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.
...that the $10,000 Wil won on Weakest Link for the EFF will come in handy!
How to Download YouTube Videos
This law is sooooo screwed up, it's amazing that it hasn't throttled itself already. Wish it would hurry up and do so.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
As seen a few hours ago on Slashdot I wonder if he will even keep his research on the web after this?
Great, one step closer to my dvd player being illegal (Xine). I can actually watch my DVDs in linux....BSOD in windows...err at least when I use my decoder card...thank you crappy drivers!
Please, we're not "subverting" encryption for piracy purposes, we're "subverting" so we can watch our damned movies! Or so we have e-books read to the blind! This law is so ludicrous!
Derek Greene
As long as that source exists, DeCSS will exist. There is absolutely no way that the MPAA will be able to remove it from every machine. It's also unlikely that they'll change the CSS standard (old players != compatible with the new standard).
And what was that quote about encryption? "If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption?"
Do you like German cars?
??AA: Too many to count.
DMCA: 2
Freedom: 0
The Rest of the World: +2 "Canada Seems Much Better Right Now" bonus.
Great. I thought those DeCSS backup freaks had problems, but I just got out a blank and copied DeCSS, SmartRipper, and FlasK to a CD. It's in a jewel case in the floorboards now.
How can our rights be violated like this? I believe it was T. Jefferson that said every 25 years a revolution is healthy. Well, guys, it's been about TWO HUNDRED and 25.
Donate to the EFF. I can't follow my own advice, as I'm in debt right now. Write to the judge that handed down the motions to dismiss these appeals. Let them know how you feel. Make sure to let them know they won't get your retainer vote.
Being a minor in this country sucks. Looks like by the time I'm an adult (2 yrs) it won't be much better.
The entertainment industry want their shareholders to be fooled into thinking that the industry can implement this technology (which doesn't work) and continue milking the public (and their artists) in much the same way as they have been for the past few decades. They, and their whores in the federal government, have a vested interest in keeping Joe Public uninformed about the charade that their so-called copyright protection gives.
Great, just great. This country is going to hell, no one cares, and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. If they're going to take my freedoms away and not listen to reason, then I officially refuse to be patriotic about anything.
-- juju
now might be a good time to look at my .sig..
What could make a judge so hostile to clearly valid academic concerns? Pressure from DOJ or other big-buisiness government interests? The knowledge that her decision ultimately didn't mean squat since the decision would get appealed for decades?
But seriously, what judge could turn down an appeal here? The decision was obviously one-sided.
---------
Get back to me when my brain starts working.
Umm, it's not about bootlegging! It's about freedom, they're telling us that reverse engineering (which under every other copyright law is legal) is illegal. They're telling us they figuring out how to do what they did, without their help is illegal. That figuring out how to have a computer read e-books to the blind, is illegal. That figuring out how to watch DVDs in an "alternative OS" is illegal. Sorry, bootlegging DVDs is a fricking bitch and sure as hell isn't worth it! The quality is degraded also.
Derek Greene
They were basically trying to challenege the DCMA based on an empty threat by the RIAA, but because they backed down, and never went any further with, there wasn't any real case.
Tired of the laws your brain-dead politicians keep creating? Consider Canada! Sure the weather is a little colder than California, but the taxes aren't as high as you've heard. I think you'll find that business is better up here.
Ask yourself: What more does the US government have to do before you'll leave? Guess what? They'll do it!
How long did prohibition in the uhh 1930s (I believe?) to be repealed? I'm hoping that DCMA will be repealed in the same amount of time or at LEAST in less time than that.. since it pretty much comes up to the same level of ignorance that it took to create the same law..
Will the consitution be able to be upheld in the future if this mess keeps happening? Seems like money is starting to control what our freedom means instead of the IDEAL of freedom..
Moderation rating: Freedom_Rocks: +1 Insightful: +1
DCMA Moderation Rating: Freedom_Rocks: -1 Flamebait: +1
Support Slashdot and take a stand!
While you're at it... visit here too
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
Not to be overly radical but if you don't like such anti-American laws as the DMCA then the best solution is to stop buying all products from the companies buying such laws. We probably can't afford to buy back our government but we can cut off the money our enemies use to buy the votes in the first place.
Sure then you have to accept your own responsibility. If you are lazy (we all are sometimes) you just bootleg the product. A better solution is to create high-quality alternate products and offer them to others without all the legal bullshit we're against. Open your specs, open your code, open your documentation, give away what you can and sell the rest without these unethical restrictions. It is our responsibility to make the world better. Whining doesn't do a damn thing.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
The DMCA is a hassel and should definantelly be considered in the supreme court, why it's still in circut court is far beyound me, I guess EFF is just trying to go through the motions of getting it directly to the supreme court. Why the DoJ would make a motion to dismiss is beyound me though.
The United States division of powers The Legislative Branch is checked by the Judicial Branch THROUGH court rulings, but I guess someone forgot to mention this plain key fact to the DoJ, but wait ... could I be right when I make the assumption that the government is no longer for the people which it represents and more for how well their own pockets can be lined by our fellow extremely wealthy citizens.
Could corperate Kick-Backs be the main case behind why the DMCA was born and is still alive? Of course not, We are Americans in a democracy for the people and by the people with full and equal representation and rights ... *cough* bullshit *cough* ... we're a capitalistic society and I'm ashamed that anything of this nature is going on. I'm also very surprised that like the DECSS the SDMI cracks haven't hit the open source world yet ...
Oh well ... just my opinion I could be wrong.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
I am nothing even close to a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.
;)
However, I just read the DOJ's motion to dismiss - and I think this whole thing is great, because with the amount of court attention this one is going to see we might as well get it up at least to the minor leagues before revealing good tactics
go EFF!
remote access CLI with tools is the only friend you'll ever need.
This entire DMCA debacle makes me physically ill. I find it hard to believe that in America, the land of the "free", the courts and the legislature uphold laws that obviously fly in the face of free speech and everything that the Bill of Rights stands for.
The only way to fight this very disturbing trend is to grow up and stop hacking. Our programmers need to concentrate on good old fashioned programming projects: improving KDE and Mozilla. Adding more big iron support, filesystems, and other features to the Linux kernel. Making the system more user-friendly. Improving security. These things help everybody and will allow us to overthrow the Microsoft monopoly.
What we don't need right now is more hacking software. We don't need new versions of nmap and SATAN every week. We don't need any more 'sploits published on BUGTRAQ and we don't need any more software to remove content protection. We don't need any new PTP clients. We need to stop the government from passing these Draconian laws and the only way they're going to listen to us is if we can show them that we can behave without regulation.
Face it folks - we are a bunch of powerless individuals, not a large corporation. The EFF's budget is about 1/100th of the smallest RIAA member's lobbying budget. We can't fight them on their own terms so the only way we have to preserve our freedoms is to stop abusing them.
~wally
I disagree.. My roomie's Cell phone number starts with xxx-912-xxxx... It's definately not a payphone..
accidently dialed 911 cuz the 1 stuck once..
ChiefArcher
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....
i'm not that good with the 2600 case because i stopped listing to there off the hook show,(i live in the tristate area i get it live not the streaming crap) but i think that there case for freedom of printing the decss code on there website was perfectly legal but they lost there case. what will happen to 2600? i might be really lazy but why is the case being thrown out with the decryption of the digital water marks by those princeton geeks? yeah i too lasy to read what is going on hell i doubt will read the answer but i just want to say one thing. FREE KEVIN! wait he's out already whats next? HAIL GATES?
Me and lunchbox here are going to kick your ass.
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!
Post-9/11 it seems fairly evident that most people take their rights completely for granted. I'm willing to bet that they care a lot more about drinking.
sorry pal, you're looking in the wrong place. if the 4th digit from the end is 9, it's a payphone, not the 4th from the front
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
IANAL, but I don't think you can get such a determination from any US Court. For better or worse, they only deal in suits with full adversarial participation.
Had the EFF sued for defamation of character [by the RIAA alleging that Felton was a lawbreaker] or some other tort then the case probably couldn't be so easily dismissed. But nor would it be Federal, either.
We all know that both sides will appeal this as long as there is a higher court. It's only the supreme court who can really settle this after all. It's only in that court that the judgement really is final. The higher up the decision, the harder it will be for it to be challenged in the future.
I'm thinking it's getting near time for me to expatriate to a free country.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I know that the supreme court may be busy from time to time, but it seems to me that they should be a little more proactive. Right now, for things like this, it seems to be "lets screw it to the people until someone can afford to make it to the system to us."
:)
It would be nice if (at least on huge legislation like this) they would take a look at it and say "this is crap - it's gone."
Then again, if they did, then as RIAA/MPAA...er...congress...yeah... is drafting the bill it might help them create a more bullet proof bill.
Just once I'd like a single edged sword
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Um... No.
You have to put both sides together and actually _think_ to figure that out.
Three sides to every story...
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! ~~
The road to the supreme court is a long one. They cannot merely step in on something, unless they are asked.
-
What about AC sensorship at 2.2.20? All I saw is that the DMCA citation is still there. When will we know what kind of patch is that?
Will Tossati allow all the world (but US) to know what's happening inside the kernel?
Due to a dumb and stupid law the freedom of our kernel is being violated. Why can't we know what the heck was changed?
I want the kernel freedom back. And I hope that Torvalds and Tossati will bring it back to us. I don't care if this update is irrelevant to me, and for most users. I have the right to know and I want to know!
Or everything we fight for means nothing? Will Tossati and/or Torvalds allow that a stupid foreign (they are not americans) law to steal our freedom? Will they let DMCA destroy everything we believe (OpenSource/FreeSoftware or whatever).
I'm very disapointed. Many claims today for quality. I think that we need our freedom back above all.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
I admit to being a little confused: The best way to protect your freedom is to stop exercising it? I always thought that the best way to protect your freedom was exactly to excercise it, long and loud and often.
Should people be making malicious programs and cracking sites? Surely not. But to say that our best bet lies in being good sheep and just playing along -- that to be heard, we should cower in a corner and plead, "Don't hurt me" -- is simply absurd.
It won't work, because it never has worked.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Then how can someone go about fixing the "problem" with the EFF? I'm a National Merit Scholar out of high school, am currently A+ certified, will be graduating with an MIS degree in two years, and then plan to obtain a law degree in Intellectual Property law from Ohio State. What path should I take to keep this crap from happening five years from now?
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
So they should stop trying to defend people and concentrate on their political agenda?
YES. Absolutely. Their mission isn't to defend people, its to protect Electronic Freedom. Corley, et all, can defend themselves -- and certainly do a better job than the EFF, given their current track record. I guarantee there is no shortage of lawyers to defend any DMCA violator, the EFF needs to concentrate on changing the law. We now have several data points that indicate they are unable to defend individuals, its time for them to revise their tactics.
