Slashdot Mirror
EFF Files First Anti-DMCA Lawsuit
If this were a movie, it might be called "Saving Professor Felten" and would open with thunder and bombast. In real life, filing a civil suit in a federal court is one of the most boring activities imaginable, even though it's a necessary first step in the process of overturning the DMCA.
Gino J. Scarselli, Outside Lead Counsel for EFF on the case, says, "We got to the courthouse at 8:30, filed around 9, and made motions to seal exhibits to the complaints." As explained in the Complaint itself, EFF filed several of their Exhibits with requests for them to be sealed, because they believe publication of them may invite a lawsuit. The Exhibits to be sealed are Professor Felten's completed paper for the upcoming USENIX conference, and two documents written by Princeton post-grad Min Wu about the investigation performed by Felten's team against the SDMI watermarks.
It was an overcast day in Trenton. Scarselli, along with local (New Jersey) attorneys Grayson Barber and Frank Corrado, and two of the plaintiffs, Princeton residents Bede Liu and Min Wu, went through a metal detector just like anyone else (aside from staff) who enters a courthouse these days.
Scarselli says, "the only person we talked to was a law clerk." Neither the defendants nor any lawyers representing them were present. There will be plenty of conflict later, but the opening round of this drama was so low-key that it was a total yawner for all involved parties. The whole thing was over by 9:45 a.m.
The Complaint Itself, Very Briefly
Prof. Felten and others, mostly professors and graduate students from Princeton and Rice Universities, accepted the SDMI challenge to crack a specific set of digital watermarks, but instead of turning their results over to SDMI in hopes of winning the $10,000 prize offered for a successful crack, they chose instead to publish their findings in the form of an academic paper, and to present that paper at the Fourth International Information Hiding Workshop [IHW], held in Pittsburgh on April 25-27, 2001. Felten and crew believed they had every right to present their research in this public, peer-reviewed scientific forum even though they had accepted a "click through" agreement before taking on the SDMI challenge, in large part because the license to which they agreed with their click contained these words:
"You may, of course, elect not to receive compensation, in which event you will not be required to sign a separate document or assign any of your intellectual property rights, although you are still encouraged to submit details of your attack."
Despite this, SDMI threatened Felten and the other involved parties, including IHW organizers, with legal action under the DMCA. After a long series of emails between Felten, his fellow researchers, IHW people, a representative of Verance Corp., and an attorney who works for both SDMI and RIAA, the original paper, "Reading Between the Lines: Lessons from the SDMI Challenge," was first modified, then finally withdrawn.
Now Felten and friends plan to present the same paper at a USENIX Security Symposium in Washington, D.C. on August 13-17, and are asking the court to tell the defendants not to sue or threaten legal action over this new publication or any other publication, and to tell the U.S. Department of Justice, run by Attorney General John Ashcroft, not to file criminal charges against USENIX or anyone else over this matter under the DMCA. As it says in the complaint:
68. In chilling publication, the DMCA wreaks havoc in the marketplace of ideas, not only the right to speak, but the right to receive information -- the right to learn. The main mission of USENIX is to organize forums where scientists and researchers learn from each other. By intimidating the individual plaintiffs into withdrawing their paper from the IHW, however, the private Defendants prevented people from learning. If the source of Defendants' power to threaten, the DMCA, is not dispelled, Plaintiffs will not be the only victims. Without full and open access to research in areas potentially covered by the DMCA, scientists and programmers working in those areas cannot exchange ideas and fully develop their own research. As a consequence, the DMCA will harm science.This is just a brief "taste" of what the complaint says. Full text is available here.69. By imposing civil and criminal liability for publishing speech (including computer code) about technologies of access and copy control measures and copyright management information systems, the challenged DMCA provisions impermissibly restrict freedom of speech and of the press, academic freedom and other rights secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Press Conference
It was held at noon Eastern time, in person simultaneously at EFF headquarters in San Francisco and at a room borrowed from Princeton University. A few reporters were at EFF headquarters in person, but most of us dialed in and participated by phone. The media turnout was impressive; reporters from the Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, AP, NPR, Reuters, Wired, and other major news outlets showed up, which was nice to see; Slashdot has been rather lonely in covering many DMCA matters and complaints. It was nice to see so many "mainstream" pressies finally paying attention.
