Slashdot Mirror
RIAA, DMCA, EFF, And So Forth
twrayinma writes: "According to this article in Salon, Prof. Felten may have been smarter than we thought yesterday when he "allowed himself to be bullied" by the DMCA wielding RIAA. 2600 and the EFF could use this incident as an example of a big company using DMCA to quash legitimate research, as their court case alleges. Looks like Prof. Felten's fight may not be over yet..." Carl Kaplan's Cyber Law column in the NY Times also discusses the case.
Tuesday May 1 2001
Second Circuit Courthouse
10:00 AM
Courtroom 506
40 Centre St., at Foley Square, Manhattan
Thanks to LXNY for the information.
While I'm at it, I should mention that the appeal hearing in the 2600 case will be this Tuesday in New York City. I do not know if a "protest" of any sort is planned; judges aren't supposed to decide cases based on protests anyway. But the case may be of interest to many NY-area readers:
Tuesday May 1 2001
Second Circuit Courthouse
10:00 AM
Courtroom 506
40 Centre St., at Foley Square, Manhattan
Thanks to LXNY for the information.
The US Supreme Court ruled in 1886 that corporations are "natural persons" entitled to the same constitutional protection as any citizen.
Here's a link on the history of corporations in the US.
For a couple days, nothing was getting moderated-- there were articles with 3/300 posts scored 3 or over. I think the system screwed up and assigned way too few moderators for a while. Now, it's catching up with all the backlog. Really odd.
<irony>
Hence we have the much maligned second amendment in order to defend the other amendments.
</irony>
Just shows how wrong we can be, don't it?
Anyway, as I'm sure everyone else is saying now, it is sure more impressive, if arguing that some parts of the DMCA constitute effective restraint of free speech, to have an actual example of such restraint. Certainly I would expect that to be more effective; possibly it would be also be useful as grounds for filing such a suit.
But I didn't actually say any of that in these hallowed halls, and now I find my superficial thoughts being scooped [sic] by, uhm, whoever it was. Such is the lack of fame and fortune in the post-DotCom world.
If the DMCA is not used to stifle academic research on cryptography then it is worthless. Nobody who has supported this law could be so naive as to think otherwise. There is a serious issue underneath all of this. With so much vital information protected by crypto, what are the ethics of providing skeleton keys to the general public that may be used to open up private medical records, or manipulate bank transactions, or tamper with electronic markets? There will always be a lag time between publishing the attack and implementing a method of repelling the attack. Do we just accept "digital anarchy" to accompany the latest news from the academy? Should the researchers provide their information to some authority before providing it to the general public? There are some conflicts of legitimate rights and interests here.
Let's see... I have a Diamond Rio... 64MB.. Palm 5 4MB(?)... Laptop... 10GB and potential 802.11.....
Hmmm shouldn't it be the Exabyte sneaker net? or would it be a Petabyte??
is it Peta or Pita as in the bread...
Ok I go crawl back under my rock now....
---- Fight to protect your right to keep and arm bears! ummmm... ya I think that's right....
From vegetables?? huh?? ok I'm lost.. or am i just dense... :-)
---- Fight to protect your right to keep and arm bears! ummmm... ya I think that's right....
Wait hold on... let me look up hacker...
)
/n./
(http://www.jargon.8hz.com/jargon_23.html#SEC30
hacker
[originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value. 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations. 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is cracker.
Now I know we all know what the term means... but let's consider this... What is hacking at one of it's most basic terms. EDUCATION! When you hack something u're learning about it. So by default when trying to stifle hackers u're also stifiling professors, students, engineers, ah hell... just about anyone interested in maning something better!
Ya I agree... they are going to claim big huge losses... OH MY! My problem is PROVE IT!
When mp3s were first available for download, what did I do... I downloaded... and then I purchased more CD's! my CD collection exploded when I first started to download stuff... why, I wanted to hear the rest of what they have. In other words, they made money from my downloading MP3s! What made me stop buying CD's... lack of money and Shoutcast... It had exactly the music I wanted, which normaly is only found on vynl.
---- Fight to protect your right to keep and arm bears! ummmm... ya I think that's right....
2600's case has already been ruled on. They're now appealing on the grounds that the law is bad. More evidence that the law is bad can be used in their appeal. On the surface Felten's paper doesn't have much immediate connection with DeCSS, but at the appeals level it does.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Because you've posted to the thread, all your moderations are undone.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Yes, both researchers are dangerous to their flawed IP. Of course, we only know the most about the academic researchers because they publish. We don't know how many non-public researchers had earlier cracked the coding, whether for their own amusement or so they could make uncoded copies. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Maybe it will be as sucessful as the Million Mom March... they almost got ten thousand people...
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
The RIAA doesn't worry about public opinion - the make it! After all, who made Steve Gutenberg a star... oh, wait.... that was the Stonecutters...
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
And now that the RIAA's gone public stating they "never intended to sue," he can publish right after the trial.
I would just politely tell them to go F*** themselves. I got something similar from a company and told them this. That was 6 months ago and no response yet.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
...especially when the local authorities either don't give a damn, or condone it, or even participate. Then you *know* there's a very, very big problem.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
People for Eating Tasty Animals (PETA)
yup, they do actually exist.
What you should do is find some independent musicians (not signed with any RIAA member) and get them to go down there and demand to be heard -- make it quite clear that one effect of the RIAA's demands is to make distribution of _competing_ music more difficult, and the court should not allow itself to become a instrument of monopoly...
That's what a protest is you idiot.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
And if you were to show up, you'd be the only zero among all those bits.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I'd appreciate a link. I (obviously) must be using the wrong search terms over at google.
CSG_Surferdude
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
The RIAA has nothing to do with this (as far as I know)..
-Jon
this is my sig.
The professor could put the documents on a computer that is a part of the greater university network and can be accessed from outside. He could then get a sympathetic computer science or information technology student to "hack" his computer, get the data and release it "against his will."
RIAA, did you say that you did not intend to bring legal action? Oh, this was just an intimidation letter?
..."
Intimidation? Perish the thought. The SDMI would never sue the professor. The SDMI is Professor Felten's friend. They just wanted to warn him about the possible consequences of foolish behavior. "Sure, you could publish that paper but, y'know, bad things can happen to people
I would expect a professor in his position to be smarter than most of us reading slashdot.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
I wasn't trying to be funny this is serious stuff.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Actually, it is even worse than that. It is like Dennis Rodman taking a fall in a Bulls-Pistons game resulting on a foul being called on Patrick Ewing in a Knicks-Celtics game.
Felton is not the issue in the 2600 case. The court is not going to rule on 2600's problem based on whatever is going on with Felton.
Thank you for knowing more than I do and sharing it. I hope more people read your post.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
The President swears to defend the Constitution when he takes office, and I would call the violation of the Constitution through treaty treasonous. I think your bit with the monarchy makes it pretty clear that the framers didn't intend for a treaty to match the Constitution in power.
-Dave
Hilary Rosen: "I hate this damn DMCA thing! Who made it?? Who supports it?? Let's sue them!!!"
Advisor: "Umm, ma'am, we do..."
Hilary Rosen: "WWWHAT!?"
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
I thought the correct terminology was "RGB Tan".
Enigma
Enigma
I can think of cases where RGB would not apply - monochrome dumb terminals, grayscale monitors, etc. Of course, I can also think of cases where CRT would not apply - LCD panels for example.
Blank tapes...Sorry :)
No you were right the first time. Blank tapes are bland.
-----------
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Yes I have the right to own my intelectual property, limited by copyright. Which means that for a set period I can derive profit from my stuff or assign that profit to another entity. However that entity can only excercise the power I choose to give them, they don't have rights.
Now this power can be quite a force (especally when implemented into law), but I would contend that when this power is used to remove a persons real rights it should be curtailed. This is an instance of that abuse of granted power to stifle competition and limit personal RIGHTS. Legitimacy is a legal fiction. It does not mean they have any power other than what we give them, and certanly not any inherant powers.