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.
I gotta agree... I'm a csci/polisci double major ... people always say "Thats a weird decision, why are you doing that?" ... then I get to explain what happened to all the rights they assumed they had... sigh.
Become a good lawyer. Spend years practicing the craft. Win several high profile cases (its ok if you lose some too :-). Prove yourself to be both effective and reasonable. And 10 years from now give me a call. Let my generation take care of this one, you get the next. Hopefully we won't screw it up too badly before you get there. And since you're young and idealistic, don't let the negativity of many of the stories on Slashdot and my own post affect you. Nothing serious is lost yet, no matter how upset I am at the EFF.
The EFF was pursuing an iffy course of legal action by attempting to sue the RIAA for something the RIAA had already relented on, anyway. Just because this case was dismissed at the district court level doesn't mean that the DMCA has been ruled constitutional.
Just relax, and for god's sake don't go harassing a sitting federal judge. It won't do one damn bit of good, and it'll give the EFF a bad name. Just write your congress people.. they're the ones that are supposed to respond to democratic complaint.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
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?
>Both pieces of code could potentially be used to steal a
>great deal of money
But only one of them was solicited by the very people who now claim they'd be hurt by it. Remember, researchers were invited to crack the copy protection, and if memory serves they were even offered a prize for doing so. I don't see Mastercard issuing any such challenges, and I don't envision the EFF defending a malicious cracker.
Shaun
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
I suppose it's not important to note that the DMCA became law under Clinton/Gore's watch. But then, I imagine we don't need to let facts interfere with our arguing.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
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.
Let me see if I understand this correctly...
You can conduct and share research that WILL eventually lead to cloning a human, yes that is the creation of a human fucking being, but you can not study the watermark of "protected" music??
Seems to me that things are slightly out of whack here in the US.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
someone mod'd down a comment about certifications meaning nothing. (or, it was be anonymus coward, dont recall). this is quite true. there is nothign stopping completely incompitent lawyers and judges from making decisions, you would therefore get no special privs.
/many/ 'certified' morons. this is in no way personal, but just somethign to keep in mind. im sure the eff people think they know what they're doing too. just make sure when you get there, you actually do =) go get 'em, tiger.
also, dont let your certifications go to your head. no offense, i dont know you so i couldnt judge you, and im not, but i have seen
I'll assume you were being devil's advocate as opposed to a troll. I listed my A+ to show that I at least have something resembling a clue when it comes to technical issues. Can I hold a candle to most of the people here on a technical level? Probably not. But most of the people here aren't capable/willing to get a law degree. The MIS degree and my continued experience in the tech field will differentiate me from most of the others in law school.
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
Why didn't the scientists involved just present their research pulicly, and make it a media event? Let the corporate goon squads of the DOJ/FBI prosecute the scientists, in front of the American media, obviously violating their consitutional rights? Or are these scientists willing to go to jail to make a point? Apparently not.
So here I will make an offer: Someone get me a good presentation that violates the DMCA, along with printed handouts, and time at a conference to present it. Inform the media and the DOJ/RIAA/MPAA ahead of time of what I will be dicussing. Have a lawyer ready to represent me. At that time I will pass out printed photocopies of the presentation and give the presentation. I am willing to go to jail over this if someone else is willing to do the preparatory work. If you can get provide the backing, just drop me an email at supabeast AT supabeast DAWT oh-are-gee.
It must be pretty cheap...after all, they seem to be a herd of morons!
I just want to express my opinion.. not hate bombard.. i would rather use email though.. :(
Anyway.. i'd probably get the secretary or something which could then give an email address..
I wish judge's were technically literate... and not like my parents.
ChiefArcher
What specifically makes him unsympathetic?
He publishes the magazine 2600. Read the judge's decision he clearly thought Corley was a Hacker/Cracker, and published a magazine for teaching other people how to hack into systems and steal information. Read the decision (it used to be posted on 2600
If I can't abuse it, it ain't freedom! We're talking about "speech", not hitting people with a car!!! Remember "stick and stones can break my bones, but words will never harm me".
...richie - It is a good day to code.
America has left it's utopian ideals far in the past.
Between the DRM movement and the coming "middleware revolution" (Java,.NET), you can kiss the computing industry goodbye.
I just don't see how freedom can compete with a government that desperately needs middleware to create backdoors--both at home and abroad.
Nor can it compete with two of the most powerful entities extant today--entertainment and Microsoft Bill.
Whatever. It's not like freedom hasn't lost before.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
That's one theory. There are many others which are not so optimistic. Let's hope you're right.
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. I've told them about the arrest of a foreign national for writing a program legal in his country. I've told them about the intimidation and outright threatening of scientists who dare to expose flaws in a sham security system. I've told them about being blocked from watching a movie they've bought wherever they want on whatever machine they choose. I've told them about losing their time-honored rights to Fair Use, to First Sale, to archival copies...
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. They don't think allowing backups should be illegal. They don't think allowing you to read an eBook on whatever machine you choose, should be illegal. They don't think control over your own movie collection should be illegal. They don't think that quotation from a digital source, for the purposes of scholarship, should be illegal. They don't think that scientific research should be illegal.
So don't get on your high horse and tell me what people think should be illegal and what not. You don't know a thing about what people want. When the mists are lifted, when the DMCA and its implications are laid bare in ordinary language, and not swirled up and hidden behind copyright-lawyerese, then even the "ordinary" people do care.
In this fight, the problem is not that the majority understand the issues and are against. The problem is that they do not understand the issues. They stand neither against us nor for us, for they have not yet thought it through. In my experience, when they do stop to think about it, when the shape of things is made clear, then the rational citizens I encounter invariable end up quite upset with the DMCA.
People are only as stupid as you seem to think they are, when they listen to you tell them how stupid they are.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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.
Yep, kind of like they're professionally obligated to persue a meaningful penalty against a proven monopoly. Uh, never mind.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
You Said:
Just wait until some RIAA-like organization decides to dig in against a proffessor like felten.
Then you'll see the sparks fly.
I say:
It sucks but the sparks should have already flown. Not enough people care to take any action.
``Mickey Mouse is more important than national security; Mickey Mouse has gotten a federal appeals court to agree that they can have scientific research and/or software censored, while the DoJ, representing national security interests, was unable to get an appeals court to censor encryption reserach, publication, or software.'' -- Scott A Crosby
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 am a double major in both at Clemson University. Best of luck to you. I hope people like you and me can fight this kind of crap later.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
You don't walk into your local Wal-Mart and buy a list of credit card numbers. DVDs are rather common there though.
Thought for the moment:
Does being on Nightline make you respectable?
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
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)
If you plan to get a law degree in IP, you might want to reconsider. Aside from working full time for a group like the EFF (Unlikely at best.), an IP lawyer who did anything OTHER than promote a corporate point of view would be quickly blacklisted. Just something to think about if you plan to make a living with a degree in IP law.
YES!!
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
I don't think paper mail is the way to go right now-- there's no guarantee anyone's going to take a chance on opening it. Email also gets the shaft.
A good middle solution is a faxed letter, if you can find a fax number for your Representative.
EPIC, while obviously far more competent than the EFF, is not for defending freedom of speech, but for defending privacy. Groups like this have to specialize, because in a court system full of corrupt judges and politicians like the US courts, the need the specialization to survive.
Bootlegging doesn't necesarilly imply that...least not here in the south. (remember the moonshiners who did their craft for their own use?)
Derek Greene
Okay, is there much doubt left that people have almost no voice left in the process of governing the US? With Bush and Ashcroft running amok and bringing us closer to martial law every day, Microsoft actually standing to PROFIT off of the suits being brought against them, and the FBI backing private companies (Adobe) -- what hope do individuals have in the US when they stand in the way of corporate profits?
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
I hope to hell this gets modded down as redundant: I just donated money to the EFF. I am a long-time member of the UAW and the NEA, because even a superficial study of history reveals that the working classes (that's us) must organize en masse to counter the onslaughts of the vested interests. The first step is political and economic organization within the constraints of the legal system, and if this doesn't pay dividends, action must be extended to mass strikes and protest in the streets. As a group of professionals, we must shed the self-defeating neo-conservative ideologies that have grown to insulate the technical classes from these political realities. As our fathers and grandfathers were rewarded by the rich with home loans and college educations for risking their lives to save the country from Hilter, so should we demand protection of our basic civil rights as payment for saving their elites asses from terrorism.
Looks like Civil Rights in this contry is going down another black hole.
Help fight continental drift.
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.
Maybe. But EPIC does do this and the EFF does do this.
(sorta off topic)
If you work for Disney, Fox, or Time Warner, your employer will match your donation to the EFF!
Read all about it here.
While I somewhat argee with your stance, I really think there's no way to protect against BigCorp, Inc from suing Joe Blow over and over and over and over again, especially the way the RIAA has been doing. Nobody's been punishing the RIAA for all of these damned lawsuits because there's no way to counter it. Eventually, one of these lawsuits hit their mark and do some civil damage.
If the RIAA loses a suit, they wipe the dirt off their shoes, lose a little money (that they didn't need anyway), and try again.
If the RIAA wins a suit, people go to jail, get fined, have to pay massive lawyer fees, and freedoms get taken away.
See, freedom is losing because we can't take the offensive with these damn corporations. We can only hope to defend ourselves. Sure, we cheer when we win, but it's only another day before somebody attacks again.
Zodiac Survey
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seriously is anyone else having huge problems reading the PDF from the 2600 news link? Its horrible every other word has letters missing...really odd. Anyone got a good mirror with something that is readable?
Firstly, SDMI invited the public to crack their watermarking scheme. They offered money as enticement, giving the crackers the option of giving up the prize money should they decide not to assent to their contract. Felten chose the second option. Having cracked it, he is thus free to do as he pleases, since he conducted the research under the auspices of the University. The RIAA threatens to sue. Felten withdraws his paper (this damages his professional reputation!), and then later publishes it having clarified that the RIAA does not intend to sue.
In other words, the picture reveals that the RIAA was selectively excersing their rights, using the law to chill research.
Except they don't read mail because of anthrax...
Seriously though - I've written my representatives and congressmen (Gordon Smith and David Wu - Oregon). They have never written back to date - and I've written them thoughtful letters for the last 3~4 years. My last letter I'll ever write to them was an angry one which I accused them of selling out to the ATA and I swore I'd never ever ever vote for either of them again - and I won't.
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?
