DMCA Anti-Circumvention Provisions 340
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
Re:Fast Forward (Score:2)
If any studio started using the "access control" feature more often, I simply wouldn't buy any of their DVDs. If all the studios start using it, of course, that's a different problem...
Re:The part that gets me... (Score:2)
People aren't necessarily asking for a free lunch, they just want to choose who they buy it from. In all of the scenarios that you described, the user is ultimately channelling money to a single point: DVDCCA. It turns out that all (every single one) of the DVDCCA-licensed players have weird restrictions built into them. If you want an uncrippled DVD player, you simply can't have one at any price. (Well, except for the illegal ones.) Where's your marketplace fix now?
Furthermore, this lack-of-free-lunch is an arbitrary added expense that need not exist. CSS does not add any value to the product, so that amount that customers should pay to unscramble it should be $0. From the customer's point of view, the price of DVD players is higher than what they naturally should be.
---
Re:HOLD ON! What about section C??? (Score:2)
What they say is, it is illegal to make a device, either software or hardaware, which circumvents accesss control.
Only if that is the main reason for the software existing. I'm saying that it is logically improbable (to a high degree) that that can be the main reason for DeCSS being written. This is covered in 1201 para a part 2 sub-parts A through C.
But, even ignoreing that, section C of 1201 states that nothing in that section (dealing with circumvention) overrides fair use as laid out in chapter 1. Fair use takes precedence. It actually specifically states that in black and white.
TWW
Running out of things to do on Earth (Score:2)
And is anyone wonderring why corporations seem to be owning more and more of America? Most of you work for big companies. Buy stuff made from big companies, pay extra for their entertainment and services. I see that trend continuing, perhaps forever. If we can't mount an effective defense to laws like this, the laws will only get worse (like the cybercrimes treaty). Soon the only legal activities will be company sponsored and expensive. Perhaps this is because of human over-expansion (there is less space "outside" to play in, everything is over-crowded and therefore "fun" and "recreation" tends to be controlled, indoors, and will encroach on someone elses space who will gladly charge for your activities). I don't see these trends reversing. As the Earth gets more crowded, we are losing more freedom (ostensibly to companies, but that's only because they make the movies,games, and tv shows and we can no longer take a vacation to escape. Not enough free spacce.) Globally, this decrease in personal freedom will continue as we run out of space to do things in.
-Ben
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:HOLD ON! What about section C??? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Here begins a new era of flimsy hardware... (Score:2)
So what else is new? Hardware keeps on getting cheaper and cheaper, while services rise in cost or stay the same.
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.
You know, there is such a thing as "market". Generally, pathetic companies like DC are not allowed to grab people off the street and empty their wallets. They have to persuade people to make a voluntary exchange: goods or services for money. Now, people (regardless of my
And as to "allowing" people to make profit, I am not so sure what you mean. Do you think that any profit greater than X% (X determined by you) is amoral and should be confiscated by the government -- that is, "not allowed"?
If this isn't grounds for a revolution, then I don't know what is.
Read history and try not to make an idiot out of yourself in public.
Kaa
Re:Taco, your clock is wrong (Score:2)
I think you are wrong about that. Some distributors may refuse to sell to people other than locksmiths, but lockpicks are not illegal. Some cities and states may have more restrictive laws, and they may be considered "burglary tools" in some places.
The part that gets me... (Score:2)
This is still the part that chafes me most; it completely wipes previously legal fair use copying. This would make even dubbing to a tape illegal.
So you go out and buy your new secure digital music CD player and you can't even legally make a copy to play in your car's tape deck.
And of course, this doesn't begin to deal with all the Mac, Linux, etc users who're stranded because some Windows developer doesn't deem their markets worthy of software player ports.
Stupid.
If a DMCA-esque law existed 30 years ago... (Score:2)
If a law similar to the DMCA was passed 30 years ago, none of these companies would even be in existence.
Anti-Circumvention (Score:5)
--
Re:The constitution was written too early (Score:2)
"If you outlaw DeCSS, only outlaws will have DeCSS"
"They can have my DeCSS when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers."
Ok. Now that we've had a good laugh... You seem to be equating a device which can cause bodily harm and death with one that can result in someone's copyrights violated. Either thats trivializing gun violence or elevating piracy as a major societal issue.
This being said, your post does merit a +5, as the parallels are interesting but allying with the NRA
---
Inanimate Carbon Rod thanks you for your support. See you in 2004!
