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

I'd like to see this succeed

[krog]

i'm glad the ACLU is stepping up to the plate on this one. good that they're on Bruce Perens' side too. renew your membership today!

Re:I'd like to see this succeed

[Zone5]

They've officially aligned themselves with Perens, then? I hadn't heard, but that is indeed good news! I hope they go beyond moral support and really hit the DMCA with both barrels.

Re:I'd like to see this succeed

[kbankston]

Actually, no, the ACLU hasn't commented on the Perens issue. But I'm sure the press will be tying the two stories together.

god bless

[trollercoaster]

god bless the ACLU. Become a card carrying member here.

Re:god bless

[Tackhead]

> One word, "NAMBLA". Reason enough to be disgusted with the ACLU.

And if that isn't enough, how 'bout another word:

Spammer.

The ACLU has a a long track record of defending spam as somehow Frea Speach that's worthy of First Amendment protection.

1997: "commercial speech restrictions on telemarketing calls and unsolicited fax advertisements have passed First Amendment challenges but direct mail and door-to-door solicitations enjoy much greater protection. Given the Supreme Court decision in ACLU v. Reno, on-line messages should receive the same First Amendment protection given traditional print media, which includes commercial mailings."

2000: "...and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union that oppose any restrictions on commercial e-mail"

2001:The argument raised by the ACLU and other memters of the First Amendment lobby is that spam, like junk mail in our offline mailboxes, is a nuisance that still must be protected."

In fact, ACLU has always supported spammers, going back to 1995.

Source: CuD (Computer underground Digest) 7.50

This issue of CuD quotes from Canter and Siegel's (the original "Green Card Lawyers" spammers) as follows:

"In May of 1994, believing that the EFF really did support freedom of speech in the same broad and democratic manner as did the ACLU, we initiated a discussion with Mike Godwin, an EFF lawyer. We wanted his views on the censorship issues raised by the behavior of electronic vandals and access providers who had pulled our account for performing the perfectly legal act of Internet advertising. We were amazed when Godwin stated to us that he was so busy sympathizing with those who opposed us, that he had no sympathy left for the other side. So much for freedom of speech (p. 194)."

-- Canter and Siegel, "How to make a FORTUNE on the Information Superhighway: Everyone's Guerilla Guide to Marketing on the Internet and other On-line Services", 1995

To which I can only add:

"Fuck the ACLU and the pigload of potted meat product it rode in under."

-- Me, 2002.

Re:god bless

[jrnchimera]

How is my post flamebait? I simply give one example of some of the disgusting stuff the ACLU defends. Some moderator a member of NAMBLA?

ACLU is up to no good?

[Ryan_Terry]

I usually cannot stand the ACLU. IMHO I feel like they usually get involved in issues that they really don't belong in because of the publicity they recieve. I hope this isn't the case here. I see their power and finances being a great benefit to the fight against the DMCA. I hope they can help fight for rights that I feel like we should have here in the US.

/me has my fingers crossed.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[mberman]

Are you sure they don't just get involved in a lot of issues, and the only ones you hear about are the ones that involve publicity?

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[gerf]

Sadly, it's hard to trust any organization these days, not just the government and businesses. Any org/gov/bus only has one purpose: to live on, to expand, to survive.

Traditionally, we've knocked the big boys, M$, US gov, ect., but only because they've succeeded and have more clout, making us vulnerable. the reality is, almost any business would run the same way as M$, given the chance and the resources.

but, the ACLU has a 'purpose'. to defend our rights. sure, they may not have ideas that correspond to our own, but they don't need to. all they need to do to survive is to be able to use their self proscribed purpose to get donations and support from those who can keep the organization working. Really, they'd do just as much as Worldcom did, if they were pushed to it.

So, while i wouldn't trust the ACLU with everything political, economical, social, ect, i think that they can do a very good deed here in fighting the DMCA. Perhaps, they most likely surmise, they can get some computer geeks to contribute to their causes, and can thus extend their membership and capital.

it's all business when you look at it. that's why i'm in engineering. i hate business ethics

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[Ryan_Terry]

GREAT point. That is more likely the case. I admit I do not follow all of what the ACLU does.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[Sylver Dragon]

I usually cannot stand the ACLU. IMHO I feel like they usually get involved in issues that they really don't belong in because of the publicity they recieve. I hope this isn't the case here. I see their power and finances being a great benefit to the fight against the DMCA. I hope they can help fight for rights that I feel like we should have here in the US.

Agreed, I usually get suspicious whenever I hear the ACLU has gotten involved in a case. As most of the cases they tend to get involved in are the highly controversial and highly visable cases. And I rarely find myself agreeing with thier point of view.
However, there is the old axiom, "The enemy of my enemy is my ally". So, in this case, I'm happy to have them onboard.
Maybe there will finally be enough money to throw at this law to get it killed.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[kevin lyda]

have you considered getting your news from other sources besides right-wing biased news channels. of course, i can't remember many of those when i lived in america. network news, fox news, cnn and msnbc are all biased to the right.

mother jones and salon are about all i can think of actually.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[Jhon]

If I had mod points right now and there was a +1 "Well Said" I would gladly mod you up. It takes good character to ENGAGE in a discussion AS a discussion -- not as a battle.

-jhon

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[repsychler]

I'll give you Fox News, but CNN? Right-wing? Have you considered getting your news from other sources besides left-wing biased web sites?

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[PD]

Agreed, I usually get suspicious whenever I hear the ACLU has gotten involved in a case. As most of the cases they tend to get involved in are the highly controversial and highly visable cases. And I rarely find myself agreeing with thier point of view.

Some other things that are true:

-The only military actions that happen are the ones that you hear about.
-The only ideas that exist are the ones that you've heard about.

The ACLU does a great deal of stuff. The only time they make the news is when something newsworthy happens. It doesn't seem like you've accounted for this.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[No One]

Yes. CNN, like the majority of corporate-owned news sources, is center-right in bias. The reason you feel it's left-biased is due to mainly to a twenty-year shift to the right in US political attitudes, and to a fifty-year Republican propoganda campaign. On pure social issues such as abortion and gay rights, a soft liberal bias isn't uncommon. Social issues aren't a threat to the profits of the 6 multinational corporations that control 90% of the media in the US. On economic issues, however, the corporate media has a strong neoliberal bias. Consider CNN reporting that tear gas wasn't being used in Seattle, until internet reports got to enough people to force them to retract their lies. Consider the way issues such as DeCSS are reported. Consider the way the East Timor genocide wasn't reported for twenty years. Consider the complicity of the media in presenting a president such as Bill Clinton, who took positions to the right of those of Richard Nixon on labor, the environment, taxes, workplace safety, and practically every other issue other than abortion and his gay-rights waffling, as solidly left wing. Or portraying Bob Dole and Dubya as moderates. When was the last time CNN reported the way the WTO has been set up as a completely undemocratic supergovernmental authority? The World Bank? The times NAFTA's been used to prevent enforcement of US environmental laws?

One of the claims I'm absolutely certain you're going to bring up is how the majority of the commentators describe themselves as liberal. While many may be soft liberals, there are practically no solid left-wingers who ever appear on the national media. The right, however, is more than adequately represented. When was the last time Noam Chomsky was invited on TV to balance George Will? How often does Michael Moore balance Pat Buchanan? Instead, it's an airhead soft liberal like Elanor Clift or an incoherent authoritarian like Jesse Jackson who supposedly represents the left.

The corporate media is not in any way left wing. They range from CNN's neoliberal economic/social soft liberal presentations to Fox News' neoliberal economic/social conservative. But if you want reporting without a neoliberal bias, you have to look beyond ABC, CNN, or Fox.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[kevin lyda]

ah, see, if you lived in a country that actually had a left-wing, you'd see your mistake.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[footNipple]

"I usually cannot stand the ACLU"

Exactly. Everyone hates the ACLU (including me)until they hitch up to an issue close to one's heart.

ACLU: Hate'em, Love'em, Support'em

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[gughunter]

Obligatory cheap shot!

How often does Michael Moore balance Pat Buchanan?

They wouldn't balance. Once Moore hit the scales, it'd take hours for Buchanan to fall back to Earth.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[dbrutus]

Actually, the exception to this is privately owned businesses. There are quite a few of them out there and they are run for the benefit and whim of the owner(s), not necessarily to screw anybody or maximize revenues. Some people don't want to maximize revenues, just make their numbers so they can take the rest of the year off.

There's no mechanistic law that says businesses have to be unethical or immoral, just a collective decision by the shareholders to do so whether it's explicit or just shutting their eyes to the consequences of their decisions.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[dbrutus]

Funny, I've seen academic studies (Lichter-Roth-Lichter did an entire series) which documents that reporters' political beliefs are to the left of the general public in the US, that their voting is to the left (85%+ Democrat) and that their coverage on issues tilts left. I've never seen any academic refutation of these studies for errors either in methodology or conclusion nor any counter studies showing that the media are, in fact, center-right.