"I'm just here to regulate funkyness." - James Gandolfini, as Winston in The Mexican
This is great! Just yesterday as many Slashdotters were lamenting the fact that without a trumped-up court case this irrational legal bullying won't get any mainstream attention, along come the good folks at 2600 and the EFF to answer the call. With NY Times coverage no less! Spread the word to all who will listen.
From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc
Let's see in what way we can publicize DMCA in a way non slashdot-freedom-advocates can understand. Their multitude of voices can silence this if they look up from their TV's long enough.
Or better yet, find a case where the DMCA comes back to bite the [RI|MP]AA on the a$$.
e.g.; If Micro$oft had known ahead of time that the UCITA would cause them to lose an entire state's worth of business (see Micro$oft Passport not offered to Maryland residents), they pro'lly wouldn't have supported it in the first place.
Make the [RI|MP]AA regret they supported the DMCA, and it'll get overturned Really F*cking Quick.
Thus sprach DrQu+xum.
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
Does any Slashdotter want to draft a well written and researched form letter? Perhaps one where all you need to do is fill in your relevant regional and personal information (state, representatives name, one's own name). I believe this would strongly facilitate a movement towards legislative action. Plus it would make it easier for lazy people/people with no time, like myself.
No surge protector will protect my surge. - Commodore64
> Maybe you misunderstand the nature of rights. Rights
...but I would contend that when this power is used to
> are not something that can be granted (as with a law)
> rights are intrinsic to a person.
I muct compare this to your statement further:
> Legitimacy is a legal fiction. It does not mean they
> have any power other than what we give them, and certanly
> not any inherant powers.
To these I can only say that rights (as you've described them) are also a legal fiction. If you believe that rights are inherent to each person, you're in agreement with the Founding Fathers, but they also realized that without the force of law behind these rights they're meaningless. If you think that's not true, try living for a while in China, or Singapore, or Libya. The Bill of Rights is a codicil to the Constitution, which is at its heart a legal document designed to put the force of law behind what the FF considered basic rights, and also prevent future lawmakers from taking them away again. Therefore, rights, as we're discussing them in a legal sense, can (and are) granted in a legal sense by the Bill of Rights.
> Yes I have the right to own my intelectual property,
> limited by copyright. Which means that for a set period I can
> derive profit from my stuff or assign that profit to another
> entity. However that entity can only excercise the power I
> choose to give them, they don't have rights.
By definition, if you assign your rights to a corporation, then by law that corporation has your rights by proxy, so your statement is both legally and conceptually incorrect.
>
> remove a persons real rights it should be curtailed. This
> is an instance of that abuse of granted power to stifle competition
> and limit personal RIGHTS.
Where exactly do you get the idea that you have the rights to someone else's intellectual property just because they chose to assign those rights to a corporate entity? In the RIAA example we're using, your statement is tantamount to saying that because an artist chose to assign his rights to a record company, you now have the right to acquire that music by any means you choose, with or without payment to the record company, because you don't think the record company has rights in and of itself. Even if that were true (and legally it isn't), you're just transferring the theft to a different target. If you were right, you're still in the wrong, since even if the record company doesn't have intrinsic rights, they're exercising the artist's rights by proxy, and by your violation you're stealing from the artist. Sorry, but you still lose.
Virg
Um, the parent post is moderated up to +5.
Now get back under your bridge.
Virg
> Companies have no rights - people do!
You're new in town, aren't you? In the U.S., corporations are legal entities, just like people, with some very notable exceptions (like the inability to incarcerate a corporation). This rule of law was established to limit the liability of the owners of corporations, which was seen as a way to stimulate business. Therefore, before the law, companies (as long as they're incorporated) do indeed have rights, just like individuals. They can hold patents, own property (including intellectual property) and enter into contracts just like regular people. As to your request, that part of the Constitution/Bill of Rights that gives you rights also gives a corporation rights. It's the "corporations are entities" part that's to be found elsewhere.
Virg
The idea here is that an artificial "right"- that of business to make money at the expense of consumers and competetion has been perpetuated on the people of the world by business intrests. It's time we dispelled that myth. Companies have no rights - people do! Actually as "US citizens" we don't have rights either, we have priviliges granted to us by "A Corporation Massarading as the US Federal Goverment" The devil is in the details. The US goverement can apply laws to us only because we have volenteered to be "US Citizens". The constitition only allows them to make laws for persons in the district of Columbia and other Federal lands NOT state's. But by volenteering to be a US citizen you have placed yourself in Federal Juristiction. You are a corporate intity that's why the federal goverment can make law that govern you. Give up your "US Citizenship" and keep your natural born citizenship and you no longer are granted rights you have them as a birth right. Puts a little monkey in the legal system if you demand that they prove(the federal goverment) has jurastiction over you. Maybe what we need is a common law tool kit for citizens to demand thier rights with, instead of defending the priviledges of our corporate alter ego.
I agree that unknown faces in the crowd are unlikely to be taken seriously. However, there are people like Prince who are good top charts sellers that managed to create their own record label, once they were freed from their first recording contract. When it comes to Prince, he even changed his stage name to The Artist and painted the word "slave" on his face, for a few years, precisely because he found out that his record company owned the rights to the stage name Prince, not him. Musicians like him will definitely be heard if they demand to present their opinion in court.
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
What we actually need is not a nation of martyrs OR a nation of revolutionaries. What we need is a bunch of martyrs FOR the revolutionaries to point at and fight for. Example: Martin Luther King--martyr. Malcolm X--revolutionary. The first wave always has to be peaceful and get the shit kicked out of them. Then the angry second wave has something to be genuinely angry about, which gets the social change made.
[insert witty sig here]
But, with blank cd-r and cd-rw media and a cd-rw drive, I can create perfect copies of cd's. I don't even have to buy the cd's in the first place, I could theorically ;) just copy all my friends cd's.
Just when the RIAA thought they had control of the world .... LOL .
Not that the RIAA has worried about public opinion before
* Carthago Delenda Est *
It's called MONEY. And lots of it.
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
"Please point out to me where the Constitution or the Bill of Rights (You've heard of these right?) gives MIcro$oft and Time-Warner AOL or any other company/corporation any rights? "
You don't know too much about law, do you? A Company is a juridical person in all western countries. They have the same rights you have. No more, no less (except for a few exceptions but basically that is the case).
"The idea here is that an artificial "right"- that of business to make money at the expense of consumers and competition has been perpetuated on the people of the world by business intrests. "
What are you talking about? What right to make money? Companies definitely have NO right to make money written in law. They have the same rights you do. They have a right to own property, just like you. They have a right to sell whatever they produce, just like you. They have the right to stop theft of their property, just like you do.
"It's time we dispelled that myth. Companies have no rights - people do! "
Hmmm... Do you _really_ think it would be a good thing is this was the case (it isn't)? Trade and competition between companies (witch of cause require that they can own and sell stuff) has given us great wealth in this part of the world compared to the parts of the world where everybody owned everything (communist countries). You don't think that this is a good thing?
Remember that copyright law that gives big-corp rights over things they have developed also gives YOU rights over things you developed.
"The idea behind copyright is that every work of art or science is based on other works which have come before, and that nothing exists in a vacuumm and we need that freedom to expand and grow as a world. Personaly I see Napster and others as a tool for protecting my fair use rights. Rights which the RIAA/MPAA are trying to take away by using bought and paid for legslation like the DMCA as a club. "
What? I don't follow you here, what do you mean? What they have a right to do, and should do is protecting their property. So far, so good. They have, however, no right to attack somebody they have encouraged to crack their system and then did so. This is a totally different thing!
"Insightful"
?! Who mods a post that has incorrect statements as insightful??
Yes, and that may become a problem for content providers in the future. I'm all for fair use but stealing peoples work is not fair use.
Well, good points but I don't agree with your conclusion.