Felten was in San Francisco. So was most of the legal crowd. USENIX Board member Avi Rubin was on the conference call telephone. The Princeton contingent was tiny, composed only of the people who had been at the court house earlier. EFF legal director Cindy Cohn opened the show from San Francisco with a rehash of the events leading up to the suit, most of which I recapped above. (You can find more information here.)
Felten spoke briefly. The basic thrust of his prepared speech can be summed up thusly: "We are asking the government to let us do what scientists have always done -- share the results of our research."
The USENIX people noted that they hold many conferences and may be subject to both civil suits and criminal prosecution if they publish papers DMCA legal threateners (like SDMI and RIAA) don't like, and view this suit as an attempt to maintain their First Amendment rights to freely distribute technical and scientific information to USENIX members and other interested parties.
Then the press questions began. The first dozen covered ground that is familiar to most regular Slashdot readers. There is no point in rehashing these questions when a Slashdot search for "SDMI + DMCA" or just "DMCA" will give answers to every one of them.
Then Hiawatha Bray, a tech columnist for the Boston Globe, wanted to know if the case would be dropped if the SDMI and/or RIAA decide to stop hassling Felten and USENIX. The attorneys said "No." Their point here is to prevent both private companies and the DoJ from bringing DMCA threats not only against the SDMI crack researchers but against anyone who might go through the same sort of ordeal in the future, so a settlement that affected only this case would not cause the EFF to drop it. Other questions and answers followed, but again, long-time Slashdot readers already know most of them, so we won't repeat them here.
Follow the Money
Ms. Cohn says the cost of this suit, "if fully litigated," could easily reach $2 million. She estimates that the EFF-sponsored 2600 DeCSS defense has already cost nearly $1.5 million, and that suit is still cranking up the appeals chain. She also says -- yes, this is a plug -- that Slashdot readers who want to donate money to help fund all this expensive legal action can check out the EFF Web site.
(Here's the EFF membership/donation page if you'd like to whip out your credit card and pop a few bucks their way; they need all they can get!)
This is Just the Beginning
Now, basically, we sit and wait. The lawyers do lawyer-dances involving lots of paperwork. Discovery motions pass back and forth. Amicus briefs get filed. A hearing date gets set, then there's a hearing, and another hearing, and so on.
The 2600/DeCSS case has been going on for a year and a half and still isn't over. This one is likely to drag out even more. Even if Prof. Felten, his associates, and USENIX win all the relief they seek, chances are high that the RIAA, SDMI or at least one of the other defendants will appeal -- and keep appealing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
For more info, read the EFF Press Release
Quite easily. RIAA is an industry representation organization. It charges membership dues sufficient to pay for its expenses: office space, staff, office equipment and supplies, operational expenses (lobbying, lawyers, power, etc). It does what it does on behalf of its membership, which DOES consist of profit-making organizations. The RIAA itself is not profit-oriented.
Most companies are members of at least one such organization, even if it's only the local Chamber of Commerce. Yes, the organizations exist to help their membership make money, but the organization doesn't make money itself.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
DMCA exists for one and only ONE reason- to CONTROL "intellectual" property.
Current patent and copyright law protects that already.
DMCA makes it illegal to own, make, or teach someone else how to make tools to exercise your fair usage rights. You're entitled to make copies of the content you've purchased for your own personal use (meaning for you and you alone). Doesn't matter what form the media is or the content- you're allowed that. DVDs don't let you play disks that are from different regions and if you've got a player that the DVD cartel didn't sanction (i.e. got a license from the DVD CCA to use CSS descrambling) then you don't get to play anything. The disk itself is not locked out (i.e. I can make an exact image copy with a DVD press and expect it to work, implicitly- if it were "protection" as you claim, it wouldn't work out that way).) and CSS is only there to prevent re-encoding to a new format or to play disks not in your region- it doesn't really protect anything
That, sir or madam, is content control not protection. It is there to keep people from making portion copies (fair use right) for personal projects, re-encoding to a lower bandwidth format (space/time shifting- another fair use right), and to keep them purchasing a disk in some other part of the world (Say, I buy in Singapore to watch on a DVD player there, but I live in the US- unless it's a region 1 disk, it's not going to be playable in a region 1 player...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I have donating dollar for dollar to the EFF for every product I buy from the RIAA or MPAA member companies. My last donation was about US$130 and I excpect my next to top US$150.
It feels great, I suggest tring it. I watched some good movies too.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
For those of you who work for big companies, look into your benefits you may find that your company will, up to a certain dollar amount, match any donations you yourself make to qualifying charitable organizations. I would suspect that the EFF would qualify.
