Slashdot Mirror
DoJ Supports Dismissal of Felten v. RIAA Case
phalse phace writes: "The EFF is reporting that the Department of Justice has filed a motion to dismiss the pending Felten v. RIAA case because it's "not ripe" and it fails to address serious First Amendment problems. (Yeah, like threatening to sue someone for presenting their research on digital music access-control technologies isn't a serious First Amendment problem.) The preliminary statement of the DoJ's memorandum states: "Plaintiffs have not been prosecuted under the DMCA, nor have they been threatened with such prosecution...""
How can you file a motion to dismiss a suit you're not involved in? This sounds weird.
How about:
... any disclosure of information gained form (sic)
:)
>
> participating in the Public Challenge would be
> outside of the scope of the activities
> permitted by the Agreement and could subject
> you and you research team to actions under the
> Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA").
(Extract from a letter to Prof. Felten, on RIAA letterheaded paper, dated April 9 2001).
Is there some specific legal definition of a threat, or does actually threatening someone count?
These sigs are more interesting tha
but I don't hear anything I didn't expect. The government is going to shoot down any attempts to destroy their new laws. They know thta most americans have ever heard of this stuff..so they are trying to take our rights away little by little.
I wonder what they think off next... protecting "the right to encrypt" in the constitution?? punished by the death scentense? *sigh* sorry for the poor spelling/grammer
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
"Plaintiffs have not been prosecuted under the DMCA, nor have they been threatened with such prosecution..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this whole thing come about because Felten was threatened under the DMCA, and told that if he published his research, he would be sued?
The guys at the DoJ did read the case before throwing out their opinion, didn't they?
Topher
Plaintiffs in the present case ask this Court to strike down the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), or to declare that their conduct, academic research into computer technology, is not prohibited by that statute . Their claim should be dismissed because it is not justiciable
And given that the DMCA specific exceptions from its prohibitions, including:
conduct (1) by a school or library to determine whether to purchase a copyrighted product ; (2) for law enforcement purposes; (3) to achieve interoperability of computer programs; (4) necessary to engage in encryption research; (5) necessary to limit the Internet access of minors; (6) necessary to protect personally identifying information; or (7) necessary to engage in security testing of a computer system. 17 U.S .C. 1201 (d) -(j).
It seems that any research by Felten & Co. would be covered under (3), (4), (6), and (7). Thus, isn't the DoJ's motion for dimissial justified?
No, really, I'm serious. ARE YOU REALLY SURPRISED?
The government has been shown to come down on the side of "big business" time and time and time again. Even in it's (in)action against Microsoft, it still benefits not you, not me, not Joe consumer, but Oracle, Sun, and Apple. It's getting to the point where *no one* cares. We've become desensitized to the idea of the government belonging to he who has the cash... You read the paper "Government sides yet again with major corporations" and just shrug it off. "What, a politician has been bought? NOOOO!!" Sarcasm will kill us all.
Yes, the government passed the wiretapping bills the other day. Privacy and freedom are disappearing in the name of "defending democracy and freedom". The Onion's story had it right.
It's mightily convenient. Look at Seattle and the Riots of 1999. There's a groundswell of people who are becoming fed up with what's going on. They don't know why, they can't agree on what to replace what we have with. It's akin to the Revolutions of 1838 (?) in Europe. Protestors without a clear and concise goal, they just know we're pissed off.
The new laws will affect the people who are fighting, in vain, to bring awareness to us all. They will now have to be more careful when planning "political action" (marches, protests, etc), else be labeled "terrorists." The corporations we despise now control the means to watch us. The corporations have gotten military sponsership. Adbusters will be equated to El Quaida. LINUX users will be labeled as "potential internet terrorists". You just watch and see. Ever notice how all these little script kiddies being busted are shown to have had "linux" machines? Linux is being equated to badness. They never mention Windows or Macs in that context, do they? Think.
Yes, the DOJ supporting throwing this out comes as no surprise to me.
I hope they throw out the case. If that doesn't wake you, the so-called last bastions of intellect and free market thinking, nothing will. Yes, you whom Jon Katz has labeled as "The world's future", this is your fight and you're about to lose. You're about to find out that you mean nothing to those with money. How does it feel? Maybe the hippies are on to something. Maybe those left-winger idiots are right. Maybe there is something rotten in this country and it's not the free-market. There is no free-market.
The faster they throw out this case, the closer we'll be to the end. Of what, I don't know. It's time for a change.
Jesus, I need to get off the decaf.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Isn't this just a motion that was filed? It still remains to be seen whether the case will be dismissed by the court. We can only hope it won't be....
Isn't it true that the all "new" DMCA (or compatible) will somehow outlaw free OSses by requirering some commercial/propriatary encryption library (wich ,of course, will not be available to Free software)
I am not 100% certain of this but I heard some rumors about this.
This all starts to look like "taliban law", in a few years the "big players" will enforce a rule that we all have to beard to read our PGP signed mail, or need to pray in the direction of Redmond not to violate some kind of EULA...
-
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
...smells really bad from here.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
The government did something really fucking stupid!? Please excuse me while I have a massive heart attack because of the pure shock of this surprising development.
It's like this: Some states have laws that say you can shoot dead any intruder that invades your house or propriety. That's fine for dealing with some thief looking to pinch your sterio or PC. You can call that person an intruder because you didn't invite him/her in. But what if you did invite someone in to your house? Can you shoot them? Hell no, You invited them, you started it. As far as I'm concerned, the RIAA invited people like Felton into thair house and handed him the expensive silverware and is now threating to shoot him if he leaves. It's as if the school bully called you out, you pounded him, then he calls the principal on you.
My point is that the RIAA asked for it.
P.S. I am not insinuating that Felton is a thief.
It's a bit like the mafia coming round and suggesting to the business's in a neighbourhood that they ought to pay some protection money otherwise their business _might_ have a nasty fire.
Just because it didn't explicitly state that if you don't do what the large thuggish organisation wants (mafia/RIAA) then bad things will happen to you, most people would still feel enough of a threat to take the easy route and avoid any trouble.
Or hopefully go to the police/courts to try to stop the mafia/RIAA from blackmailing them.
ps Made up word from the document - "justiciable"
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
I haven't found anything about SSSCA (mind giving me a more exact URL?) on their site but I DID find something else: These new anti-terrorist "privacy" laws...
"make it possible to obtain e-mail message header information, Internet user web browsing patterns, and "stored" voicemail without a wiretap order"
IMHO this would mean that (as I try to do on most sites) you use web anonymizers and try to leave as little information about yourself as possible (just to avoid spam basically) you can easily become a suspect because you "cover your tracks"
my 2cts
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
Liberty = Pssage of the DMCA
Justice = Driving the issue from the courts
All = The powerful few.
What went wrong with lawmakers to cause them to act in such a predatory way against the American people?
Ashcroft distorted the record of Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White and misled his Senate colleagues in order to sabotage White's nomination to a federal district court
He has opposed legislation designed to end workplace discrimination (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) and to protect vulnerable groups of Americans against hate crimes (the Hate Crimes Prevention Act). He voted to weaken a federal law that helps protect minority communities against "redlining" by banks and other financial institutions.
He voted to roll back clean water protections and introduced legislation to undercut efforts to limit emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.
He has praised the far right magazine Southern Partisan, a neo-Confederate publication that promotes the view, among others, that slavery was beneficial to the slaves.
In just six years in the Senate he introduced or sponsored no fewer than seven different attempted amendments to the Constitution. In 1996 he proposed a radical amendment that would have made it much easier to amend the Constitution, opening the way for disastrous political and ideological mischief.
He voted to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts
Can anyone explain why this guy gets to be attourney general ?
even more
"Only In America" gets a whole new meaning
Getting arrested when you did nothing wrong ? Jep
Getting executed when you did nothing wrong ? jep
Rich kids getting of cheap ? duh
Hum...
From an administration that is trying to let Microsoft off as much as possible and to try and take as many personal rights as possible, you would not expect different. That is, they are trying to make sure that nobody can challenge the taking of these rights.
