a service to the creative talent, rather than a business that employs the creative talent.

I imagine that wasn't the intent of those who lobbied for the law, but that doesn't mean we can't use it to put the power where it belongs.

Pissed once again... (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279508)

This is bullshit! I can't believe a government website would be allowed to make a site only viewable to one brand of browser, and only one OS. Then again, the US Patent office is clearly lacking in the computer skills they need from the kind of shit they've let get copywritten. >:(

Re:Pissed once again... (1)

Holi (250190) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279761)

Umm the Patent office has absolutely nothing to do with copyrights. Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass be for you continue to spout useless shite.

Re:Pissed once again... (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279812)

They're all fucked up, doesn't matter which one we're talking about this week really...

Simple answer (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279543)

1. Linux is free (as in beer).
2. Windows is not free.
3. The applicable statute and federal regulation establishes a right for any developer of a work in the covered class to preregister that work for copyright.
4. Requiring the use of a web browser only available with a non-free operating system amounts to the requirement of an additional fee. This fee is not permitted by statute, because the Copyright Office is not given permission to cause fees to be collected by other agencies. Nor could any subsidy to Microsoft be considered to be "fair and equitable and give due consideration to the objectives of the copyright system" (17 USC 708(b)(4)).

Note that this argument doesn't apply the other way around. The government can feel free to "subsidize" free web browsers that work on free operating systems, because no cost is incurred to the preregistration applicant.

Re:Simple answer (1)

The Warlock (701535) | more than 9 years ago | (#13286484)

Well, it's great to learn that bandwidth is free, then. I'm sure everyone will be happy about that.

Formatting (1)

droptone (798379) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279695)

Date
#-triple space

Copyright GC/ I&R
P.O. Box 70400
Southwest Station
Washington, DC 20024-0400
#-Double space
To whom it may concern:
#-Double space
Body
#-Double space
Seperated by double spaces #-Double space
Sincerely,
#-Triple space (for signature)
Print Name
Return Address Seperating by single spaces

Unironic (warning: sarcasm) (2, Funny)

bsdbigot (186157) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279707)

The anti-copyright crowd and the anti-MSIE crowd are pretty much one in the same. A Venn diagram [venndiagram.com] of the two would probably look like a basketball in a red/green stereoscopic photo. Where's the problem? People that don't/won't use IE are likely never to transact any business with the Copyright Office, other than to deluge them with comments about how if they ever were to file for Copyright protection, they would have to *gasp* use a technology that is readily available? Unbelievable.

Re:Unironic (warning: sarcasm) (1)

ddmcd (212701) | more than 9 years ago | (#13282883)

Nonsense. I use Firefox, use both Windows and Mac computers, never use Linux, and I believe in copyright (ddmcd.squarespace.com). Put that in your Venn diagram and smoke it.

rtfa? (4, Informative)

mullein (37149) | more than 9 years ago | (#13279819)

From the federal register link in the /. article:

"Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect. Present users of these browsers may experience problems when filing claims."

It doesn't seem that they plan on restricting usage to IE users only, and in fact sounds more like they have the position, "it might work on firefox, but we haven't tested it."

Re:rtfa? (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 9 years ago | (#13282329)

What's stupid is that they're missing Safari/KHTML browsers. Safari right now has the #3 slot behind Firefox, and ahead of Netscape. In addition, it's the system default web browser for MacOS, so almost all Mac users are using it. (Just like almost all Windows users are using IE because it's the system default; it doesn't help that Firefox on Mac sucks ass.)

So kind to ask (1)

FedeTXF (456407) | more than 9 years ago | (#13280502)

It is so kind for them to ask. In other places I've seen IE-only solutions being done out of ignorance.

will you be happy (1)

eraserewind (446891) | more than 9 years ago | (#13282735)

Will you be happy when they make it a simple cross browser form where you can upload a MS Word doc? :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?