I have the sinking feeling that political means won't solve this problem when the two "major" parties fight each other only for show and become instant allies whenever a promising adversary appears. Yet any attempt to apply non-political means would only get the Communists rounded up and killed just like after the Reichstag fire. It appears the most reliable way to be free of the socialist overclass enforcing capitalism for the underclass is to pollute ourselves into infirmity as the Romans did, and wait a couple hundred years for the Visigoths to take Rome again.
I'm starting to doubt the New Agers' fawning over the Age of Aquarius. Technological feudalism is every bit as comfortable under Aquarius as the socialist collective.
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
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.
I could not have said it better myself.
Why the hell didn't his lawyers advise him of this likely outcome, or why the hell didn't he follow their advice?
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
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'm reading through the 2600 ruling, and there's a section on here about the DMCA's constitutionality. The court says that because the DMCA deals with only the "functional" aspect of speech, it's "content-neutral". Since it's content neutral, it is therefore (this is the part I don't get) okay under the First Amendment.
How does this work? Does this apply to other types of speech as well, or are they just making this stuff up as they go?
What you're asking these fools to do is impossible because they have become the bitches of the corporations. As a whore fiends for more crack from her local pimp/dealer, they fiend for the plethora of crap released by the RIAA and the MPAA. They do not seek alternatives or liberation from their master because they are addicts who don't mind the occassional anal rape, just as long as they have their dope. For that reason, I feel that they deserve whatever the fuck the RIAA and MPAA throw at them until they realize they are nothing but bitches and start making some shit that people want to hear or watch.
You die too easily.
Huh? The DMCA outlaws methods of circumventing copy protection. DeCSS is illegal under the DMCA even if it is used to copy public domain material. When the copyright on a work expires and the item goes in to the public domain, you have the legal right to copy it, redistribute it, whatever. However, under the DMCA, you do not have the legal right to own the tools needed to copy the work. That is precisely the source of a large part of the injustice of the DMCA.
Copyright violation is illegal and should (and will) remain so. However, the DMCA bans information solely on the basis that it can potentially be used to facilitate the violation of copyright, even if it has potential for perfectly legal use. That is unjust and wrong.
The arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov is unjust because the tool he created has perfectly legal uses. Prosecuting people over DeCSS is unjust, because DeCSS has perfectly legal uses.
The DMCA is a misguided and dangerous law that needs to be fought until it is corrected.
noah
The DMCA only covers copyrighted material, not material which is in the public domain.
This is not true. The anticircumvention portions talk about devices and technologies which are used to protect access to copyrighted works--- it is the technology itself which is illegal. It doesn't matter whether DeCSS is used to access copyrighted or non-copyrighted works, the "device" itself is still illegal. (The judge in the 2600 case said that this issue wasn't yet "ripe" because nobody's tried to prevent access to non-copyrighted works yet.)
Interestingly, a tool which is legal today (say, a DES cracker) might become illegal tomorrow if somebody starts using a content protection scheme which it defeats.
Yes they should be more like you. Instead of fighting injustice with meager funds they should post flames on slashdot. That will teach those evil corporations.
War is necrophilia.
You don't mean the US supreme court do you? You think they would actually rule against corporations? The only way that would happen is if the corporation or the CEO was a vocal supporter of and a large donor to the democratic party. Since most corporations are run by republicans and give a ton of money to the republican party no way in hell is this supreme court going to rule against them.
War is necrophilia.
They don't think allowing backups should be illegal.
Which it isn't.
No, but if I am in possession of the software that is able to make those backups I can be arrested. The problem is that while making backups is legal any device I may possess to make those backups could be considered a "circumvention device" and is illegal. It becomes a catch 22, I can make and be in possesion of backups, but the way I make those backups is illegal.
I could harp on some other points but this one really stood out to me.
iRepairIT - iPhone, Mac, & PC Repair
So, they are cool new toys, if the movie industry thought people would stop buying dvds they wouldn't back laws like these.
Do you just like to complain and do nothing? This christmass ask your friends not to buy you dvds, don't buy them as gifts for others, and let people know why you are doing it.
I doubt that will happen, though. The people who frequent this website like to flame and start arguments over programming languages, but they don't tend to ever do anything.
Oh, not everyone, but the vast majority here will sit on their couch and watch the latest dvd while pondering how corrupt our government is and how unfair the courts are.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
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.
Have you even read what the DMCA says? I think not. Take a look at Title 17 section 1201 (the relevent law created by the DMCA). Find in there any requirement that something actually has to be "stolen" in order for the application of the section. Good Luck... There isn't one. Then take a careful look at 1201(a)(2)(A-C) and note the conjunction between them... it's an or. Now look at 1201(a)(3) where "circumventing a technical measure" is defined, and interpret as in the 2600 case. Remember that according to the judge, the authority of the copyright owner is whatever they want -- it isn't an actual part of the measure. That's right, if your code does exactly what theirs does but they say you aren't authorized, you've just "circumvented" their "protections". Now go back to 1201(a)(2)(B) and note that there is no intent or knowledge necessary to invoke that portion, and remember that the "or" conjunction makes that portion alone sufficient to make your code violate the law. That's a lot more than just "keep(ing) you from stealing other people's work".
"People with guns killed xx,xxx people last year."
"The (IP) industry lost $xxx,xxx,xxx to piracy last year."
In the first case, count the bodies. In the second, what exactly are you counting?
Not that I really disagree with the idea that we can improve our image. But I don't think there's a satisfying and appropriate way to do it. I, for one, am not willing to dissociate the idea of freedom with software and utilities like nmap. Imagine if I didn't have access to nmap!! I wouldn't have the tools to test the simplest of firewalling setups I use. Better that these tools are available to all, lockmakers and lockpickers alike.
When they came for the Jews...
as I never really had the right to make backups of my stuff in the first place (EULAs, copy protection, etc)
Don't be so quick to accept the theory that EULAs have any legal force. If software is a purchase and not a license, as this judge seems to realize, then you're perfectly free to break the copy protection, or rather you would be without the DMCA.
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.
Well, you already can't back up DVDs, and what about the new "copy-protected" CDs? Anything that enables you to back them up is going to be a "circumvention device".
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The DMCA only covers copyrighted material, not material which is in the public domain.
The DMCA can be used to prevent material from entering the public domain. If it is illegal to create a tool that can circumvent encryption or copy protection then how can that work ever become avaliable to the public.
I care more about this issue then most of the others. If the corporations would give in trust a single copy of each work, to be put in trust for when the copyright ends.
Not that I plan on living long enough to ever see anything created in the last 20-30 years go into the public domain. I would really like my great-great-great-great-grandchildren to be able to see Fight Club, when the government quits extending copyright and allows something to go back to the public domain.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
Uh, huh, well last I recall, there are 2 ways to change law, 1) lobby politicians, 2) take a case to higher courts until it is ruled unconstitional.
disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
Because he's a hacker... :))
Because he publishes a hacker magazine...
Because he's got long hair (I'll take your word for it, I don't have a photo handy
Has it GOTTEN to the point where no one with long hair should expect a fair trial? I thought it had been there for the past couple hundred years, but perhaps I missed something.
Just read the transcripts from the original trial and it's stunningly obvious how unsympathetic he is. It is not because of anything he's actively doing but an image that he portrays none the less.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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.
I think the checks and balances are intact for the following reason:
I'm just as afraid of Bush and Ashcroft screwing up our country as I am of the judiciary. Let us also not forget that congress' wisdom was what got this stuff into court in the first place. The checks and balances are just fine... each branch of government is exceptionally capable of screwing everything up!
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
"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
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.
This is a legitimate lawsuit because it attempts to establish legal guidelines for publication of such things. As it stands right now, the mere threat of lawsuit is sufficient to keep many people quiet. If this goes to court at least people know where they stand. If the court had ruled in favor of Felten, then any loose lawsuits would be seen as frivolous against the background of this case law.
Now, we don't know what will happen. Some person will have to be the sacrificial lamb to find out what the limits of this law are, and that person will suffer for it.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
often when ive tried to explain these sort of things to people, the just dont belive me that it exists. they think i must be misunderstanding it or somthing because there is no way a law like that could ever get passed. i think that says a lot for how riduculous this all is, when normal people think that it is so horrible it could never happen.
i tell them to wait a few months, the rate thigns are goign theyll end up being affected by somthing eventualy (dont mean just dmca, also other new laws that are being passed).
Mess Stuff Up
Holy shit, you mean the DMCA actually allows racists to kill people?
This is the sort of argument that I'm talking about. You can't even defend your position without a straw-man argument.
Assuming you aren't still trolling, you appear to not understand the basic nature of Freedom.
The bill of rights does not lay out freedoms that have been granted to us by some benevolent government entity. They recognize rights that each person has by virtue of their creation. It is /not/ something that can be 'revoked'. It was this basic concept that underlies everything.
Don't confuse priviledges (like driving, if indeed that is a priviledge which some don't believe it is) with freedoms.
Bottom line. We don't have Freedom of speech/religion/keep & bear arms/protection from illegal search, etc because the constitution says we do. We have them because we do. Period. Attempting to restrict or remove those freedoms is tyranny and treason.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
I found only one really serious legal error in the entire opinion. On page 64, the judges state in a footnote:
That's sophistry. Corley alleged that the prohibition infringed his freedom to link to other material on those people's sites. It is not incumbent on those site owners to choose whether Corley links, or to take action to make his linking possible. One might as well argue that a protestor wearing a prohibited obscene T-shirt should remove the offensive clothing to make it possible for a TV news show to carry footage of the protest.Up, I say! UP!
hoohah
What about those of us who have paid for our movies and music and then are prevented from actually accessing them by this overbroad law. The DMCA has absolutely nothing to do with copying, and everything to do with control over what has already been sold. The only way to fix this law is for Congress (or the courts, if they have the guts) to preserve the first sale doctrine by emphasizing that the buyer of a copy of a work has the right (i.e. authority of the copyright holder) to access that work as they please.
I am sure you have a great point, but it is obscured by your clear lack of grammatical skills. I must warn you: even though you may think that being an engineer means that you don't need to communicate with other people, this is NOT the case.
No one has perfect grammar, but to be able to make an eloquent point in writing is crucial, regardless of your job title. You lose your audience if your prose is rife with spelling mistakes and poorly constructed sentences. On the other hand, if you can easily sum up the benefits of your idea, you can win supporters -- even if that idea is as simple as going forward with a project you have at work. Never forget that those pointy-haired bosses about whom you like to joke are the ones who will be reading resumes and project proposals of yours. They could reject them based not on content, but on presentation. It makes a difference.
I urge you to take a writing skills class before you graduate. Not only will it help you get a job by writing a good resume, but it will help you keep that job by being able to communicate with others effectively.
