Slashdot Mirror

The big media companies want DRM and supported the DMCA. Now they have to break the DMCA to get around their own DRM. Please support the EFF http://www.eff.org/.

Thanks,

cesman

This is just my two cents, but I belive the music industry executives to be complete and total morons. When will they realize that people will not continue to buy your product when you're overcharging? This is basic economics. If a dairy wanted to charge $20 for a gallon of milk, do you think anyone would buy it? No. There are better ways to support the artist than buying their music. Steal the music, go to their concerts, but their t-shirts.

And here's a hint to the music industry: Collective Licensing. You will continue to be forced to lower your royalties until you reach this.
Voluntary Collective Licensing

Your time as the bully is over.

Aero

I did rtfa, and didn't see a single mention of the E.F.F. I have supported them in the past, and will again. I hope someone else will bring this to their attention. I have oft noted they don't just notice one voice.

Analysis of the USA PATRIOT act

Section I, subsection A. Paragraph 5.

Second, FISA allows a secret court to authorize U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance using each of the four basic mechanisms listed above....The secret court's role here, however, is quite limited: it is not supposed to "second-guess" the government's certifications or representations. (Unsurprisingly, the secret FISA court has only denied one application in its over twenty-year existence.)

Third party information, but the EFF is pretty much the ACLU for digital information. I've seen it other places, but don't have the links anymore.

WRONG!
See Bowers v. Baystate and Davidson & Assoc. v. Internet Gateway (the BNETD case) for court rulings finding clickwrap licenses valid and enforceable. The Slashdot meme that EULA's aren't enforceable is just plain wrong.

Reality check:

The recording industry has been repeatedly and consistently been involved in crime, including bribery, theft from artists, and murder.

The recording industry has a long history of involvement with organized crime. Example: Morris Levy, a longtime Genovese crime-family associate and recording industry "legend."

The recording industry has been repeatedly accused itself of corrupting the values of youth, and even inciting violence. But in those cases, it claims the protection of freedom of expression -- a freedom they have worked hard to deny to programers and consumers through outragous legislation and restrictive technologies.

With this record, without even getting into the lies they have spread, accusations from the recording industry have little credibilty as far as I am concerned.

What can we do? Support the EFF and the FSF.

http://www.eff.org/awards/pioneer/

Pioneer Award Winners for 2005 ..

Drazen Pantic
Media and Tech Director, NYU Center for War, Peach and the News Media

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation is planning to challenge the rule in court."
read more...

The EFF has setup a contact form here.

link from DownsizeDC.org
link from EFF

You got it all wrong. This flag has nothing to do with filtering shows that you can/can't watch. What this flag does it prevents you from copying shows. If this went into effect you couldn't tivo a show, then burn it to a dvd to take with you on a trip, or transfer shows from your tivo to your computer to watch later but free up space on your tivo. You won't able to make your own pvr out of your computer that can bypass this stuff. Turn your pc into a pvr right now and you are fine. Do the same after this flag goes into effect and it is illegal. This has nothing to do with weither or not you can watch a show, but is about what you can do with the content that you watch.

read here for more information about the flag. http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/

I hope they are using something like TOR(http://tor.eff.org/) so that they can effectively browse how and when they want.

Yes.

"Is this where the future is headed? Everyone must license every single thing they ever play, write, direct, say - whatever? Every creative work MUST have a license or it will become unusable and unsharable?"

Yes. So fight the rearguard action here (http://www.eff.org/ and subvert the new order here (http://www.creativecommons.org./

Neither is going to take more time than typing that missive did.

I'm a Finn but didn't know all of this and now that I found out I'm _very_ concerned and wish that as many people as possible become aware of this.

Read more about this issue from EFFI's site. EFFI is a non-profit organisation that defend's users and citizens of the Finnish society in the electronic frontier. It's the Finnish version of EFF. I recommend that you and your friends join EFFI. We need a strong organisation that can defend our digital rights against some media industry lobbyists and corrupt/stupid politicians.

For those who doesn't know TOR is "The second generation onionring protocol" tor.eff.org

I'm currently working on a project makeing it run properly on a linksys 54gs. Mind you, current implementations do have limitations - you can be tracked by DNS lookup, and there are several whitepapers on other types of attacks (links to papers can be found on eff site).

Good encryption or not, I'd be more worried about the recent moves of the FCC to allow law enforcement virtual wiretap access. Our freedoms have eroded enough as of late, and it is disconcerting to say the very least. Here is the relevant link from the article and from the eff

ArsTechnica's Ken "Caesar" Fisher has written a rather insightful article about just this issue. Well worth the read.

As "Caesar" stresses in his article, DRM on TiVo is nothing new. There's really no point in getting steamed at TiVo about this...they're victims of DRM just as much as their customers.

