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.
Really. Do the issues raised not even give them PAUSE for a moment? This is a professor we are talking about...okay, on the face I can understand the prejudice that exists againt 2600 (even though I also understand the irony of that statement since a judge shouldn't have let his or her own belief affect their judgement) and see why that case was dismissed...but the Felton case?
WTF???
This is a goddam professor we are talking about. Speech and professor goes together like bribery and politician. If a professor stands up as says "hey, i'm not able to do my job" what the hell kind of idiot judge says "whatever".
I thought for sure this was a silver bullet against the DMCA and I can't believe that the EFF is already fighting an uphill battle on what seems blately a first ammendment issue to any first year law student.
Seriously W-T-F
Can judges be impeached? Can they have their positions revoked? I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life but what about the lower levels? Is there any way we can start a campaign to get idiots like this off the bench? These people are clearly not representing the people, the Constitution, or anything except Executive Branch and Legislative Branch interests.
RULINGS LIKE THESE ARE DESTROYING THE F'N CHECKS AND BALANCES SYSTEM
Unreal.
- (ANGRY) JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
OK. I hate the DMCA.
But the court may have been right here.
I still don't like the fact that he was even threatened with a lawsuit but legal threats were present BEFORE the DMCA.
Felten did get to publish his research, he wasn't sued.
I do believe that this will fall though but we need the RIAA to actually try to use this before we can push this down through the courts....
The rag-tag bunch of a couple dozen geeks (that being us Linux users) users and a handful of blind people aren't enough to outweigh the benefits of complete content control.
If the companies behind this considered what you listed to be legitimate uses for their content (for use of which you buy a "license" from them - in the ideal world, of course) then encryption preventing those uses and the laws protecting that encryption would not be there - because let's face it, it doesn't stop real piracy.
That would be kinda like saying that MS WPA is designed to stop software piracy, rather than casual copying.
Xine isn't illegal (they don't distribute DeCSS code/binaries spcifically because of DMCA), but watching DVDs on Linux is illegal, not because that's the artifact of some not too well thought out copy protection system, but because you are not supposed to play DVDs on Linux until there is a "proper" player for it.
sic transit gloria mundi
Call me an alarmist, but the day will come when you and I will need the approval of some government/corporate (as if there will be any difference) organization to release code that has anything to do with "rights management." Of course, everything digital will be a matter of rights management. I am hopeful that Felten and 2600 will win on appeal, but have limited faith in judges and attorneys who seem to know nothing about computer technology. I, for one, plan to store all the "illicit" software I can find on non-volatile media, dreading the day when information is free--pending approval of the powers that be, that is.
Imagine for a second, that some "Information Approval Board" was running into town, making sure that everyone had the right level of license and security authorization to read a book, or look at an image. Horrifying. Imagine also that the war on "free information" starts with software. Now everyone is "renting" the books and pictures they own.
Frightened? Here's more. The only thing separating imagination from the current reality is a handful of judges.
Well, I guess one never misses something until it's gone...
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
Although I can see the EFF's point, the publication of Proffessor Feltens work was no longer at contest. They where asking the Judge to step in when he wasn't needed to allow publication, so it could have easily been seen as frivilous.
I think it's probable there would have been a different outcome if the RIAA hadn't back tracked, and they where attempting to supress academic research.
Just wait until some RIAA-like organization decides to dig in against a proffessor like felten.
Then you'll see the sparks fly.
As for 2600, they're still seen as subversive hackers, and hence are easy targets. Is it right? Nope. We'll see if and when it gets to the supreme court, maybe they can rectify things. Cross your fingers.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I've implemented a simple solution to this problem. For more then a year now I havn't gone to any movies, bought any CD's, rented any movies, or even purchased a DVD player yet in my life. I agree it's quite a boring solution for most people, but atleast my dollars ain't going in to an industry that is stamping on rights of the people who support it with their hard earned dollars.
I don't think the majority of the world will follow my solution, but it's one that would work if more people took the time to think where their dollars are going. If you want to stop the insanity, then stop giving them the money to get laws like the DMCA and such in to enforcement.
