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.

Comments

I guess...

[webword]

...that the $10,000 Wil won on Weakest Link for the EFF will come in handy!

Re:I guess...

[webword]

Of course you realize that won could never mean: "To receive as a prize or reward for performance."

Thanks for being so clever...

Felten

[terrabit]

As seen a few hours ago on Slashdot I wonder if he will even keep his research on the web after this?

Well...

[Scoria]

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?"

Re:Well...

[BitterOak]

As long as that source exists, DeCSS will exist.

But this case was never really about DeCSS. The MPAA knows they can't put DeCSS back in the bottle. What it is about is open DVD players that contain CSS decoding circuitry without region coding, Macrovision, and licensing from DVDCCA. If DeCSS were declared legal, what would stop a hardware manufacturer from selling DVD players with no licensing from DVDCCA.

Ditto for open source Linux DVD players. They'll be just like encryption software used to be. You'll have to download them from some European country since they'll never be part of Red Hat or Mandrake. This is a big win for the MPAA.

And that's just the tip of the iceburg. The next generation of DVDs which will have high definition video will have a new encryption system, and the MPAA wants to make sure a crack for that is never released.

By the way, this decision doesn't bode well for Sklyarov.

Re:Well...

[Scoria]

Obviously, however, DMCA == DeCSS here at Slashdot. That is the reason my comment was DeCSS oriented. You're absolutely correct, though. The DeCSS (and the RIAA) aspire to capitalize (the "American way") with any method they can utilize.

For example, the RIAA is attempting to apply a $.02 "performance fee" (they may have already done it) to every played song on a webcast. (This adds up quite quickly, I assure you.) I suppose they figure if they can't outlaw digital music, they can efficiently screw those who would otherwise stream it out of enough money to force them to cease doing so.

Fair use is quite a grey area; after all, doesn't a Shoutcast stream "for your friends" (but open to the public) qualify as fair use? It's all a matter of opinion.

And as for MP3s/Vorbis, the RIAA happens to be screwing themselves. There are twenty CDs that I would have never purchased had it not been for digital music. Why? Because there isn't any music on the radio that originated from these bands. :)

Re:Well...

[agentZ]

And what was that quote about encryption? "If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption?"

I thought it was: If encryption is outlawed, only gcrqu2 ryfg fgegd vfwtq djxdt.

Re:Well...

[ryanwright]

If DeCSS were declared legal, what would stop a hardware manufacturer from selling DVD players with no licensing from DVDCCA.

To hell with DVDCCA. This was created simply as another revenue stream, and shouldn't be legal, anyway. "Here, we've made these DVD things, but we figure the millions we will make from selling them isn't enough. We're greedy pigs, and we want more. So we're going to encrypt them, and if you want to sell a device to play them, we're going to charge you half a million dollars for the rights to do so."

Screw 'em. If I had the means, I'd sell a high quality standalone "CD player, DVD upgradable" for cheap with empty, flashable firmware. Toss in a firewire cable and a software program to copy DeCSS into the firmware. Sell a million units before anyone knows what happened and let the industry sort it out. Greedy pricks.

I understand that they've got an investment in the technology and they have the right to recoup it and make a good chunk of money. They're already doing that by selling millions of DVDs. Trying to rake in more cash over the sale of every single player, and preventing consumers from playing legally purchased discs wherever they want, well, I'd like to see the responsible party's head on a platter.

Re:Well...

[oddjob]

Well, the RIAA isn't screwing themselves by trying to kill off mp3s, and your example demonstrates the point. The RIAA isn't happy about those twenty CDs you bought because you didn't learn about those bands from media that they can influence. They don't want you to know about any bands except the ones they promote. If musicians learned they could sell CDs without the RIAA members' help, they might not be so willing to sell themselves into indentured servitude to the record companies.

The real

[Vegeta99]

??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.

Re:The real

[Lunastorm]

If you're willing to fight the revolution, I'll be rooting for you, but don't expect me to actually be a part of the bloodshed. Besides, a revolution isn't necessary. I think all we need to do is go: "Fuck you RIAA and MPAA. Since you want to treat us like yo' bitch, we'll fight fire with fire and listen to non-RIAA music and watch non-MPAA shiznit."

Re:The real

[Malcontent]

In every revolution most of the people sit out. All revolutions are cunducted by a small minority of the population who feels pissed off enough to do something.

Re:The real

[Apotsy]

Canada is getting very close to having its own version of the DMCA. It may not "seem much better" for long.

Well, so much for freedom.

[juju2112]

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

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[LilDebbie]

That, my friend, is a sad thing to say. Patriotism is not about agreeing with your elected officials. Patriotism is not about rolling over while the freedom you know and love is kicked out the window. When freedom is on the line, acting patriotic should be a priority.

I challenge you to be a real patriot. Get out from behind the monitor and write your congressman. No, don't e-mail him/her, they won't read it. Write out long hand your grievances and slap an American flag stamp on the corner. Tell him/her you vote. Tell him/her you know a whole community of people who vote and have similar interests. If you really want to be patriotic, go to D.C. and demand to see your representive/congressman. Raise Hell and be a patriot.

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[supabeast!]

"Get out from behind the monitor and write your congressman. No, don't e-mail him/her, they won't read it."

YES, THEY WILL. Some Senators have actually pointed out that right now electronic mail is a better way to go (For an example, CLICK HERE.) because of the Anthrax threats on Capitol Hill. I can personally vouch that politicians read email, because I have recieved multiple personal, specific replies to emails I have sent to my representatives. These were well written letters, not just a generic form letter about a topic with a fake signature stamp.

On the topic, Americans need to stop buying into the myth that politicians do not read email. This story is spread by:

1- American media corporations, who want to keep people from contacting representatives. Actually writing a letter and mailing it intimidates some people (Those who do not know how to prepare elegant business letters or have poor handwriting and lack spelling skills.), and is too time-consuming for others. By making sure that the people's thoughts are not heard, companies like AOL and Microsoft make sure that theirs ARE.

2- Old Guard politicians afraid of progress, the guys like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond who are afraid of change, especially one that gives a lot of voters a voice in a manner that they do not understand.

Use email to contact politicians. It works. If a politician will not care about your email, chances are that he is enough of an asshole that he would not care about a letter anyway,.And if a politician expresses disdain for email, note it, and make sure he gets voted out!

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[ryanvm]

If they're going to take my freedoms away and not listen to reason, then I officially refuse to be patriotic about anything.

Oh my gawd - tell me you are joking. You need to get some fuckin' perspective you ungrateful sack of shit.

These rulings suck - I'll give you that. But if you think that they are anywhere near justifying a statement like that than you are so utterly sheltered it's almost pitiable. Almost.

