Slashdot Mirror
Does This Article Violate the DMCA?
An anonymous but adulatory reader sent in: "Grant Gross wrote a truly sterling editorial on NewsForge about the Felten SDMI-crack paper and how the RIAA's attempt to suppress it uses the DMCA in a most unhealthy way. Jim Tyre, one of Prof. Felten's attorneys, read this article and said, simply, 'Grant rocks.'"
The point is the US thinks it can impose it's laws on individuals, companies,or entities that aren't actually within it's boundaries, ie: Helms-Burton, California's proposed new tax on satellites, etc...
You're using her as bait, Master!
I'm surprised more 'noise' is not being made over this, especially since the First Ammendment seems to be a much valued part of the American psyche. Many if not most countries have no such laws.
One factor I see as having a part in the erosion of free speech is the increasing governance/regulation of our society. Laws designed to give cohesion/guideance to society often start as very simple broad statements, but as lawmakers try to 'expand' the definitions to cover all possible aspects it will naturally restrict freedoms. So you get the constitution giving wide freedoms, but over the years you get more laws like the DMCA erroding that freedom. Its allmost as if the lawmakers have lost confidence in the intelligence and commonsense of the people and so make laws telling you what you can and can't do. Also many lawmakers are greatly influenced by corporations, whose interests and desires can conflict with those of the people (as hinted at by the woman from the EFF in the article).
Another thing to stike me after reading the article is how common it is becoming to 'shoot the messenger'. Large bodies such as the SDMI seem to spend more effort on harassing people who point out flaws in their systems rather than improving their technology. And look at how full disclosure of security flaws is now being frowned upon in some areas after the code red incidents.
Is it better for people to go on in ignorance using a flawed system that they think works, or to correct those systems? Should the people trying to correct those flaws be praised or punished? And does society in the large really care about these restrictions unless it directly affects them? After all not many people vote, or complain to their elected representatives. If you don't try and tackle these things from the start you may find by the time you do it is too late.
There are many dangers in this arena. Lots of knee jerk reactions are forming this moment, and getting ready to post. Before many of them do, I'll say this:
Inventors and the companies for whom they've done the inventing own the rights to their unique achievement and should be protected in these intellectual rights; and individuals own the rights to their own observations and may not be restricted in their right to announce these observations; and by extension: reporters and the organizations for whom they report own their observations about any freely available information and should be protected in their reporting about it.
So the only question that remains is about how information is obtained. If it is obtained in harmony with the terms set by the owner of the information, then there can be no legal issue. If this isn't the law it should be. If it is obtained against the just terms of the owner of the information, they have every right to sue for the breach.
Conversely, if an organization sues because they're unhappy that their information has received negative press, their case should be thrown out of court. And if they've received protection for something that isn't truly an innovation, that protection should be nullified.
It might be a frightening notion to some of you, but as nice as good laws, courts, and patents are, they don't do much good in the instances where corrupt legislators pass bad laws that grant "rights" to some at the very real expense of others, where judges and juries rule in favor of culprits, and where patent clerks grant frivolous patents.
It should be readily apparent from this that there is nothing wrong with the system itself, but the people. Better laws and regulations won't fix it -- never have, never will. But they'll help, by not being another cause of failure. Better courts can't exist without better judges and better juries. But they can't do anything about crappy laws and patents. And better patents can't exist without better patent clerks. If they're not following the law now, no better law will necessarily fix the situation.
Asking for better laws and better courts and patents is just a way of asking someone else to make it all better so you can go back to playing Quake and fighting for first post. It won't work. But it'll make you feel very self-righteous and done with your citizenship for the day. If that's all you want, you're not really relevant to to the solution. But you make a fine road block.
Even worse, taking a shortcut, picking the easiest route and saying something like "patents suck, screw the inventors", or "the press should be free to report anything it wants, even if they stole the information", or "companies should be able to do and say whatever they want to protect their livelihood", or even "freedom sucks, screw the press" (this is an international forum after all) will only win small-minded converts and make it more difficult for Reason to prevail. The motivation of (and appropriate judgment for) those who know this and do it anyway should be clear.
The only hope available to you is to use the best tool evolution has afforded you: think. Really consider the issues. Formulate rational concepts about them. Discuss them. Revise these concepts whenever better reasoning is heard. Then advocate your reasoning. This is the most important political activity. Summon the courage to do it even when horribly outnumbered, and especially when those around you don't even realize they're propagating some popular but false bromide. Next: serve on any jury you can be part of. Use your wisdom there to quell the herd mentality, and see that justice is done. If you have it in you to fight such battles, and know how to do it without sacrificing your integrity: run for office. Last (in democratic republics): vote. In countries that are not democratic republics (i.e. you have the right and means to participate and the real workings of the government are codified in law): leave. They're only benefitting from your presence at your expense. Life is better where men and women are free to converse, and to own the fruits of their labors -- both the manual and intellectual kinds.
It won't happen overnight. And it may not happen in our lifetimes. But life and liberty are worth having and happiness is worth pursuing. Don't you agree?
-B...
So Big Media is owned by content owners and really don't give a flying fuck if the first ammendment gets walked all over. So what do you do?
Here's what you don't do: get your net access through one of the same "we own your music, your TV, your newspaper, your radio and your Congressional representatives."
Back to this list:
CNN - owned by Time Warner
Time Warner, also known as AOL, and owner of RoadRunner cable modem service (too).
NBC - in a strategic partnership [msnbc.com] with Microsoft
Microsoft, owner of MSN.
I'm sure there are others as well... not bad for controlling all sources of information.
*scoove*
Let's see how long that lasts eh? This country is quickly heading towards a dictatorship.
Are you kidding? The purpose of suing 2600 was not to stop distribution of the DeCSS code. Even the assholes at the MPAA know that's impossible. The purpose is to convince the public that evil hackers are doing evil things somehow, and there awtta be a law (something no true american should ever say). The other purpose is to convince overzealous law enforcement types that it's OK to go after DMCA violations. Of course, in doing so, they make the "good guys" look an awful lot like corrupt local authorities in some China backwater, but those dumb fucks at the FBI ain't exactly Scully and Mulder, you know. Hell, they kept Wen Ho Lee in jail for selling information he didn't have access to, because it was about a part of the bomb he never worked on, near, or with. A lot more Boss Hogg than Dick Tracy, I'm afraid.
But you don't pull that kind of snow job over the publich by going after the NYTimes, because they can defend themselves and the PR angle would be blown. Much easier to leave them alone, because, as previously noted, it's not actually the source code that the MPAA is worried about, it's the absolute authority over bits and bytes.