DMCA Up for Review

by Derrick Story

Earlier this week I read a note on the Farber list titled, (DMCA) Digital Copyright Law Up for Challenge by Michelle Madigan, Medill News Service (originally published on Yahoo News). In her writing Michelle stated:

The Copyright Office is accepting comments on the law, which makes it
illegal to copy digital entertainment and imposes restrictions that
some users say violate their fair-use rights. A comment form is
available online and must be submitted by December 18.

Later in her article, Michelle posts some quotes by Seth Finkelstein, a computer programmer from Cambridge, Massachusetts who authored a successful exception to the law the last time it was open to review. He offers some advice to others who'd like to comment to the Copyright Office:

Finkelstein encourages individuals and businesses to take advantage of
the opportunity to voice their concerns about DMCA provisions. He
offers this advice: "You can't argue ideology. The Copyright Office
has said over and over that they don't want theoretical arguments." Be specific and stick to the facts, he says.

Related to this, O'Reilly Network writer, Richard Koman, has created a special weblog to capture developments related to DMCA, copyright, patents/open source, etc. Richard has been following these stories for a couple of years and has interviewed many of the great minds who take issue with aspects of digital rights management.

Later this week, Tim O'Reilly is publishing an article on O'Reilly Network titled, Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution. In this piece Tim draws from his own lessons as a book publisher and talks about how some of these experiences may apply to the music and film publishing world.

Bottom line: We have a window of opportunity to influence digital copyright law. If you have an interest in this area, and I hope you do, please read some of this content and share your thoughts to those who can act on your behalf.


2002-12-11 08:45:44
Everything releveant is deemed inadmissible...
Can't discuss or comment on the basic corruption that leads to laws like this, nor on the venal self-service that causes lawmakers to get onboard w/ efforts such as this, nor on the arguably crimnal encroachment on the personal & public spheres represented by oppressive laws such as this?

Figures: anyone who's worked closely w/ the "entertainment industry" knows that organised crime has moved from Las Vegas & the streets to LA & Capitol Hill.

Organised crime - better-organised than ever. We can discuss how MUCH protection we're going to pay, and we can discuss how often - but why not isn't part of the conversation.

The senior senator from Hollywood, Mr. Hollings, will see to it.

Is it time to throw the tea in the harbor again?

2002-12-12 08:08:00
Everything releveant is deemed inadmissible...
Maybe not the tea, but possibly those copy-protected CDs ...
2002-12-12 20:43:12
my reasons
I am one of those who download music. Now being someone who worked in the industry years ago and having friends who still do, trying to eck out a living, I don't feel guilty. See the large companies that control what is avalible in the stores, don't want my business. I like music from my heyday, so I'm not one of their "marketable" prospects. I won't by "120 hits from the seventies" or other such products. They don't appeal to me. I read about what they do and if it is something I like I will buy it. An example; a few years back there was released a tommy bolin box set, I wanted this and went into the local music stores (6) and asked each of them in turn to order this for me. Although it was listed as avalible, it never was. The large companies want to sell me WHAT THEY WANT to sell me, not what I want to buy. I cannot get Audience "House on the hill" in it's original entirety as the record company that released it on disk would not pay the original artist for all the songs. I often wonder where I could replace my aging Captain Beyond albums with the newer the record companies won't cut or distribute these because they don't make the same amount of profit they would off of newer music that a younger generation would buy. This all leaves a bad taste in my mouth, without the p2p's that emerged on the web, I would still be listening, to my albums, on a record player I can't get a needle for. So now I have access to what I want, the companies making money off that are supplying me with the technologies to do this. It seems to me I'm paying just as much for what I enjoy, the record companies should stop whinning.... and die the graceful death they deserve. Just look at all the Sixties/Seventies artists they ripped off, that died broke.