On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 13:44:30 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi Roger! > 03 Jan 2003, Roger Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RT> I went to the U. S. Senate web site <www.senate.gov> and did a search > RT> for DMCA and came up with HR5522, (House of Representatives bill > RT> number 5522) which was introduced in October, 2002 and is now assigned > RT> to the courts subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee which is > RT> currently holding hearings on the bill. Transcripts of testimony > RT> before the subcommittee is available on the House web site > RT> <www.house.gov>. > Thannks for reading thw whole thing ... I was too lazy to do it (as it doesn't > directly affect me :) > BUT on the PDF I sent stands: > The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was signed into law by President > Clinton on October 28, 1998. The legislation implements two 1996 World > Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty > and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The DMCA also addresses a > number of other significant copyright-related issues. > This means to me that the law was signed in 1998, and since than is active law. > I'm pretty sure that the DMCA was used in the court before Oct. 2002. > RT> Rather than reading what someone else has said about the bill, I read > RT> the bill itself. > This is how it should be ... > but don't forget hat the law is often misused and abused. > http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Felten_v_RIAA/20010606_eff_complaint.html > And read the URLs I have posted ... there is enough material. > RT> It appears to do the opposite of what you state. It states that it is > RT> NOT a copyright violation to make archival copies of digital media. > I wrote that it forbids circumventing copyright protection and encryption. > (and these terms are NOT defined in tha law imho so rot13 can be an encryption > and if you decrypt it than you can go to jail !) It cannot possibly be illegal to decrypt stuff. NSA and other intelligence organizations do it all the time as a normal activity of their major functions. If they have the right to decrypt stuff, then so does everyone else. It isn't even a war crime for enemies to intercept and decrypt each other's communications. It isn't even called spying unless the enemy is caught doing it in his adversary's territory while disguised in civilan clothing or disguised in a uniform of his adversary. > Lbh onq, onq unpxre unir oebxra zl terng rapelcgvba - guvf vf vyyrtny ! > And how do you make archival copies of copyright protected digital media > without circumventing the copyright protection ?? > RT> The bill is very short and appears to be very favorable towards users > RT> of computers and digital media with regard to copyright protection. > it is not. > It is on purpose that short, and does not countain definitions, so that lawyers > can basically use it against EVERYTHING. > Walmart sued one person because he "handeled against the DMCA" by puting a > walmart pricelist on the web. (and the list is "copyright" protected) > Lawyers use the DMCA to bully people. > Again ... I am no US citizen ... all I want is that americans wake up, and read > the law and its implications by themselves, and act accordingly. > DMCA is nothing compared to what some Senators have in mind with the TPCA ! > RT> As far as bribery of journalists goes, I think that there are far too > RT> many journalists in the U. S. looking for a Pulitzer prize winning > RT> story for anybody to bribe all of them. > But why is then this silence ?? Very good question. Here we have a very controversial issue confronting the American people and the journalists aren't saying very much at all about it. Maybe this law isn't really a problem for those who don't like it. It would seem that most people who don't like this law could easily find ways of violating it without getting caught. Most people don't have any moral reservations about violating stupid laws as long as they can do so without harming others and without getting caught. The DMCA is a law whose violation harms nobody unless it is violated in such a way so as to rob people of their copyright royalties. Almost everbody owns tools such as screwdrivers, hack-saws, bolt-cutters, and crowbars that *could* be used for facilitating an illegal forced entry, but nobody ever gets charged with the criminl offense of "possession of burglar's tools" unless he is caught in possession of such tools while committing a burglary. Simple possession of the tools which *could* be used to violate or circumvent copyright laws should not be against the law. > PS: I also have not heared that US journalism spoke about absolutely criminal > situation in guantanamo, which is against UN human rights convention. US jounalists wrote extensively about this problem, and they reported on all positions on the issue very well. It is not against the Geneva Convention to deny an "illegal combatant" the human rights that he would otherwise enjoy if he were granted POW status. An "illegal combatant" may even be summarily executed according to the convention. The controversy concerns whether some of the persons detained in Guantanamo should be recognized as POW's instead of as "illegal combatants". The prevailing opinion in the US and in most allied countries is that a common terrorist should not have the same rights as a legitimate and bonafide enemy soldier captured in the course of his conducting military operations in accorance with the internationally recognized rules of war. The problem is that some bonafide enemy soldiers and possibly even some innocent non-combatants could be wrongly classified as "illegal combatants" because we might have a far less than perfect system for properly sorting them all out and classfying the category and status of the captured personnel. IMNSHO, The power to classify the status of the captured personnel ought to reside in the Judiciary Branch of the government instead of in the Executive Branch. All captured personnel ought to have the right to legal counsel, even if they have been classified as "illegal combatants". > Type in this in babelfish > http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/13848/1.html > The UN huamn rights are part of all european constitutions ... > know I understand why Bush does not want Americans to be able to be sued before > the UN Human rights court. The UN Human Rights Declaration is not incorporated into the US Constitution. The US Constitution recognizes only those rights guaranteed in the first Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, and also other rights as provided in subsequent amendments and as provided in other US laws in some court rulings. > And how is it possible that alquaida (spelling ?) fights the US with THEIR OWN > WEAPONS ?? > Oh ... yeah ... I forgot the US gave the weapons to them FOR FREE ... > strange world we live in! Not at all strange. The US gave them the weapons during the so-called Cold War. During the Cold War they were using the weapons against the Russians, who were enemies of the US during that era. The Russians have made similar mistakes in giving away free weapons and providing free military training to people who later became their enemies. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