The facts are not on your side here.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[gerf]

This is true. Note, i say organizations, as a collective entity. Private business is different, true. But sadly, to survive, must make some of the same evil decisions that we loathe so much. My brother works for an employee-owned company, but they still must make cutthroat decisions from time to time.

it's all summed up in a song by Alan Jackson, called 'Little Man.' It talks about how Wal-Mart style businesses kill off the little man in small towns, and how we're losing our old ways of life. Thus, is change, thus is progress. We all must adapt, or be buried by it...

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[dbrutus]

This is an absurdity. Every polity has a left, a center and a right. The center moves as people shift their opinions.

Then again, the definition of what is left and right shifts too. 75 years ago to agitate for a color blind government that does not take race into account was considered a radical left-wing position in the US. Today, that opinion generally appears on the right.

This sort of center shift is what marks great politicians like FDR, Reagan, and Thatcher. Agree with them or not, the center shifted in their direction during their political time at the top and stayed their afterwards.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[dbrutus]

Try looking up a case study for Ace or TrueValue hardware. These are networks of 'little guy' hardware stores who have banded together and are giving the big boys a run for their money in the hardware space.

There's no reason that big is necessarily better. In fact, with B2B and buying collectives, there's a good business case for small.

I'll stick to my position that it doesn't *have* to be this way but it's the way it is by choice of the owners.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[gerf]

's true... though i must say that efficiency is a major part of any business, be it private or public. and, it has been proven that a larger organization is more efficient. thus, co-operatives such as ACE. the company i'm at is thinking of combining all the purchasing departments into one, instead of one in NY, OH, IL, MS, Germany, Toronto, ect.

, i will agree that there are certain things about small business that can lessen this gap. self-reliance for repairs for example, personal service, do-it-yourself work by the owner, can override the efficiency gap, especially in stores like ACE. but, i still argue, Wal-Mart has something that small businesses can't offer. the sheer weight of the company's presence is abominable.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[dacarr]

(IANAL)

What they tend to get involved in for the apparent publicity sake are perceived infractions of US Const. amend. 1 - classic cases involve, say, the Boy Scouts of America requiring their members to follow a deity of some sort. But we won't go there.

This case for the DMCA seems to be different - attack the DMCA from one one angle, set the precedent, and go in for the kill.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not terribly fond of the ACLU either, but as is demonstrated here, one will observe that this is a case that they need to be a part of.

-Dennis

Test internet filtering software?

[SpanishInquisition]

You mean that guy is paid to download porn all day?

Re:Test internet filtering software?

[SquadBoy]

Funny story from my old ISP days. I was a night tech support supervisor. (My first techie job) One of the services we sold was a porn filter. Well we would get cranks who would "test" the filters and send in list after list of sites they got to. Well we in tech support knew the whole thing was bunk and it is impossible to block everything but management wanted us to verify the filters anyway. So long story short we would get list after list of porn sites and asked to make sure that we could get to them through the filter. I would use the porn lists as a reward for doing things the techs did not like to do, for example doing callbacks. So yea we where paid to surf for porn at least part of the night. :)

Re:Test internet filtering software?

[Anonvmous Coward]

Hmm I can't imagine getting the full benefit of that from work. I'd be too shy to fully appreciate the porn around other guys. Ahem.

Re:Test internet filtering software?

[daemones]

Who needs to get paid for that?

Re:Test internet filtering software?

[Chibi]

A co-worker knows some people who used to work for Playboy. Their jobs were to basically search the internet to make sure that other people were not profiting from copyrighted Playboy materials. So, these people really were paid to surf for porn.

That said, they supposedly ran across some very bizzare and disturbing sites while working. Be careful what you wish for. :-)

Re:Test internet filtering software?

[MAXOMENOS]

I used to work at a company that builds parental controls. They had banks of people looking at porn every day, 8 hours a day, or about 200-400 pages a day. I worked closely with these guys since part of my job was ensuring that our data sets were clean. Trust me, after a couple of weeks of doing this, you really start to hurt.

for further info...

[Anonymous Coward]

an interview, and more information on Edelman (the programmer/researcher) can be found here here.

Re:for further info...

[DeltaBlaster]

And heres a link to past research he has done on Internet filtering systems, Here. Interviewed him once as a source for a paper I had to write for school, good guy.

Finally!

[EvilBudMan]

The site has been semi slashed. Reading now. OK. Sounds like a long shot to mee. The courts haven't helped before. Why should they now? We need to get this thing repealled in it's present form.

Hilarious but true...

[catseye]

Several years ago (pre dot-bomb), I had a friend who worked in Cupertino at Spyglass Software, makers of SurfWatch. While she had a variety of duties, her primary job was to review site-block requests sent in from SurfWatch users, and as time permitted, web surf looking for sites not accounted for in the SurfWatch "blocked" database. She'd sometimes spend four or five hours a day looking primarily for new XXX sites.

I remember she said it was bizarre to walk into an office where everyone was hard at work with hardcore pr0n on their screens.

err, I suppose that was an unforgivable pun. ;-)

-A.

Re:Text of the Press Release

[silicon_synapse]

It's tempting to get a new ID just so I can mod down people like you who post the entire article as a comment.

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.

Re:Not just DMCA.

[ultima]

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.

If I complain to my coworkers that .NET programs are 90% slower than their C++ unmanaged equivalents, am I violating the no-published-benchmarks clause? :)

Re:Not just DMCA.

[evilpenguin]

I find the notion that one may libel a corporation or a product bizarre. I think the founders of our republic would as well. Obviously, legislatures and courts don't see it my way, so here we sit in a world where we have to watch what we say about a laundry detergent. Free Speech...

About time they noticed

[wiredog]

It only took them a decade or so to realize that there were free speech issues online.

Re:About time they noticed

[Anonymous Coward]

You're clearly ignorant of the facts. The ACLU has challenged at least three of Congress' attempts to regulate speech on the Internet, IIRC--the Communications Decency Act (way back in 96), the Child Online Protection Act, and the Children's Internet Protection Act (see a pattern here? "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!"). Two of those cases went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the third is on its way.

So how does that constitute ignoring Internet speech issues? Moron.

What's the diff???

[Pig Hogger]

"I don't want to go to jail," said Edelman, who graduated from Harvard in June, and who plans to study law there this fall. "I want to go to law school."

So, what's the difference???

Re:What's the diff???

[Codex The Sloth]

"I don't care about nothin' no more. I'm gonna become a lawyer" -- Jimbo Jones

Re:What's the diff???

[jeffy124]

i beleive jimbo said "I'm goin to law school"

Followed by Homer: "NOOOOOOOO!!!!"

Re:What's the diff???

[LittleGuy]

"I don't want to go to jail," said Edelman, who graduated from Harvard in June, and who plans to study law there this fall. "I want to go to law school."

So, what's the difference???

Two less terms in Congress.

Re:What's the diff???

[sharkey]

So, what's the difference???

Which one you are, the prison bitch or the one on top.

Re:What's the diff???

[Pig Hogger]

Which one you are, the prison bitch or the one on top.

I guess it depends. I KNOW some guys who enjoy being on the bottom...

But if they win...

[rbgaynor]

...couldn't the lawsuit be considered a circumvention device?

Re:But if they win...

[jcoleman]

Maybe Dopey just couldn't grow facial hair.

As a former

[ehorizon]

card carrying member of the ACLU, (I stopped donating because of their defense of MAMBLA)It's good to see them fight a worthy cause.

Re:As a former

[Ralph Wiggam]

The whole point of the ACLU is to provide legal defense for unpopular speech. The fact that you felt strongly enough about that to donate money, and then stopped donating when they defended NAMBLA doesn't make sense to me. I completely agree with the ACLU's defense of the Nazis in Skokie, and my family is Jewish. To consider yourself a real civil libertarian, I think you have to support ALL free speech ("Fire" not withstanding). As soon as you draw a line for yourself saying "I support free speech, but those guys at NAMBLA are too repulsive" then you're making a distinction of speech based on taste. And if you're willing to make that distinction for yourself, then by extension you are supporting that distinction by the government. And once the government gets to make free speech decisions based on popularity or taste, we're all screwed.

I know this is sort of off-topic and I don't mean to call you out personaly, but I'm a very big supporter of the ACLU and you're post sort of struck me.

-B

Re:As a former

[thomas.galvin]

To consider yourself a real civil libertarian, I think you have to support ALL free speech ("Fire" not withstanding). As soon as you draw a line for yourself saying "I support free speech, but those guys at NAMBLA are too repulsive" then you're making a distinction of speech based on taste.

Not at all...the decision to not support NAMBLA is tacitly no different than the decision not to support someone's right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater; both pose a clear and present danger to the safety of others, which is the test for free speach.

NAMBLA's position is that homosexual relations between underage boys and adult men is not only acceptable, but may prove benificial to the development of the child. While I, and many others, do find this "in bad taste," it also flys in the face of sociology and psychology. NAMBLA, in short, advocates and assists in the rape of young boys. This is not protected speach.

Re:As a former

[g()()ber]

As soon as you draw a line for yourself saying "I support free speech, but those guys at NAMBLA are too repulsive" then you're making a distinction of speech based on taste.

It may not be a distinction based on taste, but one based on morals or beliefs. I support this fight against the DMCA, because I believe it is a violation of free speech and consumer rights. I do not support a fight for the rights to speak of those who would spread pornography, hate, and violence, as it is a violation of morality. I do not support a fight to remove prayer from the schools, because saying there is not God isn't just speach, its factually incorrect and the denial of God is the root cause of humanity's fall.

Moderators:
controversial != flamebait
disagrees with you != troll

Re:As a former

[ehorizon]

Yes I did mean mean NAMBLA, sorry for the typo. But I do believe lines can be drawn. As an older US citizen, I have seen the slow erosion of our freedoms. Particularly free speech and freedom of movement. I was so disgusted by the ACLU for defending that guy (his website actually) that I immediately withdrew all support for the ACLU. In short. I will not be a party to any perverts hiding under the guise of free speech.

My 2 cents worth...

Re:As a former

[Stiletto]

Hey, we're all free to donate or not donate to the ACLU. Personally, I find NAMBLA and its members pretty sick and twisted, but I support their right to think twisted thoughts and say twisted things.

Re:As a former

[Kenrod]

Your point about the ACLU defending unpopular speech is well taken, they deserve much praise for their efforts. But the NAMBLA thing is very different.

The facts: A man was convicted of the rape, torture, and murder of a 10 year old boy. The boy's parents sued NAMBLA (and the ISP that hosted NAMBLA's website) in federal civil court, claiming that written and website material created by NAMBLA contributed to the state of mind of the murderer by advocating an illegal act. The ACLU filed papers supporting the dismissal of the case before it was heard.

The issue of the ACLU getting involved in this is troubling because they fail to make the distinction between free speech being limited by the government (bad) and the right of a citizen to hold another citizen accountable (in court) for harmful speech (good). The parents of the murdered boy have every right to have a court determine NAMBLA's culpability in the act, if any.

The right to free speech in the USA does not mean you can't be held responsible for what you say, it just means that no one (especially the government) can stop you from saying it (and if they do, without due process, they can also be held accountable).

Re:As a former

[DEBEDb]

NAMBLA's position is that homosexual relations between underage boys and adult men is not only acceptable, but may prove benificial to the development of the child. While I, and many others, do find this "in bad taste," it also flys in the face of sociology and psychology.

Your argument is circular, kinda.

If such sex were acceptable in society, than it would not fly in the face of sociology/psychology/whatever else, because a lot of harm comes because of societal disapproval.

Re:As a former

[ehorizon]

Don't get me wrong Stiletto, I'm not trying to keep anyone from donating to the ACLU. That was just my decision based upon how I view this crazy little place we call Earth.

Re:As a former

[0111 1110]

Are you not guilty of "harmful" speech just by discussing this in a forum where thousands of people can read it. Perhaps a homosexual who has never heard of NAMBLA will find out about the group and be encouraged to rape someone. Can that someone now sue you for even mentioning the name in public? If not, why not? There is no such thing as "harmless" or "harmful" speech. Speech is speech. Even young children understand this. It's too bad adults like you have so much trouble with the concept.

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[sugrshack]

First of all, I think it's good that the ACLU is involved

Second of all, I'm wondering why the ACLU gets such a bad rap here on ./, a place that seems to stand by some of the same basic principles that the organization swears by.

It's interesting how people tend to not like an organiztion which is interested primarily in defending some of the basic tenets of the US constitution.

The ACLU gets involved in many many issues which you do not hear about. Many of these are not "sexy" issues, which make news. For instance, they were recently involved with protecting the rights of Haitian refugess, basically preventing people from being deported into deplorable situations. Sure, many of you don't like the idea of immigrants, even though 99.9% of you (in the US) are descended from immigrants, but it is the basic principles of protection from tyranny of the majority that the ACLU defends.

This particular issue is of direct relevance to /. as they are going after legislation which most here (rightly) hate. However, they exist largely to protect the public from the "mob mentality" that often ignores the rights of many groups whose opinions are in the minority.

Witness their actions regarding the USA PATRIOT act; a ridiculous bill which basically removes many basic freedoms guaranteed in the constitution under the rubrick of protecting us from enemies. Sure there may be a point to trying to be better protected, but I'm of the view that if you remove freedom, there's very little left to protect.

Sure the ACLU ends up getting involved with issues that may end up pissing off some their own constituencies (e.g. Skokie) but it's the principles of freedom that they stand for, not just the rhetoric.

If you're going to bash the ACLU, then provide an alternative.

Re:Text of the Press Release

[Cleon]

As often as not, as in this case, people do it because the link has been /.ed. It's actually helpful for those of us who don't get there before the server gets overloaded.

Not gonna work

[jared9900]

In my opinion, this doesn't seem like it'll get too far. They need to apply their energies somewhere with a far greater chance of success (video/audio copyprotection that prevents consumers from viewing/listening to products they purchase). It may just be that I don't read the right news sites, but it seems to me that this area has largely been ignored. People complain about the dmca, but they don't seem to want to challenge it in court on valid points. For example, I bought a dvd, i happen to like freebsd, and I don't own a dvd player up at school except for the one on my computer. What happens when I want to view it? I'm not allowed to? Didn't I purchase the right to view that dvd? I didn't purchase the right to copy it and give it to all my friends, that is illegal, and is made illegal under existing laws. The DMCA is redundant and excessive. They make it illegal not just to copy something but to have the means to copy something. Should photocopiers and printers be made illegal? I can scan in and print out a copyrighted book and distribute it to my friends using these tools.
The problem is that our nation has become a nation of corporations and organizations.
We are a nation of individuals with individual rights.
The government has no business making it illegal to do things that have been legal since the beginning of our nation. We have always been allowed to read books, and until recently we have been allowed to view and listen to movies and music which we purchase.

Hmm, this turned into a bit of a rambling rant, sorry.

Re:Not gonna work

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd circuit court of appeals very clearly rejected the argument you're making. The facts of this case look a lot better. The federal gov't is currently forcing public schools accepting federal funds (i.e., almost all of them) to use filters (they would be forcing libraries too, but b/c of an ACLU lawsuit, that hasn't happened--yet). So the DMCA is keeping the public from knowing what these government-mandated automated censors are keeping us from seeing. I think the public's right to know the extent of government mandated censorship is much more compelling than your right to view DVDs on Linux.

Re:Not gonna work

[jared9900]

My argument isn't simply that I should be allowed to view dvd's on linux, and I agree that goverment mandated censorship isn't necessarily a good thing, but it isn't all bad either. Review of filtering software is necessary, but according to other posts may already be allowed. But saying schools shouldn't filter is also wrong. Schools don't allow students to bring printed pornography into the classroom, and you can't buy it unless you're over 18, so why shouldn't schools with internet access filter porn sites? Granted other sites do get filtered as well, but the concept isn't bad, the technology just needs a little more time to mature.

Re:Not gonna work

[Jehosephat2k]

"Granted other sites do get filtered as well, but the concept isn't bad, the technology just needs a little more time to mature." But how would you know unless you looked at what they were censoring? But that's illegal under DMCA. The true purpose of the DMCA is so the government and corporations can hide stuff from the public.

Re:Not gonna work

[jared9900]

Why shouldn't corporations be allowed to hide stuff from the public? so long as what they're hiding are not illegal activities they should be allowed to hide whatever they feel like hiding.
Open and freely available information is great, and I like it. But the right to privacy should not be destroyed to make way for free information sharing.

Card Carrier

[spottedkangaroo]

See, that's why I gave money. That's why I'm literally a card carrying menber of the ACLU.

I actually joined after 9/11 cuz the religious right was freaking me out. This most recent news is just extra. I'll be giving them money again this year.

Better chance

[Shadow Wrought]

I think the ACLU is actually going to have a pretty good chance at this. They have a well informed client who can explain the technology to the court. That is a key aspect to many of the cases involving high tech. If you let the other side dictate the education of the court on the technology, you're hosed. But with the client being an expert witness I'd have to say they're set up pretty good. I'm sure they have also done their research and are in a venue/ court that will be more open to their arguments. Best of luck to them though, its still going to be a dogfight!

How to beat the DMCA

[pavera]

It seems to me that the DMCA is going to win on constitutionality... However, what if we the people could sue the US gov't under the DMCA? What if we made some weak encryption, and then passed some copyrighted materials around that happen to be illegal... so the US gov't intercepts our transmission, breaks the encryption and then arrests someone with the "evidence"... and said person countersues under the DMCA saying you can't admit that as evidence, it was discovered by breaking the copy protection mechanism I put on it, and if you admit it it will be available publicly its a copyrighted work. (I don't know what we could encrypt that would be illegal enough to cause all this to happen.. but its a thought.. probably not a good one, so mod it down or whatever..) but the only way I see this law getting overturned at this point is for it to interfere with a gov't investigation/prosecution of terrorism or something. (al quaida should start copyrighting all of their transmission inside the US).

Re:How to beat the DMCA

[David Price]

The DMCA includes a specific exemption for law enforcement, so no, this wouldn't work.

Re:How to beat the DMCA

[NoahsMyBro]

I can't state the obligatory IANAL strongly enough, but would it be possible to subpoena somebody digitally (I.e., email) ? If so, could the subpoeana be crafted in such a way that decoding it would violate the DMCA?

If a person is served, are they legally obligated to respond? If so, and if the fact that they can see the subpoena indicates they've violated the DMCA, and if this is possible to do, then it seems to me somebody obviously more knowledgeable about this than myself should send something like this to Senator Hollings, among others.

(Though the whole idea of subpoenaing someone for reading the subpoena seems a bit recursive to me.)

Re:How to beat the DMCA

[Jehosephat2k]

Encrypt a document which explains how to decode DVDs. Encrypt the DeCSS code and pass it around :) -Jeho

Re:How to beat the DMCA

[jazman_777]

However, what if we the people could sue the US gov't under the DMCA?

Because the State is a law unto Itself--it does things that, if regular citizens were to do them, violate the law. All in the name of law and order. Example: extortion/ protection rackets.

Re:How to beat the DMCA

[pavera]

I know you can serve by email in Nevada (its the only state so far that allows it, and only in the state courts) the federal courts do not allow service by email yet...

Re:Text of the Press Release

[silicon_synapse]

In that case mirror the site to your own webserver or even your journal and provide a link. There's no reason to put the entire article in the middle of the comments I'm trying to read.

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:But isn't this exact case already exempted?

[Zayin]

From the article:

In October 2000, the Library of Congress ruled that "the case has been made for an exemption for compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications."

But that exemption explicitly does not permit a researcher to write and distribute software that decodes the encrypted blacklists. Because Edelman wants to do just that, the ACLU argues, the Library of Congress' decision is insufficient.

(insert worn-out joke about slashdot readers not reading the article here)

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

[quantaman]

From the article,

But that exemption explicitly does not permit a researcher to write and distribute software that decodes the encrypted blacklists. Because Edelman wants to do just that, the ACLU argues, the Library of Congress' decision is insufficient.

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

[Bouncings]

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? [loc.gov]

Again, the problem with slashdot is that you guys never read the articles before commenting. The article specifically addresses this:

The DMCA's limited exemption for some forms of reverse-engineering also does not apply, the lawsuit claims. According to the DMCA, reverse-engineering must be done for "the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program" necessary to create similar software.

Because Edelman's purpose is instead to critique filtering software, the ACLU says, he could be liable under the DMCA unless the court intervenes.

Can you guys please read the bloody article before posting.

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

[Drogo Knotwise]

It's a stupid law that should be dropped, and not just because of this.

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

[David Gould]

I know this is a week old, and nobody'll ever see it, but...

Assuming that's really true, it is a pretty stupid and contradictory law

No, it's a very cleverly contradictory law, which, presumably deliberately, pretends to provide this exemption, but in fact ensures that the exemption is useless for its stated purpose, in a manner that I can only describe as Kafkaesque.

Also, I seem to recall that it's actually more complicated than what you quoted: actually, you are allowed to build the tool to look under the hood, provided that you are only doing it for the stated purpose, but you still can't give the tool to anyone else, even if they only want it for the same purpose. I.e., the rule against building such tools is precisely what it's an exception to, but the exception fails to extend to the rule against distribution, which would be necessary for it to be of any use.

As a result, only those very few people who have the technical skills to build the tool are actually capable of exercising their rights under this exemption, leaving everyone else in Kafka-land. Honestly, how many of us would have been capable of creating DeCSS on our own? No, I said honestly?

Then again, recognizing that such tools are necessary in order for people to exercise their rights, and letting this override the restrictions, would basically nullify the whole law -- there'd be no point to it then, since using the tools for other (i.e., infringing) purposes was already illegal under regular (pre-DMCA) copyright law. But then, the fact that the DMCA infringes on our right without serving any legitimate purpose has been our whole point, all along, now hasn't it?

In sum, I don't think Hanlon's Razor applies -- this is a case where it really is malice, not stupidity.

Support

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

Support for this case... how can we support it?

Where do I send an e-mail?
&
Where do I send a hand written letter?

Let me (us) know and I'm lickin' stamps. It's the LEAST I (we) can do, and I'd rather do something than just reading about it. I know, I know, hope and pray for the universe to hit a state of harmony in order for the courts to see the evil-doing(TM) in the DMCA, that'll help too!

I did, once

[A nonymous Coward]

Even sent them the recommended $270 for a year. Almost immediately I got tons of letters practically demanding that I be more generous. I decided they were wasting my money and ignored them from then on. I also was a bit ticked when they supported sending that 17 (?) year old kid back to Russia with his parents after he'd lived here for some time and didn't want to go back, and would be an adult in just a year. But it was the obnoxious dunning letters that got my goat.

Re:I did, once

[Anonymous Cowrad]

I take it you've never given to the Red Cross. They've been hounding me since last september.

I know it's a bitch to be hassled, but you've got to remember that they really don't have a choice. They need money badly, and people won't get off their asses and write a check unless they're constantly pestered. If you want to bemoan something, it should be the reluctance of your average joe to support charities.

Re:I did, once

[MAXOMENOS]

I give money to ACLU, Planned Parenthood, EFF and NRA. Of those, the only one *not* to hound me for more and more money was EFF. I get bombarded by appeals for money, not just from these guys, but from other groups that think I might be interested in their causes.

You know what I do with all that crap? I recycle it.

Side note: sometimes the appeals for money get interesting, and I can only assume that the people who send me such solicitations haven't done their homework. Once I got a solicitation from Handgun Control Inc. I was tempted to send them a photograph of my NRA member card and an extended middle finger, but my maturity got the better of me.

Re:I did, once

[jafac]

. . . Almost immediately I got tons of letters practically demanding that I be more generous.

This seems to be the MO for all charitable organizations these days. I've given money to many in the past, including Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Doctors w/o Borders, (Men Without Hats?), hell, even the fucking Planetary Society! (to be fair, the L5 society was kind and low-key when I was a member back in the 1980's.) National Wildlife Federation, They ALL started sending me a crapload of unwanted junk mail. I'm almost afraid to start giving to the EFF.

Re:I did, once

[WinDoze]

reluctance of your average joe to support charities

Massachusetts just repealed the Income Tax exemption for charitable donations. That should help motivate people to give, eh? Oh, wait...

Re:I did, once

[MindStalker]

Don't worry, the EFF is one of the few that doesn't send you junkmail! This if nothing else should be a reason to donate.

Re:I did, once

[MindStalker]

Then again, you can send money to me, and I promise I won't send you mail begging for more money either.

Re:I did, once

[walt-sjc]

Well, given that the fact that many very well know charities are run poorly, have massive internal fraud, and how many have administrative costs which are 90% of intake, it's no wonder people are reluctant.

The ACLU has taken a number cases that I find very offensive such as defending NAMBLA. If you REALLY want to help protect technology related freedoms, donate to the EFF. Then you can make sure your money is going to a good cause rather than NAMBLA like cases.

Re:I did, once

[JamesOfTheDesert]

The ACLU has taken a number cases that I find very offensive such as defending NAMBLA.

What, exactly, do you find offensive? That the 1st Amendment applies to NAMBLA, NAMBLA itslef, or that the ACLU defended NAMBLA's 1st Amendment rights?

I don't see how you can pick and choose who gets free speech and who doesn't. It tkes no balls or brains to support free speech for *popular* groups.

I'm no fan of NAMBLA, I think they're a sick lot, but I want to be sure they can express their sick ideas, least one day somebody decides my *ideas* are sick, and I should be silenced.

Re:I did, once

[Anonymous Cowrad]

I don't mean to post a "yeah, what he said" post, but since I don't have mod points, I have to.

Freedom applied selectively isn't freedom. Nobody in their right mind supports NAMBLA, or the KKK or any of those freak organizations, but that doesn't mean we have the right to silence them.

So, yeah, what he said.

Re:I did, once

[walt-sjc]

What do I find offensive? The ACLU has a choice in what it can choose to defend. There are much better free speech cases that the ACLU COULD have chosen, but didn't. The 2600 case is one (I wouldn't call them a "popular group" either.) I won't contribute to an organization that defends the "rights" of child molesters. Sorry.

Nambla can pay for their own defense. The ACLU is using members money to defend nambla. I would hazzard a guess that a majority of aclu members would not approve of their money being used in this manor. Like me I certainly don't, and they will never get a penny from me.

Remember, not all speech is protected. There are cases where the first ammendment does not apply ("fire" in a crowded theater.) One can assert that educating "pedophiles" on exactly how to entrap, kidnap, and rape children is similar and therefore not protected.

As I said, there are other cases that are a MUCH more worthwhile use of limited resources.

The Lessor of 2 Evils...

[Razzious]

I mean honestly who do you cheer for here? The ACLU is notorious for picking extremely foolish topics and going after them like its some pressing political issue.

You know the stories I am talking about. "The ACLU has filed suit on the State of Florida for being called the Sunshine State. Mark Walbourne is allergic to the sun and feels inadiquate that he lives in Florida and people refer to it as the Sunshine State in his presence."

Its probably not popular to the slashdot crowd, but the ACLU is just as weak-minded and lame as the DMCA

Re:The Lessor of 2 Evils...

[steronz]

the ACLU sued my high school the year after i left because our district policy was to cancel school if 20% of the students weren't going to be there. it just so happened that the high school was 20% jewish that year, so they closed school on rash hashana and yom kippur. The ACLU thought that was unfair to the goyim who wanted to go to class.

if we give our support to the ACLU when they pick a good fight, and ignore them when they pick a stupid one, they might eventually figure it all out.

Re:The Lessor of 2 Evils...

[GodnataS]

Or if we ignore them completely maybe the ACLU will just go away.

Re:The Lessor of 2 Evils...

[gughunter]

This never happened. You can't get a real case, so you make one up. Great way to lie.

I think the example was meant to be a humorous illustration of the type of case the ACLU often works on.

I considered joining the ACLU at one time, until I went to their website. They seemed to have a nice balance of important cases and PC nonsense, but a little too much of the latter for my tastes.

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[Squareball]

Well you basically pointed out exactly WHY a lot of people hate the ACLU. Protecting HATIANS? Hello, it's the AMERICAN civil liberties union. I am all for immigration.. LEGAL immigration.. not illegal immigration. The ACLU also are race warlords. They like to group people into race/sex/sexual prefrence etc. instead of treating people as individuals. I could go on, but it's time for lunch :)

22 years old?

[Ummite]

What is the meaning of telling the age of the programmer in this story?

Re:22 years old?

[dbrutus]

If he's learning .NET he'd become an MCSD

Ah, the DMCA

[smit]

Corporations already have a remedy if someone misuses protected material--a civil suit.

Of course, that is cost-prohibitive to the corporations. Why sue someone over a $10 CD's worth of music.

But:

A criminal remedy is just a civil remedy that the government pays for.

Ta da.

-- Paul

Re:Ah, the DMCA

[walt-sjc]

A criminal remedy is just a civil remedy that the government pays for.

Well, another difference is that criminal penalties can carry jail time and civil penalties don't.

Re:Ah, the DMCA

[G-funk]

I haven't heard it so nicely put :-)

Question re: methodology

[realgone]

Okay, so we know that writing an app to peek inside the database of restricted domains is verboten under current DMCA rules. What I'm curious about is whether brute-forcing that same list would also run afoul of the laws. (e.g., a distributed effort to hit each domain in turn and note whether or not it's blocked.) Yes, it's reverse engineering, but doesn't involve the creation of "copyright circumvention tools" as such.

I'm sure this has been tried at some point or another. Anyone know what the legal results were?

just that much more I have to scroll though

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh goodness me! You have to push the wheel on your mouse two or three more times to get past a posted article. Poor, poor baby!

Someone stop the planet. If there are people like this here, I want to leave.

Which NAMBLA are you talking about?

[yerricde]

Don't you mean NAMBLA?

Before taking up this DMCA case, which NAMBLA organization did the ACLU defend?

• North American Man-Boy Love Association?
• Narional Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes?

Irony

[Reziac]

Does anyone else croggle at the irony in this? A test-case against an overly-restrictive law, for the benefit of testing software used to restrict access.

Ah, well... we'll take 'em where we can get 'em. ANY ruling that goes against the DMCA is a good start, and even a case that loses can serve to publicise the DMCA's faults.

Re:Irony

[No One]

RTFA. The plaintiff's seeking to decrypt and publish block lists, in order to have evidence against censorware and mandatory censorware laws. He doesn't work for the censorware companies.

Yes, the story submission was poorly phrased. This is one of the reasons to actually read articles before posting.

House.gov and Senate.gov

[yerricde]

Where do I send an e-mail? Where do I send a hand written letter?

If you want to contact those 535 Americans who have the power to get rid of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's circumvention ban once and for all, you may contact them here:

Write Your Representative

Write Your Senators

Re:House.gov and Senate.gov

[sielwolf]

If you want to contact those 535 Americans who have the power to get rid of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's circumvention ban once and for all, you may contact them here:

I would but everytime I try to send my heartfelt plea to trafficant@house.gov it gets bounced back!

Not as far reaching as one might hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Read through the body of the DMCA listed in the complaint. There is a specific loophole incorporated on the recommendation of the Librarian of Congress that makes lists of websites blocked by software a special class of copyrighted works and gives users of those works special rights. (Or rather, gives their rights more protection.)

Seems likely that this case might fall neatly under that section of the DMCA and therefore not be the DMCA-buster we all want it to be. (Although the incredibly restrictive EULA is another matter perhaps...)

Re:Not as far reaching as one might hope

[martyn s]

See these posts:
this one
and this one
this one too

Great Test Case, but...

[dreamword]

I met Ben at the Internet Law Program at the Berkman Center earlier this summer. I was hoping something like this would happen; he'll make an ideal defendant.

In a test case like this, what we're looking for is an unimpeachable plaintiff -- someone whose motives can't really be questioned, who actually has a good reason to want to do what he's doing, who has great credentials, and who's really bright. They've got that in Ben; he basically has the clout of Harvard University behind him. Not to mention the near-total respect of everyone at the Berkman Center; they refer to him as their "boy genius".

There is one potential problem: he's already written software that does nearly what he wants to do without violating the DMCA. For the ACLU's last test case on filtering, he wrote a script that tried to access everything in non-porn categories of Yahoo's directory, keeping track of what it wasn't able to access. This is a reasonably good (though not perfect) method of determining the contents of the blocked-sites list. We have to hope that the court doesn't decide that scripts like the one Ben already wrote are "good enough," and that there is no legitimate research need to create and disseminate a program that decrypts the list itself.

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?

Re:But isn't.. But But (RTFA !)

[gosand]

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?

Wow, excellent question...
Oh wait, no it isn't. RTFA!!!!

From the article:

Filter-hacking protections

There is some legal immunization for blocking-software researchers. When enacting the DMCA in 1998, Congress ordered the Library of Congress to weigh exemptions to the law's broad prohibition against circumventing copy-protection techniques.

In October 2000, the Library of Congress ruled that "the case has been made for an exemption for compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications."

But that exemption explicitly does not permit a researcher to write and distribute software that decodes the encrypted blacklists. Because Edelman wants to do just that, the ACLU argues, the Library of Congress' decision is insufficient.

The DMCA's limited exemption for some forms of reverse-engineering also does not apply, the lawsuit claims. According to the DMCA, reverse-engineering must be done for "the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program" necessary to create similar software.

Because Edelman's purpose is instead to critique filtering software, the ACLU says, he could be liable under the DMCA unless the court intervenes.

The surefire way to crush DMCA....

[Ashurnasipal]

... is to tie it to children surfing porn or male paedophilia.

These are apparently the thoughts that dominate the minds of America's lawmakers.

You know it's true.

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[Frater 219]

Second of all, I'm wondering why the ACLU gets such a bad rap here on./, a place that seems to stand by some of the same basic principles that the organization swears by.

Slashdot does not have a consensus on the value of the ACLU, "basic principles", the quality of various operating systems or programming languages, the best drugs to take while coding, or just about anything else.

Re:Where does the ACLU's funding come from?

[MAXOMENOS]

IIRC, they gave Hillary Rosen (of RIAA fame) an award for protecting free speech rights. Given the ACLU's long history of fighting for free speech rights, I assume they collect quite a bit of money from the media.

This is true, and it's because the media want the ability to say as much as they possibly can. As soon as it comes to other people saying things that threaten the media's business model, the media becomes a bunch of jackboot thugs ripping out people's vocal chords.

During the 2002 Cybercrime Conference I had the opportunity to talk to one of the RIAA's lawyers. We got to talking about free speech.

"You'll probably find that we're on the same side there. We're huge defenders of free speech."

"I'll believe that when you guys file an amicus brief stating that source code is protected speech."

He had a genuinely hard time grasping what I was talking about.

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[Edmund Blackadder]

The reason why some people dont like the aclu boils down very simply to racism. Racism is still with us unfortunately.

The ACLU's job usually involves protecting the weak, because:
1. their civil liberties get infringed most often
2. they usually cannot afford their own lawyers.