People, stop making this bed if you don't want to sleep in it. I'm sure there are enough people out there who don't like what the entertainment industry is doing that could hurt their income by boycotting their products.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
I won't comment on the EFF, but a year or more ago I had thought that it would be the EPIC in the more prominent position that EFF is today. I really don't know much about the EFF's history, while I know that EPIC is responsible for Privacy.org, and has worked closely with the ACLU. Actually, I think a lot more could be accomplished if the EFF and EPIC were to become one. Or at least, work together alongside the ACLU. They seem to have the same priorities.
What specifically makes him unsympathetic? Unlike many of the DeCSS posters he didn't engage in profanity while describing the MPAA, and never encouraged illegal copying. If you've heard him on the radio you've probably heard he is an articulate and level-headed guy even though his politics are a little to the left of center.
Has it gotten to the point where no one with long hair should expect a fair trial?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
That, my friend, is a sad thing to say. Patriotism is not about agreeing with your elected officials. Patriotism is not about rolling over while the freedom you know and love is kicked out the window. When freedom is on the line, acting patriotic should be a priority.
I challenge you to be a real patriot. Get out from behind the monitor and write your congressman. No, don't e-mail him/her, they won't read it. Write out long hand your grievances and slap an American flag stamp on the corner. Tell him/her you vote. Tell him/her you know a whole community of people who vote and have similar interests. If you really want to be patriotic, go to D.C. and demand to see your representive/congressman. Raise Hell and be a patriot.
__
LilDebbie
Obviously, however, DMCA == DeCSS here at Slashdot. That is the reason my comment was DeCSS oriented. You're absolutely correct, though. The DeCSS (and the RIAA) aspire to capitalize (the "American way") with any method they can utilize.
:)
For example, the RIAA is attempting to apply a $.02 "performance fee" (they may have already done it) to every played song on a webcast. (This adds up quite quickly, I assure you.) I suppose they figure if they can't outlaw digital music, they can efficiently screw those who would otherwise stream it out of enough money to force them to cease doing so.
Fair use is quite a grey area; after all, doesn't a Shoutcast stream "for your friends" (but open to the public) qualify as fair use? It's all a matter of opinion.
And as for MP3s/Vorbis, the RIAA happens to be screwing themselves. There are twenty CDs that I would have never purchased had it not been for digital music. Why? Because there isn't any music on the radio that originated from these bands.
Do you like German cars?
After reading the EFF press release and having read the briefs, I'd just like to point out that things aren't necessarily as bad as they sound (with respect to the Felten case).
First, I haven't seen any links to an actual published decision. So all of this is really rampant speculation. Take it for what it's worth.
It sounds like the Felten case was dismissed for lack of justiciability. The judge probably felt that there simply was no "case or controversy" as required by the Constitution for a federal judge to adjudicate a dispute.
Although the EFF filed for a declaratory judgment (which defines the rights of the party when a dispute is imminent), the judge probably felt that the issue was moot because the RIAA had withdrawn its threats, or was unripe because no actual prosecution took place.
The bottom line is that the Felten decision appears to ultimately be a civil procedure decision of interest mainly to lawyers. It does NOT appear to operate as an adjudication on the merits of the constitutionality of any part of the DMCA. Even if affirmed by the Third Circuit, it sets no binding precedent concerning the DMCA.
Is it unfortunate that the DMCA won't be stricken down immediately? Of course. The wheels of justice, for better or worse, often turn quite slowly. The judiciary doesn't react well to Internet time.
So step back a bit, breathe, and relax before crying chicken little or picking up the flamethrower.
IAAL, but this is not specific legal advice to anyone, just general ruminations about civil procedure.
The people who back the DMCA own the media.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
The /. crowd may be surprised, but many judges are extremely technically literate.
I've seen federal judges with laptops cross-referencing real-time transcripts of the proceedings during trial. Of course, like any large group of individuals, there are geeks and there are luddites.
The point was, however, that as a whole, federal judges simply do not care what the general populace thinks of their decisions. That's the beauty (or problem, in some people's books) of the lifetime appointment of Article III judges.
For better or worse, the founding fathers wrote it into the Constitution, and that's the system we have.
FWIW, I think it's the best alternative out there. Would we really have had a Brown v. Board of Education with an elected Supreme Court? Or the judicial compromises over abortion and the death penalty?
I must comment on a Bruce Schneier talk that was held recently post on the free dmitry site. It was about how the entities are involved with copy protection and the digital age.