If we're going to fix this problem, we need to do it at this level...not at TiVo's level.

http://www.eff.org/IP/Linking/Kelly_v_Arriba_Soft/ 20030707_9th_revised_ruling.pdf I believe this court decision should establish a precedent that the judge will be more likely to adhere to than not. However, I really hope Google wins and the precedent is upholded. If not, the floodgates would be open to all sorts of lawsuits by content owners against search engines, and web applications.

Tor anyone? Free and random, and no need to worry about some privacy policy.

There's nothing to stop the harm as long as you run non-free software. The reason spyware, adware, and such can work is that nobody but the proprietor can inspect, share, and modify the program. This means that nobody else can distribute an improved version without the annoying or malicious parts of the program.

So, even if one runs a free software operating system and runs non-free software on top of that, one is not safe from the harm of malicious software. The solution is to run a free software OS and run nothing but free software on top of that.

As for DRM, the EFF has pointed out how DRM is already being leveraged against users. Fighting this will require more organization around the idea that one's customers don't deserve to be treated so shabbily.

Go to the website below and enter your zip code to find the contact information of your representative. Then send him/her a letter about stopping the RIAA and maybe about the desperate patent situation, too. http://www.house.gov/ And while you are at it, the EFF has provided an extremely easy way to contact your rep with this online form involving current RIAA lobbying. http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=157 Please, please fill out that simple form to help make a difference.

Unless you're directly involved in this, I think you're making assumptions. In the past, the RIAA have used John Doe Subpoenas before. http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa-v-thepeople.php

If they don't even have the name of the illegal filesharer, I doubt the have enough evidence.

Gamepark just doesn't STEAL your access to your own hardware.

"homebrew" is a red herring. other manufacturers block access to your property through legal and technical means.

arbitrary code execution = "the right to read". that's the logical conclusion.

over the next 2-3 decades, DRM/Insidious Computing will creep its way through society (it's international) and will become more and more generally accepted.

enjoy these carefree days because your children won't be able to, not without paying a per-fee for everything.

want to take a picture of the run-down Statue of Liberty? sure, that'll be 20 bucks err credits. (why print worthless money when you can have worthless electronic credits instead).

being in the Eye of the Storm, it's hard to see where you are or where you're headed.

enjoy your DRM/Insidious lifestyle... unless you keep fighting back.

in the words of John Connor " there's no fate but what we make for ourselves". if you like having these artificial restrictions, then just keep it up. if on the other hand, you are reasonable, intelligent and have a lick of sense, you'll oppose it in all its forms.

no one is even remotely going to tell you that in the coming years we'll get LESS DRM. no, it will ONLY INCREASE. that is certain unless we fight those greedy sons of bitches who want to turn back the tide of property rights to the feudal age.

the most important first step is simply being mindful of the implications. it's virtually impossible to avoid DRM/Insidious Restrictions in this modern age unless you happen to live in a cave. so for now, enjoy the gadgets/computers/music/videos you already own. to deny geeks shiny electronic things is heresy and punishable by death. but i merely ask that you keep these matters in your immediate consciousness. when you buy that next gadget/shiny thing/etc try to remember what you are owed and what you are really getting through legal and technical restrictions imposed on you by the manufacturers.

that's the first step. knowledge and education is key. so pass on some information you have gathered from online resources to your friends and family. you don't have to sell it to them, just help them become aware of the sitauation a little bit more than they are. god knows the mainstream media won't tell them why DRM and Insidious Computing are not in their benefit.

http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/

http://www.drmadness.com/

remember, ALL DRM is about preventing the owner of the property in question from exercising their rights and preventing full access to what they legally and ethically own.

By offering ebook-cracking software for sale to Americans in America, he was breaking American law[1]. That someone who was breaking American law was arrested when he came to America is not entirely surprising.

Now, I'll grant you that it's not a good law, but at the time of his arrest, selling this kind of circumvention software was a crime in the US, and offering it for sale to Americans inside America---regardless of whether that selling was over the web or not---meant that he was breaking an American law.

Sklyarov's case isn't about over-reaching jurisdiction---he was arrested in the US for breaking a US law in the US---it's about bad laws . Muddying the waters by confusing the two just helps divert attention away from (possible or real) problems due to each of these (different) phenomena.

[1] It's questionable whether Dmitry was actually in violation of any US laws, since it is claimed that he had nothing to do with the distribution of the program inside the US. Nevertheless, that is what he was arrested for and charged with, so he was indeed arrested for and charged with committing a crime (distribution of circumvention software) against US law in the US (Washington State-based server, US clients). That he may well have been innocent of those charges does not make them "overreaching their jurisdiction" any more than any other innocent man in the US being charged with a crime involves overreaching jurisdiction.

By offering ebook-cracking software for sale to Americans in America, he was breaking American law[1]. That someone who was breaking American law was arrested when he came to America is not entirely surprising.