Well the weak often end up being minorities. Of course that is not always true and many non whites have been protected by the aclu.

But in any event their actions of protecting minorities irks a lot of people, especially after these actions have been duly lied about by various media.

But you cannot blame it all on right wing media. Many people are racist, and thats it.

A good start

[Czernobog]

"I don't want to go to jail," said Edelman, who graduated from Harvard in June, and who plans to study law there this fall. "I want to go to law school."

He want to be a lawyer?

Motion Denied. Case Closed.

OT: It's actually 534 for now

[drew_kime]

Now that Traficant has finally been kicked out.

Rosen got an award in 1997

[Chris Pimlott]

IIRC, they gave Hillary Rosen (of RIAA fame) an award for protecting free speech rights.

You're right, they did... in 1997. Perhaps you aren't deliberately being trollish, but the water shouldn't be muddied to fool people into thinking the ACLU agrees with Rosen's more recent behavior.

Re:Rosen got an award in 1997

[dbrutus]

A link on how they regret and disagree with their awardee's more recent behavior might prove your point. As far as it goes now, they may or may not disagree with it. It's unclear from this thread so far.

Re:Look behind you

[ethereal]

"No way man, I'm not falling for that old trick!" -- the DMCA

Re:Text of the Press Release

[Sanat]

my friend, Why not ask for what is good for those on slashdot rather than what is good for your karma.

I personally support displaying a short page like this rather than waiting long hours for the site to become operational again after a slashdotting experience.

Actually, I find myself often lining up on the other side of the ACLU on most issues.

Most ACLU confrontations seem silly and wasteful rather than focused on those that really are in need of help.

This case, however I do support and would like to see the DMCA dismantled piece by piece.

The best part is...

[pootypeople]

That companies that operate in the United States are helping foreign governments to censor their citizen's internet access. Not only are they working counter to the stated purposes of the United States government, but they're working to instill the kind of xenophobia and insular thinking that have led to the current generation of terrorist leaders. I, for one, am glad to know that my tax dollars support a company like N2H2 that is doing it's best to keep countries like Saudi Arabia from being accountable to their citizens by helping to filter REAL news away from those citizens. Any country that wants to filter the Internet (an on-demand communications tool at its core) has something it wishes to hide from those citizens. If the United States is truly as supportive of open and transparent government as we say we are (and I'm guardedly optimistic about our commitment) we would press criminal charges against companies that comport themselves in this manner.

Re:The best part is...

[dbrutus]

This is nothing new. US corporations have been undermining the system which enables them for many years. How to get them to stop doing it is the real problem.

Far enough?

[Ogerman]

Time will tell. If the ACLU just wants an exception to the anti-circumvention clause and doesn't seek to overturn it entirely, wouldn't this do more harm than good? Asking for an exception would be like agreeing with the DMCA otherwise, it seems.

Question

[Fascist Christ]

In the exemptions to circumvention, the Librarian of Congress includes:

Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsolescence.

The obsolence of Win95 prohibts me from installing new software. Would this give me the legal right to circumvent the security measures that prohibit me from making the proper adjustments to the OS to allow said program to install and run properly?

Or am I misinterpreting this?

Re:TROLL WARNING!!

[MindStalker]

Real link is http://forms.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm
w hich SUPRISE! forwards you to Virtual Sprockets, who handles the credit card info and everything. So you know! shrugs, for once crollercoaster was telling the truth. Of course once you pay at virtual sprockets you get a free peak as a goatse link.

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[MindStalker]

the ACLU had a pretty bad rap in the late 80's and early 90's for fighting for things many people in America disliked. (ACLU was anti school prayer, very pro abortion, I know there was others but I can't remember them) Basically getting into subjects that split the nation, and don't nessesarly have a definate constitutional mandate but simply an interpretation. Anyways, nowadays they tend to not be as extremly left wing as they used to be. But they havn't really tried to gain any PR with the middle line conservatives. Which they could do if they tried, but they arn't. Most conservatives have no idea that they have changed at all, and only recently have I figured this out myself. Though I'm still not quite sure if I should donate or not, as I used to think they were a bunch of jerks. So you know.

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[Stiletto]

So basically, are you saying you don't mind if people are deported into a deporable living environment if they are "foreigners"?

Bah humbug

[Maax]

Some predictions:

No new precedent will be set. Previous rulings will be used to apply to all items at issue here, and he won't get all the rulings he hopes for (will just have to take his chances).

- His purchase of the software will enable him to use it as property (sold not licensed), so he won't be affected by "contractual" EULA terms.
- The DMCA won't be affected; he will get words from the judge similar to previous cases, saying that if he writes his own code to decrypt the list it's fine; if he publishes the list he discovered, that's also fine; if he distributes his code he's in violation of the DMCA.
- Many of the claims will be dismissed for a 'lack of standing to challenge the court' as the article described happened to Felten.

But, I'll be following this with interest -- anyone got opinions on whether the judge will be forced to get into the "source code vs object code issue"?

make photocopiers illegal under DMCA!

[l8apex]

We need to make an example of how crazy the DMCA is.

You know how you can camoflauge writing using colored dots? well, come up with an "encryption" mechanism that hides messages using these colored dots.

When copied using a Black & White photocopier, the copier will be more sensitive to some colors, causing those colors to stand out more... Specifically, the colors making up the dots of the message. Making a photocopy would therefore "decrypt" the message! Bingo! illegal under DMCA!

Maybe an extreme example, but I'm sure there are many things out there that already exist that can be leveraged to show how insane the DMCA is.

What a bunch of bigotry

[dbrutus]

Personally I don't like the ACLU because of their hypocricy. They claim to be defenders of the Constitution but they are quite selective about which parts of the Constitution to defend. To paint ACLU opponents as all closet racists is its own special type of bigotry.

While there isn't much call for a lot of 3rd amendment work, there certainly is a lot of call for 2nd amendment litigation. Even 1st amendment issues like the grossly bigoted Blaine amendments haven't attracted a lot of ACLU condemnation over the years and these anti-catholic efforts are enshrined in dozens of state constitutions.

When the ACLU is evenhanded in its defense of the Constitution, I'll take it all back. Until then, no money for them and they can talk to the hand.

Re:What a bunch of bigotry

[Edmund Blackadder]

They are not required to take up all constitutional fights out there. And the fact that they dont does not mean they should be blamed or hated, as they are by many people. They are merely a non profit organization and dont have a duty to do everything. And if they dont do what you like you dont have to support them, but you shouldnt flame them either (well you havent flamed them but ppl on slashdot do).

Remember if it wasnt for the aclu we would have copa still.

Re:What a bunch of bigotry

[No One]

So, because the ACLU doesn't defend *one* Constitutional right, they're not worth helping. They've spent a century protecting your rights, they're probably the number one reason we're not living in a *complete* police state today, but that doesn't count for anything since they don't spend their time and money supporting the *one* Constitutional right that already has millions of dollars and millions of fanatical supporters? Dude, the ACLU has about half the NRA's funding, and nine times the number of Amendments to defend. Given that the NRA's got the Second Amendment adequately defended, doesn't it make more sense for the ACLU to spend its limited time and resources working on the others?

Re:What a bunch of bigotry

[smaug195]

That, and some would argue, at least gun control proponents. That the right to bear arms was not meant to mean everybody should carry guns, yet allow for a state militia :).

Re:What a bunch of bigotry

[dbrutus]

It's not that they are legally obligated to do it all but they represent themselves as defenders of the Constitution, especially the 1st amendment. They try to make themselves out to be even-handed, without a political agenda except fidelity to our country's founding document but they don't put it in practice. A little truth in advertising might get my wallet open.

Re:What a bunch of bigotry

[dbrutus]

That's very nice but it doesn't cover the Blaine amendments issue which I raised in the parent. These are indefensible encroachments on the 1st amendment and were passed to keep the catholics down, something that is obvious from the legislative history. The 1st amendment gets put on the back burner when politically inconvenient. I don't like that sort of hypocricy in an NGO and I won't fund it.

Re:What a bunch of bigotry

[dbrutus]

Yup, and I bet you still believe that "Arming America" doesn't have falsified data in it.

Re:What a bunch of bigotry

[neocon]

With due respect, the problem with the ACLU is not limited to their lack of defense for the second ammendment. While you are correct that the historical ACLU accomplished great things, the modern ACLU has turned into much more of a liberal lobbying group, defending such imaginary `rights' as the `right' to race-based preferences in college admissions or the `right' to welfare without job training requirements.

These days, I much prefer the Institute for Justice.

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[Squareball]

So what you're saying is that if any one from a nasty country with sub-standard living conditions can make it to the USA that they should be allowed to stay? Wow that is bright! We have to protect the USA. The only way we can do that is by placing restrictions on immigration. Hey, if you want to come to the USA from a 3rd world country, go for it. But follow our laws and rules! We cannot handle the influx of immigrants that would come if we just said "ok, if your country sucks, you can come here and stay without any paperwork... just show up". And then it comes down to who decides what is "deploreable conditions". As Americans, we tend to think that not having 3 meals a day and not having McDonalds and BurgerKing is deplorable. Who sets the standard?

