More Unintended Consequences of the DMCA

BrianWCarver writes "In the seven years since Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), examples of the law's impact on legitimate consumers, scientists, and competitors continue to mount. A new report released today from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 'Unintended Consequences: Seven Years Under the DMCA,' (pdf) collects reports of the misuses of the DMCA -- chilling free expression and scientific research, jeopardizing fair use, impeding competition and innovation, and interfering with other laws on the books. The report updates a previous version issued by EFF in 2003, which Slashdot also covered."

Well, here's the problem

[tkrotchko]

The problems is (a) if you're a media or software company, you view these as "good" consequence (b) if you're a member of congress, you're routinely told America's financial health is dependant on the strong protection of IP, so you don't see any problem with this (c) hardly anybody has any direct consequence because of DMCA, so they don't see the problem.

So in the face of all that intertia, no one really cares about the extreme cases. I'm guessing the cutover to HDTV in the U.S. (a.k.a. "The Disaster") will generate a lot of problems and make cause a backlash, but right now, it's hard to see anyone in charge or in authority speaking out against the law, and there is almost zero groudswell against it.

Evil

[Wellington Grey]

From the article: HP's Region-Coded, Expiring Printer Cartridges: Hewlett-Packard, one of the world's leading printer manufacturers, has embedded software in its printers and accompanying toner cartridges to enforce "region coding" restrictions that prevent cartridges purchased in one region from operating with printers purchased in another. This "feature" presumably is intended to support regional market segmentation and price discrimination.

The software embedded in HP printer cartridges also apparently causes them to "expire" after a set amount of time, forcing consumers to purchase new ink, even if the cartridge has not run dry.

Now that's damn evil. After I moved to England, I discovered the that my DVDs no longer worked. But I never knew that this was now in printers as well. How long before some jackass decides to regin-encode my whole laptop?

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Not unintended

[bigg_nate]

Jeopardizing fair use and impeding competition and innovation are not unintended consequences. They're major reasons some DMCA supporters wanted it passed.

The invisible foot of Government

[Toby The Economist]

Every law passed by the State with the honest and sincere intention of being for the public good turns out *in practise* to be to the (sometimes enourmous) public harm, while hugely benefitting a very small number of people.

Re:EFF: Factually incorrect, again.

[Angstroem]

Frankly, you're not getting to the core of that.

Of course Nikon will happily license out those decryption routines so one has access to the RAW format; but there's no need to introduce encryption in the first place, or keep the file format non-disclosed, for that matter.

Assume, you're a pro photographer and therefore store your pictures in that very RAW format for maximum resolution. The pictures are *your* creative work, not Nikon's. Who says that they will still support that format in 5 years? Who guarantees you that their software will work with your PC of choice in 5 years?

You buy a camera for making pictures, and you probably want to use that very camera for a period which is usually way longer than what's currently supported by any software manufacturer. There are people who still use old Leicas or Rollei cameras... No pro photographer wants to change their equipment with every new OS generation.

With that licensing model -- Nikon creating an encrypted format which *they* own all rights to and *they* have the power to give and revoke licenses as they want -- they directly affect the photographer in accessing his own creative work.

It's like bringing out an analog camera where the photos are taken scrambled and you can view the photos only using a camera-manufacturer provided lens. Which is provided for a limited time only.

An outburst by a programmer who had too much coffee? Maybe you didn't have enough to see the implications of such artificial crippling of file formats...

Re:Read EFF report with a little skepticism ...

[WillAffleckUW]

Like nearly everyone else involved the EFF has an agenda and a spin.

You'd have an agenda if you had the Secret Service come to your place of business back in the day and take virtually every top-of-the-line computer you had sunk all your cash into, and then a few years later return those very same computers crushed into small tiny bits.

Does noone remember History? I remember Steve Jackson helping out the WorldCon in New Orleans by loaning us his computers so we could rewrite the dBase III code that their author/artist registration ran on, so we could actually hold the convention with panels.

