Slashdot Mirror
SDMI Researchers Cancel Presentation After RIAA Threat
Statement read by Edward W. Felten
Fourth International Information Hiding Workshop
Pittsburgh, PA
April 26, 2001
"On behalf of the authors of the paper "Reading Between the Lines:
Lessons from the SDMI Challenge," I am disappointed to tell you that
we will not be presenting our paper today.
Our paper was submitted via the normal academic peer-review process. The reviewers, who were chosen for their scientific reputations and credentials, enthusiastically recommended the paper for publication, due to their judgment of the paper's scientific merit.
Nevertheless, the Recording Industry Association of America, the SDMI Foundation, and the Verance Corporation threatened to bring a lawsuit if we proceeded with our presentation or the publication of our paper. Threats were made against the authors, against the conference organizers, and against their respective employers.
Litigation is costly, time-consuming, and uncertain, regardless of the merits of the other side's case. Ultimately we, the authors, reached a collective decision not to expose ourselves, our employers, and the conference organizers to litigation at this time.
We remain committed to free speech and to the value of scientific debate to our country and the world. We believe that people benefit from learning the truth about the products they are asked to buy. We will continue to fight for these values, and for the right to publish our paper.
We look forward to the day when we can present the results of our research to you, our colleagues, through the normal scientific publication process, so that you can judge our work for yourselves."
DeCSS fits that definition, for sure - download the software, and you can rip DVD's. (Disclaimer: I'm not at all agreeing that that should be illegal - I'm just saying that DeCSS is a real circumvention device.)
Yep, you're right! The compiled, executable program called 'DeCSS', when running, is an actual circumvention device. The source code, which could potentially be compiled into an executable and then potentially run, is NOT a circumvention device unless ACTUALLY COMPILED AND RUN. This is my opinion.
However some bent judge believes that those ASCII characters of DeCSS are actually circumvention devices. They're also circumvention devices when printed on a t-shirt. If I scrawl the CSS algorithim on a paper napkin, that's a circumvention device. I think that's rubbish, but perhaps you can see why the RIAA could claim a paper about their flawed challenge to be a circumvention device? They need only follow m'learned judge's thinking.
This was well played on their part. Everyone seems to have heard about how the evil RIAA is using the DMCA to block academic research. Heck, even my Mom has heard of it, and she doesn't know how to turn on a computer!
Now, we need to take the next step! Take 10 minutes and tell your Senators and Representatives how you feel about this!
You can find out who they are, and how to contact them, over at:
As usual the facts fall by the wayside. All that is taboo in public schools WRT religion is forced participation. You can't herd the entire student body into the auditorium and have "prayer hour."
The school obviously can't (and doesn't want to) stop you from praying during homeroom, or discussing religion with your friends (as long as its at an appropriate time, ie, not during math class).
Hell, at my public school, there were student run bible study groups. They were allowed to meet in unused classrooms, and there were no problems, as long as participation was 100% voluntary.
I find it rather humorous how rich white suburban kids are trying to play persecuted because they aren't allowed to force all their classmates to pray with them every morning.
Yes:
freenet:KSK@sdmi-paper.html
or
freenet:KSK@sdmi-attack.htm
Justice is dead and the law is in bed with big money, so you can either be ruled by the monied interests or kill them. How many lawyers would be willing to prosecute people for distributing DeCSS if they became walking targets? If there is any lesson to be learned from the knuckle-draggers who are opposed to anyone having an abortion, it is that threats to life and limb work. If you are not willing to fight for your rights, you have already given them up.
DMCA is not world law. Look at all the "law breakers" hosting their porn sites in the haven that is the US just to get around Saudi anti-porn laws.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791 The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) takes an uncompromising stand against censorship and for the First Amendment rights of all artists to create freely. From the nation's capital to state capitals across the country, RIAA works to stop unconstitutional action against the people who make the music of our times--and those who enjoy it.
...and this is a perfect example of the "chilling effect" that threatening litigation has in a country that doesn't provide that the losing side pay solicitor and his client full indemnity costs for the legal expenses and also punitive damages for malicious, baseless litigation.
Folks, it's time that Americans pass laws that penalize oppressive litigators - including, for repeat offenders, corporate or otherwise, needing leave of the court for bringing further motions and lawsuits.
I am a Canadian lawyer, but I wouldn't practice in California or New York State on a bet (and I have standing job offers in both places).
You get the political and legal system you deserve. Better a Canadian Supreme Court that I disagree with than a U.S. Supreme Court for sale.
Wake up, folks, it's too late when they're breaking down the door.
The saddest part is losing these freedoms to protect what is probably the least valuable, most disposable aspect of our culture: pop music. May your freedoms die so that the Spice Girls may live forever.
I realize, of course, that this is somewhat orthogonal to the other issue here, which is simply freedom of the press. As a reasonably intelligent non-lawyer, it seems obvious to me that the supreme court would find that this law and the first amendment are in direct opposition. What I can't understand is why nobody has brought one of these cases before it. And this one would be a great choice; it doesn't involve any element of evil on the part of the defendants.
In the middle of the lecture, something like this transpires (paraphrased):
"And so you see that there can be occurences when...oh, here's an occurence. My phone's ringing."
[answers his phone]
"Hello?"
"Actually, I can't talk right now. I'm sort of teaching a class."
[class laughs]
"Yeah, you can hear them laughing in the background?"
"Okay, I'll be in my office around 4."
[hangs up phone]
[to class] "That was John Markoff from the New York Times. He wants to have a chat with me."
