Slashdot Mirror
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
Politech is featuring this press release from EFF stating Judge Garrett Brown of the Federal District Court in Trenton, New Jersey, threw out the EFF-Felten case challenging the DMCA after less than 25 minutes of debate. DoJ and RIAA both made motions to dismiss the case, which the court granted. We'll have a story about what occurred at the hearing tomorrow. EFF plans to appeal. In addition, 2600 is reporting that they've lost their Appeal in the 2nd Circuit court.
It usually takes quite some time for an issue to percolate up to the Supreme Court. It has to show up at the district and appellate levels for two separate districts. Generally, there also has to be an obvious collision between appellate rulings. The Supremes are loth to get involved with anything, since their authority is largely smoke-and-mirrors. The more a wise man talks, the less wise he is, I guess.
You can rant and rave but let's face it: one of the jobs of the DoJ is to defend the government. They are the government's lawyers. So if you sue against this (or any other) law, it's the DoJ who'll show up opposite you in court. And what's more, they're professionally obligated to do the best defense they can, and this motion falls under that. It would have been irresponsible not to file it.
Right now people like to rag on the US judiciary. But just a few days ago, everyone was aglow (Message Boards are Opions and District Court Denies Injunction against bundlings and DeCSS Injunction reversed).
Here's my point: Like all other institutions, the federal judiciary is not monolithic. Yet we have a lot of good news coming out of there, too... perhaps more than good. At the very least, these rulings show that the pot is beginning to boil -- that the whole IP mess has wormed its way into and throughout the federal court system, and will soon have to be dealt with.
If you really believe you're right, how can that be a bad thing?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Not to be a naysayer, but bombarding any federal judge with hate mail or crank phone calls is utterly useless.
I worked for a federal judge, and protest mail and demonstrations outside the courthouse are summarily ignored by pretty much everyone.
Anything remotely resembling a threat is likely to be taken quite unfavorably by the U.S. Marshalls, moreover.
The only lobbying likely to have any effect whatsoever is lobbying of Congress. THOSE are the elected officials who are ultimately accountable to their voting constituents.
"Get out from behind the monitor and write your congressman. No, don't e-mail him/her, they won't read it."
YES, THEY WILL. Some Senators have actually pointed out that right now electronic mail is a better way to go (For an example, CLICK HERE.) because of the Anthrax threats on Capitol Hill. I can personally vouch that politicians read email, because I have recieved multiple personal, specific replies to emails I have sent to my representatives. These were well written letters, not just a generic form letter about a topic with a fake signature stamp.
On the topic, Americans need to stop buying into the myth that politicians do not read email. This story is spread by:
1- American media corporations, who want to keep people from contacting representatives. Actually writing a letter and mailing it intimidates some people (Those who do not know how to prepare elegant business letters or have poor handwriting and lack spelling skills.), and is too time-consuming for others. By making sure that the people's thoughts are not heard, companies like AOL and Microsoft make sure that theirs ARE.
2- Old Guard politicians afraid of progress, the guys like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond who are afraid of change, especially one that gives a lot of voters a voice in a manner that they do not understand.
Use email to contact politicians. It works. If a politician will not care about your email, chances are that he is enough of an asshole that he would not care about a letter anyway,.And if a politician expresses disdain for email, note it, and make sure he gets voted out!
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Funny, I've talked to a lot of people who are far from geeks, much less "pirates". I've told them about the attempt to place unexpirable "access controls" on material slated to be public domain.
The DMCA only covers copyrighted material, not material which is in the public domain.
I've told them about the arrest of a foreign national for writing a program legal in his country.
You mean for importing a program into this country and distributing it in this country.
I've told them about the intimidation and outright threatening of scientists who dare to expose flaws in a sham security system.
Completely irrelevant to the DMCA.
I've told them about being blocked from watching a movie they've bought wherever they want on whatever machine they choose.
Somewhat valid point.
I've told them about losing their time-honored rights to Fair Use, to First Sale, to archival copies...
Something which is specifically protected in the DMCA.
You know what? They don't think any of those things should be occuring. They don't think that reverse engineering for system interoperability should be illegal.
Also specifically protected by the DMCA.
They don't think allowing backups should be illegal.
Which it isn't.
They don't think allowing you to read an eBook on whatever machine you choose, should be illegal.
Somewhat fair point.
They don't think control over your own movie collection should be illegal.
Huh?
They don't think that quotation from a digital source, for the purposes of scholarship, should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA.
They don't think that scientific research should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA. You should read it some time.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
In every revolution most of the people sit out. All revolutions are cunducted by a small minority of the population who feels pissed off enough to do something.
War is necrophilia.
At Carnegie Mellon University on Friday there is going to be a moderated debate between David Touretzky of DCSS webpage fame, and Michael Shamos who defended the DMCA in court against Touretzky.
l
Here's the link: http://calendar.cs.cmu.edu/scsEvents/demo/554.htm
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
"The DMCA only covers copyrighted material, not material which is in the public domain."
This is true, but the DMCA places hurdles on Copyrighted material ever being forced to become Public Domain.
"You mean for importing a program into this country and distributing it in this country."
Not to re-hash an old debacle, but he is an employee of a company that did this. He didn't personally traffic this for his own demise. He may be guilty of being an employee of this company which carried this traffic to our borders, but shouldn't it strike you as strange if Bill Gates was personally indicted for enacting a monopoly? In this country, a company is legally a person.
"I've told them about the intimidation and outright threatening of scientists who dare to expose flaws in a sham security system.
Completely irrelevant to the DMCA."
No it isn't. The DMCA specifically states that circumvention of a reasonable attempt to protect Copyrighted material is illegal. Hence it is illegal to point out flaws in a security system which would allegedly aid circumvention. Aiding and abetting.
"They don't think that reverse engineering for system interoperability should be illegal.
Also specifically protected by the DMCA."
Then how come the DeCSS thing is such a problem? Perhaps because the DMCA does in fact protect against circumventing protective measures on Copyrighted materials?
"They don't think allowing backups should be illegal.
Which it isn't."
Again, circumvention of a protective mechanism is prohibited under the governing of the DMCA. So copying a DVD or copy protected music CD is illegal. Even for purposes of backups. Because the CSS is considered a reasonable attempt of securing the Copyrighted material.
"They don't think that scientific research should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA. You should read it some time."
Specifically exempt from the DMCA if there is an approval from the Copyright holder and/or if the subject is in the Public Domain and/or if the subject isn't reasonably protected. But since poor mechanisms of protection are accepted in Court, I don't blame the scientists of being afraid.
The DMCA has been applied in all of the above cases, in terms of supressive measures to maintain information/studies captive or openly challenged in Court. I think your literal interpretation of the DMCA shows exactly how easy and how dangerous it is to get the wrong idea about something so evil.
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
Guess again.
Check out the Notable First Amendment Cases page at the American Library Association. More specifically, see the case of Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973).
Here is part of Justice Byron R. White's decision:
Litigants, therefore, are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own right of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute's very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.
In other words, you can preemptively sue the government if it is possible for someone to be silenced by a law.
Ergo Felten was completely in the right.
AlfIn Soviet Russia, sig types you!