They are indeed threatened by the medium, no question about it. They had no possibilities to go after bland tapes, that's the reason they didn't. Don't believe artists didn't loose money on bland tapes, they certainly did. It was however, some hassle with copying tapes so music sold anyway (but a little less).
The problem with the internet and sharing is the size of it. If everyone gets fast connection and the quality increases (mp3 destroys the song to much) artists and everybody else working with music will not be compensated. It IS reasonable that people get paid for their work.
I believe the DMCA was adopted because of the scope of threat sharing on the internet is to peoples property, work and trading in general.
I would guess most people (including me) think that the artists get a to small share of the slice. The record companies takes too much.
But this doesn't mean that no compensation AT ALL (napster etc) is a good alternative for artists, it is far worse.
Blank tapes...Sorry :)
My knowledge of the WIPO treaty is limited but I do know that it is supposed to cover fair use and only squash copyright infringement for profit. The one point you fail to see is, freedom of speech is a constitutional right, the WIPO is a treaty, we can cancel any treaty we deam fit. (Anti ballistic missle treaty with russia we signed in the 70's? it's goin down). I'm not suggesting the WIPO will be canceled I'm just stating the hierarchy of which rules and laws have presidence. Now how things are *supposed* to be and how they play out are two different things, we're supposed to have our rights and they should win out. Because of trade agreements and the almighty dollar some rights are going to get trampled *BUT* my point still is Constitution beats out treaty. That's what makes us a sovereign nation.
Beware blue cats moving at
ok maybe I'm stupid (ok I am) but........ bah?
Beware blue cats moving at
Very much like when Ben Kenobi (Obi Wan) stopped fighting and let Darth Vader kill him with the light sabre. Same exact situation really...
Sure Felten could probably contest the issue, but you neglect the fact that he: 1 - is a valued faculty who not only teaches but is better off doing research than wasting time in court battles 2 - if somehow Felten loses it might be bad for him and Princeton 3 - it would not be only Felten, but anyone else involved in the workshop (including the organizers who had nothing to do with the publishing/cracking but are guilty because they sponsored the workshop) So he did the right thing by backing out and not making life miserable for others with whom he associates.
yeah, the porn idustry has larry flint, where is the educational sectors fat, rude loud mouth in a wheelchair?!!
Actually i would call it extortion.
"RIAA crushes scientific research in Ivy League academia"
The best part is, the USA _does_ have a sort of class system- ask any preppie, ask Dubya's dad. You don't mess with the Ivy League colleges that have produced a disproportionate number of Washington bigshots. You'd have to mess with USC to make deadlier, more-organised enemies- and frankly, the Ivy League plays better in Peoria. Say the names 'Princeton-Harvard-Yale-etc' and an awful lot of people will just kowtow automatically- and say 'RIAA is doing damage to Princeton's academic freedom!' and the same people will bristle, even if they don't fully understand the details.
And the RIAA _did_ try to damage Princeton's academic freedom. They can't weasel out of this, courts don't put much stock in 'we didn't really mean it, honest'. The RIAA _did_ treat Princeton academia as a target to beat into submission. It's on record and public knowledge- and they succeeded, so it's easy for them to say they didn't mean it, now that they got what they wanted.
If you want to use this situation to best advantage, lean on the class angle- that it wasn't some punk in a dingy room surviving on Jolt, but an Ivy League College that was _successfully_ beaten into submission. People would like to think the poshest colleges of the USA are still ivory towers, and threatening and dominating these institutions is REALLY bad PR.
Both the DMCA and the EU copyright directive go above and beyond the requirements set forth in the WIPO treaties. The WCT and WPPT are actually quite sensible.
The companies didn't buy the WIPO treaty. They bought the Green and White paper on the NII.
Buy Jessica Litman's "Digital Copyright" for the whole story.
European? Join Eurorights.org to fight the EU copyright directive.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Was it from the RIAA? If so I'd write back asking whether this was one of the times when they were really threatening to sue or whether this is one of their strange little jokes like the threats sent to Professor Felten that they now say they didn't mean. Maybe suggest they add smilies or something to the fake threats, to avoid confusion.
to fight the DMCA.
Seriously, if an Ivy League school with a billion dollar endowment and thousands of crackshot lawyer alumni won't stand up to the RIAA, what chance does EFF have?
Or maybe Princeton has too many alumni making big bucks from the RIAA?
An online reference can be found near the bottom of page 53 of the document : http://www.nku.edu/~phi/v15.pdf
This same reasoning would not apply to a case where you did not have a prior contract. The logic that renders click through licencing agreements meaningless in a case of already purchased software may not be applicable to a case where where you are clicking through agreements on a web site as part fo the process of establishing a contract.
Does anyone out there have the expertese to settle this question?
Adrian
The Constitution does give the United States the power to enter into treaties, and when the US does so, it is not a matter of the treaty powers negating the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment is no obstacle to powers that are, in fact, delegated to the US.
Nothing about this suggests that the treaty powers of the US are a threat, in any way, to the First Amendment.
Adrian
And now, the chipping-away can begin.
--
This is not my sandwich.
Is New Jersey a UCITA state? If it isn't, then is SDMI's click through licence worth even the electrons that displayed it? I thought click-throughs weren't enforceable (except under UCITA)?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I don't know, but I've gotten moderator access twice in the last 24 hours. Perhaps there's just too many points floating around right now.
________________________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
Perhaps the monarchy idea was extreme. ;-)
However, a FindLaw article (read "Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power") suggests that in international issues, such as migratory birds, the treaty power might be strong enough to overwhelm the Tenth Amendment. And language used by Holmes in one ruling suggested a controversy over exact interpretation...
If the Government chooses to argue a compelling interest in international cooperation over computer crime or even easily-duplicated IP, the same logic may perhaps suffice.
To my knowledge, no President or Congressman has been raked over the legal coals solely for breaking his oath, although many have pushed blatantly unconstitutional acts (provisions of the Communications Decency Act, provisions of the Violence against Women act, calling for banning flags via law (rather than amendment)...). Not yet, anyway.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Prof. Felten: martyr in the fight against corporatism VS. creativity. Rock on, professor.
I think I know what they were trying to do. Like Macrovision, SDMI wanted to patent the ways to remove their watermarking system so that anyone who tried to could be sued for patent infringement, among other things. That's why they wanted the "winners" to sign over their rights to the solution. But, alas, they didn't expect someone to solve their puzzle and not want a shot at the money. And now, Professor Felton and company have a prior art that can bust any patent SDMI can come up with. These are the same patent games we've seen from Rambus and others.
Even better than a letter, find out when your congresspeople will be in their home office and go pay them a visit. Bring some props that have examples of source code and explain to them, in great detail yet understandable to them, why the DMCA is a bad law and how it impacts your freedom.
Indeed, sign-weilding protestors rarely evoke change. In another thread, Ghandi's name was dropped. What Ghandi did to effect change in India was to highlight the British abuses and "goad" them into committing even worse atrocities. Of course, since we're all just pussies here, we'll whine on Slashdot, but I doubt if we'll see anyone risking their life standing in front of a gun or going on a hunger strike.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Same here. Just got 5 points, and I hadn't even finished burning the last set all the way.
Weird.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
... now come free inside each specially-marked box of Froot Loops.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Perhaps the participants in the 2600 case should look to the famous recent cases in export controls on encryption. In both cases, the Justice Department tried to suppress software on the basis that it was not a form of speech, but something functional. The courts went back and forth, but have ruled in both cases that the software is speech and is protected by the First Amendment. Can an argument like this be made against the DMCA concerning DeCSS code? It's whachya say, not wachya do.
However, in this case, the RIAA sent him a letter strongly suggesting that they'd take legal action if he continued, whatever they're now trying to say. As far as I can see, that's like someone being pushed.
Oh Please!
Protests didn't work in the 60's?
Everything that was done in the name of protest did NOT work in the 60's but SOME protests certainly did!