Re:Taco, your clock is wrong (Score:2)
This is a pricing system for * new releases * as you note. For the chance of buying earlier they pay a higher price. It's an early adoption price that only needs to be charged BECAUSE of the above statements. It's a kludge on marketing and has nothing to do with licences or copyright except in a lefthanded sense.
The fact remains that you can buy Steve McQueen's LeMans at Buy.com for $7 and rent it to another party for whatever the market will bear with no permission or licence from the copyright owner because you OWN the tape and have the RIGHT to rent it out.
What's more, under the DMCA you retain the same rights to a DVD. Only there person you * rent it too* is effected by the law.
This is, in fact, the key fear of the movie industry, that you can rent a DVD for a buck, and make an exact digital copy of it. They would prefer a law that allows a software like licence of movies, but they can't get one, and they know it. The DMCA is the next best thing.
With the DMCA in place though, software like licences on music and movies are just one bit smaller a step than they used to be. . .
Re:No one can FORCE you to watch.... (Score:2)
Or better yet, I wire the DVD player to the TiVo, and get it record when the ads turn off, and then when I come back from work, watch these movies sans ads? What is the status of that movie clip on that is on the harddisk of the the TiVo. It is stripped of the ads!!
What if I write a player in software to do all that. Waitaminute, that is LinDVD and it is illegal.
Do you even understand the infinite amount of variations that these puny laws fail to cover? That to cover all these bases leads ultimately to a thought-control and fascism? (To the MPAA: Don't even think you are exempt - when the laws come up, you are subject to them too!)
Re:I am ignoring this law... (Score:2)
--
Fire and theaters (Score:2)
Yes, you can - if there's a fire! You just can't falsely shout "fire!" and cause a panic - that might be disorderly conduct, for example.
From the article linked above, emphasis mine:
I was wrong. Justice Holmes was writing for the court in Schenck vs. the United States, when in 1919 he penned the now infamous doctrine: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. ... The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
So the right of free speech is limited only by its impact on public safety. For example, it wouldn't be protected speech to hijack an air traffic control channel and direct planes into mountainsides, but that's the sort of conduct that should be the exception. Certainly the exceptions that the religious right find to be in this category are not, in my view.
Of course, nobody can prevent you from shouting "Theater!" in a crowded fire! [crowdedfire.org]
Re:The constitution was written too early (Score:2)
History has shown that the Powers That Be are flexible about what speech falls under that protection. For example, I can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Nor can I write an erotic story where a character says, at the end, "That was the best sex I ever had, but I am only 8 years old." Are you sure that all speech is protected?
---
Re:Win some, lose some... (Score:2)
no access control in WIPO (Score:2)
Read them? Good. Now you know that neither of them says anything about a copyright holder having some right to prevent owners of copies from accessing them however they wish. Neither says anything about source code not being speech. Both allow sweeping fair use exceptions.
Of course, if congress votes to ratify a treaty that doesn't imply that all or many of the congressbeings have read it.
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:Circumventing Doors (Score:2)
Besides, I'm not really being taxed on the land, I'm being taxed on the services the county renders to me by virtue of my land being in the county.
The fact that property can be confiscated to pay a debt doesn't mean that it's not property. I tried, but it was impossible when half the text was rendered over the marginal background image and made illegible. What I could make out seemed to be some bizarre anti-Catholic screed about how property taxes are all the fault of whoever was Pope back in 1066.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:I am ignoring this law... (Score:2)
Not that I like DMCA, but it's time for a reality check.
A basic freedom? Really? This "basic freedom", by which I assume you mean "fair use" provisions was created by US Congress in the late 60s with the passage of the Copyright Act.
You can argue that intellectual property is nonsense in general and should be abolished wholesale (like RMS is doing), but I don't think that's the argument you are making.
Besides, I don't really understand what is it that you want? Do you want to legally prohibit licensing (as in: "you can only sell software, not license it")? Do you want to put serious restrictions on the freedom of contract?
Kaa
war is never civil? (Score:2)
it goes something like...
"excuse me... pardon me... BLAM... thank you very much, sorry about that."
tagline
Re:Who decides? (Score:2)
Re:Copyright owner's permission? (Score:2)
What would happen if a copyright owner, who is not an MPAA member, and instead had their own terms for permission, released a CSS-protected DVD, is subject to speculation. I think it would have some very interesting consequences.
Heh, technically that makes every commercial DVD player and DVD software a "device for bypassing access control", putting the entire DVD industry at jeopardy.
