Debunking (some) DMCA Myths 425
An anonymous reader writes "C|Net's News.com is running an article under their Perspectives section about some of the myth and hype surrounding the DMCA. The author talks about how the EFF is exaggerating the danger from the DMCA. The author mentions that although "the DMCA is both an egregious law and a brazen power grab by Hollywood, the music industry and software companies", groups like the EFF are not much better, engaging in "fear-mongering" and scare tactics to increase opposition."
Lawrence Lessig (Score:4, Interesting)
Having said that, Lawrence mentions a legal battle that took place in England in the 1700's in an attempt to get Shakespeare into the public domain. Originally, English publishers managed to win a court case which said that they owned a perpetual copyright over Shakespeare.
Five years later they lost, and Shakespeare entered the public domain.
Rosen, Valenti et al are students of history. They know that the door swings both ways. I believe their thinking is that they should grab as much land as they are allowed to grab, so that when the door swings back, maybe it will be left leaning a bit to their side.
Personally I hope it swings back and flattens their faces, but we shall see.
KWTCMA
Re:Lawrence Lessig (Score:5, Insightful)
In the article, Kerr is quoted as saying "If the public believes that the DMCA is stopping Professor Felten and other researchers from conducting legitimate research, then that is a major victory for opponents of the law." Well, the public believes that because it is true. Felten wanted to present a paper and was told by his employer not to do it. No matter what that article says about lawsuits being unlikely to succeed, the mere threat of a DMCA lawsuit seems to be enough when you're dealing with deep pockets.
Re:Lawrence Lessig (Score:5, Interesting)
True. A little bit of reading in legal history will uncover many examples where a law passed to change the existing legal opinion was limited by the existence of a body of precedent. (The examples I can think of off the top of my head are the law of privacy -- which has been incorporated into common law in every US state except for New York, where even the passage of a law defining a right to privacy has been limited by their court system; the other example is Canada's Bill of Rights, which their Supreme Court has held is limited by pre-existing common law.)
Unfortunately, there is little legal precedent to extend or limit DMCA. Neither the US Supreme Court nor any of the State courts have shown whether they embrace the corporist ideas of ``intellectual property" or Lessig's ideas of public domain.
> I believe their thinking is that they
> should grab as much land as they are allowed to grab, so that when the door swings back, maybe it will be left leaning
> a bit to their side.
As the saying goes, possession is nine-tenths of the law. Ask any landlord who forceably evicts a tenant 6 months behind in the rent.
Geoff
It's a shitty law, face it. (Score:4, Insightful)
really? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dmitry was involved with a for-sale product that defeated e-book copyright restrictions, which clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the DMCA.
Re:really? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what was he arrested for? He wasn't selling his product, he was giving a talk about his product. A product that was not illegal where he lives.
Re:really? (Score:2)
But what was he arrested for?
Entering the country.
Re:really? (Score:5, Informative)
The program was also purchasable from within the United States from an Elcomsoft.com server hosted in Chicago (again, within the US...). Payment was handled through an online service located with the United States.
So, he was willingly distributing an illegal circumvention device within the United States, to Americans.
Re:really? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Dmitry was involved with a for-sale product
> that defeated e-book copyright restrictions,
> which clearly falls under the jurisdiction of
> the DMCA.
Um, no.
From http://www.freesklyarov.org/background/:
>> According to the company's website, the
>> software permits eBook owners to translate from
>> Adobe's secure eBook format into the more
>> common Portable Document Format (PDF). The
>> software only works on legitimately purchased
>> eBooks and has been used, for example, by blind
>> people to read otherwise-inaccessible PDF
>> user's manuals, and by people who want to move
>> an eBook from one computer to another (just
>> like anyone can move a music CD from the home
>> player to a portable or car).
So the software was only for the legitimate purchasers of eBooks, and primary purpose of the software was to allow them to move the eBook to their other machine or to allow a blind person to read the eBook they bought.
The article states:
>> Start with the text of the DMCA itself. It
>> says, "No person shall manufacture, import,
>> offer to the public, provide, or otherwise
>> traffic in any technology, product, service,
>> device (or) component" that is primarily
>> designed to bypass copy-protection technology.
According to the article, the DMCA should not have applied to Dmitry. Prior to the DMCA, under fair use laws, Dmitry's software would have been as legal here as in Russia. Why was Dmitry even in jail?
The answer: it doesn't matter what the DMCA really says. What matters is what a company like Adobe thinks it says. What matters is what a company like Adobe can convince the FBI it says. What matters is what a company like Adobe can scare a professor, a security expert, a software maker, or an employee into believing it says. Who cares if that is really what the DMCA says? If you land in jail, even if a wise judge throws the case out and declares the law unconstitutional, you have still lost a part of your life, income, possibly your job and even your reputation.
