Slashdot Log In
DMCA Anti-Circumvention Provisions
from the lay-down-the-law dept.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Let's start with a review of the law. The two sections we're most interested in are Title 17, Chapter 12, Section 1201(a) and Section 1201(b):
" 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
"(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES.-..."(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
...
"(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-"(3) As used in this subsection?"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
"(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."(A) to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
"(B) a technological measure 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
"(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS.-"(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that?"(2) As used in this subsection-"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
"(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof."(A) to 'circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and
"(B) a technological measure 'effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.
The law covers two related but distinct concepts. The first is the concept of "access controls," the second is the concept of "copy controls." The law covers these two items separately and treats them differently, so it's important to make the distinction. Copy controls can be thought of as measures which actually prevent copying. Access controls prevent usage, not copying. Copy controls: Macrovision, serial copy protection for digital works, old floppy protection schemes, etc. Access controls: encryption, passwords, usage restrictions, etc.
Section 1201(a)(1) prohibits anyone from circumventing access control measures, with exemptions to be determined by the Librarian of Congress. Section 1201(a)(2) prohibits anyone from building, importing, or distributing a device designed for circumventing access control measures -- no exemptions.
Section 1201(b) prohibits anyone from building, importing, or distributing a device designed for circumventing copy control measures. Note that there is no counterpart to 1201(a)(1), that is, you are not prohibited from USING such a device if you manage to obtain one without building it or obtaining it from anywhere else. (Achieving this is left as an exercise for the reader.) Using such a device would presumably fall under older copyright laws -- you're making a copy.
Only the very first section -- 1201(a)(1) -- had its implementation delayed. The other two -- the device-building sections -- took effect immediately upon passage of the law, October 28, 1998. That first section was the subject of a hearing and review process in which the Librarian of Congress had the option to exempt certain classes of copyrighted works from the prohibition. The public had a chance to comment and reply to others' comments.
The review process is now complete, and the ruling has been issued. Only two exemptions were issued:
- Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications;
- Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsoleteness
The Register of Copyrights considered and denied all of the other exemptions suggested. Commenters and speakers suggested a wide range of exemptions. Libraries, universities and individuals generally promoted exemptions; corporations owning vast amounts of copyrighted materials opposed them. There were several factors working against any exemptions being granted, though.
The first and largest factor was that the rule-making only applied to that single section of the law, regarding circumvention of access controls. The Register of Copyrights shot down a lot of comments because the commenter's focus seemed to be on copy controls rather than access controls. For example, if a work prohibited one from copying a section of the work in order to comment on it, that would be considered a copy control, not an access control, according to the copyright office.
Another factor was that the Register of Copyrights defined "classes of works" very narrowly, in a way that severely damaged many of the submissions -- they were too broad. Imagine, if you will, being asked to write an essay on why slaves should be free. You do so. The teacher hands it back with an "F" and say, "No, not slaves in general -- I wanted you to identify specific slaves and tell me why those particular slaves should be free as opposed to the others." Even though the libraries and universities made powerful arguments pertaining to large numbers of works, because they didn't break down their arguments into specific narrow categories -- even though it would be silly and wasteful of paper to do so -- the Register of Copyrights threw out their arguments. Even where specific classes of works were singled out by the commenters, unless they submitted a great deal of evidence, they weren't deemed to have met the burden necessary of proving that they were being harmed by the prohibition on circumvention of access controls. In particular, the Register of Copyrights noted that "individual cases" would not be sufficient to meet the burden of showing harm. And no exemptions were granted where there was a large company opposing the exemptions.
So what happened to DVDs? A section of the ruling was devoted to discussing the DVD situation -- if you've been following the DVD mess, this is a must-read. The Register of Copyrights declined to enact any sort of exemption for circumventing access controls on DVDs, citing a number of factors. Within the twisted logic of the rule-making, the factors are actually sensible -- if you accept his premises, even a madman is sane. They seem to have been thinking of the region-coding scheme as the primary "access control" worthy of note. The copyright office reasoned that since you could buy a Windows machine or a DVD player (or a DVD player from another region, if needed), or perhaps a VCR, that there was no reason for an exemption. (Keep in mind here that 2600 et al. are being sued under the other sections of the DMCA, so their plight is not an example of harm caused by this section.) The Register did consider that the blending of copy controls and access controls in CSS might be a problem, but decided that Congress, not the Library of Congress, should address it. As a result, the final word on DVD's is this: you can't make or distribute a device to circumvent either the access control function of CSS or the copy control function. However, you may circumvent the copy control function, subject to the limitations of normal copyright law, but you may not circumvent the access control function. Thus it is illegal to, for example, fast-forward past the advertisements at the beginning of a DVD that you purchased, since that would involve circumventing the access controls.
(As an aside, my cynical nature suggests that if any censorware vendors had commented on this rule-making and said something along the lines of, "Our company will utterly collapse if you grant an exemption here," like Sony, Time-Warner, the MPAA and other copyright-holders did with regard to DVDs, that exemption wouldn't have been granted either.)
Possible penalties you may face are both civil and criminal. The criminal penalties are a fine of up to $500,000 and five years in prison; civil penalties are the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff or up to $2,500 per act.
So where does this leave us? One area that wasn't discussed in the rule-making was how a user was supposed to exercise the right to circumvent access controls without being able to purchase or create a device for doing so. Typically "device" is interpreted very broadly -- it means "any combination of software and/or hardware." So let's say you decide to take advantage of the exemption for publishing the lists of sites blocked by censorware products. You can feel free to circumvent their encryption, as long as you don't use any devices to do it -- no software, no hardware, no tools whatsoever. Even a pencil and paper is a "device" for these purposes. Presumably you could print out the encrypted file and then decrypt it in your head.
The other exemption is similar. Libraries pointed out that companies often go out of business, perhaps leaving them no way to gain access to some of the works they've purchased. So for this purpose, libraries can circumvent the access controls on those works -- assuming they can do so without creating any sort of "device".
In other words, this whole exercise was futile. The prohibitions on actually circumventing access controls will never be enforced, or at least rarely. Far more common will be prosecutions and civil suits under the sections which deal with making and distributing devices, where there is no concern with exemptions. Copyright holders will concentrate on taking away the tools to circumvent rather than preventing people from circumventing, since it isn't possible to circumvent without tools and most people do not possess the ability to manufacture their own tools.
(I should point out that there are certain other narrow exemptions built into the DMCA -- read it in its entirety if you wish. They are very narrow indeed and have very specific requirements. Rely on them at your peril. For example, you are permitted to circumvent access controls if those controls violate your privacy by collecting or transmitting personal identifying information. But you still aren't permitted to create or obtain a device to perform that circumvention.)
Readers: I hope that this article can be a resource for answering the questions about the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA that come up time and time again. This is the law, as much information as is available. If a question is coming to your mind about a specific circumstance, the answer is: whatever a judge says it is. There is no more information, no firm answers. A device can be purely software, and in the same vein as encryption software, restrictions on publishing such software devices run squarely into the First Amendment. Will there be a case testing this? What will win, the DMCA or the 1st Amendment? In 2 or 3 years, the Librarian of Congress will conduct this same review process once again, looking at the restrictions on circumventing access controls. Perhaps the library and user communities will do a more convincing job the next time around. But keep in mind that the strongest parts of the law, the prohibitions on devices, are not subject to this exemption process.
-- Michael Sims, 2000-10-30
Sent to Library of Congress... (Score:3)
Please note that this determination affirms a federal court ruling (NY) that it is a violation of the DMCA to view a work, even if the viewer has license to access the work, with software other than that which the author of the work allows (even if not stipulated in the license a priori which software is accessible).
As such, please note that the US copyright office has been in continuous violation of the DMCA since its inception by recieving encoded data in the form of e-mails, decrypting them, viewing them, and even reposting them without the consent of the authors. While sending the note to the LOC may constitute license to use the work, without express prior consent of the author as to the methods used to access the work, the federal government has engaged in systematic circumvention of access controls on those works (for example, ASCII text is not readable by humans without an intermediary piece of software to render it in readable form -- the courts have already adjudicated that neither the underlying quality of the access control measure, nor license to use the work are to be considered with regard to whether the user circumvented the access controls).
Further, it has come to my attention that the Library of Congress has in place a system of software programs explicitly designed to circumvent digital encryption measures including e-mail applications, FAX software, WWW browsers, TCP/IP protocol stacks, spreadsheets, word processors, databases, graphics programs, print protocols, data compression and data encryption tools, etc., all of which are capable of accessing, copying, and transmitting digital documents in a manner that may be inconsistent with the author's wishes. I would encourage the Library of Congress to set a good example and stop using any and all software that deals with accessing any form of digital information not produced by a Library of Congress employee until each of the work's authors can be contacted with regards to the terms an conditions of access to the work can be determined.
For future reference, this message may be accessed on any general purpose or embedded device using any UNIX or Linux operating system with the aid of software running under that operating system. Accessing the work with any software other than that stipulated above will be construed as a violation of the access restriction provisions of the DMCA.
The same access limitation applies to all previous correspondence.
Re:Taco, your clock is wrong (Score:5)
If you buy a book you OWN the book. Period. You can access it in any way you want. You can sell it, trade it, lend it to a friend, etc.
You can also quote it, burn it, cut its words out and rearrange them, scribble in it, etc.
And here's the real kicker, you can COPY it in its entirety for you * own use.*
You can do all of this legally specifically because you do NOT license it. You BOUGHT the book.
What you *cannot* do is copy it and the GIVE that copy to someone else because you do not own the work itself, only the book, but you have the absolute right to use that book in ANY manner yourself.
Video and sound operate under exactly the same rules. You may copy, encode, sample, use as a Frisbee (tm), chop up and rearrange your music and videos at will, lend or even rent to a friend, all legally. How do you think video stores operate? Do you think they have a special licence? No, they don't. You can buy tapes at retail and rent them, it is your RIGHT!
This right is legally defined EXPLICITY by acts of Congress.
Now find one or your commercial video tapes, and a commercial DVD. Please note that there in *no licence* notice on EITHER. They both claim the SAME * copyright protection.* Not licence protection. Copyright protection.
In fact, and here's the really ironic part of the whole damn thing, the very fact that you can purchase a video tape with no access or copy controls is being used by the lawyers to * claim the DMCA denies you none of these rights because you can by a video tape instead, for which these rights remain intact!*
Think about that one really, really hard for a minute.
The DMCA makes a subcatagory of IP * storage * as a special protected class. The fact that langague used in the *copy* of a work is coded in ones and zeros, instead of the 26 letters of the alphabet, give it special status. This is no different from saying that books written in German have different copyright laws applicable than books written in English or Spanish.
Think about this one, what if I wrote a book in * Morse Code.* The DMCA would then apply to a * printed work.*
Why should it?
Answer: It shouldn't, but that's what it does.
.- is A. A is
It's
Do not try to read the above word, to do so is in violation of the DMCA. The above is my IP and you must purchase a code key from me. Obtaining a code key elsewhere is in violation of the DMCA. If you "know" the code key we maintain that your brain is an illegal device by the definition excepted by the DMCA and you are now a criminal. Offenders will prosocuted.
Anti-Circumvention (Score:5)
--
Re:The constitution was written too early (Score:3)
That is the fun part! There is a part of the constitution that says that the federal government can't do this. The tenth amendment [constitution.org] specifically prohibits the federal government from exercising any powers not delegated to it by the constitution. Federal laws such as the wetlands protection, gun control, federal highways, and the DMCA are all extraordinarily broad readings of the powers of congress [constitution.org].
The United States of America was incredibly well engineered. The problem lies with the slow erosion of the constitution due to "emergency measures" and "temporary tax" situations. The federal government has grown to big for its britches. Somebody needs to beat the federal government with a cluestick. If I remember correctly, the federal tariff on long distance phone calls is supposed to be paying for the Spanish-American war.
So vote Libertarian. I know they are wacky, take things a little too far, but what the hell. If enough people show some interest in a party that wants to do "extreme" things like force the government to run according the charter that we the people granted it, the viable parties will start to take notice. Maybe the media will start taking interest in (small-l) libertarian topics. I can dream.
Re:The constitution was written too early (Score:3)
Since PGP was (and possibly still is) classified under the export laws as a munition, it is clearly an "arm" under the second amendment. That means that any U.S. citizen who has not had his or her civil rights revoked, such as by being convicted of a felony ("the people"), has an incontrovertable constitutional right to use PGP or equivalent enrcyption.
Of course, since the Clinton/Gore administration holds that there is no individual right to bear arms, a Gore win would spell at least four more years of oppression. Not that Bush will be stellarly better, but I'm getting pragmatic in my old age.
Between the first, second, fourth, and tenth amendments, one should be completely secure against this sort of government nonsense. However, the constitution is always interpreted by those currently in power in support of their interests--that is, the people who financed their elections. Don't be deluded into thinking that just because something is constitutionally protected that it will be legal and that you will somehow be protected from your life sucking at the hands of your government if you try to do what's constitutional, but not legal.
Re:Hmmm Its not quite *that* clear cut. (Score:3)
As for circumventing access controls, DeCSS doesn't do that either. It uses a key that has been defined as valid by the MPAA. Since encryption is designed to allow people through it if they have a valid key, it is clearly not circumvention, which disables the control. Therefore, you're in the clear (IANAL, of course).
What you could not do is decrypt the stream and then save it. However, if you copied the encrypted stream, and then played it using a player designed to play encrypted streams (which we've already determined is not circumventing the access control), then you should still be good.
Anyone see any holes in that?
----------
It was damned if you do... (Score:3)
OK, so first thing we do is make sure our submission is specific.
Even where specific classes of works were singled out by the commenters, unless they submitted a great deal of evidence, they weren't deemed to have met the burden necessary of proving that they were being harmed by the prohibition on circumvention of access controls.
OK, so next thing we do is make sure we provide a massive amount of evidence to back up our specific submission.
In particular, the Register of Copyrights noted that "individual cases" would not be sufficient to meet the burden of showing harm.
Erp! Um, so lemme get this straight: We have to provide specific submissions, not general ones, but if we provide 'individual cases' we get looked down upon?
And no exemptions were granted where there was a large company opposing the exemptions.
Oh well, screw it then. The fix was in from the beginning...
________________
Re:The constitution was written too early (Score:4)
"Effectively controls access" (Score:5)
Um, if it effectively controlled access wouldn't this law be *unnecessary*? It's like putting some gum on a chest to "lock" it in place, then when somebody "circumvents" your access control device, running to the government and saying "hey, they're not allowed to circumvent my anti-circumvention device - make a law!". I mean, why don't they just make a law that says nobody can circumvent anything they don't want them to, and just do away with the tedious practice of actually designing and implementing controls?
Re:The constitution was written too early (Score:3)
The NRA isn't as strong as you seem to think -- they've had their share of losses. But they do, at least, have a lot of experience trying to press the view that the focus should be on punishing misuse, rather than possession.
Prohibition? (Score:4)
History buffs will immediately recognize the similarity between this and Prohibition (i.e. of alcohol in the 20s), wherein it was legal to drink the stuff, it just wasn't legal to buy or brew it.
Thus came the "speakeasy", or a house/club where persons unknown (i.e. Capone and company) supplied the house and its patrons with booze. The patrons, as members of the club, found themselves "magically" in posession of the booze, and proceeded to consume it.
Further deponent sayeth not, other than that Capone went down for tax evasion, not the booze racket.
Here begins a new era of flimsy hardware... (Score:4)
I'd hate to see DMCA-protected hardware in the future; however, the trend has been set: hardware devices in the future will be relatively cheap, but there will be an expensive service bound to them. They will be easy to hack, but doing so means violating the DMCA and facing the full brunt of the U.S. legal system. In other words, technological Darwinism as we know it will end. Pathetic companies like DC will be allowed to leech money off of their pathetic products and they will be allowed to make a despicably large profit. If this isn't grounds for a revolution, then I don't know what is.
Re:HOLD ON! What about section C??? (Score:3)
--
I am ignoring this law... (Score:5)
...and I would not sit in the back of the bus, or use "separate but equal" facilities, or submit to the other recent denials of civil rights.
Yes, I am equating this with the civil rights marches of the '50s and '60s. Why? Because the same principle is at stake: a small segment of the population is being denied the right to exercise a basic freedom, and the rest of the society must necessarily be lesser because of it.
This is serious, people! You can either follow the herd mentality and be a good sheep, or you can stand up for what is right and decent. It's your choice.