Now, the catch that makes it hard to convince a judge to find that way is that you didn't have to use CSS to encode your DVD, and that doing so is implicitly granting permission to all those existing DVD-player owners to access the content of your DVD. (OTOH, by that same logic, one could argue that anyone producing a CSS-scrambled DVD after DeCSS was made public is similarly granting implicit permission to use DeCSS or similar programs to access their content. Although I think you'd have a hard time finding a judge that would buy that logic, either.)
No, no, no. It ain't ME babe,
It ain't ME you're looking for.
Re:What about non-US? (Score:2)
However, the US is known for "persuading" (read: pressuring) other nations into going along with its more totalitarian ideas. Witness Wassenar for an example of that (an attempt, among other things, to bring the US' draconian encryption regulations overseas). WIPO as another.
In other words, while it doesn't affect other nations yet, get ready for a fight, because it's coming.
----------
The DMFRA: Could it be passed? (Score:2)
-----------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998, to repeal restrictions regarding circumvention of copyright protection systems.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF RESTRICTIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION SYSTEMS.
Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998, is amended by striking section 1201 under the heading 'CHAPTER 12--COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS'.
[END OF DMFRA]
-------------------
The Exceptions... (Score:2)
This is great! Since many would consider Windows to be an obsolete technology, DeCSS should be allowable as we have no means of viewing DVDs on non-Windows machines. (No offense to Mac users but I think it's obsolete as well.)
Was anyone else paying attention to the page numbering in the official Copyright Office proclamation? When I see things like ``[[ Page 64574 ]]'' I start thinking very much about how smaller Government might be a very good thing. Any Govt. agency that has the time and resources to issue 64K-page decisions has got way, way too much time on its hands.
--
Re:I am ignoring this law... (Score:2)
Re:What about non-US? (Score:2)
You can read Jon Johansen's answer to these and other (DeCSS) questions [slashdot.org] here. Quote: "The biggest problem has been trying to explain non-tech people that encryption does not prevent copying."
U.S. law, however, can affect people outside the United States both through the political clout of the United States and its corporations and via international treaties signed by other countries and the United States.
Contact a local legal advisor to decide whether you can crack U.S. encryption in Finland. There's no reason you should not be able to, except for over-reaching laws or if you are invading others' privacy by doing so.
--
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?
----------
Re:Taco, your clock is wrong (Score:2)
Re:The part that gets me... (Score:2)
Re:Anti-Circumvention (Score:2)
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...
________________
The censorware provision... (Score:2)
Hold up...does this mean CPHack is legal in the US? A big middle finger in red neon fifty feet high burning in the face of Mattel?
Or are we still not that lucky?
-------------
Re:The constitution was written too early (Score:4)
Re:Here begins a new era of flimsy hardware... (Score:2)
Only if that profit was gained by curtailing my rights as a citizen. *EXACTLY* like they are in this situation.
Personally I think it's funny that you declare an exception to your own law when it would invalidate your own comments. It was a nice catch, but just because you catch yourself falling, doesn't mean you haven't just tripped.
There is such a thing as a "market", there is also such a thing as "community". These are two different entities, often in conflict. I think it is quite obvious which path the U.S. Congress has taken in this conflict. Personally, I look at the culture this has left us with and am sickened. Maybe we should veer the other direction for a little while. You might like it. Variety is the spice, baby.
--
Re:I am ignoring this law... (Score:2)
Says who? Only the people who sell software. They want this to be the case, but that doesn't mean much.
Currently, UCITA and other bribery aside, you own software just like you own a book. You own the physical work and all rights pertaining to the use of the data printed on it, where those rights don't conflict with copyright. (You can copy it temporarily (overhead projector, etc) for purposes or reading it, burn it, underline/highlight it, and nearly anything else.)
They (the publisher) can't revoke those rights under any circumstances... you paid for it, they sold it, it's yours.
So why do you think software is different? Because of some license you didn't see until after you bought it? Hah. That's the equivalent of me putting a contract in a box of food you buy which states that by your opening of the box, you agree to the terms of the contract. It's completely, and obviously, void.
Yet, you do this with a box of software and people suddenly think it means something? Not bloody likely.
Unless your state (are you in the USA?) government was bribed to pass the UCITA. (And yes, it is bribery which would be criminal in most other countries.) But if it hasn't, who the hell cares what a software company claims? Like anyone else, they'll ask for everything they think they could get, and then a little more just in case. If you give it to them it's your own dumb fault.
Re:The censorware provision... (Score:2)
No, the program itself is not legal. However, the result from the program would be protected. (IANAL)
Re:I am ignoring this law... (Score:2)
Yes, actually, fair use is a First Amendment freedom. You have the facts wrong about the 60's. Congress first "restated" the principle of fair use in 1976. They added to the Copyright Act, essentially unchanged, a "judge-made" doctrine enunciated in 1841, but with roots going back to the British Statute of Anne which predates the US Constitution.
Copyright has a special place in the Constitution in that it temporarily protects original "writings" Copyright is inherently a form of speech regulation, so any deviation from the Constitutional purpose should hit the sharp razor of the First Amendment. It is only because of fair use and a narrow focus of protection provided by Copyright to the exact expression rather than the underlying facts and ideas that saves the Copyright Act from the First Amendment Axe.
The Supreme Court spoke rather definitively on the subject of fair use in the case Harper & Row v Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) [findlaw.com].
Re:I am ignoring this law... (Score:2)
I am against the increasing restrictions on fair use.
To expand on the metaphor I gave:
Congress no more created "fair use" than they created "equality". They merely passed legislation that codified the fundamentals (or the ideals, at least) of our society.
Reverse-engineering is one of the oldest human traits. Since the day that Oog copied Urg's "fire" idea, it has been accepted that it is in the best interest of competition, and society in general, for people to figure out how things work - whether those things are natural phenomena or war devices created by a competing clan. All a company now has to do to prevent its products from being examined is to put a trivial copy-protection scheme on it. This currently applies mainly to software, but what happens when a judge rules that some company has the right to protect their new motherboard layout with some "Don't break this seal!" stickers? Voila. The right to property is effectively nullified.
We only need one exemption: (Score:2)
Plain and simple.
"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:I am ignoring this law... (Score:2)
Someone needs to design a freeware DVD player... (Score:2)
In short, let's do to the MPAA what Napster did to the RIAA!
Re:The part that gets me... (Score:2)
Or better yet, plant a garden and grow your own damn food. Just because farmers won't be able to sell me their own veggies shouldn't stop me from growing it myself.
The only protest now seems to be with the feet. (Score:2)
If people continue to purchase these restrictive products they provide funds to the wrong side.
Sure you may have to adjust your musical / Film tastes, if it is Boyzone you like then write to them tell them why you will not buy another CD/DVD and download Courtney Love and listen to her instead and pay her direct. I know the two are not so well musically aligned but the point is we have choice and we must exercise it correctly.
Re:Taco, your clock is wrong (Score:2)
Not any more! :)
(The copyright owner) shall have the right -
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
-
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.
Re:The part that gets me... (Score:2)
Effectively?
Effective access control?
Hee hee hee... well now, that in itself is open to debate isn't it?
Being that many methods of access control (and copy control for that matter) are anything but effective.
Malk-a-mite
Re:I am ignoring this law... (Score:2)
Re:Anti-Circumvention (Score:2)
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:Lets consider what copyright is... (Score:2)
Re:HOLD ON! What about section C??? (Score:3)
--
Re:The constitution was written too early (Score:2)
I don't know about other states, but in VA, possession of tools of burglary are considered prima facie evidence of intent. That pretty much shifts the burdon of proof onto the accused.
-
Upon further reflection... (Score:2)
IANAL, but the sort of language used here does not redefine fair use. Rather, it states that fair use is an exception to any of the restrictions.
In other words, we have a very interesting legal play. If you're caught pirating, you can now be smacked around for piracy and for DMCA violation. However, if you actually are keeping it completely legit (having only MP3's of things you've bought, likewise with ROM's and DVD rips) the law can't touch you. The reason: circumvention devices are necessary to exercise fair use, and this fun little clause states that fair use overrules the DMCA.
Translation: you've got to be very careful, now, to make sure all the copyrighted stuff on your machine is legitimate, because there are now criminal as well as civil penalties. However, if it is, then nothing has changed.
IANAL, like I said, but does anyone see any holes here?
----------
Laws (Score:2)
My pooint is that, it seems alot of people think that this law is bunk. Therefore, dont follow it. Host deCSS, write the next "deCSS", store works you feel need to be stored so that future people may enjoy or need them, regardess of wether or not they are copyrighted and DCMA protected. Dont like the law? dont follow it.
Re:Quick Sumary of Rulemaking (Score:2)
Well, so much for civilization, then... (Score:2)
Seriously, folks. Is anyone really surprised by this? Did anyone actually truely believe that the library of congress would come riding out like some kind of fairy tale prince on a white horse, and save us from the evil DMCA just because we pleaded? I'll admidt that the fact that they ignored EVERYONE was a little more shocking, but either way, I would have been surprised if they'd granted any exemptions that weren't effectivly meaningless. I think that if we need a savior of the DMCA, our only (increasingly dubious) protection at this point is the court system. We just have to hope that it's not composed ENTIRELY of loser-MPAA-patsy-Kaplan-alikes.
Conspiracy Theory (Score:2)
Microsoft paid the MPAA and RIAA for their cooperation in getting the DCMA passed so it would effectively hurt Linux and all attempts to improve on the technology behind Linux and did so under terms of anonymity so as to prevent an uprising of the Linux community.
Now, seriously... While companies are jumping on the band wagon, there are still those that refuse to do so remaining in favour of Windows. Logitech is an example. Back in January or so, I started shopping around for a videocam and was seriously looking at Logitech -- simply because I knew that name and the QuickCam2 product. Being that I couldn't find drivers for Linux (or any mention of Linux on their website), I E-Mailed their technical support people. The response I got was along the lines of: "not only do we not support Linux, we never will." My reply was equally as harsh: "I think I will go with another company that is a little more progressive and a little more friendly." I received only silence at that one, but
From what I've seen and read here on Slashdot, reverse engineering seems to especially important to Linux and its continued development. (Specifically in terms of device drivers.) No, I don't think reverse engineering is a right, but I do think it's necessary. Right now, though, I think the DCMA is more of an "We don't understand all this, we're afraid, so we are dealing with it like this" block. How many politicians these days actually understand the term "reverse engineering?" Until my generation grows up and is able to actually move into Congress, technology will always be feared because "normal" (reread: non-geek) people as a whole don't understand technology. It's hard for geeks to understand non-geeks and vice versa. As geeks, technology is our life. As non-geeks, technology is some sort of ethereal construct somewhere out there.
I still honestly believe that if not wholly stricken by the Supreme Court, the DCMA will be so ravaged by the Supreme Court that little will remain enforceable. The DCMA sounds more like a law to govern licensing (as compared with owning) of the products I buy. Licensing is a relatively new concept, and not one that should be applied to consumers. The one reason why I never liked DIVX is because I was basically told, "You aren't buying a copy of this to own; you must lease this move and pay for it over and over and over and over until the end of time every time you want to see it." Ummmm. *ahem* Bullshiyit. As a consumer, my intent is not to license but to purchase and buy something. And I think the Supreme Court -- given its typically pro-technology responses in the past -- would also see this.
You know... I do have this lovely Microsoft Sidewinder USB Joystick that I bought. And since I *think* I own it, I'm going to sit down, reverse engineer it, and write a Linux device driver for it. I'll see y'all on the steps of the Supreme Court.
They ignored my comments (Score:2)
I wonder how many other comments got dropped like that. They should at least have some sort of error handling mechanism to send you an e-mail telling you your comments did not go through.
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:The constitution was written too early (Score:2)
Most of these laws (including the DMCA, if you read the legislative history carefully) are justified by an extremely expansive reading of the commerce clause. This is the root cause of all of these problems.
It used to be, until FDR pressured the Supreme Court during the height of the Great Depression with the "Court Packing" plan, that the right to "liberty" recognized by the 5th amendment actually acted to protect individuals from overreaching acts of Congress. In the late 30's the Supreme Court overturned these precedents and ended "substantive due process". The effect was that the level of scrutiny given to commerce clause based laws was sharply reduced. Congress has filled itself with the people most able to extort campaign contributions in return for regulatory favors.
The (somewhat) good news is that the pendelum has finally started to swing the other way. The Supreme Court has started to tell Congress that it cannot use the commerce clause to do whatever it wants. It started with US v Lopez where Rehnquist wrote a 5-4 decision striking down a Federal Gun-Free Schools law. They have followed with two other similar decisions, including striking down the Federal Violence Against Women Act, saying that the commerce clause could not be used to justify usurping police powers from the States. So far, though, they have only turned back criminal Federal statutes that States traditionally regulate.
Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in US v Lopez, where he stated that he believed the Supreme Court had, over the years, strayed badly from the original intent of the Commerce Clause.