S ch neier.pdf
In extremely paraphrased words, copyright owners can not technically/physically stop copying (legal or otherwise) from going on so they are trying to pull the legal angle with things such as the DMCA, SSSCA, ATA, etc. Some of these are obviously quite misguided. Bruce Schneier talked about these things and the history of their inability to completely stop copying. There are countries in the world that do not and will not conform to american companies' wishes/laws/edicts (mostly one-in-the-same anyway); such countries will not apply the DMCA, SSSCA, etc to their people and thus ignore entities such as the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, etc
There will never be a time when millions of people will be overpowered by any entity(ies) technically, legally or any way in the end. There will always be a way around it or thru it or to bypass it. It is just a matter of time before the way is understood. How long did Windows XP last before it was cracked? How long for the watermarking was cracked? How long before CSS was cracked? How long before 802.11b password keys can be revealed?
Where is OpenBSD based because of encryption laws being to strict in the US? Canada. There are countries out there that don't recognize IP. What is Disney going to do when their beloved life-extended from the public domain Mickey Mouse is used in some defamating way in one such country? Nothing!
I grasped from Bruce's speech that there are tough times ahead for many but there is no way everyone can be stopped. Just keep persistent and keep trying to figure things out and how they work and in the end this barrage of legal assaults against us and our freedoms will cease when it yields no more results.
http://www.faircopyright.org
http://www.eff.org
http://freesklyarov.org/
http://www.2600.com
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/071601
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some things to do tonight: invite my friends over to play cards, walk my dog, and lay down with my girlfriend under the stars.
Seriously, you should either thank your lucky stars that the EFF is doing this, since they're the ONLY people fighting these cases. And the challenges for civil rights were after many years of black people being screwed. Remember slavery? Segregation was pretty deeply entreanched in our society by then.
The DMCA is new. It needs to be challenged NOW, before it gets to be established law. Just because some moron judge didn't even listen to arguments doesn't mean that the EFF shouldn't sue. Ed felten is a legitimate researcher, and he is plenty sympatheic if that is your concern. Eventually, the EFF will get their day in court, try their case, and then we will see.
In the mean time, start litigating this stuff yourself or stop complaining if the only people who have the dollars and time to do it have a small setback.
Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed the DMCA into law.
"FBI backing private companies" is not new, in fact, it is standard practice.
If you're willing to fight the revolution, I'll be rooting for you, but don't expect me to actually be a part of the bloodshed. Besides, a revolution isn't necessary. I think all we need to do is go: "Fuck you RIAA and MPAA. Since you want to treat us like yo' bitch, we'll fight fire with fire and listen to non-RIAA music and watch non-MPAA shiznit."
You die too easily.
I believe that because existing copyright laws already make it illegal to make illegal copies of information, the DMCA is redundant legislation put in place by greedy corporations, whose interests do not match the best interests of the majority of Americans. If things continue the way they are right now, then next thing you know, you won't be allowed to copy your own data (that you create) without written permission from the governor. (Geez, you might not even be able to make data without a license!!)
The entire copyright system has been corrupted over the past century or so, the largest corruption being the increasingly long time the copyright lasts. In my opinion, 20 years is more than enough time for a copyright. After that, you'd better come up with something new to sell or you're an idiot. Just so you know, I spend nearly all of my time writing software for heavy duty industrial processes. It is very difficult work. Really. The blood, sweat and tears I put into this work are approaching a level of ridiculousness. Despite that, I refuse to put any kind of copy protection scheme in my software, even though a single instance of piracy makes me lose thousands of dollars. I simply don't believe in putting deliberate defects in my software. Furthermore, I'd be more than happy with a 20 year copyright. Like I said, by the time the 20 years are up, I'd better have something new to offer. This would keep people busy coming up with new things. I think it's idiotic that someone can come up with a song or book or program and profit off it for the rest of their lives, and for the lives of their great grandchildren, as seemingly happens with the copyright system today.
Think about how much better off we'd all be if people who profit from "nontangible" work are required to keep coming up with new things. An electrician who installs a light switch doesn't charge royalties on each use of that switch for the next 150 years. A mechanic who fixes cars doesn't charge for every mile driven on that car afterwards. Someone who builds skyscrapers doesn't stand at the door and charge people to enter, and then sue people who enter through the back door without paying. If you but a toaster, or a rock, or a screwdriver, or a slab of concrete, it belongs to YOU and you can do with it whatever you want. You can smash it to pieces if you want. It belongs to YOU. Now intangible data is intangible, so I agree that some kind of artificial system needs to be in place so that people can profit from their hard work. But why should someone (even me) come up with something intangible and charge for it through the nose for the next 6,000 years?! That's unfair, and I say that as a person who's career is nontangible work.
