Three Years Under the DMCA

willybur writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation just released a report (pdf) today detailing the last three years under the DMCA. It describes how the DMCA has been used to unfairly attempt to prosecute all of the various parties over the years, and gives yet another argument of why the DMCA needs to be struck down. It's worth a read." Slashdot has covered most of the incidents listed, but this is nice summary to hand someone who hasn't been following these issues.

Comments

Not in the states.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I'm not living in the states.

Re:Not in the states.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ever visited the USA you wouldn't want to go back to your socialist hellhole. You couldn't believe the standards of living here.

Re:Not in the states.

[or_smth]

Since when is Canada a socialist hellhole? Man, someone should have told me!

Re:Not in the states.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you where I'm living? How did you figure that out anyway.

Perhaps all countries other then the states are social hellholes?

Hmmm ;)

Re:Not in the states.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps all countries other then the states are social hellholes?

Pretty much. Can you name a country with an economy like ours? I bet you can't. That's because we don't allow our government to interfere with the markets. Allowing that makes your country socialist and fundamentally weaker economically.

Re:Not in the states.

[iCEBaLM]

I've been to the US many times and I always come back to my "socialist hellhole".

-- iCEBaLM

Re:Not in the states.

[ackthpt]

Help! Help! We're being repressed! Now you see the ...

Oh, bugger. It doesn't seem as funny under these actual circumstances, does it.

Re:Not in the states.

[Anonymous Coward]

So your goverment sit on his butt and does nothing?

I don't think so. The only thing a goverment can do is interfering with the market. Do you think the office supplies come out of thin air?

Re:Not in the states.

[iCEBaLM]

Pretty much. Can you name a country with an economy like ours? I bet you can't. That's because we don't allow our government to interfere with the markets.

Except for the Lumber, Steel markets among others...

-- iCEBaLM

Re:Not in the states.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lumber and steel industries are often unfairly subsidized by the foreign governments. That's why the US government had to raise protective tariffs. The American steel and lumber producers would beat their Canadian and European counterparts on a level playing field hands down.

Re:Not in the states.

[Weh]

Ever been to Scandinavia, Switzerland, Germany etc. ? Pretty rich countries with a very high standard of living.

Re:Not in the states.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, but when the government takes something like 70% of your income, you'll hardly have any money left to enjoy those living standards. Furthermore, the political system in European countries is often unstable. Too many small parties which means inefficient government and fringe elements like Le Pen's party in France getting to power.

Re:Not in the states.

[Kierthos]

Oh right. And with only two major parties for the last several decades, we've had such remarkable breakthroughs in legislative wisdom. The IRS may not take 70% of my income, but other parts of the guvmint decide what products I can and can't buy, make laws concerning software that I _thought_ I legitimately owned (but apparently I'm just licensing it), etc.

Frankly, I would welcome a few more major parties in the U.S. if it would lead to less actual laws passing, as each one seems to take away a little more of my freedom.

Kierthos

Re:Not in the states.

[pi_rules]

Uhhh... the US isn't much better there. Last I had heard (around 4 years ago) the average American was dumping over 50% of their income into taxes. After federal income, state income, city income, property taxes, sales tax, excise taxes, gasoline taxes, etc, etc it all adds up.

I pretty much figure the US is at that threshold where democracies begin to collapse. Eventually people figure out that they can get money out of the government with a few votes and all hell breaks loose.

Re:Not in the states.

[Anonymous Coward]

the average American was dumping over 50% of their income into taxes.

Well, at least I can choose on which I pay taxes. I don't have to pay gasoline taxes if I don't drive a car, for instance. And regarding the talk about the USA being on a threshold of somekind of a doom, I really doubt that. To my mind, the USA has never been stronger politically, economically or militarily than it is now.

Re:Not in the states.

[Fluffy the Cat]

If you're in the EU, then the EUCD creates many of the same issues. It's been passed by the European parliament, so member states are now obligied to implement it in the near future.

Re:Not in the states.

[Anonymous Coward]

just like the Japanese unfairly subsidising the manufacture of their cars for the last two decades, thereby forcing the US to negotiate "voluntary export restraints". Oh wait, it was actually that the Japanese could make better cars cheaper than GM and with elections in key car manufacturing constituencies and whatnot protectionism appeared out of nowhere. What a surprise.

The irony of all this is that the VERs just reduced supply and demand was unaffected, hence the cost of Japanese cars went up. All in all good for Japan, bad for the US. The same thing will happen with the steel industry - Bush erected the tariffs for political reasons. US steel mills will be fucked over on the international stage against European and Asian competition. Eventually the foreign steel producers will set up in the US through FDI and the US companies will be screwed there too.

Re:Not in the states.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can Slashdot form a party?

Re:Not in the states.

[Glytch]

You mean like how the US government just dropped 180 billion dollars to subsidize their farmers?

Try picking a holier-than-thou cause you can honestly defend, dimwit.

Re:Not in the states.

[testadicazzo]

I went to great effort to leave the United States (of which I was born a citizen) to live in a country with a better standard of living (YES, it's true) more freedom (this is true of many countries nowadays... the phrase "land of the free" has become just an empty marketing slogan at best, orwellian doublespeak at worst), and far fewer ignorant, egotistical, nationalistic dopes like you.

Try traveling, and reading a little bit before you speak nonsense. You're just spouting propoganda. In fact, the troubles with america start with people like you.

Re:Not in the states.

[Mashiki]

I've been saying it for years, too bad no one listens to me.

Actually if you live in canada didn't you ever wonder *why* the cable compaines pirate american commericals, strip them out, and slap canadian channels over american ones? Well besides the statement of "to protect canadian identity".

Now be a good little drone, and go back to what we tell you.

"Those who would give up essential liberty
to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1759

I think that sums it up pretty well.

Re:Not in the states.

[Sakhmet]

Rome seemed its most powerful right before the collapse. England seemed its most powerful before its collapse.

In short, all major empires in history have seemed their most powerful right before they collapsed. (I, of course, have no history facts to back this up. I remember reading about it in History class though).

I think the issue with Americans thinking their standard of living is so high is because a good portion of the country doesn't actually know about standards of living elsewhere.

Of course, there are a great number of countries that don't have as high a standard of living, but most western European countries, Canada, and a few others can claim to have it at least as good, if not better.

Americans constantly go on about how they can change things with a few votes, but all they seem to change is the name on the office door, not any of the policy.

GW Bush is anti-World and pro-American. Thats great for America (it seems), but it'll come back and bite the USA in the ass soon enough, IMO. Europe is shaping up to be a larger economic market than the US, and the US can't bomb that market into submission.

Sakhmet. (And yes, I think Canada should drop NAFTA and join the EU).

Re:Not in the states.

[Glytch]

(And yes, I think Canada should drop NAFTA and join the EU).

Now there's an interesting idea. As the future Prime Minister of Canada, I'll accept the deal so long as you allow Tim Hortons franchises into mainland Europe. Any requests in return?

Re:Not in the states.

[packeteer]

well the issue of farming is a much more difficult one ever since Clinton signed NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)... in a nutshell NAFTA makes it so that according to business there isn't really borderd between Canadam, Mexico, and the U.S. This may SEEM like a good way to proote trade at first but it has cuased all sorts of consequences.

One of the big ones is that a company can sue a government for enacting a law that is harmful to their business and make up bloated amounts of damamges (DMCA style). like if the U.S. enacted a law banning a chemical for public health concerns and some company made that chemical and now lost money they could sue the U.S. government or the state in which the law is in. Dont beleive me?

That is just one example of how NAFTA stripes away a governments sovreignity. Another is farming. In some areas of Mexico the only way communities survive is to farm their land and sell what they dont eat. Becuase of NAFTA, now cheaper produce can flood into Mexico from the U.S. where there is more advanced farming techniques making competition impossible. Now all of a sudden families arent able to survive so they must one up the competition. They can try to obtain the machinery used by the U.S. farmers but as any business person knows you cant always be laggin behind the competition, you must find a way to go above them. So the only thing these impoverishes farmers have going for them is they are willing to work for less. they put their freedom aside for theiur immediate survival. So now the tables are turned and U.S. farmers are i trouble. They are making the same product but paying more for it. This is not good for the farming economy. The U.S. governmetnt bailed out farmers becuase they need it. As far as im concened thats all our national government should do, take over the jobs too big for any one state to handle. And i dont want to hear any of you say we can live without farming. Farming is a huge business that creates MANY jobs for Americans and without it our entire foundation would be suceptible to collapse.

So my point is this. The U.S. governmetn can and should help out sections of our economy when they are in trouble. Im tired of hearing people say that we should not even protect ourselves especially when they are tlaking about something that seemingly does not affect them. So this is a new economic game we ae all playing, one in whcih the big picture must be veiwed because if not we could easily slipe out of control of our own country.

Re:Not in the states.

[Kizzle]

Oh and don't forget the postal system.

Re:Not in the states.

[radja]

coffeeshops. the dutch kind. 'Nuff said.