There are entire countries where people are praying that they'll eat tomorrow. Whole cultures oppressed by their governments. People who can't remember a time that bombs weren't exploding in the distance. I could never name a hundredth of the grave injustices that other governments inflict upon their people.

But I have to listen to people like you whine, "Waaaah - I want to decrypt PDFs. I hate America!" Ugghh.

I'll tell you what - why don't you go stay in Afghanistan for a month. Then report back on whether you'd still like to trade your life in the U.S. for a few poorly-crafted laws.

Oh, and let me assure you, this is not a fucking troll. You have genuinely pissed me off.

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[Velex]

Raise Hell and be a patriot.

And get arrested for being a terrorist sympathizer

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[juju2112]

Well, most of what you said is right of course. I suppose I just got caught up in the moment and lost perspective. I was only voicing how I felt at the time I read the story -- frustrated.

However, it's hard to be patriotic knowing that my private e-mail could be read, my phone could be tapped (without a warrant), if my computer is tapped, the anti-virus companies won't help me, my house could be searched (again, without a warrant), and I could be considered a terrorist and thrown in jail for pointing out a security flaw. Thank god i'm not a middle-eastern American, or I might be locked up without a trial.

And on top of all that, to now know that I can't even post a copy of source code on a website if I want to. I am a programmer. Computers are my life. When I get out of college, what if I decide to do crypto research? Suddenly there will be things that I might find that I will not be allowed to talk to anyone about, or I could be thrown in jail. It's a violation of my free speech. To say I only want to decrypt PDF's trivializes the issue. I want to be able to speak freely on the internet about things in my field.

I know, I know, i'm not starving, and I have a pretty good life. You're absolutely right. Now is a very good time. But I see where this country is going and I don't like it, and I suspect that this is only the beginning of a much larger shift for this country.

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[|deity|]

You tell me something. I've seen this whole country get into some kind of patriotism fad. Why?
If you weren't patriotic before why would a terrorist being able to destroy two landmarks using a comercial airliner, killing thousands of people in the process make you patriotic.

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[juju2112]

Here's the thing about writing your congressman: i'm not so sure it's that effective.

If I were a congressman, when laws were proposed, I would vote my conscience. Think about it: if you're a congressman, you are already into politics. You've probably been into politics for your whole life. You are hard-core enough about issues to actually run for office. That type of person already has their mind made up on an entire range of issues. Are they really going to change their mind for me? Probably not -- not unless it's an issue that they haven't really thought about before.

Take Judge Kaplan for example. I know, he's not a congressman, but it's only an example. If you've read the court transcripts for the 2600 case, it's quite clear that his mind is already made up. He is a professional judge, and he clearly tries to be unbiased, but he's enough into politics that he just can't help but have his own very strong opinions. Is writing the man begging him to change his mind really going to change anything?

Now you're right, I should at least try. Perhaps this is the clue for me to be more vocal to the right people.

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[juju2112]

Well, the Founding Fathers _were_ traitors. They just had the nerves and the guns to get away with it. The Conferdate States of America had the nerves, but not the guns, so they failed.


Hmmm.... so this begs the question, were the Confederates patriots?

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[mpe]

Americans need to stop buying into the myth that politicians do not read email.
1- This story is spread by:American media corporations, who want to keep people from contacting representatives. Actually writing a letter and mailing it intimidates some people.

More than just media corporations would like people not to write to politicans. A lot of corporate entities and political groups (especially extremists who claim to be representing a "silent majority") would rather people kept quiet. It makes their lobbying harder if too many ordinary people are trying to get their voices heard.

2- Old Guard politicians afraid of progress, the guys like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond who are afraid of change, especially one that gives a lot of voters a voice in a manner that they do not understand.

As well as giving people a voice who may understand the issues involved (and their potential loopholes) a lot better than the politicans.

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[ryanvm]

If you weren't patriotic before why would a terrorist [...] killing thousands of people [...] make you patriotic.

Uh, what did I say that had anything to do with September 11th? The Afghanistan reference was intentionally topical, but you could substitute dozens of other countries and my point is just as valid.

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[supabeast!]

I was referrering more to the content of the letter then just the handwriting. There is a big difference between a form letter saying "Thanks for writing, my position on issue X is ..." and a letter that actually singles out concerns and replies with thought out responses to them, which is what I have recieved in response to some of my emails.

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Another thing is that secretaries are often permitted to sign the name of the person they work under, it is quite a common practice and IIRC when the supervisor permits underlings to sign their own name, that is also legally valid as they are acting as a representative of that person.

Re:Well, so much for freedom.

[congressional_f00l]

Acutally, since we're not receiving ANY mail on the Hill, emailing (or faxing) is the only way to go currently. I actually work in a congressional office, and oddly enough, a large portion of my job is responding to constituent mail. As a big opponent of the DMCA, here's a few of my thoughts on how to affect the issue on the Hill. First, since most of you probably don't have contacts on the Hill, writing to your congressman is pretty much the only way to go. Contrary to what supabeast! thinks, most congressmen and senators DON'T read their constituent mail - that's my job. Yeah, you get a personally tailored response, but it's from people like me (vetted by the Chief of Staff or Legislative Director, usually). So, probably the best way to get your congessman/senator's attention is to bombard them with letters, and not just from you, but from everybody that you can convince to write them too. The greater the number of letters (not form letters, but individually written ones - many offices ignore forms), the greater the chance the issue will be brought to the congressman/senator's attention. Also, you should write to Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) - he's probably the biggest foe of the DMCA. Also, contact the Cato Institute here in DC - it's a Libertarian think tank, and it's very much against the DMCA as well. Good luck!

I wonder...

[InferiorFloater]

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.

Re:I wonder...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

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?

... really bad experience in a math class in college?

:)

Re:I wonder...

[aozilla]

What could make a judge so hostile to clearly valid academic concerns?

How about the fact that he was asking for a declaratory judgement on an issue that the other parties had agreed not to prosecute? Sounds like a huge waste of the courts time to me.

Re:I wonder...

[Lucretius]

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.

I think that the reason that this case was thrown out so quickly is that nothing has happened yet. There has been no case proven where someone has published and gotten sued over it yet, so there has been no real constitutional question at hand.

I think the most important bit of information contained in the press release is right here:

The recording industry, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America(RIAA) and the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI)Foundation, threatened to file suit in April 2001 if Felten and his team published their research at a conference. They subsequently issued a press release denying having threatened the researchers.

What I see in this (and it is important to say here that I am not a lawyer) is that there has been no proven conflict as of yet. If the RIAA is denying the threat, then the EFF needs to prove that the threat actually happened. Once they have proved that the threat actually happened, then we actually have ourselves a constitutional question at hand. As it stands right now, there is a supposed constitutional question at hand.