I don't buy CDs until they come down to the price I am prepared to pay for it. When an album gets released for 14ukp it makes me sick (I'll never understand why the cost of production plummeted between the switch from tape to CD but prices actually increased), but when I see one I want for under 10ukp I buy it immediately. When going to see a film I refuse to pay 9ukp for a seat but will watch in North London for 3.50ukp. Renting a DVD in the library costs me 2ukp instead of 3.50ukp in a video store AND I know the money is going back into an institution that is vital for a healthy society. Plus I make sure I get a chipped DVD player. If I buy a legitimate copy of a DVD in the USA why am I banned from playing my legitimate bought copy of a film? If I am going to live in a capitalist society then I am going to try and work the rules to my advantage. This an attempt to check an abuse of power, and is a financial issue not a moral issue (unlike for instance Esso trying to destroy the planet). The moral blame lies with corrupt politicians passing such a law. And, as you say, apathetic people rolling over and accept being treated like doormats. You don't have to retreat into being a Tibetan monk, just don't let people walk all over you. The advantage of a capitalist society is that if people exercise a bit of patience... most companies can't afford to and will drop prices to that which people are prepared to pay.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Huh? The DMCA outlaws methods of circumventing copy protection. DeCSS is illegal under the DMCA even if it is used to copy public domain material.
DeCSS is a tool to decrypt the movie. Why would would you want to encrypt public domain material ?
For public-domain material, encryption has no use at all...
...You are over-qualified and under-paid. If we give you a raise, we will break the cosmic balance of the universe.
AMSTERDAM - 4 American scientists were granted political asylum in the Netherlands. They applied for it in december after they were being prosecuted for publishing scientific work which has become illegal under the DMCA which became effective in 1998. The situation for [computer and math] scientists in the USA has become comparable to the situation in the USSR during the cold war. More scientists are expected to follow these 4.
IANAL but I think scientists (which are being prosecuted) that would apply for asylum right now would make a good chance. Someone should just try it; it'll wake the US up.
0x or or snor perron?!
I bet you also think that because it's THE LAW, you should follow it!! Oh and here's another one: Since we see slow changes, they must be the explanation for everything!
As for gun control. How many people were robbed/raped/murdered/oppressed last year because they *didn't* have one? The amendment comes second because it was meant to protect the one just before it...
What /. really needs is a second form of the "Your Rights Online" icon. Take the same Lady Justice, bent over, getting raped in the rear by good ole' Uncle Sam. I'll gladly volunteer my gimp skills, as long as _this_ article's icon gets changed to that.
// zyqqh
Judges get to where they are through being thoroughly qualified for the position, such as having a law degree and serving as a lawyer for a number of years. Being lawyers, they are quite adept at understanding the facts of a situation, a skill you sorely lack.
Judges tend to be the people who step on the least amount of toes and frankly most of them are not very adept at all(especially at the lower levels). Generally someone rewards his friend by appointing them a judge and trust me these judges won't ever forget who appointed them. It's hard to be a judge as it requires the right friends, but once you are a judge, you're pretty much a judge for life. You would be amazed at the sheer incompetence of some of the judges in the American and Canadian judicial systems as they were appointed many years back and completely seemed to have jumped off the common sense train.
The RIAA has said spesificaly that they would not sue him. He was suing them for threating to sue him.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Strange, and not very likely, but it seems odd that this whole terrorism/war thing happens right during the midst of some of the most important changes to society since well, World War II, and specifically, the Atomic Bomb. Now it is information, money, power that is at stake, rather than the fate of the Earth. It is now that we are dividing up power for the next 50 years. Right now we are undergoing amazing changes, many of them in the digital world which pretty much affects all other fields of study. I mean, would DNA research have made their discoveries without the advances of computing and information technology. I think not. Would business even been capable of managing this massive amount of money they make without the advances of computers? Odds are most certainly against it. Doesn't it follow, then, that laws limiting the development of technology today will limit our technological evolution in the future? Until now, technology was mainly limited by nature. In the last 20 years, technology has become limited by marketing. In the last 3, technology has become regulated by law. It's almost as if someone who is gaining a lot of money and power and information right now is not willing to give up their position when we find something better. So they repress it. OR perhaps they are sure their way is the best, but we all know nothing is perfect. Remember back, I ask you, to September 10th, 2001. Everyone slightly worried about a minor recession, mainly in stock prices, on a waning technology sector. We all just ignore the giant event under our noses. The California power crisis. California can not afford power. Now, California buys power at market prices, just like everone else. So Everyone Else was paying the same outrageous prices for power, we just had government regulations in place. It's a classic case of a bug in the system. The "market" created overly high prices which really mean nothing, and created a huge loss on PAPER. So naturally, every power company lost billions and is GOING TO NEED TO BE MAKING IT UP over probably the next 5 years. What does your computer run on? Power. What do hotels and airports run on? Power. What does everything in the economy run on? Power. I think you see my point. We are dependent on power, and it is in fact a very major expense for many large corporations. So even say a 10% increase in power expenses can affect a company that uses a lot of energy; some companies run a small bottom line and that 10% can upset the balance. I recieved a letter FROM THE PWER COMPANY speaking about a DOUBLE in power prices by NEXT SUMMER. So, in order to make up for it, they must lay off many hundreds of employees. Perhaps this could be the reason for this sudden rise in unemployment. You see, in this long, drawn out explaination, I am trying to show that this is all too convenient. Perhaps maybe looking at the big picture rather than the one AoL/Time Warner wants you to see. They want you to forget the past, forget what was so nice about those days. Make us feel like we don't have a choice. Well, we do. As a mass, we are the consumers, and we have the ultimate choice. But by passing these idiotic lies, they are removing our choices, and by doing, limiting our rights to affect our own destiny. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but surely you must admit, based on knowledge of previous shinanegans in the U.S. Government, that it IS possible for something as horrible as a terrorist incident, and even a WAR, to be used as justification for changes (including new laws) in our country that are against the constitution. It's strange how all these cases (landmark cases) are scheduled now (after this incident), and how they are all simply dismissed, because in light of the "horrible incidents" they are petty and don't deserve to be debated. Benjamin Franklin said we should always be suspicious of authority, especially those who try to make changes you know are wrong under "the guise of security." We are simply going along with this, because CNN tells us of "threats of terrorism" and we are "at war". With what? With whom. Prove it! And today, it was the pot in the kettle when President G. Dubya Bush says the recession we are now facing is a result of Terrorism and the Long War we are about to Fight. WE WERE FACING RECESSION BEFORE SEPT. 11TH BECAUSE OF THIS POWER THING. Hey, just look at your power bill, and how much of your income it takes before you label this Flamebait.
And if the feds bail out Enron in the next 6 months, you can bet everything I said is true.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
YES. Absolutely. Their mission isn't to defend people, its to protect Electronic Freedom
That isn't the case at all. EEF was created to help defend people as well as change the law.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
if youd've read one sentance further, you'd have gotten to the part where he said he was going to get a law degree.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I just saw over on CNet this article:
m l
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8011238.ht
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like New York Appeals Court is saying one thing and California Appeals Court is saying the opposite?
Pure speech versus non-expressive speech...which is the accurate description of DeCSS?
It seems to me that since we have two conflicting rulings between states, there would be a pressing interest in escalating the issue to the federal level? Or is it possible for two different standards to be applied in two different regions?
Suddenly I'm a lot happier to be a Californian, even though it was the f'n studios that started the whole DeCSS fiasco to begin with...
- JoeShmoe
_
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Third, the Appellants argue that an individua who buys a DVD has the "authority of the copyright owner" to view he DVD, and therefore is exempted from the DMCA pursuant to subsection I 1201 (a) (3) (A) when the buyer circumvents an encryption technology in order to view the DVD on a competing platform (such as linux). The basic flaw in this argument is that it misreads subsection 1201(a)(3)(A). That provision exempts from liability those who would "decrypt" an encrypted DVD with the authority of a copyright owner, not those who would "view" a DVD with the authority of a copyright owner. In any event, the Defendants offers no evidence that the Plaintiffs have either explicitly or implicitly authorized DVD buyers to circumvent encryption technology to su port use on multiple platforms.
So you apparently might have the right to view the DVD but not the right to decrypt it, not even if you can't view it without decrypting.
And just because you bought and payed for the DVD, the studios never agreed that you had the right to view it on a device of your own choosing.
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.
Everbody who reads Slashdot should memorise one line of deCSS, so that we can reconstruct it when they come round to burn the books, CD's and hard drives.
I've just ploughed my way through the entire 2600 appeal judgement. It was heavy going since the posted document appears to be a scan of the raw transcript, complete with phonetic typos and dropped letters.
The meat of the judgement is on how the "functional" aspects of DeCSS weigh against its "expressive" aspects. Two key elements seem to have wieghed against 2600 in this case:
So now consider a hypothetical DVD player for Linux. Its distributed as source, but if compiled and run unmodified then it simply plays DVDs in exactly the same way as any licensed player. The bulk of DeCSS is to be found inside it, and any user with a modicum of technical knowledge could add a one line patch to make the player to divert a copy of the decrypted data into a separate file.
It seems fairly clear to me that the distribution of this program, even in source, would be protected under the First Amendment. At the very least the MPAA would need to get a separate injunction to cover it, and to obtain such an injunction they would need to overcome the functional vs expressive hurdle.
In the 2600 case the DeCSS code was distributed in a form which, when run without modification, would create an unencrypted copy of a movie. But our hypothetical Linux player would not do this. For the purpose of a would-be DVD copyright breaker the program has no use. The fact that a one-line patch could turn it into such a program is irrelevant, just as the cryptographic weakness of CSS was irrelevent to its being an "effective" content protection measure for legal purposes.
Suppose the Linux DVD player allows you to grab screenshots, or even extract short clips? It would probably still be protected, since such extracts would generally be for "fair use".
What would push this hypothetical player over the line would be publishing instructions for making the 1-line patch, especially if accompanied by a suggestion that this be used to break copyright law. Even then, it would be the patch instructions that would be the legitamate target of DMCA enforcement, not the player.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
"
The DMCA only covers copyrighted material, not material which is in the public domain.
"
Like an ebook of Alice in Wonderland which is out of copyright.
Is it legal to circumvent the access controls on this since it's out of copyright?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
Ahem, not all a/v software comes from the US, therefore some companies WILL detect it - ohterwise they are deliberately misleadingly selling a product [they claim it knocks out all known, if they know about it and don't knock it out, hey hey that;s fraud] hence them getting sued
Now, whether you can do that in the US is a different matter....
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.
If DeCSS is ruled illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and ruled as free speech under other laws, see here. Isn't this just evidence that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act limits free speech?
I know that the Bunner case is not a complete victory, it's just the preliminary injunction against him was overturned but still.