The DMCA is a four letter recipe for a reign of corporate terror. Stupid sharks, you think 9/11 would have taught them terror is a no-no.
Bells are ringing: Mothra, Mothra! Every heart is calling: Mothra, Mothra!
Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have gotta pay! New Kirk calling Mothra, we need you today!
Re:really? (Score:4, Insightful)
That could apply equally well to the MPAA as it does to Al Queda.
A legal enterprise that manages to get away with bribery, extortion and destruction is fundementally no different than the illegal ones.
Re:really? (Score:3, Insightful)
The line between fair use and piracy is a finer one than most people would like to admit.
If the DMCA made it illegal to move a book from place to place, then that alone is reason to get it repealed.
EFF is just waking up the sheep (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
To which I say, laws have been stretched by powerful interests much farther than the DMCA will have to be to create a chilling effect in the past, and while the EFF may be "exaggerating" the issues, the author does nothing to challenge the fact that nastgrams based on the DMCA can and are being used to curtail research.
Re:Maybe, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, isn't that how the DMCA got passed? Some people said something was pure evil, and did everything they could to try and stop it... except they did too much.
Hmmm....
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, I think it would be best if they were to be granted their own axis. Maybe call it 'The Axis of Digital Evil'. Or, how about, 'The Axis of Evil Media Corporations Bent on Controlling All Our Base'. (Y'know, I really don't care as long as they don't try to make sheep wear lipstick - yecch
It's Monday, so are we supposed to hate them today? Or is that on Tuesdays and Thursday? If someone will please clarify, I promise to write it down this time. I have too much trouble remembering the schedule while watching my brand new copy of FotR...
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Congratulations for proving the point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Hah. Exactly. A post about how the DMCA might be a little more vilified than it should be is met with a response that implies it is as bad as NAZISM. Is this a clever troll? really subtle humor? or just a regular day at Slashdot? Impossible to say.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I should become a "journalist" (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yea. (Score:2)
Not!
I find it interesting that the article spends a long time "bebunking" the myths of the DMCA, yet the author devotes a paragraph to deriding the DMCA. Unfortunately, he does not expound on why he feels that the DMCA is so villainous, which makes the article rather contradictory considering the amount of bits he wastes saying that the issues that people have with the DMCA are myths.
It ain't no myth, Baby. The DMCA is yet another chip missing from your block of freedom.
So? (Score:2)
Imagine two kids of nearly equal weight on a see-saw. One sits on the end, as is normal. Now, in order to achieve balance and "fairness," the other does not sit in the middle, on the fulcrum.
Now imagine an 800lb gorilla and a little kid on a see-saw.
Thanks.
Astonishing... (Score:5, Interesting)
The risk that a researcher could go to jail for giving a speech at an academic conference is essentially zero
True, but not all speeches and research is presented at an 'academic conference,' now are they. It seems this implies that the author does not support research outside of a institution such as a business or university. Do employees of these places now have more rights than other people? If that's true, i'd be even more against the DMCA than the view of it they're trying to debunk!
Re:Astonishing... (Score:2)
The risk that a researcher could go to jail for giving a speech is essentially zero.
Re:Astonishing... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Astonishing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Astonishing... (Score:2)
NO, he said it was being USED to intimidate people.
Butter knives can be USED to intimidate people. That doesn't mean that butter knives are bad.
Re:Astonishing... (Score:4, Insightful)
DeCSS is not allowing copying, it is allowing reading (without using the proprietary decryption software). Here reading includes de-scrambling so that the content becomes intelligible. But you don't need it to copy.
Re:Astonishing... (Score:3, Informative)
Banning deCSS doesn't hurt the people who use it to rip movies in the least. It hurts those who want to use it to watch movies, because they have a harder time finding it and using it.
(Replace cocaine with almost any substance or activity that is illegal, the analogy holds)
Once you make something illegal, most people who have legimate uses would find a substitute. So it's a vicious circle.
Now, you may certainly argue that ripping and trading movies is fair use. There is some argument to be made there. However, currently such activity is not fair use, and is illegal.
Ripping movies is fair use - trading them is not. That is current law.
DMCA is bad (Score:2)
For me, all those that mix business and lawsuits are bastards.
So, its okay? (Score:2)
Aye, just makes ya wanna move to zanzabar and start taking opium rectally
Fear mongering (Score:3, Insightful)
I grant you that the EFF may be doing some exagerating, but not much.
Look at Felton's case. He was sent a threat, but when an opposition was made, the RIAA essentially said, "we didn't mean it" and "you misunderstood us."
Now what is commercial distribution and profit? You have link to a site that has an advertisement, is it commercial? I have seen a case that ruled linking to a site that has advertising makes a site commercial. What about a Amazon referrer link? or a Vonage affiliate [vonage.com] link? does that
you commercial?
It is not the actually application of the DMCA being the problem, but the threats that spring from the vagueness of the law.