Finally

[r_j_prahad]

Well, it's about time. Not that I particularly like the ACLU, I generally don't. But they have a good track record of picking battles that can be won. And then winning them. And the DMCA is definitely one foe that deserves to lose, spectacularly.

Re:Finally

[praedor]

Interesting...you generally dislike the ACLU (Why? Because they actually DO protect the real rights of citizens? Protect minority rights?) but then state that they usually choose arguments that are winnable. Clue: those fights are winnable because they are right. They are winnable (and won) because the only people that truly get to make judgements about what is and is not Consitutional are ultimately the Supreme Court judges. The ACLU wins becuase 1) they are right, and 2) those with a Constitutional clue and a true hold on the morality of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority agree with the ACLU in the end.

If this weren't the stone cold fact, then the ACLU wouldn't win. They win because they are right and the majority-based public opinion world doesn't get to determine what is and is not a Constitutional right.

Re:Finally

[r_j_prahad]

I dislike them because I feel that they too often choose to defend the rights of the very worst segment of our society. Now I didn't say that is a bad thing, because if we do not offer equal protection under the law for even the worst among us, then the rest of us are doomed. And I understand that. But it is reason enough for me to personally dislike what they do much of the time.

There are many people and organizations that I admire and yet dislike. They are not mutually exclusive states of mind, even here in the western world.

Re:Finally

[praedor]

Very well. The usual problem is that (unlike you, it seems) people who "dislike" the ACLU generally refer to them as "commies" or worse and would be happy if they went away, generally because they are protecting the rights and speech of a minority that said person would otherwise have no problem with crushing/squelching/trampling upon.

I wondered if you were in this mindless, dangerous group and it appears you are not.

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[Stiletto]

So what you're saying is that if any one from a nasty country with sub-standard living conditions can make it to the USA that they should be allowed to stay? Wow that is bright! We have to protect the USA.

What are we protecting the USA from? From foreigners? That seems like a pretty racist view. There are some people (foreign and US-citizen) who are enemies of the USA, but certainly not everyone. I don't know you but I suspect the USA didn't feel the need to protect itself from your ancestors, regardless of how they were admitted into the country.

I support anyone's ability to come here without "paperwork". There is plenty of room in the USA for anyone who wants to enjoy the freedoms we have here.

what a quote...

[XaXXon]

His request was flatly refused because, according to an emailed reply from an N2H2 representative, "I am sure that you have enough intelligence to know that [the list] is proprietary information and will not be shared. I am also sure that life will some day bring you greater things to do with your time."

That's what the blocking software company sent to this guy when he requested the full blocking list.. I bet that guy's wishing he had been a bit more professional when he wrote that e-mail...

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[Thorin_]

Sure, many of you don't like the idea of immigrants, even though 99.9% of you (in the US) are descended from immigrants
When you get right down to it we are all children of immigrants. Just because many of us in the united states have immigrated more recently doesn't mean that we want people flooding into the country by the millions.

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[momobaxter]

They are fighting for laws that were created, the seperation of church and state, the freedom to do what you want with your bodies... They were fighting against the role of the church creating laws, America is based on the fact that there is a seperation of church and state...or is supposed to be.

Re:Corporate privacy

[dancomfort]

Corporations can't hide "whatever the feel like hiding" bacause they give up that right for two privileges; the privilege of transferring legal liability to the corporation instead of the individuals who start it; and the privilege of selling products to consumers.

Once they decided to sell a product, the customers have the right to determine if the product works as advertised, or if it is a shoddy product that doesn't. And scholars and scientists have the right to examine and test the products to see how well they live up to the corporation's claims.

Re:Text of the Press Release

[thomas.galvin]

This case, however I do support and would like to see the DMCA dismantled piece by piece.

Most likely, that is how it will have to be done. Very rarely does something change overnight in this country, especially when all of the lawmakers are being paid off. But slowly, gradually, so that no one really notices, we can start getting our freedoms back.

ACLU could be worse

[Lemmy Caution]

Say what you like about the ACLU, it could be worse. If it were the American Civil Engineer's Union, they'd just pour a lot of concrete on all of us and leave.

Finally someone *else* steps up

[geekotourist]

The EFF has a long history of being ahead of the curve on tech/legal issues, including ongoing DMCA cases. They took the 2600 case on principle, even though I'm sure they'd have prefered a more obviously sympathetic character who'd win the Supreme Court's hearts. But of course the RIMPAA isn't going to voluntarily give the anti-DMCA a posterboy. The EFF also dropped that particular case, and I'm sure they didn't like to admit they couldn't win that one. They chose to lose that battle (an expensive battle) to make it easier to win the larger war.

For the sake of the EFF I'm very glad that the ACLU is taking up this cause. The EFF has only so much money- far fewer people donate than you think- and money is their limiting resource: if they had more, they could take on more cases. Even with their limited budget (much, much smaller than the ACLU's) they fought the DMCA. Now they can move funds to equally important technology cases without fear that the DMCA is legally unopposed. Being ahead of the curve is expensive: you don't get the same sympathy donations from the general public. I've written it before: join the EFF so they'll be there (on principle *and* with enough funds) for You.

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[jfruhlinger]

I can see that abortion is not something that is explicitly in the constitution, but I can't understand why people think that teacher- or administrator-led school prayer can be constitutional. The logic goes like this:

1) The 1st amendment says that Congress can't establish (that is, make official) a religion in the US.
2) Numerous court rulings have held that the bill of rights applies to state and local governments in addition to Congress. (If you disagree with that we'd all be pretty screwed, rights-wise, as the state gov's could suppress free speech, establish offical state churches, etc.)
3) Public schools are funded by the state and have their policies and agendas set by elected school boards (which are government bodies).
4) If a school official leads a prayer, then the government is telling citizens (students) that the religion associated with that prayer is correct, and therefore is establishing an official state religion.

Of course, nothing in the constitution or court precedent prevents a student from praying quietly to him/her self, or requesting accommodation to pray on his/her own outside of class.

jf

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[symbolic]

Slashdot does not have a consensus on the value of the ACLU, "basic principles", the quality of various operating systems or programming languages, the best drugs to take while coding, or just about anything else.

Isn't there a statistic that says that 50% of all software projects fail? One wonders...

ACLU on spam

[BoVLB]

The ACLU has a a long track record of defending spam as somehow Frea Speach that's worthy of First Amendment protection.

Looking at the ACLU's website, the only things I can find about spam are: several suggestions that they are looking closely at the problem and the proposed legislation, which is unarguably sound; and the assertion that the disputed e-mail in the Hamidi/Intel case is not spam, which does not seem to be supportive of spam in itself. Can you provide a current link to ACLU policy on spam?

Spammer.

The article linked to (from 1997) says that the many bills that seek to control commercial e-mail on the basis of content face First Amendment issues, and that state-specific legislation also has jurisdictional problems. Personally, I'd rather see spam fail for social and technical reasons, rather than legislative. Certainly if I had to choose between Free Speech and eliminating spam, I know what my choice would be.

Enough is enough!

[cpeterso]

I just gave the ACLU $250 this morning. Vote with your voice or your pocketbook! The multinational corporations already do..

Too Hypothetical

[SiliconEntity]

Courts don't usually like cases like these, because they are entirely hypothetical:

We plan to do X, and we're afraid that we will be sued and/or prosecuted under laws Y. Can you please tell us whether or not X will be legal?

The problem is, you can come up with any number of possible X and Y's of this form and ask a court for an opinion. Courts would be swamped if they had to rule on every possibility like this. Courts prefer to deal with actual disputes, not hypothetical ones. They may throw this whole thing out on that basis.

In this particular case, while Edelman *plans* to pursue this research, don't forget that he's entering Harvard Law School in a couple of months. From what I've heard, that's a pretty challenging program. He may not have that much time on his hands to pursue his hobby of saving the world. So until he actually engages in the activity, it is all hypothetical.

Further, while the suit envisions various responses that N2H2 and/or the government might bring, based on the DMCA and the license agreement, these are again entirely hypothetical. If the court does rule on these matters, nothing would prevent N2H2 from proceeding on other grounds not anticipated by the ACLU. So the court would be faced with the same lawsuit twice, and its efforts to rule on the hypothetical case would turn out to have been a waste of time.

In the end, ruling on hypothetical actions and hypothetical responses usually involves too much uncertainty to make the effort worth the court's time. Sometimes they will do it if it is a sufficiently important case, but more often they'll say, come back when there is an actual dispute with facts on the table. That's basically what happened with the Felten case, and chances are the same thing will happen here.

