Slashdot Mirror
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.
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!
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
You mean that guy is paid to download porn all day?
Je t'aime Stéphanie
an interview, and more information on Edelman (the programmer/researcher) can be found here here.
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.
What did the walrus say to the penguin? "No soap, radio."
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?
This is a self-referential sig
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.
Fight Spammers!
...couldn't the lawsuit be considered a circumvention device?
"Good things don't end with eum, they end with mania or teria." - H. Simpson
GREAT point. That is more likely the case. I admit I do not follow all of what the ACLU does.
MessEdUp
#/var/www/v
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.
I can't believe it's not lard!
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.
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)
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
Don't you mean NAMBLA?
Before taking up this DMCA case, which NAMBLA organization did the ACLU defend?
Will I retire or break 10K?
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
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
Finding God in a Dog
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.
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
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?
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:
To which I can only add: