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!

Internet Archive Gets DMCA Exemption

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the hizt0ry-cr4ckz-and-pa55w0rds dept.

Patents 84

Paul Hickman writes "The Internet Archive has successfully lobbied for a DMCA exemption for the Software Archive. The IA keeps out-of-date programs, games and other random craziness for future programmers to savor. At the rapid pace of software development, this makes sure that we can create a history for us to remember and wonder at the programming of early games."

cancel ×

84 comments

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

Now all that we need is (5, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17039672)

a personal DMCA exemption for every US Citizen.... sigh

Re:Now all that we need is (2, Insightful)

bwthomas (796211) | more than 7 years ago | (#17040000)

how can a first post be modded as redundant?

hmm... how indeed.

Re:Now all that we need is (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17040256)

There are several reasons, such as the same comment being copied to a new discussion, repetition of information in the article summary, unnecessary mirroring of content in the slashdot story (which is also illegal, not that I care much) and for people saying the same stupid boring shit that people have been saying for the last n years, like "but does it run linux". With that said, this does not appear to be one of those moments...

Re:Now all that we need is (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040906)

Idiots wielding mod points is the problem.

Re:Now all that we need is (1)

AugustZephyr (989775) | more than 7 years ago | (#17042306)

I should use my mod points on you. But am choosing to participate in the discussion instead.

Re:Now all that we need is (1)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 7 years ago | (#17042890)

Come now, Slashdot doesn't give the karma-poor mod points. :)

It is funny that an AC got modded +2 for being too scared to call out the "idiot mods" to post with his name.

Re:Now all that we need is (2, Funny)

Kaboom13 (235759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17044202)

Don't worry, we just need to cleverly get the right to grant exemptions shifted to the patent office. Then everyone and their mother can have as many exemptions as they want. I call dibs on the exemption for the purpose of showing stuff on things.

good news (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17039738)

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! ...finally some resonable exceptions to the (crappy) DMCA.

Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17041060)

I did not post parent, but whoever modded this Flamebait should be beaten soundly. If anything, this should be modded Redundant or Offtopic, as the AC just reflects the the attitude of virtually everyone else on /. with regards to the DMCA.

Re:Seriously? (1)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 7 years ago | (#17043976)

How can you claim you didn't write the parent post? We can all see clearly that you have the exact same user name!!!

Ok, I'll get back in my box now...

Re:Seriously? (0, Flamebait)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17044998)

... as the AC just reflects the the attitude of virtually everyone else on /. with regards to the DMCA.

With regard to the DMCA. Learn to write, shithead!

Now that's flamebait!

not good news (2, Interesting)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 7 years ago | (#17044608)

Not yay!

Seeking and receiving an exemption validates and legitimizes the DMCA. This is very similar to answering "no" to "Did you steal software today?"

Re:not good news (1)

Frozen Void (831218) | more than 7 years ago | (#17045760)

Stealign software should be called unlicensed copying.There is no theft,no one is deprived of property,it not vandalised,and not broken.
Its illegality stems from the fact the company patented the ways 0's and 1's can be recorded in a medium in a particular way,which happens to be their product.That "patent" grant them and them only ability to produce the product,just by "stealing software" i.e. making another copy,and they can do so ad infinitum(ignoring medium costs ,transport and work) getting as much profits as they like.
I call that THEFT when they make money from nothing but intellectual property.
They steal your money for worthless copies of their product,which they price to gain enormous profits.Microsoft steals billions this way,and the disk stamping en masse never comes to rest.
Cheap disks,economy of scale and they all magically gain extra 600$ in value by being imprinted with MS crap.Thats fairy tales industry wants to tell.
The disks themselfs,files,and copies of them are identical.Thats why content creators struggle to identify each disk:Serial numbers,passwords,CD-keys,SecuROM and the like(artificially creating pockets of uniqueness,inventing the "geniune copy").In the end they effort will prove to be useless.
Either the protections will be broken or their product will be ignored(in favor of less crippled products).

Re:not good news (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17045980)

But I didn't steal software today. I merely pirated it.

