Slashdot Mirror
HP Backs Off DMCA Threat
Bruce Perens wrote with this interesting reversal: "News.com reports HP has backed off of its DMCA threat." Which makes SNOsoft's official response thankfully beside the point now. Update: 08/02 05:37 GMT by T : Declan McCullagh points out this CNET story, which includes words from HP, Snosoft, and Bruce Perens. Writes Declan: "HP blames the snafu on... their lawyers!"
... but as the DMCA is a statute, isn't it up to the FBI or some such to actually `use' it?
Adobe brought a `DMCA violation' to the attention of the FBI to prompt the Skylarov / Elcomsoft affair. When they backed down, the FBI did not follow suit. Is it not the case that all a person or company can do is bring a `violation' to the attention of the FBI, and let them take it from there?
If this is the case, would not HP's original statement in regards to the researchers violating the DMCA be enough to set the ball in motion? If the FBI were to agree that the event in question is a DMCA violation, would their backing down be enough to prevent further action from being taken?
IANAL and I'm not even from the US, so maybe I've completely misunderstood how this works. But isn't there more to it than HP just deciding to stop waving the DMCA stick?
- SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
So... someone fill me in here. Is it normal for organizations to ask companies for money before they'll share info about exploits? After reading the note from SNOsoft, it seems clear that they must have asked for money. How else do you explain them trying "to build a working relationship with HP" and HP (mis?)perceiving their actions as extortion.
Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned, it sounds like HP needs to spend more money on developers and less on lawyers. I'm not trying to defend their actions at all. But, it seems to me that if SNOsoft was merely acting altruistically, they shouldn't need to "build a relationship" in order to "transfer the information privately."
-- dR.fuZZo
OK, OK, I shouldn't make fun of someone just because they pressed "Submit" too fast. But the slip opens up an interesting thought in my mind: It is a fact of history that in World War II, American infantry units were the only ones to get progressively more mechanized as a campaign went on. For most armies, continuing action meant trucks and tanks broke down (bad maintenance, lack of supplies, etc.). But for the US, the infantry units would gain mechanized capacity. It was not unheard of that a unit not have to march anywhere, having scrounged enough vehicles to ride. This made the infantry many times more effective and enhanced the efficiency of armor, too (since the infantry could keep up with the tanks).
It doesn't seem that, with the wear-and-tear of battle, you should get more capacity. What was the secret? Well, just about every man in a US unit had some experience with motor vehicles. Most owned their own; many if not all repaired their own. So on the battlefield, they were able to scrabble spare parts together and keep the trucks rolling. In fact, they were often able to scavenge from damaged enemy machines! When a truck or car broke down, most armies had to call in a specialist repair team. But the US infantry could fix it themselves and keep moving. (Source: Dirty Little Secrets of World War II , Dunnigan and Nofi)
What's the point? Well, consider that everyone thinks sooner or later we're going to get into a "cyberwar" -- assaults upon information infrastructure. Maybe our only chance of winning such a conflict is to have legions of people familiar with computers and security, with securing a system or attacking it, with picking apart a program and then putting it back together better. In other words, maybe we need a culture of "hackers" (in both sense) as an insurance policy.
In which case, the DMCA is not just intrusive and unbalanced. It's actually a threat to national security. How do you like them apples?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach