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.'"
At the end of his article he asks why the Major journalism outlets aren't sitting up and taking notice of the Constitutional atrocities that the DMCA are getting away with. Simple, this has been answered before in many other editorials. The Major journalism outlets (CNN for one) is OWNED by the same groups (Time Warner for one) that pushed the legislation through in the first place!
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 guess the statement could be correct -- a Linux user would boot into Windows, run the program to decode the .vob files, then boot into Linux and use a program like mpegtv to play them. But it's still misleading.
At least he didn't say the program allowed people to copy DVDs, like others have said. You can do that without any decryption at all.
There's your answer. If your paycheck is being signed by Time-Warner then how critical are you going to be of a bad law that increases your boss's profitability? The label "Media-whore" is actually earned...
You're using her as bait, Master!
But I think we must be a bit moderate in the discussion. It's not all bad! At least copyrighted media and windfall "fat cat" profits ensure lots of money spent on technical development and media development. And after all, you can sell anyone anything you like at any conditions you like, as long as you have a contract (and you are not a monopoly).
And most importantly: One great thing about the USA is that you can sue. It is easy enough, and you can win against vested interests. The existing liberties we have (you are allowed to tape a TV program onto your VCR) were brought about in the courts in the '60s and '70s.
It seems to me that the most important thing is to make people aware. I did a little unscientific poll last week, and asked 10 acquaintances who own a DVD player if they knew about the deliberate regionalisation that makes it impossible to, say, pick up a DVD in London and play it in Toronto. And guess what. Eight of them had no idea. Of those eight, four refused to believe me. Do the poll yourself and you will probably find the same ratios.
Then I asked them if they knew you are not normally allowed to play DVDs on a Linux machine. This time none of them knew.
As long as the industry manages to hide this stuff, we will never see free media. I do believe that as soon as Joe Public gets inconvenienced, DMCA or not, we will not see these infringements for long. So let's ge tthe word out there.
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Well, this will likely be moderated as ``off topic'', but as it's another ``Rights Online'' case I am going to risk the karma hit, as I think this story is fairly important. I just submitted it as a story to Slashdot but for whatever reason it was rejected.
The Linux Freak site (no relation between the site and this story poster) has a rather interesting story about a good samaritan on the 'net who discovered a vulnerability on the Podeau Daily News web site, informed them about it along with tips on how to properly configure the software, only to find himself faced with felony charges. If you find your stomach tightening as you read this, feel free to contact Sheldon Sperling, the DOD prosecuting attorney behind this madness.
If you'd read "Manufacturing Consent",you'd know that such a report probably wouldn't make it past the editor's desk. And on the off chance that it did, expect to see the "Cones of Silence" thrown over the whole sorry mess.
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.
Because when you copy a DVD you aren't copying the movie, and you aren't copying the files, you're making a bit-by-bit copy of the disc. The duplicating machine doesn't care what filesystem is on the disc, or what is in that filesystem, it just makes an exact bitwise copy of the disc.
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
A small outlet's going to have a hard time coming up with the cash to defend itself. While we believe code is speech and you can't cover the issues 2600 does without it, Big Media owns the public and the public is where all these wars are fought these days. If the public isn't bitching loudly, you can get away with pretty much anything in the courts and all you need is a shitload of money and more time than the guy you're sueing can spare. Your case may be completely without merit, but even the threat of it can shut someone up, SLAPP laws be damned and apparently juristiction be damned too.
As big corporations have both major parties in their pockets, the only way that this is going to change is if there's a mass voting out of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and frankly the public are sheep so that's never going to happen. I'm doing my bit (None of my guys got over 1% in the last election.) Are you?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The First Amendment doesn't always trump conflicting laws
Why are some of these cases being tried under the 'Trade Secret Act'? When someone designs something new... they have an option on what they want to do.
Either they can patent it, which in turn for 'total' disclosure to the public for the 'invention', they get exclusive control over who uses it. The Total Disclosure allows the public to use the 'invention' after the patent expires.
If they decide to keep it a 'trade secret', they don't have to disclose it, but if someone independently discovers it, they have lost their rights to it.. As long as someone doesn't steal the information (or break a contract) from the original inventors, there is no problem.
Has the new 'California Uniform Trade Secrets Act' changed this??? The information above was from a Lawyer from a Fortune 500 Company when I was Co-Op-ing there in early 90's.
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
THe article points out that the DeCSS trade secret was discovered and disclosed. So why isn't it rendered invalid. To my mind, the DeCSS trade secret was poorly protected if it was breakable by the crackers that accomplished it, and should no longer enjoy trade secret status. ESPECIALLY not since the code to implement the supposed secret is widely published on the internet, as a t-shirt even!
So why does the trade secret still count, after all that. Isn't it no longer secret, ann thus, no longer enjoys special protection under the law?
Ah. That's where WE come in.
;)
I mean both consumers (once they know how silly all this is) and (/.) developers. It took Philips some 10 years to develop the CD (I know, I worked there at the time), and Philips/Sony 5 years to develop the DVD. That is beyond us.
But it then took us not so very long to discover the joys of ripping MP3s from those CDs, and playing DVDs on any darn PC we want, etc. I am sitting here with a functional DVD player on the Linux machine, and I am listeining to "Deep Purple - Made In Japan" on MP3 as I type this. So I think we're not doing all that badly really.
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
To plug a few friends of mine:
They have set up a site based on Slash Code, but devoted to politics. It has just started up and so it needs participants, news story submissions, etc.
The Site is Radio Free Nation.
They are planning for a lot more than just the news, but the news section with the SlashCode is up and running Now. They are currently running slashcode 2.0. Once the new edition of Slashcode gets debugged here, they will then upgrade to the Latest Version (tm)
The basic motto if the site is:
"If you have a Story, We have a Soapbox"
I think that news sites like this have great potential to counter-act the control of the Mass Media by the various vested interests
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I need to have a cup of coffee in the morning before I post things
[smile]
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Fox is owned by News Corporation, CBS was once itself, known by the name 'Westinghouse', and is owned by Viacom-Infinity.
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...
I just want to say, I think the DMCA is the scariest thing Congress has done in a long time. It's being abused so much, it's begining to interfere with freedom of speech, as with this incident. If people would just apply the standard of criminal intent when judging DMCA violations, it wouldn't be so bad, but they don't. The result is that legitimate work which is in no way intended as a criminal act is treated as one.
RIP, first amendment. You were loved.
I'm the stranger...posting to
I keep seeing posts claiming that major news organizations aren't making a big deal about the DMCA because they are owned by conglomerates. Well yes
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Sen. Joe Rabbit (R-TX) introduced legislation today that would make owning a screwdriver a federal crime, punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of two years. The unlicensed manufacture or distribution of screwdrivers would be punishable by a mandatory minimum of ten years for a first offense.
"The screwdriver can be used for a wide variety of illegal acts," said Jane Doe, chief aide to Sen. Rabbit, in a press conference earlier today. "It can be used for lock-picking, for sabotaging machinery, and as a tool in reverse engineering of products. Imagine if terrorists were to use a screwdriver maliciously on a crowded airplane. This is a security risk our country cannot afford to take. Think of the children. "
The White House expressed some concerns about the possible negative impact of the legislation, but the legislation is attached as a rider to SB78692A, a spending package that enjoys substantial bipartisan support. President Gates is unlikely to veto the whole package this close to the presidential election, especially given that the race between him and Sen. Ellison has narrowed considerably in recent weeks.
The rider makes an exception for "federally licensed engineers." Doe was unclear about how such a licensing scheme would be implemented, but she made it fairly clear that licenses would not be given to home users.
"Countless tragedies have occurred when improperly trained individuals have taken it upon themselves to fix a toilet, work on a car, or other commonly bungled household repair jobs," Doe stated. "Some of these improper repairs have caused risk to children. This legislation will ensure that only certified technicians will be using these tools, and that will ensure everyone's safety. How would you feel if criminals used a screwdriver to pick your locks, break into your home, and threaten your children? We must be proactive in our fight against crime!"
Certain dissident groups, including the ACLU and the NRA, decried the legislation as yet another example of the erosion of personal freedoms in the United States. They also questioned the feasibility of enforcing this law, given that there are hundreds of millions of screwdrivers in households across the United States.
"This legislation strikes right at the very fabric of this society," said Ted Campbell, spokesman for the ACLU. "America was built on personal ingenuity and a can-do spirit. Besides, how on Earth will it be possible to enforce this?"
Doe handily dismissed such criticisms. "Enforcement will be difficult, but the Senator has a plan," she said. "In fact, the Senator is already drafting legislation that will expand police powers so that random, anonymous searches of homes for illegal tools can be conducted. "
She added that the bill has support from several major unions, including electricians' and plumbers' unions, and is lauded by many manufacturers of consumer goods.
Example:
*Amendment XVIII - Prohibition of the sale of alcohol.
*Amendment XXI - Repeal of Amendment XVIII
Where in the DMCA does it state that Amendment I, my right to freedom of speech, has been repealed?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I thought the Constitution trumped congressional bills, executive orders, and court precedents...