Slashdot Mirror
Debunking (some) DMCA Myths
An anonymous reader writes "C|Net's News.com is running an article under their Perspectives section about some of the myth and hype surrounding the DMCA. The author talks about how the EFF is exaggerating the danger from the DMCA. The author mentions that although "the DMCA is both an egregious law and a brazen power grab by Hollywood, the music industry and software companies", groups like the EFF are not much better, engaging in "fear-mongering" and scare tactics to increase opposition."
Heh... Fear factors in the same line as: Look out! There's a big rock falling on your head!!! Somehow I doubt it's the same as FUD. Just my 2 cents, tho.
Experiments must be reproducible; they should all fail in the same way.
I'd like to moderate the article -1:Flamebait. I can already feel the heat generated from a million nerds reading the article.
Can everyone try to be somewhat mature in their responses, instead of just trying to flame everything said?
Remember, its easier to get into the consumers heads when you are cool and calm. Just going off makes you look immature, and gets you ignored...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Ok, first of all, if you haven't watched Lawrence Lessig's OSCON speech Free Culture, now is probably a good time.
Having said that, Lawrence mentions a legal battle that took place in England in the 1700's in an attempt to get Shakespeare into the public domain. Originally, English publishers managed to win a court case which said that they owned a perpetual copyright over Shakespeare.
Five years later they lost, and Shakespeare entered the public domain.
Rosen, Valenti et al are students of history. They know that the door swings both ways. I believe their thinking is that they should grab as much land as they are allowed to grab, so that when the door swings back, maybe it will be left leaning a bit to their side.
Personally I hope it swings back and flattens their faces, but we shall see.
KWTCMA
Is this guy serious? "fear mongering"? try telling the ACLU not to worry about civil liberties too much. Because its not REALLY worth getting fussy over. Why do people give the MPAA any slack at all? -LinuxRob
What a numbnut. EFF HAS to cause a lot of noise No other legal entity is going to fight for the rights of the little guy: the average consumer They MUST emphasize the negative aspects of the DCMA, otherwise they'll be overlooked, and our freedoms ever so easily compromised.
geeks are cats who dig a certain kind of cool
The EFF is taking a hard line on this. Do you blame them? Do you consider their views extreme? In this case, I sure as hell don't. Saying "this law isn't really THAT bad" is the same as saying "the camel only has its head in the tent".
Someone want to tell Dmitry Sklyarov that this is just a bunch of FUD and that the DMCA isn't really a threat?
The DMCA is bad and wrong and all that. The EFF is just giving a heads-up to the average joe. Tactics aside, you have to look at who has the majorities best interests at heart
If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it. -- Calvin Coolidge
To which I say, laws have been stretched by powerful interests much farther than the DMCA will have to be to create a chilling effect in the past, and while the EFF may be "exaggerating" the issues, the author does nothing to challenge the fact that nastgrams based on the DMCA can and are being used to curtail research.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
People have been saying that we have to go all-out against the DMCA... since if we say it's only somewhat evil, that means we don't take it seriously. In other words, do anything we can.
Well, isn't that how the DMCA got passed? Some people said something was pure evil, and did everything they could to try and stop it... except they did too much.
Hmmm....
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
When people are arrested after giving demo's or arrested at conferences, it's something to fear.
... news.com announces that Hitler was "a little wayward", South African apartheid was hyped by the blacks and that Elvis will be embarking on a comeback tour next week.
I'd be on easy street if I could get paid to troll like the guy who wrote that article :)
I feel much better now. There I was thinking the DMCA was bad and now I realize it's all good.
Not!
I find it interesting that the article spends a long time "bebunking" the myths of the DMCA, yet the author devotes a paragraph to deriding the DMCA. Unfortunately, he does not expound on why he feels that the DMCA is so villainous, which makes the article rather contradictory considering the amount of bits he wastes saying that the issues that people have with the DMCA are myths.
It ain't no myth, Baby. The DMCA is yet another chip missing from your block of freedom.
