Well, instead of bitching about them, I though I could do a little good for us. Basically I looked up all the senator's email addresses (publicly listed mind you), and was about to send them a peice of my mind. But then I got to thinking that this might be treading on SPAM. So here I am, enlisting the aide of pretty much anyone who disagrees with the RIAA's and MPAA's practices, not to mention the DMCA. The canned message I came up with the get us started is:
<< Sir/Ma'am,
I find it deeply disturbing how my rights have been threatened by the
lobbying of large corporations for laws that inhibit my rights. An example
of this can be found in Title 17, Chapter 12, Section 1201 where it states:
"(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. -
(1)
(A)
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
(B)
The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).
(C)
During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine -
(i)
the availability for use of copyrighted works;
(ii)
the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;
(iii)
the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;
(iv)
the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and
(v)
such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.
(D)
The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period."
What I have a problem with is that this measure effectively defeats my FAIR USE RIGHT to backup my legally purchased media (Fair Use Act--Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec 107 & 108). Why can't I copy my DVD to VHS in case the DVD gets scratched? Why can't I play a DVD I legally purchased in the United Kingdom on the DVD player I purchased in the United States? What gives the MPAA the right to tell me when, or where, I can view intellectual property. I already gave them my money to view it! These are the questions I'd like for you to consider. I was able to copy my CD to tape so I could play it in my walkman at the gym (see The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992). Why is my movie any different? This kind of legislation inhibits my ability to exercise my rights, and I challenge you to remedy this situation. The media conglomerates are controlling the media and its market to fleece more money out of the consumer. This is just plain wrong. What's worse, they're lobbying YOU to make it legal. This is simply unallowable. I will not stand for big corporations like the RIAA and MPAA lobbying my rights away. The MPAA vs. 2600 case regarding the DeCSS program is a good example of how the original intent of the DMCA is being twisted to server their own agenda. That program is a good way for backing up a protected work for nonprofit archival just the same a burning a copy of a CD for home use.
The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).
...
(ii)
the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;
This is a great chance to prove to us, the people of the United States of America, the people who voted you into office, just who it is you are working for.
If you would like to see just how many other people feel they way I do, feel free to visit http://slashdot.org, http://www.arstechnica.com, and http://www.hardocp.com and read into some of their articles and respective replies. For what its worth, http://slashdot.org is one of the most visited and well known websites on the internet today. With that kind of following I'd take heart in what its readers are saying. After all, they are the ones who voted for you.
Thank you.
>>
So whatdya think? Pathetic, or simply the beginning?
<< Sir/Ma'am,
I find it deeply disturbing how my rights have been threatened by the
lobbying of large corporations for laws that inhibit my rights. An example
of this can be found in Title 17, Chapter 12, Section 1201 where it states:
"(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. -
(1)
(A)
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
(B)
The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).
(C)
During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine -
(i)
the availability for use of copyrighted works;
(ii)
the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;
(iii)
the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;
(iv)
the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and
(v)
such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.
(D)
The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period."
What I have a problem with is that this measure effectively defeats my FAIR USE RIGHT to backup my legally purchased media (Fair Use Act--Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec 107 & 108). Why can't I copy my DVD to VHS in case the DVD gets scratched? Why can't I play a DVD I legally purchased in the United Kingdom on the DVD player I purchased in the United States? What gives the MPAA the right to tell me when, or where, I can view intellectual property. I already gave them my money to view it! These are the questions I'd like for you to consider. I was able to copy my CD to tape so I could play it in my walkman at the gym (see The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992). Why is my movie any different? This kind of legislation inhibits my ability to exercise my rights, and I challenge you to remedy this situation. The media conglomerates are controlling the media and its market to fleece more money out of the consumer. This is just plain wrong. What's worse, they're lobbying YOU to make it legal. This is simply unallowable. I will not stand for big corporations like the RIAA and MPAA lobbying my rights away. The MPAA vs. 2600 case regarding the DeCSS program is a good example of how the original intent of the DMCA is being twisted to server their own agenda. That program is a good way for backing up a protected work for nonprofit archival just the same a burning a copy of a CD for home use.
The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).
...
(ii)
the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;
This is a great chance to prove to us, the people of the United States of America, the people who voted you into office, just who it is you are working for.
If you would like to see just how many other people feel they way I do, feel free to visit http://slashdot.org, http://www.arstechnica.com, and http://www.hardocp.com and read into some of their articles and respective replies. For what its worth, http://slashdot.org is one of the most visited and well known websites on the internet today. With that kind of following I'd take heart in what its readers are saying. After all, they are the ones who voted for you.
Thank you.
>>
So whatdya think? Pathetic, or simply the beginning?