//rdj

Re:Not in the states.

[Daengbo]

I'm curious: where do you live? (I went to your website, but no joy) I, myself, left the US for a country with more freedom, but a lower standard of living. I make about US$800-1400 per month. Email me, maybe

Re:Not in the states.

[Anonymous Coward]

> US government just dropped 180 billion dollars to subsidize their farmers

Thanks to California, New York and other liberal areas for supporting 'cleaner' air. You will now be spending your gasoline taxes to help farmers grow corn in Iowa.

To quote MP: 'This redistribution of wealth is harder than I thought'.

Feel free to continue trusting big government.

Re:Not in the states.

[iCEBaLM]

Yeah, very likely, seeing as Canada has a lower cost of living/operation and has more wood. Would you like to try again?

-- iCEBaLM

Three years, and still no Supreme Court decision

[Britano]

Either the techies don't have a lot of money, or people don't care enough to take this to the Supreme Court to get this stupid law ruled on. I don't have the moeny or the time, but someone has too.

No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[Nipok Nek]

From the text...

"In the Universal v. Reimerdes case, discussed above, the court held that section 1201 bans DeCSS software. This software decrypts DVD movies, making it possible to copy them to a PC." (Italics Mine)

You've always been able to copy them. It's PLAYING them that's been the problem. If even the EFF can be confused on this point, what chance do we have to get Joe American to understand?

Nipok Nek

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[Brootal]

"You've always been able to copy them. It's PLAYING them that's been the problem. If even the EFF can be confused on this point, what chance do we have to get Joe American to understand?"

See, that's just the problem. It takes lawyers and pedantic linguaphiles like you to "not get it."

For the average person, "copying" a DVD would imply being able to *play* the copy.

Brootal

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[daecabhir]

The primary problem is that in order to play a DVD, you have to decrypt the content, and hence run afoul of the DMCA. IANAL, and I am not an expert on DVD technology, but I suspect that the way the law would be read is that any tool or technology that is used to get around what a vendor classifies as "copyright controls" - be it the encryption of the content, restricting the content to use/viewing only in certain regions of the globe, etc. - will run you afoul. If you can copy it, but not use it, they don't care... because they're not losing any revenue as a result. And that is what they really care about.

All that being said, there are only two ways I can see this getting fixed. (1) Joe American decides he/she gives a damn about loss of fair use rights, and enough of him/her contacts their congrescritter saying that "If you don't fix this, I'll vote someone in who will". I'm not holding my breath that there will be some kind of meaningful boycott of the media in question, because this is a country of consumers - especially of entertainment. (2) A case fighting the DMCA goes to the Supreme Court, and we get a ruling in favor of the people instead of the copyright holders is made. I think we could actually see something good come out of this, but I don't know what it is going to take to get it there.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[squarooticus]

I think even you are missing the point. The copy is identical to the original. If you can play the original, you can play the copy. The problem is playing either; without DeCSS, that is impossible for unlicensed players.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[Nipok Nek]

I see we're gonna have to do this the hard way.

>See, that's just the problem. It takes lawyers and pedantic linguaphiles like you to "not get it."
>
>For the average person, "copying" a DVD would imply being able to *play* the copy.

Yes. I agree completely. You are 100% correct. For the average person, the two meanings overlap unclearly. This is precisely my point. If the people who DO understand the difference (The EFF, in this example) don't take pains to make sure their meanings are clear, then what chance does the average guy have of really understanding what's going on?

And as to you refering to me as "pedantic," by which I will assume you ment that I was overly concerned with trivial details, let me say that the Devil is in those details. Let's take a trip in time back to the day before DeCSS was available in any form. Here, we see Johnny Pirate, inserting his DVD into his computer.... ripping the encoded contents onto his hard drive... and Lookie! Watching the DVD on his Hard Drive

"But!" you say, "It's still encoded!" Of course it is. It's the PLAYER that does the decoding. As long as you have a working player, you don't need a decoded file. And all DVD-ROM drives come with players... That work under Windows. If you buy that exact same drive, and try to watch your DVD on a non-Windows platform, you're SOL. Or at least you were, until DeCSS came along.

So, now that we've cleared that up, I trust you won't feel the need to be "pedantic" about my spelling, or anything else so crucial.

I'm glad we agree.

Nipok Nek

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[camusflage]

Interesting, but irrelevant. You have no legal "right" to play DVD's wherever you want to. That's why the algorithms are licensed.

The problem, legally speaking, comes in because they take away your right of fair use. Fair use is given to the public in exchange for strong copyright laws. In this case, the DVDCCA wants to have its cake (strong copyright laws) and eat it too (not allowing fair use).

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[Nipok Nek]

Ugh. I see it's "Make Nipok Crazy Day" again. I need to write this down on my calendar or something.

>Interesting, but irrelevant. You have no legal "right" to play DVD's wherever you want to. That's why the algorithms are licensed.

True, True, Very true. And Irrelevant. See Below.

>The problem, legally speaking, comes in because they take away your right of fair use. Fair use is given to the public in exchange for strong copyright laws. In this case, the DVDCCA wants to have its cake (strong copyright laws) and eat it too (not allowing fair use).

The problem being addressed was that people who had purchased DVD's legally, Had purchased hardware legally, and were not violating any other laws or rules, were unable to watch their DVD's because the algorithm which they received access to by purchasing the hardware wasn't working properly for them. (Was incompatable with their OS.) The only way the movie industry could claim illegal use was to claim the user had no right to watch the movie at all. It wasn't a matter of leaping an inconvenient legal restriction. They Bought the DVD. The purchased a license for the algorithm. All they wanted to do was watch a movie.

Nipok Nek

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[pi_rules]

For the average person, "copying" a DVD would imply being able to *play* the copy.

It's perfectly possible to do a bit-by-bit copy of an encrypted DVD and play it back on your MPAA certified equipment. DeCSS doesn't do diddly to aid in the copying of DVDs except for enabling the content to be compressed down for easier transit across the Internet.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You have no legal "right" to play DVD's wherever you want to. That's why the algorithms are licensed.

well, I bought my DVDs, so I own them, and i can do whatever i please with them, except make a copy and sell it.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[anthony_dipierro]

It's perfectly possible to do a bit-by-bit copy of an encrypted DVD and play it back on your MPAA certified equipment.

How would one go about doing this, without using a DMCA-restricted product? I know I can't drag-and-drop.

DeCSS doesn't do diddly to aid in the copying of DVDs except for enabling the content to be compressed down for easier transit across the Internet.

That's not true. I just put "The Matrix" into my DVD drive. Now how do I copy it to my hard drive without using DeCSS?

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[anthony_dipierro]

The problem, legally speaking, comes in because they take away your right of fair use.

"They" don't take away your right to fair use. "They" make it technically difficult to exercise your right to fair use. Big difference.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[dspeyer]

That's not true. I just put "The Matrix" into my DVD drive. Now how do I copy it to my hard drive without using DeCSS?

dd if=/dev/dvd of=~/matrix.css

Not that it will do you much good -- you need DeCSS to read the image (in any intelligable way).

For that matter, I think you can do
mount -t auto /dev/dvd /mnt/dvd
mkdir ~/matrix
cp /mnt/dvd/* ~/matrix/
But again, you need DeCSS to make any sense out of it.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[anthony_dipierro]

C:\> dd if=/dev/dvd of=~/matrix.css
'dd' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.

I guess linux really is a circumvention device.

But seriously, you make a good point. Unfortunately, the DMCA has nothing to do with whether or not the "technological measure" controls copying. It has to do with whether or not the "techonological measure...effectively controls access".

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[Dyolf Knip]

"They" don't take away your right to fair use. "They" make it technically difficult to exercise your right to fair use. Big difference.

And then make it illegal to get around those technical difficulties and exercise fair use. No difference. Making an activity illegal and making the means by which you perform activity A illegal amount to the same thing.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[anthony_dipierro]

And then make it illegal to get around those technical difficulties and exercise fair use.

The DMCA specifically allows fair use as a defense against circumvention.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[Dyolf Knip]

And we're guaranteed a right to a speedy trial, yet Dmitri spent a month in jail before he even got a bail hearing.

News flash: the infamous They don't seem to care about fair use. As long as something can conceivably be used illegally, it risks falling victim to the DMCA. The legitimate and fair uses of DeCSS are too numerous to count, yet it's illegal to post it.

Back to my previous post; not only does making the means rather than the ends illegal just as bad, it's actually worse since many legitimate activities will be included, regardless of the intent. The clause you mention is supposed to address that, but it's being ignored at every turn.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[anthony_dipierro]

And we're guaranteed a right to a speedy trial, yet Dmitri spent a month in jail before he even got a bail hearing.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA.

News flash: the infamous They don't seem to care about fair use. As long as something can conceivably be used illegally, it risks falling victim to the DMCA.

Anything can conceivably be used illegally. And anything could fall victim to any law (hell, if we're going to use hyperbole, might as well use hyperbole).

The legitimate and fair uses of DeCSS are too numerous to count, yet it's illegal to post it.