A year later, he couldn't do that, because the Secret Service took his computers since he was writing a game about Hackers.

Maybe you like living in Soviet Russia, but I don't.

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

It's school policy that we can't use copyrighted images for any purposes

If that's the policy, you can't use any images except some that are so trivial that they cannot be copyrighted, and the few the copyright of which expired (but make sure that the digital version you downloaded off the internet isn't covered by a new copyright). Even images you produce yourself are automatically protected by copyright.

Re:Unintended consequences

[belmolis]

That might be in part because good laws are written so as not to have negative unintended consequences. Good laws sometimes do have negative unintended consequences, but they are quickly revised to deal with them. For example, most people agree that laws against speeding are desirable. If such a law is formulated too broadly, it will make it illegal to speed even in emergencies where the risk from speeding is overshadowed by the emergency. The speeding law can be formulated carefully so as to except emergencies, and if it is written too broadly can be revised. The problem with bad laws like the DMCA is that their proponents either haven't formulated them carefully or do not see the negative consequences as negative and so are happy with the overbroad formulation.

Re:EFF: Factually incorrect, again.

[lmlloyd]

This is just the silliest overstatement I have ever seen! Actually, what the Nikon RAW encryption is almost *exactly* like, is if Kodak had patented the formula for the developing solution for their film, and only Kodak, or people who licensed the formula from Kodak, could make the chemicals to develop the film you shot. You know, kind of like the exact situation that has been the case since the introduction of Kodachrome film!

I get so tired of how people think that something being digital, suddenly means that any abridgments of their 'freedom' (even freedoms they never had before) is a violation of their "rights." Nikon made the camera, and they have every right to have it record in whatever format they want. If you, as the consumer, don't like it, instead of whining about how it is a horrible misuse of the DMCA for them to decide who can and can't license their proprietary format, just buy a damned Canon!

If you are so worried about them revoking the license and rendering your photos useless, then make a copy in Kodak Cineon, or a 16-bit per-channel SGI file, or OpenEXR, or any number of other formats that can support a High Dynamic Range Image without loss. No one is stopping you from doing that, any more than anyone is stopping you from copying your negatives, or making prints of your film. Nikon justs wants a cut of the 'development' costs, just like Kodak, AGFA and Fuji have been getting for years! I bet if you are a professional photographer, you don't have much of a problem with the streamlined copyright procedures that came with the DMCA though, do you? I am guessing that while you want them to repeal any part of the DMCA that causes you the even the smallest inconvenience, you are in no hurry to have to go back to making a print of your picture, filling out a form, and registering it with the copyright office in order to get the benefit of copyright law, are you?

Re:Fair Use

[ConceptJunkie]

Interesting quote, the DCMA does indeed harm those legitimate examples of Fair Use, except ultimately, the DCMA _doesn't_ stop piracy. It is my impression that the real net effect is that it only harms the law-abiding. Hence my sig...

Re:Well, here's the problem

[plover]

The HDCP situation could go either way, depending on how it's handled. If they get modern, slick, smooth digital cable boxes with DVRs into the hands of the congresspersons, and everything just works, they won't think about reasons to block legislation.

However, if any of these congresspeople were early adopters of HDTVs that didn't buy the current version of HDCP, and they find out that their $10,000 plasma TVs are worthless for modern HDCP / HD-DVD / BLU-RAY, they're going to be pretty pissed off, and that can only help our cause. Another factor working to our advantage there is to be an early adopter requires cash, and most members of congress are fairly well off -- none of them are people anyone would consider impoverished.

"Here's to backlash -- may it strike deep into the wallet of a Republican member of Congress reviewing the DMCA."

Re:EFF: Factually incorrect, again.

[Angstroem]

Not at all. If you buy a brand-x camera, you can use whatever film you want to use. You are not bound to Kodakchrome and their holy development formulas.

However, with the Nikon approach you are either forced to go for a crippled format (and JPEG *is* crippled from a graphical point of view) or use their very own RAW format. It's not like the camera would support a gazillion of (especially competing) lossless formats by default.