Hopeflly, the courts will protect US now from the administration and congress
This is a motion to dismiss (summary judgement). The motion is based on the fact that no actual legal action was taken against them when some went ahead and published/presented their "violation". The plaintiffs are alleging a "chilling effect" of 1st amendment rights due to the actions of legal council of the defendants. This will pass summary judgement if the plaintiffs can show material fact to the damages alleged.
Wait to see the response. That will show wheather this is going to fly or not.
DRM is a false economy. It artificially restricts what you can do with a number (digital data) in order to make money. Software is exactly the same: Microsoft Windows sells for big money to lots of people around the world, when in fact, they could cover their costs and make plenty of money even if they sold their products for a fraction of the price. The same applies to CDs, DVDs, and plenty of other things. Imagine an economy where CDs sold for almost nothing - these mega-corporations wouldn't exist and politicians would have to actually use their heads to run the government, instead of getting big fat checks and bits of paper telling them what to do.
The same could be said for drugs: why are they illegal? surely they are less dangerous than guns? The reality is, that if most drugs were legal, their market value would drop to nothing - you would see fields of weed like you see fields of maze. All the money thats made in the business would stop, and allot of rich people would become poor.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Who play on a Cyberpunk moo noted how nice it'd be for a catastrophic event leading to the formation of megacorps and random gangs of thugs to come about.
;)
I'm glad I may yet get the chance to chug some rum, and shoot up some salty nut mofos with my SKS.
(On a more serious note.. Free market? Free markets and capitalism are mutually exclusive. Capitalism is based on greed, whereas free markets need restraint of greed to exist.
Is it just me or doesn't this look like the greatest victory possible. If the DOJ's motion
succeeds, and Felten publishes the results and
then the RIAA asks the DOJ to prosecute his team under the DMCA, the DOJ and Asscop end up with seious egg on their faces, because the DOJ established that Felten was immune from persecution under the DMCA. Truly brilliant actually.
Ah, legalese...
Subpoena, n.: From the root "sub", below, and the Latin "poena" for male organ or penis. Therefore, "below the penis" or "by the balls."
I can't believe that they're trying to claim that they didn't make a threat. "Threat? Us? No no no, we only expressed concern over his continued well-being..." What a bunch of cheap thugs!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
s/cheap/expensive
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
all digital inteactive devices must be security certified by the dept of commerce. Their definition of digital interactive device is so vage that it will not only include you automobile with its computer and radio, but even your microwave oven. Everybody is talking about it like its a content management scheme, which it is to a large extent and maybe that's what its intended to be but when you actualy read it, you see no verbage limiting it to content management. We are supposed to assume that the authorities are smart enough to know what the legislation meant. here's a link to the PDF (yuck) file it's a 4.586 Mb download. The thing that bothers me the most about it is how in the world is the DoC going to have the expertise to certify all of the software/hardware combinations? The only answer I can come up with is to contract with industry experts to do it, imagine have Microsoft employees certifying the security of a linux distro.
My crystal ball says that means passport technology will be manditory to see anything from a big-company website. When all of the significant content on the web is passport managed it'll get to the point when M$ will get brazen enough to change the EULA so that when you go to a protectected site, you will have unknowingly have agreed to pay Microsoft a fee for the passport service (you have to read the EULA each time you use it to know what you're agreeing to). The royalties are automaticaly deducted from your CC (number already on file at Microsoft) for fee for view content. and there you'll be stuck with Microsoft.
There is no way that Linux will ever be certifiable because we have both the source code and a complier. There will be no Linux to keep Microsoft's feet to the fire driving improvement for everybody and Microsoft's QC department will once again be a puppet for the legal and marketing departments. In short everbody loses except Microsoft.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Nice tuxedo to die in!
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
This would seem to be the case at least in my mind strike down the legal challenges, because any rational judge if there is a legal challenge is going to see right through the DMCA and realize that it needs striking down.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
I think the major think which precipitataed the DMCA and other crazy laws/rulings is the fundamental misunderstanding of the digital community by lawmakers.
Senator X thinks: wow, the interent is used to do a lot of bad things, therefore its bad -> Lets "fix it." They don't understand that things like the DMCA violate the very spirit of innovation which brough about the internet and the Tech Boom.
In addition Senator Y may not have an opinion on the DMCA(or similar legislation) but when he recieves a fat check that says "DMCA-Yes" on the back from the RIAA(or similar) what is he going to vote for? The only thing that we can possibly do is, for the sort-term, write to our representative : 1,000 letters saying "DMCA-NO" may just override the RIAAs check (at least for somewhat honest senators(there are still a few right?)) In the long term it has to be made an issue: this is far more difficult because the avereage person will say that reverse enginerring is bad because itstealing others ideas, etc... the average person needs to be made aware of the negative effects of legistation such as the DMCA.
NeuTurbo
--------
1. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
2. See #1.
IANAL
How the crap can they sue hackers under this?
It says in the actual bill ( Which is imossible to find thanks to our lovely congression website) that an exception that gets technology out from under this bill is "to achieve the interoperability of computer programs". So anything that will let a copyrighted work be used under a different OS (say BeOS), is allowed even is it decrypts and circumvents the copyright.
SO if felton were to make a computer program that crapped when it detected a watermark then say that it were necessary to remove the water mark and publish a program to do it so his program could play protected music, he would be protected. (Again, IANAL)
What makes tthis case so damn annoying though is that the educational exemption is only if the school were planning to buy a copyrighted work. So Felton can still be sued, even though he was with a school.
Secondsun
Yes, IANAL.
PS: May favorite exception is "necessary to limit internet access to minors". I just find that humorous.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Until a judge says that, however, there is still a case. The judge may concern the DoJ's brief and drop the case, or may decide that there is very much merit to the 'bullying' that the case involves, and allows it to go forward.
IMO, a reasonable judge would see that there's enough questionable activities, either by DMCA or by RIAA, that allowing facts to be heard and arguements made would be more beneficial to defining the law better(*) than to allow it to go uncontested.
(*) 'defining the law' may be as to set a precident on when or where DMCA is applicable, or to possible call into question it's constitutionality. In other words, just because the judge takes the case does not necessarily mean a favorable outcome for the /.-mentality.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
So basically the DOJ is saying they haven't broken the law so they don't have a case? They don't want the courts to listen to the case because the people appealing it haven't been labeled as criminals!?
Ok.. that sounds reasonable.:(
Why is this case 'not ripe' while the whole Napster/file sharing/copyright thing is??
I mean we haven't had ONE SINGLE challenge to the (probably unconstitutional) DMCA yet.
Why is the DMCA then considered 'ripe'?
Is the Internet (at a whole 5 years old as a 'mass medium') ripe?
Seems to me that 'the man' wants it both ways...They want the 'net to be considered 'mature' when it suits them..and 'not ripe' when it suits THEM!
We are in a very dangerous time....a time where the tables seem about to turn. A time where the Russians advise THEIR citizens to be wary of the U.S.! A time where most of the world (and many of our own citizens) fear and distrust OUR government. A time where law enforcement can propose whatever they want (Constitution/Bill of Rights be damned) and Congress and the President say: "yup, yup, yup". A time where citizens' rights are secondary to corporate greed.
Finally, the obscenity of terrorism isn't just what happened on September 11th, 2001. It's what has happened in Congress since then.
My only hope is that the citizens of our great country wake up to what their 'leaders' are really doing TO them! If not, then we're truly screwed.....
Try 1848
not this again. Everytime I look around I see this DMCA being used for the mega corps to there advantage. But wasent this sopose to help the little man. This Felten v. RIAA case is just another instance where a mega crp (group of them) is using the DMCL to puch off a smaller firm who is not doing somthing they like. Yes I know that its the DoJ doing it. But still, seams like the DMCL is being used for the big guys.
my 2 cents plus 2 more
If anyone wants to sue you, that is their right. I personally believe however, that in cases like this where it is obviously frivolous, that it should be an open and shut case, and the suing party should be fined, and any time lost or negative publicity from it to the victim should be compensated by the suing party. (Automatic counter suit)
Doesn't seem like rocket science. How about:
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I suspect that congress knew that the DMCA would never hold up in a court of law. That doesn't mean that the DMCA is not a very efective tool for a corporation. On the contrary, corporations only need to threaten a lawsuit in most circumstances to acheive the desired results; the fear of the expense and uncertain outcome of a trial will disuade most people from continuing what ever it was the RIAA, MPAA, AOL, etc were unhappy with. The bottom line, in my estimation, is that noone really wants a case to go to court that may jepordize the DMCA.