I personally predict that the next appeal will get the much the same result, until one professor stands up and either stands the RIAA down (in which case they will win de facto and things will start to get published as people get braver), or actually goes to court to battle this out the way it should be battled out.

Once there is a proven case of free speech being suppressed on account of the DMCA, then you will see the courts actually start to step in and stop the madness (unfortunately, this will probably take quite some time).

marc

not a surprise

[multriha]

They didn't lose. It was dismissed simply because never there was no real threat of prosecution in this case.

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.

No DMCA in Canada

[Vagary]

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!

Re:No DMCA in Canada

[Geek Boy]

Yeah the taxes aren't too high when you're a student at Trent, but they sure get high once you start making $100K/year ($62K USD).

Re:No DMCA in Canada

[sg_oneill]

Actually dude, I think that bringing in DMCA stuff will most certainly happen in CANADA, what with all the NAFTA type stuff and whatnot, so you probably can't win anywhere. We got simmilarly reamed over here in Australia

Oh, and to the replier who got huffy about the US government comment. Chill bro. Just cause someone says your government bites, they aint saying America itself bites. It's democracy dude, and the US is supposed to be the king of it. Without critisism, there IS no democracy! relax. Foreigners being critical of US government decisions does not automatically mean they are enemies of the state or whatever.

Re:No DMCA in Canada

[cloudmaster]

As an alternative to leaving the country, try *not voiting for the incumbent unless he/she does what you want*. Re-electing career politicians will never change anything.

Eh, people on Slashdot (who aren't still pissed about the Gore thing) are generally smart enough to know that already. Tell your friends.

How long did it take to repeal?

[itsnotme]

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

Re:How long did it take to repeal?

[mpe]

How long did prohibition in the uhh 1930s (I believe?) to be repealed?

Not exactly, the same kind of policy still exists, with the more catchy name of "the war on drugs". Also the prohibition of alcohol required the US to ammend it's constitution. The more recent version simply uses laws.

I'm hoping that DCMA will be repealed in the same amount of time or at LEAST in less time than that..

The DMCA is simply a law, rather than a contitutional ammendment. Though interestingly it appears to comply with the letter of the US constitution, whilst circumventing the intent.

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..

Constitutions are only as good as whatever enforces them. In the case of the US constitution it has been being weakened for quite a long time. In many different ways, sometimes for apparently "good" reasons...

What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[JoeShmoe]

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

Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[aozilla]

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".

Please. Someone told a professor that what he was doing might not be legal. Nothing more. There is no case. It was a stupid case to begin with.

Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[Brian See]

Both of these decisions were in federal courts. The Felten case was before a federal judge in New Jersey, and the 2600 DeCSS case was before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit -- a federal appeals court.

Presumably, the Felten case will be appealed to the Third Circuit (which must take the appeal if filed), and 2600 will presumably file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court. No guarantee that the Supremes will find this one certworthy, though. Hard to tell without reading the decision...

New Jersey and New York /.'ers really have little direct say in whether these judges retain their offices.

What all US voters who oppose these decisions should do is to lobby their (federal) representatives and senators to CHANGE or REPEAL the DMCA. The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA were created by Congress, and can be changed by a subsequent Congress.

Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[SumDeusExMachina]

Would you calm down? Put a paper bag over your mouth and breathe deeply. OK, now read this:

This was a case that was dismissed due to the fact that the EFF was suing the RIAA over the RIAA's threatening to sue Felten. Even the (obviously biased) press release was unable to obscure this basic fact. Mind you, this wasn't a suit that would result in penalties for Felten, either criminal or civil. The judge simply made a determination that this was a frivolous law suit. IMHO, the EFF should be spending their donor's money in more responsible manners, and they could probably start by waiting for a clear cut case to come along against one of the people they plan on defending.

Is there any way we can start a campaign to get idiots like this off the bench?

Is there any way we can start a campaign to keep ill-reasoned hotheads like you from posting to Slashdot? Judges get to where they are through being throughly 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 that you sorely lack.

Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[ftobin]

Please. Someone told a professor that what he was doing might not be legal. Nothing more. There is no case. It was a stupid case to begin with.

You don't seem to even know what the RIAA sent to Felten. They didn't say "might not be legal". They said:

Unfortunately, the disclosure that you are contemplating could result in significantly broader consequences and could directly lead to the illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Such disclosure is not authorized in the Agreement, would constitute a violation of the Agreement and would subject your research team to enforcement actions under the DMCA and possibly other federal laws.

That sounds a tad more threatening "oh, you might not be doing something legal.".

Quote curtesy of Politechbot.

Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[metis]

and 2600 will presumably file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court. No guarantee that the Supremes will find this one certworthy,

The chances are nill. The supreme court will take the issue only if different courts interpret the DMCA in significanly different ways or if all courts interpret it in a way a majority of the justice don't like. Given that 2600 is the first case and the decision doesn't seem to be the kind to energize the present court, I'll bet my hat they'll pass.

PS. I think the EFF had no case here. The DMCA explicitely excludes encryption research. And there was no governmental attempt to silence Felten. Free speach means nothing if people won't speak unless their get a written guarantee that nobody is going to sue them.

Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[JoeShmoe]

Oh yeah, that's right. Let's allow the DoJ to arrest Felten and throw him in jail like Skylerov. Let's allow the DoJ to confiscate all of Felten's computers and equipment for years while they stall through the trial process. Let's allow the DoJ to make Felten liable for any infringing action that results from his research. Oh THEN he has a right to bring the matter before a judge?

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?"

There has got to be some legal basis for preventative measures. Look at trade secret laws. There doesn't even need to be damages...just the mere threat of damages is enough for a judge can issue a restraining order. So why doesn't this work in the other direction? Why can't a judge issue a ruling that says "No, the DMCA doesn't apply to what you are doing Felten, carry on." Why does Felten have to do things the hard way and martyr himself?

Maybe there would be a whole lot less civil disobidience if there was a way for someone to get a ruling before actually breaking the law. Who exactly are you supposed to believe? An unfair law or the judges who interpret it? I read the law and see permission to do something. Big Company reads the same law and sees the exact opposite. Does the FBI listen to my side of the case when Big Company asks them to arrest me? Do they say "oh yeah, good point, you are free to go?" No. Even when Adobe "recanted" Dmitri was still in prison. So then if it's not up to the executive branch, it must be up to the judicial branch. So that is why Felten and the EFF went to court...to ask the judicial branch what this law means. But rather than study it, hear testimony, call experts, and finally make a ruling...the judge ducks the issue.

Oh, and by the way, wtf kind of crack are you smoking to make the statement that judges "get to where they are through being throughly qualified for the position" Judicial appointments are as based on merit as the electoral college is. They are done completely down political and ideological lines...ie picking judges that are gonna vote the way you want them to vote on the issues that matter to your group. But whether is is Democrat or Republician it seems to me there is an appalling pro-business bias in the judges that have been chosen in the last couple decades. Can anyone even remember an anti-business ruling? I'm not talking about one business fighting with another; can anyone think of a single case in the last twenty years where an individual or non-profit group was victorious in an action brought by a large corporation? Are there any success stories?

For crying out loud...ten? twenty? years ago the Supreme Court of the United States rules that Hustler magazine had the right to embarass the hell out of a religious figure because, distasteful as the comments were, they were free speech. What do you think the odds are that the same case would have even made it to the Supreme Court if Hustler had instead embarassed a major corporation?

SDMI hadn't even picked a secure music format. There was *NO* chance of damage or IP theft and still they pissed their pants over Felten's analysis. Why? Because it showed what a ludicrous idea watermarking is. Reactions like this only helps prove that the real intent of the DMCA is not to protect IP or prevent piracy but to prevent the publication or dissemination of any information that embarasses or otherwise injures the reputation of a major corporation and its products.

- JoeShmoe

Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[Malcontent]

The president lied under oath.
It was not in a trial, it was in a deposition. The deposition was taken in the context of a civil case (not a criminal one). No judgement was made as to wether this lie was "relevant" and therefore rose to the level of perjury. he was never charged with perjury, never tried for perjury and never convicted of perjury.

He lied about the whereabouts of his cock. He was asked about where he stuck his cock and when and under what circumstances. The questions about his cock and the whereabouts thereof were asked primarily to embarass him. The republicans who were suing him intended to publish information gleaned from the depositions so that they could talk about his cock on TV. He knew this and he lied.

Given that the question should never have been asked in the first place I say it's no big deal. The whereabouts (or the shape and the size for that matter) of Bill Clintons cock is not my concern and I for one am not at all concerned that he lied about it.

I won't comment on the rest of post as it's pretty silly

P.S. Can you point out the acual lie under oath? Next time you complain about lying under oath you should say "in this depostion he was asked weather or not he stuck his cock in this girls pussy and he lied about it and that's wrong because I really really care which pussy his cock was buried in"

Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[alfredw]

Guess again.

Check out the Notable First Amendment Cases page at the American Library Association. More specifically, see the case of Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973).

Here is part of Justice Byron R. White's decision:

Litigants, therefore, are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own right of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute's very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.

In other words, you can preemptively sue the government if it is possible for someone to be silenced by a law.

Ergo Felten was completely in the right.

Alf

Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[sconeu]

\i{. Free speach means nothing if people won't speak unless their get a written guarantee that nobody is going to sue them.}

That was the whole point of the suit.

Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[mpe]

Then we have the PRESIDENT.. the PRESIDENT.. lie under oath.. WTF!? I know someone who went away for 5 years because of perjury.. and it wasn't even that bad of a lie compared to what Willy did.

Or possibly worst you have someone lieing in court not only do they get away with it but the judge is censored for making less than positive comments to the press after the case.

Any governmental branch that attempts to defer, downplay, or otherwise attempt to stifle such a call to trial by the people shall be immediately disempowered and rendered void. Officials in that branch must then stand trial as prisoners of war on the charge of treason. The punishment for treason is and has always been death.

Actually what you describe is "high treason", which is a concept which the USA does not AFAIK have. High treason is considered more serious than treason since an official of the state is capable of doing far more damage and subversion in a far shorter time than and Joe Public.

Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[Andy_R]

"Someone told a professor that what he was doing might not be legal. Nothing more."

It's closer to... 'Someone wrongly threatened a professor who was going about his legitimate academic work with a court case that would waste years of his life and quite possibly leave him penniless and jobless even if he won it'

Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary

[MrResistor]

The problem is, judges have much more in common with politicians than professors.

It is possible to get a judge kicked off the bench, but you have to be able to prove that they are corrupt (taking bribes, etc.), and that's pretty difficult to do. Unfortunately, judges can't be impeached on the basis of blatant stupidity. They have to actually do something illegal.

I guess that's one more thing they have in common with politicians...

Reject it

[MikeFM]

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.

Re:Reject it

[sconeu]

It's been said on /. before, but....

Poster #1: MPAA is evil because of the DMCA! Boycott all their stuff!
Poster #2: Yeah, you're right! We should boycott... hey look, a new Star Trek DVD!
Poster #1: Where? Cool!

Computer Science Major and Political Science Minor

[SuperDuG]

Well I'm a college student with a Computer Science majoy and a Political Science minor because quite frankly I'm tired of all of this. The DMCA was made for a good reason - "to protect copyrighted materials" - but for some reason has become an excuse for power hungry people to get their sobbed stories to give them permission to "push around the little guy".

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.

Time to stop the madness

[Walter Bell]

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

Re:Time to stop the madness

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

"The only way to fight this very disturbing trend is to grow up and stop hacking."

Translation :

"The only way to fight gags is to shut up"

Bzzt, wrong answer. What do you think hacking is for ? fun of course, but more importantly, learning (something today's generation of videogame-numbed kids are not doing anymore) : if I hadn't reverse-engineered my ZX81 when I was a kid, I wouldn't know a tenth of what I need to know to be a (hopefully) successful engineer. If someone hadn't carefully analyzed the original 8088 processor, they would never have discovered that interrupts need to be disabled when modifying the stack segment register, and we'd have had PCs that crash at random for no reasons for a long longer.

I believe you mistake hacking with craking/phreaking/pirating, like the majority of people today.

"We don't need new versions of nmap and SATAN every week. We don't need any more 'sploits published on BUGTRAQ"

Yes we do, so you know that Windows XP tries to connect to MSN silently each time you boot, and so you can upgrade wu-ftpd before some sucker hacks your box.

Re:Time to stop the madness

[osgeek]

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.

Oh, so exactly true. I'm a fairly strong libertarian in my want of freedom, but the problem with too many of my fellow libertarians is that they want all the freedoms too, but none of the responsibilities.

As much as I hate the way that copyright law is used like a club, I can't help but sympathize with content producers when I see the rampant pirating that is condoned and even encouraged on forums like this.

You want to do something about Draconian copyright law? The next time that you decide that copying a piece of music is worthwhile, don't. Go buy it instead. If your employer isn't paying for their commercial software, call them on it. If your friends or family aren't paying for their cable or satellite programming, explain to them that they're hurting all of us.

Re:Time to stop the madness

[man_ls]

I am going to strongly resist commenting about Win9x operating systems in reply to your comment about PCs crashing at random.

I agree competely with that - if people didn't learn how to use the technology to its fullest, by TAKING IT APART and messing with it, our computers would still suffer random hardware-related crashes.

Same with nearly everything. It's too bad that Congress is supported by the large corporations, and a DCMA case has never made it to the Supreme Court.

Re:Time to stop the madness

[AvatarADVathome]

Absolutely in agreement.

At work, we make DVDs. But we don't make MPAA-style DVDs. We told Macrovision that we weren't interested. We don't even use CSS. Our DVD guy wears a DeCSS shirt to work, for goodness sake!

We've done everything that we can to make sure that people can play our discs on whatever platform they like. We don't believe in taking away rights from the user in order to protect ourselves from piracy, because it's rude AND it's ineffective. We go into forums to ask people how to improve our products, and then we go back and make changes. Our production department goes around marketing to find out what people want. We're putting more product per package with a lower price.

And then people go pirate our shows? And say that they're justified, because they're just screwing it to "the Man" before they get screwed themselves? That we're such a corporate monolith that we won't even notice or care?

"We'll pirate what we want until you change your evil, corporate ways" doesn't work when there aren't evil ways to protest against. At that point, you're just making it difficult for me to pay my rent...

Re:Time to stop the madness

[ebyrob]

Well, I just about agree with you.

Only problem is, I always thought libertarians were rational minarchists(which is what I am). This means only the government that's necessary. I'd say if there's a rampant piracy problem, something to stop it is certainly necessary. You can't pass a law that says no jaywalking then have cops look the other way and expect people to follow it.

The problem is the DMCA is tantamount to making sidewalks illegal instead of policing for jaywalkers. But by your arguement, if we'd all quit jaywalking we could have sidewalks again. Personnally I feel I deserve sidewalks no matter how they are abused. It's up to the government to enforce the jaywalking(and copyright) rule if they think it's important enough to be worth the trouble. Anything less (like the DMCA) disrespects those of us who follow the rules.

It's important to question the concept of copyright, because once you do, you realize it's wonderful as a delicate balance. Anything else is... less wonderful.

This whole line of thought gets me thinking of high school and the childish adults who always asked us to "act grown up". If I'd acted like an adult, I would have walked out of the place and never come back long before graduation.

As for cable and satellite video feeds... One more arguement against copyright. They couldn't exist without it!

Re:Time to stop the madness

[osgeek]

The problem is the DMCA is tantamount to making sidewalks illegal instead of policing for jaywalkers. But by your arguement, if we'd all quit jaywalking we could have sidewalks again.

Good point. I don't really like the DMCA, and it should be fixed or eliminated. My point was that I sympathize with the content providers, and it's somewhat understandable that the pendulum on this issue has swung too far the other way.

The solution to the problem involves not only fixing the DMCA, but also damping the pendulum by reducing copyright violations.

I kind of agree with the court.

[burtonator]

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....

Re:I kind of agree with the court.

[ConsumedByTV]

So as long as people are only selectivly prosecuted things are fine?

Re:Another one for the bad guys!

[glwtta]

The rag-tag bunch of a couple dozen geeks (that being us Linux users) users and a handful of blind people aren't enough to outweigh the benefits of complete content control.

If the companies behind this considered what you listed to be legitimate uses for their content (for use of which you buy a "license" from them - in the ideal world, of course) then encryption preventing those uses and the laws protecting that encryption would not be there - because let's face it, it doesn't stop real piracy.

That would be kinda like saying that MS WPA is designed to stop software piracy, rather than casual copying.

Xine isn't illegal (they don't distribute DeCSS code/binaries spcifically because of DMCA), but watching DVDs on Linux is illegal, not because that's the artifact of some not too well thought out copy protection system, but because you are not supposed to play DVDs on Linux until there is a "proper" player for it.

preparations

[necrognome]

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...

Unlikely

[Sarcasmooo!]

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.

The EFF expected to win???

[redelm]

On behalf of the research team, EFF then filed a lawsuit seeking a clear determination that publication and presentation of this and other related research is speech protected under the US Constitution both at this conference and at other conferences in the future.

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.

Pro-active supremes

[Sabalon]

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 :)

Re:Pro-active supremes

[rho]

Ah, yes. A pro-active Supreme Court. Just what we need. A dias packed with old windbags in black mu-mus dispensing justice as they see fit, without regard for Constitutional limits.

Arise, Torquemada, arise! We have work for you, yet!

Re:Pro-active supremes

[Sabalon]

Yuh...I guess that'd kinda harm the seperation of powers. Though the supremes are usually the ones that come the closest to upholding the ideals of the constitution.

Besides, we all know how much Judge Thomas likes his porn :) (or is most of the /. readership too young to remember that?)

Re:EFF snafu

[rjamestaylor]

Someone please take a lesson from Thurgood Marshall who passed up hundreds of chances to challenge civil rights laws until he finally got a case with facts that were clear cut, and prejudice was obvious (Brown v Board of Education for those interested).

So they should stop trying to defend people and concentrate on their political agenda?

Why the EFF case was thrown out...

[dfenstrate]

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.

Simple Solution.

[CFBMoo1]

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.

Patience my boy.

[rebelcool]

The road to the supreme court is a long one. They cannot merely step in on something, unless they are asked.

Re:Anybody know a good travel agent?

[msm1th]

I'm thinking it's getting near time for me to expatriate to a free country.

Where?

What about 2.2.20?

[famazza]

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.

Huh what? Re:Time to stop the madness

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

The only way to fight this very disturbing trend is to grow up and stop hacking... We can't fight them on their own terms so the only way we have to preserve our freedoms is to stop abusing them.

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.

Re:Huh what? Re:Time to stop the madness

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

He means quit downloading shit off Kazaa if you don't own it already. You personally might not do it, but others do

I was fully aware that was the thrust. But I wanted to flag the incredibly dangerous idea that these freedoms are granted and can be revoked. It doesn't matter how many people "abuse" their right to free speech -- free speech remains a fundamental right of humankind and attempts to restrain it remain unjust.

Of course, people flagrantly flouting the law doesn't make it any easier to convince people that something serious is going on here, and in that light, the original post was good advice. But don't imply that, just because it makes its harder to exercise our rights, it's equivalent to abdicating them.

Re:EFF snafu

[Sarcasmooo!]

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.

Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi

[sith]

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.

Just Don't, Ok?

[jonabbey]

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.

Re:EFF snafu

[BitterOak]

I agree the Felton case never had legs, but I don't see what you have against Corley. He was the one guy who didn't back down. He had nothing to gain financially by posting DeCSS, he was just fighting for our freedoms.

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?

Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

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.

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.

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,

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?

Re:Judge's Email Address or phone #?