And, sorry, but if Nikon wants their development costs back, then they should raise the price per camera, but not via licensing fees on their oh-so-holy *file format*. While the Kodakchrome process may (or may not) have been superior to other films, it never the less was based on true research. A *file format* for pictures definitely is not. It's a container for pixels and, in the case of digital camera, some color/hue/saturation coefficients derived automatically through a calibration process.

Btw, I'm no photographer. For this discussion it also shouldn't matter whether I am one or not. Exchange "Nikon RAW" with "Word DOC" or "Eagle SCH/PCB" if photographers are such a red flag for you. Maybe you'll then get the point.

Re:Fair Use

[hador_nyc]

- even this clear cut case of non-comercial, educational use.

The most ironic part of that is the fact that real pirates will not be inhibited by this. They'll have the means to do what they are already doing. You almost can't walk down a street in Manhattan, or sit in the subway often enough, without seeing someone sell pirated copies of movies; some of which aren't in theaters yet. Sure they run away when the cops come by, but the fact is that they don't get too many of them.

You know, this sounds a lot like drug enforcement. Not to sound too radical, although /. might be the right place for this, but this sounds like the same logic. One could see the same thinking extend all the way back to Prohibition. A few are abusing it, so let's prohibit everyone from using it at all. It was a bad idea eighty years ago, and it's still a bad idea now. Better to regulate and tax than to try to outlaw that which so many folks want to do. I wouldn't see so many of those pirated movies on the street if folks weren't buying them. They keep pushing DMCA and we'll only see more of this. If you ask me, and you don't have to since this is /., it's just goes to show that the government doesn't change; it always has bad solutions to problems.

For the record, I'm rather cynical when it comes to trusting the government to solve most problems.

Re:Geeks of the world! Unite!

[FusionDragon2099]

If the aclu is so concerned about my rights, how come they don't protect my right to bear arms?

Maybe because the NRA already does that and the ACLU doesn't want to waste money that can be put to other causes?

Re:Unintended consequences

[Kohath]

That might be in part because good laws are written so as not to have negative unintended consequences.

Unintended consequences happen despite the best intentions. That's why they call them unintended.

For example, most people agree that laws against speeding are desirable.

If true, then most people are incorrect.

The speeding law can be formulated carefully

"Because we're so much smarter than everyone else, we can tell them how to live their lives. Because we're ever so much smarter, we can prevent anything bad from happening and anticipate every possible outcome. We're the smart people. We'll make your choices for you. And nothing will ever, ever go wrong. (Or when it does, we'll ignore it. Or it'll just go wrong for you, because you're not one of the smart people or the good people. Or it will have gone wrong because you didn't give us all of your ability to choose, like you should have.)"

The problem with bad laws like the DMCA is that their proponents either haven't formulated them carefully or do not see the negative consequences as negative and so are happy with the overbroad formulation.

The problem with laws is that every single one of them ends up hurting someone, at least a little bit. And most people are willing to go ahead and hurt people just to be able to make choices in other people's lives. Or for money (or the ability to spend money, which is the same thing).

Re:EFF: Factually incorrect, again.

[lmlloyd]

That would be great, if it were even remotely true. In fact there have been PLENTY of cameras where you were locked into buying film from one company, because they made the camera. Have you ever heard of a company called Polaroid? For that matter, you are looking at the tail end of the film market, and saying that since now a lot of formats are cross-licensed, it must have always been that way. That just isn't the case. In the early days of photography, each camera had pretty much its own format of film. As it became a bigger market there was standardization, and eventually you had film that could be used in any camera of the same format, regardless of the camera manufacturer. However, that didn't happen overnight, and that wasn't the way it was for the bulk of the history of photography.