Can they ignore takedown orders? (4, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17039770)

Does this mean that they can ignore DMCA takedown orders on all content? Or just that they're immune to prosecution if they reverse-engineer and break a copy-protection system of a work that's already in the public domain and out of copyright?

If it's the latter, while it's a nice move, there isn't really any software (except stuff on Hollerith cards) that's anywhere near getting into the public domain anyway. So it would seem to be a moot point. If they have permission to archive all content though, even stuff that's still in copyright, that would be decent.

I've read elsewhere though that the exemptions from the Copyright Office aren't permanent, but need to be renewed every few years or they expire. So all that has to happen to destroy everything is for an administration to pressure the Copyright Office to let the exemption slip, and then threaten to prosecute the IA if they don't destroy the de-protected works. Someone in another thread likened it to being given a Band-Aid after you've gotten the crap beaten out of you with a lead pipe; a nice gesture, but ultimately it would have been nicer to not get beaten in the first place.

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (5, Funny)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 7 years ago | (#17039896)

Can I store my MP3 collection there? I wouldn't want to to get lost.

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (2, Funny)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 7 years ago | (#17041322)

Yeah, I thought about that as well. Now I'm waiting the 6 months before it will appear there.

Free backup and bandwidth, yay :p

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (5, Informative)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 7 years ago | (#17040294)

In the European Union we currently watch the next stage of madness. They prepared legislation which would turn all intentional infringements of an IP right into a criminal offense. [ffii.org] No fair use exemptions yet.

Article 3 Offences
Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences.
Let's see whether parliament will fix it. I hope that at least the following amendment will be accepted:

Article 3, paragraph 2 (new)

Amendment
Member States shall ensure that the fair and
reasonable use of a protected work including
such use by reproduction in copies or audio
or by any other means, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, archiving, format conversion or
research will not be treated as a criminal
offence.

Justification:

Paragraph 1 of Article 3 describes what shall be treated as a criminal offence. New paragraph 2
affirms desirable fair uses which shall never get punished by criminal sanctions, and are vital for
a free and open society. Amendment derived from to 17 U. S.C. 107
Please write to Member of the Legal Affairs Committee [europa.eu] and ask them to support or table the amendment. Lobbying at the right time can prevent a lot of problems which occur when the law will be executed. Then you or your business will get into danger. Please ask MEPs to support the fair use provision!

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040458)

The key phrase there is "on a commercial scale". There is no fair use on a commercial scale, its just using someone else's work to gain profit, and should be criminal. Fair use is certainly not the same thing as abolishing copyrights.

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (3, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17040922)

There is no fair use on a commercial scale, its just using someone else's work to gain profit

Scale != gain. You could make no money, not even at your own loss (not recouping your own costs), and still infringe on a commercial scale.

Also, criminal penalty for incitement to pirate? So if I were to tell people to massively violate Disney's copyright on Steamboat Willie (or other works that would have gone to the public domain if not for extensions), and people do it on a scale of a commercial act, even if not for commercial gain, that would be criminal incitement to infringe copyright.

Expect any sharing that isn't limited in volume of copies to be considered commercial-scale infringement. Especially as they don't care how many copies you make but rather how many copies you potentially could have made to googol the penalties (remember talk of small operations' equipment being "equivalent to N 1x CD burners"?).

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17041120)

Expect any sharing that isn't limited in volume of copies to be considered commercial-scale infringement.


Perhaps a poor choice of words as a commercial scale venture could easily result in a loss (monetarily, functionaly, or otherwise) and isn't directly related to gain or loss. However, commercial scale is related to an end, even if that end is just "now we all have free software." And you are exactly right with saying any unlimited use is commercial scale. But please explain under what conditions unlimited sharing should be considered fair use.


Also, criminal penalty for incitement to pirate? So if I were to tell people to massively violate Disney's copyright on Steamboat Willie (or other works that would have gone to the public domain if not for extensions), and people do it on a scale of a commercial act, even if not for commercial gain, that would be criminal incitement to infringe copyright.


Didn't say anything about that. It would depend on the country that was prosecuting the case and their citizen's rights (or lack of) to free speech.