All the legitimate and fair uses of DeCSS could easily be accomplished in a way which discourages illegimate and unfair uses. If the makers of the software had done that, they likely would be allowed to distribute their software. They didn't, so they aren't.

But hey, at least you're willing to argue the issue about a legitimate point. I think it's within the government's rights to ban DeCSS. I think it's clear that the primary purpose of DeCSS is to promote copyright infringement.

I don't like our copyright infringement laws, but I think it's within our government's rights to enact them. I'll fight back by releasing free content, and by releasing content under a license which explicitly permits circumvention. I'll also fight back by choosing to purchase free alternatives whenever it's feasible (yes, that means I'm not becoming a slashdot subscriber until they open content their content).

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[Dyolf Knip]

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA.

I know. My point was that just because the law says you are guaranteed something, it doesn't mean you are going to get it. The DMCA says that fair use is protected, but that has been seen to be a crock of sewage.

Anything can conceivably be used illegally

Exactly. Which is why a law saying "anything that can be used to do this illegal thing is illegal itself" is so incredibly stupid. If this same logic were applied to other crimes, it would literally be illegal to be born.

All the legitimate and fair uses of DeCSS could easily be accomplished in a way which discourages illegimate and unfair uses. If the makers of the software had done that, they likely would be allowed to distribute their software. They didn't, so they aren't.

Do tell. How? If I run Linux, how do I play a DVD I purchased on a DVD drive that I purcahsed? And exactly how should Jon Johansen have written DeCSS so that it could never be used to copy an unencrypted DVD? He released the source code, you know. After it was made public he had zero control over it. But it's stupid anyway idea. Do we demand guns that can't possibly be used to kill people? Food that can't possibly be choked on? Cars that can't possibly crash? Crowbars that can't possibly be used to break windows?

I think it's clear that the primary purpose of DeCSS is to promote copyright infringement.

No, the primary purpose of DeCSS is to unencrypt the content on a DVD. That it can be used otherwise is irrelevant.

I don't like our copyright infringement laws, but I think it's within our government's rights to enact them.

True. But that doesn't mean we can't berate the dumbass politicians and companies that pass laws like this. Embracing copyleft is a good approach, but getting inane leislation like the DMCA off the books would be even better. Free (as in love) software would likely be illegal under something like the CBDTPA/SSSCA, should they ever pass it.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[anthony_dipierro]

The DMCA says that fair use is protected, but that has been seen to be a crock of sewage.

No one has been prosecuted or even sued over the DMCA for exercising fair use. I'll even admit that I possess DeCSS and use it for fair use purposes. And no one can sue me for that, because it's legal.

Which is why a law saying "anything that can be used to do this illegal thing is illegal itself" is so incredibly stupid.

That's not what the law says, and I suspect that you already knew that.

Do tell. How? If I run Linux, how do I play a DVD I purchased on a DVD drive that I purcahsed? And exactly how should Jon Johansen have written DeCSS so that it could never be used to copy an unencrypted DVD?

DeCSS was not written for linux, it was written for windows. DeCSS is not a DVD player, it decrypts the encrypted files and outputs the unencrypted mpegs. DeCSS does not obey region encoding. If Johansen had written a Linux DVD player which made a good faith attempt to obey region encoding and which made it difficult to output the raw mpeg to a file, it probably would have been legal. But instead he made a program whose sole purpose is to bypass the CSS encryption scheme. It seems absolutely clear to me that DeCSS was created and marketed to be used for illegal purposes. It has other fair uses, but they were an afterthought. I have a strong suspicion that anyone claiming otherwise is practicing doublethink.

Do we demand guns that can't possibly be used to kill people? Food that can't possibly be choked on? Cars that can't possibly crash? Crowbars that can't possibly be used to break windows?

No but killing people, breaking windows, and crashing cars are not illegal, and food which is primarily created to cause people to choke is.

Embracing copyleft is a good approach, but getting inane leislation like the DMCA off the books would be even better.

I just don't see the DMCA as inane. I think it makes sense. What was inane was when we had all these copyright laws protecting software and then we allowed cracks and serial numbers to be distributed freely on the internet. That was inane.

Free (as in love) software would likely be illegal under something like the CBDTPA/SSSCA, should they ever pass it.

The SSSCA was the most disgusting law I've ever seen in my life. I'm not exaggerating. Had that passed not only would linux and most free software have probably been made illegal, basically any software and hardware which didn't get the seal of approval of the big media companies and anyone else who had the money to bribe the Secretary of Commerce would be made illegal - and not just illegal to sell - illegal to manufacture, illegal to possess, illegal to use, illegal to give away.

As for the CBDTPA, I have no idea what that law would do. Probably the same thing, ultimately, but it was written so ambiguously that it's really impossible to be more precise. It was another terrible law and it sickens me that there are any people in congress that would support it. There are almost 300 million people in this country. You'd think we could do a better job of picking the top 0.0001%.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[Dyolf Knip]

No one has been prosecuted or even sued over the DMCA for exercising fair use.

Did you even read the EFF article?

I'll even admit that I possess DeCSS and use it for fair use purposes. And no one can sue me for that, because it's legal.

"No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work".
Since DeCSS bypasses the encryption and, as you say, is primarily designed for that purpose, it is illegal.

On the other hand, if it has substantial non-infringing use it would certainly be exempt. But then why was 2600 prosecuted for posting something that is perfectly legal? The fair use applications for AEBPR (Elcomsoft's ebook program) are numerous, so it should be legal, right? AiboPet [the guy who hacked his Aibo] got no money whatsoever for his programs. Furthermore, his programs were useless if you didn't already have an Aibo so Sony wasn't losing any money on it. But they sued him anyway; if that isn't being prosecuted for fair use, I dunno what is. Bnetd is the best example yet; it is an extremely useful alternative to the crappy Battle.net and its ability to circumvent copy protection is limited only to allowing a certain type of multiplayer mode. Yet Blizzard's first proclamations claimed that it was illegal. You agree with them?

Which is why a law saying "anything that can be used to do this illegal thing is illegal itself" is so incredibly stupid.
That's not what the law says, and I suspect that you already knew that.

That is exactly what it says. See above excerpt from the DMCA.

[DeCSS rant]

Are you reading your own posts? First you say "DeCSS is legal", then you turn around and claim that it was primarily designed to be used illegally and thus falls under the DMCA and is illegal. Do make up your mind.

And do you really think that the MPAA would have left well enough alone if the first version of DeCSS fit your description? I already pointed out that the Aibo hack doesn't help you 'copy an Aibo', yet Sony prosecuted over it. Why would Valenti, a technophobe of the first order, be any different?

No but killing people, breaking windows, and crashing cars are not illegal

I'm sorry, what color is the sky in your world? Killing someone is most certainly illegal. Breaking windows, as in "someone else's window", is most certainly illegal. Deliberately crashing a car and doing damage to someone or something else is most certainly illegal.

Tell me, what is the purpose of a pistol? Do you go hunting with a .38? Handguns are designed to put holes in people. Not animals for hunting, people. Doing so is illegal, except in certain cases like self-defense. And yet there is a large industry devoted to making and selling them. And it is legal. Why is software any different?

I just don't see the DMCA as inane. I think it makes sense.

The DMCA represents preemptive law enforcement: "Let's get these criminals before they actually commit a crime". I can get a copy of DeCSS, post it on a webpage, and start getting nastygrams and subpeonas from the MPAA without ever actually using it to copy a DVD. To start prosecuting people because they _might_ commit a crime in the future is something you'd find in an Orwelling dystopia.

The SSSCA was the most disgusting law I've ever seen in my life.

I agree. But I think it is extremely hypocritical of you to call the DMCA a godsend and the SSSCA/CBDTPA disgusting. They both try to achieve the same goal: making it illegal to create or distribute tools that can be used to do something that is already illegal.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[anthony_dipierro]

Since DeCSS bypasses the encryption and, as you say, is primarily designed for that purpose, it is illegal.

I am not manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS. I am merely using it for fair use puposes, which is specifically exempted from the law.

That is exactly what it says. See above excerpt from the DMCA.

Now you're testing my patience. "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of" does not mean anything remotely similar to "can be used to".

Killing someone is most certainly illegal.

Murder is illegal. Killing someone may or may not be.

Breaking windows, as in "someone else's window", is most certainly illegal.

And so is selling something made primarily for the purpose of breaking someone else's windows without their permission.

Handguns are designed to put holes in people. Not animals for hunting, people. Doing so is illegal, except in certain cases like self-defense. And yet there is a large industry devoted to making and selling them. And it is legal. Why is software any different?

It's not any different. If you sell someone a handgun for the primary purpose of committing murder, you're committing a crime.

But I think it is extremely hypocritical of you to call the DMCA a godsend and the SSSCA/CBDTPA disgusting.

You're misusing the word "hypocritical". And I'm not calling the DMCA a godsend, I'm simply saying that it is no worse than any other copyright law. And the DMCA, SSSCA, and CBDTPA are three utterly different laws.