It is great that you choose to completely ignore the business models that have been in place for decades, and say "but I want it to work this way right now," but that just isn't the way the world works. By the way, when I said that Nikon wanted their cut of the development cost, I didn't mean "development" in terms of what it cost to develop the file format, I meant "development" in terms of "I have to get this film developed, and make prints." For decades, film manufacturers, camera makers, and photo shops (the real places, not the software from Adobe) have been operating on an intricate web of licensing deals, subsidies, and cross-promotional deals. All Nikon was doing, was exactly what they have been doing for decades. They basically said "Ok, we cut the film manufacturer out of the picture, and Adobe cut the traditional photo shop out of the deal, so now all we have to do is cut a deal with Adobe, and we have the whole thing wrapped up, and we will make even more money, instead of losing money like we thought we would at first."

Now you can call that evil if you want, and jump up and down and get upset because you think that all file formats should be free, and no one should ever make any money off developing a better way to store information, but I think that makes you a rather unrealistic utopianist. Realistically the only reason this is even an issue, is because the competing format to Nikon's (Kodak Cineon) is so old, and has already made so much money for Kodak, that they now license it out for free. By the way, care to explain to me why, if a file format using 10-bit per-channel logarithmic colorspace is such a trivial thing to develop, so many companies paid so much money to license the Kodak Cineon format even before the DMCA existed?

It is clear to me that you are just one of these people who thinks that anything you can load on your harddrive you should now have absolute rights to do whatever you want with, up to and including reverse engineering it for whatever purpose you choose. However, what you absolutely fail to see is how much better things are than BEFORE all these awful proprietary formats! I guarantee you that having to deal with Microsoft's evil .DOC format is a million times better than having to do layout with straight line border tape, scratch-on Letraset text, negotiate fonts with the printer, and not even know what your final page was going to look like until you had already paid half the printing cost up front!

Re:EFF: Factually incorrect, again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree to a point that companies can employ means to control the use of their product(s), but there are BIG differences between your Kodak example and this. A patent expires, allowing competition to take place - other companies can now offer you those chemicals that only Kodak (or Kodak approved companies) could.

A digital restriction like this never expires - Nikon can force its way into a monopoly hold on products to manage the images from its cameras FOREVER.

Despite that, my biggest concern is not the fact that companies might be able to create and indefinitely maintain articial restrictions. My concern is the fact that it's illegal for consumers to do anything about it. Kodak can't prevent companies from making a different chemical composition to take the place of their patented version. They can't prevent companies from selling kits to modify a Kodak camera to use other types of film. They can't prevent me from publishing how I took apart my camera and added/removed something. But Nikon can stop companies from trying to interoperate with its products digitally. They can stop me from publishing details on my tinkering with my camera's onboard software.

When the law gives them the ability to restrict my rights (rights that did already exist) and the rights of other companies then there's a problem.

Re:Well, here's the problem

[Firehed]

I'm guessing the cutover to HDTV in the U.S. (a.k.a. "The Disaster") will generate a lot of problems and make cause a backlash, but right now, it's hard to see anyone in charge or in authority speaking out against the law, and there is almost zero groudswell against it.

That could be in part beause the cutoff only means analog goes away, not everything is in HD. I had digital cable for a while (standard defintion) and aside from the increase in cost for two hundred more channels that I'll never watch, the video was lower quality than the analog because of a crappy encode or decode. Analog may not be as sharp (and when you're talking SD digital, it's not noticible, unlike VHS/DVD), but at least it didn't constantly artifact and block out.

where the hell did the EFF get the idea

[alizard]

that any of the consequences described in their web page were unintended?

At least by the corporate legal staffers who presumably actually wrote the bill.

The real problem here is that organizations like the EFF that are supposed to represent our interests are tax-exempt non-profits.

If we want the political power to do something about this, we need our own PAC, our equivalent of the NRA or AARP.

What's going on with telecomm legislation (you heard that the net neutrality bill got killed in committee?) is another example of why we've got to organize to buy our own politicians, not put up with what happens when major corporate interests who don't want real innovation and who don't want the public to find out what's really wrong with their products are the only ones with cash in hand.

We have the best politicians that money can buy, if we want to be represented, we have to ante up.