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.
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.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the backers of the DCMA actually care about academic freedom (or anything but money, let's be serious). However, the harm to their public face by being clearly seen to be squashing these things is pretty real.
It's one thing to push around hackers... the public still has little to no sympathy for the misunderstood minority they represent. But a lot more people can understand it when they're told "hey, the RIAA wants to stop research. What's the deal with that?".
It's all about bringing this out into the open, clarifying what the stakes are, and winning some real "hearts and minds" in this fight. Joe Six-Pack could care less otherwise.
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
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.
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.
I have to completely disagree with you here, civil disobiedance is an American tradition, starting with the Boston Tea Party. I beleive the protests of the 60's were very effective, do you really beleive Nixon would have pulled out of Vietnam had there not been rioting in the streets ? and Kent State was in vain ? or Martin Luthor King accomplished nothing ?.
In recent times protests have not been effective, because the government has gotten better at dealing with them. They learned from the invasion of Grenada and later Panama that to control the flow of information to the media is a very effective way to control public opinion. We saw a glimer of how effective this can be during the WTO protests in Seattle, the news media was completely oblivious to the fact that the police were using rubber bullets and tear gas on protestors until it was reported through alternative means, such as the Internet.
As a side note, I think it is ineresting that protests against the status quo, such as the ones in Seattle, are meant with brutle force, while those supporting the status quo, ie both the supporters of Bush and Gore (yes, they both represent the status quo) in Florida during our month long Presidential election are pretty much left alone.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
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 RIAA knows that the mere threat of legal action is enough to shut most everyone up.
Here's where things get complex. The DMCA's creepiest element (IMHO) is that it turns copyright violations into criminal violations as well as civil. Herein lies way to salvation. If the RIAA can threaten Professor Felton with civil liability, one can argue the DOJ could threaten him with criminal liability. Since the government is coercing him into silence with threats (as opposed to actions), the DMCA creates a prior restraint on free speech, which is unconstitutional.
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.
The RIAA did try a foul. The fact that it afterwards claimed not to have is simply lies on top of lies.
First Ammendment infringements are subject to a very strict standard of review since the courts recognize that the threat of frivolous lawsuits is an effective means of censorship
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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"
I believe you may have misunderstood the point of the case. The fact that the DMCA can be used to suppress a research paper is exactly the thing that 2600's lawyers need to win the DeCSS case on appeal. The existence of the DMCA chills speech, not just code, but actual spoken words. It's the perfect example to bring against the RIAA.
You're right in that the RIAA doesn't have to go to court to threaten, but that's because they have the money to outlast a professor at Princeton. By caving in to the legal threats, he's demonstrated that threats of legal action under the DMCA damage free speech.
Rather than potentially go to court an lose a clstly battle for which the RIAA is already prepared, possibly setting a precedent in the process, the professor felt it was better to fall on his sword, to become a DMCA martyr the 2600 lawyers can hold up in court as an example that we're already on the slippery slope they warned of in the trial. Also, since his position is untested in court, anti-DMCA forces can safely use his example without having a bad decision hanging over their heads.
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
Ever heard of the civil rights movement? Yeah, that thing.
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
A plethora of independent musicians already oppose the RIAA and the major labels. The (quite ironically) popular punk subculture and all its bands have been speaking out against it for years. Unfortunately, they just aren't listened to. The only bands who will be heard on these issues are bands that are already signed with major labels, and they are already impotent. Remember Offspring's attempt to release an album for free download over the web? Their label vetoed the idea. Sorry to sound like a cynic, but it seems only these popular bands can make and impact and it is they who are not allowed to.
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