Maybe saying we stopped a war in the 60's is TOO MUCH to claim but the protests certainly made the country aware of the reality of that war. To say that protest was NOT a huge part of addressing the injustice of segragation is just wrong!
The American People rose up and said "this is wrong"! Protest in the news, the streets and even within their own homes drove them to the voters booth and changed the awareness of an entire nation.
Were the protests of the 60's all clean, neat and tidy? No! They sure worked tho and a Nation began a long overdue change that continues today!
The way an old hippy sees it is all government will do things their own way until such time as a large, highly visable and vocal portion of the governed rear up and demand change!
In the last 40 years we have become more inclined to bow to the current pc (don't make waves) and less inclined to put it all on the line and say " hell no! we won't go "!
Frankly! I'm proud to say....those of us who were there stood up and were counted. As a result....we helped stopped a vicious and useless war.
ah! the internet!! we may still screw up the world but NEVER again will we be able to claim IGNORANCE
"Trust, but verify" was our motto, and the Soviet's.
The greater the secrecy of the nuclear deployment, the greater the instability, the greater the risk. While I would not call either side's deployments particularly "open", penetrating radars make silos hard to hide. Likewise, mobilizing forces and changing DEFCON status is not easy to do in secret, and is usually safer to do publicly.
One can be more relaxed if one is somewhat confident that one's enemy is relaxed.
When the HackSDMI materials were first posted, the "click-through" button on the contract was just an image hyperlinked to another page. A lot of us noticed this and never clicked through-- we just cut and pasted the link to get to the download page. So how does SDMI even know that Felten "signed" any agreement at all? But I suppose the fact that one ABSOLUTELY, EXPLICITLY DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT would be dismissed as a technicality by a court... *sigh*
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
Ah. The old corporate-types-can't-understand-any-mindset-but-g reed trick.
Explains a lot, really...
/Brian
-A negative tan, that is to say that the melanin levels in the skin are actualy depleted by lack of exposure to natural light.
RGB= Rotten Grey Bubbly Tan
-One step beyond a CRT tan, the depleted melanin has been replace by lead, mercury and other heavy metals off-gasing from computer hardware. This condition is only possible on a diet of cheezies and Jolt.
LCD= Liquid Caffeine Discharge Tan
-This tan is caused by a combination lack of light and lack of sleep. Caffeine levels in the skin cause a visible sizzling when exposed to sunlight. -aka the 'road-warriors tan'.
EMF= Electric Mind-funk Tan
-A temporary condition caused by a combination of the above tans & High levels of Electro-Magnetic radiation (Quake III on an overclocked AMD box)-The surface of the brain darkens and causes the subject to believe that they R001 the W0r1d. Woot woot.
air and light and time and space
They can keep suing, and encrypting, but we'll just keep cracking...why don't they understand this. Its a stupid conversation to even be having, we will always win, because everytime they release new protection crap we will just release new cracking crap.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Question: How many laws have been created for the little guy but has been corrupted and bought out so only big corporations may benefit from them? Answer: ALL OF THEM
I mailed my congresmen a copy of the US Constitution (after being fed through a paper shredder) along with a very brief letter stating that this is exactly what the DMCA has done.
I hope that got the point across...
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
The idea here is that an artificial "right"- that of business to make money at the expense of consumers and competetion has been perpetuated on the people of the world by business intrests. It's time we dispelled that myth. Companies have no rights - people do!
The idea behind copyright is that every work of art or science is based on other works which have come before, and that nothing exists in a vacuumm and we need that freedom to expand and grow as a world. Personaly I see Napster and others as a tool for protecting my fair use rights. Rights which the RIAA/MPAA are trying to take away by using bought and paid for legslation like the DMCA as a club.
"I'm just here to regulate funkyness." - James Gandolfini, as Winston in The Mexican
I think it's PETAbyte, but you can only get that from vegetables.
Pull my finger for my public key.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
People don't realize it, but the 10th is by far the MOST important of the Bill of Rights!
It basically states that the Feds don't have any power that the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY GIVE IT isnt' theirs.
The power to pass the DMCA, which not only infringes many other Constitutional rights, but extends the copyright/patent provisions in the Constitution, would seem to be DENIED to the Congress by Amendment X...
But, the 10th Amendment has ceased to have any meaning since 1933, when FDR became our first "king" and ruled for 12 years. Want an example? Prior to 1933, the Feds passed an AMENDMENT to outlaw alchohol sales (prohibtition). After 1933, they felt no inclination to do the same to outlaw drugs and give power to law enforcement thugs to conduct a "drug war" against Americans. EVERY federal "drug war" statute is just that, a STATUTORY law. The 10th Amendment would seem to deny that power, wouldn't it? Maybe they could ban the interstate SALE of drugs (under the "interstate and foreign commerce clause") but not the sale WITHIN states!
How did that happen? FDR was able to pack all levels of the court system with people who would back his schemes. He was able to accomplish this because he decided to play king instead of obey Washington's precedent of serving only TWO terms!
And so the "modern" Federal government deals with the Constitution as a "technicality" (they call it a "living document" which is stupid... Law that can be individually and legally "interpreted" is NOT law, it's opinion) than as absolute law. The Constitution itself when read is pretty plain in what it means.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
BTW, the RIAA seem to now be aware that they have put themselves in jeopardy on that point by this statement (from the Salon article:)
... The Recording Industry Association of America, one of the founding members of SDMI, strongly believes in academic freedom and freedom of speech."
"The Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation (SDMI) does not -- nor did it ever -- intend to bring any legal action against Professor Felten or his co-authors. We sent the letter because we felt an obligation to the watermark licensees who had voluntarily submitted their valuable inventions to SDMI for testing
Probably too little too late, as the RIAA has already created an injury by sending the letters in the first place, which were the SOLE cause for Felten to withdraw his paper...
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
It is sad that in the USA, the level of justice you receive in the legal system more depends on WHO you are rather than the merits...
Which is why the RIAA jumped all over 2600, because they could be spun by a willing media as "eevil hackers".
That technique of slander and destroy won't work against a Princeton Pofessor like Felten.
The USA has, unfortunately, become more and more of a "democracy" since 1933, which is the worst form of government imaginable. The mob gets what they want. But he who controls the mob gets what HE wants. The RIAA/MPAA, because they basically ARE the media, thru the intertwining mecacorp ownership that exists these days, largely get their way with the mob because they have the ability to saturate.
However, even Joe-blow-I-didn't-finish-High-School has respect for an Ivy League universtity, as you said. In other words, Felten's status and his case are so compelling to the average American, that HE, not the RIAA, will conrol the mob in the event of confrontation.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
it strikes me as strange.
the copyright laws were partly done to ensure the sharing of informations.
it allows protection for a limited time to the author of a work, in exchange for something for society: an access to some new artisanal process, like a new foundry tech', which wouldn't be lost for the future. It allowed for some rights of partial copy, like for academic or critical (the right to copy extracts..), and there, i've said it all.
You have property rights, which garanties your rights to property.
you have free speech rights, which garanties your right to speak.
you have copyright, which garanties your right to copy.
i had a sig, once..
Sounds like the good Professor has read Gordon R. Dickson's *Tactics of Mistake*. Cool.
Too shallow of an analysis. The US isn't fully WIPO-compliant in areas of copyright that have nothing to do with the DMCA, such as in the denial of moral rights protection. (Not that I'm arguing that we should have such protection - if I want to use a Terry Brooks novel for its best purpose... as toilet tissue... then I ought to be free to do that!)
Yesterday I was upset that he just layed down and bit the RIAA's pillow, but one does have to realize that in order to show to the world just how mean, bad, and abusive a person, or group actualy is one must tease that person or group to draw it/them out.
I applaude this gentelman for his well thoughout plan.
good show!!
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
If you're really fed up, do something about it.
Write your Congressmen.
For all of the highly-moderated comments here, your Congressional representatives do not read Slashdot. They do read your letters. (But not necessarily your email.)