[Brian See]

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.

Re:wrong digit

[dragons_flight]

Our home phone is xxx-xxx-9113, so that doesn't work either.

Not willing to go to jail to prove a point?

[supabeast!]

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.

Re:Not willing to go to jail to prove a point?

[hearingaid]

Why didn't the scientists involved just present their research pulicly, [sic] and make it a media event?

The people who back the DMCA own the media.

Re:Not willing to go to jail to prove a point?

[supabeast!]

Touche...

Re:Not willing to go to jail to prove a point?

[AtrN]

But they don't own USENIX.

Re:Not willing to go to jail to prove a point?

[Paul Johnson]

Let the corporate
goon squads of the DOJ/FBI prosecute the scientists, in front of the American media, obviously violating their
consitutional rights?

They wouldn't prosecute an obvious poster boy.

The initial cease-and-desist letter to Felten was a major tactical blunder, caused by the fire-and-forget attitude of the legal department concerned. Once they realised what they had done they backtracked fast.

This case is not about actually getting sued, its about the "chilling effect" of uncertainty due to a grey area in the law. The uncertainty caused by this grey area gives the government and media industries much more control over publication than
a solid boundary would, so they will try to keep the boundary as vague as possible. They can best do this by keeping cases out of court unless they are sure they can win, because if they lose a case then it automatically paints a large area of white over what was previously grey.

In this particular case the defendents argued that there was no grey, or so little as not to matter. The EFF argued that there was lots of grey and it did matter. The EFF lost, but like them I'm pretty confident that this will be reversed on appeal. They seemed to have a strong case. The "chilling" effect of vague law is taken seriously by the courts.

Paul.

Re:Not willing to go to jail to prove a point?

[supabeast!]

Downloading mp3s is not illegal, and the RIAA will not do anything about it. If you want to piss them off, record 400,000 mp3s by independent artists and share them all, promoting independent music in a non-cd format. I guarantee you that would piss them off.

Re:Not willing to go to jail to prove a point?

[omnirealm]

"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its unjustice is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

- Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

Re:Not willing to go to jail to prove a point?

[hearingaid]

I'm a he, not a they, as a careful examination of my email addy would probably show. :)

Kinda. I was thinking of the latter, though. How much of the media remains free from the direct control of the MPAA or RIAA, and how much of the rest agrees with them on the DMCA? I would suggest, nearly all.

Which is partly why I pay for Salon, and run my own website. I think this state of things is wrong: we've lost our free press to corporate consolidation rather than government censorship. However, it's still the state of things as they are.

Re:Not willing to go to jail to prove a point?

[supabeast!]

Your own post pointed out how wrong you are.
"It is copyright infringement to distribute..."
It is NOT, however, illegal to recieve.

Re:(raising my hand in the back of the classroom)

[Black Acid]

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)

As an avid OTH the user, I highly recommend the show to keep on top of what's going on in the world concerning your rights and topics concering hackers. I agree the streaming isn't all that great, which is why I download unstreamed MP3s. Not only that, but I also make them available on Morpheus. Specifically, the filenamess like

2600 - Off The Hook - WBAI 99.5FM - WBCQ 7415kHz Shortwave - NYC 8PM EST

I'm not sure if any other users are sharing 2600 OTH shows, but hopefully they'll become more downloaded (and therefore more downloadable) as the law continues to step on our freedoms.

I'm eager to find out what Goldstein has to say about DMCA 2 in OTH 11/27/01.

Re:You surrendered your freedom

[richieb]

Freedom of speech would still exist if it hadn't been so seriously abused.

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

The dystopian future

[small_dick]

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.

Re:The dystopian future

[mpe]

DRM right now is a joke. It doesn't exisit. Its not widely implemented. Its fragmented. Why? Why is this.. if these supposedly all powerful corporations are running the government and the world why aren't DRM technologies on every device, on every line, in everyhome, everywhere?

The simplist reason is that not only does it not work it fundermentally cannot work. Once you give data to someone they can do what they like with it.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Face it: The whole world is against you. No one cares. The DMCA outlaws things that most people think should be outlawed.

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.

Felten dismissal not as bad as it sounds

[Brian See]

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.

Re:Felten dismissal not as bad as it sounds

[ProfMoriarty]

So ... in other words, if Felton HAD gone forward and published the paper, along with giving the lecture ... and IF the RIAA had sued him, then he may have a case against the RIAA.

However, since the RIAA backed off quickly, there is no dispute between the parties.

Now, an interesting point would be that IF Felton would go forward now, he may not be harassed by the RIAA. Since the RIAA would know that he would fight them. OTOH, it may look like Felton was trying to pick a fight with them, and the judge may rule against Felton on that ... (though judges aren't supposed to)

Mmmmm ... Beer. The cause of and solution to all of lifes' problems. -- Homer Simpson

Re:Felten dismissal not as bad as it sounds

[Dr. Evil]

That's how I read it. It sounds as though the case cannot be heard unless it is absolutely clear that the particular statute affects the plaintif.

I think I might have the plaintif and defendant mixed up, but you know what I mean.

Because it CAN be interpreted that the DMCA does not apply because none of the applications are "commercial", then the DMCA cannot be challenged.

They even got into why this is the case, and I can't disagree with the reason. The constitution does not want the legal system tied up with abstract debates of law, only current pressing matters.

It sounds painfully obvious that this case would fail in hindsight. I wonder what the EFF thought they could accomplish. I mean to have a constitutional argument thrown out because the constitution says not to engage in legal bickering seems... well, like the legal team hasn't read the constitution.

Of course that IS hindsight, and I am not a Lawyer, so there may be something that I'm missing which will appear painfully obvious later.

Mickey Mouse and national security

[Convergence]

``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

Re:Judge's Email Address or phone #?

[Brian See]

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?

Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi

[pgpckt]

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.

Re:Freedom 0?!

[sqlrob]

You don't walk into your local Wal-Mart and buy a list of credit card numbers. DVDs are rather common there though.

Re:EFF snafu

[Schwarzchild]

Corley's been on Nightline with Ted Koppel. I did a double take when I saw that. It was a couple of years ago.

Thought for the moment:
Does being on Nightline make you respectable?

The future in the digital age

[RazzleDazzle]

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.

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/071601S ch neier.pdf

Re:EFF snafu

[supabeast!]

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.

Fax it!!

[dachshund]

No, don't e-mail him/her, they won't read it. Write out long hand your grievances and slap an American flag stamp on the corner.

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.

Re:EFF snafu

[supabeast!]

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.