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (4, Insightful)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17042926)

But please explain under what conditions unlimited sharing should be considered fair use.
Unlimited distribution of a fair-use use of a work, such as a parody, should not automatically convert a fair use into an unfair one. In fact, many parodies have outlived the work they parody (Don Quixote, a famous parody of the now obscure Amadis de Gaula).

I'd argue political commentary or protest, such as incitement to pirate Steamboat Willie, when the object of protest is the very copyright extensions made on its behalf, should also be considered fair use, though I doubt the law (let alone Disney) would agree.

Jumping the ocean, though "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" is one of the measures of fair use, it does not proscribe the use of a work in its entirety from enjoying a fair use defense (e.g. use of entire Barbie dolls in a parody (Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions) and the recording of entire television shows for timeshifted personal private viewing (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, granted that "personal private" limitation undermines, not underlines the original point)).

I'd also argue that I should have unfettered right to reproduce and distribute any and all commercials ever made (and Giganews should carry alt.binaries.multimedia.commercials in its feed so that I can) as by their nature every viewing public or private benefits them, for which each viewing costs them nothing (when they normally have to pay huge sums to get air time). Promotional materials should not be protected by copyright. And certainly materials whose lifetime is substantially shorter than the copyright term protecting them should not be granted effectively indefinite protection!

And the same for any unpaid incidental appearance of a product in another work, or any use for which a work has become traditional, such as the singing of "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant or in an audiovisual work of fiction. Holiday songs created to become sung every time that holiday comes along should not enjoy protection from the very behavior they sought to engender.

(BTW, I should let you know that I often go out on tangents when discussing such things, or respond in part to others who are not the parent message, such as and especially the original article or its summary. I try to allow context to properly attach my meaning and the subject of my address. Please don't get upset that I may not be talking your points.)

BTW, Ob:IANAL.

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#17041034)

Sure there is. Sampling for instance. There's a big difference between a short sample creatively integrated into a new song(fair) and selling bootlegs in chinatown(unfair).

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (2, Informative)

colinbrash (938368) | more than 7 years ago | (#17042790)

A "short sample creatively integrated into a new song" is most definitely not covered by fair use. Artists/producers need to get permission to use (copyrighted) samples.

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (2, Informative)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 7 years ago | (#17043076)

This one is up for argument (even though I agree that it should be fair.) What is more relevant: How about someone who quotes some words in a song in a review, or a snipped of it? They're profiting from it by selling their article, but it's still well under the umbrella of fair use. Commercial entities are still entitled to fair use.

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (5, Informative)

PurpleMonkeyKing (944900) | more than 7 years ago | (#17040888)

They made the exception for obsolete computer programs/games among others. Their definition of obsolete is:

A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

Takedown orders will still hold, if the content is still manufactured. Well, at least they don't have to wait until it reaches public domain!

The first few pages of the official document [copyright.gov] (pdf warning) give more details.

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (1)

arniebuteft (1032530) | more than 7 years ago | (#17041158)

Depends on if they're their own ISP or not. DMCA takedown notices are directed at ISPs, and as you well know, most ISPs go running and crapping their pants at the first whisper of a takedown order. This DMCA exemption would shield the archive from any actual liability for circumventing access controls, but that might not prevent a twitchy ISP from shutting down the content. Making a takedown request in bad faith (i.e. when you know damn well there's no infringment) is actionable, but those sorts of cases are rarely pursued by anyone except the EFF.

If, however, they operate as their own ISP, they can cram any DMCA takedown orders back in the faces of the requester, knowing they have a shield. I would expect given the rarity of these sorts of exemptions, and the value in protecting them, any bad faith takedown requests would be pursued aggressively by EFF and others. We can hope anyways.

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders? (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 7 years ago | (#17041206)

I've read elsewhere though that the exemptions from the Copyright Office aren't permanent, but need to be renewed every few years or they expire. So all that has to happen to destroy everything is for an administration to pressure the Copyright Office to let the exemption slip, and then threaten to prosecute the IA if they don't destroy the de-protected works.
Why assume that the government isn't acting in good faith? If they wanted the IA to be shut down, they wouldn't have granted the exemption in the first place.

