This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
An open letter to Anonymous
Re: Copyright.gov was a poor choice of target for opMegaUpload
Dear Anonymous:
The next time you have over 9,000 people firing their lazers and cannons, I'm respectfully suggesting that you not target the U.S. Copyright Office website, copyright.gov. Here's why:
1. It doesn't make sense to block people from learning about copyright law.
If you want to change or even abolish the copyright law, this can only happen if people first learn about the existing law. One of the best places to do this is copyright.gov. They have a huge amount of material including an FAQ (though I've always wondered how often they actually get asked this).
Taking down copyright.gov has no effect on existing copyrights or copyright policy, it's just inconveniencing people looking for information. People often use this information to write articles or letters criticising the current law, to learn about what rights they have regarding their own work, to learn about fair use, and many other goals which you might support.
And content created by the Copyright Office (such as the FAQ's page linked above), as a work of the federal government, is in the public domain, for people to copy and modify as they see fit. Our tax dollars paid for this, and we have a right to access it.
2. The Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress (LOC), which has been working very hard to make its collections available on the internet.
This is no small job, as much of this material was not digital to begin with. We're talking "photographs, manuscripts, maps, sound recordings, motion pictures, and books," including "rare collections and those unavailable anywhere else" and "materials that may be too fragile to handle." (Quoting from here.) They even asked for the public's sugestions in how best "to build an electronic index and searchable database of a complex and diverse collection of 70 million imaged historical records," here (and got only two non-helpful comments).
Isn't this exactly the sort of thing tax dollars should be spent on? I only looked at the LOC's budget information very quickly, so I don't know to what extent the Copyright Office website and the LOC's digital collections share a budget, but I'm sure it's a distraction, if nothing else, when part of the LOC's operations get attacked.
And according to the LOC's Fiscal 2012 Budget Justification (PDF link), "The Library is requesting a funding increase of $2.752 million in fiscal 2012 to expand its information security incident handling and response function. . . . The Library has a need to expand the incident handling and response function to keep pace with the evolving threat landscape." I'm sure you're happy they expected you, but I thought you don't like when people give money to whitehats?
3. The Copyright Office is an administrative agency, without the power to make, change or enforce the law.
From the website:
The Copyright Office is an office of record, a place where claims to copyright are registered and where documents relating to copyright may be recorded when the requirements of the copyright law are met. The Copyright Office furnishes information about the provisions of the copyright law and the procedures for making a registration or recordation, explains the operations and practices of the Copyright Office, and reports on facts found in the public records of the Office.
You can read more about the Copyright Office here.
One reason I respect the staff of the Copyright Office is because I always got the impression that they're scrupulously careful to do what they are legally authorized (and funded) to do, no more and no less. If the recent DDOS attack is seen as a demand that they stop doing their jobs, or start doing something for which they have no authority (such as changing or abolishing the copyright law), this subverts the democratic process.
If you think the copyright law should be changed, please contact the ones with authority to do that -- your elected representatives.
Enforcement -- and problems with enforcement -- are handled in the courts. For example, when the U.S. government seized the domain name RojaDirecta.com because of alleged infringement, Rojadirecta challenged the seizure in court. If you're not directly affected by such seizures but want to make your voice heard about them, you can support people like Senator Ron Wyden who has been demanding answers from the government about what they're doing.
And of course you can support organizations like the EFF, Creative Commons, and Public Knowledge.
4. You didn't need to do this to get their attention.
Certainly there are politicians and government agencies that make a practice of ignoring the people they're supposed to serve. The Copyright Office is not one of them. Just the day before yesterday, they posted this: How would you search Copyright records? -- Building a system with you in mind. They also recently asked about "how copyright owners have handled small copyright claims and the obstacles they have encountered."
I know from personal experience that they listen to private citizens, not only corporations.
In 2007, I participated in a roundtable discussion at the Copyright Office. I felt a bit out of place, because the other participants were representatives from large companies and industry organizations; I was there only on behalf of myself and my unsigned rock band. But I had asked if I could be there, they said yes, I took the train to Washington, DC on my own dime, I sat at the same table with (then) Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters (the head of the Copyright Office), and was given as much right to put in my two cents as everyone else there.
I mentioned to another participant that I was a bit surprised to have been asked to participate, and she said that it was her understanding that they generally invite everyone who asks to attend.
Unfortunately they had a problem with the audio recording of the roundtable and were never able to publish a transcript. But I can assure you, I walked away thoroughly impressed by the respect and careful consideration given by the Copyright Office staff to all the diverse viewpoints in that room, as well as their careful attention to the scope of their own authority. I feel confident that everyone's comments were taken into account in future Copyright Office activities.
Then in 2009, I (on behalf of my and my husband's independent film production company) submitted a comment requesting that documentary filmmakers be allowed to rip DVD's to make fair use of clips in their films without being guilty of violating the DMCA. You can read my comment here, and all the comments they received here. (Note that we were not asking the Copyright Office to change the law. The law specifically gave the Copyright Office the right to make a list of exemptions to the DMCA, and they had asked people to suggest exemptions.) And they did it -- they agreed with me (and other commenters) that ripping DVD's should not be a DMCA violation for documentary filmmakers making fair use of clips. This rule is in effect today.
I didn't have to hire a lobbyist or make campaign contributions for this. And I didn't have to DDOS their website. This is what democracy looks like.
I am not advocating DDOSing. But if you do feel the need to DDOS, I am respectfully suggesting that you choose a target more worthy of it than copyright.gov.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Theodora Michaels
P.S.: Yes, I've also filled out one of these. :-)