Look up your House Representative at www.house.gov/writerep/ and your Senators at www.senate.gov. Write a letter, and address a copy to each of representatives.
Be clear, concise, and non-technical. Explain how the DMCA affects average citizens and consumers. Use examples from mainstream news sources to back up your argument. Keep it down to a page.
The ACLU has more tips for writing effective letters to your Congressmen.
Unless you write your representatives, you are one of the ones who stood by and did nothing.
check this bs out
repeat after me, again and again until you get it right.
Infringement != Theft
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
But, this whole "Constitution vs. treaties" issue is one that seems to pop up with some regularity, whenever constitutional issues are discussed on
So, with that in mind, here is Mr. Justice Black, writing for the Court, from the Reid case mentioned before (footnotes removed):
FWIW, Missouri v. Holland is the migratory birds case mentioned in another post...
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
--
Releasing a document that describes cyptography does NOT expose the work in any way.
The cryptography was broken without any initial monetary input, nor was it broken with internal documentation.
It is quite easy to design a protection system that fully documented is unbreakable. The fact is the techniques described in the paper were developed 50 years ago. Most likely the RIAA got ripped off by their own staff.
All the RIAA has is an implementation not even an invention. The problem at hand is the invention in itself practically.
On another note, why aren't we using puzzle based schemes like Ralph Merkle's instead of this ages old pissing contest of big numbers and weird theories?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Nothing a corporation says or does really exists. If a RIAA lackey shot Professor Felton in the head, a spokesperson would have no qualms about standing up the next day and saying;
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Therefore, any disclosure of information that would allow the defeat of those technologies would violate both the spirit and the terms of the Click-Through Agreement (the "Agreement"). In addition, any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DCMA").
The initial claim is violation of the "click-thru" license. These guys may be able to back-track by claiming that that was the main point of the letter. The DMCA second claim may stand based on the phrase "good faith:" if you violate the click-thru to get the datasets, you can't be acting in good faith.
Sad, but I think the RIAA will be able to weasel their way out of this one.
hi Ole, I was going to mod you up to 5 but the /. mod sys is busted.
So here's your final point, verbal style..
sparky
Yes, that's a valid point to raise. But now you're talking about practical politics, rather than philosophy. My post was an attempt to frame the question philosophically. That's important, but frankly relatively easy to do. Bringing the reality of the situation into line with the theory is a much harder problem, and I don't have any answers for you. Sorry. :(
come on, our democracy pretty much works and it works historically better than any other system ever created...
This is pretty much true. Historical perspective is a great treatment for despair over the state of the world. However, I feel (as I believe you do) that better still isn't good enough. As I see it, we (humans) are doing better than we ever have before in history. However, we also have vastly more power now than we ever did before, which equates to an ability to screw things up on a grander scale than ever before (or, possibly, to achieve a near-Eden, if we do it right). I think human civilization is balanced on a razor's edge: if we fall off one side, we will be destroyed by war and/or ecological collapse; fall off the other side, and we descend into tyranny (with the same ultimate consequence; for all that our environmental record in this country is bad, the record of totalitarian states is much, much worse). If we walk the edge successfully, we may achieve a new, healthier and (hopefully) more stable state as a species.
Good luck to us.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
The Civil Rights Act had less to do with activists protesting (activists are generally looked upon as a fringe element), and more to do with innocent non-activists being killed, maimed, raped, or exploded because of the color of their skin. It's hard to argue that there is no problem when little girls are killed in church basements because a group of racists decided to blow up the building.
There are many forms of research that are unpublishable. But generally, you have to agree to those restrictions in contract ahead of time. If you don't agree, you don't get the money to do the research. There are exceptions to this rule, wherein you can be kept from publishing scientific research without prior agreement, but I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know enough about what they are to comment. But most of these types of research are only done under high security at government installations by government employees who have agreed in their employment contracts to not discuss the work and have been given security clearances that carry severe criminal penalties for violation.
If it came to a court battle over this, the contract angle would likely be the point the SDMI folks push: that the research group agreed to the "click through" contract. If anyone of the group agreed to it, they are probably all bound by it, because the agreer would have an obligation to his collaborators to reveal his contractual bonds. And the argument that "they didn't accept the money so they aren't bound" may not hold up: you can freely release the other party from any contractual obligation, but that doesn't free you from your obligations. Again, I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't read all of the contract and I don't know how Felten et.al. obtained the files, so I'm just blowing smoke....
As an expert in applied cryptography and hardware security systems, I am greatly concerned by the tactics used by the SDMI and the RIAA concerning the Princeton research paper. It is quite clear to me that even if SDMI used conventional cryptographic algorithms, there would still have been an attempt to stifle the academic research, under the pretense of it being a "copyright circumvention device prohibited by the DMCA".
This type of action would certainly cause me to think twice about publishing security issues, even if it was only vaguely related to copy protection schemes. Since I deal with banking level security, these actions may ultimately effect the safety of your personal bank accounts. This is not an exaggeration, as I have already discovered and help correct two severe flaws in smartcard wallet protocols (VisaCash used in the Atlanta Olympics and EMV used by several million users in Europe).
This prior restraint may be (and probably is) exactly what the RIAA, MPAA, and SDMI want; but it is unconstitutional and should be illegal. I will be informing my local congressional representatives and appropriate congressional committee members of the impact toward my profession.
Man, upon reading the article associated with this story, I have to admit, I got quite a chuckle... It's good to see someone being just as sneaky and underhanded as the RIAA for once... but this time the sneakiness and underhandedness is getting aimed against the RIAA and the DMCA. I hope to god the courts can look past 2600's media image as a "hax0r crax0r" organization, and listen closely to what they, and other free-speech advocates are saying.
As a historian of modern Russia, Stalinism is one of the first things that comes to my mind when I hear about organizations trying to stifle free speech... *especially* academic free speech. While in no way am I comparing the United States government to that of Stalin, we have to be oh-so-careful... because in the future, such comparisons might not only be appropriate, but they might be outlawed...
Kudos to Prof. Felten, 2600, the EFF, and all others who're fighting this kind of drivel. If you haven't already, write your representative.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
Did you actually READ the article? It said:
We need a Million Geek March to protest this stuff!
Also to be billed as the world's first megabit sneakernet.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Nothing is greater than scrutiny by the media. Let's face it... more people will actually try to understand Prof. Felten's research now that it has a certain aura of prohibition around it. The RIAA is doing a great service to all of us by drawing attention to themselves constantly.
I think the RIAA was right about napster and some other cases, it was more than anything else a tool for theft. Not just individuals and the public has rights, businesses has rights to.
On the other end they must recognise that the public and individuals also has rights if they are going to be able to get some sympathy at all. I think they fail to do so over and over again with this kind of clearly misdirected attacks, if you tell people to hack something you can't bitch on them for doing so.
Dig in. ;)
--
--
This sig intentionally left blank
Statement by Matthew Oppenheim on Professor Felten
The Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation (SDMI) does not - nor did it ever - intend to bring any legal action against Professor Felten or his co-authors. We sent the letter because we felt an obligation to the watermark licensees who had voluntarily submitted their valuable inventions to SDMI for testing.
For the record, the Recording Industry Association of America, one of the founding members of SDMI, strongly believes in academic freedom and Freedom of Speech. This issue, however, is about the competing interests of scientists - those of the watermark technology companies that have invented new technologies and those of Professor Felton who seeks to describe how to circumvent those technologies. To that end, we have encouraged Professor Felten and the technology companies to resolve this matter. We leave it in their hands to do so.
Further questions should be directed to Verance at 858-677-6522
The RIAA, the same RIAA who lately has been under investigation of both the Federal Trade Commission and Congress for price fixing CD prices and for marketing violent lyrics and images to children (after promising Congress they'd clean up their act "We don't need laws...we can self regulate") now is using the DCMA to stifle legimate academic freedom of speech. It seems to me at least that they want it both ways. They want the government to protect THEM from the rest of the world, while at the same time they feel thet the rest of the world doesn't deserve protection from THEIR nasty tactics! What I can't understand is why Congress and the courts are so blind to their hypocracy. Is Hilary Rosen THAT good in bed?????