Imagine two kids of nearly equal weight on a see-saw. One sits on the end, as is normal. Now, in order to achieve balance and "fairness," the other does not sit in the middle, on the fulcrum.
Now imagine an 800lb gorilla and a little kid on a see-saw.
Thanks.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
The risk that a researcher could go to jail for giving a speech at an academic conference is essentially zero
True, but not all speeches and research is presented at an 'academic conference,' now are they. It seems this implies that the author does not support research outside of a institution such as a business or university. Do employees of these places now have more rights than other people? If that's true, i'd be even more against the DMCA than the view of it they're trying to debunk!
Not to mention all the lawsuits that it brought. Once the EFF pushes for some kind of stupid law, then I'll complain.
For me, all those that mix business and lawsuits are bastards.
"The risk that a researcher could go to jail for giving a speech at an academic conference is essentially zero," says Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and a former prosecutor for the Justice Department.
essentially zero? shouldn't it be zero? Doesn't this give creedence to people's worries?
give me a break.
Like sex? Read and write about it! Indecent Blogging
Is he saying its okay for rich groups to buy laws then? Its bad for the one and only group that would say anything, to actually say something? I, like probably every other /. reader just wanna say thats BS.
Aye, just makes ya wanna move to zanzabar and start taking opium rectally
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
the article and this post are very different, the article seems to mostly be about people being afraid to even research copy protection, , the post neve once mentions research, the article pretty much sums up that its still legal to do research under the DMCA if your published work doesn;t include source code or a step by step of how to break copy protection, the post seems to just be hero bashing the EFF (as i write this my friend IMs me asking if i want a copy of LotR that he just ripped)
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I grant you that the EFF may be doing some exagerating, but not much.
Look at Felton's case. He was sent a threat, but when an opposition was made, the RIAA essentially said, "we didn't mean it" and "you misunderstood us."
Now what is commercial distribution and profit? You have link to a site that has an advertisement, is it commercial? I have seen a case that ruled linking to a site that has advertising makes a site commercial. What about a Amazon referrer link? or a Vonage affiliate link? does that
you commercial?
It is not the actually application of the DMCA being the problem, but the threats that spring from the vagueness of the law.
Fight Spammers!
The fact that the threats posed against Felten or 2600 or whomever may have little legal merit was never the issue with the DMCA. I was a Rice student when the Felten thing went down, and three of the seven co-authors of the Felten paper were from Rice. I can say the University was scared $hitless about the possible expense and negative PR that could follow from having to defend a civil suit by the media conglomerates.
The EFF is right. The chilling effects are real. That research can be stopped or quashed simply by a law firm's letter head containing the four letters DMCA is an egregious tragedy.
Declan says the law is bad. I agree. It is used to do evil things by evil corporations. Throw it out. Don't defend it. And certainly don't chastize the EFF.
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/
Although it may not actually persecute those who try and research areas that certain execs don't want probed, it does provide those companys the opportunity to bring legal action against them.
As I see it, there are few people who want to pay the legal fees, go through the hassle, and take the risk, regardless of whether or not the DMCA _should_ put them at risk.
So while it may not be the final authority, it's enough of an opening that those with money and power can abuse it.
I think we've already seen that alot of the fears generated by the DMCA have come to pass. Hello...the whole DeCSS debacle...IEEE almost requires papers be declared legal by the DMCA? Just my 2 cents worth...
Derek Greene
2600 was not distributing DeCss, it hyperlinked to where you could find DeCss, just like a google search or searching Disney's Go.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I think, in cases such as this, you need to combat idiocy and absurdity with the same thing, otherwise no one will listen. The DMCA is one of the biggest Constitutional violations in a long time (aside from perhaps campaign finance, but that's a different story) and no one cares. Well, we do, and so does EFF, but the big boys don't care a whit. The people making the laws (Congressweasles who just do what they are paid to do) don't care and probably wouldn't know what a computer was if someone whacked them upside the head with a keyboard.
