Talk:Student Projects:DMCA
Discussion Emails
AMIR: That should be fine Henry. I wrote these paragraphs pretty late last night so please feel free to tweak them to fit the flow of the paper.
HENRY: Shaun and I figured that cuts it close. Just come as soon as you can, I guess.
BREESE: Is it possible to meet at 12:00 instead?
HENRY: All, attached is the latest draft, includes Amir's and my changes. I also reworded the intro to layout the flow of the report, so please review.
Amir, I replaced section 2.0 wholesale with your latest. I assume that's correct. I just slapped the conclusion section at the end since we will rework that tomorrow. We will try to give email updates as we can and hope you can provide feedback if possible.
Shaun and Breese, see you tomorrow at 11am.
Also, we need a short blurb in section 10.0 (to be created) introducing the four camps referencing that paper.
AMIR: Hi all, Here is my part. I've added my changes into the doc for the WIPO treaties and added a section at the end for the conclusions.
Hope things go well with the final editing tomorrow,
HENRY: Here's our main points for conclusions:
- DMCA was well intended, as were WIPO treaties. - Need to protect the value ($) of copyrighted works. - DMCA was designed(?) as digital version of old copyright laws. - Not completely global. - Vagueness of law statement allows interpretation to suit interests unrelated to those of protecting copyrights. In particular, they are being used to stifle speech, fair use rights, and competition. - Codifying fair use rights enables circumvention tools that enable copyright infringement.
We will use what's in the conclusion/recommendation sections now to elaborate on above. We will not make recommendations as that's just too difficult. We can talk around them by pointing at the potential problems,
The game plan: Tonight: Amir adds WIPO treaty history to his section #2. Amir writes paragraph or two about "Not completely global" conclusion topic. Amir mails this out tonight, we incorporate into draft tomorrow. Shaun continues to revise his sections and will mail out when done. Henry incorporates Breese's latest changes. Henry continues to revise his sections. Henry will incorporate Shaun and Amir's work if/when received tonight.
Tomorrow: Shaun, Breese, and I meet at 11am at APE lab. Henry incorporates changes not received last night. 3 of us flesh out remaining conclusion topics. 3 of us smooth out rest of paper. References Format Email and celebrate.
Statements below are from brainstorming that can be incorporated into conclusions.
- Constitutional rights (esp. 1st amendment) have a strong backing in court. Problem with leaving DMCA worded as is is that it's too vague or some provisions can be interpreted legally to stifle speech that should be protected. - If we codify fair use rights, we need circumvention tools to enable such use. But those tools can also enable copyright infringement. Strong coupling between fair use and existence of circumvention tools; can't have one without the other. - Law is also being used to stifle competition.
HENRY: Here is the draft, merged logically. We will meet at 4 in the lab. Amir and I printed a copy, we will make edits there and we can work together tomorrow to incorporate. I can also work after the class as I will have nothing else left.
Things we need to do:
- Find the overlaps and edit to make the appropriate changes/references. - Transitions between sections, if needed. - Elaborate/edit content for your sections as needed. - Put the figures so they don't cover text. - Make a table for stats on piracy. - Insert page numbers. - References. - Spell/grammar check. - Format (very last thing to do, we can do at the end).
Anything else?
AMIR: Here is my section. Thanks for helping with the editing Henry.
HENRY: Not urgent now, but make sure those references are available and match up with the numbers in your sections.
HENRY: I agree - we can populate the wiki towards the end - but then again, it probably won't take long to do. Personally, I can do that as well, but would do it at just before Friday's deadline because of other things I need to work on before then, including this paper!
BTW, I was kind of surprised with Ed mentioning overlap, since that was something I/we expected in a physical merging of documents.
AMIR: Shaun, I spoke to Geoff last Thursday and he didn't think I was crucial for us to have the wicki populated with our discussion about the paper. As long as our paper is coherent and individual sections flow well, we should be ok. I think his exacts word were "don't lose sleep over it". Consider it a low priority.
SHAUN: I was looking at the project guidelines, and one thing that caught my attention was the statement that we are supposed to write as if were trying to help a policy maker “understand and devise solutions for the problem”. I think we need to be clearer about the problem with the DMCA. Would that mostly center on the unintended consequences? Perhaps also the fact that it’s restricting fair use and discouraging legitimate research? Are we evaluating how well it’s fulfilling the intended goals? I think it would be good to have a one sentence statement of the problems with the law that we could put in the introduction.
This could also work into our conclusion. Right now there’s nothing in the outline for that section, but based on our research, we could come up with some opinions on the following subjects. Is the DMCA fulfilling its intended consequences? Are the unintended consequences a major problem? What level of validity is there to some of the ferocious opposition to the DMCA? Is there a need for additional legislative clarity on different sections of the law?