But media attention to a case where the law is enforced, even it its morally the wrong thing to do, CAN have an impact on Congress changing the law.
The best example in the last 10 years was the Credit Union law. Credit Unions were expanding beyond their "common ground" in order to survive if their original common group was lost for whatever reason. The banks sued, won the case and all appeals to just shy of the Supreme Court...
...Then congress and Clinton, under major lobbying and petition efforts by the Credit Unions and their members, passed a law that pretty much gave the Credit Unions the right to exist as they have been, ending the case right on the spot.
--
You know, you gotta get up real early if you want to get outta bed... (Groucho Marx)
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
No, no. You should have quoted the whole paragraph, to wit:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis mine)
It seems clear that treaties were intended to supersede STATE laws and constitutions - as they should, otherwise you have 50 separate foreign policies. But they do not supersede, and cannot supersede the Federal Constitution. See Reid v. Covert 354 US 1 (1957), for example...
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Thanks to the Felten fiasco, the EFF and 2600 Magazine have a new weapon in their legal arguments against the loathed copyright law: The RIAA has now, in effect, used the DMCA to stifle academic research. As Roger Parloff and Charles Mann pointed out in Inside.com, even the authors of the DMCA didn't intend for this to happen.
The point of the DMCA, in the eyes of those who authored it, is not just to stifle hackers, but also to prevent academic research. Academic research is, after all, absolutely as dangerous to their property as Captain Crunch doing the same work. They aren't going to care one whit whether the research that millions of script kiddies are benefitting from was done at Princeton or the food court at the local mall. The fact is, they are still owned. And by their logic the monetary losses start at that moment.
I'm sure they'll explain that in detail in court.
--
Poliglut
I trust that you, like myself, have given money to the EFF and the ACLU (to name a few worthy organizations). (Note that I find it somewhat ironic that the ACLU once gave Hillary Rosen an award, but I digress...)
If you haven't then everything you say is nothing more than posturing. It it very easy to talk big and to tell these people to stand up for themselves, but not so easy to do so when faced with the RIAA's thundering herd of lawyers.
A legal battle against a major corporation is almost guaranteed to be very costly, and while paying US$50k to a team of lawers may be a pittance to BigCorp (especially when protecting a business interest), most private citizens do not have anywhere near that kind of capital to spend on a lawsuit that they have nothing to gain from (financially).
Groups like the EFF and the ACLU help to level the playing field by leveraging the social goodwill (and their associated dollars) of millions. They help provide for the defense of those who otherwise would have to go without. But there is no guarantee that they can help you (or even that you'll win) and you're still spending time dealing with the case (the lawyers get paid for every hour they're in there but you, as the defendant, probably don't). So even fighting may not get you anywhere...
So give money. If you already have, then I applaud you. If not, then perhaps you should think about the practical implementations of your noble goals.
Of course, if you're too young or broke to give, that I understand as well....
-- "I am disrespectful to dirt. Can you not see that I am serious!"
Protests and marches and songs are all very colorful, but for guaranteed action, all you need to do is see that someone personally humiliates the future President of the United States.
I did not make this up. Put aside the "official" history books and go read the history of Lyndon Johnson.
Several radio stations have been contacted. Also dmcasucks.org asks you to Honk Your Horn at 10 am. Even if you're in your driveway.
Finally part of the proceeds from the book "DMCA go to the EFF.
The relevant link is here:DMCA by Marcia K Wilbur
The book has gone from a 372,000 give or take 100 sales rating to 61,840 since December 2000. No. 2 bestseller right behind Jessica Litman's Digital Copyright.
If you need a discussion about the topic, openlaw.org's dvd-discuss list, slashdot archives in the Your Rights Online topic, and Jessica Litman's book do a pretty good job.
If you want to know how we got here and what's at stake, DMCA includes comments questions and answers as well as a copy of the DMCA, former President Clinton's comments on the DMCA as he signed it, and a history of copyright law.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
To use a basketball analogy, Salon seems to think that Felten falling down will convince the referee to call his opponent for a foul. Refs fall for that, sometimes. I'm not sure a judge, who has more time to deliberate, will do so. But just in case, let me add this:
"I have cures for war, plague, pestilence, even psoriasis. Too bad the world will never have them. I must withhold them all because the details of those cures (when XORed with a certain bit string) happen to describe a decryption device which is prohibited by the DMCA."
It seems like /. has given everyone mod privs, or maybe a super-moderator is going around marking the first 20 posts to every thread as a permanent 5.
What gives?
I am not a lawyer.
So the Prof's statement yesterday turns out to be a magnificent troll on his part, sparking emotions and discussion. /applaud
---
.. Regardless of the merits of a courtday protest, if you want to be there, you should go at 10:00 am, not on your lunch break. Unlike the court dates before, this one consists of a 20 minute argument from the 2600 side, and a 30 minute argument from the other side - It'll be over quick.
The 'other side' gets more time because there are two of them - MPAA gets 20 minutes, US government gets 10 minutes.
This info comes from the 2600 radio show Off the Hook.
air and light and time and space
..Its just that, well, that'd be outside right? like in the sun? Its hard to see my monitor in the sun..
How 'bout if I just send email? I'd hate to mess up my CRT tan..
air and light and time and space
My apologies for not remembering exact case reference but I believe I came across that info while going through Cornell's most exellent Supreme Court Collection.
Enjoy. -CZ
There's a wonderful essay by Harvey Reid, on business practices in the recording industry, which has shaped my opinion on many of these issues. It is now a bit old and may be slightly out of date at this point, but it's a good read. ASCAP & BMI -- Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?
-- CTH
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
The world would never have cared much about the condition of India if Gandhi hadn't drawn out the wrath of the oppressors and goaded them to commit atrocities, thus generating tons of bad press for them.
Think about it. When in human history have the people moved to crush a large corporation or nation? Only when they finally have appalling evidence thrust under their noses of its crimes.
Let's see in what way we can publicize DMCA in a way non slashdot-freedom-advocates can understand. Their multitude of voices can silence this if they look up from their TV's long enough.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
No, the protests did do some good things. I believe the Civil Rights Acts were the result of protests by Civil Rights Activists and organized protests.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
Yesterday, I was rather dissapointed to read the story and had already fixed the researchers in my mind as having 'knuckled under' and ready to debase themselves in favor of the RIAA and their megabucks. When I read the story today, I realized that the system *does* work for those who know how to use and abuse it. I think it's still quite a tossup as to wether anything will actually come of this, but it's nice to see that the bowing down on the part of the researcher was a tactic and nothing more. Keep fighting the good fight, guys!
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
"See, the RIAA doesn't even have to go to court to be effective. It just has to threaten. And, last I checked, threatening legal action is perfectly legal pretty much everywhere. The RIAA knows that the mere threat of legal action is enough to shut most everyone up."
That is actually NOT true! It's NOT legal to threaten legal action for the purposes of intimidating people from doing legal things. And there is over 200 years of case law and precedent supporting the right of Felten to publish his research. But then, there were also specific exemptions within the DMCA itself that would allow DeCSS for it's intended purpose, but that didn't stop the lawless "judge" Kaplan...
Intimidation and threat of the use of of frivilous legal action as a weapon to deprive someone of their civil rights is legally NO DIFFERENT from writing a note that says "publish that and we will have your legs broken"
Remember, the DMCA is an untested STATUTORY law that largely conflicts with CONSTITUTIONAL law. It wasn't tested because Kaplan refused to test it (it wouldn't have been in his former and future? clients best interest). Somewhere down the line it WILL be tested, and at the very least, it will be weakened considerably, if not outright rejected.
The RIAA's threats at Professor Felten (and his backing down) are proof that when they passed the DMCA, Congress ESTABLISHED a law "abridging free speech".