You do x. Someone threatens to apply law Y against you (which has nothing to do with x, or cryptically permits x).
Do you sit there and spend your money against a frivolous case in an environment where (a) a good lawyer could convincingly argue that Y does apply, (b) the judiciary is perceived as 'bought', (c) the general public does not understand that Y does not apply because they understand neither x, nor Y.
Even if you win, it might cost you big time. Financially, you could still lose. The only people who would fight that fight would do so out of principle (and such people are stronger than I and I salute them).
In such cases, it strikes me that setting a precendent that such a suit is, indeed, frivolous, and without merit, would be a good idea. Isn't that what case law is all about, establishing precedents to make it easier to prosecute or defend similar cases in the future?
So, if someone threatens to sue you (which, IIRC (and IANAL), is illegal in Canada, at least (threatening to sue, that is -- either sue or don't)), it should be possible to sue for having made a groundless legal threat.
Now, that's not why Felten, et. al. are suing (they're arguing a first amendment issue and not a threat of a nuisance suit), so perhaps their case has no merit on a technicality (suing for the wrong reason), but there should be a legal mechanism for fighting back against legally groundless legal bullying -- IOW, if you threaten to sue me, I should be free to act as if you had, and defend that your suit would have been groundless, and so your threat was harassment.
This strikes me as an acceptable balance between "threatening" to sue but avoiding an all-out suit (so as to not clog the courts) when you're sure you'd have a case, and fighing such "legal bullying" the ability to so threaten would encourage.
You could've hired me.
>Can anyone explain why this guy gets to be attourney general ?
It was a buy-off--he was running for President.
Felten needs to go present his work publicy, RIGHT NOW. If the judge thinks that this case is too preemptive, Felten should announce that he will be presenting his case at a public place in a major city sometime in the next few days, and make sure to get the time and place listed on /. so that people attened. Felten should also contact the RIAA and the press, so that they can be there. At that point the RIAA will either have the FBI arrest Felten and press charges, at which point the case can proceed, or they can back off, showing that even they do not really have the balls to push the DMCA, giving anti-DMCA forces more ammunition.
If this case is concluded first, and positively for the EFF, that would give extra ammo to the Dmitry Skylov case. Also, the Feldon case could lead to a Supreme Court review of the DMCA, which could either limit or overthrow the law, sending the Russian Programmer home.
No doubt the goverment would rather focus on Skylov, since they have a stronger case. The Feldon case has much more popular sympathy, since its a professor of a well known school. It's hard trying to convince the public of Dmitry's innocence, since all they see is a Russian hacker who broke the law.
Peace, or Not?
If the case reach the court, they will probably say that they have never intended and will not be intending to sue Felton under the DMCA because SSSCA is coming up.
Pardon my ignorance. But is what they are calling "unripe", because the plaintiffs were never actually prosecuted under the DMCA, also known as a prior restraint on free speech?
So, if unripe cases can't be tried, is the only way to overturn a bad law to break it and get caught, hoping that unconstitutionality will save your ass in the end (the 2600 case)? If no one is brave enough to martyr themselves, isn't that what judges call "a chilling effect"?
First, they say: "Plaintiffs have not been prosecuted under the DMCA, nor have they been threatened with such prosecution." Hello? Did they read the RIAA letter that started this whole business? Of course they were threatened!
Second, they say: "it appears that they have not foregone a single publication of any material as a result of those concerns" -- again, hello???? Are they not aware of the basic facts in this case, that Felton and company had to withdraw their paper from the first conference due to these threats from the RIAA? And only after filing this case and seeking permission did they actually get to publish the paper, at a later conference, many months later?
Come on guys -- if you're going to file a statement, at least get the basic facts of the case right!
