New Yorkers For Fair Use

15 to 1

New Yorkers for Fair Use is headed to Washington to talk with the Commerce Committee about DRM.

The Committee claims to be gathering a collection of Stake Holders to the Digital Media Copyright Interests.

In what is currently a highly one-sided panel (see below for a partial list of participants), free software and the public are once again being set up to be railroaded into losing fair use rights, as happened with the DMCA law, and as will happen with other proposed laws, such as the Fritz Hollings Digital Rights Bill, and Congressman Howard L. Berman's attack on fair use and free software (see below).

We intend to tell them that WE ARE THE STAKE HOLDERS and that Digital Rights Management is Theft

The Constitution makes clear that Congress is allowed to issue monopolies in the public interest to help develop useful arts and sciences. That makes the only stake holder to Copyright Monopolies the public. We are therefor the stakeholders.

NYLXS members will be making the trip to Washington DC to represent the true stakeholders: The public! Others from other groups are organizing for this trip as well. Richard Stallman will also be joining us. Online media organization editors have confirmed that they will be attending. A New York Times reporter has also been contacted regarding this attack on fair use and free software.

For the media organizations that have already confirmed their attendance, and any other organization that wishes to let others know that they will be attending, let me know, and I will post names and organizations here. Any companies that have been contacted, and who will be attending to help defend fair use and free software, let me know and I'll publish relevant info. Send your request through NY for Fair Use!This is a closed mailing list. If not already registered, you must register here Once confirmed on the list, post the info and I'll get it. Registration is simple. Input your email address, hit submit, that's it. Then respond to confirmation email. Note: hotmail addresses not accepted.

Jack Valenti, MPAA spokesperson, notable quotables listed on bottom of page
Read what the entertainment industry cartel thinks about librarians as well.

There is a "workshop" down in Washington DC on 17 July 2002. The workshop is supposedly on "digital entertainment and rights management". As you know, this is the Englobulators' name for one part of their program to outlaw private ownership and private use of computers, and the prohibitively tight control of music/videos you buy. Likely some New Yorkers, and also Richard Stallman, will be going to the workshop to present the our side. We are the people who think we have a right to ordinary ownership of the tools we use (which tools we bought in a store and paid for) for production and distribution of our work, the tools being our computers in our own homes and places of business, and the right to listen to and back up music and view and backup videos we have paid for in a manner consistent with current technology, without having to ask a company permission before use/backup.

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Commerce Technology Administration (TA) announces a public workshop on digital entertainment and its availability to consumers. The workshop will help gather data on such issues as the status of technical standards that provide the framework necessary to enable legitimate digital media distribution and the present state of strengths, weaknesses and availability of current and imminent technological solutions to protect digital content, barriers that are inhibiting movies, music and games from coming online.

DATES: This workshop will be held on July 17, 2002, from 1 p.m.-4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4830, Washington, DC. Entrance on 14th between Pennsylvania and Constitution Aves., NW.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information relevant to the substantive issues to be addressed by this workshop may be obtained from Chris Israel Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, Technology Administration, (202) 482-5687. Limited seating will be available to members of the general public. It is recommended that persons wishing to become general public attendees arrive early, as seating will be first come, first served.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to its statutory authority found at 15 U.S.C. 3704(c), the Technology Administration is authorized, among other things, to conduct technology policy analyses to improve United States industrial productivity, technology, and innovation, cooperate with United States industry in the improvement of its productivity, technology, and ability to compete successfully in world markets, and identify technological needs, problems, and opportunities within and across industrial sectors, that, if addressed, could make a significant contribution to the economy of the United States.

With these responsibilities in mind, the Technology Administration is planning on holding a moderated series of informal discussions with relevant stakeholders to gather information on the availability of digital entertainment and status of copyright protection and rights management tools. The discussions will help gather data on such issues as the strength, weaknesses and availability of technological solutions, as well as network capability, and the proper role for the Government in facilitating solutions that are best for innovation and best for consumers.

Topics to be addressed at the workshop include:

- The effectiveness of efforts to pursue technical standards or solutions that are designed to provide a more predictable and secure environment for digital transmission of copyright material;

- Major obstacles facing an open commercial exchange of digital content;

- What a future framework for success might entail;

- Current consumer attitude towards online entertainment.

The workshop will focus on these and other related issues. Anyone wishing to comment on these or raise related issues is free to do so, either in writing before the meeting, or in person at the meeting. Prior comments will be collected via the Technology Administration Web< and are requested by July 11, 2002.

Authority: This work effort is being initiated pursuant to TA's statutory responsibilities, codified at section 3704 of Title 15 of the United States Code.

Dated: June 28, 2002.