They both try to achieve the same goal: making it illegal to create or distribute tools that can be used to do something that is already illegal.

And killing all bad drivers tries to achieve the same goal as forcing bad drivers to take a driver's ed class. But it's not hypocritical to find one disgusting and the other reasonable.

All the horrible things that you're claiming the DMCA does. The SSSCA actually does them. That's the difference.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair use is given to the public in exchange for strong copyright laws.

The Constitution does not start from the premise that creators (or publishers) have a right to artificial monopolies, and that public rights depend on granting said monopolies.

All rights belong to the public unless the public (via Congress) temporarily restricts them. Fair Use rights are an example of rights which the public never gave away.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[LarsG]

If Johansen had written a Linux DVD player which made a good faith attempt to obey region encoding and which made it difficult to output the raw mpeg to a file, it probably would have been legal.

He would certainly have a stronger case, but the DVDCCA would likely sue anyway since he didn't sign their precious license.

But why the region lock?

There is no basis in US law for the MPAA's assertion that the world is separated into 6 different markets. Look up the terms 'first sale' and 'global exhaustion'.

Even in EU, where we shortly will have community exhaustion due to the EUCD, import of movies for personal use is neither copyright infringement nor a violation of parallel import law.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[tricorn]

I am not manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS. I am merely using it for fair use puposes, which is specifically exempted from the law.

So you're fine for DeCSS, since you managed to get a copy before the final set of rules kicked in. Anyone who doesn't have a copy now is out of luck, and you're out of luck when the next protection scheme is released.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[anthony_dipierro]

So you're fine for DeCSS, since you managed to get a copy before the final set of rules kicked in.

It's not illegal to download (unless you're downloading from outside the country), only to distribute.

Anyone who doesn't have a copy now is out of luck, and you're out of luck when the next protection scheme is released.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[anthony_dipierro]

But why the region lock?

Because that is one of the main access controls that DeCSS was created for. Remember, the DMCA makes no requirement that the access controls make sense.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[tricorn]

a) So people have to put themselves at risk of legal action to provide you with a copy, and this is fine as long as YOU don't come under fire? and b) you really think they couldn't come after you for downloading, say on a conspiracy charge? Conspiracy to traffic in a prohibited device...or perhaps they'll simply find that the act of storing it on your hard drive constitutes "manufacture".

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[anthony_dipierro]

a) So people have to put themselves at risk of legal action to provide you with a copy, and this is fine as long as YOU don't come under fire?

I'm not fine with copyright law, but I do accept it as a fact of life. People don't have to put themselves at risk of legal action - they choose to.

b) you really think they couldn't come after you for downloading, say on a conspiracy charge?

Yes, of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't be admitting to doing it on a public forum.

Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[Dyolf Knip]

I give up. You seem quite content with the idea of banning perfectly legitimate tools and even the discussion of those tools simply because they are sometimes used to commit crimes. "Banning the means is as good as banning the ends", as it were. I pity you.

And since the CBDTPA is just version 2 of the DMCA, you should feel right at home if and when it gets passed.

PDF

[BCoates]

Ugh, they use PDF for it, too. This is too new for google--somebody got a HTML mirror? I'm not going to install Acrobat to read about how Adobe is abusing US laws to punish people who find holes in their lousy 'secure' formats

--
Benjamin Coates

p.s. to lawyers: this post is opinion and not fact.

Re:PDF

[heyetv]

Then install pdftohtml, or pdf2ps, or xpdf, or ghostview... funny how people thing pdf is adobe... it's like saying linux is redhat.

Re:PDF

[Evro]

You can read PDF without Acrobat.

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/

Also, http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software / ord_Processors/PDF/?tc=1

Re:PDF

[Fluffy the Cat]

So use xpdf or some similar PDF reading software. The PDF specification is freely available and there are Free readers for it. You can generate it without having to use Adobe products, and you can read it without having to use Adobe products.

Re:PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

funny how people thing pdf is adobe... it's like saying linux is redhat.

Actually, it's more like saying that redhat is linux, which is rather different from saying that linux is redhat.

Re:PDF

[Jerf]

PDF is Adobe; it just so happens that PDF is a cleaned-up version of PS, with some of the dangerous extensions removed, some other nices ones added (like the forms stuff), and a compressed file format; it's not hard for ghostscript to keep up.

PS is also Adobe.

Fortunately, they aren't trying to squash everyone who uses the format. (I don't know if they can, i.e., I don't know if they have any IP rights that could conceivably squash ghostview. But if they do, they aren't trying. And PS has long since passed into a de-facto standard state...)

Expanding the DMCAA

[Alien54]

This fits in well with this list of Ten New Copyright Crimes as seen posted over on the LawMeme website.

Which, if anything, is an indicator on where things are going.

Welcome to the world of Max Headroom!

from the article

[Treeluvinhippy]

Microsoft Threatens Slashdot

In spring 2000, Microsoft invoked the DMCA against the Internet publication forum Slashdot, demanding that forum moderators delete materials relating to Microsoft's proprietary implementation of an open security standard known as Kerberos. In the Slashdot forum, several individuals alleged that Microsoft had changed the open, non-proprietary Kerberos specification in order to prevent non- Microsoft servers from interacting with Windows 2000. Many speculated that this move was intended to force users to purchase Microsoft server software. Although Microsoft responded to this criticism by publishing its Kerberos specification, it conditioned access to the specification on agreement to a "click-wrap" license agreement that expressly forbade disclosure of the specification without Microsoft's prior consent. Slashdot posters responded by republishing the Microsoft specification. Microsoft then invoked the DMCA, demanding that Slashdot remove the republished specifications. In the words of Georgetown law professor Julie Cohen, "If Microsoft's interpretation of the DMCA's ban on circumvention technologies is right, then it doesn't seem to matter much whether posting unauthorized copies of the Microsoft Kerberos specification would be a fair use. A publisher can prohibit fair-use commentary simply by implementing access and disclosure restrictions that bind the entire public. Anyone who discloses the information, or even tells others how to get it, is a felon."

And who says Slashdotters are afraid to stand up against the big guys.

Re:from the article

[shades66]

>I know because I work for the Microsoft...

The Microsoft? I read this and instantly read it as I know because I work for 'the Borg'...

Anyway why are you posting as AC? If microsoft are so big and hard then why hide behind AC?
Answer: Because you know you are talking crap!

Re:from the article

[Anonymous Coward]

You people still don't know with whom you're dealing here

Yeah, right. The cigarette smoking man, the well manicured man and Bill Gates are all members of the Consortium...

Re:from the article

[Anonymous Coward]

If I recall this one right, the reason people could
publish the Kerberos stuff and not fall under the DMCA
was because MS used a standard program made by WinZIP
folks and one could simply run the executable in
WinZIP and get the information out without agreeing
to the licensing terms.

Think that was also why MS ended up backing down.

Re:from the article

[MoneyT]

Because the last M$ employee that posted an anti-M$ statement under his log in name on slashdot was found dead in his appartment 5 days later. The official autopsy ruled he was killed by a vicious virus contracted via his workstation the next day.

Re:from the article

[shades66]

I just watched 'ANTITRUST' and thought it was only open source programmers they killed off.

hehehe

Adobe

[jackb_guppy]

It is ironic that they released in a PDF format and note that Abode is using the DMCA to "hurt" people.

Opps?

Re:Adobe

[daecabhir]

Yeah, it would requiring installing additional software, but according to the EFF's HTML page for this report http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20020503_dmca_consequen ces.html, GhostScript with GSView (which is free - as in beer - software) for Win, Mac or Unix can be used to view PDFs. Didn't know that, and will have to give it a spin myself.

Re:Adobe

[A_Non_Moose]

It is ironic that they released in a PDF format and note that Abode is using the DMCA to "hurt" people.

I thought the same thing, and then it hit me:
if the EFF really wanted to show they had some brass cajones they'd release the document in e-book format, forbid anyone from reading it and post a link to the e-book processor reading "if you'd like to invoke your fair use rights, click here".

Either that, or go on the offensive:
Sue all of the lawyers of Sony, MS, Adobe whoever for being "circumvention devices" to fair use.

I'd Pay to see that!!!

.

Re:Adobe

[pdiaz]

cojones, man. cajones means drawer

Re:Not the turd report.

[Anonymous Coward]

You coated the walls of your bathroom with diarrhea while vomiting all over the bathroom floor?

Re:Three years, and still no Supreme Court decisio

[ackthpt]

Techies do care, however, the media companies (particularly those who claim to have been so hurt under copying) spend scads of money to keep people down. I wonder how long before we see law firms listed on the NYSE, as they've done a booming business under this tyranny. And, yes, the common man on the street doesn't know and doesn't care about it until the police knock on the door because the kids are running a file sharing service or have written some really clever decrypting software and have it on their website.

To some degree the common man is more worried about employment, terrorism, war in the Middle East. When the press (which is largely owned by companies just happy as hell with the DMCA) tells the common man it's a bad thing, then he'll care. Don't see that happening, do you?