If you want to donate, make sure you get the paperwork or forms you need to get your company to match your donation. My last company would match, IIRC, $500 of my donation. That's $1K to EFF for the $500 you might have given them anyway.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Are you sure you posted this to the right article? I don't buy any of these arguments, and some of them just don't make sense.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
The difference is simple: I own a book. You cannot take this book away from me . It is in my house; to try to get it from me is against all sorts of other laws.
I have a certain obligation, not to sit down and type it, word for word, into the computer. This is possible, but difficult. In the same category are things like building your own car (from scratch, not a kit), and so forth.
IP is an idea that floats around in your neurons. There's a concrete difference there.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
What's interesting about the document written by Felten and his associates is the fact that it goes into no details on how to actually circumvent SDMI, but just details the inherent weaknesses in the system.
This will be a very important verdict for free speech as a whole, and the case is being fast-tracked because the USENIX conference is quickly approaching (and because matters of this nature are usually treated in this fashion).
I found out about the teleconference through the 2600 web site, but I was shocked to hear some of the things that the EFF's Cindy Cohn said about 2600's lawsuits. According to her, the EFF has a better chance of winning this case because colleges are who the laws are "meant to protect", insinuating (at least to me) that 2600 has lost its cases because they're seen as hackers and subversives. That didn't leave a very pleasant taste in my mouth.
Cohn does make a very good argument for the case against the DMCA, saying that the RIAA needs to "stop interfering with the scientific process."
The conference was quite interesting, however. I really regret not recording it. There was definitely a good news media turnout. Hiawatha Bray of the Boston Globe, NewsBytes, NPR, AP, and a whole slew of independent radio and newspaper reporters that Roblimo completely has failed to mention.
Very informative. You all should have called in.
aÍÍ©ÍÌÍ£Ì'̽ͩÌÍzÍYÌÍÌY
If there was a DMCA-style law against house-destroying, you would now be guilty. You just described how to destroy a house. You didn't actually destroy a house, approve of someone else doing so, but the act of description is itself a crime.
That's what Professor Felton did. He didn't hack anyone's data. He just said, "here's how to do it."
So, you going to turn yourself in now, thought criminal?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
mp3 format, open audio licensed.
I've been in the mood to feed the trolls today:
Felten is doing what is right and proper in the United States to change things: he is using the courts.
At least there is *something* here. Frequently, these type of suits are brought before there is ANY issue.
I don't give two shits whether this case is about money. If it means the DMCA is dumped like it should be, so be it.
This suit has a better chance of success than Corley's.
First, Corley is a bit of a wanker. Sure, Felton may look smug, but Corley IS smug.
Second, Felton and the gang are researchers, trying to publish their original work. There must be some legal terminology, but I have no doubt that the originator has greater rights than a reporter.
Third, Corley ignored (or intelligently skirted) an injunction.
Fourth, Corley's case had some weirdness involving to what extent code is speech. This case is much clearer.
Finally, Corley was/is a defendant, using the problems of the DMCA as a defense. Felten being a plaintiff changes the way the game is played. Much like the MPAA set the rules in the decss case, Felten et al. get to set the groundwork in this case.
It's clear that Corley's case is going poorly, and so now it is time to open up the second front. In addition to the reasons mentioned above, the EFF has learned from that experience, and will apply those lessons to this case.
So, of course this lawsuit is a setup. That's the way the US legal system can work.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
According to the EFF web site, their yearly budget is only $2M, which is less than nothing compared to the giant bullies they're fighting. So if you have any money to donate, they do count!
The RIAA's power comes from the money they amass from the music-buying public. Without money, they are dead in the water. There is only one way to defeat them, don't buy their products. If you like an artist's work, send him/her a personal check instead.
Don't let them take away our remaining liberties a little bit at a time until there is none left. The internet is our weapon of self-defence. We must use it to fight all would-be enslavers. We must do everything we can to keep it free. Send them a message they will not soon forget. Show them who is really in charge.
Download it all and copy it all!
Demand liberty! Nothing less!
I just had a random thought. The 2nd Amendment says that people have the right to bear "Arms". Dictionary.com, other than the normal definition as a part of one's body, has one definition of "arms" as weapons. Given the MPAA's recent comparisons of DeCSS to a crowbar, which is a weapon, I wonder if DeCSS could be argued under right to bear arms? While the 2nd Amendment does say that the purpose of the Amendment is to allow militias, which are "necessary to the security of a free state", hasn't it also been interperted to allow firearms to prevent against tyrany if necessary. Of course, this opens up the whole can of worms of gun control laws and regulation, but it's something I'd love to hear some feedback on.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
The RIAA and SDMI are acting like the church in the dark ages. In the old days, attempting to perform research or disseminate scientific ideas led to excommunication or death. Today, the corporations sue you out of existence.
