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 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.
Or maybe there are other entities involved such as Xerox which don't have as great an interest in academic freedom as does a university. It not just Felton who is the author of this paper.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
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.
Problem with this is, they won't just sue Princeton - they'll sue Felten personally as well as his grad students who worked on it who I'm SURE wouldn't have been able to handle the cost, though the ACLU would most likely have picked them up.
Felten is probably covered personally -- here in Florida, the university will provide legal aid to any professor who's sued as a result of their professional efforts. I dunno about grad students, but I'd be suprised if the university didn't cover 'em, given that they were working on directed research.
--
"200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
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?
If the DMCA is not used to stifle academic research on cryptography then it is worthless.... What are the ethics of providing skeleton keys to the general public...? Should the researchers provide their information to some authority before providing it to the general public? -- AC
OK, I'll bite. I won't dispute your point that there are legitimate conflicts -- if there were only one reasonable side to the argument, the discussion wouldn't have continued this long.
But I must be sceptical about the idea of protecting public and private data via a war-on-crypto, analogous to our wildly successful war-on-drugs. Bad boys will continue to hack through every new security system, and keeping all this work underground prevents the rest of the world from a) knowing how many security holes exist, b) knowing how we might protect ourselves, and c)advancing the state of the art. A set of feel-good rules like our airline security system, inconvenient to everyone EXCEPT the pro bad guys who can work around them, doesn't help.
It is science, after all. Laws to restrict scientific enquiry don't have a good track record, on either ethical or practical grounds.
I will acknowledge that copyright protection issues are just one aspect of general hackery, but crypto is crypto and lessons in one area apply elsewhere.
The bottom line for me is pretty simple: I have no confidence in developing legal remedies as bandaids for technical and social problems. This is like saying "If you get wronged, seek restitution in court." Litigation and criminalization are hardly ever great choices and never happy ones. This is a case in point. We need to think more deeply about how the rights of authors and other content creators can be protected without implementing laws that shackle legitimate scientists or creating another set of Prohibition laws that don't make sense to the average consumer.
JMHO -- Trevor
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
Problem with this is, they won't just sue Princeton - they'll sue Felten personally as well as his grad students who worked on it who I'm SURE wouldn't have been able to handle the cost, though the ACLU would most likely have picked them up.
Problem is, though, that RIAA went to mess with a pretty smart guy. As the Salon article says, he knows his article and the info on how to remove the watermarks is going to get disseminated even if he doesn't present it outright or publish it in a major journal. Looking at the situation, he knew the strongest position for the sake of fighting the DMCA would be to allow yourself to be knuckled under by RIAA's hardball tactics.
Now, every case being brought by RIAA/MPAA/etc based on the DMCA will have the defense pointing to this and saying:
"Look. Here's this law that the record/movie/software industry got congress to pass, saying they needed it to maintain the integrity of their product. But what are they actually using it for? As a method to stifle free expression. Here you have an academic, a man interested only in pursuing the Hack SDMI challenge from an intellectual standpoint, and RIAA is placing its hand over his mouth. This law is a violation not only of the basic tenets of copyright itself but of the Constitution because it's blocking free speech about publicly available materials, blocking education, and preventing the brightest minds in our country from disseminating knowledge. If this is what the court feels congress intended by this law then our client's guilty. If otherwise, the DMCA is simply a bad law that turns media producing corporations into media controlling corporations."
And that, Friends, is a powerful argument.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
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