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
I had a profoundly strong feeling that this was the case. How often does someone of such stature, education, and wisdom just bow down immediately when challenged in this way, particularly when they are being bullied into failing to share information and educate the public? The word that came to mind was "martyr." :)
Well, the RIAA wanted to be able to control information...let's see how they like what happens when they get what they want
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
I'm not blaming anyone outside of the U.S., since no one is forcing our government to sign these treaties. I may have been unclear as to who is doing what in my earlier post, but I understand perfectly well that many of these things are heavily influenced by our own government. That's what I was talking about when I referred to government agencies doing this to get powers they can't normally get. What I mean is that they do this because it's easier to get the Senate to ratify a treaty than for a bill to go through Congress. Then, once the treaty is ratified, its proponents will use it as a rationale for passing whatever pieces of legislation they can cook up. But don't hold everyone but us Americans blameless for everything. The latest stir over the cybercrime treaty involves European nations lobbying for a ban on racist speech, something that's clearly unconstitutional here in the U.S. but part of the laws in other countries. As I said earlier, that's fine for them, and there's nothing wrong with harmonizing laws across national boundaries, but this can only be taken so far. And FWIW, the post was not intended as flamebait for whoever modded it as such. Treaties are treated as sacred things in many instances, things that we must do whatever it takes to live up to, no matter how much it turns our stomachs to do so, and the people who draft them know this. Perhaps that outlook should change. If a treaty turns out to have bad consequences for us as a nation, then it should get dumped just like a bad law.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Don't organize a protest, it will just make you look like wackoes infuriated because your channels for stealing music are being restricted. Protests did not work in the 60's and they won't now. What you should do is find some independent musicians (not signed with any RIAA member) and get them to go down there and demand to be heard -- make it quite clear that one effect of the RIAA's demands is to make distribution of _competing_ music more difficult, and the court should not allow itself to become an instrument of monopoly...
Actually, I was under the impression that using threats of legal force (without the intent of filing) as a scare tactic can be construed as barratary, which is an actionable offense.
Of course, IANAL and I don't know all of the legal nuances involved, but I do know that running around threatening legal action just to shut people up isn't always a good idea if you do decide to make good on one of your threats.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
I like that the Salon article presents a different view of this case, but I believe this is more 'wound-licking' on the side of free speech. If there is an industry that has more than enough resources to avoid the simple formality of appearing "anti-academic", it is the entertainment industry.
More likely than not, the RIAA (if even presented with this at all) will trumpet the unpublished paper as a victory for the DMCA. The DMCA in this case has been used to protect corporate interest/intellectual property. So a professor got bullied, who cares if entertainment is so vital to the economy? Such rhetoric is what really matters in these situations. Money will always win over free speech.
As a disclaimer, I am a musician that gives away all of my merchandise freely. That includings CDs, tapes, clothing, and anything else we do. We record, manage, and distribute our work and performances. Interested? mp3.com/leftunsaid and freespeech.org/leftunsaid.
I would like nothing more than the collapse of huge industry trade groups, but we must realize that nothing short of convincing the masses that the system they are used to is wrong will fix things. Etertainment existed centuries before people charged for it, but its strange to think that in this day and age. Thanks.
SDMI and the RIAA were hoping to prevent the professor from publishing legitimate research by invoking the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. At first glance, they succeeded.
The article then goes on to explain how the RIAA, who managed to scare our crypto friends away from publishing their work, is actually its own worst enemy, since its strongarm tactics show how little it cares for anything but its own bottom line. Evidently the hope is that, if the RIAA looks bad enough, the courts and legislatures will realize how lousy they are and how prone the DMCA is to corporate abuse, and take action against them.
Folks, we are not going to win this one simply by hoping the RIAA and DMCA will look so bad to the courts and lawmakers that they'll get thrown out. The RIAA is an association of businesses, and businesses have entire departments devoted to smokescreening tactics like this. The Salon article shows this plainly:
On Thursday, Oppenheim [the RIAA VP of business and legal affairs] released a backpedaling statement: "The Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation (SDMI) does not -- nor did it ever -- intend to bring any legal action against Professor Felten or his co-authors. We sent the letter because we felt an obligation to the watermark licensees who had voluntarily submitted their valuable inventions to SDMI for testing ... The Recording Industry Association of America, one of the founding members of SDMI, strongly believes in academic freedom and freedom of speech."
See, the RIAA doesn't even have to go to court to be effective. It just has to threaten. And, last I checked, threatening legal action is perfectly legal pretty much everywhere. The RIAA knows that the mere threat of legal action is enough to shut most everyone up. What we need are people that refuse to cave, people that will see the matter through to court or speak before our legislatures.
We need to take away the RIAA's ability to threaten. We can't do this ethically by refusing to give them access to our courts -- everyone should be given the right to sue, even frivolously, since the risk of people being denied access to our justice system is too great otherwise -- but we can do it by taking away their favorite tools (DMCA, dishonest licensing schemes, &c). Folding in the hopes that you can make the bully look bad is a losing strategy.
"Ohh look, There is a rabbit! Ill shoot it! (Bang)
;)
OOPS sorry that was my foot..."
I was wondering how long it would be before they shot them selves in the foot with it..
Sometimes the court system works like it's supposed to. Sometimes it doesn't. This Supreme Court has made LOTS of 5-4 decisions, and it's hard to say which way it will go on any given case.
That's why we have to make this a legislative issue RIGHT NOW, before the law gets any older, before people become even more complacent with its effects.
WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN!Take an hour or two to draft a one-page letter (not an email) to your House Representative and your Senators. Present the fair use and free speech issues clearly and as concisely as you possibly can. Be as non-technical as possible. Use examples from the news where this law has affected real people (other than music pirates). Include copies of relevent articles from mainstream publications like The New York Times. And proofread your letter, then let a friend proofread your letter.
As has been noted on Slashdot before, you can look up contact information for Senators by state at http://www.senate.gov/ and for House members by state at http://www.house.gov/writerep/.
on today's Morning Edition.
Are there any types of research which are recognised (by statute of law or legal precedent) to not be legitimately publishable, for whatever reasons (national security, public endangerment, or whatever)? Any categories which are automatically classified or whose distribution is restricted by law? If so, the RIAA could claim that as a precedent. After all, their argument is, the future of the U.S. economy depends on the DMCA.
Only problem is that the RIAA gestapo will get smarter. they won't leave any bodies like they did in this case.
actually, the more I look at it, the RIAA looks more and more like organized crime... you pay to become members, they take your rights, and you have to give them a percentage of your profits for their protection. then if you break ranks they punish you. and in-order to keep everyone in line they bully and make threats, and do assinations (character assinations that is)
and our government supports this......
exactly why am I a law abiding citizen again?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I made similar observations yesterday when we first got the news. I feel more strongly today that this was the correct solution.
I disagree strongly with those who expressed disappointment with Felton's decision. While it is certainly true that Felton's case is awesomely strong if he were sued, both from the heart and on the merits, and that it would be a joy to see a DMCA anti-circumvention case with a highly sympathetic defendant, little would be gained. There are enormous constitutional issues here, and significant Copyright policy questions.
Had Felton continued, he would likely have argued: (1) there is a crypto research savings clause; (2) there are other defective issues with the plaintiff's case; and (3) even if there weren't, the first amendment would preclude the issue. 1 and 2 are close to drop dead wins for Felton in this case, and for that reason, the Courts will never, ever, ever reach the constitutional question. The most likely result is that the defendants would have prevailed, with the useless judicial precedent holding that the crypto research exception is an exception for crypto research.
Felton's case isn't a good test case, precisely because its a really, really good case. But by falling on his sword and LOSING a case he is likely to win, he does two enormously important things:
(1) Earns FOR FREE political capital for the anti-DMCA movement, providing opportunities for the handfull of Congressmen and Senators already leaning that way, and providing extraordinary lobbying fodder;
(2) Earns FOR FREE excellent coverage that Kathleen Sullivan can use to her benefit in the DeCSS hearings.