Re:Fear mongering (Score:2)
Potentially getting paid.
That is my point, that at what point does any potential receipt of money change the nature from non-profit to profit? If you have a house in a residential zone, are you violating the law by having a yard sale in a residential area? What if your child has a lemonade stand?
Legal merit was never the question... (Score:4, Interesting)
The EFF is right. The chilling effects are real. That research can be stopped or quashed simply by a law firm's letter head containing the four letters DMCA is an egregious tragedy.
Declan says the law is bad. I agree. It is used to do evil things by evil corporations. Throw it out. Don't defend it. And certainly don't chastize the EFF.
Re:You Are The Kind of Mark the EFF Likes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll never understand why people dont consider whats at stake when people deceive others; quite often you'll find the most sincere and real message comes from the dude who has little to gain from yelling 'Fire!' You can find more insidious fear mongering than EFF's call-to-arms in any ad in Business 2.0 or Wired article
Honestly, when did people start becoming more tolerant of deception and FUD, so long as it was for the Good Nature of profiteering? Doesn't that seem a little backwards, or am I just confusing this issue with the time honoured tradition of masses stroking the egos of the already powerful?
Re:You Are The Kind of Mark the EFF Likes (Score:2)
Donations and other forms of support. Judging from many of the people on this forum, FUD is A-OK as long as it's for a geek-proclaimed "good cause".
Re:You Are The Kind of Mark the EFF Likes (Score:2)
> As a donor-supported, nonprofit membership organization
FUD is bad to begin with, but I'd certainly give the benifit of the doubt to the organization that isn't seeking to make a few billion off of FUD.
FUD to support what a substantial group of people believes is a good cause that benifits society is a fuckload more forgivable than FUD-for-profit. Ya gotta fight FUD with FUD (otherwise FUD wouldn't exist, see?), but I'll champion those who are fighting because they believe its the right thing to do, not because it increases the chances of getting a bigger paycheque, thanks.
What scaremongering, exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only people I've seen defending the DMCA are those who are ignorant of what it actually says, or who stand to benefit from it commercially. I have yet to come across anyone who is both well-informed about the DMCA, and doesn't benefit from it financially, who's willing to defend it. Which camp do you fall into: ignoramus, or profiteer?
I've got nothing against making a profit, but if you do it by bribing the legislature to illegally abrogate the rights of citizens, you deserve nothing but contempt. As well as bankruptcy, when consumers stop buying your unusable crap.
Umm Well (Score:2)
Ugh. (Score:2)
For many of the people affected by this, the threat of a lawsuit is a great financial burden in its own right, and anything that gives big corporations an excuse to sue, good excuse or bad, hurts us all.
Oh well.
Declan? (Score:2)
Anyone think that Jack Valenti's hired a cracker to break into Declan's account and masquerade as him?
He knows not what he says... (Score:4, Insightful)
That may be well and true, but it misses the point. Lets assume Felton were sued. He is a professor. I assume he has a lawer. He certainly already had the publicity. For him a lawsuit is a mere annoyance. For someone like some young Russian programmer who comes to the states for a talk, a lawsuit is career ending. The mere fear of being sued, legimated or not, is enough to stifle any and all speech deemed fringe. That is the danger of the DMCA.
Bigger problem here? (Score:2)
A lot of things are like that. You can get sued if the neighbor's kid trips and hurts him/herself badly in your yard and be in for heck of a legal battle.
Perhaps we need to think about a general solution to lawsuits-as-weapons where the fight *itself* is very costly and frightening and flashed around like a big sword.
There needs to perhaps be more protection for "the little guy", whether that be a family or a small business or a professor.
Re:Bigger problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
2- Loser pays "reasonable" legal expenses, perhaps to be specified in statute (e.g. hire Johnny Cochran to beat a traffic ticket if you like, but don't expect the state to foot the bill), possibly subject to an "ability to pay" rule.
3- Harsher sanctions against barratry.
4- The full text of laws
Re:He knows not what he says... (Score:2)
So I guess I would rather see hysteria over the the possibility of our rights being taken away than the blithe, indifferent ignorance that usually accompanies it.
I'd rather see calm, rational arguments than hysteria. I think the proper way to fight lies is with truth, not with more lies.
Is the EFF accidentally PART of the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some say that making such a big deal out of those (relative to how big of a deal they were initially) helps to motivate the public against the DCMA.
This is most likely true.
But what else can it do? It can motivate the less tech and law savvy people (IE: University administrators that control the flow of research funds) to cave immediately to nastygrams that would never manage to hold up in court.
The FUD put out on some (not all, and mostly those related to Acadamia) of the DCMA cases has allowed Hollywood to use the DCMA as a bluff, knowing that most administrations will cave instead of taking it to court.
The DCMA itself isn't as far reaching as many say it is, but by saying it is, they may have managed to allow Hollywood to use it like it is (that far reaching), unchallenged.