Just experience. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17044810)

Why assume that the government isn't acting in good faith? If they wanted the IA to be shut down, they wouldn't have granted the exemption in the first place.

Why assume that the government isn't acting in good faith ... well, maybe for one, because I've seen time and time again how the government can be bought practically on the open market for sufficient sums of money.

Just because they might be trying to act in good faith today doesn't mean that they won't change their tune tomorrow, when Disney/Sony/Vivendi/Universal comes shaking their thirty pieces of silver.

So no, I'm not saying that the government wants the IA shut down now, I'm saying that next month or next year, if and when the IA became a significant repository of cultural artifacts, one of those big content monopolies might decide that it would prefer if people didn't have access to that big "back catalog," because it's cutting into sales of their remanufactured folk tales, and the government is only ever a few bags of cash away from changing its mind.

Unlike a law, which Congress would actually have to repeal or change, this grant can just be allowed to quietly expire through inaction; something that's far easier to slip under the public radar until it's too late.

Yes, and I, uh, need one also... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17039778)

I am a special archivist librarian, um, responsible for the collection of laser-readable media in my home^H^H^H^H *library* and I need a special exemption also so that my friends^H^H^H^H^H^H^H fellow librarians are able to enjoy^H^H^^H^H^H access the material contained therein.

Sincerely
Pirate^H^H^H^H^H^H Bob

Re:Yes, and I, uh, need one also... (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17039944)

I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your torren^H^H^H^H^H^H journal.

Re:Yes, and I, uh, need one also... (1)

Isotopian (942850) | more than 7 years ago | (#17040330)

What the HELL do those ^H^H^H^H^H^H bits mean? Even Wikipedia doesn't know.

Re:Yes, and I, uh, need one also... (3, Informative)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17040424)

Wikipedia DOES know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H [wikipedia.org]

(search for `jokingly`)

Re:Yes, and I, uh, need one also... (1)

Ziwcam (766621) | more than 7 years ago | (#17042958)

Since searching does not seem to be the easiest thing for the GP to do, here's a direct link that will explain it all...

Wikipedia DOES know [wikipedia.org]

Re:Yes, and I, uh, need one also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040452)

Thats an in joke for us old guys...

I miss the days when 56k was a pipedream, 1200 was for rich people and our 300s routinely clocked in at 150 or less...

That might give you a clue...

Re:Yes, and I, uh, need one also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040928)

Yeah, but back in the day when we had 300 baud modems, we didn't want to clog up or pipe by filling in with a bunch of stupid ^H, so we used ^W when it was applicable. Much more efficient.

Re:Yes, and I, uh, need one also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040490)

It's the old *nix backspace character (^ = Ctrl). In fact, I still run across situations where vi or whatever won't let me backspace with my backspace key, and I have to use Ctrl-H. Don't even get me started on how much I hate vi though.

Re:Yes, and I, uh, need one also... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17041050)

It is the BS (BackSpace) character in ASCII. The Delete character is often represented as ^?, though generally one cannot type delete using control-? (or control-/).

stty erase CHAR can be used to change what CHARacter performs the delete. Some terminal emulators also allow you to change what character is generated when you press your Delete key.

Re:Yes, and I, uh, need one also... (1)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17040502)

I don't want to break any 733t rules by posting this info so read between the lines, it's the escape code for the Delete key in the Very best text edItor

Re:Yes, and I, uh, need one also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040688)

It also works on the linux bash prompt and Even in Windows sorry excuse for a coMmand line. But thAt was a sly way to try to start yet another Coupe in the editor flame warS.

Re:Yes, and I, uh, need one also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17041458)

Uh, actually, that would be 'x'.

Should now be ^?^?^?^?^?^? ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040966)

As emacs really wanted to use ^H in the application, Linux decided to change the key standard just for emacs.

Not just IA (4, Interesting)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17039796)

What's important to note here is that the exemption isn't limited just to the Internet Archive. IANAL but unless I'm reading something hideously wrongly, this seems to generally exempt software from the protection granted by the DMCA if the hardware to run it isn't reasonably available. Have they just legitimized the abandonware scene?