An electrician who profits from installing a light switch has to KEEP INSTALLING LIGHT SWITCHES in order to KEEP PROFITING. The same rule applies to any other job. Therefore, it stands to reason that a person who makes software, or songs, or books, or whatever should have to KEEP MAKING whatever they're making in order to KEEP PROFITING. I think that makes sense. If the electrician or [insert name of any other tangible job here] has to do it, so does the person making intangible DATA. Otherwise, you end up with idiots who strike it rich on some stupid work of theirs and spend the rest of their lives doing drugs, getting all kinds of piercings and tatooes and sexually transmitted diseases and stuff, because they just keep profiting off their work FOREVER. That's wrong. They should have to continue coming up with new material or get a real job. There will be less problems in the world!
Therefore, I believe the DMCA is a trash piece of legislation, and it should be repealed. Again, the DMCA is a law in MY favor, but I don't like it. Furthermore, I think that the limit on copyright should be changed to 20 (or at MOST, 30) years. Finally, I think the penalties for copyright infringement should be heavily reduced. It's absolutely ridiculous that a copyright violator can spend more time in prison under the DMCA and other laws than some murderers.
But it probably won't happen. The world is like any other system with problems: Things tend to get worse, not better. I think the whole human race has been going downhill ever since the beginning. Sure, we have technology and stuff but when it comes down to it, people now get punished for listening to music as if they killed people. Of course, that may just be the Brandy Alexanders talking. (1/3 parts each: Chocolate liqueur, Brandy and Cream, in case you're wondering. It's an old drink. Most bartenders have to look it up.)
Oooooooh well.
Why was this moderated up to "+5, insightful"?
It's just one-sided propaganda. You don't bother to tell the other side of the issues (most of it is straw-man arguments and/or unreasonable -- but not all!), and you even go so far as to make up things.
Where in the DMCA does it give the RIAA the right to have control over your DVD collection? I must have missed that part.
Look, I'm not saying that I like the DMCA. I'm just saying that to demonize something like that causes people look up the facts of the matter and really come to dislike your position.
Remember how the governmnet used to lie through their teeth and tell us that one puff of marijuana would warp your mind and get you addicted to crack the next day? Well, it was obviously bullshit, people knew it was bullshit, and nobody paid any attention to it. If you make up your own straw-man arguments (and invent ridiculous things like "the government has their hands in my movie collection!"), you're not doing any good for the anti-DMCA lobby.
How exactly has the DMCA hurt you personally, anyways? It has yet to hurt me at all, as I never really had the right to make backups of my stuff in the first place (EULAs, copy protection, etc). The DMCA is practically a non-issue in my life, though I do find it distasteful.
If there was a law that actually forbade me from making backup copies of my compact discs, then I'd get pissed. The DMCA does not do that. Read it some time.
I detest the DMCA. On the other hand, since so much garbage is churned out by the entertainment industry these days, it's kind of like posting a guard around the landfill. Happy hunting!
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
When the smoke and mirrors all fade (on both sides), the part of the DMCA that deals with DeCSS and Dimitri (yes, I've actually read it) will boil down to this:
The DMCA cannot hinder free speech - it actually says that IN the DMCA (thus preventing the DMCA to be struck down as unconstitutional). But distributing a mechanism to break encryption is illegal, and probably will stay that way.
Source code will fall under free speech, and therefore will be able to be distributed at will.
Binaries will not. They will fall under the DMCA because they don't fall under free speech.
Distributing all the pieces (compilers, source, etc) to CREATE the binaries will be ok. Just as it is perfectly legal to distribute the materials to make a bomb. AFAIK, even building one isn't a crime. Using one or distributing bombs is a big no-no.
I'm just waiting for the precedent to be set that code is free speech. It will happen. The hoopla around DeCSS proves it is utterly stupid NOT to let code fall under free speech. Try printing a binary on a tee-shirt though.
Other parts of the DMCA (including the ones that cover fair-use) will also be contested, and the precedents will be set.
No, blame the 63% of eligible American voters who just didn't bother to vote at all.
Land of the free? Don't make me laugh.