Phillip J. Bond,
Undersecretary of Commerce for Technology.
[FR Doc. 02-16740 Filed 7-2-02; 8:45 am]



Workshop on Digital Content and "Rights Management"

Officials Will Be Joined by Representatives of the Entertainment and Tech Industries

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 1:00 PM ?4:00 PM
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4830
14th and Constitution Avenues, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230

Phil Bond, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology and Chief of Staff to Secretary Don Evans, and James Rogan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, will co-chair a roundtable discussion on the subject of digital content and rights management.

This roundtable discussion builds upon a December 17, 2001 Technology Administration workshop that took an in-depth look at both technical and policy questions standing in the way of widespread availability of legitimate digital content over the Internet.

The focus of this event will include: progress toward technical standards that provide the framework necessary to enable legitimate digital media distribution, developments in the market for digital content as well as consumer perceptions and expectations, and the proper role for the government in facilitating solutions that are best for innovation and best for consumers.

Forrester Research estimates that by 2003 the market for digital downloads will be worth $2 billion, and that by 2004 up to 25% of all online music sales will be downloads. Many business leaders and government officials believe the wide availability of high-quality, legal digital content remains a key to further expediting penetration of broadband Internet services in the U.S. and the expansion of important technology-based industries.

Co-chairs Bond and Rogan will be joined by:

- Jack Valenti, of Motion Picture Association of America
- Rhett Dawson, of Information Technology Industry Council
- Joe Tasker, of Information Technology Association of America
- Mitch Glazier, Record Industry Association of America
- Jon Potter, Digital Media Association
- Stewart Vendery, Vivendi Universal
- Preston Padden, Disney
- Mike Miron, ContentGuard
- Rick Lane, News Corp
- Gordon Lyon, NIST
- Rob Reid,
- Phillip Maggi, Computer Systems Policy Project
- Tim Sheehy, IBM
- Andrew Moss, Microsoft
- Ted Cohen, EMI
- Doug Comer, Intel
- Bob Schwartz, McDermott, Will & Emery (representing CEA and the Home Recording Rights Coalition.)

In preparation for this workshop, the Technology Administration invites public comment on our website at:

Contacts: Cheryl Mendonsa, Technology Administration
Telephone: 202 482-8321
Email:, or

Marjorie Weisskohl, Technology Administration
Telephone: 202 482-0149

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, tom poe wrote:

> "4.12 Both proposals for section X.2 of the Compliance> and Robustness Requirements anticipate that an appropriate provision will be crafted so as to exempt the requirements from applying to products that are specifically intended for professional and broadcast use (e.g., equipment used by studios, TV broadcasters, satellite and cable operators).
> The above is section 4.12 of the BPDG's final report. In other words, any device capable of replaying, copying, skipping channels, manipulating photos, movies, songs, and news media content, etc., is illegal except for those who are "professionals, studios, TV Broadcasters, satellite and cable operators". If you're not one of those, you can't have one."
> I sent an email to the BPDG about this, but received no answer. Wonder why?
> Thanks,
> Tom Poe
> Reno, NV

Comments already submitted

here's another elected official in the pockets of big media. his 'plans' are to be introduced Monday...

Just Desserts for Scofflaws
By Congressman Howard L. Berman
July 9, 2002, 4:00 AM PT

Songwriters are the creators of the music we know and love. They pour their
hearts and souls into their songs, knowing that often the voices and
instruments of others end up better known to the listener. They write
because they love music.
And some also dare to dream that their work will pay their bills.

A few particularly gifted, diligent--and more than a little lucky--ones
achieve this dream. For those few, one of the ways they get paid for their
work is through the "mechanical" statutory license, which requires that
those who make a physical or electronic copy of a copyrighted musical
composition pay the songwriter 8 cents.

Each illegal peer-to-peer (P2P) download of a song robs the songwriters of
the 8 cents they are due under the mechanical license. That may not seem
like much, but when you multiply 8 cents by the reported 1.1 billion
downloads on one P2P system in one month, it calculates out to $88,000,000
dollars...a month. Divide even 1/10th of that money among the 5,000 members
of the Songwriters Guild of America, and you begin to see that P2P piracy
robs songwriters on a massive scale.

Of course, songwriters aren't the only folks that P2P piracy robs.

P2P piracy robs all the creators--the recording artists, the photographers,
the film producers, the software developers, as well as the authors,
journalists and needlepoint artists--whose copyrighted works are
increasingly downloaded over P2P systems without their authorization or
compensation. P2P piracy robs all the businesses that invest in creation of
copyrighted works and the carpenters, sound engineers, administrative
assistants, programmers, seamstresses, copy editors and session musicians
they employ. Lastly, P2P piracy robs the down loaders themselves and their
fellow consumers, who will see the quality and diversity of future creations
decrease as piracy increases. In short, P2P piracy has a myriad of victims.

There is no excuse or justification for P2P piracy. Of course consumers
would like free music at the click of a mouse. They would also like gasoline
for less than $1 dollar a gallon. But we don't confiscate people's property
and pass it out because people want it for free.

