FROM MSNBC.COM:

"ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS and consumer-rights activists had pushed for wider exemptions [to the DMCA], saying it is overly protective and inhibits legitimate activities such as security research or making personal copies of digital products.

The Copyright Office said the law should not apply to lists of Web sites blocked by Internet filtering software, or video games and computer programs made for obsolete systems.

Users can also hack copy-protection systems on digital ”ebooks” in order to have them read aloud by speech-recognition software or converted into Braille, the office said.

But hacking for other purposes — such as to fast-forward through advertisements on DVDs or make personal copies of copy-protected music CDs — is still not allowed.

Several software groups praised the ruling, saying it would not interfere with their ability to prevent unauthorized copying of their products.

But one group that has been critical of the DMCA said consumers would still suffer.

“Consumers are the real losers in today’s ruling, because the librarian of Congress is ignoring the rights of nearly everyone who has purchased CDs and DVDs,” said Gwen Hinze, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco consumer-rights group.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, an industry group known for its criticism of software giant Microsoft Corp, said the Copyright Office should have OK’d software that would allow consumers to play DVDs on alternative computer operating systems such as Linux.

Why don't we just sign our rights away?

MSNBC may like to have the turth fall this way, but this article is inaccurate in at least one respect.

" But hacking for other purposes — such as to fast-forward through advertisements on DVDs or make personal copies of copy-protected music CDs — is still not allowed."

Bypassing copy protection is legal. Bypassing access controls is not.

If you haven't read the DMCA, you should. I have. But, at this point, what is FAR more frightening to me are two pending things, i.e. the FTAA (Free Trade Areas of the Americas) and the WIPO conference being held in early November. What is going to happen is this. This US becomes a signatory on these treaties, and then, must implement laws to support the guidelines.

I honestly and seriously say, you think the DMCA is bad? You ain't seen nothing yet (sorry for double negative)!

~CodeWarrior

Only question is: Will the masses be aroused enough to hold mass demonstrations outside that (New) World (Order) Intellectual Property (far more important than human rights) Organization conference? Or will this descent into (possibly permanent) darkness go essentially unmolested? Such is an example of the insidiousness of media concentration in so few hands. Frankly, I too fear the latter. The potential for a worsening human rights crisis around the world has thus been stirred. After all, we saw in Germany in the 1930's what happened in the wake of the Nuremberg laws . . .

Furthermore . . . we've seen and heard the de facto hate speech of bigots like Sens. Hatch and Smith with respect to the P2P issue. It's only a matter of time before we hear of some nutcase zealots advocating outright violence against file-sharers (anywhere from firebombings of their homes to outright murder) the same way some so-called "pro-life" groups have advocated violence against abortion doctors over the last two decades -- but using the DMCA as an excuse instead of the Bible.

If the FTAA comes to pass i think maybe the time for a real revolution is upon us.

Hail Hitler, i mean valenti my bad.

but Code, doesn't the congress have to ratify any treaty before they pass laws to enforce it?
And during this ratifacation process is when we'll (hopefully) have more sway.

With his post above, Code has just brought up two more very good reasons (FTAA and WIPO) why we should publically attack the unfairness of copyright laws and secure the high moral ground.

There is much more at stake here than just the freedom to engage in P2P activity.

I fear that petitions and letters to congress and the press will have no more effect. I'm going to make a prediction (thought I have no facts to back it up, just a gut feeling)
the DMCA, FTAA etc will lead to a point that by time the masses realize they've been duped and their rights have been taken away there will be protests equal to what happened in the 60's. and like the 60's we still won't be taken seriously by the media or the government untill it gets to a melt down point. after that. who know's what will happen. Congress won't listen until then.

the trick is to make people think that congress is the bad guys. THAT is what it takes to change their opinions about things, if you can make the public hate them for something, we win. IF we can make copyright a MAJOR topic of debate before elections, we WIN. It is a matter of making Joe Schmoe give a flying f*ck. Thats the real battle.

W-B, I read somewhere that Eminem was trying to entice violence in one of his songs against P2P swappers.

While I'm think that guy who was executed for killing that abortion doctor truly believed he was morally justified, that is not pro-life, that just f'ing psycho.

I'm not advocating violence here, but wouldn't someone just love to knock Cary Sue Sherman flat on his ass?

compmore, given what little I know of Congress, FTAA will be rubber stamped and filed before you can say ORRIN HATCH

question: I do not have the link as I am at work right now, but I was led to a page that talked about an act iin 1992 that establishes a tax on all CD Recording equipment that is paid to the RIAA. In this act is a clause that states that making a digital or analog copy for "private, noncommercial use" is NOT illegal and you CANNOT be sued for doing so.

In the DMCA, do they ever actually REPEAL this act? If not, doesn't that mean that this 1992 act TRUMPS the DMCA? With a conflict of law, doesn't the existing law have precedence?

FTAA and WIPO are very scary.

All the more reason for us to educate people and get them on our side no matter what. Use whatever argument you have to. Use the underpaid artists, independent artists, musical porn, copyright unfairness, the need for public domain, the lawsuits, anti-trust, monopoly, collusion, whatever it takes to get whoever you are talking to so pissed off that they want to do something.

i think the DMCA trumps the Home Audio Recording Act insofar as it
refers to making copies of copyrighted materials especially, digital copies without prior,express,written,authorization from the copyright holder
~Code

Saw this article today, and was kind of cute.

http://examiner.net/stories/110403/new_110403010.shtml

As ludicrous as this is, I loved the last paragraph:

"And by the way, although a person can legally copyright their name, under fair use laws, anyone can write down that name so long as they are not making money from it."

It just seems so obvious in this situation...