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

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: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.

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: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: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)

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.

Re:Adobe

[pdiaz]

cojones, man. cajones means drawer

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: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.

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)