[resumes lecture seamlessly]
Goto www.eff.org and become a member! The EFF and groups like the EFF are about the only hope we have to stop this trash...
The EU just passed a directive on copyright that is at least as draconian as the DMCA. It's very unlikely that this paper would be legal under it.
The UK hasn't passed it into local laws, but will in time. (Given that it's an EU directive, it would take much more than a noise from a few academics, penguinheads and Napatistas to derail the process.) The Reg is in the UK. Thus don't expect this paper to stick around forever.
It's not actually that simple; if you read the threat letter from the SDMI people it mainly turns on a contract issue about the clickthrough agreement that was protecting the challenge files, not the DMCA circumvention device stuff.
At the little news conference, Felten said he honestly couldn't remember whether he actually clicked through the agreement personally or not, but pointed out that there would have been no need to since the material was widely available elsewhere.
One interesting thing Felten said in the little impromptu news conference when his paper was supposed to be read was when Declan McCullagh asked him if Princeton was not willing to back him up. Felten responded that Princeton had been very supportive of him and the other authors, but that there were lots of other people involved with the paper, and he wanted to go forward in a way that exposed fewer of them and their institutions. I took this as a hint that the real problem is that one of his coauthors is from Xerox and that a corporation is less willing than a university to expose itself to a lawsuit in the name of academic freedom.
But the great crime of Nazism, or even Fascism or Stalinism, wasn't censorship. Censorship was one of the relatively incidental tools they used (frankly, Mussolini's state for a while took some pains to avoid censorship - they believed in a strong corporatist state, but they still fancied themselves as progressive and avant-garde and, for some time, encouraged continued discussion. They didn't even kill Gramsci.) The great crime of Nazism was its doctrine of ethnic superiority and its policy of genocide, of identifying entire populations as suitable for extermination or slavery. This doesn't even require censorship per se - just a critical mass of a populace willing to carry out orders (and lest you claim that it could only be a populace indoctrinated in a censorious society, I would remind you of the openness of Weimar society.)
Do I think we're all that different? I see a lot of people who are willing to compromise their nominal principles for a steady paycheck and cheaper goods.
Exploiting our completely reasonable horror of genocide to induce comparable horror of censorship may be effective, but it's intellectually dishonest.
Q. What about the cash prize offered by SDMI?
SDMI did offer a small cash prize to be split among everybody who defeated at least one of the six technologies. However, to be eligible for the prize, researchers had to sign a confidentiality agreement that prohibited any discussion of their findings with the public. The terms of the challenge also allowed researchers to publish their findings if they decided to forgo the cash prize. We decided from the beginning that we were more interested in publishing our results than accepting any share of the cash prize.
Q. Didn't the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) criminalize the study of these kinds of technologies in the United States?
Fortunately, the DMCA did not apply to this challenge, since SDMI granted explicit permission to study their technologies. We are not sure whether it would have been legal to study these technologies outside the context of this challenge. We think the DMCA, by criminalizing some kinds of study of important technologies, represents an "ignorance is bliss" approach to technological copyright enforcement, which will not work in the long run. We lobbied against certain aspects of the DMCA while it was before Congress, and we still consider it to be a seriously flawed law.
Above, we mentioned the important role of analysis in the design of security systems. The main problem with the DMCA is that it hinders this analysis, restricting it in order to provide an extra layer of legal protection for existing copyright systems. But this causes the scientific process to stagnate. Imagine a federal law making it illegal for anyone (including Consumer Reports) to purposefully cause an automobile collision. While this may be a well-intentioned attempt to stop road-rage, it also bans automobile crash-testing, ultimately leading to unsafe vehicles and the inability to learn how to make vehicles safe in general. The situation with the DMCA is analogous.
--
Q: What do you get when a Postmodernist joins the Mafia?
HOWTO get better dates on slashdot
It is almost like we are going into another dark age, where knowledge is suppressed for financial gain, and ultimately lost.
We are not "heading into another dark age," we're already there. Many have argued for a long time that the cooperation between industry and academic instututions would undermine the independence of academia, and hence our entire intellectual foundation as a society. These dire predictions were being made in the 1980s when Reagan and his cronies gutted funding for our colleges and universities.
The result has been unambiguous: colleges and universities have turned more and more to private industry for funding, sacrificing their intellectual independence in the process. This example, where Xerox may likely have played the pivotol role in caving to the RIAA, is but one obvious example of what is happening over and over again on campuses everywhere.
Couple the erosion of our foundation of intellectual freedom by making our institutions financially beholden and in some cases even intertwined with corporate entities (which are easilly pressured by threats to revinue, licensing, and/or bad publicity) with laws which criminalize intellectual activities such as reverse engineering and certain applications of cryptographic mathematics and you have, by and large, successfully gutted independent thought in your society. The rest of the dominos will fall like clockwork, when and as they offend or run counter to the goals of those who set these destructive policies.
The "cranks" were right, and the foundation of our intellectual thought, and of dissent in general, are virtually gone.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
They won't.
Until CNN, Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS, Newseek, The New York Times, et. al... publish about this all it does is expose the DMCA for what it is - "a crude weapon intended to bully and threaten" to the people that already understand this.
The fact that a lot of academics and Slashdot readers now know that the DMCA is broken won't contribute towards any significant amount of change.
First a decryptor is a circumvention device, then a program that makes a decryptor is a corcumvention device, then a paper detailing techniques that could be used to create such a program is a circumvention device.
How much further would it have to go before the RIAA declared the human brain to be a 'circumvention device'?