They also seemed eager to have us look at the way the law has been interpreted so far. I think he said the tendency is for congress to write vague laws and let the courts sort through the resulting mess. We have access to LexisNexis searches of law review articles if we are on campus (or connected through the VPN), and I already found a couple of articles that might be useful for this purpose. We could also do searches on some of the court cases we’re already using (Lexmark is a very popular one in the law reviews) and put some of the insights from there into our paper. At the very least, I think we ought to use a law review article or two just to show that we took their advice.
Thoughts on the outline: One possible way of addressing the conclusion is what I mentioned above. While I think we already somewhat address how the courts have interpreted different parts of the DMCA, we might want to consolidate this and put it in its own section.
I don’t have too much to add as far as the individual peer review goes. I made some notes in the margins of my printout about ways to reword some of the sections, but I think we can go over that tomorrow when we meet to put it all together. I’m working on filling out my section and incorporating the feedback I’ve gotten so far, so that will be ready when we meet tomorrow.
Lastly, it seems that emails are by far the easiest way for us to collaborate, but since they said they would use the wiki discussion as part of our grade for the project, I suggest that we go through and post up the emails we’ve sent each other so that Ed and Stephen can get an idea of what we’ve been doing. I volunteer to get that done within the next day or two.
BREESE: Amir • Historical Origins/Motivation of DMCA o The comment from Lazowska implies that the shortcomings of DRM tools might not constitute the true origin of DMCA. According to some of the readings I did, DMCA came about in an attempt to adjust the (existing) copyright law to the Digital Age. o After defining Section 1201, you have this sentence: “This helps achieve a very strong deterrence of DRM tool manipulators because…” – how do you know this? Can you offer some more insight into this and give us your backup for making that statement? o The last paragraph of this section contains two comments by Lazowska. Please pay close attention to them. Aside from those comments, I am not sure what the purpose of this paragraph is. The section is supposed to discuss the origins and motivation of the DMCA but this paragraph goes into fair use, circumvention, and fundamental differences between copyright laws and DMCA (feels like a lot is going on in one paragraph). • Four camps of thinking: Supporters of government-mandated DRM technologies o Regarding the beginning of this section – it feels like the stuff about DRM tools and DRM technology from the Historical Origins section would fit better here as far as giving some background on DRM technologies. o I like the layout of the three major arguments. • Case lost on grounds of DMCA infringement o The last paragraph in this section expresses a promising idea – it would be good if you developed it further. • General o Please make sure you check your spelling.
Shaun • Summary of the actual statement of the law o Title 1 – In paragraph two, you mention fair use. Since I cover fair use, perhaps include a reference to my chapter of the paper rather than going into fair use. o Nice layout of the five titles. • Provisions for protecting work on the Internet o This could become a great section. Since the Internet is part of our daily lives and interconnects people from all over the globe, it would definitely be interesting to discuss Internet works can be protected. • Four camps of thinking: Supporters of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention language o Please heed Lazowska’s comment. You need to develop this section further. • General o Make sure you address your highlighted comments to yourself. o In the section on protecting work on the Internet, maybe also include some opinions, e.g. from the public, academia, etc.
Henry • The original intent of the DMCA o Great line of reasoning in this section! I like how your background starts at the point the initial bill was introduced and then follows the life of the bill throughout the senate. • Some unintended consequences o Nice coverage of court cases. Regarding the Lexmark case – since we are both referencing the same case. I will look for another case to use in my section.
Breese • Recommendations o I will develop this section further based on Lazowska’s comment. • Public opinion – against DMCA o I will look for another court case to use instead of the Lexmark case. • General o I will take each of your peer reviews of my section and apply them to make things clearer.
AMIR:
Some input-
Breese, - i like your concise summary on copyright - your legislative history has slight overlap with my "Historical Origins.." sections...we should remove some of the similarities here - please explain you diagrams to me on Weds.
Henry, - very well written - I like the overall structure -can you not incorporate Breese's "Against DMCA" sections into your camp of thinking: "Critics of the current state of copyright law, including all uses of the DMCA, and highlight its clash with free speech rights"....there is some fair use overlap here.
Shaun, - you statement of the law section is not coupled with other parts of our draft...it should be fairly easy to move it around - you and I need to make our camps distinct...in your section you state: "between people in this camp and those who seek government-mandated DRM technologies is that these people believe that a government mandate would stifle the creativity and adaptability of the free market" but from reading our sections it is hard to clearly note the difference (as also noted by Ed Lazowska)
AMIR: My section was not polished off too well and I'm incorporating Ed's suggestion now.
SHAUN: I'll try to send some comments out tonight or tomorrow morning.
BREESE: I will have comments out either late (very late) tonight or by tomorrow morning.
HENRY: Ok - BTW, no peer review comments from you guys?