The fine print Start with the text of the DMCA itself. It says, "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device (or) component" that is primarily designed to bypass copy-protection technology. Note it does not explicitly prohibit research or published work, and in fact the DMCA explicitly includes limited exemptions for encryption research and reverse-engineering. Who, pray tell, determines "primary design purpose"? This is the overly broad part is it not? If professor So&So gives a speech about security weaknesses of say cd-checks and goes into any detail about how an attacker could bypass it; is this not a "service" and could it not be construed as primarily designed to circumvent copy-protetion using the same word-twisting techniques the EFF is accused of using to say the law is overly broad?
He speaks as if a final verdict in your favor means you win completely.
For many of the people affected by this, the threat of a lawsuit is a great financial burden in its own right, and anything that gives big corporations an excuse to sue, good excuse or bad, hurts us all.
Oh well.
I gotta wonder what Declan's been smoking. First he writes the "Don't spend a lot of effort trying to get laws changed, just let the government do what it wants" article, now the "The DMCA isn't that bad, don't be afraid of it" article.
Anyone think that Jack Valenti's hired a cracker to break into Declan's account and masquerade as him?
If I want to publish something that violates the DMCA, I probably won't do it, even if I think I could win in court. I simply don't have the time or money to fight a lawsuit. That's the real problem. Big companies can sue and win without going to court.
That may be well and true, but it misses the point. Lets assume Felton were sued. He is a professor. I assume he has a lawer. He certainly already had the publicity. For him a lawsuit is a mere annoyance. For someone like some young Russian programmer who comes to the states for a talk, a lawsuit is career ending. The mere fear of being sued, legimated or not, is enough to stifle any and all speech deemed fringe. That is the danger of the DMCA.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Thank God some semi-mainstream media have grown the balls to come right out and oppose the FUD.
The article in question DOES make a few good points in that many of the more extravagant floggings with the DCMA probably wouldn't have held up in court, and WERE blown out of proportion by the EFF and others.
Some say that making such a big deal out of those (relative to how big of a deal they were initially) helps to motivate the public against the DCMA.
This is most likely true.
But what else can it do? It can motivate the less tech and law savvy people (IE: University administrators that control the flow of research funds) to cave immediately to nastygrams that would never manage to hold up in court.
The FUD put out on some (not all, and mostly those related to Acadamia) of the DCMA cases has allowed Hollywood to use the DCMA as a bluff, knowing that most administrations will cave instead of taking it to court.
The DCMA itself isn't as far reaching as many say it is, but by saying it is, they may have managed to allow Hollywood to use it like it is (that far reaching), unchallenged.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
"...the DMCA is both an egregious law and a brazen power grab by Hollywood, the music industry and software companies", groups like the EFF are not much better, engaging in "fear-mongering" and scare tactics to increase opposition.""
Let's all watch Declan McCullagh try to survive the next round of CNET layoffs by writing an article designed to piss off everyone on both sides of an issue, generating millions of hits for CNET! I wonder who the "anonymous reader" works for *cough*CNET*cough*.
He's not saying the DMCA isn't bad. He's not even saying the DMCA isn't THAT bad.
He agrees that the DMCA is bad and a threat to some people, just not to everyone the EFF said it was a show-stopper to.
He also makes a very good point: Activists that don't understand the impact of the laws they're protesting don't present very convincing cases.
-l
Fear of the law, as was pointed out, is the main objection to the DMCA. Fear of this law is an unfair burden on the citizens of the world. Why should Dimitri be arrested for something he did not do in the USA? That action by the US gov't regardless of whether is ultimately defeated in court several years and many many thousands of dollars from now is irrelevent. The relevant message is this: we WILL arrest you if we THINK that you have violated this law. Arguably, Dimitri is not in violation of the LAW. But he COULD BE found guilty...and that is the fear.
Fighting a lawsuit is a slow process even when it is a slam dunk. The starting retainer for most of the lawyers that I've hired is $1000. That's not chump change. And then the cost of the case will run higher than that even if you settle the case within a year.