Re:Is the EFF accidentally PART of the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, the claim that the EFF is exaggerating the problems with the DMCA are most likely being made by those who don't fully understand how dangerous the DMCA is. Unfortunately, it's full effects may take many more years to become apparent to those who aren't already directly affected by it.
For the record, I'm not associated with the EFF, although I probably should be. ;)
Re:Is the EFF accidentally PART of the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then there's also the fact that many non-technically oriented companies (et al) may not have legal departments that have much, if any, experience in the technical or copyright realms.
There is the large potential for the "Oh, it's that DMCA thing, I'd better give in" reaction.
Is that actually happening? I don't know. I'm just putting it forward as a possibility.
Yes, the DMCA is dangerous. But many are going off on it like it's the end of the world. Which it isn't. It's more likely one of the signs that the end may be coming.
Just because someone says that it's not as far reaching as some are making it out to be, that doesn't mean that they don't think it's reaching to far.
Bite that hook! (Score:3, Funny)
Let's all watch Declan McCullagh try to survive the next round of CNET layoffs by writing an article designed to piss off everyone on both sides of an issue, generating millions of hits for CNET! I wonder who the "anonymous reader" works for *cough*CNET*cough*.
You're all missing the point of the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
He's not saying the DMCA isn't bad. He's not even saying the DMCA isn't THAT bad.
He agrees that the DMCA is bad and a threat to some people, just not to everyone the EFF said it was a show-stopper to.
He also makes a very good point: Activists that don't understand the impact of the laws they're protesting don't present very convincing cases.
-l
Re:You're all missing the point of the article... (Score:4, Informative)
The EFF is certainly not made up of "activists that don't understand the impact of the laws they're protesting".
I used to be sort of "one friend removed" from one of the original founders of the EFF. When they first started out, they had no interest in becoming another political organization - at least in the traditional sense. They were as disgusted as most other people are with politics and the under-handed/sneaky ways in which they operate.
Unfortunately, they soon learned that you had to "play the game" in order to make changes happen in Washington. If you didn't develop a full-blown non-profit organization that actively campaigned for your causes, you got written off as "extremists" or just another blowhard with no "teeth" to back up your threats and warnings.
Anyone accusing the EFF of exaggerating their causes simply doesn't understand the mechanics of our political system. Especially when you deal with technical issues that the average senator/congressman only vaguely has his/her head wrapped around - you have to hammer your points home. Otherwise, your opposition surely will - and you'll look like you have a very weak argument, by comparison.
Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Fighting a lawsuit is a slow process even when it is a slam dunk. The starting retainer for most of the lawyers that I've hired is $1000. That's not chump change. And then the cost of the case will run higher than that even if you settle the case within a year.
Then there is the time involved. Meeting with the Lawyer. Showing up for court. Putting your life and your family's lives on hold while you grind through the legal entanglement. Everything begins to revolve around the legal case; and if you are imprisoned, then it is very difficult to continue your career. How long do you have to stay in jail before you fall far behind the bleeding edge of technology? What are the costs of being publically arrested?
The media has certainly showed the arrests and then the convictions, but how many times does the acquital make the news? If it did how many folks would be able to link the person acquited to the original arrest?
The DMCA is a power grab, and I think it is very unfair and probably unconstitutional. But its power to motivate people lies in the uncertainty of the application of the law. There are too many grey areas for any sort of comfort,a nd so it will be left to the battle fields of the courst system to determine the right and wrong of the DMCA.
As the article pointed out, many of these fears may be unfounded or exaggerated, but how much of your life are you willing to bet on it?
Re:Fear (Score:2)
He shouldn't. He didn't violate our laws within out sovereign territories.
That's certainly an interesting viewpoint, one that I respect, but not one that I agree with.
What he did do was violate a whole cart load of international law, and he should be held responsible in the appropriate venue for those violations.
What is the appropriate venue, and what was the international law he violated? Don't you have to be a recognized country to be bound by international law?
Who's exaggerating ? (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand any exaggeration by the EFF pales into insignificance when compared to the exaggeration by the entertainment industry (and others) of their new rights under the law. We've seen many people threatened with dumb lawsuits which have no merit or takedown orders used to stifle free speech (scientology anyone ?).
And in a further exaggeration the entertainment industry claims that unless it gets even more draconian laws passed it will be put out of business.
Re:Who's exaggerating ? (Score:2)
On the other hand any exaggeration by the EFF pales into insignificance when compared to the exaggeration by the entertainment industry (and others) of their new rights under the law. We've seen many people threatened with dumb lawsuits which have no merit or takedown orders used to stifle free speech (scientology anyone ?).
The problem is that the EFF are helping the entertainment industry spread fear. If they get their way, and the DMCA is repealed, then perhaps the ends justify the means, but what's more likely is that the DMCA will not be repealed, and it will not be found unconstitutional, and the EFF has just shot itself in the foot by giving credence to a ridiculous interpretation of the law.