Everyone with an IQ above 120, please report to either the lobotomy room or the courtroom.
Kevin Fox
--
Kevin Fox
- it has already permeated the internet, and...
- the story of the RIAA's threat against academic researhers is all over the mainstream media.
Brilliant move, RIAA. What is you SDMI worth now? Where are the anti-DMCA crowd going to turn for PR, and what are they going to mention the next time we have congressional hearings or a court case involving the DMCA? And which side of the fence do you think any remaining waverers are going to come down on?--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
In addition to preventing the ever-increasing definition of "circumvention device", there's an important free speech issue at stake here. If they had pressed the issue, they could have reeled in the RIAA a bit.
-sk
This reminds me of a quote from the game Alpha Centauri. I believe Pravin Lal says is: "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he sees himself your master." Just a random observation...
Then Dr. Felten's OK, since Amazon will be suing SDMI for breach of patent on the "I Agree" button.
Reading Between the Lines: Lessons from the SDMI Challenge In HTML or mirror-able ZIP file.
---
DMCA can only be defeated in two ways:
1) Judicially neutering it, either by judicial construction of its provisions that broaden its scope to permit free discussion and disclosure of the technology, or by finding broad constructions unconstitutional absent fair use provisions; or
2) Politically, by getting the Congress to change its mind and send RIAA home without its supper.
In view of the decreasing credibility of RIAA outside its spin rooms, and increasing interest by the public in Napster and its progeny, Congressmen and Senators are beginning to publicly suggest a substantial "rethink" of its provisions.
Until recently, folks have been pooh-poohing the alleged downside of the Act, suggesting that only the pirates or collaborators are getting nicked, and this has held sway in the halls of power; and in the halls of justice. The suggestion that mere enforcement of (or threats of enforcement of) DMCA provisions doesn't chill freedom of speech or sound academic freedoms (pointing to the so-called "research exception") has been set aside in the broader interest of "protecting artist incentives."
This can no longer occur without a substantial rebuttal.
Sure, I would have far preferred Professor Felton to cock a snoot at them, fight the good fight and win in the Supreme Court a great victory for us all. (Ultimately, I believe he must prevail on the merits -- his argument is even stronger than the one Kathleen Sullivan is going to make before the Second Circuit in the DeCSS case).
But this is just as well. Good lord, a Princeton professor being squelched from delivering a pure research paper already published and readily available on the internet? This is of enormous political advantage -- it will overwhelm the spinners, and perhaps be more valuable than anything else that could happen.
This is because it makes it enormously harder for folks to hand-wave the first amendment issues, and to show how ludicrously broader the DMCA is than any sound basis for Copyright incentives can justify.
In recent years, no good has ever occurred when the legislature has tried to "catch up" IP law to the present -- every time it has reduced to a handout to the politically powerful media lobbies. The formerly powerful library lobbies were bought off with express excemptions, and the traditional academic forces and liberal civil liberties organizations have not been so effective lobbying the increasingly Republican-controlled legislatures.
Now, there is real ammunition. New, more powerful constituencies are realizing their commercial well-being is being affected by the overbearing and overreaching exploitation of these laws well beyond the bounds of reason. And traditional civil liberties organizations are begining to make more sense to the public because of the "realness" of losing Napster, and the pretty decent story that Felton would make.
What's more, by complying with the law as outrageously asserted here, Felton can NEVER be cast as a pirate. He will be a poster-child for DMCA reform far more powerful than any limited victory he could win in court -- at best just a finding that a research scientist performing crypto research falls within the crypto research suggestion. That syllogism wouldn't be as big a win as the repeal or political neutering of DMCA.
So, despite the emotional letdown I feel, this is probably a Really Good Thing.(R) RIAA probably lost more by winning than they would have by losing.
This should catch the attention of any academic researcher -- do your part to help raise awareness in the academic community! Below is a letter I sent to my math advisor:
Dr. ******,
As you could probably guess, there are many political issues about which
I have strong feelings for whatever reason, especially in the realm of
computers and cyberspace. While it is normally most appropriate to keep
these to myself, an issue has come about which I believe has a very
direct impact on you and on other professors with respect to the
academic research you regularly conduct. This is why I am writing to you
today.
In September of 2000, the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI)
announced an open contest to the computer community
(http://www.sdmi.org/pr/OL_Sept_6_2000.htm), inviting people to try and
break a watermarking scheme they had developed for digital sound files.
They challenged anyone to remove the watermark present in several audio
samples they published on their web site, without noticeably degrading
the quality of the signal. The reward was to be up to $10,000 in
exchange for non-disclosure of the solution.
A group of researchers from Princeton University led by Dr. Edward
Felten decided to take on the challenge and found several successful
methods for removing the watermark. The researchers decided against
accepting the prize money with the attached requirement that they keep
their research secret, and instead authored a paper titled _Reading
Between the Lines: Lessons from the SDMI Challenge_. It was their
intention to present it today at the 4th annual International
Information Hiding Workshop in Pittsburgh
(http://www.cert.org/IHW2001/).
However, on April 9th, they received a letter from the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA) threatening a lawsuit if they
presented the paper as planned, claiming that the contest agreement did
not "'expressly authorize' participants to disclose information and
research developed through participating in the Public challenge.
As a result, Dr. Felten made a public statement today that he and his
colleagues would not be presenting the paper as planned. "Litigation is
costly, time-consuming, and uncertain, regardless of the merits of the
other side's case," he announced. "Ultimately we, the authors, reached
a collective decision not to expose ourselves, our employers, and the
conference organizers to litigation at this time."