Re:"Effectively controls access" (Score:4)
--
Brain is a device (Score:2)
Re:Prohibition? (Score:2)
On the plus side, I wonder if you couldn't encode the DeCSS code into barcode format, and then just mail it to someone and have them read it in with their CueCat. Everyone in the US has one (dont they?), so it would certainly be an effective medium. Then, all you'd need to do is arange the barcodes in a 'pleasing pattern' and distribute it as Art.
Re:I am ignoring this law... (Score:2)
Such a case needs serious money to proceed, considering the deep pockets that are lined up to keep the DMCA around. It could be funded by a fairly disparate group, including the EFF and the American Libraries Assn (in fact, probably most of the groups that spoke against the DMCA would be in a position to help out).
...phil
Re:Taco, your clock is wrong (Score:2)
Though such copying is already covered by standard copyright law
They would prefer a law that allows a software like licence of movies, but they can't get one, and they know it. The DMCA is the next best thing.
It also gives software licences some legal basis. Effectivly what was a strange legal anomaly (the software licence) is slowly being extended into other areas, such as DVDs even hardware...
Re:Taco, your clock is wrong (Score:2)
Would then need to, can't they use case law arguments to have their products considered "Digital".
Re:MOD THIS UP! (Score:2)
Except in order for this kind of infiltration to have the slightest chance it would need to be by an organisation at leastas well organised as the political party bein infiltrated.
Re:Geez... (Score:2)
Except that it wasn't so long ago that "hackets" were everywhere. The idea of an off the shelf product being suitable for immediate use is a very modern one.
Re:Taco, your clock is wrong (Score:2)
If one is doing such for one's own use, and not distributing it, it cannot, by legal definition, be prejudicial.
Making a compilation tape from music or video sources, such as a party dance CD is also not prejudicial.
If it is mutilated, distorted or modified beyond recognition as the work of the author it also cannot be prejudicial.
The difference is that under the DMCA it can be held that you can't take Come Together from Abbey Road and put it onto your own mixed song CD.
Re:You just wait .... (Score:2)
For some reason this popped into my mind recently and it has been shouting out more and more in disturbing tones, especially when I see some of the idiocy that Congress and the media giants pull.
But which of then is going to decide to call themselves "Omni Consumer Products"...
Re:The DMCA isn't getting repealed anytime soon... (Score:2)
Re:Copyright owner's permission? (Score:2)
The copyright owner. See below.
1201(a)(2) says:
it then goes on about other things that people aren't allowed to do, and then defines some terms, the relevant one to this discussion being:It doesn't explicitly grant a "right" the way the Bill of Rights does, but what it does, is that it defines the verb "circumvent" as being something that can only be done "without the authority of the copyright owner." Thus 1201(a)(2) causes a situation to arise where copyright owners, through the act of granting authorization, choose what devices-that-descramble are legal and what devices-that-descramble are not legal.
DMCA doesn't really grant copyright owners a new right; it takes certain rights (the right to access, the right to provide access tools, etc) away from people (anyone who doesn't have "the authority of the copyright owner") who previously had those rights.
Nothing in the DMCA says anything about all those restrictions being any different if the copy of a work has been purchased. IMHO, a pretty good case can be made for the argument that when the copyright owner accepts money in exchange for a copy of a copyrighted work, the copyright owner implicitly grants authorization to access that work. That's just common sense. But Judge Kaplan rejected it. From the footnote on page 31 of his decision:
And amazingly, that's all he had to say about that. IMHO, this is an extremely weak point in his decision, and that's probably why he put it in small type inside a footnote.One interesting facet of the "authority of the copyright owner" is that since the DMCA is so vague about how that authority is granted, the MPAA is apparently granting it through a very complex chain of conditions. (I must use the word "apparently" because no DVD or DVD package that I have ever seen, actually explains what under conditions access is allowed.) They don't just grant it or not grant it to a person. They grant it to a person on the condition that the person plays the DVD on a player that was liscensed by one specific entity: DVDCCA. IMHO, this is the same as product-tying, and brings up anti-trust issues. How interesting that the aforementioned Judge Kaplan worked for the law firm that advised them on the anti-trust issues related to DVDs. Perhaps that's why the issue is not mentioned in Kaplan's decision?
---
Re:Fast Forward (Score:2)
No, it's not. If some studio X adds this "feature", don't buy their DVDs. If they all do it, don't buy any of their DVDs.
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.
--
Re:I am ignoring this law... (Score:2)
Re:Lets consider what copyright is... (Score:2)
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.