In a legal sense a veiled threat isn't a threat? That's hard to believe. If someone were to say:
"The gov't better do X or else it 'could be subjected to a possible bombing'*",
the CIA, NSA, FBI, DoD and probably a hundred different agencies would (rightfully) make sure that guy was appropriately dealt with.
* The "could be subjected to" language is what the RIAA used in its letter. "could be subjected to" the DMCA is a threat, just as much as "could be subjected to a bombing" is.
If September 11 taught us anything, we should realize that THREATS ARE TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. They often are proven true, even when unthinkable.
And for those that think a parallel to terrorism is too strong, I'd have to tell them the litigation is often used in the same way terrorist attacks are: namely to induce fear in the target. That is the terror in terrorism.
I admit, a threat of a lawsuit is no where near the magnitude of the September 11 atrocities, but that doesn't mean there is nothing in common between them.
Legal threats are legal attacks. They are often calculated to terrorize the victim, often into avoiding activities that they have a legal right to pursue. Look at SLAPP lawsuits for a good example.
Yet more evidence that all that campaign financing is paying off for the music industry. It's nice to have a government that is bought and paid for to do what you want, when you want. Makes keeping the populace under control nice and easy.
I give it two years after the law passes before this scenario starts to come alive in earnest. Three years later before the real economic collapse. At the end of five, expect the dollar to be worth about a current penney. Or less. Look up hyperinflation. 500% / month isn't unheard of.
Nobody will benefit economically. Not even MS, though they will in the initial phase.
Who will benefit? Well, hyperinflation often leads to a dictatorship or a military takeover, and price controls.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Who do we write/call to get something done about this?
(Yes, I'm too lazy to look it up myself)
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
I think that the rationale behind the hate crimes law is an attempt to address the intent of the criminal - remember intent is what makes you a criminal not a physical act.
Most violent crimes are a heat of the moment thing - people get into a fight and somebody winds up dead or injured.
Very few people are killed / assaulted by complete strangers - however so called hate crimes are often the opposite - calculated cold blooded attacks on somebody because of a difference in race or whatever.
It's not the race or the religion or the sexual orientation of the victim that makes it a hate crime but the motivation in the head of the perpetrator.
I'm glad to see some support like this.
All I can say is, welcome to the America of 1984. We have just gone over the thin line and have become a police state. Technology and intelligence are criminal unless some large corporation can make money from it. At the point they can make money from it, it is illegal to replicate it, even if you invented it in the first place.
Not to quibble, but a motion to dismiss is different from a motion for summary judgement.
A case will be dismissed when the plaintiff fails to state a claim for which the court can provide a remedy. Basically, you apply the law to the set of facts claimed by the plaintiff.
Summary judgement is appropriate when the application of the law to the set of facts agreed to by the parties resolves the dispute.
Motions for summary judgement will be denied if the outcome depends on a triable fact. Generally, the district court makes findings of fact as the result of hearing the testimony and evidence. Then the case is decided by applying the law to the district court's findings of fact. Those findings of fact are subjected to an 'abuse of discretion' standard, which is a very forgiving standard.
I know you were joking, but just to inform the stupid, as I hate to let people get misconceved, poena in latin is "Punishment".
So pubpoena means under punishment.
Though thats kinda abusing the English use of under to mean more than below.
Plaintiffs' Claim Does Not Admit of Conclusive Relief, As The Applicability of the DMCA to Their Conduct Is Contingent on The Precise Papers They Intend to Publish, Which Plaintiffs Have Not Yet Articulated.
Funny, in another Court they argue that the DMCA is not content based, but hear they argue that you have to see the content to make the decision. Which is it, DOJ?
campaign finance reform, which among other things bans soft money
Part of the problem here, though, is that banning "soft money" only benefits "big party" candidates and incumbents.
Limiting the value of individual contributions or the ability to "pool" donations to support a single candidate is intended to prevent less-known challengers from competing. A "big party" candidate doesn't really have a lot of difficulty getting a large number of people together to each contribute the maximum amount allowed, but a not-so-famous "small party" candidate has no such hope (the only way to become well known is advertising, which costs money of course). The only chance for a "small party" candidate to compete is to try to find one or more sympathetic generous donors to fund his or her campaigns, at least until the candidate is as well known and understood as a typical "big party" candidate...which current proposed campaign finance limits would prohibit.