His statement, the letter from the RIAA threatening litigation, and the
paper itself can be viewed at (http://cryptome.org/sdmi-attack.htm).
I believe this is a frightening precedent, and a major blow to academic
freedom and the research community. Felten's crime was conducting
research that was seen as threatening by the business community--what
research will they decide they don't like next time? What can be said of
"academic freedom" when a rich company need only write threatening
letters to suppress troublesome knowledge?
If you agree that this is relevant and pertinent information, I would
appreciate it if you would forward this e-mail to any of your colleagues
who might be interested.
Sincerely,
Joshua Haberman
--
And what I think what they should do is take a page from the DeCSS proceedings and introduce the research paper itself into evidence... therefore making it public. heheh
Steve
mirror early, mirror often.
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
Folks, this is a big league PR move, and it's quite well-timed.
The oral arguments for the DeCSS case happen May 1. Given the critical decision the 2nd Circuit will be making in the next few days, the goal should be to bring the anti-DMCA sentiment to a crescendo, and Felton's action should help achieve that. By withdrawing his paper, some very negative press should be aimed at the DMCA by major news organizations.
People should keep in mind that the anti-DMCA push is very well orgainized, and that Felton has already participated in it. I have no doubt that the paper will be published in a few weeks (not counting that it has already been leaked!). Meanwhile, major media organizations have a great reason to run "The DMCA is draconian" stories soon, citing Felton's case.
The timing of this is supurb, and it's frankly a sharp tactical move. Felton will probably publish this paper in a few weeks. Hell, more people will read it because of the suspense. IMHO, he's on very sound DMCA footing as he clearly qualifies for 1201(g).
Your claim that the researchers were just helping out the RIAA has been made to the researchers many times.
From the faq:
--
-jacob
-jacob
It's one thing to attack everytime someone does something that may be used to circumvent intellectual property rights, but, come on! Threatening someone because he took up a challenge you made?
What I would like to know is this:
This being said, I am almost certain any judge reviewing this case would just throw it out. Suing the SDMI challengers is almost as stupid as suing Galileo for saying the Earth is round and not flat...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/extra/sdmi-attack.ht
Is it out on Freenet yet?
--
--
E2 IN2 IE?
I don't think this is what the founding fathers had in mind.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I have a paper done by two French dudes who hacked it. I am currently getting what I hope is a copy of the paper in question for this article.
All of this stuff, as well as the original watermarked files, can be found here.
-----
http://diddl.firehead.org/censor/hacksdmi.org/prin ceton-paper/
-----
Click-Through Agreement for the SDMI Public Challenge
This Click-Through Agreement (the "Agreement") contains the terms and conditions applicable to participation in the SDMI Public Challenge. Please read it carefully.
Who Can Participate? The SDMI Public Challenge is open to everyone except that a proponent of a particular technology (and the proponent's present and former employees) or any person who has obtained confidential information under a confidentiality agreement applicable to a particular technology may not participate in the SDMI Public Challenge for such technology.
What is being tested? There are two different types of technologies that are available for testing: (1) four different watermark technologies that are designed to detect compression and (2) two additional technologies that are designed to ensure that under certain circumstances individual tracks of an album are not admitted into an SDMI domain without the presence of the original CD.
How do you test the watermark technologies? Participants in the SDMI Public Challenge may download several samples of digital music relating to the four different watermark technologies. The terms and conditions of this Agreement apply to each such technology. For each such technology, a set of music samples -- a "triplet" of digital music - will be provided. Each triplet contains three samples of music. Two of the samples in a triplet contain the same music, where one is encoded with a digital watermark and the other is a clean, unmarked version of the same music. The third sample in the triplet is encoded with the same digital watermark, but participants will not have access to an unmarked version of the same sample. Different music samples will be provided for each technology. The goal of the participant in the SDMI Public Challenge is to determine if the watermark can be removed from the entire sample without significantly reducing the sound quality of the digital music, i.e., degrading sound quality to below that of MP3 encoding at 64 Kbps for a stereo signal or a comparative analysis using PEAQ.
How do you test the two additional technologies? In order to test the two additional technologies, you must download files from the Download Page. Along with the downloaded files, participants are provided with instructions on the goals of the SDMI Public Challenge for those technologies.
How do you know if you've succeeded in the challenge? For each technology, submit the sample file(s) demonstrating that you have successfully challenged such technology to the SDMI Foundation "oracle," at www.hackSDMI.org. You must use the original file name of the sample when you submit it to the oracle. The oracle will automatically test your submission and may contact you seeking an explanation of what you did. In order to for your challenge to be deemed successful, your submission must be reasonably capable of being reproduced. If your submission regards one of the watermark technologies and appears successful, you will be provided with additional music samples, and will be asked to reproduce the results on those additional samples.
How do you become eligible to be compensated for a successful challenge? After preliminary review of your submission, you may receive notice requesting additional information. To receive compensation for the successful challenge, you must submit your name, date of birth, contact information, step-by-step details on how you conducted the successful challenge, and any source code and/or executables that you developed to carry out the attack. You will be responsible for any applicable taxes on any compensation you may receive.