AMIR: Sorry about that -didn't see your email Shaun. 6 at APE lab. See you all then. -Amir
AMIR: 6 seems fine. Any objections Shaun?
HENRY: Anytime Wed. evening is okay for me - Amir, I guess you can pick the time since you're constrained with work.
BREESE: I can meet later. Would 6:00pm be better???
AMIR: Sorry guys. It'll be toughg for me to sneak out of work around 4. Can we meet an hour or so latter. Say 5:30ish? Amir
BREESE: Sounds good. If I am a few minutes late it will be because the review sessions for my other class ends at 4:00pm.
HENRY: Let's meet at 4pm then, APE lab okay?
BREESE: Henry – thanks for putting together the four drafts and emailing the document to the professors.
As far as meeting next week, Wednesday works well for me, after 4:00pm (I will be on campus).
HENRY: Please find attached our draft for the project report.
We have also developed an outline to which the final report will be edited. The draft is just the four parts physically put together for now. Our plan is to expand on our sections after peer review this weekend, particularly those parts that go in section 10 below. Then we will meet next week to weave it together in a coherent manner.
1. Brief Intro (expand the one paragraph from the project description?) 2. Historical Origins/Motivation (Amir) 3. Summary of the Actual Statement of the Law (Shaun) 4. Provisions for Protection of Works on the Internet (Shaun) 5. Copyright and Fair Use (Breese) 6. International Guidelines/Jurisdictions (Amir) 7. Actual Intent of the Law (Henry) 8. DMCA's Effects on its Intent (Henry) 9. DMCA's Effect on Public Policies
9.1 Free Speech
9.2 Fair Use
9.3 Competition and Innovation
10. Four Camps of Thinking (in some order TBD)
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
11. Conclusion/Recommendations
AMIR: I think we can use the outline as a framework for our writing and during the integration stages, we can tweak the paper further for flow and coherance. Also, Henry can you please slap on the intro from our proposal to the draft before submission. This way we initially give an overall picture of what we intend to do and it will help us detect any areas that don't meet those goals. This intro will be further enhanced for our final submission but I think we should have something for our draft as well.
BREESE: Henry - Thanks for putting the outline together. It looks good but I'm sure we will end up slightly modifying it when we actually start integrating the different drafts. I agree that we should just turn in the drafts as is for now. I will give more input later.
AMIR: I think we can use the outline as a framework for our writing and during the integration stages, we can tweak the paper further for flow and coherance. Also, Henry can you please slap on the intro from our proposal to the draft before submission. This way we initially give an overall picture of what we intend to do and it will help us detect any areas that don't meet those goals. This intro will be further enhanced for our final submission but I think we should have something for our draft as well.
Thanks, Amir
BREESE: Henry - Thanks for putting the outline together. It looks good but I'm sure we will end up slightly modifying it when we actually start integrating the different drafts. I agree that we should just turn in the drafts as is for now. I will give more input later.
SHAUN:
I think the outline looks good. Maybe we should include that with our submission if we don't end up re-organizing everything right now. As far as filling out the rest of my part, I'll look for some concrete examples to add to the four camps section. I know the paper mentioned Microsoft and Adobe. I'll also look more closely at how each of you handled your section to see what else I might do. I was going to ask for some clarification on what I should include in the "protection of works on the internet" part, but I think I have enough that I can come up with a rough draft and then see what you all think of it.
As far as meeting, Wednesday evening will work fine for me. I think it's dangerous to push it back any later than that, and we should probably continue to collaborate electronically in the meantime. I'll try to submit some feedback on the different sections by tomorrow
HENRY: Based on discussions last night, we realized that putting the document together to tell a coherent story will be challenging. So to aid that, we needed an outline, so I developed one and you can comment on it. For the draft today (midnight is okay, according to Geoff), we can simply paste the 4 documents together without worrying about flow.
We could also chop the individual drafts up to match the outline, but that requires that we reach agreement on the outline to some extent before the end of the day. Of course, we can change all this later, but I would say we can turn in our drafts as is without reorganizing. What do you guys think?
Anyway, here's what I'm thinking as the outline for the final paper:
1. Brief Intro (expand the one paragraph from the project description?) 2. Historical Origins/Motivation (Amir) 3. Summary of the Actual Statement of the Law (Shaun) 4. Provisions for Protection of Works on the Internet (Shaun) 5. Copyright and Fair Use (Breese) 6. International Guidelines/Jurisdictions (Amir) 7. Actual Intent of the Law (Henry) 8. DMCA's Effects on its Intent (Henry) 9. DMCA's Effect on Public Policies
9.1 Free Speech
9.2 Fair Use
9.3 Competition and Innovation
10. Four Camps of Thinking (in some order TBD)
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
11. Conclusion/Recommendations (not sure what we need here)
I am basically taking the responsibilites from the proposal and re-organizing them. Breese's questions to answer are more or less incoproated in #5 for the background info. I'm thinking #9 will be summaries of cases that demonstrate how the DMCA is affecting various public policy matters; Breese, Amir and I have cited such cases, so I think we need to consolidate into this area.