As a wonderful side benefit, the spin is amazingly beneficial.
No, RIAA, quite like past Republican Congressional majorities, has been its own worst enemy. By not knowing when to stop and regroup, it has set the stage to steal defeat from the jaws of victory. Even people who are rooting for RIAA principles, indeed, even strong IP advocates such as myself, have turned 180 degrees against them. They have taken, taken, taken and gained advantages they didn't deserve. Now, the pigs will pay for their avarice.
It depends on how you interpret Article VI, paragraph II, of the US Constitution.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...
One can probably make a very good case that this puts treaties on an equal footing as the Constitution itself -- IOW, if a treaty requires replacing our current system with a hereditary monarchy and the Senate was demented enough to ratify, then that might be perfectly legal.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The DMCA is the US's implementing language of the WIPO treaty. If the DMCA were to be ruled unconstitutional by the Court, congress would be under treaty obligation to draft another piece of legislation doing exactly the same thing. I've heard many people talk about the companies that bought the DMCA, but it's been a long time since I heard someone correct them: Those companies bought the WIPO treaty, and got the DMCA as an added option.
Ideology breeds Hypocrisy. Just how much is up to you.
Just because the Salon article says this is a victory for free speech doesn't mean that it is. We have no assurances of how this is going to affect the May 1st court date for 2600 and salon most definately doesn't constitute a legal opinion! We shouldn't be so blind as to happily walk along believing that when our rights are trampled that this is a good thing! What are we, Lemmings?
I don't want to post the whole cease and desist, but i'll post the thing about the DMCA.. This is bassicly Live365.com saying they don't want my streamripper program to h4x0r them...
Millennium Copyright Act
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") prohibits the circumvention of "a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." 17 U.S.C. * 1201(a)(1)(A). As previously noted, Live365.com has designed its web site and related software to ensure that the streaming music it provides on its Internet radio stations complies with the provisions pertaining to the statutory license to publicly perform sound recordings under the Copyright Act. In so doing, Live365.com has taken precautions to preclude users from recording or storing transmissions of its Internet broadcasts. The player software designed to be used with Live365.com does not permit recording and, in fact, is designed to prevent it.
In contravention of this precaution, you have created software which enables users to store these broadcasts. This has circumvented a "technological measure" which "effectively controls access" to copyrighted works. See RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., No. C99-2070P, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1889, at *18-19 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2000). Such manipulation of Live365's protective measures constitutes a violation of the provisions of the DMCA.
They also have like 8 other law they say i'm in violation of.. I just mailed the ACLU, maybe I should try the EFF as well? I can't really afford a lawyer...
-Jon
this is my sig.
The Court has historically gone a long way in this direction where technical information is involved. The Progressive case, regarding disclosure of how H-bombs work, was decided in favor of free speech, despite heavy objections by the U.S. Government that publishing the trick that makes H-bombs work was dangerous. And this was despite "born secret" legislation regarding non-government discovery of nuclear secrets.
This could lead to some very interesting litigation. It might even lead to many of the provisions of the DMCA being declared unconstitutional.
I won't argue for a moment that most of the usage on Napster was legal under current laws. However, the real issue regarding copyright and IP is larger than "what is the law now?". The proper question is "what should the law be?". When circumstances change such that the cost of enforcing a particular law (whatever its merits under previous circumstances) includes the destruction of fair use rights, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, and freedom of speech, is the old law still good law?
If it becomes necessary to create a police state in order to enforce a particular law effectively, then there is a problem with that law.
This line of logic also applies to the issues of internet censorship and the drug war.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
What I don't get about this Hack SDMI thing...
Why is it that corporate types are not clued into the following facts:
a) Geeks, given an opportunity such as this, are generally not inclined to obey instructions to "Do our dirty work and then fall in line, you subversive m0?#3rp#uK3r$", and in fact are just as likely to take you up on your challenge without telling you, and
b) academic stuff really tends to be better done in the open (a blind spot shared with many, many government types over the millennia).
I guess it's a bit naive of me to wonder about this, but it really hurts to get myself into a frame of mind so blinded that I can't see the logic in cutting off other's access to maintain an edge. (After all, I would think the dubious success of Mutually Assured Destruction would be enough to convince even the most hawkishly secretive politician that secrets are more trouble than they're worth, but this is a terribly weird and tasteless example...)
And I do sometimes wonder whether it ever occurs to the entertainment-industry types that you can hit a point of diminishing returns when it comes to money vs. control. But they obviously haven't learned the Divx lesson, have they?
/Brian
This is another example of how laws that are too broad/vague have an annoying side effect of suppressing innovation (to coin a M$ buzzword). You'll see in this section of DMCA that if things went to court the researchers could probably provail without even invoking the constitutionality of DMCA:
In this case, there is a clause buried deep in the law that seems to allow the researchers to publish, but because the initial sections of the law are so broad it's easy to start an expensive lawsuit even if the company might loose in the long run. Also in this case, the phrase "Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2)" in 1201(g)(4) above is open to interpretation, and it is in section (a)(2) at the beginning of the law that is very broad.
The what the heck is this...? The letter sent to Professor Felten (mirrored on http://cryptome.org/sdmi-attack.htm) states:
and...
and...
RIAA, did you say that you did not intend to bring legal action? Oh, this was just an intimidation letter? I see.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Under the premise of the DMCA, the RIAA is wrong for going after Napster the way it did. Why do I say this? The answer is quite simple: Analog.
The fact that music has now and always will be obtained without compensating the artist is nothing new to music. The simple fact that the RIAA has never attempted to forclose the companies which manufacutre blank casettes or dual casette tape players should be evidience enough that the real issue with the RIAA isn't the fact the artists aren't being compensated as they would like you to believe. The true heart of the issue is the fact that they are threatened by the availabilty of the Medium
The RIAA has ALWAYS screwed it's artists over. They don't care about the artists, and I pity the morons like Ulrich in Metallica who think the RIAA is trying to protect them by closing Napster: THEY DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOU!
The fact there will always be a medium to copy music illegaly is something that can not be avoided. The fact that the RIAA isn't getting a cut of the profit for itself from Napster is the real point. Let me brighten the extremely dim bulb of any musical artist who reads this:
If the RIAA could make a profit off of Napster, the would keep every penny for the record companies and not pay you, the artist, a cent more.
I applaud the professor in this instance because he's proving that the DMCA is in actuality inhibiting free speech because it puts power to control digital medium strickly in the hands of corporations when the medium should be free to all.
"Every computer Crashes, cause Every OS Sucks.. Everything since Apple/DOS..Just a bunch of crap"
This has really started to piss me off. In the NYTimes Cyberlaw article, Kaplan (no relation, I assume) mostly does a decent job of covering the basic facts and issues, and is surprisingly evenhanded in most respects, eschewing the blatant MPAA/RIAA toadying we've seen in other mainstream coverage of this case. (As a defense witness, I was one of the bit-part players in the original trial; I testified in front of Kaplan regarding networking technology to refute some of Shameless^WShamos's bullshit. The coverage at the time almost uniformly painted the defense as Evil HaXor D00dz; it was really exasperating trying to explain to my family why I was helping them.)
The NYtimes article, quoting some pozzer of a professor at U. of Richmond, says in part:
"You don't have a fair use right to view an HBO televised fight and make a copy of it[...]Similarly, a movie theater can restrict access by charging admission -- even charging a movie critic"
This is such an obvious bait-and-switch it makes my stomach churn that the reporter didn't call him on it! A movie showing in a theater is not "published". You haven't bought a copy of it, you've bought a ticket to go and see it. Copyright law doesn't apply! An HBO televised fight is technically the same thing -- you're paying HBO "admission" to see it, although in this case it's a little murky because they are transmitting a copy to your TV. But neither of these are analogous to something like a DVD, where you've purchased a copy of the work fixed in a tangible medium!
Grrr...
Need a UNIX/Linux/network guru in the Boulde