Some people jsut don't get the real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The bulk of this texts argument seems to be based on what has and has not worked in a court when defended but they fail to see this is only part of the point. We all know the mojority of small companies and individuals simply can't defend themselves in court so the DMCA threats are enough.
The DMCA gives the big boys a new threat to use. A friend of mine was recently held up at gunpoint in the store where he works, he explained to me that he was 99% sure the gun was a replica and yet he didn't laugh the guy off, any ideas why?
Sometimes a threat is all you need
Re:Some people jsut don't get the real issue (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps Dimitry did something more then just give a speech?
-BrentDon't Ignore the Snakes (Score:5, Interesting)
After 2600 and DeCSS, why yes, yes I am scared witless about being sued under the DMCA. All I have to do is make something, someone finds a way to use it for copying some material, and I'm in deep trouble.
It does not matter that the DMCA doesn't apply to many situations. Most people don't know exactly what the DMCA covers...all that needs to happen is someone charges me with violating the DMCA. Regardless of whether the charge ends up being valid, you have been "tainted" and most people won't understand just how false the charges were. Having to defend yourself against these charges can result in large financial losses, not to mention the possibility of being fired.
Sometimes the method of determining the intent of a device is so esoteric, many people will think you just scraped by on a technicality.
I don't think the EFF has been hyping this enough. I can go through a day without talking to someone who has ever heard of the DMCA or the EFF. We are the beginning of a new generation, where we depend on the storage and transfer of digital information in our daily lives. It's our responsibility to make sure that this new frontier isn't locked down and commercialized before we have a chance to explore it. This is our generation and our responsibilty.
When you're standing in a pit of snakes, the moment you become complacent and careless is when they strike.
U.S. Missing Advocate - Declan McCullagh (Score:5, Funny)
** MISSING **
Declan McCullagh
ACLU Award: Free Speech [mccullagh.org]
Time Magazine Advocate for: Privacy [pathfinder.com]
Previous Plaintiff: Challenging the Communications Decency Act [mccullagh.org]
Anti-DMCA Efforts: Intervened in the landmark DVD/DeCSS lawsuit asking the court to open proceedings [politechbot.com].
Declan McCullagh was reported missing to the
Incident Type: DMCA Abduction
If you have information regarding the disappearance of this individual, please contact: the
Wolf in Sheep's Clothing:This Isn't the First Time (Score:5, Interesting)
He is a friend of Declan, and he will do whatever it takes to advance his career, irrespective of how many people he harms in the process.
In the early days of LiViD (the first group to get a semi-working software DVD player under GNU/Linux) Declan McCullagh hung out on the livid mailing list. After he had a very good idea what was going on (work to create a DVD player under GNU/Linux) he published, in WiReD, a hysterical article about hackers writing software to enable rampant DVD piracy. The story was carried here on
As a result, several lead developers in the project were threatened with legal and criminal action (though no crime had been committed) and had to withdraw from the project. While others took over their responsibilities, this probably delayed the development of a working DVD player for GNU/Linux by a couple of months, and nearly wrecked the lives of several software volunteers.
Thanks to Declan, who never once admitted any wrongdoing (despite the flagrant yellow journalism that precipitated the problem, and likely led to the entire DeCSS fiasco as well), never once apologized, and remained quite arrogant during his entire tenure on the mailing list.
Later he passed himself off as a "friend" of freedom and an anti-DMCA activist/journalist. It gained him widespread popularity in some circles and some degree of recognition.
Now, clearly, he has determined that he can advance his carreer by toning down, perhaps even reversing, his stance on the DMCA. Hardly surprising, since, as a "journalist" he works for a publisher which is, almost by definition, a member of the very copyright cartel that is pushing the DMCA and similiar legislation.
Declan is a friend of Declan, the rest of us are tools to be used and discarded as needed to advance his own career.
Being stabbed in the back by such a person, given his history of behavior, should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.
Re:Wolf in Sheep's Clothing:This Isn't the First T (Score:3, Informative)
Were it not for his past behavior, and his willingness to damage and even destroy people for his own personal gain, I would probably agree.
But having been witness to his willingness to sacrifice others for his own personal benefit, and seeing the damage he is now causing to those trying to resist the revocation of our digital freedoms by the media and copyright cartels, I am forced to conclude that his shift is nothing more than a cynical adjustment in his career strategy.
As the the legitimacy of his "analysis" of the DMCA, others on this site have more thoroughly debunked that, and anything I say would be very redundant.
But I guess you'll have to take my opinion with a grain of salt, since my karma has been reduced to zero.
Karma is meaningless, and I for one do not dismiss your opinion. You sound like a reasonable, thoughtful person who, I believe, has been misled by Declan's legendary charm. Most people who are tend to remain so, until they themselves feel the knife stabbing in their back.