Now, I'll grant you that it's not a good law, but at the time of his arrest, selling this kind of circumvention software was a crime in the US, and offering it for sale to Americans inside America---regardless of whether that selling was over the web or not---meant that he was breaking an American law.

Sklyarov's case isn't about over-reaching jurisdiction---he was arrested in the US for breaking a US law in the US---it's about bad laws . Muddying the waters by confusing the two just helps divert attention away from (possible or real) problems due to each of these (different) phenomena.

[1] It's questionable whether Dmitry was actually in violation of any US laws, since it is claimed that he had nothing to do with the distribution of the program inside the US. Nevertheless, that is what he was arrested for and charged with, so he was indeed arrested for and charged with committing a crime (distribution of circumvention software) against US law in the US (Washington State-based server, US clients). That he may well have been innocent of those charges does not make them "overreaching their jurisdiction" any more than any other innocent man in the US being charged with a crime involves overreaching jurisdiction.

Here is a comprehensive summary of the case at EFF's site. The coverage has obvious bias, but informative nonetheless.

...webserver hosting the information on where the telescope was pointing had the IP address of the Spanish researchers in its log files...

Another win for Tor!

HJ

Just one more good reason to bite the bullet, sit down, and build yourself a MythTV box.

There's a good walkthrough on building a MythTV box over on O'Reilly Digital Media, and another on the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

It may be very hard to stop someone who wants to blow up a train and is convinced it is the will of their God to do so. Security should be increased and anything in the power of public utilities like train stations and airports should be done to prevent terrorism.

However, I urge anyone reading to fight the erosion of their civil liberties in a so-called trade for their "security". I'm especially worried about the UK putting forward an equivalent of the PATRIOT Act because if they do, it sets a precident for all of their allies and will likely put pressure on them to do the same (which includes Canada, where I live).

I know I'm preaching to the converted here on Slashdot, but I wish there was a way I could make people see what we do: that the PATRIOT Act in the US allows the Government can monitor an individual's web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests, spy on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) without a court order, and most concerningly, allows law enforcement to issue search warrants that do not force them to tell the subject that he was searched. (Source: EFF)

The word needs to be brought out to the streets.

What you're saying is true for copyright and the GPL but not for software licenses in general.

Typical click-through software licenses limit what you can do with software. For example, reverse engineering is not allowed by most proprietary software. When you click, you are forming a contract, and these contracts do hold up in court as can be seen in the recent bnetd related decision.

So what the software vendors cannot control by copyright, they can instead control by contract, at least to the extent that a "breach of contract" civil suit is a threat to the user. For reverse engineering, for example, the liability can be quite significant, even without the kinds of statutory damages that copyright law provides for.

http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/2 0050901_decision.pdf

-- John.

You will also want to check out Cracking DES the story of our building the real DES cracker, the machine on its own that was able to crack DES in just a couple of days, demonstrating finally that DES was not secure.

We also have a page about Cracking DES

From the actual decision (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/ACRA_v_Lexmark/ACR A_v_Lexmark_9th_circuit_ruling.pdf), "The key issue here is whether Lexmark misleads consumers and engages in unfair competition when it advertises cartridges for sale at a reduced price but with restrictions on their use."

The issue here is not whether you own the cartridge. The issue is whether you can return the cartridge to a third party manufacturer. Lexmark with this program is saying "We'll give you a rebate on ink if you promise to return the cartridge only to us." (Lexmark argued before the court that they do not require that the user return the cartridge to them when it is empty, only that if they give the empty cartridge to any company, they give it to Lexmark.)

This "Prebate" license was clearly listed on the outside of the box of the reduced cost toner refills.

So the question is: can a company say "We'll give you a discount on our product if you don't go ahead and use it in this specific way."? And if so, is it "deceptive business practice" to actually attempt to enforce that agreement? Remember, shrinkwrap licenses on the outside of the box have been deemed enforceable contracts by law. You may not like this, but it has been upheld time and again, and the court, like it or not, rules based on precedent and law (no matter what the varied partisan yahoos think).

Seems a lot less draconian now doesn't it? I don't think it's a step in a good direction, necessarily, but to all the people shouting "We own nothing!!!" -- that's not what this is about. Really. Read the decision. It's only 14 pages long.

All that said, it would surprise me if this stood up to appeal (though the makeup of the SCOTUS is enough up in the air that nobody can say anything for sure right now). There is a reason why the 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country, after all. This is quite an odd restriction to be placed upon the consumer, and though I don't know CA law, it wouldn't surprise me if it was eventually considered an undue and unlawful burden and hence the contract isn't valid. However, whether or not the contract is valid, it may be upheld that Lexmark's business practices weren't deceptive, which is what's actually contended here. So we'll have to see if there's an appeal, who ends up on SCOTUS in the coming months, and where it ends up.

But it really isn't the end of the universe guys . . .