Each illegal peer-to-peer download of a song robs the songwriters of the 8
cents they are due under the mechanical license.
P2P piracy is clearly illegal. It is not simply copyright infringement, it
is infringement on a massive, breathtaking scale. There is simply no concept
of fair use that encompasses the distribution of countless copies of a
copyrighted work to millions of people.

P2P piracy does not promote legitimate sales, it replaces them. How do I
know? I have some common sense, a grasp of fundamental economics, and a
college-age daughter with lots of friends. Frankly, it is galling that
creators must even respond to such laughable sophistry.

Creators must have the choice about how to promote their work. This is not
the right of an infringe. If there is promotional value in P2P distribution,
creators have every incentive to use it--but they also have the right to
refuse to use it.

Something must be done about P2P piracy, but what? I don't place much faith
in those who, wishing to profit from it, say nothing can be done. There are
solutions, and Congress has a constitutional obligation to create or
facilitate them.

Part of the solution involves freeing copyright owners to use technology to
combat this piracy. There is nothing revolutionary about property owners
using self-help--technological or otherwise--to secure or repossess their
property. Satellite companies periodically use electronic countermeasures to
stop the theft of their signals and programming. Car dealers repossess cars
when the payments go unpaid. Software companies employ a variety of
technologies to make software nonfunctional if license terms are violated.
Our society normally views such actions as just desserts for scofflaws
rather than warfare on consumers.

Currently, copyright owners are unable to use some useful technological
tools to deal with P2P piracy because they face potential, if unintended,
liability under a variety of state and federal laws.

Something must be done about P2P piracy, but what? I don't place much faith
in those who, wishing to profit from it, say nothing can be done.
I plan to introduce legislation that would give copyright owners a limited
"safe harbor" from such potential liability. Under my bill, copyright owners
would be freed to use technology to impair P2P piracy, but only on networks
that are decentralized, and thus not readily subject to suit for copyright

Copyright owners could technologically impair the distribution of
copyrighted works, but could not actually hack into a P2P user's computer or
otherwise remove files therein. If copyright owners abuse the authority
provided in the bill, an aggrieved P2P user would have remedies for such
abusive behavior.

I expect that such legislation, if appropriately limited, will gather
substantial support in the Congress. The only folks I expect to defend P2P
piracy are those who profit from it.



Jack Valenti, notable quotables:

"I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one
of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw
out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." Jack Valenti , on the
Kaplan's ruling.

"The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the
Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --

"...The fruits of this ruling will be seen in the film industry within
six months as studios start to put movies online and offer consumers an
exciting new, high quality and legal opportunity to choose what they want
to watch." Jack Valenti, Press release on the napster ruling

Sources, and more quotes are here

On Librarians:

"They've got their radical factions, like the Ruby Ridge or Waco types," who want to share all content for free, said Judith Platt, a spokeswoman for the Association of American Publishers.


Science World in Revolt at Power of the Journal Owners

See the Free Software Matters links near the top of the page here

Going to college? Well the DMCA has something to say about that! Time limited education now happening on college campuses!

More informative and useful links from NY for Fair Use!

The DMCA law is an assault on fair use rights of individual consumers. There are many things wrong with it. One thing that is coming to the forefront now, however, is that the music and video cartel are attacking individual consumers by using the DMCA law to pull the plug on ISP users. Individuals who are accused by the music and video industry cartel of song or video file trading in violation of the DMCA are being disconnected for ten days by DMCA law. Some of the ISPs are notifying the disconnected accounts of a procedure to follow to have the account reconnected. Meanwhile, the account is down for ten days. Running a server on the account? Too bad! Have a web site on the connection? Too bad! Earn a living through the web site that was disconnected? Too bad! Depend on email from your company or for your business transactions from the disconnected account? Too bad! Fill out a form, and if you dotted all your i's and crossed all your t's, then after ten days, we'll turn connection on.

This must change. To fight DMCA charges, you must fill out a form that lists where you live, your phone number, and other personal information, then have it notarized. It says that you agree to be held responsible for damages for any violation of the DMCA law. This is the only way to get your computer/network back on line. You will then send it to your ISP, and the ISP will notify the cartel that you agreed to be held responsible, and according to the DMCA law, you are entitled to be reconnected.

Imagine if yahoo! or the New York Times were shut down for ten days! Any estimate on the losses? Is it OK to shut down the little guy for ten days?

This must change. Consumers must be given the option of pre-filing the form, or somehow preventing the connection from being disconnected if they are willing to take responsibility for their posts or actions. Simply disconnecting the consumer from their service for ten days, regardless of whether the charges are proven to be true, regardless of whether the cartel pursues the case or not is an outrageous assault on consumers and small business.

The DMCA law must change. Fair Use must be defended.

But the above situation must change now.

Further Reading