Re:"Effectively controls access" (Score:4)
--
Fast Forward (Score:3)
I have been told (by the parent of a three year old) that the Tigger Movie DVD has 12 minutes of trailers and commercials at the beginning. This is similar to various Disney videos we own. I have dismantled the cassette and removed the offending sections of these tapes. The unfortunate 3 year old with the DVD has no such recourse.
--
Everything is illegal (Score:3)
This is exactly what they want, and no, it's not futile. This law is tantamount to saying, "Everything is illegal, and we're just going to selectively prosecute those violators who we don't like." The DMCA effectively makes it very easy for anyone with money (i.e. content publishers) to lock up anyone they see as a threat to their interests.
Regards,
Well then... (Score:3)
Ed Foster on this: "Despotic" (Score:4)
If you combine UCITA -- and its ability to enforce such things as shrinkwrap terms prohibiting product criticism and reverse engineering -- with the DMCA, what will we have? I fear it could be a form of censorship that will make the most despotic governments exceedingly envious.
Good article. Send it to your legislator.
Quick Sumary of Rulemaking (Score:5)
(1) Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications; and
(2) Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsoleteness.
Exemptions the Librarian rejected were:
1. ``Thin Copyright'' Works
2. Sole Source Works
3. Audiovisual Works on Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs)
4. Video Games in Formats Playable Only on Dedicated Platforms
5. Computer Programs and Other Digital Works for Purposes of Reverse Engineering
6. Encryption Research Purposes
7. ``Fair Use'' Works
8. Material that Cannot be Archived or Preserved
9. Works Embodied in Copies Which Have Been Lawfully Acquired by Users
10. Exemption for Public Broadcasting Entities
The DMCA isn't getting repealed anytime soon... (Score:3)
The two treaties in question are The WIPO Copyright Treaty [wipo.org] and The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty [wipo.org].
This isn't just the United States Government acting stupidly because lawmakers have sold out to the highest donors, it's being driven from abroad.
Don't think the "anti-hacking" treaty could find its way into US law? Just wait!
We, the users who's rights are being stripped away, are far to small of a voice, even if we all yelled together. Fair Use Rights are unknown to the vast majority of the population. They won't even notice when they've lost them because they never knew they had them.
The best that we can do right now is to keep up the fight. Continue to violate the DMCA because we know it's a bogus law and unconstitutional. Copy DeCSS. Copy the Cue-Cat code. Support EFF. Buy a t-shirt from 2600. And most of all, don't let something as stupid as the DMCA stand in the way of exercising your fair use rights.
-S
Lets consider what copyright is... (Score:3)
I do not believe works that are provided in protected forms should even properly constitute works subject to or that should benifit from copyright protection. Clearly this was never intended, and access controls are by their very nature a restriction of the use of the work that denegrates the purpose of copyright as envisioned to "promote useful arts".
Furthermore a "protected work" does not expire, since the protections on it never expire, and hence, it cannot ever go into the publics hands as specifically required by copyright and stated in article I itself; copyright is a temporary priviledge only, but protected works cannot unprotect themselves even if their theoretical copyright "expires".
Copyright does imply a fairly broad priviledge for the period it is in effect, and some of this also can conflict with the publics right to a work, which is clearly a means test for copyright itself, while under copyright protection. Fair use laws exist in part to balance these potentially conflicting goals by specifically limiting rights of a published and copyrighted work.
Clearly I do not believe that a "protected work" (or secret work, like say proprietary software) should enjoy or deserve what should only be a temporary priviledge of copyright at the public's expense. In this respect I do not believe what the copyright office chose to state is either ethical or constitutional, nor does it serve the publics interest for which it is ulimately required to uphold.
Re:"Effectively controls access" (Score:3)
No, not at all. Most of the specific instances of breaking encryption that have been brought up already have been the result of second rate access controls, but it is theoretically possible that somebody could break or otherwise circumvent a really good access control scheme- by reverse engineering, memory probing for decryption keys, or simple brute force and luck. Remember that no encryption scheme of the type needed for, say, a DVD player can be expected to survive a sufficiently motivated attack. Remember also that Congress has extended copyright to a ridiculously long term, so what seems like a reasonable and effective access control scheme today may be considered trivial to break before the copyright has expired.
