ACLU Files New DMCA Challenge

joeblowme writes "Finally, someone is stepping up to the plate to challenge the DMCA. The ACLU is filing a lawsuit on behalf of a 22-year-old programmer claiming that the law hinders the ability to effectively test internet filtering software. The story can be found here at CNet. Hopefully this will lead to one victory in reducing the scope of the DMCA." The ACLU's press release is available, as is their complaint.

Comments

Not just DMCA.

[www.sorehands.com]

This is not just involving the DMCA, but also involves click-wrap the validity license agreements (see paragraphs 62, 70-73 of the complaint).

But, lets extend this a little. There is also issues of consumer protection, where you purchase a product, but then talk about how bad it is, that could violate a term in a license agreement. Or, it could do damage to your hardware and data, but you can get that fixed for a fee. Both these situations could violate a state's consumer protection act.

But isn't this exact case already exempted?

[fizbin]

I really don't understand the ACLU's strategy here. Aren't people already allowed to do this kind of research thanks to the librian of congress's decision on exemptions to the DMCA's anti-circumvention scheme?

If he's already allowed to do this type of research, what harm is the ACLU basing their decision on? Won't they just get thrown out of court for bringing an issue that isn't ripe for decision? (i.e. that has no consequences, because the librarian of congress has already crafted an exemption for this research)

Re:But isn't this exact case already exempted?

[zoombat]

I'm no legal expert by any means, but from the ACLU press release:

• Although the DMCA provides a limited exception for accessing lists of blocked Web sites, Beeson said that it is meaningless because another provision blocks users from writing the software tools necessary to access the lists.
  

  "The copyright law says you can look under the hood under certain circumstances but you can't build a tool needed to open the hood," Beeson said. "This irrational rule is chilling important scientific research in violation of the First Amendment."
  

Assuming that's really true, it is a pretty stupid and contradictory law that should be changed, in my oh-so-humble opinion.

Re:Great Test Case, but...

[dbrutus]

From a technical perspective, what if part of the list isn't in Yahoo and what if part of it isn't even in DNS form but rather IP address only? There's no rule that says blocked sites *have* to be by dns label, that's only a convenience. What if a porn site IP is taken over by a legitimate site but remains on the list? How could you tell without access to the list and checking?