Anyway, the one-time-use is fine, you cannot remanufacture their cartridges.

The dispute arises from Lexmark's advertising of its "Prebate" program, under which it gives purchasers an upfront discount in exchange for their agreement to return the empty cartridge to Lexmark for remanufacturing ...

Please read before opening. Opening of this package or using the patented cartridge inside confirms your acceptance of the following license agreement. The patented cartridge is sold at a special price subject to a restriction that it may be used only once. Following this initial use, you agree to return the empty cartridge only to Lexmark for remanufacturing and recycling. If you don't accept these terms, return the unopened package to your point of purchase. A regular price cartridge without these terms is available

I'm not sure there's anything to see here folks. TFA doesn't mention what seems to be a crucial fact: Lexmark offers consumers a choice. They can buy the cartridge at the regular price without any restrictions on what they do with it or they can buy it at a discounted price, in return for which they agree to return the cartridge to Lexmark. The boxes are marked differently. There are "prebate" boxes, which carry a notice explaining that these cartridges are to be returned to Lexmark, and there are "regular" boxes.

It seems to me that this is perfectly fair, so long as the purchaser knows what the deal is up front. Its clear that he or she has a choice as to whether or not to accept the deal since Lexmark is offering both arrangments. You can't say that Lexmark is using monopoly power to force people to buy its products whether they like the contract or not if it explictly offers two different deals. It's possible, of course, that Lexmark or the dealers that sell its products are not up front about the two deals, but the Ninth Circuit, which is known, generally, for its "left-wing" slant and is hardly anti-consumer, didn't find evidence of that. Here's the decision Am I missing something?

you mean "prebated" as in "marked down from an unbelievably inflated price to a slightly less inflated but still way overpriced price".

Read the EFF article on it. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003951.php

About time - /. was so slow on this one, I was considering posting an article of my own.

Anyway, you can read the EFF's view here

It is possible for them to put you in music heaven to temporarily get you to go along with a sweet deal that involves strong DRM, cheap songs and a EULA that lends you back some freedoms, but then after enough people have bought into it they can just change the terms of the EULA to something really draconian at any time without even telling you that they have done it. That leaves you, the consumer, with very little leverage.

If you don't believe me that they can be so bold about it, check this article on the unfairness of EULAs to consumers. A quote from one such EULA:

[The vendor] reserves the right, at any time ... to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service... continued use of the [vendor's store] will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms...

• The difficulty of preregistering copyright if you use Linux
• The inability to travel by air in the US if you're not willing to obey laws you're not even allowed to see
• The trouble you can get into if you behave counterculturally in redneck America

Check KELLY v. ARRIBA SOFT CORP.
The court ruled that framing was copyright infringement.

IANAL, this is just how I understand it. The DMCA prohibits the act of circumventing a technological measure used by copyright owners to control access to their works (from EFF DMCA page). So basically, if the fair uses that you want require you to go through some sort of encryption (of which DRM is almost always an example), it is illegal because you have to break the DMCA to use your rights.

(Again, I am thankful I am Canadian.)

Your argument is not with ACs, it's with the EFF ...

Read and weep ...

http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/guide/

as a non karma whoring ac: read it here.

Check out the eff site to lobby your senator against something more important than the case in this story (http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=113). Boy, if all the /.'ers in the US did this it might actually make an impact...

/search/*.jpg, *.html, *.gif, *.etc...

Firefox and Opera may use a different method of file structure/ naming, but they *do* have a fundamental process and that process does not vary from system to system.

Along that line, I highly recommend reading the new EFF essay on DRM limitations in popular music services (iTunes music store, Microsoft's music store, Napster, and RealNetworks' music store). I forsee this page becoming a reference on why it is a bad idea to do business with these music stores. The license terms on the songs are sufficiently restrictive that I'll never buy anything from them, but to know that I'd have to overcome some technological hurdle to regain a sliver of the rights I have with records, tapes, and audio CDs, I'm sure to recommend to my friends that they avoid these places entirely.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has posted numerous articles concerning the subject of DRM and trusted computing which carefully and thoroughly explain to the user the promises and potential problems with these technologies. There is one article in particular which suggests "Owner Override" as a solution to the problem of policies being enforced against the owner of the computer as if the owner was an adversary. The article is linked below:

Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk

The EFF used to have a searchable subpoena database but have shut that down now because the new suits are filed against anonymous persons, who are only revealed (if I understand it correctly, IANAL) after the courts have determined that the copyright infringement did in fact take place.

The EFF used to have a searchable subpoena database but have shut that down now because the new suits are filed against anonymous persons, who are only revealed (if I understand it correctly, IANAL) after the courts have determined that the copyright infringement did in fact take place.

Makes me ashamed to be human, but... they'll be first against the wall These at least should be reasonably easy to manufacture, but seriously guys...