Anyway, just a proposal, let me know your thoughts. Also looking for feedback on drafts now that we all have each others'.
Also, when is a good time next week to physically meet to review the paper together? I would prefer Wednesday evening at the earliest (I know it's due just 2 days later).
For Shaun's draft - I don't have much to add, other than further development of the "camp of thinking." I think we all need further work on this if I'm not mistaken.
BREESE: Hi team,
Here is my revised draft. I will probably continue to polish it up after today, especially the “recommendations” section. But I think it is in decent shape for what we have to turn in today.
Henry – would you please glance over the sections you recommended I develop further? I would like to know if things are clearer now, especially the two figures I included. Thanks.
BREESE: Henry,
I really appreciate your candid feedback. I am going through my draft and adding clarity on the areas you recommended. I will email my revised draft when done.
HENRY: Let's not worry about formatting. If you want, I'll take each of the sections and at least make them the same font/size margins, etc. and slap a cover page on it for sending off tomorrow. I was assuming single-spaced, I haven't seen many double-spaced papers since high school. Maybe we can do columns for the final product, but we can decide later.
BREESE: Should the pages be double spaced or just as we have them? The instructions did not specify.
HENRY: I'm ignoring grammatical things for now. We can cover later since text will get edited anyway.
Breese, Is there anything about the time-limitations of copyright? I thought it used to be 12 years or so, then was bumped to 95 or so sometime later.
Nitpicking: the two drawings about fair use views are Figures, not Tables. I also don't understand these figures at all.
I used the Lexmark case as well, so we'll need to make sure we don't go into too much detail on the 2nd reference to it.
I would elaborate on the Skylink case as to why the defendant won (thereby justifying the group that feels the DMCA does protect fair-use).
BTW, I don't think it's too long at all, since some things are bound to get cut as we've overlapped on them.
Amir, Need to explain acronyms first, DRM, P2P, etc., average policy holder won't know what these are.
Should discuss the WTO and WIPO treaties which spurred this legislation.
The DMCA is the US implementation of these treaties.
I don't think the teacher/CD argument holds, because there is no technological protection mechanism that she is bypassing. Maybe DVD is a better argument.
The Felton case probably needs clarification - SDMI offered a prize for such work, but sued because Felton wanted to go public with the work, forgoing the prize. In other words, the SDMI was fine with the researchers doing the work of breaking their watermark, but only until Felton chose to publish that work.
I'm sure more will come along as we put it together.
I agree with Amir that putting it together will be a challenge. I suggest that we come up with an outline that allows us to merge our sections in a coherent manner, and then go from there. Maybe we can do the outline over email this weekend, refine our sections towards that outline, then merge and meet sometime next week to work on the finer points.
BREESE: Hi team,
I will not be at lecture tonight but I am available via email. So please brief me on what you guys were able to discuss regarding “merging” our drafts. Remember that what we need to turn in tomorrow does not need to “intellectally flow” yet. Recalling what Lazowska said: December 3 is a "reality check" -- is everyone working on a schedule that's going to allow you to "ship" on December 10? A fine submission would be a set of chapters that look pretty much finished and have been integrated "physically" (one file) but not yet "intellectually."
I will be overhauling my draft because I think it is too long and I will be rearranging the subsections a little bit. I will have more to say about my revised draft later.
SHAUN: Here's my section. It's still pretty rough and I have some questions about how to approach part of it, so I guess we'll talk about that after class.
AMIR: Here is my section...I still require further editing but atleast this will give an idea of where I'm headed See you all tommorow. Amir
AMIR: I am still working on my sections as well. Will try to send out my portion as soon as I'm done (might be late into the night)-You guys can have a look at it in the morning.
AMIR: Just a quick read of Breese's work gives the feeling that our biggest challenge will be to merge these individual sections into a single coherant work. Maybe we can meet in person to hammer out the details once everyone is done. What do you guys think?
HENRY: Attached is my bit. I still need to add stuff regarding the 4 camps, but I'd rather you read through now. The facts lead right into the camp I have, so it's not difficult to add.
We can discuss how to merge tomorrow. See you then. HENRY: I'm still working, should be done by 10pm.
BREESE: Attached is my (rough) draft for the paper. I took Maurer’s advice from his feedback to us and developed the camp of thinking I had chosen. Please note that this draft is rough around the edges – ignore any text that is highlighted in yellow (those are notes to myself). The purpose of doing this exchange today is for each of us to get a feel for what we are individually working on so that we can start seeing a picture of the final project.
Amir: I've emailed Tapan our project page link and we have till 5pm for any mods. Amir: test [1:59 pm PST]