DeCSS decision now available on EFF site

[Seth Finkelstein]

http://www.eff.org/Cases/MPAA_DVD_cases/20011128_n y_appeal_decision.pdf

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Re:DeCSS decision now available on EFF site

[Hoo00]

IANAL and MY OPINION

After reading the decision, it seems that the appeal court considers that decss is not pure speech like a recipe or a engineering blueprint because decss can instruct a computer to execute some functions without the instructor's understanding of what the code does, while recipe and blueprint can't. Therefore, there is more of a functional aspect to decss than the speech aspect.

Base on this critical point and other more accepted arguments, the appeal court upheld Kaplan's ruling.

IANAL, but why is code being considered less of a speech just because a stupid machine is able to interprete the code automatically?

If i create a machine that can automatically cook me a meal by reading recipes, will the free speech protection of those recipes become less?

Re:DeCSS decision now available on EFF site

[(void*)]

I think you've misunderstood the argument. In fact, the Court agrees that code is speech, and that code can have functional aspects. But they also considered that the functional aspect of DeCSS was to decrypt an otherwise encrypted movie, allowing for copyright violations, particularly if posting and linking such a tool to a website facilitates it. And so they made a judgement siding with Judge Kaplan and upheld the decision.

I am dissappointed. More attention should have been paid to the fact that DVD playing should not be a cartel. The distinction between copyright protection and copy protection should have been better argued. Then the courts would not have blithely ignored this point.

Sigh.

Re:DeCSS decision now available on EFF site

[(void*)]

The First Ammendment issue is the *only* issue that matters here, and the court apparently blew it off. If simply linking to the code on another site is illegal, shouldn't they have been arresting those guys with the t-shirts?

Logic error. Insisting on people who wear DeCSS T-shirts should be arrested is confusing the expressive part of code with the functional part. It is clear that such an action is wrong. But the functional use of the code, coupled with dissemination with a view towards making the functional code available, by a bunch of HACKERS is unlawful. And once that goes, linking is also unlawful.

These are not my arguments, merely of the court upholding the appeal. IMHO, any argument based on a smear campaign is wrong.

Re:DeCSS decision now available on EFF site

[Seth Finkelstein]

There's now an HTML version from Cryptome:

http://www.cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-cad.htm

Mirrored at EFF:

http://www.eff.org/Cases/MPAA_DVD_cases/20011128_n y_appeal_decision.html

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Re:EFF snafu

[truesaer]

Oh, good idea. Only the most deserving people should be defending against being screwed by the DMCA. After all, we might as well wait a few years until the DMCA has been used to destroy all academic research, and the RIAA/MPAA has complete control of the world, and THEN decide to bring a case.

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.

Re:Welcome to Corporate Government...

[BigBir3d]

Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed the DMCA into law.

"FBI backing private companies" is not new, in fact, it is standard practice.

Re:EFF snafu

[Sarcasmooo!]

Maybe. But EPIC does do this and the EFF does do this.

Look who matches donations to the EFF

[Comrade Pikachu]

(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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Disagree - not a frivolous lawsuit

[(void*)]

Seriously, I think the judge did not consider the circumstances that merit the case. Either that or the EFF did not make a good case.

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.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[aozilla]

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.

Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi

[marxmarv]

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.

Close, but perhaps a little too cynical. It is valid (and urgent) to ask why the government has been allowed to advocate its own interests distinct from and in many cases adversarial to the public interest, and whose interest the government really is serving if not the public interest. It may not be that the current regime consciously acts in service of wealth, but that wealth itself, or traits closely associated with wealth, such as photogenicity, a firm handshake, the ability to lie with a straight face and close deals, and the unshakable drive to power, is a prerequisite in the eyes of the majority of the public, and the wealthy, like any other clique, fend for their own. Keep in mind the two "major" parties would have no reason to exist were donations to the parties made illegal.

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

Things are only getting worse.

[rice_burners_suck]

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.

Re:Things are only getting worse.

[mpe]

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,

Possibly in your favour. The recent changes in copyright appear to be far more in favour of corporate publishers/middlemen than the people who actually produce the material. Honestly what use is a copyright term longer than the average human lifespan to any person?

but I don't like it. Furthermore, I think that the limit on copyright should be changed to 20 (or at MOST, 30) years.

Possibly even a shorter period. Maybe even with some kind of "use it or loose it criteria".

Re:Things are only getting worse.

[Dr. Manhattan]

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.

Oh, no. That's not how it works. The great-grandchildren of the author don't make any money. The great-grandchildren of the executives of the publishing company who extorted the rights from the author make the money.

Re:Things are only getting worse.

[markmoss]

The great-grandchildren of the author don't make any money. The great-grandchildren of the executives of the publishing company who extorted the rights from the author make the money. IIRC, the rights do have to eventually revert back to the author, so if there is still any money to be made the author's great-granchildren will get their share. Unfortunately, the creator's share has generally be 10% or less, and there is no sign that this share is increasing at all as technology drives the physical cost of publication to essentially zero (for music and software).

The exception to the rule that rights revert to the creator is "work for hire". That's fair enough when the work is essentially a corporate creation. There was one underhanded attempt to change this; a Congressional staffer, at the end of a session when nobody was reading what they were voting for, snuck in an amendment that made all musical recordings work for hire. (You get one guess as to what industry that guy is now working for.) When the musicians noticed it, they went to Congress and got it overturned. At the hearing, no one at all dared show up and try to defend this change, and certainly no Congressman wants to have 100 rock stars campaigning against him. But it took time, and so the record companies own outright most of the recordings made that year...

Re:Another one for the bad guys!

[Glytch]

Either or, I can't understand what judge in his or her right mind would uphold this law. (My bold.)

Exactly.

MOD THIS UP!

[(void*)]

I could not have said it better myself.

Told you so...

[kcbrown]

Felten should not have presented his work when he did, since by doing so he blew his own case out of the water.

Why the hell didn't his lawyers advise him of this likely outcome, or why the hell didn't he follow their advice?

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[Elbereth]

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 must be missing something

[3.1415926535]

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?

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[Grit]

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.

What country do you live in?

[Malcontent]

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.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[UnifiedTechs]

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.

Re:Reject it No kidding how many of you buy dvds?

[|deity|]

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.

Re:Another one for the bad guys!

[jazman_777]

The rag-tag bunch of a couple dozen geeks (that being us Linux users) users and a handful of blind people aren't enough to outweigh the benefits of complete content control.

I detest the DMCA. On the other hand, since so much garbage is churned out by the entertainment industry these days, it's kind of like posting a guard around the landfill. Happy hunting!

DMCA debate on campus

[RainbowSix]

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.

Here's the link: http://calendar.cs.cmu.edu/scsEvents/demo/554.html

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[bnenning]

How exactly has the DMCA hurt you personally, anyways? It has yet to hurt me at all

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".