However, if that DVD uses CSS, and it is the only source you can get the content from, you're stuck. Even though the work is in the public domain, and you can legally copy it, under the DMCA you can't legally obtain the tools for breaking the encryption used.
Thus, copy protection via encryption can be used artifically extend your copyright protection, since you can go after anyone that copies the work even after it has entered the public domain, and get them thrown in jail for violating the DMCA. Even the threat of that will be a major protection for the movie studios and others.
As I see it, the DMCA is in part a way for the US government to work around the restrictions placed on it by the US constitution.
You can rant and rave but let's face it: one of the jobs of the DoJ is to defend the government
However they appear to be currently rather selective about doing their job. Otherwise we would have expected them to have squashed (revokation of of corporate charter and arrest of those who lied in court) Microsoft a few months back.
RIAA says "publish and we'll sue you or worse, we'll tell the FBI your research is a circumvention device" Why is it frivilous for Felten to come before a judge and say "hey, do they really have a case?"
The motion was not about frivolousness of the underlying questions (whether Felton could publish) and it was not about whether there was a case -- it was about whether there was a controversy.
Federal courts only have jurisdiction under the U.S. Constitution over "cases and controversies," and cannot give advisory opinions. If there is no actual dispute between the parties, the Court must not hear the case.
That was the basis for the motion to dismiss. RIAA said, "Whoops, we were wrong -- we're not going to sue if you publish." So Felton sued for a declaratory judgment.
There are exceptions to the requirement that a case be justiciable, and arguably this was such a case, capable of repetition yet evading review and infringing closely on the limits of the First Amendment by chilling free speech. That was the issue before the Court.
The subtle, totally legal, justiciability question was always hard. On the merits, I think it was very close, particularly absent an elaborate pattern and track record of sending letters to other researchers, though I liked EFF's first amendment "chilling" argument quite a bit. But I could easily see the question going the other way, and surviving an appeal.
But don't get this wrong -- this is not a victory for DMCA on the merits, not by a long shot. It is a procedural loss for the EFF for persisting to bring a case on facts that the RIAA was smart enough to drop. This goes to picking one's battles -- this could have been a good one for the anti-technology regulation movement, but it was not to be. Precisely, by the way, for that reason.
I think you've got it backwards--Gore cost Nader the election. After all, if all Gore voters had voted for Nader instead, Nader would have won.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
As an alternative to leaving the country, try *not voiting for the incumbent unless he/she does what you want*. Re-electing career politicians will never change anything.
Eh, people on Slashdot (who aren't still pissed about the Gore thing) are generally smart enough to know that already. Tell your friends.
Soon, my friends, soon, this "Turbo Capitalism" (not my term, stolen from a really good book..don't have MLA citation at the moment) will run its inevitable course.
a) transnational corporations will have more power than any one nation state
b) the small number of extremely rich will be extremely rich, the majority of people will be terribly poor.
c) this will happen on a global scale, soon the poor of every nation will all be opressed by the rich of a few corporations
d) global "laws" will continue to enslave those that are 1. not rich and 2. not afraid of those who are
e) finally someone will rally all the common men to revolt against the corporations..the new elite that have power greater than the states.
f) the states will have to side with either corporations of people.
g) a global revolutionary war will take place. I'll be fighting with the rebels for the rights of the people (sound familiar, America?), my country be damned if it chooses the other side.
If America chooses the side it appears to be choosing, it is no longer America, the home of the free, it's America the home of the rich..just like all the anti-s claim. Not only will it piss me off if America chooses the transnational corporations and the benefits of the elites over traditional rights, but it will piss me off even more because it is America, the country founded on a belief in a common set of unalienable rights. I pity the nation states that chooses the wrong side of this battle. You thought England f*ed up in 1776, wait till this happens on a global scale. I'll personally clone Tom Paine from his DNA (we mysteriously lost his body in the atlantic you know) and bring him back to life. I'll get Malcom X back too. I'll free all of our middle and lower class soldiers from the prisons of america (where they were sent for questioning the system, or smoking pot) and we'll rally the world against this evil greed.
Seriously, why are half the adolescent black male population of America behind bars, cause rich fat white men are afraid of them, thats why. Well f that and f the corporations. when the time is right, when they have gone too far, it will happen. And when the revolution happens the DMCA won't mean squat. So just wait, and it'll be cool.