Yes (two kids 14 and 10).
People do all kinds of sick things and transmission of pictures of such things is not illegal. For example, transmission pictures of mutilated bodies are not illegel. But don't you think that being killed is worse!
What if availability of kiddie porn pictures actually made people less likely to molest real kids? What if the pictures are paintings or doctored up photographs?
Is trasmission of a photograph of a crime also a crime?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
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.
The recent decision on first sale seems to me to apply here. Regardless of the fine print, if you buy a DVD you own both it and the copy of the data thereon. Viewing that data by any means cannot be considered a violation of the rights of the copyright holder even if done on an unlicensed player. Likewise, a bona-fide player could not be argued to be a "protection circumvention device" if it honours the protection flags on the disk.
In any event, the Defendants offer no evidence that the Plaintiffs have either explicitly or implicitly authorized DVD buyes to circumvent encryption technology to support use on multiple platforms
Which is not to say that such evidence could not be found, merely that 2600 failed to present it in this case.
I think that if a case actually hung on this point then it would not be difficult to establish that purchasing a DVD implies that you are allowed to look at the movie it contains, and that this implied license does not contain any implicit limitation as to the technology you can use to do so. Even if there was an explicit clause in the fine print on the back of the case it would certainly not be legally binding in the UK, and probably not in the US either, although UCITA might make this an interesting question in some states.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
I don't think you know what a straw-man argument is. That was hyperbole. Obviously, the DMCA isn't the same as the Holocaust. However, your argument that the DMCA isn't bad because it doesn't hurt you personally is the same as the "When they came for the Jews..." statement. You may wish to make arguments that the DMCA isn't bad in general, but you said 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 it's a bad law, it's a bad law, even if it only hurts some guy in Intercourse, PA who lives with his parents.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
irony
If you don't want to be troubled to write a physical letter (and don't want your dandruff to be mistaken for anthrax) then go to Western Union's site and telegraph your congressdrone. Telegraphs get read since they cost money.
Bury them in Western Union messages and they will perk up!
www.eFax.com are spammers
In other words, you tell them your side of the story only, and--surprise, surprise--they agree with your side of the story.
People are only as stupid as you seem to think they are, when they listen to you tell them how stupid they are.
People are only as anti-DMCA as you seem to think they are, when they listen to you tell them how anti-DMCA they are.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
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.
Tactically this is not necessarily a bad thing. The EFF can appeal to a higher court even if EFF had won, RIAA would have appealed to a higher court.
RIAA et. al. have essentially unlimited resources to fight these cases.
EFF, have limited funds so quick cases in a lower court preserves EFF legal funds.
Further more if you keep losing in the lower courts you can maintain a tactical advantage by retaining the initiative until the last stage. The decision of the highest court is then binding on all lower courts.
The RIAA does not have the advantage of losing in lower courts, imagine the headlines if they lost at any level.
"MPA/RIAA lose as DCMA ruled unconstitutional"
You can tell your employer not to do this, and they'll stop. Be forewarned, however, that it's against the law, since you can be fined for withholding too little (or too much, for that matter). You're not likely to get anything worse than a fine (unless you then don't pay your taxes), but it'll still cost you.
Virg
I keep dreaming of a network that communicates via quantumly entangled particles, undetectable and unstoppable. Your IP address would finally be completely divorced from the land lines. As drastic and unimaginable as it might seem, it is still possible for the government to shut down the internet by shutting down all the physical connections.
They managed to establish a quantum connection during an experiment in Geneva a few years ago. It would be cool if one of you Slashdot Uebergeeks out there had a do it yourself hack we could implement.
After reading the lawsuit and early reports of the dismissal, it seems to me that the suit alleged that RIAA used the DMCA to prevent Felton from publishing his work. Unfortunately in this case, he did end up publishing, so it seems that the judge really didn't have any choice but to throw it out.
I think that this would have been a better case if Professor Felton would have been prosecuted under the DMCA. I think that he would have had an excellent chance to then show that the DMCA is unconstitutional. In this case, however, the judge was bound to be rather narrowly focused and the question finally came down to whether or not the DMCA prevented Felton from publishing. He published, therefor it makes his case pretty weak.
I have no doubt that a similar situation will arise and a researcher will be prosecuted for publishing "protected" material. When that happens, I'm sure that the DMCA will fall.
-h-
Oh, and I can't believe that anyone (except the corporations) are happy about paid corporate lobbyists. How come it works? Aren't you living in a Democracy? Clearly not.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
The DMCA outlaws methods of circumventing copy protection.
"that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title"
Copyright violation is illegal and should (and will) remain so.
I disagree.
However, the DMCA bans information solely on the basis that it can potentially be used to facilitate the violation of copyright, even if it has potential for perfectly legal use.
Only if those potential uses are sham uses, and the work is primarily created or marketed for copyright circumvention. There are many many software products which have the potential to be used for copyright circumvention, and almost every one is not at all affected by the DMCA.
The arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov is unjust because the tool he created has perfectly legal uses.
And if those uses were a significant reason that the product was marketed in the U.S., then he will be found not guilty.
Prosecuting people over DeCSS is unjust, because DeCSS has perfectly legal uses.
Oh please. DeCSS was created to circumvent copyright. It was marketed to circumvent copyright. Those legitimate uses are merely incidental. This is not only the ruling the courts made, it is the truth.
The DMCA is a misguided and dangerous law that needs to be fought until it is corrected.
The DMCA merely helps enforce a misguided and dangerous law that was already on the books - copyright law.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
It doesn't matter whether DeCSS is used to access copyrighted or non-copyrighted works, the "device" itself is still illegal.
If the device is not primarily made or marketed to access copyrighted works, it is not illegal.
The judge in the 2600 case said that this issue wasn't yet "ripe" because nobody's tried to prevent access to non-copyrighted works yet.
And likely never will be.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
No, but if I am in possession of the software that is able to make those backups I can be arrested.
Wrong again. Possession is not illegal. RTFDMCA.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
I think the 2nd circuit was right in this case. Felten has already publicized the information in question in the suit without consequence, so there is no longer an explicit prohibition against him. Thus, it was only proper that it be dismissed.
You see, when you go to court you can NOT argue for some larger philosophical point of law. You need to argue your position on the merits of your specific case, and in Felten's case the information had already been made public. He'd already presented it. RIAA had already publicly backed down and thus he's under no threat not to publish.
Here's an analogous situation to this using current events. There are about 600 people being held incommunicado by our gov't with regard to terrorism investigations. If Amnesty Int'l wished to sue for their release their case would be rejected for the same reason -- they're not an affected party because nobody they represent was held. They would have to represent someone who is to sue the gov't.
What's going to happen now (as I put on my Karnak hat) is that Felten/EFF are going to send a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court and the Supremes are going to reject it for the exact same reason. You need to either be experiencing or be under direct threat of experiencing an adverse consequence. You can't just sue because the DMCA is a bad law (which we all know it to be). You have to be suffering under an effect of that law while prosecuting your case in order to be able to prosecute.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
Pardon my cynicism, but it seems the only current truth (reading between the lines) of "C&B" is:
Big Corporations write the "Checks" to give judges, lawyers, and politicians bigger "Balances".
Those are the "checks and balances" of our political and judiciary system today.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I would like to propose more amendments to the Constitution.
Amendment 28
No law restricting the Right of the People to engage in academic study of copyrighted and patented materials shall be passed, or to restrict the reverse engineering for the purpose thereof, nor to participate in the free discussion of the merits thereof.
Amendment 29
Section 1. No government body shall engage in the restriction of the Right of the People to free speech, regardless of the medium which the People shall express themselves.
Section 2. No law shall be passed which allows an individual to be held liable for directing others to material which has been deemed harmful to any party, given the individual is not the original author.
Amendment 30
Section 1. No branch of government shall grant a copyright or other guaranty of exclusive rights to intellectual property beyond fifty years from the original date of the original grant.
Section 2. Those items which are deemed vital to national security shall be exempted from this provision. Section 3. No laws from other sovereign nations which extend grants of intellectual property beyond this scope shall be recognized.
Amendment 31
Thou shalt read Slashdot.
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
You're right. Possession isn't. Trafficking is. So if you are an uberhacker who has infinite understanding of all things and can code your own DeCSSes,etc., then you are COVERED. If you are a regular Joe, then you are screwed, because the uberhackers will go to jail or be sued into the poorhouse if they give you a tool to exercise your fair use rights.
This defacto makes possession illegal. Especially if you can be thought to be trafficking.
Welcome to the corporate republic, and don't give me any bull$hit about how much better off we are than Afganistan or some other 3rd world hellhole because I don't give a $hit. This is America and this $hit shouldn't happen here.
Oh well, I guess all good things must come to an end. Any bets on who our "Hitler" will wind up being? He'll have all these great surveillance tools with no oversight and no constitution to worry about because it is "content neutral". What a fscking joke.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
The meathod in which the RIAA used the DMCA is the same as if you point a gun at someone w/o firing it.
That, in and of itself, is a *crime*.
Granted it is a misdemeanor, but it is still *illegal*. The precedant has already been set with physical media such as a weapon (gun) what about a law?
We know the law is wrong. We know it is being used "in a threatening manner". We know it is being used to "intimidate someone to 'death' (physical/social/monetarily/pursuit of happiness and/or acadameia)".
Hell, if we have laws to keep ppl from pulling weapons frivalously, what is there to stop corporation from doing the same with laws?
Anyone?
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
This is true, but the DMCA places hurdles on Copyrighted material ever being forced to become Public Domain.
Read my other posts, this is complete FUD.
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 is charged with both personally trafficking it and being part of a conspiracy to traffick it. He may or may not be guilty of that, but that's what he is charged with.
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?
Would it strike you strange if the kingpin of a drug-smuggling operation was charged with drug trafficking offenses even though that drug operation was incorporated in another country?
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?
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.
I guess I was wrong that backups were specifically exempted. I couldn't find it. But copying for the purpose of backups it perfectly legal, because it does not involve decryption. It is also likely to fall under fair use.
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.
No permission is necessary. Only the requirement to make "a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention"
But since poor mechanisms of protection are accepted in Court, I don't blame the scientists of being afraid.
Afraid of what? An injunction? Circumvention does not fall under criminal law.
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.
Show me these cases. All I see is Dmitry, who was trying to capitalize off of circumventing copyright, and DeCSS, which was hit with an injunction which forced them to stop distribution. I see nothing inherently evil with the DMCA, it just seems like a way to enforce the evil that is copyright law.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
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?
The legality of DeCSS has yet to be established. All of the court proceedings so far are preliminary.