Compensation of $10,000 will be divided among the persons who submit a successful unique attack on any individual technology during the duration of the SDMI Public Challenge. In exchange for such compensation, all information you submit, and any intellectual property in such information (including source code and other executables) will become the property of the SDMI Foundation and/or the proponent of that technology. In order to receive compensation, you will be required to enter into a separate agreement, by which you will assign your rights in such intellectual property. The agreement will provide that (1) you will not be permitted to disclose any information about the details of the attack to any other party, (2) you represent and warrant that the idea for the attack is yours alone and that the attack was not devised by someone else, and (3) you authorize us to disclose that you submitted a successful challenge. If you are a minor, it will be necessary for you and your parent or guardian to sign this document, and any compensation will be paid to your parent or guardian.
You may, of course, elect not to receive compensation, in which event you will not be required to sign a separate document or assign any of your intellectual property rights, although you are still encouraged to submit details of your attack.
The SDMI Foundation will also analyze the information you have submitted in detail to determine the reproducibility of your attack. To be clear, you will be eligible for compensation for reasonably reproducible attacks only if you have not disclosed the trade secrets in your submission to anyone other than the SDMI Foundation, have assigned all your intellectual property rights in your attack to the SDMI Foundation, and have kept your submission, and all information relating to your submission, confidential. All decisions relating to the success of your challenge, the timing of your submission and all other matters pertaining to the SDMI Public Challenge shall be within the discretion of the SDMI Foundation or its designee and shall be final and binding in all respects.
What else do I need to know? By releasing encoded digital music samples for attack and other digital files, the SDMI Foundation and the technology proponents are only providing permission, under U.S. or other applicable law, to attack those particular samples and files during the duration of this SDMI Public Challenge. No permission is granted to attack or make any other use of content protected by SDMI outside of this SDMI Public Challenge. In addition, neither the SDMI Foundation, copyright owners nor the proponent of the technology being attacked, waive any rights that it or they may have under any applicable law including, without limitation, the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for any acts not expressly authorized by this Agreement. Moreover, no permission is granted to attack content encoded with any technology proponent outside of this SDMI Public Challenge. You are prohibited from reproducing, modifying, distributing, performing or making any other use of the samples other than as specifically authorized by this Agreement. A list of persons who have submitted successful attacks and received compensation therefor will be provided if you mail a self-addressed, stamped envelope to the SDMI Secretariat, c/o SAIC at 10260 Campus Point Drive, San Diego, California 92121 USA. We are not responsible for lost, incomplete or misdirected submissions. This offer is void where prohibited.
By clicking on the "I Agree" button below you agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement.
-----
Step 1: Collect RIAA Lawyers and executives
Step 2: Dress them in football and cheerleader uniforms
Step 3: Round up all the kids that wrote "me too" geek persecution stories for Jon Katz's book
Step 4: Lock them all in a small room with lots of video walls.
Step 5: Pipe footage of DOOM and ROBOCOP onto said video walls for a few hours
Step 6: Toss in the handguns and run
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
This could even go further, in my mind. It's not just that we must defend our own rights by defending someone else's. Free speech gives rise to reason. Nobody knows the full story; it is only through hearing those who disagree with you that you come to understand the flaws in your own argument, and reconcile them. Free speech, and the ability to hear those who you disagree with and disapprove of, isn't just the companion of reason; it is the origin of reason.
--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Justice is dead.
So is science, art, and practically any other advancement that we can make as a civilization. When the sheer cost of litigation even when you know that the other side has their heads up their collective asses dissuades people from engaging in "Science and the useful arts", there's nothing more to be said. It's over folks. Enjoy the plunge.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Thus, we had reason to suspect a complex echo hiding system, involving multiple time-varying echoes. It was at this point that we considered a patent search, knowing enough about the data hiding method that we could look for specific search terms, and we were pleased to discover that this particular scheme appears to be listed as an alternative embodiment in US patent number 05940135, awarded to Aris corporation, now part of Verance [5]. This provided us with little more detail than we had already discovered, but confirmed that we were on the right track, as well as providing the probable identity of the company which developed the scheme. It also spurred no small amount of discussion of the validity of Kerckhoffs's criterion, the driving principle in security that one must not rely upon the obscurity of an algorithm. This is, surely, doubly true when the algorithm is patented.
The stick has two ends to it. On one hand a corporation wants to patent technology that prohibits use/copy circumvention, on the other hand, the same patent can be used as a FAQ for an attacker to circumvent the anti-circumvention mechanism. Of-course, in this case the patent information was not used by the attackers, they only recognized it after the 'oracle' let them know they have won.
You can't handle the truth.
Wow. A paper as a circumvention device? The DMCA is just stretching things too far.
It has be said before, but really now, what will it take for the DMCA to be overturned?
Cut to: Business Street - Day
"Citizen! You are under arrest!"
"For what?"
"You are in possesion of an illegal circumvention device!"
"What the fsck are you talking about?"
"You have a manual, paper, or other printed material describing how to circumvent, illegally, copyrighted or other intellectually protected material."
"You mean this!?"
"Yes, now put the decss t-shirt down and stand away!"
Big Brother ain't got nothin' on Big Corporations.
Thank God I live in Canada
The RIAA might be able to successfully sue the researchers for circumventing the protection at all (since they didn't exactly enter the contest) but the paper itself is still legal. Even Kaplan (collective boo's, hisses) would give the paper protection.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Yeah, yeah, same thing every story, but I find it useful, so here are the links:
Write your Senator.
Write your Representative.
Remember, snail mail only-- e-mail really doesn't do shit. And include that return address everywhere, so they know you're in their district. And finally, if your state is considering other similarly draconian measures such as UCITA, write your state government as well (site at www.[two letter state code].gov).
...trying to deploy Weapons of Math Instruction!