Re:Too Hypothetical

[russotto]

In other words, in order to challenge the law, you have to openly and notoriously violate it, and be prosecuted, and not make any deals. If you win, great. If you lose, your life is over -- you spend 5+ years in a Federal prison and end up with a felony conviction on your record. Even assuming you survive prison, with a felony conviction you won't even be able to find a job where you can say "Would you like fries with that?". The govt has found a great way to prevent both civil disobedience and test cases: just raise the stakes (for the other side only) through the roof.

Re:Too Hypothetical

[bsane]

The problem is, you can come up with any number of possible X and Y's of this form and ask a court for an opinion. Courts would be swamped if they had to rule on every possibility like this. Courts prefer to deal with actual disputes, not hypothetical ones. They may throw this whole thing out on that basis.

This is why congress shouldn't pass criminal laws that so flagrantly go against the constitution and accepted common law. Everyone knows it should be overturned, but the personal risk involved is tremendous.

Re:Text of the Press Release

[walt-sjc]

It's also a copyright violation. I kinda like /. Hate to see them go away due to being sued.

You don't deserve free speech.

[0111 1110]

It's not the same as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (which also should be "protected" speech IMHO). Anyone who thinks like that definitely does not belong in the ACLU.

Free speech is a principle. Speech either is or is not free. Either you can go to jail for saying something or you can't. Period. It's because of people like you that we need the ACLU and Libertarians in general.

I look forward to the day when you have to worry about what you say in public for fear of being reported by others to the state. Remember that someone has to decide what speech is legal and what is not. And, that someone is not going to be you.

Perhaps one day it will be illegal to spell Microsoft with a "$", or to even speak the word with a negative tone of voice.

The details of NAMBLA's beliefs are completely irrelevant to this discussion. I don't care even the slightest what they believe. I don't care if they're advocating immediate (meaning right now, before I can even finish writing this sentence) thermonuclear war to fight world hunger, or the release of Ebola-Marburg-Smallpox-Lassa superviruses into the wild to save the rainforests, or having kittens for breakfast to promote healthy skin. The more unpopular and offensive the belief, the more important its defense. Popular beliefs don't need a constitution or a bill of rights to protect them. The Nazis didn't seize power. They were voted in.

Re:You don't deserve free speech.

[thomas.galvin]

It's not the same as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (which also should be "protected" speech IMHO). Anyone who thinks like that definitely does not belong in the ACLU.

As I said above, yelling fire and the type of speach that NAMBLA should not be able to engage in are the same in that they pose a real, decernable threat to the life and welfare of other people.

It is illegal to falsly shout "Fire" in a crowded theater because it is likely to cause a panic and a stampeed, and is thus likely to result in needless harm or death to innocent people.

Some of NAMBLA's speach is designed to convince people that sexual relations between adult men and underage boys is both normal and positive. This speach, speach designed to sway public opinion, is protected, and always should be. The fact that is is regarded by society at large to be repugnant is, as you said, the chief reason that it needs to be protected.

Some of their speach, however, is designed to lure underage boys into such relationships. If a web site or online chat is intended not to persuade public opinion, but to facilitate the commission of a crime, it is no longer protected.

The relations that NAMBLA advocates are medically proven to leave lasting psychological scars. This is why they are illegal, and this is why it is illegal to attempt to entice a young boy into such a relationship.

Free speech is a principle. Speech either is or is not free. Either you can go to jail for saying something or you can't. Period. It's because of people like you that we need the ACLU and Libertarians in general.

Ah, it's been a while since someone has said "it's because of people like you" to me...refreshing. Regardless, you seem to miss the reason speach is a protected liberty. This country is founded on the principles of representative democracy. One of the neccesities of such a system of government is the ability to petition the government for the redress of grievences. Also, the founders recognised that for a society to be free and maliable, people would need to be able to discuss the issues of the day. Finally, as government is both capable and likely to get out of control, is is important to be able to voice concerns and outrages without fear of reprise.

There are other forms of speach, however, that are not protected. Slander is illegal; one cannot knowingly say false things about an individual with the intent to harm their reputation. Soliciting a prostitute, or attempting to buy drugs, though speach, are part of the comission of a crime, and are therefore not protected. Even obscenity is not a protected form of communication.

Political speach, you see, is protected. Other forms of speach, however, are not, nor have they ever been. In particular, speach that is likely to cause harm or death is verboden, as is communication to falicitate a crime..

NAMBLA's attempts to legalise sexual relations between men and boys is constitutionally protected. It is political speach. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or attempting to solicit sex from an underage boy, are not, nor should they be.

I look forward to the day when you have to worry about what you say in public for fear of being reported by others to the state. Remember that someone has to decide what speech is legal and what is not. And, that someone is not going to be you. Perhaps one day it will be illegal to spell Microsoft with a "$", or to even speak the word with a negative tone of voice.

Such scenarios are, unfortunatly, not unthikable. They will not, however, be the result of laws that prohibit homosexuals from preying on children.

The details of NAMBLA's beliefs are completely irrelevant to this discussion. I don't care even the slightest what they believe. I don't care if they're advocating immediate (meaning right now, before I can even finish writing this sentence) thermonuclear war to fight world hunger, or the release of Ebola-Marburg-Smallpox-Lassa superviruses into the wild to save the rainforests, or having kittens for breakfast to promote healthy skin. The more unpopular and offensive the belief, the more important its defense. Popular beliefs don't need a constitution or a bill of rights to protect them. The Nazis didn't seize power. They were voted in.

True, the nature of their beliefs is irelivant to whether or not they should be allowed to air those beliefs. It is not, however, irrelivant to whether or not they should be allowed to act on those beliefs. NAMBLA's advocacy of the legalization of sexual relations between men and boys is a political act and thus protected speach. Their attempts to solicit sexual relations from young boys, on the other hand, is not a political act, it is a perdatory act with grave consequences, and is thus not protected.

And what right do you have to say this?

[0111 1110]

I don't believe in your right to talk about your "tastes" in a public forum. Time to see the inside of a small prison cell. Why don't you just admit that the only reason you are against the DMCA is because you want to steal the work of others, personally. That it's a practical issue, just for you. Perhaps the US should pass a law allowing only you to speak freely. Everyone else has no right to say anything except what you want to hear. To be truly fair, we need a law making any speech that you "feel" is bad or harmful illegal. Of course as an athiest, I will have to be put to death. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but it's speech that can really kill you. Let's pass the Hemlock Amendment to the constitution. What happened to Galileo and Socrates was just. It was a moral imperative. Heresy must not be tolerated in any form. Death to the infidels, and to all Heretics!

Re:And what right do you have to say this?

[g()()ber]

"I don't believe in your right to talk about your "tastes" in a public forum."
Oh, my tastes aren't free speach?
"Why don't you just admit that the only reason you are against the DMCA is because you want to steal the work of others, personally."
I steal nothing. I don't violate copyrights. I have zero mp3s.

You're missing the point. (It is possible and likely that I did not explain it very well.) Free speach is okay. Hurting others physically, emotionally, psycologically, and spiritually is not. You can go into a public school and tell everyone that you are an atheist, and explain why you are. You should not be able to prevent theists from saying they are theists, explaining why they are, and communicating with their God. (i.e. Disallowing prayer in public schools.) You believe that there is no god. Me praying does not pose a problem to you or your beliefs. I believe that there is a god and that I should communicate with that god. You saying I am not allowed to do so with others who believe the same thing does pose a problem to my beliefs.

So if the ACLU wants to fight so you can go downtown with a megaphone and yell "There is no god!", I'm all for it. If the ACLU wants to fight so you can go downtown with a megaphone and read and display pornographic material, I am against it. If the ACLU wants to fight so I cannot pray aloud in schools, I am against it. (Allowing me to pray does not force you to.)

Original statement was correct

[Goonie]

What the original poster claiming "there is no left wing in the United States" probably meant was that political positions equivalent to the mainstream European left simply aren't represented in US politics anywhere, and the battleground in US politics is between what in Europe would be the centre-right (the Democrats) and the far right (the republicans). There is a fair degree of truth in that assessment (though it is a great oversimplification).

In any case, simple polarisation of political views along a left-right divide is a nonsense and an unfortunate artifact of two-party systems.

Re:Original statement was correct

[dbrutus]

That's just as fatuous a statement as saying Europe doesn't have a right wing. With the sometimes exception of the UK, Europe doesn't have any major political poles of opinion who you can map onto the positions of National Review or Rush Limbaugh.

I don't agree that the left-right divide has anything to do with a two party system since it was invented for a French parliament that had multiple parties. OTOH, I do agree that it's nonsense but it's nonsense that just won't die. I'd rather use an imperfect scale and speak to substantive issues than spend a lot of time teaching people the authoritarian, libertarian, conservative, liberal grid.

One reason Felton's case got thrown out

[Quila]

He said he was doing it to protect researchers from future hypothetical lawsuits (such as protecting what this guy wants to do). Let's hope this judge has more sense for the good of the people.