[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dmca-discuss
Subject:    [DMCA_Discuss] US Copyright office wants DMCA comments
From:       "Jon O." <jono () networkcommand ! com>
Date:       2005-10-28 22:13:15
Message-ID: 20051028221315.GB3428 () logos ! microshaft ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051028-5493.html

 US Copyright Office wants to hear from you about the DMCA

10/28/2005 10:59:34 AM, by Eric Bangeman

We have not been alone here at Ars Technica in our repeated criticisms of the Digital \
Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA, which outlaws the circumvention of copy \
protection mechanism, is widely recognized as one of the greatest frauds ever \
perpetrated on US consumers. Starting on November 2, you can let the Copyright Office \
know how you feel about it.

One of the provisions of the DMCA requires the US Copyright Office to conduct a \
review every three years to determine if it should make any exemptions for \
"particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely \
affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on \
circumvention." Part of the review process involves accepting comments from the \
public, and the window is open between November 2 and December 1, 2005.

After its last look at the DMCA, the Copyright Office in 2003 issued a handful of \
exemptions to the law. Those included software protected by dongle in cases where the \
dongle was broken or obsolete along with video games "distributed in formats that \
have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition \
of access." Nice, but extremely limited.

In order for an exemption to be granted, it must be demonstrated that there is a \
cause-and-effect relationship between the prohibition on circumventing \
copy-protection and inability to use the protected item in a noninfringing manner. \
However, the Copyright Office has set the bar high, meaning that consumers must \
demonstrate a "substantial adverse effect on noninfringing uses." It also leaves \
itself an out just in case creating an exemption would harm the value of copyrighted \
works.

    Whatever label one uses, proponents of an exemption bear the burden of providing \
sufficient evidence under the foregoing standards to support an exemption. How much \
evidence is sufficient will vary with the factual context of the alleged harm. \
Further, proof of harm is never the only consideration in the rulemaking process, and \
therefore the sufficiency of the harm will always be relative to other \
considerations, such as, the availability of the affected works for use, the \
availability of the works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational \
purposes, the impact that the prohibition has on criticism, comment, news reporting, \
teaching, scholarship, or research, the effect of circumvention on the market for or \
value of copyrighted works, and any other relevant factors.

So it won't be enough to just write in and complain about not being able to make a \
backup of your DVD movie collection. On the other hand, it is a chance to present the \
Federal government with well-reasoned arguments about how the DMCA is detrimental to \
the interests in consumers, and how creating a some reasonable Fair Use exemptions \
will not harm the economic interests of the content creators. Chances of meaningful \
change coming from the review, especially when it comes to Fair Use, are slim. But \
this is the time and means by which to give the Federal government feedback on some \
bad legislation, so make the most of it. And since you'll be contacting the .gov \
anyway, why not drop a message to your senators and congressional representatives \
asking them to support the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act? \
_______________________________________________

USC Title 17 Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use 

This material is distributed to those who have expressed a prior interest in \
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

------------------------
http://www.anti-dmca.org
------------------------

DMCA_Discuss mailing list
DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org
http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]