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
--The Sphinx
IANAL either, but it seems to me that the RIAA has standing in this. The bit you quoted merely says that a researcher can in good faith circumvent an encryption method, but it does NOT grant the researcher the right to discuss those circumvention methods with her or his peers. They met all the requirements of (2)(A)-(D) when they broke the encryption. That much was legal. Presenting a paper to tell the world how they did it is not permitted under this law.
No, boys and girls, they made the right call. Its not likely that they would have prevailed in court. The RIAA's pockets are far, far deeper, and they're in a much better position to kill resistance through litigation. The battle over the DMCA must be chosen wisely, and this case just aint the grail.
Secondly, even if your university doesn't support you you should at least fight for what's right. I'm disappointed that the scientists gave up the fight without making more noise. I guess the career means more to them than the truth. Ok, unlike me they're established scientists and "can't afford" to lose their status, but still...
But still what ? If they can't afford the social damage, the stress, the time, potentially losing their jobs and especially not the price of the legal battle, what do you really expect them to do?
Why don't you become the martyr you'd like them to be? You consider all of these things to be less important than the truth, right? Crack the same codes on your own and have your results published. All of us here at Slashdot will be singing your praises while you're in court.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
This is just a new facet of an existing problem. Our freedoms have been eroded in other ways prior to this. For example, for a while it's been illegal to build a radio that can receive about 800-950MHz -- because that's where cell phones are. They recently added cordless phones freqs, too.
It's insane, if you think about it. The right combination of elementary electronic components -- just a hardful of parts that is PASSIVE when powered up -- makes you a felon in the USA.
IMHO, if EM radiation is passing through my meatspace, I've got the right to intercept it, letter of the law be damned. If privacy is important, the phone companies should be using encryption, not legislation.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
We get a friendly congressbeing to insert DeCSS, the Princeton research, and anything else being threatened by the RIAA, MPAA, CIA, NAACP, et al into the Congressional Record. Then let these groups take on the federal government if they dare. Not only will it be entertaining, it'll let the legislature find out what it's like to be on the receiving end of one of their laws. It might even get the Congress to decide what they really meant in the DMCA.
It would have been really great to see a legitimate challenge here. The issues at stake are almost identical to those in the DeCSS case, but having professors fight the good fight means a lot more to judges and the public than the free-speech claims of a few hackers.
Seriously, this is the best result anybody interested opposed to the DMCA could possibly have hoped for. It exposes the DMCA for what it is - a crude weapon intended to bully and threaten. There are very few things that could attract as much attention as the thought that purely academic research is being suppressed. Felton's letter will sqay opinions strongly against the tools used to threaten these researchers. I, for one, welcome this as the critical step in the road to seeing these laws repealed (or at least completely rewritten).
Importantly, very recently a British scientist by the name of David Healy, who had been invited to work at the University of Toronto, had the invitation rescinded because he gave a presentation critical of Prozac and its tendency to arouse suicidality in patients who were not previously suicidal. Dr. Healy stated in his presentation that Prozac may have been responsible for 1 suicide for each day it's been on the market. Eli Lilly, the manufacturer, didn't appreciate the comments, and also happens to be the single largest donor to/supporter of the University of Toronto's medical teaching center. UT officials deny that Lilly had a role in the shooing-away of Dr. Healy, as do Lilly's lawyers. Interestingly, Lilly did the same thing to Healy last year, when he sought to publish a similar article in a Hastings Center publication.
Point is, academic freedom has been sold out to PhRMA and the legal drug cartels for years. Still, I'm disappointed to see the RIAA (and other 4-letter words) getting in on the action of stealing our public knowledge/awareness/safety in the name of profits and IP. Shameful.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
As a scientist this disappoints me on two fronts.
Firstly, apparently Princeton decided not to defend their scientists. This most disappointing and signals how modern universities are dependent on the external funding.
Secondly, even if your university doesn't support you you should at least fight for what's right. I'm disappointed that the scientists gave up the fight without making more noise. I guess the career means more to them than the truth. Ok, unlike me they're established scientists and "can't afford" to lose their status, but still...
Ok. This matter is political all the way, so I might as well say this: this is what we'll all end up with if WTO gains more ground. Please remember, that his is not just a US issue.
If the challenge has been met, by these researchers, then it means it can be met again and again(the whole point of scientific process and such)
Which means any player or device that uses any of these technologies can be hacked or cracked or tampered with (or not, depending on what the research conclusions were) reliably and consistently.
Which means *not* publishing is actually fraud and lying to the various stock holders and people in charge of the music industry who may otherwise never know that they are about to pull another 'CSS'
Right?
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
This is why when someone brings a law suit against someone else and looses, they should not only compensate that person/company, but should do so 100X the costs it took to defend themselves. Then the RIAA would have to reconsider next time it was to use terrorism and its bought Senators to push researchers around. "We remain committed to free speech and to the value of scientific debate to our country and the world. We believe that people benefit from learning the truth about the products they are asked to buy. We will continue to fight for these values, and for the right to publish our paper."
I like the language he chose here: "We believe that people benefit from learning the truth about the products they are asked to buy.". This sums up the nature of the music industry as it exists today. All of the weathy labels have united to form a monolopy over artists. These artists are forced to release their copyright, or they don't get the large resources of the Labels promotional firm at thier disposal. As a result of this, these companies hold the copyrights to the majority of the popular music in the United States and work togethor, with hardware makers, to force on the public any format the RIAA wants. If they wanted to switch to an "encrypted" cd format in the next 5 years, just like MPAA did with DVD's, they could. Then when "DeCSS" for music comes out so people can encode mp3s, or listen to there "AudioDVDs" on Linux, the RIAA could sue some kid into the ground for breaking their equivalent of ROT26 encryption.