Free press

[smashin234]

Since they censored a discussion about movie decryption in a legitimate magazine (2600), couldn't they censor the discussion about the discussion about movie decryption?

Hell, here slashdot is having a discussion about a discussion about a discussion about movie decryption. It may be legitimate, but someone is bound to pull a 1201 on everyone here.

Re:Allrigty then, for those who hate Adobe!

[Nipok Nek]

Next time, please use the PREVIEW button! Ick.

Nipok Nek

Re:Allrigty then, for those who hate Adobe!

[Treeluvinhippy]

Who has time to edit the thing? I sure don't.

Re:hi

[CmdrStkFjta]

Nope, I look at it like who ever wrote the document didn't take any previous standard (ex. HTML) in to consideration for viewability. PDF files are a way to transfer information for hard copy (paper). This is the internet, you pompous Windows fanatic!

before you flame...

[heyetv]

and yes, many of these are available for win32. I'm sure they've been ported to other platforms, too...

NOT a good document for introducing the DMCA

[Reziac]

I read the paper, and here's my conclusion:

This is evidently aimed at law scholars. It is NOT a good piece for informing Joe Public about the DMCA -- even I could develop doubts from this (not to mention that my eyes kept glazing over) and I'm already familiar with the issues. Furthermore, due to the way the info is presented, someone new to the issues could well assume that this paper is a history of CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES by evil people out to overthrow the rights of copyright holders. IOW, it could have exactly the opposite of the desired effect.

I read it hoping to find something I could use to convince a client, who is in love with the DMCA, of how evil it really is, but this paper would, if anything, strengthen his position: He loves the DMCA because it's letting him sue his old publishers for unauthorized online use of his old old articles, so he hopes to make a lot of money by applying the various fines. Because of how it's written, the paper gives the *impression* that fighting the DMCA is all about encouraging "theft" from copyright holders. Not exactly good for convincing DMCA supporters of the error of their ways!

What's needed is a plain-English interpretation describing the legitimate activities which were crimilized under the DMCA (with the existing legal examples likewise described in plain English), in terms that make Joe Public think "Omighod, that could happen to me!!" THAT would be much more informative and convincing to the average person who doesn't follow the legal incidents and issues on a daily basis.

[BTW, it's not only PDF, it's a newish PDF format that causes errors on older versions of Acrobat; worse, it's formatted for publication in a print rag, so is difficult to read on a computer screen, even tho I have a 19" monitor. What would have been wrong with ordinary HTML for online viewers?]

Re:NOT a good document for introducing the DMCA

[rmohr02]

[BTW, it's not only PDF, it's a newish PDF format that causes errors on older versions of Acrobat; worse, it's formatted for publication in a print rag, so is difficult to read on a computer screen, even tho I have a 19" monitor. What would have been wrong with ordinary HTML for online viewers?]

I've always wondered that too, but never realized why. I understand that .pdf files don't change format when I change text size, but you can always set text size to a constant, or use CSS and set it to a pixel size. Then you can still predict how it will look when printing (just print off one copy, that's exactly what everyone else will get).

Personally, I don't use Acrobat. I just wait for it to appear in Google's cache, and read it as HTML.

Re:NOT a good document for introducing the DMCA

[datawar]

Why do such a big number of people on /. think that 'Joe Public' needs every issue super-watered down and spoon fed to them? It's very important to a democracy to have an educated public. Granted, the average person should not be able to wade through hardcore legalese or patch his own kernel, but a basic knowledge of law is ESSENTIAL for any citizen. Plus, the above poster is proposing that someone make a paper that

make Joe Public think "Omighod, that could happen to me!!" THAT would be much more informative and convincing to the average person who doesn't follow the legal incidents and issues on a daily basis.

So not only are we spoon-feeding people now, but we're making decisions FOR THEM of how pieces of legislation affect them too.

What we need is a better educated (e.i. able to understand the basic principles of law and able to formulate their own opinions) public, and until we get that the DCMA will stand. So instead of CNNing political issues, why don't we go and teach someone a little about copyright law so that they are better equipped to fight the battle, even after the DMCA.

Re:NOT a good document for introducing the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

A plain English interpretation? I get so sick and tired of people saying that they can't understand "legalese." Legal documents are written in PLAIN ENGLISH. Sure, the vocabulary may be unusual, but you would have to have a sorry command of the language not to understand it. I am not a lawyer; I am a 15-year-old kid. I have no problem AT ALL understanding this stuff. Perhaps all those people who can't comprehend this stuff should take a remedial English class. My God!

Re:NOT a good document for introducing the DMCA

[elflord]

Why do such a big number of people on /. think that 'Joe Public' needs every issue super-watered down and spoon fed to them? It's very important to a democracy to have an educated public.

Doesn't have to be "watered down". However, to appeal to the "Joe Public", you need to actually address issues that they care about. They aren't going to care a whole lot about complaints from some academics, or the arrest of a Russian "hacker". (Being a Russian hacker in itself makes him suspicious ... ) Appealing to high-minded constitutional and abstract moral principles might hold up on slashdot, indeed a similar strategy might even work quite well in court. But as a political strategy, it's doomed to failure.

PLZ MOD THE PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hasn't the parent post been moderated up already? It's insightful and interesting as hell!

Re:PLZ MOD THE PARENT UP!

[Darren Winsper]

No it's not, it presents no supporting evidence whatsoever, so it's nothing more than an AC making a claim.

Chilling effect of DMCA on anti-censorware work

[Seth Finkelstein]

I can attest to the chilling effect of the DMCA. It's severely hindered my anticensorware work. That effect on me, and others, was responsible for one of the two anticircumvention exceptions granted by the Librarian of Congress, in the Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works (Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by [censorware] ... )

Nete, the DMCA Slashdot incident, Microsoft Asks Slashdot To Remove Readers' Posts, was exactly one of the DMCA incidents in mind as a factor when I made my Slashdot article code proposal in order to get some support for publishing anti-censorware code. Too bad nothing came of it (I don't say Slashdot had to help me out, I'm just pointing out the connections). But the DMCA chilling effect on me for anticensorware work is very real, and well-ground in DMCA court cases. `

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

Jurisdiction of the DCMA laws?

[galaga79]

Forgive my ignorance on the matter, but does the DCMA only have jurisdiction in the United States? I ask because in the article it mentions foreign researchers being weary of visiting the US following the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov. So if it is only applicable in the US how does it affect those of us in Australia and other countries?

Re:Jurisdiction of the DCMA laws?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Fortunately, the DMCA means Jack S outside of the US.

Unfortunately, it looks as though other major players -- the EU, for example -- are lining up to pass similarly ill-thought-out and draconian legislation just as soon as they can.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Re:Jurisdiction of the DCMA laws?

[AntiNorm]

Unfortunately, it looks as though other major players -- the EU, for example -- are lining up to pass similarly ill-thought-out and draconian legislation just as soon as they can.

They are passing these laws for the same reason the US passed the DMCA -- the WIPO treaty that requires signees to do so. If I'm not mistaken, WIPO is tied into the World Trade Organization. I used to wonder why people got so upset and had all those large-scale protests against the WTO; now I know.

Re:Jurisdiction of the DCMA laws?

[ImaLamer]

The funny thing is that millions of parking tickets can stack up and no one has to pay for them - yet if you break a US law in Russia you get nabbed.

So foreign nationals can still break the DMCA or what?

the American Way is dying -- or did it ever exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a non-USian, I would like to add that never before in the history of the world has a superpower been shunned at by so many varying countries of so many economic and socio-political systems for its pompous self-righteousness and joke of a leader.

While the USA sits alone thinking it's doing better than ever, the rest of the world is taking the unilateralist USA and its false "free market" vision less seriously by the hour. The last decade has shown Denmark, Austria, Holland and now France growing huge support for national socialist parties as the only cause loud enough to halt the relentless privatisation and destruction of the government's duty to support its people. Even recent local elections in the UK have shown an average 20% vote for the British National Party on councils where it stood.

Once the "national" aspect of national socialism is tempered in favour of the "socialism" aspect, these parties will gain widespread acclaim and a serious chance of power.

Re:PDF - I've made a HTML mirror

[Seth Finkelstein]

OK, I've mirrored it in auto-converted HTML, at

http://sethf.com/anticensorware/legal/20020503_dmc a_consequences.html

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

Legitimate use of DMCA?

[Mekanix]

With all these examples of how the DMCA have been used to stiffle competition, kill free speech, hinder research and bury fair use I'm wondering if the DMCA ever have been used in legitimate cases; ie. cases that actually involved piracy/copyrightinfringement?

Re:Legitimate use of DMCA?

[gnovos]

I'm wondering if the DMCA ever have been used in legitimate cases?

Nope, becuase when it actually is legit *copyright* laws already cover it, and the DMCA adds nothing.

Re:Three years, and still no Supreme Court decisio

[Trekologer]

Its not that techies don't have money or care to take it to the Supreme Court. Whenever the media companies get close to a court being able to make a decision to rule on the law, they back off. They do this so that the law doesn't get overturned, not because they don't want to go to court. This way, the law is still on the books and perhapps they scared some people into submission.

Adobe's PDF-HTML converter

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

FFS, just go to Adobe's freely available conversion site and convert it to HTML if you don't like it.

And the parent was modded up to (+5, Insightful)? Perhaps (-1, Flamebait) would have been more appropriate.

Not Unintended

[Veteran]

When a geek reads the PDF it makes sense to us - from our innocent emotionally herbivorous geek point of view - to say that these consequences were unintended bugs, and that the DMCA obviously needs to be fixed to remedy these accidental side effects.

However, that would be a misreading or our opponents actions and motivations.

• The law was not passed accidentally; it was a deliberate and intentional action.
  
  
• The effects of the law are not unintended; it was specifically designed by the industry groups who asked for its existence to curtail exactly the fair use activities - and stifle exactly the scientific research and free speech activities which it has done. An example of an unintended consequence would be if the DMCA wound up some how curtailing the use of electric cow milking machines; the cases sited in the paper were all directly on target and intentional
  
  
• The law was not passed as an oversight. For example: it was not tacked on to an appropriations bill where the majority of the legislators were unaware of its existence. The law was passed by both houses of congress after due processing by those houses and at the recommendation of committees charged with studying its consequences. It was signed into law by the President of the United States who acted upon the recommendation of his staff.
  
  
• The law is not the act of stupidity; there is no indication that any of the people involved in the passage of this law are mentally deficient; most of them are lawyers and possess a law degree - which is recognized as the equivalent in educational achievement of a Ph.D.. Nor is there any evidence that the people involved with the passage of this law had a temporary lapse of their mental faculties; there is no indication - such as misspelled words etc. that this law was written by people under the influence of intoxication.
  
  
• The law is malicious; it makes a federal felony out of actions which have always been held as innocent, legal and which the courts have always upheld as fair.
  

The DMCA is a deliberate, intentional, malicious, act by our government on the behalf of an industry group which seeks to improperly control the actions of the public at large and to unjustly profit at the expense of that public. The act does not need fixing it needs to be repealed - and an investigation into possible bribery of the public officials who foisted it upon us needs to be launched. This is the only way in which pernicious laws of this type can be prevented in the future.

The rule "Never attribute to malice that which may be explained by stupidity" does not apply here; the DMCA is not an act of stupidity but one of deliberate malice. Everyone in the world needs to learn the skill of being able to spot the difference between a malicious action and a stupid one .

Easy sollution.

[Hektor_Troy]

Make a program and include some simple kind of copy-protection (ie ROT13 or bit-flip).

Have another person break the protection. Sue him - take turns appealing it all the way to the Supreme Court.

oh the irony.

[Restil]

I'm sure that everyone notices the subtle irony of releasing this report using a proprietary format from a company that has abused the DMCA.

*sigh*

-Restil

Re:oh the irony.

[johnathan]

I'm sure that everyone notices the subtle irony of releasing this report using a proprietary format from a company that has abused the DMCA

They may have abused the DMCA (although really, is there any use of it that wouldn't be abuse?), but PDF is an open format.

Re:oh the irony.

[Vireo]

By no means I whish to troll, but I see greater irony in the fact the original document was

Microsoft Word - DMCAxxx.doc

produced by

Acrobat Distiller 5.0.5 (Windows)

I know as much as everyone else the pressure / need to have MS Office as a tool for communication, but I would have liked to see the EFF use OpenOffice or Koffice or any other open/free Office suite.

Re:oh the irony.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have liked to see the EFF use OpenOffice or Koffice or any other open/free Office suite.

Tough titties. Wake up to the fact that people who do real work instead of just goof around on their computer need a real document creation tool. Not some open source wannabe. Koffice sucks and "liking to see" people to use inferior programs because of your stupid ideals is kinda selfish. That is why I hate idealists. It's not good enough that they live in some fantasy fairy land where everyone uses open source or whatever dumb ideal they think is best; they cry about it when no one wants to conform to their ideal.

Support the EFF

[stevew]

Okay guys - you're complaining about "no-one" having the time or money to get this to the Supremes. Well - the best bet is going to be the EFF.

Case in point - The judge in the Sonic Blue case has just ordered the company to spy on me! The judge wants to come into my house without issuing a proper search warrant and determine my use of the Replay 4000 I own. The company has to record what shows I watch and whether I time-shift, and whether I skip commercials (of course I do ;-) This information will be slightly santized, i.e. my name won't be attached to the data (yet..) That is suppose to make this invasion of privacy better.

Now - I happen to have sent a check or two the EFF's way. They're already aware of the situation. Time will tell whether this nonsense stands. At least someone is trying to fight this BS. Why don't you help them in the fight??? Give them a few bucks to support their diverse efforts!!!!

This is the ONLY way we're going to get the DMCA and the up-coming Hollings bill defeated!

is something wrong with my baby, doctor?

[joFFeman]

on average, a human at three years has reached the following developmental milestones.


Physical Development

* jumps, gallops, tiptoes, runs smoothly
* can walk backwards a long distance
* may stumble and fall frequently
* rides a "trike"
* pours from a pitcher or milk carton using both hands
* undresses self, but needs help with dressing buttons and unbuttons large buttons
* uses crayons with somewhat more control
most primary teeth have erupted


Emotional Development

* is more relaxed and flexible than "terrible twos"
* still cries and hits at times
* quickly alternates between shyness and exuberance
* may show fear of unfamiliar objects or activities
* may want to be a "baby" at times
* begins to talk about dreams


Social Development

* is keenly interested in family activities
* idolizes parents
* seeks approval from adults
* tests limits constantly
* often prefers to play alone
* may have an imaginary playmate
* shares and takes turns occasionally
* quarrels with other children


Mental Development

* develops more stable concept of self
* speaks about 1,000 words
* speaks in 3 to 4 word sentences
* grasps some grammatical principles
* delights in hearing stories over and over again
* loves learning short rhymes and songs
* may match or identify primary colors
* enjoys imaginative and imitative play
* can assume some very simple responsibilities
* puts toys away with adult help
* has attention span of no more than a few minutes
* can choose between alternatives

the dmca has reached a milestone of its own. while no formal terminology accurately describes this phenomenon, i've coined a term of my own.


Public Outrage Due to Bitch-Ass Legislation Development

* promotes corporate rule, content control, price-fixing, monopolization and censorship.
* 'protects the rights' of large companies who own 'artists' work, most of which is mainstream, bland, unsatisfying shite.
* provides no real protection for struggling musicians, software developers, or other content-creaters because they can't afford to enforce the law
* makes the baby jesus cry, deploying salty, shimmering pools of christ-tears beneath his eyes.

You want DMCA in Plain English?

[yerricde]

What's needed is a plain-English interpretation describing the legitimate activities which were crimilized under the DMCA (with the existing legal examples likewise described in plain English), in terms that make Joe Public think "Omighod, that could happen to me!!"

Here are a couple papers I wrote a while back (when the CBDTPA was still called SSSCA):
The Politics of Copy Protection Technology
DMCA in Plain English

You might also find this paper helpful: What's Wrong With Copy Protection by John Gilmore.

Re:You want DMCA in Plain English?

[Reziac]

Thanks, I'll look these up. (I know I've read yours before, but forgot about it :)

Re:Three years, and still no Supreme Court decisio

[AntiNorm]

Either the techies don't have a lot of money

This is the main problem. It is also the reason why DMCA threats tend to be more successful in getting the complainants what they want than less successful; the mere thought of being sued and removed of what little money they usually have is enough to intimidate most people into compliance, regardless of the nature of the law that is being used against them.

Avoid The Rush, Hate OU Early!!!

Nice, very nice. I'm an OSU student.

Re:the American Way is dying -- or did it ever exi

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, mods, I'm not sure why this was "flamebait"ed, but the description of what's going on here in Europe is accurate, and the mainland (though perhaps not Blair) is unimpressed by the current attitude of the USA towards cooperation in politics.

Whether you consider it right or wrong, it remains true that the past year of US politics has been very little about treaty and discussion and very much about central government mandate -- whether in foreign policy or in implementation of new domestic law.

also

[Enahs]

Canada is cold.

Re:also

[FooBarWidget]

Not when you turn on the heat.

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

Not when you've got an Athlon.

Are You Sure?

[Rayonic]

Great point, definitely deserving of a (+5 Insightful). But, are you sure that all of the DMCA's consequences are intentional? We've been under the general impression that those responsible for it's passage (RIAA, MPAA, etc) have not a whit of technical knowledge, despite all of their PH.Ds and MBAs. I've sure all of us have met supposedly well-educated individuals without even a basic grasp of any technical issues. Remember when the MPAA tried to outlaw the VCR, and then it became one of their biggest moneymakers? That wasn't that long ago, and those dumb fsckheads are still the ones in charge.

Of course, whatever the reasoning, I'm sure they're peeing their pants with joy about the full implications of the new law they bought.

Re:Are You Sure?

[Cryogenes]

Remember when the MPAA tried to outlaw the VCR, and then it became one of their biggest moneymakers? That wasn't that long ago, and those dumb fsckheads are still the ones in charge.

Yes, the MPAA makes good money from VHS videos. But Valenti thinks they could have made more, if VHS had been read-only, like DVD. What makes you think he is wrong, let alone dumb?

Do you believe in death after life?

Re:Are You Sure?

[Sri Lumpa]

Remember when the MPAA tried to outlaw the VCR, and then it became one of their biggest moneymakers? That wasn't that long ago, and those dumb fsckheads are still the ones in charge.

The fact that they (Valenti and co) are the one still in charge means that they know what freedom of fair use you are supposed to have. The fact that they payed for a law that destroy that right despite that knowledge proves that they don't give a shit about your rights, this seems quite intentional for me.

The DMCA is one of the biggest land grabs....

[Newer Guy]

The DMCA is one of the biggest land grabs ever given to special interests by Congress. The thought that Congress was able to so twist our processes allowing them to take away free speech rights guarenteed by the Bill of Rights truly sickens me. And the proscecutors and courts have proven to be no better! They've swooped in like vultures over a carcass (the carcass is people's rights by the way), making a mockery of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The DMCA is simply an awful law...and the 'man' knows it. Why do you think that he quickly drops cases AFTER using it to do harm? Because he knows that this law would be struck down in court if it was ever challenged....easier to bust and run after ruining another person and/or company. Personally, I think that it's well about time that Congress was able to be punished for making obvious bad laws for their cronies in business with deep pockets. Our forefathers must be truly turning over in their graves at the blockheads occupying Congress today....

Collusive Action is not easy solution

[Seth Finkelstein]

Have another person break the protection. Sue him - take turns appealing it all the way to the Supreme Court

That's called collusive action . The courts frown upon it:

collusive action

n. a lawsuit brought by parties pretending to be adversaries in order to obtain by subterfuge an advisory opinion or precedent-setting decision from the court. If a judge determines the action does not involve a true controversy he/she will dismiss it.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

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

6 years under the DMCA.... Predictions

[ralphus]

you will no longer be able to find an ad-blocking proxy server to use, they will be illegal black box circumention devices designed to alter the display of a copyrighted work.

you will not be able to legally alter the way an application you own interacts with things other than the way the manufacturer intended. Wanna change the user-agent your browser reports??? Want to block the ability of a program you own from phoning home and tracking you? Even Quake 3 does this if you don't block it.

Reverse engineering will also include using a sniffer to look at the network traffic that is leaving your machine and deciding what you do and do not want to allow to go out to the internet.

blocking cookies will be illegal.

anonymous proxies, remailers, news posters or any technology that grants the user relative or absolute anonynmity will be illegal, they allow the widespread and fast and unaccountable distribution of illegal information such as what the latest bug in a copyrighted work is that the manufacturer doesn't want you to know about (circumventing the DMCA).

freenet will be illegal.

Encryption will be for criminals.

Freedom and copyright/IP are mutually exclusive concepts as pure ideals. There is a sliding scale with freedom on one side and copyright/Intellectual Property on the other. Pragmatically we'd be foolish to think of having absolute freedom, the scale is sliding strongly towards complete copyright/IP & enforcement and there is tremendous power pushing it in that direction. Who's to stop them? A few geeks who can see what's going on. Unfortunately I think the geeks get caught up in these issues applying only to the Internet, or only to technology issues. These same issues apply to nearly everything with the world today and all tie together.

Think about it, figure it out and educate as many as you can and get as polically active as you can be.

Technology has started a new revolution just as the printing press did when invented. Centralized control of information was shattered then. Now it's being shattered again. There is going to be quite a struggle and the powerstructures are facing the biggest threats ever. They are counting on ignorance of the masses to win. I'm afraid they will and that terrible things will result.

DO SOMETHING.

Re:6 years under the DMCA.... Predictions

[MoneyT]

Also:

Reading a magazine, news paper etc etc with out also reading advertisements will be ilegal.

Reading bed time stories to your children will be an offense punishable by a minimum of 20 years in jail.

Discussing the DMCA on web boards such as slashdot will constitute as high treason.

Listening to a CD or Tape while driving from one state to another will constitue interstate commerce and will be ilegal.

Borrowing tapes/CDs/DVDs/Books etc etc etc from friends/libraries/Block Buster etc etc etc will be punishable by death.

Re:6 years under the DMCA.... Predictions

[Andux]

you will no longer be able to find an ad-blocking proxy server to use, they will be illegal black box circumention devices designed to alter the display of a copyrighted work.

How, exactly, does this constitute circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work? The DMCA does not require you to download anything a corporation tells you to, or prohibit you from automatically modifying files before displaying them, so unless you're circumventing one of those pesky technological measures in order to do so, it's totally legal.

Reverse engineering will also include using a sniffer to look at the network traffic that is leaving your machine and deciding what you do and do not want to allow to go out to the internet.

Repeat after me: Reverse-engineering is not illegal under the DMCA. The only mention of reverse engineering in the DMCA is section 1201(f), which expressly allows circumvention and reverse-engineering for the purposes of "enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs."

anonymous proxies, remailers, news posters or any technology that grants the user relative or absolute anonynmity will be illegal, they allow the widespread and fast and unaccountable distribution of illegal information

It's entirely possible, given the sort of precedent set by the Napster case, for systems that allow the distribution of circumvention devices to be ruled against in court, but, as is demonstrated by Guntella, Freenet, FastTrack, et. al., it's unlikely that such systems will ever be taken down completely.

Encryption will be for criminals.

I think not. Remember, this is "6 years under the DMCA," not "6 years under the War on Some Terrorists." If encryption is outlawed, onl^H^H^Hthe DMCA will be superfluous; after all, how can you circumvent a technological measure when there is no technological measure to circumvent?

Those interested in learning what the DMCA actually does prohibit can read the EFF's copy here.

Linux= Redhat

[Anonymous Coward]

Redhat IS Linux!!!!!

Bull Fecal Matter

[MoneyT]

What US are you living in that the government plays no role in the economy? Businesses are regulated all the time by the government, child labor laws, minimum wage, polution restrictions, taxes (cigarette tax anyone?), anti-trust laws, trade tarrifs, import / export restrictions all of these are govenment interventions in the economy. A truly free market has no government involvment at all, the problem with a truly free economy is that it often under produces items which the bennifit society as a whole, but no the individual business (i.e. Highways, Military defence, public education etc) all of which are important to the economy, but which would be underproduced without government interference. Therefore we really have a mixed economy, not that that is a truly bad thing, but the more control the government exerts, the more they will restrict the economy. I can't speak for other countries, but I really don't see the US being a greatly superior country in terms of an economic standpoint than most other advanced countries.

Re:Three years, and still no Supreme Court decisio

[MoneyT]

I actualy submitted to Ask Slashdot an idea revolving arround forming an interest group (kind of like an ACLU for Slashdotters). The basic idea was if we have a group of people willing to take these things to court and they get the money from people on slashdot donating, we might actualy get something out of this. We might be able to fight the DMCA. But the story got rejected. Any ways, that's the only real way I see of getting this done. We need our own group of lobyists.

Re:the American Way is dying -- or did it ever exi

[MoneyT]

Why does the above qualify as flamebait? As a US citizen, I have no objection to the above post. The person makes some valid points and I don't find it rude or offensive in any way.

Well, have to say it, but...

[The Pi-Guy]

(apologies to Illiad)
(Sung to the tune of YMCA)

Net geeks
there's no need to feel guilt

I said, net geeks
for the software you built

I said, net geeks
cause you'r not in the wrong
there's no need to feel unhappy

Net geeks
you can burn a CD

I said, net geeks
with your fave MP3s

you can play them
in your home or your car
many ways to take them real far!

It's fun to violate the D M C A!
It's fun to violate the D M C A-AY!
you have everything
you need to enjoy
your music with your toys!
It's fun to violate the D M C A!
It's fun to violate the D M C A-ay!
you can archive your tunes!
you can share over cable!
you can annoy the record labels!

--j0shua

Also...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can download xpdf . In fact, it may already be on
your (linux) system.
it's a nice simple open-source replacement
for acroread.

I would say not

[Weasel Boy]

Because the laws already on the books were sufficient to cover any and all cases of copyright infringement, digital or otherwise, I would maintain that, by definition, there is (and can be) no such thing as a legitimate case of invoking the DMCA.

Money makes the world go round, lawyers pound

[Seth Finkelstein]

... and they get the money from people on slashdot donating, ...

Got $1.5 million?

Money makes the world go round ... or lawyers on the tables pound ...

DVD Copyright Case Grinds Through Courts

"Underwriting the defense of the hacker- oriented magazine has put a strain on the foundation's finances. That is one reason Martin Garbus, the First Amendment lawyer who handled the earlier stages of the case, will no longer represent the magazine. Foundation officials said that even at a discounted rate, Mr. Garbus's bills came to about $1.5 million in 2000, nearly doubling the annual expenditure of the group, which gets about three-quarters of its financing from individual donors."