As for the LiViD issue, I refer you to the archives, where you can make your own judgement as to the events (you will also note that I defended Declan on that list, something I have long regretted in retrospect)
LiVid Archives (November 1999) [archive.org]
See also the previous couple of months for more background information, if you are really interested.
Some comments include:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000815215028/livid.o
http://web.archive.org/web/20000817190115/livid.o
Re:U.S. Missing Advocate - Declan McCullagh (Score:2)
Actually, if you view condoms/diaphragms as an "anti-copy protection" the DMCA may make tampering with them (such as intentional improper use or intentional sabotage) illegal. :)
I can just see some sleazeball Hollywood exec suing his mistress for not aborting a pregnancy under the DMCA. "That is an illegal copy of my genetic code. I claim full copyright on my genetic sequence!"
Re:U.S. Missing Advocate - Declan McCullagh (Score:2)
Actually, if you view condoms/diaphragms as an "anti-copy protection" the DMCA may make tampering with them (such as intentional improper use or intentional sabotage) illegal. :)
I'm surprised the EFF hasn't filed for an injunction on that basis.
Re:U.S. Missing Advocate - Declan McCullagh (Score:2, Interesting)
This is incorrect. He, and a few others, said it would be a "stretch" and would almost assuredly be denied by the courts. Until a precedent has been set however the copyright cartels have show a willingness to let the mear fear of litigation do the work for them. The EFF wouldn't have examples to scream and yell about if the MPAA/RIAA were not letting fly with cease & desist letters backed up by their multi-million dollar retained legal counsil. Just because you would win in court doesn't mean you have the means to get to that point. In that sense the DMCA is most definitley a threat to academics in related fields.
Not a big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
so uhmmm.... (Score:2)
Research and papers are legal, but building and distributing the "black boxes" is not? you can publish findings, but not code?
How do you do publish a research paper without some kind of code or algorithms? Even an English Language description (does that mean that Spanish and Russian descriptions are outlawed?)
"Well, I can't publish this because I don't want to go to jail or get sued so you'll just have to take my word for it."
Pointless article (Score:5, Informative)
Really. He probably had to fill a deadline and came up with this, knowing it would generate a lot of interest. First he says this:
Then he goes on to say "no wait a minute, it's not so bad, we can live with it". He goes on to say, basically, how he believes the line between "encryption research" and "trafficking in circumvention devices" is completely clear and bright.
Well guess what. It ain't. I don't feel like the line between code and speech is a clear one. He even acknowledges in his article that including code in a research paper is vital:
So, by his own words, the chances of a lawsuit are not zero if you include code.
And what is code? How about some pseudocode? How about a working copy of code, except some constants are changed? How about a complete working example of code, but only in the print version? If this print version later appears on the web in full, will the author suddenly be liable? (Remember, by their own words, they went after Skylarov because his name was in the copyright notice, not because he personally was trafficking in the device.)
He then goes on to mention all the recent news items (the HP flap, IEEE, etc) and dismisses them all by saying basically: well it's bad PR for these companies, so they'll withdraw their lawsuits. Well, no thanks, "bad PR" is a pretty thin safety net.
And I also sense a vibe that traditional security research published in a journal or university web site, with lots of verbage is okay, but a bugtraq posting from "Cyb3rH4xx0r" who lives in his mom's basement is not. Well personally, I learn as much from posted exploit code as I do from long-winded papers. And any smart person could generate one from the other. Which is why a researcher should be a afraid, even if they don't use code in their paper.
So I think a security researcher has every right to be afraid of the DMCA. We know exactly why: because 1) code is not always considered speech and 2) pretty much anything can be a "technological protection measure", from bits in a TrueType font (remember that one?) to ineffective LFSR's in DVD players. Put these two together with the DMCA and you feel the chilling wind.
(And that's not even discussing the awful "takedown" provision of the DMCA, which allows copyright holders to arbitrarily take down web pages and eBay auctions. I'm surprised we haven't seen more abuse of that one from people forging affidavits.)
What the hell is Declan smoking? (Score:4, Interesting)
To highlight the absurdity of this position, consider this statement from the article:
The risk that a researcher could go to jail for giving a speech at an academic conference is essentially zero. - Orin Kerr
Wow, I fell so safe at night. Now, why does need to qualify zero with "essentially". Perhaps because, um, people have been arrested? Researchers have had injuctions against releasing their findings? Corporations have waved the DMCA around to frighten people into keeping quiet?
The purpose of an overly broad law is to pick and choose who you make examples of. Sure, the risk to us is relatively minor, because we're nobodies off their radar. Wait until you create something or discover something that rubs the government, software giants, or Hollywood cartels the wrong way. It doesn't matter if they lose in court, the point is they scared us all with heavy-handed legal tyranny.