Fucking bullshit, I tell you. I no longer fear my govt, I fear the companies the Senators are giving the power too. Before you pass me off as some "Rage against the Machine" fanatic, I'm not. I'm just pissed that the RIAA has more control over the Senators and Represenatives that I voted for, that my fellow citizens and I.
I say publish the damned paper, break all of their encryptions, and take a piss on the steps of the steps to the RIAA's lawyers.
Burn Hollywood Burn
It really wasn't that long ago that scientists were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church. Some may argue that it continues to do so to this day. But back when, if you said that the Earth revolved around the Sun, you were a heretic. And, when The Church declared people to be heretics, it was fair game to go after them in the eyes of the fearful public.
Now, I have always felt that organized religion was the most effective method of mind control, with the bonus of making a profit. But, now I see that organized religion was nothing more than a precursor to the corporations that are now controlling the masses, and making huge profits. The corporations are the ones now declaring people as heretics, by calling them hackers. These same corporations dictate what science is suitable for publication using the same fear techniques the Church used: fear of persecution. Ok, this time it is lawyers instead of torture. But, I don't see that much difference, really.
My question is: Who will be the next Martin Luther?
Thanks, I'm feeling much better now.
In the world of animal experiments it's not unheard for a group to publish papers under the name of one person in the group. This person is typically paid danger money to compensate their risk from animal extremists.
Would somebody be prepared to stand up and publish papers written by somebody else to deal with the SDMI extremists? Would we be prepared to pay them danger money?
Another alternative might be to publish under a pseudonym. The Student's T-test is named after the statistician Gossett who published in the name "Student". Student worked for the Guinness brewery, but they didn't allow publication to be associated with the brewery. (The "drink guiness makes you smart" slogan didn't go down well :-)
The paper contains pseudocode-like descriptions of how to retain your rights. It's a "device" under the DMCA
That's the whole problem, if source code, a very precise and computer-centric format for describing a process is a device, translating the "device" into a less precise and more human-centric format means it's still a "device".
No, Felten makes very clear those provisions would only apply if they took the cash prize, which they politely declined. And they're not "attacking content", they're explaining watermarking schemes a second-year math undergrad would understand.
No, it makes perfect sense. The SDMI is threatening a lawsuit because their watermarking techniques were never _really_ meant to provide security. They were meant to provide the facade of security so that they can claim it "adequately" protects their music and sue the pants off anyone who tries to break it. It's all been carefully crafted. Last fall they opened their watermarking algorithms to the "hacker" community for a month to see if they could break it. 1 month. Which they thought wouldn't be enough time. Part of the _legal_ restrictions of the "contest" were that if you cracked it, you couldn't tell anyone how. Another part of the _legal_ restrictions of the contest was that trying to crack the watermarks the day after the contest ended was a violation of the DMCA. The contest was a complete success, for the SDMI anyway, and now they have proof that the watermarks are "adequate." This adds beef to their claim that the DMCA applies to their watermarks and can do what they have been wanting to do all along: sue (or threaten to) everyone and anyone who pisses them off. Say, for instance Dr. Felten
And how does the paper represent a "circumvention device"? DeCSS fits that definition, for sure - download the software, and you can rip DVD's. (Disclaimer: I'm not at all agreeing that that should be illegal - I'm just saying that DeCSS is a real circumvention device.) But there is no way to combine the paper and a piece of encrypted music and get unencrypted music out. One must first complete the non-trivial task of creating software or hardware that acts upon the knowledge in the paper - in short, the device has yet to be created (at least for widespread distribution).
Time to write my representatives again...
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
`(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF ENCRYPTION RESEARCH- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if--
(Do not sign anything.) -- Fell, Planescape: Torment
"You may, of course, elect not to receive compensation, in which event you will not be required to sign a separate document or assign any of your intellectual property rights, although you are still encouraged to submit details of your attack." They're encouraging the submission of details of a successful attack. Unfortunately they didn't say to whom they encourage it to be submitted. *mischievous grin* I'd recommend submitting it to several major news sources per the agreement.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Last week, after paying an outrageous sum of money for an ADT security system, I posted a sign outside of my house. The sign offered my DVD player to anyone who could find a way into my house.
I have come to find out that you realized I left my window open. I know you spent a long time studying my house and its security system. It is a feat to be proud of. While I understand you don't really want my DVD player and you were not attempting to steal additional items, I must ask that you do not reveal the open window to anyone else. While it may protect others from similar security flaws, revealing this could cause others to steal things from my house.
Perhaps, I should have studied the house more or asked you to look at it before I moved my belongings inside, but that is immaterial and I will sue to protect my interests
Sincerely,
Mr. Cocky-Ass-Caught-With-My-Pants-Down
This is not as hard as it may appear since most of the members are technology companies looking to hawk their technology. Those whose watermarks etc. have not been choosen are thus likely to be looking for an excuse to withdraw on principled grounds.
If an industry standards group is not going to endorse my technology then it is not exactly in my interests to continue to endorse them but resigning for that reason is going to look kind of bad. Give such folk an excuse to dis SDMI without looking bad and they will be out.
Another group that might well be detached is the second tier of device manufacturers. Sony is the only company to have tried to deliver an SDMI compliant device, an MP3 player that was a spectacular failure until the SDMI component was disabled.
