Bruce Perens Plans On-Stage DMCA Violation

cyber_rigger writes: "From this article at infoworld Bruce Perens said he plans to break the DMCA during a presentation on digital rights management (DRM) Friday afternoon at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention in San Diego. Technically, under the DMCA, Perens' explanation of the technology makes him liable for a fine of US$500,000. You have to admire his spirit."

Comments

Re:It won't be some major cracking effort.

[MindStalker]

The article states that he bought from ebay a DVD player that had the region encoding hacked off of it (guess he didn't feel like he had the time to do it himself, shrugs) and will give a lengthy explanation on just how to do this yourself. This isn't btw a DVD player that has a secret region free feature, this was as I can best tell from the article a firmware hack.

Re:Region Codes

[Mr_Dyqik]

You go to a shop in almost any country in Europe, and buy a DVD player that has been hacked by the shop or the manufacturer. It can actually be quite difficult to find a DVD player that isn't region free, particularly at the cheap end of the market.

Re:Why is it illegal?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

it isn't illegal to modify that property. it is illegal to modify that property, and then tell other people how to do it.

great country, isn't it, sometimes.

Re:My question for Mr. Perens

[Software]

If "they" don't arrest him, can future arresties argue selective prosecution?

No, because "somebody else got away with it" is not a valid legal defense. The district attorney has the sole right to prosecute, or not prosecute criminal cases. I'm not sure how it works in federal cases like DMCA violations, though. I guess the US Attorney for that area has the right. "Selective prosecution" is applicable to trademark violation defense, but it has little value elsewhere.

#include (but I've read Scott Turow novels)

Re:Is it really illegal?

[Sloppy]

By the same token, you can publish specs on how to circumvent macrovision. You just can't traffic in the device itself.

That's what a normal person would think, but Kaplan ruled differently. When 2600 was not publishing or making the DeCSS code available, but instead merely was telling people about other computers where the code was available (hyperlinks to computers that were outside of 2600's control), Kaplan said that was trafficking. Your concept of trafficking is out-of-date if you haven't taken Kaplan's newspeak definition into account.

Re:Why is it illegal?

[c13v3rm0nk3y]

I think others have touched on this, but I don't think I saw a reply that said simply: "you don't own commercial software".

You have a license agreement that allows you to use the software (with some restrictions). You don't own the software in the DVD player any more than you own your copy of Mac OS or Windows.

The hardware has patents to protect it. You can own it and do what you want with it in your own home, just don't try to use their ideas in your device. If you kill or blind yourself making your microwave into a DVD player, you agree not to sue them.

The software, however, is another thing. On a microwave, it's embedded enough to be considered "hardware". Sanyo isn't going to care (much) if an individual hacks their timer/power interface. However, a DVD player is a specialized computer system that reads and decodes information off supplied media so it can be muxed/demuxed off to a variety of data streams.

Re:Magic Marker Time

[djtack]

Read the article, please. It states that he is going to apply a firmware hack to a DVD player to disable region locking. There are no black markers or audio CD's involved.

Boucher supported the DMCA

[MagPulse]

A re-post from the Slashdot Boucher story:

Before you support Rep. Boucher, you should know he supported the DMCA in 1998.

"...I am pleased to rise today in support of the passage of H.R. 2281, which will extend new protections against the theft of their works to copyright owners."

Full text of his DMCA speech:

DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT (House of Representatives - August 04, 1998)

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for yielding this time to me, and I am pleased to rise today in support of the passage of H.R. 2281, which will extend new protections against the theft of their works to copyright owners.

Madam Speaker, new protections are needed due to the ease with which flawless copies of copyrighted materials can both be made and transmitted in the digital network environment. Essential, however, to the creation of new guarantees for copyright owners is the retention of the traditional rights of the users of intellectual property. A balance has always existed in our law between these conflicting interests, and the major challenge in the writing of this legislation is to assure that no fundamental altering of that delicate balance takes place.

Another challenge is to ensure that in the effort to eliminate devices that are designed and produced to make illegal copies of copyrighted materials, that legitimate consumer electronics products are not also placed in a category of legal uncertainty.

Today I want to offer congratulations primarily to the Members of the House Committee on Commerce who have devoted long hours in the effort to assure that these challenges are met. Specifically, the Committee on Commerce has added provisions that protect personal privacy by clearly permitting personal computer owners to disable cookies that are placed on their disks by others; that allow the encryption research that will lead to a new generation of trusted and secure systems; that give equipment manufacturers the certainty that their consumer electronics products need not affirmatively accommodate all technological protection measures; and that creative procedure for assuring the continuation of the fair use rights of the American public, a procedure that will prevent material that is generally available today under fair use being locked away in a pay-per-use regime in future years.

[TIME: 1400]

Report language also specifies that the technological protection measure circumvention restrictions will not apply when manufacturers, retailers and technicians need to make adjustments to devices to ensure that their performance is not degraded as a consequence of the installation of a technological protection measure. These changes, taken together, significantly improve the original legislation.

The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Klug), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), among others, deserve thanks for their successful efforts to create new copyright protections, while ensuring that traditional user rights are not undermined.

The Committee on Commerce has, in the manner for which it is known, mastered the intricate details of this complex subject and has produced a balanced result. I want to offer my congratulations to all who have been involved in that outstanding effort.

It is my pleasure to urge passage of H.R. 2281.

Madam Speaker, I will insert in the record correspondence from the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and myself, which further defines the terminology that is used in the statute.

To see the full text:

1. Click here
2. Click on the link for #14
3. Do a browser search for "boucher", click on the link

Re:Boucher supported the DMCA

[dafunn]

I think this article is the one to which you're referring. This editorial was posted on January 29th of this year and appears to be from the Boucher in question. It basically says that he (Boucher) doesn't like the version of the DMCA that is in use and that it ignores the fair use rights consumers (and others) have had for a century and a half (his words).

Re:My question for Mr. Perens

[StevenMaurer]

Mostly true, but not totally. If it can be shown that prosecution is being selectively applied only to a class of individuals, the courts have been known to toss the entire law.

This comes from a case in the early 1900s in San Francisco where there was a law against laundromats, but only Chinese laundromats were being shut down. The white-owned ones were allowed to operate.

I agree that this wouldn't apply in Mr. Peren's situation. Still, he's totally safe. There's not a prosecutor in the US who would try him unless they wanted the DCMA at least partially invalidated. Academic speech merits the highest form of protection.

Re:Is it really illegal?

[Bruce Perens]

No, I am not a lawyer. I do know a lot of good ones.

Bruce

Re:Civil disobedience and money

[Bruce Perens]

I did not discuss this with anyone at HP. Most of my Free Software activism is done representing myself or SPI, and not HP.

Bruce

Re:Why is it illegal?

[royalblue_tom]

It was forwarded to be signed by the president (a democrat) after being approved by both houses (republican controlled at the time).

Will people stop blaming one president or party over another. The law was passed by the government - over the years, this is a gestalt entity of both parties ...

The only reason you assign blame for something is because someone is going to be punished because of it. Assigning blame so you can go "Nya nya nya - it was you!" is childish, stupid, and doesn't achieve anything.

Now let's get back to the MPAA explaining why Bruce can't watch DVDs he bought on holiday in the UK when he got back to the states ...