The constitution was written too early (Score:5)
If it weren't for the 2nd amendment, wide ranging gun control would have been a reality in this country long ago. Think what you like about gun control, or even the "militia" interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and so forth, that amendment is a clause in the Constitution which gun control opponents can point to, giving them a powerful ally.
Unfortunately, there is no rule in the Constitution protecting our right to build and own technology-- devices or software. While shooting somebody with a gun is very illegal, owning the gun is not. You'd think that actually pirating, and violating copyright, is all that would need to be illegal. But, no, because we don't have a specific clause in the constitution protecting that right, even purchasing or building something which could be used for copyright violation is illegal. It's just crazy. It's so ironic I could just weep.
Perhaps the gun lobby is powerful enough that it could be enlisted as an ally? The parallels are clear; devices which themselves are not illegal, but which have readily apparent illegal uses. Perhaps the gun lobby could be convinced that the DMCA, once it stands, could be used as a precedent to weaken their case further.
It's really too bad that most of the population our country is not technically savvy enough to really understand these issues. As long as they can stick a DVD in their Windows machine and have it work, they're happy. And, they love to see the law crack down on all the dangerous pirates and hackers and similar scary people.
-Rob
Re:Quick Sumary of Rulemaking (Score:3)
Hm...
[sandeen@Porter sandeen]$ chmod +x winDVD.exe
[sandeen@Porter sandeen]$
bash:
[sandeen@Porter sandeen]$
Obviously malfunctioning... certainly failed to permit access...
[sandeen@Porter sandeen]$ oms
---
Haha (Score:3)
HOLD ON! What about section C??? (Score:5)
(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
So, fair use as defined in Chapter 1 section 107 still stands. Case 4 of that section makes it clear that making an incidental copy (such as with DeCSS), of a work in order to view/listen to it is fine if the incidental copy is not distributed, ie if the actions take to use the work have no effect on the market for the product. If I use DeCSS to make a version of a movie that I can watch on my computer I'm in the clear so long as I don't ever let anyone else possess that copy
So, where's the problem? It is that the whole DeCSS thing revolves around MPAA pretending DeCSS's primary function is duplication for distribution (which breaches para 4 of 1:107 since it reduces the market for the "genuine" product). Now they know this is a lie, and we all know it's a lie. The real reason is that they want to protect their monopoly on DVD players and the licence fees from that. The weakness of this argument is that the copies they claim are the main purpose are so bulky and inconvienient compared to a bitwise copy of the disc that it makes no sense to use DeCSS for this purpose, which only leaves the legal use.
Surely this can't be that hard to demonstrate in front of a judge?
TWW
Re:The part that gets me... (Score:5)
Effective access control? Hee hee hee... well now, that in itself is open to debate isn't it?
No, it isn't. RTFA:
As I posted in a previous article, whereas most /.ers take "effectively" to mean "in an effective way", the law is written so that it means "for all practical purposes" (thank you, dictionary.com [dictionary.com]). This means that if someone uses even the simplest of access controls, like base-64 + XOR [digitalconvergence.com], it "effectively controls access", even if that access control becomes widely known.
DVD Access Rights (Score:3)
I Can't Drive 55 (Score:3)
This makes a lot of sense, provided that circumvention tools and so on can continue to be made available. Unfortunately we are in a more difficult situation than in the case of 55 mph, though, because that law had very little public support and was ignored by most state troopers, particularly towards the end of its life in the early nineties. The current case is more like a regulation requiring that 55 mph speed governors be installed on all cars, or (as is the case in Japan) overspeed alarms, and forbidding owners from disabling them.
I think our best bet is to do two things:
1. get these provisions overturned by the Supreme Court on the basis of free speech;
2. buy only non-copy-protected content when we have the choice (i.e. stay the fuck away from SDMI encoded digital music and CDs).
It's a pretty gloomy scenario, but I for one will be doubling my annual gift to the EFF.
The next Amendment? (Score:4)
Re:The constitution was written too early (Score:3)
Even after all of this, I'm still confident that the DMCA will be torn apart by the Supreme Court. I only find it disturbing that our President and Congress have so poor an understanding of the Constitution that they could allow something like this to become law in the first place.