Re:Not just IA (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040684)

No. The exemption applies only to nonproft library or archival use. You don't get to just freely distribute copies over the internet, particularly not from a website with a bunch of ads running on it.

It also means... (4, Funny)

Mish (50810) | more than 7 years ago | (#17039858)

That future generations will have a source (other than oldversion.com [oldversion.com] ) for previous versions of software for use with version specific cracks.

Whoops! Was that out loud?

How long till (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17039870)

those 'Agencies' that lobbied for the DMCA, begin to fight this tooth and nail?

Although I think this is great and necessary for obsolete works to remain intact and accessible for historical sake, it doesn't begin to undo any of the damage done by DMCA. I know its not supposed to, but it still seems like the governemnt is backpeddling here...

Were questions regarding software/game historical archival completely left out when the DMCA was in meetings?

/frustrated with the content industry
//more frustrated with my government

RedHat chooses Gnome! (-1, Offtopic)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17039872)

RedHat chooses Gnome!

Contributed by mojoski
[RedHat] Tue Jan 13 at 10:56AM EST
From the taking-on-the-world dept.
RedHat has announced the formation of a new department known as "Red Hat Advanced Development Labs" who will be working with the people of the GNOMEteam to advance a free desktop and many nice tools for linux. Here is a link to the announcement made by Marc Ewing at RedHat. Thanks to the folks at freshmeat for making me aware of this.

Can companies like RedHat continue to make money on Free software. I'm guessing that they can. What do you think?
Read More...
16 comment(s)

/. circa 1998 [archive.org]

Sorry. Mod me off topic I guess....

At long last (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17039882)

All of our Anna Nicole Smith screensavers are free! Future generations can now, openly and freely enjoy the fruits of our culture and learn from our ways. Rejoice brothers!

You win THIS round, internet archive (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 7 years ago | (#17039892)

But this ain't over...not by a long shot!

Re:You win THIS round, internet archive (1)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17040226)

[reference status="obligatory" source="movie"]You hear me talkin', internet archive? I ain't through with you by a damn sight.[/reference]

oh good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17039930)

Now I can finally get around to beating Zork one of these days...

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040008)

First post niggas!!!

$50,000 in pro-bono time (2, Funny)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17040232)

It's nice to know the lawyers spent a whole 50 minutes on this case....

Who funds the Internet Archive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040244)

And when is the pope going to make them a saint? IA still impresses me by the mere fact of its existence to this day. But it must cost a fortune to maintain it!

Re:Who funds the Internet Archive? (4, Informative)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 7 years ago | (#17041844)

http://www.archive.org/about/faqs.php [archive.org]

Alexa Internet has been crawling the web since 1996, which has resulted in a massive archive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Internet [wikipedia.org]

Alexa Internet is a California-based subsidiary company of Amazon.com, that is best known for operating a website (www.alexa.com) that provides information on the web traffic to other websites. Alexa collects information from users who have installed an Alexa Toolbar, allowing them to provide statistics on web site traffic, as well as lists of related links.

http://www.imilly.com/alexa.htm [imilly.com]
Is Alexa spyware?
Well, no ... probably not. At least not if you haven't deliberately installed some of their software.

But Lavasoft's Ad-Aware identifies a standard registry key included with Internet Explorer as "Data Miner" spyware, with little or no further explanation, and offers to delete it. I hope this page offers a better explanation, and other alternatives to deletion. Spybot identifies it too, with more explanation, and they have a smarter strategy to deal with it (more below).
The issue is the 'Related Links' feature of IE (pre-XP SP2) which appears as the 'Tools'/'Show Related Links' menu item (and a corresponding toolbar button if you added it from the 'Customize...' link on the toolbar). If you use that feature, IE will contact the Alexa servers, via MSN, to obtain information about other web pages which seem to be related, open an Explorer Bar, and display those (plus adverts and whatnot). Go check the Alexa web site to see if you think that is a good idea (and, just to be clear, I think it's a very sucky idea), or just to double-check that you haven't deliberately or unintentionally or absent-mindedly installed some of their software.

