DMCA Exemption Time 151
jvillain writes "Contentagenda notes that the Copyright Office is taking submissions for exemptions to the DMCA. They do this every three years. There's a description of the six exemptions made last time to give you some ideas. So fire up the keyboard and let the Copyright Office know what needs to be changed. If you don't get in now, it'll be another three years before you can try again."
I love how... (Score:3, Insightful)
Within a single device... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I love how... (Score:5, Insightful)
Until someone decides to invalidate the law.
Just keep copyright bound to a person and not to a company. And let the copyright be valid only 5 years after the death of that person to let it be able to cover for funeral costs in case that's needed.
For computer software there should only be copyright if there is support for the software.
DRM Music where 'Managing Server' is Gone (Score:5, Insightful)
Definitely need a tougher exception for Spore (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing but a fig leaf. (Score:2, Insightful)
This "exemption" is nothing but a fig leaf to cover the draconian (and unconstitutional) DMCA act. I say "Ha!" to any act that forbids me to disseminate instructions on how to read ROT13 (in a "copyrighted" work).
The exemptions granted last time around are really, mostly, a "nobody cares" exemption. They were granted so that organizations engaged in archival work can cover their assess -- but they really could've performed said exemptions and the probability of a suit would be infintisimly small.
Re:Since the Summary Is Poor. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
7. Any encrypted or protected media - so the lawful user can utilise it on any one device at a time
This would make the real purpose of the DCMA pointless but make the stated purpose still valid ...
Re:DRM Music where 'Managing Server' is Gone (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the only comment I've read so far with a reasonable idea for submission. Anything that had DRM that depends on an outside source should automatically be fair game if they shut down the servers. Movies and video games included. What happens if Steam goes belly up?
Re:Why Only fitness of purpose? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess that depends on what you mean by "full access"? One could argue that if it meets it's primary purpose. e.g. Cars go from point A to point B, CD players play music, DVD players play video, etc. Then reasonable access has been provided. The fact that you can use all of the above to cause blunt force damage to others shouldn't be enshrined into law.
I can take my car apart piece by piece if I wanted to and reassemble it to my liking without breaking any laws. Why? Because my car is my property. Having "reasonable access" to something is no where even close to being the same as owning something.
Re:Making math illegal. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's manufacturing, importing or distributing a device that is intended for circumventing encryption. Probably wouldn't apply to a formula.
And if that formula is machine parseable since that's what code boils down to...
Depends on your motivations. This is different from your stated motivations. If you're clearly lying when you're saying it's for academic study only then it's still not legal.
Where did I say it was for academic study? Does it mention it in the DMCA? Is it one of those screwup pieces of legislation where it's legal if I print the source code for a copy protection cracker in a book (think PGP) and mail it to someone but illegal if I email it to them. Or would both be illegal?
Re:here is a good one (Score:1, Insightful)
A solution (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a rather simple solution (that will probably never happen) to this problem.
Sell me one license to use/play/run whatever you are selling. Then let me use/play/run it wherever I want whenever I want, however I want.
Give me the right to give or sell my license to someone else, meaning I would no longer be able to use/play/run whatever you are selling anymore.
Let me worry about format shifts, backing it up, keeping track of my devices, etc.
Re:I love how... (Score:5, Insightful)
" It's not the government's place to encourage creativity"
Umm.. better re-read the little phrase in the Constitution that authorizes copyrights and patents. You know, the bit about promoting progress in the useful arts and sciences. It explicitly is the govenrment's place to encourage creativity. It's a pity that the govenrment seems to limit said encouragement to creative accounting practices nowadays.
Perhaps you meant it is not the government's place to discourage mindless banal entertainments?
A narrow example of fair use, maybe? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Sorry if this is redundant, I haven't had time to read submissions yet. I'm evil! Downmod me!)
Something like "Any material which has been legitimately purchased, where the purpose is to view/hear/otherwise use said material."
Another one:
Copying for personal backup, not to be redistributed. If they redistribute the copy, or even just carelessly allow an unencrypted version of something previously encrypted to go into the wild, they would be exposed to the full consequences of the DMCA, say.
Re:I love how... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the government's place to encourage creativity.
That's the entire point of copyright laws. The NATURAL order of things would be that anybody can copy anything they want. That's the way society worked for generations. If Ugg stole Zar's spear or hatchet they were gonna fight. If Ugg saw Zar using them, and decided to go out and grab some rocks and sticks and make his own spear or hatchet, then nobody gave a damn. Under that natural system there would be no "owners" of ideas. If you could create or duplicate of any item that another person possessed or invented using your own physical resources, then all was well. Copyright was established in order to grant creators a limited monopoly during which to profit from their works in order to . . . encourage creativity.
Removal of Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
How about an exemption along the lines of:
Any work by a copyright holder who has knowingly filed a false DMCA takedown notice.
In other words: Abuse the bill, it stops protecting you. Sure, you'd need to prove the douche did their douchy act with full douchable knowledge, but it'll be pretty hard for someone to claim 'I didn't know better' after the first time they're caught doing it.
It'd be nice if that exemption could extend to the holder's entire library of IP...
Re:DRM Music where 'Managing Server' is Gone (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution to this is simple: if the DRM servers are shut down, all content protected by those servers lose copyright unless replaced.
Copyright CAN be revoked when misused. It needs to happen in these cases. Record companies need to know that there is something worse than buyers making casual copies for friends, that if the buyer loses the ability to play their purchase, everyone in world will gain the right to make unlimited legal copies.