In fact, one of the main issues in controversy is whether DeCSS was intended for the purpose of system interoperability. Defenders of DeCSS argue that in fact it was created by reverse engineering Windows software for the purpose of creating Linux DVD viewers. Opponents of the program argue that it was created to allow copying movies from DVD disks and sharing them illegally. They point to the fact that the initial release was on Windows and was associated with hackers (using the term in the pejorative sense).
In fact DeCSS can be used for both purposes, which makes the interoperability defense somewhat problematic. If it could only be used for interoperability then the defense would be much stronger. But since it can facilitate privacy as well, the defense may not work. It appears that the court is leaning towards this view given the preliminary decisions.
Like an ebook of Alice in Wonderland which is out of copyright.
Is it legal to circumvent the access controls on this since it's out of copyright?
Yes.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
If you are a regular Joe, then you are screwed, because the uberhackers will go to jail or be sued into the poorhouse if they give you a tool to exercise your fair use rights.
Consider DeCSS. Neither has happened. You're being paranoid.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Somehow I am not surprised.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
> Please tell me how the DMCA has adversely affected your life.
Sorry, but that's not relevant. To wit, segregation laws did not adversely affect my life, since I'm white, but I can't in good conscience accept that as a valid reason not to have repealed those laws. If a law steps on the rights of individuals in violation of the Constitution, even if I'm not one of those people, it's my responsibility as a citizen of the U.S. to fight to have that law repealed. That's the "...by the people" part of "Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Virg
Oh, yeah, you are right.. NOT! Ask Johanssen about whether or not he went to jail for writing DeCSS. He sure as $hit did!! They took all his PCs too. And he was in FINLAND (or some Scandavian country)!!!
Imagine if he'd been HERE. He'd have been bent over some sink and raped with a baton by some fascist police ba$tard like that Hatian immigrant.
I am not being paranoid (well, except maybe for the rape comment). I apparently know the facts, unlike you.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
> Not really. Try this instead: "The only way to fight gun
> control is to reduce gun fatalities."
Sorry, this also falls under "Not Really". Try this: "The only way to fight gun control is to prove that it doesn't reduce gun fatalities." If it can be proven that gun control doesn't make for fewer gun fatalities, gun control becomes meaningless. To return to the original point, the only way to get laws pertaining to personal freedom repealed is to prove that they're ineffective. Since the intent of the DMCA (at least ideally) is to protect copyright holders without infringing on the rights of citizens, we need to prove demonstrably that the law can't (as it exists today) avoid overly infringing behavior (too easy to pervert the law, too broad in its restrictions), and so is ineffective for its intended use.
Now, we must consider how to prove that the law is ineffective in this way. Your response is to stop hacking to eliminate laws against hacking. This is not logical, and is roughly equivalent to saying that Rosa Parks would have done more for the equal rights movement by simply moving to the back of the bus when she was told to do so.
> Don't pick a fight with a cop if you've got something to hide.
In a very literal sense, if this was a good idea we'd all be British citizens right now. The thing that invalidates the statement is the assumption that the law is fair in defining "something to hide". If the government passed a law saying you weren't allowed (for example) to be Muslim, you'd have "something to hide" if you were Muslim, but you'd be wrong not to pick a fight with the cops (and, by extension, the courts) about it.
Virg
Oh, yeah, you are right.. NOT! Ask Johanssen about whether or not he went to jail for writing DeCSS. He sure as $hit did!! They took all his PCs too. And he was in FINLAND (or some Scandavian country)!!!
I searched on google and the only information that I can find on his arrest says that the charges were contributory copyright infringement, not violation of the DMCA. I also can't find any evidence that he spent a single day in jail. You may be right on this one, but if so I find it hard to believe that the Dmitry case is getting so much more publicity, considering that Johanssen was not trying to profit off DeCSS.
Imagine if he'd been HERE. He'd have been bent over some sink and raped with a baton by some fascist police ba$tard like that Hatian immigrant.
I suspect that if he were here no criminal charges would have been filed.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
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.
Some of the major mirror sites, including my own, have had copies of the SDMI crack papers ever since they came out. It's a paper, and not code which usefully breaks some algorithm used widespread publically, which is why it hasn't gotten more widespread distribution.
You can see both the original hacksdmi.org web site with download files, and two papers describing how to remove the copy protection, at http://censored.firehead.org:1984/hacksdmi.org/
I think he spent the night in jail from what I remember (he posted here after). However, the point is that you said I was being paranoid about people being arrested for violating the DMCA if they write DeCSS tools. This clearly shows I am not. It has happened and will continue to do so.
I suspect that if he were here no criminal charges would have been filed.
Perhaps you should discuss this with Dmitry. While we're at it, perhaps we could discuss the futility of violence with the city fathers of Carthage....
But even on the amazingly far off chance you are right about criminal charges, he still would have been sued for every dime he's ever going to make by the MPAA (see various DeCSS lawsuits going on now, including 2600).
The bottom line is that the DMCA is a way for media corporations to make money off of their creations forever, in every format ever devised, with indefinate copyright and absolutely no fair use whatsoever. This is their utopia and this law is written (very cleverly) to acheive it. We, the citizens of the United States of America, are being screwed over by the corporations with the willing and paid help of our representatives.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
The simple fact is, all intellectual proprty laws -- except perhaps trade secrets -- violate freedom of speech. They either create prior restrictions on free speech or impose harsh and unreasonable post-publication punishments for excercising the right to free speech.
As for trade-secrets, there's nothing wrong with a company keeping a secret. They have as much a right to do so as you or I do -- this falls under the right to privacy. However, just like you and I, their right to privacy is not protected at the expense of freedom of speech, except perhaps against the government. If I keep a private diary, that's a right I have protected under privacy-rigths. However, if I leave my diary in a park and someone transcibes it and publishes it, I have no cause for issuing grieviances. If I wanted to keep it private, I should have protected it better.
On the other hand, if someone steals my diary from a private place which I've secured, they still cannot be prevented from publishing it -- that would be prior restraint. If we're to have a concern for free speech, they also cannot be subject to personal liabilities: that would also have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. What they can be liable for is what they must have done to get a private diary that I have secured: for breaking into my house and stealing a piece of my property. My privacy rights may have been violated by this person, and he may be punished in respect to the violation itself; but not in respect to any speech he may want to say about my private affairs. He can be held liable in civil court for violating my right to privacy, intrinsic; no consideration of the effects of any speech he spoke may be considered. He is also, of course, criminally liable for breaking into my house and stealing my proprty.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
One thing that came out of this is that the DOJ claimed that the *intent* of creating a circumvention device matters. If it's used only to demonstrate a weakness, it's kosher. We'll see whether they hold to their own opinion when they're on the other side of the aisle.
In their own words:
"Plaintiffs' alleged conduct is not proscribed by the statute"
"While Plaintiffs' computer programs have the additional capability of actually circumventing access controls, they are allegedly not designed or marketed for the purposes of actually getting access to the copyrighted material itself."
The DOJ asserts that Dmitry fails the "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure" test of 1201(b) while ignoring 1201(c):
(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.
(3) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).
(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.
I think he spent the night in jail from what I remember (he posted here after). However, the point is that you said I was being paranoid about people being arrested for violating the DMCA if they write DeCSS tools. This clearly shows I am not. It has happened and will continue to do so.
Again, I don't think he was arrested for violating the DMCA. I'll check the slashdot archives to see if I can confirm this.
And when I referred to you being paranoid, I meant about the DMCA restricting fair use, or even doing anything to stop the distribution of circumvention tools. Yes, some people will go to jail, but it is likely to be only those who attempt to profit off the creation of those circumvention tools, like Dmitry.
But even on the amazingly far off chance you are right about criminal charges, he still would have been sued for every dime he's ever going to make by the MPAA (see various DeCSS lawsuits going on now, including 2600).
2600 is a corporation trying to make a profit off the distribution of DeCSS. I have very little sympathy for them. As for the creator of the product being sued into bankruptcy, it is sad, but it's not all that bad. Just ask OJ Simpson.
Also, there is a very big jurisdictional question as to whether the federal government has the right to enforce a law against the act of an individual creating a product which does not in and of itself infringe copyright if that individual does not engage in the commerce of that product. I would suspect that such a prosecution would be deemed unconstitutional under the 10th ammendment.
The bottom line is that the DMCA is a way for media corporations to make money off of their creations forever, in every format ever devised, with indefinate copyright and absolutely no fair use whatsoever.
I always thought that was the Sonny Bono Copyright extention act that did that. Seriously, the DMCA is nothing more than a very slightly more effective way to enforce the copyright laws which are already on the books. The main reason people are getting so up in arms about it is that they are so used to breaking copyright laws in their daily life.
I oppose the DMCA on the same grounds that I oppose copyright law, but I feel that it is going to have very little effect on the mass majority of the public, so I dislike the high levels of attention it has been getting from people claiming that its effect is much worse than it actually is. I support fighting against the DMCA and copyright law through the creation of copylefted (by my definition, not RMS's) software which can easily nullify their effect if only 10% of the particular industry used it. I support fighting the constitutionality of the DMCA where appropriate (sadly, it seem seems to be well contructed enough to make that approach somewhat useless), and modifications of the constitution in order to protect against it and other laws like it.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
In regards to explaining the decision of the court to dismiss the suit, I believe it was because no actual issue was presented before the court. Because the RIAA backed down, there was no tangible case to examine in which Felton's rights were being violated. As they know the DMCA is unconstitutional, this is likely to be the strategy of the RIAA: threaten people as much as possible with the DMCA, back down when they seriously challenge. That way, you can effectively scare people into obeying the DMCA, while not ever risking having the DMCA over-turned on grounds that it is unconstitutional.
I certainly hope that somehow, Felton's lawyers find a way to bring this case before a court. There are indeed constitutional issues at stake. Perhaps they could bring it to court regarding the chilling effect on Prof. Felton's free speech, that he has to fear that entities -- from RIAA and the SDMI to individual music companies -- may sue him retroactively. In any case, if Felton's lawyers cannot convince a judge that there is an actual tangible situation at stake, the case is likely to be dismissed; I sincerely hope this is not the case.
Now, I will divulge on a tangent issue relating the the insufficiency of our current legal system.
This, as I've mentioned before, is a major flaw in our system. Before a court can rule on the constitutionality of a law, an actual case must be before it. This means that someone's life must be on the line -- their money, or freedom -- before the issue is considered. This creates an unacceptable risk to the citizens of the US: if we are to overturn an unconstituional law, we must wait until someone violates it an puts their life on the line for a "test case." This clearly needs to be fixed. Any laws should be subject to constitutional challenge on a theoretical basis, irrelevant of whether or not a case is before the court. This is currently the system operating in Germany.