Essentially it a two edged sword.
you have the positive in the internet archive which is kind of a byproduct from alexas data mining activitys

It didnt have to be created at all but Alexas authors figured we wouldnt mind if they tracked our visits to different sites if they gave something useful back (The Internet Archive). ..

Re:Who funds the Internet Archive? (3, Interesting)

MushMouth (5650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17042372)

The internet archive predates Alexa, although both were founded by Brewster Kahle. As for ad-aware, they have not offered any explanation as to why alexa is identified for removal, yet the google toolbar, even with "advanced features" enabled, is not. A friend of mine who is swedish and works for alexa even stopped by the lavasoft office in sweden to request a meeting. Most likely it helps that google bundles ad-aware with the google desktop.

Mame is legal for the next three years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040302)

Cool, so now, as long as the machines aren't commercially available, it's OK to upload ROMs to archive.org, right?

you in5ensitive clod! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040604)

All 6 exemptions (5, Informative)

WaXHeLL (452463) | more than 7 years ago | (#17040696)

1. Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university's film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors. 2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. 3. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights November 17, 2006 Page 2 damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. 4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book's read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format. 5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network. 6. Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.

Re:All 6 exemptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17041080)

I find this unreasonable:
6. Sound recordings, ... distributed in compact disc format
Why not any digital format?

Re: #6 Exemption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17041112)

Mark Russinovich rules. Take That, Sony!

Re:All 6 exemptions (2, Insightful)

freeweed (309734) | more than 7 years ago | (#17041340)

6. Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.

Would have been much shorter if they just typed "checking out and/or removing Sony's rootkit".

Re:All 6 exemptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17041674)

Perhaps. But doesn't this kind of end all the DRM crap that gets put on CDs? I mean, any of those programs is a security risk as far as I can see, right?

Re:All 6 exemptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17041342)

No longer reasonably available? So, under provision 2, all PS3 games are covered after 9:10 AM launch day?

(Someday this lurker will snag an account, I swear...)

Where to post the Atari/C64 games. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040722)

Anyone have a link where to post the "obsolete" games?

Hc0m (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17040746)

Starting to change my mind (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17041042)

I really am, on copyrights and the "me, me, me" mindset. I say let those folks crap be lost to the ages, gone. People who want the "don't you dare touch my stuff!" form of rights-go right ahead! I hope it gets lost in time, never to be seen again. Data of any kind that is open format, licensed to use, will survive. All those "artists" and closed off DRM content? fine! let it go away! Softare, games? Who cares really? Let it go, ignore it, ridicule it, make fun of it! I say go about using and creating open content, that is the only content that is guaranteed to at least have a chance to survive. the rest-as soon as company x goes out of business or some new format comes out and people lose interest..buh bye!

In the past, cultures that didn't care, didn't leave readable records-we don't know-or *care*- much about them. They are gone, as they should be. Whereas cultures that wrote things down in an intelligent way, using the best tech of the time, had their culture and language and works survive and they are still important today. Evolution not only goes to survival of the fittest, but survival of the most robust and open, because their knowledge base expanded rapidly, which lead to them being important, which lead them to being viable down through time.

Let the jerks go to all the trouble to create something, then make it a bear to stay viable or readable, their loss! Let them lock it up, charge huge fees for every peek at it or use, let them stay walled off, keep it buried in their vaults, throw away the key, bury it, obfuscate it, make it just so hard to use that..no one in the future will care! Let their own hubris be their legacy, their paranoid delusions of grandeur that their stuff is so valuable that humans will make the effort to try and decipher their weirdly coded and encumbered "works", when reality will be that the stuff that is easy to get to and easy to read and use and enjoy will stick around much better.

exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17041516)


Imagine the year 2090:
Windows 95 Binaries for long dead machines become public domain.
Linux and other open source OS's have been improving for 100 years.
Plus the source for the first version is still available.
Imagine which one is useful: Windows 1995 or Linux 2090.
Imagine which one would be looked at for historic educational value. Windows 1995 or Linux 1995?