I don't think I'd be much against, say, an absolute limit on total spending for a campaign, though I don't know that it'd be feasible to enforce such a rule (If I, of my own free will, pay for some advertising for a candidate, while that candidate has already spent his or her limit, are they now over? Or can some "big party" candidate, or his minions, in turn encourage his followers to do the same thing?
Banning campaign advertising on television, unfortunately, has a similar problem. The mainstream media effectively ONLY reports on the the "big party" candidates, and there is at least SOME bias, in total, towards the slightly-left mainstream party and away from the slightly-right mainstream party (compare to the very-left "Peace and Freedom" party and the very-right "American Independent" party...). Basically, banning television advertising gives up all advertising to whatever politicians that the news reporters like to talk about for free...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Felten et al were obviously directly or implied that they'd be liable for publishing their research. I don't think a reasonable person would claim Princeton researchers are .IP-Pirates', yet the RIAA and SDMI still threatened them with legislation that isn't supposed to be applicable to them. Thus it would make sense to get a protective injunction against the enforcement of the DMCA on scholarly research and set a precedent that could readily dismiss any future cases.
This legal doctrine stems from the Constitutional limitation of US courts' jurisdiction to a "case or controversy." The judicial branch lacks jurisdiction to offer "advisory opinions" on how a law is to be interpreted, or whether it is constitutional. They don't have a general power to pore over the output of Congress and issue rulings on it. Rather, there has to be an actual controversy between opposing parties, which gives the judicial branch jurisdiction to decide questions of statutory interpretation or constitutionality presented thereby.
Ripeness, typically, is applied to cases that challenge the constitutionality of a law "as applied" to a particular set of facts, but before the agency charged with enforcing the law has actually applied the law in that manner. It is essentially a challenge to the judicial branch's jurisdiction - asserting that there is not yet an actual controversy. Looked at another way, analysis of a law's future hypothetical applications is too abstract for any court to perform reliably, and is therefore "non-justiciable." (Contrary to some comments, justiciability is not a made-up word, it's a well-settled legal doctrine.)
Although I've not read the DOJ's papers, I would expect their ripeness challenge to be along these lines: "We are the agency charged with criminal prosecution under the DMCA. We've never prosecuted or even threatened to prosecute the professor who is the plaintiff in this suit. Nor have we prosecuted or threatened to prosecute under the DMCA *any* member of academia on the basis of an academic presentation. Hence, there is insufficient basis to conclude that the DOJ would ever apply the DMCA to criminally prosecute academic speech, and this action is therefore not ripe."
That argument would normally be a strong one, and if you think about it, it makes sense. Virtually everyone who posts here is worried that someday they might be prosecuted under the DMCA, but until that happens to you, or there's a credible threat that it will happen to you, you don't have a lawsuit. The professor's case is modestly different, because the RIAA threatened to pursue charges against him. But as a private party, the RIAA cannot bring criminal charges unless the DOJ decides those charges are well-founded. Apparently, it has not so decided - hence, the ripeness challenge.
But wait -- don't give up hope yet. This is a First Amendment case, which opens up some other possibilities. A First Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of a law can be brought, not just to the law "as applied" to a particular set of facts, but to the law "on its face." The basis for a "facial" challenge is the "chilling effect" that an overbroad statute may have on speech, even if the speech itself is never prosecuted. Since free speech is highly valued, courts will apply this level of scrutiny to a statute that creates a substantial likelihood that worried people will voluntarily curtail their own protected speech, even if they are never prosecuted. In essence, it's a ripeness exception.
That argument ought to have a fair chance of success here. (Don't forget that the DOJ's mere motion does not decide the issue - the plaintiff gets to file a brief opposing the motion, and the judge makes the decision, not the DOJ.) A, the RIAA threatened to pursue criminal charges under the DMCA, and B, the professor cancelled his presentation as a result. Even though the DOJ has never actually applied the DMCA in this manner, if the judge looks at the "face" (the text) of the DMCA and finds that it could be construed to criminalize what the professor planned to do, the judge should find that the DMCA has an unconstitutional "chilling effect" on protected academic speech, and deny the DOJ's motion.