The magazine's new lead lawyer is Kathleen Sullivan, the dean of Stanford Law School, who volunteered to handle the appeal free.

"It's not a slam on the Garbus firm," said Cindy Cohn, the foundation's legal director. "We just couldn't sustain that kind of an outlay."

Don't take it amiss that your story got rejected. As I mentioned earlier, I couldn't even get support for my Slashdot article code proposal for publishing anti-censorware code (repeat, I don't say Slashdot had to help me out, I'm just pointing out the connections to the issue). This is a very hard and risky area.

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

Re:Money makes the world go round, lawyers pound

[MoneyT]

Imagine if every slashdot reader contributed $100? Or even $50? And I'm sure that our interest group could get some external support.

Re:Money makes the world go round, lawyers pound

[Seth Finkelstein]

Imagine if every slashdot reader contributed $100? Or even $50? And I'm sure that our interest group could get some external support.

Imagine if every slashdot reader contributed $5 a month for a subscription to Slashdot. How well is that working out? (Ok, ok, I know the reply, that's not worth anything, they should pay us, etc. :-) )

Let me know what external support funds you. I could use a few million dollars myself, for my anticensorware related legal risks. Heck, I'd settle for a few hundred thousand dollars.

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

Re:Money makes the world go round, lawyers pound

[MoneyT]

Well, I would hope that the killing the DMCA (and other such stupid laws) would rank a little higher than killing ads for most /. readers, but I could be mistaken. Actualy, I was thinking that if the interest group could gain enough support from just the online people at well known geek sites (/., wired, etc etc) that it might be possible to get other companies (Sonic Blue for example) to jump on board and support. Who knows what would happen if we try, but someone has to take the first step, and I don't know the first thing about forming an interest group, but maybe someone else here does.

Re:Money makes the world go round, lawyers pound

[Seth Finkelstein]

Sing:

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
...
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can

One of the things I've learned in my anticensorware work is that talk is cheap, but lawyers are expensive.

Take a look at The American Open Technology Consortium and GeekPAC

They've posted $600 in pledges so far. This does not look like a hot party.

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

How is that ironic, Alanis? :)

[Xtifr]

I have no Adobe software on my machine. In fact, the only non-free/non-open-source software on my machine is a few games. I clicked the link, and the document opened up. Adobe may have originated the format, but that doesn't mean squat at this point. Find something more relevent to troll about.

Postscript is an Adobe-originated format too -- yet Richard M. Stallman's own Emacs system uses postscript for printing. As does pretty much everything else found on a typical Linux system which prints. Is that ironic? Or just...a fact?

Ha!

[PG]

a law degree - which is recognized as the equivalent in educational achievement of a Ph.D.

That's funny. ;-)

I agree wholeheartedly with everything else you said though.

Companies to boycott/avoid/villify?

[genmanath]

I read the EFF document. To me, it seemed like an effective explanation of the evils of the DCMA. Honestly, though, the "DMCA is evil" case seems more strongly made by the "science and innovation are being stifled" angle. One may argue in circles about who owns or may use a movie, but since when are science, the progression of knowledge, etc., either private property or less important than the means in which they are used? Since when has a better firewall or less vulnerable web browser been a bad thing? Anyway, what is past is prologue. As I was reading, I came across some unfortunate news. I knew about the embed case, etc. I had hoped Blizzard hadn't wielded the Great Mace of DCMA, but it appears my hopes were in vain. So...which companies haven't done this sort of thing? Will we have to choose between the best games in a genre and opposition to the DCMA?

Re:the American Way is dying -- or did it ever exi

[Chemical]

National socialism? You mean like the Nationalsozialist party in Germany? I'm all for that. Allthough I am a little surprised that the French would be.

Re:Three years, and still no Supreme Court decisio

[Anonymous Coward]

They made that PDF on Windows with MS word, a user called 'intern' created it, is that just a little bit ironic comming from the EFF?

Any legitimate use?

[krtek]

Has been there any legitimate[1] use of DMCA?

[1] For "as intended by legislators" definition of "legitimate".

Just wandering...

Another DumplingHead

[ratboy666]

Of course I have a "legal right" to play
a DVD that I purchased wherever I want to.

I ALSO have the right to (1) sell it to
someone else (2) break it into little pieces,
(3) use it as a window decoration. (3) ANYTHING
I WANT TO, EXCEPT FOR COPYING IT.

Got that? We are NOT talking about "fair use"
here, just MY use. Different topic.

DMCA wants to REMOVE my rights to (and I am not
talking "fair use" here) do WHATEVER THE F*
I want with the material. For myself.

Personally, I buy books -- not to read them,
oh no, I put them under a microscope to look
at the intricate patterns in the paper. That's
MY right fer f*sakes. Of course, that is
COMPLETELY illegal in the US of A now, when
we are talking about DVDs.

Keep your RIGHTS clear, ok?

Ratboy.

Re:the American Way is dying -- or did it ever exi

[Anonymous Coward]

Leaving aside the bad grammar... 1. Never before in history has there BEEN a superpower like the U.S. 2. It is certainly easy to lampoon the U.S. - it is also easy to lampoon any sovereign state. There are idiots everywhere. In the U.S., however, the idiots are more likely to find themselves the victim of public derision. 3. Not sure what this "false free market" business is - there are no details given. In my experience, people who believe in "Socialism" over "Capitalism" understand neither. Briefly - Capitalism is putting ones money where ones beliefs lie. Socialism is trusting the government to put your money where its beliefs lie. This includes decisions about what sectors of society should be under governmental mandate. I should point out that even in a recession, the U.S. is still a net importer - we prop up more than our share of the world economy in good and bad times. This means we are BETTER AT ECONOMIC POLICY in absolute terms than most of the rest of the world, so our economy grows quickly enough that we can drag even socialist nations along for the ride. 4. Denmark, Austria, Holland and France may do as they please - I am curious about this "duty to support its people" concept. The U.S. constitution has no such provision - here, we simply freed people up to work as they saw fit. Oddly, Americans seem to like the whole "work for a living" idea better than going on the dole. In the U.S., people who refuse to work are scorned - and IMHO righfully. Welfare payments, needle-exchanges, national pensions are not fundamental rights - they are elements of a social contract that Americans don't want, because such provisions are too expensive. Sure, U.S. health care system is "bad" when you're trying to pay for it (present company included) - but we also have the best hospitals in the world and don't have to spend as much of our GNP to keep them good. 5. Unilateralist: those who can, do. Too bad other nations are so against unilateralism that they allow themselves to be paralyzed. Witness the U.N. in Kosovo, Rwanda, etc. Gee, the communitarian, consensus-building really did the job there! 6. (and final) The U.S. is FAR from perfect, but the suggestion that we are even at the bottom end of the curve when it comes to running our nation and participating constructively in world affairs is unsupportable.

I'll get modded down for this, but what the hell..

[Amazing Quantum Man]

In A.D. 2002, War was beginning.
Kernel Hacker: What happen?
User: Somebody set us up the CBDTPA
Programmer: We get signal
Kernel Hacker: What!
Programmer: Main Screen turn on
Kernel Hacker: It's You!
E.I.S.N.E.R.: How are you gentlemen?
E.I.S.N.E.R.: All your computer are belong to us.
E.I.S.N.E.R.: You are on the way to pay per compute
Kernel Hacker: What you say?!?!
E.I.S.N.E.R.: You have no chance to hack make your time
E.I.S.N.E.R.: HA HA HA HA....
Kernel Hacker: Take off every DVD
Kernel Hacker: You know what you doing
Kernel Hacker: Remove DVD
Kernel Hacker: For great justice

Re:the American Way is dying -- or did it ever exi

[Anonymous Coward]

At first I thought you meant democratic socialism, but with Le Pen's recent success and Austria's right-wing turn, I think you really did mean national socialism. That's really frightening. Despite the name, the national socialists (Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist) were very much in bed with the big time industrialists of the day, and considered diametrically opposed to the (still strongly authoritarian) communist party.

Re:Three years, and still no Supreme Court decisio

[LinearBob]

Spare me! What exactly do you think the Five Supremes, the same folks who picked our President Select, would do with a challenge to the DMCA? What if they give it their blessing? What would we be able to do about the DMCA then?

I would rather not move the DMCA into the court system. I suggest we look for some other way to reverse it. One way I can think of for a large, but moneyless, group of people to overturn a law is to find some way to make that law unenforceable. Does anyone remember the 55 MPH National Speed Limit? I think that 55 MPH speed limit is an example of a law that went away largely because it became unenforceable. I know many places where so many people were breaking the 55 MPH speed limit that the police literally could do nothing. If the police actually wanted to give speeding tickets to everyone driving over the 55 limit, they would have been forced to completely baracade the roads and stop (and ticket) every driver there.

Re:Fuck you

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking moron! Did you think he was talking about Mexicans, Canadians, Central and South Americans as well? Well, HE WASN'T!