Imagine the year 2100:
Recordings from 2005 become public domain, that were DRM encrypted in a long dead DRM format, and no players exist.
Recordings for 2005 to 2100 become public domain, that used standard formats, and perhaps were creative commons.
Which would be looked at for historic or educational value?

HippyDippy Liberal Content Will Survive! (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17042222)

It will be the singularity that we've all heard of. No more Disney, no more Pop Music, ahhh...only content that nobody was willing to pay for will survive. Should be refreshing!

Ancient precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17042544)

Now now, all the stuff that survived from the ancient world was open-source and non-DRM, and they had stuff people still pay for: the Bible, Sophocles, Herodotus, Homer, Caesar, Vergil, etc. And that doesn't include the specialist, technical stuff like manuals on building catapults.

Though, oddly, it wasn't the hottest technology that had the best survival rate. Stone preserves far better than paper, vellum, or papyrus.

Re:exactly (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17042532)


>2090: Windows 95 Binaries for long dead machines become public domain.

On what basis do you claim this? Copyright will not expire until 75 years after the death of the last individual with a claim to it. That will be long past 2090.

Re:exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17043530)

Work for hire copyright is for 95 years, look it up...

Re:Starting to change my mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17043802)

Good point. Except it's often not the artists who insist on such ludicrous restrictions - it's the bloodsucking record labels who have them bound in to virtual slavery. I doubt any artist would really like to be consigned to the dustbin of history. But more often than not they have to accept outrageous terms just to get exposure. You do realise how hard it is to make it in the music industry? If not, try and get a top 40 record any time soon. I think your targeting is a little askew.

Re:Starting to change my mind (2, Insightful)

axlash (960838) | more than 7 years ago | (#17046742)

But that's the point. People who use DRM care less about how important their work will be in the future, and more about how much money they can make today. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this - we all make decisions which are skewed towards our short and long term interests.

Yeah, but ... (2, Insightful)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 7 years ago | (#17041702)

"$50,000 in pro bono lawyer time". WTF is wrong with government when it takes this kind of leverage to get anything done? How would the average person ever hope to get any consideration at all?

And let's not forget - this "exemption" is courtesy of the very same people who created the need for an exemption - congress.

Stop voting for incumbent politicians and DMCA-type garbage will stop happening in the first place.

Re:Yeah, but ... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17045320)

Don't worry, they charged $500 and hour, and most of the time spent was triple billed anyway, so its not like anyone lost any money. ;-)

Submissions (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 7 years ago | (#17043108)

So let's say I want to submit my game [metasquared.com] , which is already listed on Tucows [tucows.com] , to this site.

How would it get indexed? I could not find a link to contribute software. After Home of the Underdogs [the-underdogs.info] grabbed it without so much as notifying me (but whatever; I'm flattered more than anything else), I would think this would be simple.

Re:Submissions (1)

TTK Ciar (698795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17046530)

Use this: http://www.archive.org/create.php [archive.org]

Enter a descriptive identification string following the simple syntax rules given, and it will present you with an ftp server to which to upload your game's files. After you have completed uploading your files, click on the "done" link and then fill out the web form for your item's metadata.

I realize our item creation interface sucks, but finding the spare cycles for rewriting it is problematic. We're a nonprofit with a tiny staff, dealing with huge content on a shoestring budget. Please bear with us. Revamping this interface is in fact on our to-do list.

-- TTK, Software Engineer, Data Collections Group, The Internet Archive

Re:Submissions (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 7 years ago | (#17048676)

Thanks for the response. I reached that page before, but the mention of an "audio, movie, or text file" made me think I had arrived at the wrong place. If that page is also used for uploading software, you should make mention of that.

On a totally unrelated matter.. (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 7 years ago | (#17043670)

I wonder if DeCSS can be included in the IA's Software archive, now? :)

yuoq Fail it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17044120)

outreach are a change to His clash with OF AMERICA) today, people already; I'm worse and worse. As is wiped oof and

Why not move Internet Archive to Europe ? (1)

pain (18144) | more than 7 years ago | (#17046992)

Hmm... why not sweeden and forget about DMCA altogether ?
Europe would be pleased I guess. And we need good lobbyist
against software patents :-)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?