* * *
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
Why? It was never intended to provide "Pure Democracy/Mob rule." Shouldn't people from less densely populated areas be represented, or only the large cities? If you want to give everyone better representation, instead of going the popular vote/mob rule route, try going back to the way it used to be done of giving one electoral vote per congressional district (House of Representative member) and the candidate to have the most votes in the State get the two electoral votes remaining (from the State's Senators).
I live in Pennsylvania. We have about 67 counties. Only about 6 of those are heavily Democrat. The rest are Republican with a moderate amount of Independents. Yet, Gore received the electoral votes that cover my and many other, much more conservative, (Lancaster and Amish people anyone?) counties because he won in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Getting rid of the Electoral College would make my vote even more meaningless than it is now. Only large cities would be at all represented in gov't. I agree with you, the Electoral vote should be counted towards the candidate that was voted for in 85% of a state's congressional districts.
I also have not yet read the brief, but I expect the mootness argument to be hanging in the wings given its Article III roots and the apparent desire of the RIAA to pull out every trick in the bag to stop to what appears to be the strongest (and possibly successful) attempt to invalidate the RIAA's favorite statute. Here's rooting for Prof. Felten.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
The "could be subjected to" language is what the RIAA used in its letter. "could be subjected to" the DMCA is a threat, just as much as "could be subjected to a bombing" is.
The big difference is that bombing is illegal, whereas prosecuting someone under the DMCA when you have a good faith belief that they have committed a crime, is not. Whether or not Felton committed a crime is quite arguable (though personally I think this is clearly not prosecutable under the DMCA).
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
I thought that Canadian Slashdot readers and Slashdot readers of other nationalities with an interest in the WCT, DMCA or other local equivalent might be interested in the following links:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/culture/cult_ind/wipodp_e.ht
(This is a paper prepared by consultants regarding what changes would need to be made to Canadian copyright law to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty.)
I think the section on Aricle 11 will be of particular interest to Slashdot readers. This paragraph caught my eye: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01100e.html The documents referred to are "Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues" and "Consultation Paper on the Application of the Copyright Act's Compulsory Retransmission Licence to the Internet" http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01099e.html
(This is the paper "Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues" mentioned above.)
From section 4.2: As stated above, the deadline for comments on these papers is October 22, 2001, so have your say: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01100e.html
--Patrick
Hey guys! Why don't you come and code here with us. In Brazil! Yes, here we can sell everything we code (inclunding supra-power-encryption products), and we also can reverse engeneer anything we want. And there's no way such a law like SSSCA exists :o)
Come on! Let's go to the country of freedom, no terrorist attack risk here too. The last terrorist attack here was in 1979! And it's summer all year long!
Let's go to Brazil! Mi casa es tu casa (but we don't speak spanish here, we speak portuguese)
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Any judge faced with a line of argument like this is simply going to ask what was the purpose of the letter if it wasn't an attempt to threaten Felton - the specific language matters a lot less than their intent.
If they did not intend to intimidate him they wouldn't have sent the letter.
No doubt the goverment would rather focus on Skylov, since they have a stronger case. The Feldon case has much more popular sympathy, since its a professor of a well known school. It's hard trying to convince the public of Dmitry's innocence, since all they see is a Russian hacker who broke the law.
Not to mention the fact that Sklyarov actually broke the law, whereas Felton did not. Arguing against the DMCA by using the Felton case is a classic example of a strawman argument.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Not to mention the fact that Sklyarov actually broke the law
Umm, he did?
I suppose if you look at it the "right" way, all those people in Amsterdam are breaking the law too.
Since Sklyarov was in Russia when he did his research, I'd say he didn't break the law.
Since Sklyarov was in Russia when he did his research, I'd say he didn't break the law.
Since bin Laden was in Afghanistan when he planned the World Trade Center bombing, would you say that he didn't break the law either?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
So we should produce our own content protection mechanism, post a Public Challenge that Felton can participate in and write a paper about, then make clear legal threats (i.e. a cease and desist letter) or perhaps even a lawsuit.