Another unacceptable flaw in our laws permeates every law ever created: vagueness, or lack of clarity. Laws are vague and difficult to understand. This is because they were poorly thought out and what they mean is very debatable(i.e., DMCA), because they were simply worded poorely as all laws are, and/or because they are unnecessarily long and thus trying on the average person who tries to read them. To fix this, laws should have to be written in Orwellian fashion: minimal use of words, minimal use of long words, and clarity being the most important. There shoiuld be no "thou's", no "shalls", no "whereforths", no "whenceforths", no "thees", no "thys", no "said persons", or any of the other antiquated British bullshit that currently bloats our laws to obesity. Furthermore, the number of laws should be minimized, as should the length fo each law. In our current system, it is impossible for the average person to know every law. This is wrong. If people cannot possible know the laws, they cannot possibly be expected to obey them. The net sum of laws in any state should be able to fit in 20 pages of text.
Of course, the last major flaw in our current laws is, as briefly alluded to, their volume. Simply put, there are too many laws. Does there really need to be a law in Florida against fucking birds? Does there really need to be a law against prostitution or gambling? What about a law agaisnt sodomy? Or the laws against voluntary incest? These laws are completely unnecessary; they serve no purpose other than to propagate religious fanatacism.
So what I propose is this: (1) Minimize the length of all laws; (2) Maximize the clarity of all laws, eliminate words that cannot be understood by 90% of the population, and in no case, should there be any words longer than twenty characters in the law; (3) Minimize the number of laws by eliminating useless laws; (4) Allow courts to decide on the constitutionality of laws before an actual case is at stack: better yet, require that all laws passed be ran through a commission of experts on the constitution to determine their constitutionality, and lastly the Supreme Court.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I completely agree. I have two words that should give people here hope: Larry Flynt.
... he won.
However you feel about what Flynt does, he fought like hell to get us many of the First Ammendment rights that we take for granted today. The majority of the population hated him. He kept losing battles in court. He served time in jail...
Is it better in the long run for this sort of case to be won in a lower court? Or, is it better for these sorts of cases to lose until they are brought before the Supreme Court, and the DMCA itself could be found unconstitutional? IANAL....
> However, you can just mail in your quarterly payment yourself
> that satisfies the minimum requirements to not be fined.
Agreed, but since the original goal is not to pay the taxes (as a civil disobedience thing), that would be defeating the purpose.
Virg
It doesnot say license it, or You can only play this on players that we approve of or even mention the fact that the content on the disc is encrypted.
Two points here
1) If I own something, I am free to do whatever I please with it. If I own my house, I am free to make whatever changes to my house that suits my needs. The architect or builder doesn't come running down the street with a court order to stop me, even though I am modifying the architecture which could be the intellectual property of the architect. The car manufacturer doen't sue me if I indulge in speeding. Yet the DVD manufacturer seems hellbent on exercising control on the DVD even after ownership has been transferred to me. Why is that legal, again?
2) If the manufacturer does not let me know that the DVD is encrypted, and claims that I "own" the copy in their advertising, and then trys to tell me what I can or cannot do with my copy, isn't that tantamount to fraudulent advertising?
I don't claim to understand law, but something looks very wrong here from a commonsense perspective.
Computer source code is binary.
Got friends?
From the DMCA, Section 1201(a)(2)(A) DVD's encrypted with CSS will eventually become part of the public domain. Not all DVD's will become part of the public domain at the same time. So when will it be legal to distribute DeCSS? As long as there are DVD's encrypted with CSS that are not part of the public domain, selling the program to access the DVD's which are will be illegal.
>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.
How? They threatened to sue him under the DMCA.
>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.
No it isn't. Section 1201(c)(1) only protects fair use as a defense to copyright infringement, not to circumvention.
>They don't think that reverse engineering for system interoperability should be illegal.
Also specifically protected by the DMCA.
Section 1201(f) only protects "identification and analysis", not dissemination of the results. Meaning the only people who can use the information are the person who do the reverse engineering. And they have to own a legal copy of what they are trying to reverse engineer. Hence the DeCSS case.
>They don't think allowing backups should be illegal.
Which it isn't.
No, but distributing the program which allows backups to be made is. Hence Dmitry Sklyarov.
>They don't think that quotation from a digital source, for the purposes of scholarship, should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA.
Again, the distributing the program which allows normal users to do this is illegal.
>They don't think that scientific research should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA.
But publishing the results of the research is not. Hence Ed Felton.
You should read it some time.
Maybe you should take your own advice.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
* First Amendment does not protect instructions for violating the tax laws
* First Amendment protects instructions for engaging in a dangerous sex act
* First Amendment does not protect instructions for building an explosive device
* Instructions, do-it-yourself manuals, [and] recipes are all speech
Well, first of all, they do. They are still protected by the Bill of Rights, for example; and it's still illegal to, say, randomly beat them.
Second, one would expect that even someone adhering to this principle recognizes a scaling in it. If you litter, is it really OK for the police to break down your door, drag you to a cell, beat you, and torture you? I would hope not.
Third, even if you go so far as to say that no criminal has any rights, it would still apply only to criminals
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I'm glad you feel that way. I wish the judge, whose opinion actually matters, felt that way, too. As it is, it is the "potentially infringing" use that sways him. When pressed, the DVDCCA was unable to offer even a single instance wherein DeCSS was implicated in violating copyright.
On the other hand, it was used by quite a number of people to view DVDs on Linux boxes, a completely legitimate use.
So apparently it's not a weight of usage argument after all. DMCA bans things like DeCSS on the mere potential of their misuse. It's like banning hammers because they could be used to kill someone.
Before the DMCA we had strong copyright laws -- some would say too strong -- that provided more than adequate tools to prosecute people actually engaging in copyright violation. The Content Cartel didn't like those laws because they required actual effort to uncover "piracy", assemble a case, etc. It's much easier to make the mere possibility of infringing illegal; the case is much easier to make, then.
It just didn't matter that this completely upends American standards of justice.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
You keep using that word. I do not think it meanms what you think it means.
How are you supposed to distribute an unencrypted version of the work, if you are prohibited from using tools that decrypt the work? Or will it become the responsibility of each person to write his/her own version of deCSS -- without ever discussing any aspect of it with any other person -- so that he/she can decrypt works and allow the perfectly legitimate public domain usage of them?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
One might have wished they had continued their aggressive pursuit of Microsoft -- I know I wish they had. However, there is a world of difference between prosecuting a case and defending one. In the Microsoft thing, the DoJ was one of the initiators; they brought the suit. It's an active thing. In the Felten case, the researcher sued the government, and they defended. It's a reactive thing. Ethically, I believe, the DoJ cannot simply allow the progress of suits against the US government to proceed without challenge.
It's sort of along the lines of, your defense attorney isn't interested whether you're guilty. He's there to do his best to spring you.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
"This disc is intended for sale or viewing within Region 1 (US and Canada) only."
People keep saying that. I don't know if I intend to be insulted. I have read it. It does make illegal things that allow the exercise of long-established rights.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Its sounds like you are saying they need to improve, not stop trying.
disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
Or let me put it this way, the only reason to stop is if the case is made impossible by other people (if every judge was owned by the MPAA etc), then I can see dropping your case and changing your tactics.
disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
Anyone can threaten anyone under anything. That is completely irrelevant to the law itself. Felton did not break the DMCA.
It's not irrelevant if the law can be read as if he did break it. It's irrelevant if it's not a credible threat. If I threaten to sue you for libel because you disagree with me, that is not a credible threat and libel law is irrelevant. The threat from the RIAA was a credible threat because it's not unreasonable for the law to be read as if his acts would be illegal. This is the whole point of the Ed Felton suit. He wants someone to say, "yes, this is ok" so if he receives another threat, he can be confident his actions aren't against the law.
Complete and utter FUD. It doesn't need to be legal to distribute DeCSS, you can distribute the unencrypted work,
What if the unencrypted work isn't available? Or, if it is, why should I download a many GB file of a movie I already own when a few KB file will give me access to it? Making it legal but extremely inconvenient is little better than making it illegal.
or distribute a crack specifically for a certain DVD.
As far as I know, the algorithm which cracks one CSS protected work can be used on another, especially if you have the source code.
DeCSS has zero to do with reverse engineering. The creator of the software has testified as such.
Whether or not that is true doesn't invalidate my point. Which is...
You should also note that my statement was that reverse engineering was legal, not dissemination of the results.
Without dissemination of the results, there is little use in reverse engineering in the first place. The DMCA requires that the person doing the reverse engineering legally obtain a copy of the program or device they are trying to reverse engineer. Why bother making it run on another platform if you're the only one who can use it and you have a copy of the original?
Backups can be made regardless of CSS encryption. The decryption is necessary to view the DVD, not to copy it.
Actually, I was talking about Dmitry Sklyarov creating a program to make backup copies of Adobe's Ebook format which did not allow backup copies. But you raise an interesting point. If the encryption doesn't prevent copying, how is it a copy control mechanism?
Highly unlikely, unless you mean publishing of results which are cirumvention code.
That is exactly what I mean. An important part of the scientific method is peer review. This requires access to the methods used to get the results. This means someone else must be able to repeat the experiment and obtain the same results. In encryption research, it is necessary to publish the code used to circumvent the encryption so that others may do the same and verify the results. Without publication of the results, there is little point in doing the research.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
"He is charged with both personally trafficking it and being part of a conspiracy to traffick it. He may or may not be guilty of that, but that's what he is charged with."
I will settle for that.
"Would it strike you strange if the kingpin of a drug-smuggling operation was charged with drug trafficking offenses even though that drug operation was incorporated in another country?"
According to recent history, Microsoft has received a number of law suits and among the largest, the DoJ vs. Microsoft. Both the Sklyarov and Microsoft cases involve criminal charges. In none of the cases were drugs involved. And Sklyarov was not a kingpin. He was simply here. Guilty by association.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title."
Good catch? If you purchase a PC game on CD-ROM and wish to use it with a backup copy to protect your original, you would not be endorsed to persue this by the proprietor. Fair Use is something of the worst enemy of Big Business. Fair Use means less sales. In essence, you are allowed to play the game, thus circumventing the protection lawfully. But you aren't allowed to make a backup.
"I guess I was wrong that backups were specifically exempted. I couldn't find it. But copying for the purpose of backups it perfectly legal, because it does not involve decryption. It is also likely to fall under fair use."
It involves circumventing a copy protection scheme. Once circumventing the finite state machine which was designed to disallow copying, you've committed an offense against the DMCA. The DMCA does NOT specifically state that it only concerns encryption. Back to the example of the CD-ROM. An oversized TOC or faked bad sector would suffice as attempted protective mechanism, provided that the operation of the program in question would require those "defects" in order to run. The DMCA would override Fair Use.