Perhaps this is furthering his "law no, code yes" proposal. Overturning the DMCA is a lost cause, so we should push it on all fronts to weaken its reach. Like a bully, it's power comes from a shared belief in its potential to harm us. When we all stand up to it we will find it shrivel into something less ominous.
So bad laws are good if it's Hollywood (Score:2)
Moderation of articles, when? (Score:2)
I accept that I've usually heard about something before it appears on
So some guy working for a supporter of the DMCA says the free people are just silly to worry about their actions being illegal. It's not like this is some respected reporter saying this. Or coming from a mainstream source like the Washington Post, NYT.
What's the news in some adverporter sending out cleverly disguised PR? Why can't the moderators send this kinda junk into
I agree with the article (Score:3, Insightful)
no surprises here (news.com) (Score:2)
Re:no surprises here (news.com) (Score:2)
Quote from the article:
The DMCA is both an egregious law and a brazen power grab by Hollywood, the music industry and software companies. It is probably unconstitutional. It creates unnecessary federal crimes, cedes too much authority to copyright holders, and should be unceremoniously tossed out by the courts. (As a bonus, perhaps we could horsewhip its many fans in Congress.
Now, in case you're too ignorant to know what "egregious", "unconstitutional", and "brazen power grab" mean, I'll simplify by noting that Declan is calling the DMCA a really really bad law.
Barry Goldwater (Score:3, Insightful)
Would McCullagh underwrite DMCA-lawsuit insurance? (Score:3, Funny)
If he's right, such insurance could be profitably provided at an affordable price. Sounds like a great opportunity.
If he DOESN'T want to take that risk, then I don't see why universities, who are less well informed about the situation than he is, would ever want to assume it themselves.
Oh Really? (Score:3, Informative)
well, us the "opponents" must be making things up and this entire site [cmu.edu] is a fraud
Oh I get it (Score:2)
The DMCA doesn't prevent research (Score:2)
You can do all the research you like. You can reverse engineer, and learn and hack and tweak all you like. You can even write code to test your understanding of the information you have discovered.
What you can't do is use the code, share the code or demonstrate the code. You can't share or demonstrate the research. You can't prove there are holes or even security risks.
So yeah, you can research and learn all you like -- you just can't give the results to the people.
Simple. I see no problem here...
Hold up (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, I must have missed that special issue of 2600 where they included the AOL CD-DeCSS combo CD-ROM.
I take issue with this because:
* 2600 merely published the source code to DeCSS. This is radically different from distributing a binary. The source is only a recipe, not the entire meal.
* The website only linked to where it was hosted and mirrored. The source was never available on the site itself, IIRC.
A bit of fact-checking wouldn't have hurt the author in this regard.
Wishful (and perhaps too optimistic) thinking (Score:2)
1. It does not seem very likely or reasonable to a lot of people (including Mr. McCullagh) that a researcher would be sued under this law if they published research that could be used to violate copyrights.
2. It does not seem very likely or reasonable that a researcher who does not publish any source code could be sued at all.
The fallacy of these arguments is that they assume corporations won't TRY. It's true that a judge could very well slap away a lawsuit against Edward Felten, but Felten still had to deal with the stress and anxiety of being threatened. Perhaps he would have opted to settle, rather than take the case to court, and in doing so set a dangerous precedent for the future.
It seems to me like this sort of opinion is irresponsibly optimistic. Laws containing gaping loopholes that could conceivably be used to threaten freedom of speech cannot be excused by the fact that we don't think it will happen. Such political quiescence is what allows legislative problems to deteriorate into constitutional crises.
He's awfully brave with my livelihood (Score:2)
my letter to the author (Score:5, Insightful)
let's say i live in Australia amd purchase $5000 worth of DVD's there. then, i move to california. normally, because of the regional encryption nature of DVD's, all of my DVD's would now be completely useless. now, let's say i'm smart and decide to break the encryption method of DVD's so that i could watch my own, purchased DVD's. under the DMCA, that would be illegal. so my rights to fair use are in the toilet. get the picture now? if we don't make a stand today, these laws will clamp down even tighter in the future, probably throwing our fair right use completely and utterly out the window.
i bet back in the mid 1700's, you were the guy saying, 'hey everyone, english tea is really, really good. let's not rock the boat. is it really so bad paying them unrepresented taxes? c'mon everyone, the english really are nice people afterall...'
by the way, i followed the felton case very carefully examining every detail. your rendition of the justice departments' views are warped and untrue. shame on you.
yes, yes let Allan Adler badmouth the EFF all day long. but, if what he says is true, than one might ask what the EFF's motive is to do such a thing.
look, the bottom line is that money is driving this whole thing. money is enough to take away our consitutional rights little by little. if we don't put a stop to this in the beginning, then we will all me telling our grandsons how much freedom we had in the 'golden days'.