Public domain

[|deity|]

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.

Re:Public domain

[aozilla]

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.

FUD. All it takes is one single person (possibly working outside the U.S.) to decrypt the work and then distribute it. If necessary that can even be done legally (either working outside the U.S. or by creating a tool specifically to decrypt public domain works), but that's not even necessary, because as long as the decryption is done, anonymously, further distribution and use is perfectly legal. Your great^4-grandchildren will have no problems seeing Fight Club, just save that copy of DeCSS you have lying around for the day when it becomes legal to decrypt it.

Mark my words

[Saturn49]

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.

Checks and Balances

[sterno]

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!

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[alsta]

"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.

Re:Nader voters, front and center...

[Glytch]

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.

Avoiding sacrificial lambs

[sterno]

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.

2600 Was Well Reasoned

[one-egg]

IANAL, but I've been reading court decisions for a pretty long time. The appellate decision was extremely well written and well reasoned. We may not like it, but given the way they presented and analyzed the relevant arguments, I think this case will hold up on appeal to the Supreme Court. If I were the EFF, I'd drop it right now. As another poster pointed out, you have to choose your battles. The best thing that could happen would be to have the Supreme Court deny certiorari.

I found only one really serious legal error in the entire opinion. On page 64, the judges state in a footnote:

However, those who maintain the linked sites can instantly make their protected material available for linking by Corley by the simple expedient of deleting DeCSS from their web sites.

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.

MOD PARENT UP

[Sarcasmooo!]

Up, I say! UP!

hoohah

Re:Welcome to Corporate Government...

[nathanm]

Also, if you look at the actual decision, there were 12 amicus curae briefs filed in favor of the defendant (2600). Only 3 were filed in favor of the plaintiff (MPAA), the 2nd of which was filed on behalf of the NFL & MLB by David Kendall, Clinton's personal attorney during the impeachment.

More pragmatic

[horza]

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.

Re:More pragmatic

[mpe]

I'll never understand why the cost of production plummeted between the switch from tape to CD but prices actually increased.

Part of it is that the CD is portrayed as being the "better" media, so is worth more, thus can be sold for more. You see exactly the same thing happening with DVD vs video tape. Odds on the extra profit isn't going to the actual people who's creative effort is appreciated though.

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 is the point, many corporates actually want something which is only capitalist for them. The same way they like the idea of "globalization" when it means they can get raw materials and labour from the cheapest possible source. But not when it means that customers (and for that matter retailers) can purchase goods from the cheapest source. Be they DVDs or clothing...

Thought on the "Your Rights Online" lady

[zyqqh]

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.

Re:Do I understand this correctly?

[IronChef]

Don't worry, once someone manages to copyright critical parts of the human genome you won't be able to have KIDS without buying a license. After all, you'd be duplicating copyrighted material without permission...

Hope for a Supreme Court review?

[JoeShmoe]

I just saw over on CNet this article:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8011238.htm l

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

_

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[vidarh]

You don't get it. Any copyrighted material enters the public domain after a while - in the US the constitution specifically grants congress only the right to pass law that grant copyright for a limited time. So if you buy a DVD today, the contents of that DVD will enter the public domain at some time.

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.

Farenheit 451

[Salsaman]

This situation reminds me of the film 'Farenheit 451'.

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.

Linux DVD players still OK

[Paul Johnson]

At least I think so, but IANAL.

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:

1. 2600 explicitly advocated using DeCSS to break the law. Such advocacy is not protected speech. Just as your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, so does your right to tell someone else to swing their fist. If 2600 had advocated using DeCSS purely for "fair use" purposes then they would have had a much stronger case.
2. DeCSS, as posted, is a key component in the illegal ripping of DVDs. This does not require the user to read and understand DeCSS, just to compile and run it.

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.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[clare-ents]

"
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?

Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi

[mpe]

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.

Re:You surrendered your freedom

[richieb]

Really? Are you a parent?

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

The motion was not about frivolousness

[werdna]

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.

Re:The short list of why he's unsympathetic...

[Happy Monkey]

A couple hundred years ago, the people without long hair wore wigs to make up for it.

First sale doctrine

[Paul Johnson]

Hmmm. I don't know exactly what the court was trying to say here. For that matter, I don't think I understand what 2600 was trying to argue. The legal status of using DeCSS to make fair use of purchased material was not at issue.

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.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[Happy Monkey]

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.

Telegraph your congressdrone

[wowbagger]

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!

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[Sodium Attack]

Funny, I've talked to a lot of people who are far from geeks, much less "pirates".... You know what? They don't think any of those things should be occuring.

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.

Gore voters, front and center...

[Sodium Attack]

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.

Not that bad

[Martin Spamer]

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"

Outcome Tax

[virg_mattes]

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

Maybe it was the wrong suit

[HardCase]

Clearly the DMCA is a horribly flawed law, but in the end it didn't prevent Professor Felton from publishing his work. He did publish and the judge dismissed the suit because of that very fact.

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-

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[aozilla]

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.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[aozilla]

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.

This isn't our case.

[gdyas]

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.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[aozilla]

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?

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.

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.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[aozilla]

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.

Really, they didn't pay for DHTMLlab stuff?

[Svartalf]

Somehow I am not surprised.

You're missing the point

[virg_mattes]

> 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

Re:Intent is what matters

[virg_mattes]

> 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

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[aozilla]

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.

Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi

[jbridge21]

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/

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[aozilla]

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.

Coming Out of Tax

[virg_mattes]

> 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

binary

[Cardhore]

Computer source code is binary.

Re:You surrendered your freedom

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Criminals have no fundamental rights.

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 ... to people convicted of a crime after a fair trial under due process of law. Things that perforce restrict me before I have been convicted of a crime -- before I have even committed a crime -- things that perforce restrict innocent citizens, are unjust and must be resisted.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

If the device is not primarily made or marketed to access copyrighted works, it is not illegal.

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.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

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?

Complete and utter FUD.

You keep using that word. I do not think it meanms what you think it means. :)

It doesn't need to be legal to distribute DeCSS, you can distribute the unencrypted work, or distribute a crack specifically for a certain DVD.

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?

Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

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.

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.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Where in the DMCA does it give the RIAA the right to have control over your DVD collection? I must have missed that part.

"This disc is intended for sale or viewing within Region 1 (US and Canada) only."

The DMCA does not do that. Read it some time.

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.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[alsta]

"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.

Build it and they will come.

[MikeFM]

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. :)

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[aozilla]

Complete and utter FUD.

You keep using that word. I do not think it meanms what you think it means. :)

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.

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?

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) :).

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[aozilla]

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.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[aozilla]

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.

Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL

[aozilla]

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.

Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi

[Hard_Code]

"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.