- You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!
Audio will be posted online at 10pm ET tonight, or you might be able to catch it on the radio-- it's the next to last piece in the program.
(oh yeah-- right now, it's titled "Napster." ignore that; someone was smoking crack.)
The Justice League, God, Jesus, and Satan himself will also be siding with the EFF in this case to halt the DMCA's reign of terror. Yeah, right. I highly doubt anything will ever come with this. Call me a cynic, but ever since the DeCSS case, I've lost all faith in the government using common sense when working on technology oriented legislation.
So you've lost faith, does that mean you give up? It's attitudes like this that will help the RIAA and MPAA take over our lives. If your favorite sports team is losing badly do you stop cheering them on?
I won't call you a cynic, I'll call you a quitter.
Picture it, all Media and Media creators have copy control built in. Not only that, but it uses a similiar strategy that DVD uses: Licensed keys. Now, what makes you think that some kid working on an album in his basement will be able to create that media so that it plays on standard players? If he could, then the very nature of the key system has been broken.
They don't want to make it illegial to copy media, it has already been illegal for a VERY LONG TIME to do that. They don't want to "protect intellectual property", its already legally protected. They want to control who can create the players and who can create the content. GIven them full control over what is publish and what is not published. A monolopy based of a mutual agreement not to compete based on price or artisitic contractual obligations (RIAA anyone?).
The government should have absolutly no vested interest limiting the free exchange of ideas. Any ideas. No matter how absurd they are, no matter what they can be used for. Without that guarantee, we all might as well be slaves.
If i can publish a book detailing how to make bombs, why can't Fenton publish a paper on how SDMI is full of crap? There is no difference.
Burn Hollywood Burn
"Could it be that a university professor presents a more sypathetic character than the publisher of a hacker magizine? Unfortunately though it shouldn't matter it does. The first amendment was written for both. Hopefully this will all lead th the DCMA getting struck down and large corporations not getting to tell us what we can or can't publish or say"
You are right, of course. While legally everyone is guaranteed equality before the law, clearly, some are more "equal" than others.
Though Corley and 2600 had the Constitution on their side in their case, the fact that they were "hackers" led to the invlaidation of their cause in the public eye. It didn't help that the case was heard in front of a judge who had clearly made up his minde long before any evidence was presented.
Professor Felten stands a much better chance of prevailing, simply because he is a professor at one of America's most highly respected universities. No other reason. I don't feel that his case has any more or any less merit than DeCSS, except in that Felten's case is clearly speech of the kind expressed in the Constitution (because print and academic speech existed in the 1780's).
So yes, I think WHO Felten is in many ways matters more than his case. Which will be extremely difficult for the RIAA to defend against.
At best though, I don't see the DMCA being ruled Unconstitutional, but the more onerous provisions most likely will be.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
And now we know the rest of the story.
All of you that were railing about academic freedom being impinged upon as well as Prof. Felten's lack of courage (yes, that was commonly stated here) should apologize, sit down, and practice stfu for awhile.
The reason they pulled the paper was simple: they created a clear instance of the DMCA enabling a "chilling effect" on free speech.
Which leads to the conclusion that, since there has been precedence for "chilling effect" making laws unconstitutional for 1st amendment thingies, that this case is intended to go to the Supremes, BEFORE the composition of the court is changed any further towards corporatism.
Elegant, sneaky, and truly Machiavellian.
We owe all parties concerned a profound debt of thanks...
Protege Posterioram Tuam
And of course, the RIAA can be completely trusted to follow through on non-legally binding public declarations.
This is much more important than "picking a fight" or "getting attention"... this is about defeating a very bad piece of legislation that should never have been passed in the first place.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
That we, the people, have to donate money in order to uphold the constitution. It should not be possible for an organisation to bulldoze the constitution by spending enough money. Does the legal system have no mechanisms to protect itself from miscarriage of justice? If the only mechanism is appeal, and filing an appeal requires big money, how can there ever be justice? If the founding fathers knew that justice was so easily thwarted by big money, would they have added some extra safeguards to the constitution?
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.