DMCA is as far-reaching as EFF says it is (Score:4, Insightful)
If Kaplan sided with MPAA in the DeCSS case, then all the ridiculous nightmare DMCA scenarios are plausible. It's just a matter of someone being willing to press the button and then not backing off.
I remember a not-too-distant time when most people viewed Alan Cox's absurd imaginary situation where someone attacks him for disclosing Linux bugs, as being too paranoid and unrealistic. But then just last month, HP proved that it's not only the wacko EFF guys who view this sort of thing as possibly being covered by DMCA. HP lawyers saw it as a valid weapon in their arsenal.
So quit blaming EFF, Kerr. The Bad Guys have also seen how far-reaching DMCA's text actually is. For a moment there, even they thought they could use it to stop Felton. HP thought they could use it to supress information about True64. These people are not EFF plants. But they are clever and know that to minimize the chance of it being struck down, they have to push it incrementally, and slowly build up lower-profile precedents. You don't just throw the frog into boiling water; you slowly heat him.
Media bias rears its ugly head once again (Score:3, Informative)
"Actual violations of the DMCA can be punished with a civil suit for damages or, if done for commercial gain, prosecuted as criminal acts. The Justice Department indicted Dmitry Sklyarov because his employer, ElcomSoft, sold an e-book decoder that he helped to create, triggering the DMCA's criminal penalties."
So basically, this article is saying that DMCA is good as long as "true academic researchers" aren't threatened. Well guess what Mr. McCullagh, that's not the point! DMCA is a bad (unconstitutional) law because it unduly limits free speech and restricts basic personal freedom to do what you want with something that you purchased--such as editing movies for your kids to watch, extracting video/sound-bites, playing DVD's in Linux, making backup copies of media and videogames, format-shifting for use in different types of digital players, etc. DMCA is a law to enhance greedy media giants' / proprietary software companies' ability to manipulate and rip off consumers. That's all there is to it.
rebuttal to Declan's article (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Oh sweet lord... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh sweet lord... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh sweet lord... (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, first off, I am not a consumer, and don't like being treated like one. But I digress.
Cool and calm (i.e. passionless sheep) is what allowed the DMCA to get passed in the first place. Far fewer people would be in opposition to it if it weren't so broad and vague. The fact of the matter is, it is so vague that it COULD be interpreted in many different ways. You can't say that there is a zero percent chance of something happening when there is nothing in the law to prevent it. The fact of the matter is, the DMCA was used as a big stick to threaten researchers to bow to corporate pressure. The threat was removed, but it was still possible that the researchers could have been prosecuted under the DMCA. All it is going to take is one case as precedent and the whole game is over, that is how our legal system works. Maybe the big entertainment companies are just waiting for the right opportunity to present itself.
And if you think that they won't prosecute someone under the DMCA, think again. It is a law, and they have legal right to do so. It doen't matter what the INTENTION of the law is, it matter what the law says.
Re:Oh sweet lord... (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, I'm with you so far.
It doen't matter what the INTENTION of the law is, it matter what the law says.
Oops, that's where you lost me.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV (yet) but I am related to a few, and I have been in a courtroom more than a few times. The simple fact is that it DOES matter what the intention of the law is.
Why else would it matter what the desenting opinion is in supream court cases? They are written because interpretation and intention are part off what differentiate the living-law coming from live judges from a rule-set that could be programmed into a computer.
So now you have MY 2 cents.
Re:Oh sweet lord... (Score:2)
A switch from Infoseek to Overture didn't help. (Score:2)
find DeCss, just like a google search or searching Disney's Go.
As soon as Disney found out that people were using its GO.com Infoseek search engine to look for DeCSS, which could decrypt Disney DVD titles, Disney killed Infoseek and went with Overture.
It didn't help. Overture takes you straight to DeCSS as well [overture.com], in both flavors (DVD and HTML).
Re:Courts aren't (necessarily) stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
So although I think that the courts are generally balanced, I think that the "chilling effect" has to be seen by looking at the broadest interpretation of the law.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:2)
the Apple propoganda commercials are probably not targeted at the commercial users, who would be using fairly rock-solid OSes like Windows 2000 Pro, and Windows XP. they are targetted at the people using Windows 95, Windows 98, and, g*d forbid, Windows Me.
when your grandma can get her Windows 98 blue screens down to "maybe once a month" then talk about propoganda. and i'm not talking just letting the OS sit there for a month. i'm talking plugging and unplugging USB devices, playing games, surfing the web via a modem, and writing and printing documents. that is the target audience for the ads, not power users running Windows 2000 and keep their hard drives defragmented, and ritualistically run virus- and port- scanners.
Re:great quote (Score:2)
Re:No One's Really Using It Yet, So What's the Hub (Score:2)
Re:necessary hyperbole (Score:2)
They should be educating people as to the truth and why it matters, instead of outright lying.