"No permission is necessary. Only the requirement to make "a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention""
Essentially the same thing. Most likely this effort would require e-mail, fax and letter requests. Most likely one form of communication or other would reach a corporate lawyer and be disallowed in writing. Why? Because no proprietor would like to divulge the internals of its technology to the Public Domain. Essentially this gives the proprietor full reign in what is premissible and what isn't.
"Afraid of what? An injunction? Circumvention does not fall under criminal law."
BUT THE DMCA MAKES it a criminal act to circumvent a finite state machine which aims to limit serialized duplication or disassembling of that very machine or target data.
"Show me these cases. All I see is Dmitry, who was trying to capitalize off of circumventing copyright, and DeCSS, which was hit with an injunction which forced them to stop distribution. I see nothing inherently evil with the DMCA, it just seems like a way to enforce the evil that is copyright law."
Well let's look at Felten vs. RIAA... There are clear threats of litigation, thus suppression. Read here:
http://cryptome.org/sdmi-attack.htm
The DMCA is THE tool for corporations to enforce and suppress free speech. To mention another case, is the DeCSS case. The problem with that case is not that DeCSS would aid in illegal mass distribution of copyrighted material, it is the fact that the CSS algorithm would bear no merit as a copy protection device. The only way for the MPAA to protect itself from this is to make DeCSS illegal and thus earning itself cases to relate to, should this type of software appear again. The problem is that license fees would be lost, and region coding would be circumvented. Big Bucks, nothing else. And in the quest for the Almighty $$$, First Sale, Fair Use and various other Freedoms are effectively circumvented.
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
...people dont give a flying flip. The average American has either no opinion on the DMCA or no rightfully educated one. So, there just aren't enough people to counter it. And, with all the buzz about the "War", people care less. As a matter of fact, on Sept. 11 that's one of the first things I said, "Great, now no one will counter DMCA, they'll just care about this." Not that we shouldnt care, but we need to watch more than one thing in our government at a time. They aren't single-tasking.
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
So apparently it's not a weight of usage argument after all. DMCA bans things like DeCSS on the mere potential of their misuse. It's like banning hammers because they could be used to kill someone.
You're a moron.
Feel free to reply, but I'm done talking to you about it. RTFDMCA.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
That's precisely the problem. "...the work is primarily created for copyright circumvention". Aside from the original author of the work, who's to say what the primary purpose of a work is? Hell, the primary purpose of Dr. Felten's work is to merely prove that SDMI is a flawed approach to preventing copyright. Yet RIAA is (apparently) going to succeed at using the DMCA to prevent him from presenting that work. Surely you don't think that the primary purpose of his research is to facilitate copyright infringement.
Oh please. DeCSS was created to circumvent copyright. It was marketed to circumvent copyright. Those legitimate uses are merely incidental. This is not only the ruling the courts made, it is the truth.
Well, if you say so. I suspect, however, that there are a great deal many more people using DeCSS for purely legitimate purposes than for copyright infringement. How many Linux DVD player projects depend completely on its existance? I can think of at least 4 or 5, but I can't name any DVD copying software for any OS that depends on DeCSS.
If I might ask, what do you believe should exist in place of copyright law? Do you believe that all intellectual property should belong to the public domain? I agree that copyright law has major problems (especially after the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension), but I am not sure that legal protection of ownership of intellectual property is a bad thing.
noah
The bottom line is that the DMCA (or parts of it) is unconstitutional, and we want to prove it in court.
I wonder if it is possible to for Joe Schmoe to create a trivial encryption scheme, and his friend Harry Hacker to 'break' it and publish. Then Joe sues Harry, and the whole constitutional shit can be opened up, with all parties playing their proper part, correctly.
Any objections?
- AnoniMoose Cowherd
Yes.
Yes, you're right. However, it's illegal to posess the tools needed to circumvent the access controls on a work, even after the copyright expires. So whether or not it's legal to circumvent the copy protection is completely irrelevant. You can't legally do it anyway.
noah
The point isn't only to boycott, that only works if you have a LOT of people actively boycotting that were actively buying before. If you want to fight the MPAA then it is a must to produce alternative products to the ones they offer.
:)
Of course the opensource community isn't likely to make huge multimillion dollar movies at this time but we should be active in the independent films and in promoting alternative DVD technology. No-region unencrypted DVD's that don't pay the MPAA protection money. When you seriously challenge someone at their own game they take you more seriously than if they just think your a pirate. At the same time you're making more options for other consumers to avoid those tainted products.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
The E2 node on it says "Essentially propaganda used by certain groups, companies, nations and/or people in order to invoke F.ear, U.ncertainty, and D.oubt about something." I find that perfectly applicable to what you are doing (spreading unjustified fear) when you try to say that the DMCA will affect the free dissemination of public domain works.
It only takes one person to decrypt the work. After that it can be freely distributed without anyone having to do any further decryption. I have my copy of DeCSS (and no, possession is not illegal), so if no one else will do it, I will offer to decrypt any public domain work protected by CSS for you. Besides, distributing DeCSS to someone for the sole purpose of decrypting public domain works would not be a criminal act, and since no one would be injured, no one would have grounds for a civil suit either. Even in the highly unlikely case that you got caught, someone had some ridiculous grounds for saying they were injured, and you lost the case (all three of which are extremely unlikely), you would have to pay a maximum of $2500 in statutory damages. BFD.
Neither the government nor any corporation is going to waste its time chasing around people doing this. And that's why your statement is FUD.
BTW, nice nested blockquote method, I've decided to "steal" it (I wonder if it works on most browsers) :).
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
However, it's illegal to posess the tools needed to circumvent the access controls on a work, even after the copyright expires.
BZZT. Sorry, possession is not illegal under the DMCA, nor could it ever be, since possession of a decryption tool without intent to distribute does not fall under any of the provisions of Article I, Section 8 of the Constution (which would likely be the copyright clause or the interstate commerce clause). A law against possession of decryption tools would be unconstitutional under the 10th ammendment.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Hell, the primary purpose of Dr. Felten's work is to merely prove that SDMI is a flawed approach to preventing copyright. Yet RIAA is (apparently) going to succeed at using the DMCA to prevent him from presenting that work.
This is not the case. Felton already presented the work. The RIAA has agreed not to prosecute him. Felton then sued the RIAA to get a declaratory judgement. The court denied to rule on that declaratory judgement, presumably because he had no standing and the case was moot (though I haven't been able to read the ruling).
I suspect, however, that there are a great deal many more people using DeCSS for purely legitimate purposes than for copyright infringement.
By the wording of the law, use is irrelevant if the product is created or marketed to circumvent copyright. This case would be a lot different if the RIAA sued someone for making a linux DVD player which did not allow access to the unencrypted MPEG.
If I might ask, what do you believe should exist in place of copyright law?
Absolutely nothing. Contract law could be used in some cases, but that would mainly be for B2B dealings.
Do you believe that all intellectual property should belong to the public domain?
Pretty much, although there wouldn't really be a term "public domain" any more, for obvious reasons.
I agree that copyright law has major problems (especially after the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension), but I am not sure that legal protection of ownership of intellectual property is a bad thing.
IMHO, authors of creative works would actually be better compensated, because the true intellectual property will always be something that is part of them, something that no one else can take away. As a software programmer, I can certainly say without a doubt that a good programmer is irreplacible for maintaining or improving his work. Even with the best documented and cleanest written software in the world, the original author(s) will always have an advantage over others. I suspect that the same is true of writers and performers, and as such I suspect that copyright law is unnecessary to provide incentive to almost all of those authors. Good authors of any type of work create because it's what they love, or what they do best. As long as they are going to make a decent living off those creations, they will continue to create. Good creators might make $50K a year instead of $500K a year, but I don't think this is going to act as a deterrent because those who are good at something tend to not do it just because of the possibility of huge salaries.
Maybe I'm wrong, and in any case, I doubt I'll see the end of copyright law during my lifetime.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
OK, but the point of my post is still valid. Even after copyright expires, the law must be broken in order for one to get the tools that allow you to circumvent access controls, even though you do have the legal right to what's on the other side of the access controls. Of course, the law need not be broken if you're on of the very few people in the world capable of cracking CSS without outside information.
The DMCA cases really sound like the lawmakers are trying to reclassify fair use rights as fair use privilages, privilages that we can't complain about losing when they're taken away.
Maybe it is possible that, with the advent of widespread digital communications, copyright law really is obsolete and the DMCA is just a flailing, panicked attempt to prop it up for a bit longer. Maybe copyright can't work as intended anymore... I just wish all this junk would go away so I can spend my time thinking about more interesting problems.
noah
OK, but the point of my post is still valid. Even after copyright expires, the law must be broken in order for one to get the tools that allow you to circumvent access controls, even though you do have the legal right to what's on the other side of the access controls.
Maybe, and maybe not. It is unclear as to whether every single instance of circumvention software changing hands is considered trafficking. Even if that changing of hands is considered trafficking, no one is injured, so no one is able to initiate a civil suit, and criminal suits are also not valid, because the "trafficking" is not done for the purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
If that doesn't ease your fears, maybe this does. I have a copy of DeCSS. I don't remember where I obtained it from. If any public domain work is encrypted using CSS, send it to me. I will decrypt it for you and send it back. I'm sure there are others who will do the same.
The DMCA cases really sound like the lawmakers are trying to reclassify fair use rights as fair use privilages, privilages that we can't complain about losing when they're taken away.
Fair use simply means that you can't be prosecuted for copyright infringement for certain uses of a copyrighted work. It doesn't mean that you can't be prosecuted under the interstate commerce clause, and it most certainly doesn't mean that the copyright holder of a work is required to help you perform that fair use. In fact, it is the right of the copyright holder to prevent fair use through technological means.
Maybe it is possible that, with the advent of widespread digital communications, copyright law really is obsolete and the DMCA is just a flailing, panicked attempt to prop it up for a bit longer.
That is my own personal belief.
I just wish all this junk would go away so I can spend my time thinking about more interesting problems.
I'm not sure exactly why you need to spend your time thinking about the DMCA. If you're not a copyright infringer... Let me restate that, since I don't know anyone who's never infringed on copyright (basically anyone who's used winzip or the old netscape). If you're not a major copyright infringer, or willfully helping others to infringe copyright, you don't have anything to worry about from the DMCA. The point of the DMCA is to get the Dmitry's of the world, who make a living helping others break the law, because we are a nation of lawbreakers, so it's impossible to go after everyone.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
"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."
That's funny. I thought they were supposed to defend the constitution.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?