The plain fact is that the record labels have not lived up to their side of the deal, they have not made their content available to download even if you do implement SDMI.
Another company that might be detachable is Microsoft. They have their own DRM package which works pretty well without the SDMI schemes. If Microsoft were to leave SDMI it would effectively be dead.
The fact is that SDMI has met none of the goals it set out to meet. The technology missed what the promoters admitted was the critical market window. We are now in the post Napster period in which the RIAA and labels are getting complacent about the net again, believing that the court case will kill Napster. The court case probably will kill Napster but the replacements will be even harder to deal with.
Having failled to come up with a secure scheme and having resorted to threats of lawsuits to supress discussion of the flaws in the scheme it is going to be very hard for SDMI to credibly claim that it will deliver a security scheme good enough to entice the labels to permit their content to be sold over the net. Without that key belief SDMI is nothing. Chiariglione would not be stepping aside as director if SDMI was coasting along to a huge success.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
A blatantly untrue statement. Or rather it is true to the extent that the creep does not claim that they did not threaten legal action, merely claiming that the threats made were unfounded. However as the Salon article points out the RIAA realized it had screwed up big time.
With the first ammendment implications of the DMCA being debated next week the last thing the RIAA needs is a proof that the act is unconstitutional and being used to chill free speech.
Proof that the RIAA and SDMI folk are not as smart as the cryptographers. Which is pretty much as expected. I mean if you are going to pick stupid fights best not choose folk whose entire mindset is attack and counter measure to six or seven degrees out.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Dear Slashdot users and moderators,
Why aren't we formally boycotting the RIAA and MPAA yet? We talk alot about legal arguements and political wrangling, but let's face it, the corporations definitely have the edge there. But as consumers, we ultimately have control over the almighty dollar. We should show them who's boss.
It's not like we don't have a reason, what with all the bullying, monopolizing, and litigation they jerk us around with. It's not like their business models aren't totally outdated. And it's not like geeks don't have influence - particularly slashdot. We're some of their biggest consumers. Make enough of a ruckus, hit 'em in the pocketbook, and they'll bend. Hell, we might even be able to take them out and give control back to the artists.
Love 'n Stuff,
cryptochrome
P.S. And just something to consider - years ago there was this big corporate squabble between VHS and Betamax. Everyone said it was stupid and expensive to have two standards, which is why a single DVD standard was settled on early. Then they split it up into 8 standards (aka "Region codes"), meaning you can't watch movies from foreign countries without a new player. Jerks.
P.P.S. And now would be a great time to hurt the film and TV industry, what with the double whammy of writers and actors strikes.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I seriously think a "Johnny Cochran" of some sort should take this case pro-bono. I know it would mean endless hours, weeks , months or even years to finally finish this case and maybe win but just think of the potential precedent here.
It would mean so much to free speech.
More here...: http://www.ramdac.org
Go see ramdac
In our legal system, where a person may be sued for any reason whatsoever, You have no hope of winning unless you can outspend your opponents. Otherwise, under a mountain of motions, you will simply lose by default.
What nonsense! As a Christian, this offends me. Christianity is not a culture, it's a religion. Many people try to label their bias and prejudice as "christianity" and defend it with the banner of religious freedom but it's all redneck asshole intolerance to me. You may come from a culture of intolerance, but don't call that "christianity". True Christianity is all about tolerance (Love your neighbor as yourself and all that).
"Creationism" is not science, it's religious belief foisted upon school boards in a cloak of psudo-science in an attempt to get around the First Amendment. Next time you want to force everyone in your community to pray to your god, think how you'd feel if someone else tried to make you pray to their god.
Finally, this (the RIAA legal threats) is nothing like the example you site. It's more like if, say, you wished to teach a class in comparitive religion and the Scientologists sued you for using their copyrighted materials. For that reason alone your post is not at all "insightful" (more like "inciteful") and should have been modded down as Flamebait.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
That's where we fundimentally differ. If I agree to this point, then I agree to all your other points. But I don't. I don't believe your culture is based upon Christianity. I do believe it is based upon someone's idea of what they think Christianity is, but it's not my idea of Christianity.
It wasn't a racial slur, it was a geographic one. My mistake; instead of 'redneck' I should have said 'cracker'.
You said "Northern schools" and then went on about how you were prevented from sharing your "culture" with your classmates because it was a "christian-based" culture. I believe you were prevented from sharing your religious beliefs with your classmates, and to me you apparantly equate proselytizing with "sharing your culture." That is what makes me think that your "culture" is one of intolerance (typically found within the "bible belt" as the earlier post put it). Consider the example of the Methodist family from Wisconsin who moved to (I believe it was) Alabama, and were called Devil Worshipers by the Baptist town. This is intolerance, and it's ingrained in their (the Baptist's) culture, but it certainly is NOT based on Christianity. Sharing this "culture" would certainly involve telling everyone else that they are damned to Hell if they don't change their evil ways and do as the majority, and your post sounded like that's what you were trying to do. If you believe that culture is "christ-based" then you may have a point, but I believe that culture is intolerance-based, and that your teachers were correct in preventing you from "sharing" it with your non-Christian classmates.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
I just send an email to the RIAA asking them to contact their congressmen to have DMCA withdrawn. Hopefully this will take care of everything.
If I read the paper and have the knowledge it contains, does that make ME an illegal circumvention device?
What a great way to publicise the findings of this paper. Without the threat of legal action, its presentation would probably have been largely unnoticed outside its field.
Now that free speech is involved however...
When will large organisations learn that trying to suppress information just leads to its wider distribution?