Then there is the time involved. Meeting with the Lawyer. Showing up for court. Putting your life and your family's lives on hold while you grind through the legal entanglement. Everything begins to revolve around the legal case; and if you are imprisoned, then it is very difficult to continue your career. How long do you have to stay in jail before you fall far behind the bleeding edge of technology? What are the costs of being publically arrested?
The media has certainly showed the arrests and then the convictions, but how many times does the acquital make the news? If it did how many folks would be able to link the person acquited to the original arrest?
The DMCA is a power grab, and I think it is very unfair and probably unconstitutional. But its power to motivate people lies in the uncertainty of the application of the law. There are too many grey areas for any sort of comfort,a nd so it will be left to the battle fields of the courst system to determine the right and wrong of the DMCA.
As the article pointed out, many of these fears may be unfounded or exaggerated, but how much of your life are you willing to bet on it?
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
The EFF may be over stating some of the chilling effects a little but they're trying to get peoples attention.
On the other hand any exaggeration by the EFF pales into insignificance when compared to the exaggeration by the entertainment industry (and others) of their new rights under the law. We've seen many people threatened with dumb lawsuits which have no merit or takedown orders used to stifle free speech (scientology anyone ?).
And in a further exaggeration the entertainment industry claims that unless it gets even more draconian laws passed it will be put out of business.
The bulk of this texts argument seems to be based on what has and has not worked in a court when defended but they fail to see this is only part of the point. We all know the mojority of small companies and individuals simply can't defend themselves in court so the DMCA threats are enough.
The DMCA gives the big boys a new threat to use. A friend of mine was recently held up at gunpoint in the store where he works, he explained to me that he was 99% sure the gun was a replica and yet he didn't laugh the guy off, any ideas why?
Sometimes a threat is all you need
If you believe the buzz, you'll conclude that programmers, academics and engineers should be scared witless about being sued under the DMCA. In effect for nearly two years, the law sets protections for the codes that are wrapped around certain copyrighted content such as DVDs and electronic books.
After 2600 and DeCSS, why yes, yes I am scared witless about being sued under the DMCA. All I have to do is make something, someone finds a way to use it for copying some material, and I'm in deep trouble.
It does not matter that the DMCA doesn't apply to many situations. Most people don't know exactly what the DMCA covers...all that needs to happen is someone charges me with violating the DMCA. Regardless of whether the charge ends up being valid, you have been "tainted" and most people won't understand just how false the charges were. Having to defend yourself against these charges can result in large financial losses, not to mention the possibility of being fired.
Sometimes the method of determining the intent of a device is so esoteric, many people will think you just scraped by on a technicality.
I don't think the EFF has been hyping this enough. I can go through a day without talking to someone who has ever heard of the DMCA or the EFF. We are the beginning of a new generation, where we depend on the storage and transfer of digital information in our daily lives. It's our responsibility to make sure that this new frontier isn't locked down and commercialized before we have a chance to explore it. This is our generation and our responsibilty.
When you're standing in a pit of snakes, the moment you become complacent and careless is when they strike.
...
find DeCss, just like a google search or searching Disney's Go.
As soon as Disney found out that people were using its GO.com Infoseek search engine to look for DeCSS, which could decrypt Disney DVD titles, Disney killed Infoseek and went with Overture.
It didn't help. Overture takes you straight to DeCSS as well, in both flavors (DVD and HTML).
Will I retire or break 10K?
After this and Declan's previous article (something along the lines, "there should be a seperation of techies and state"), which seem, well, non-Declan (who is generally a fierce advocate for freedom and is anti-DMCA) I am wondering if this is applicable...
/. user community. He was last known to be in Washington DC, and is believed to have undergone philosophical changes upon employment with CNET's News.com.
/. community at http://www.slashdot.org.
** MISSING **
Declan McCullagh
ACLU Award: Free Speech
Time Magazine Advocate for: Privacy
Previous Plaintiff: Challenging the Communications Decency Act
Anti-DMCA Efforts: Intervened in the landmark DVD/DeCSS lawsuit asking the court to open proceedings.
Declan McCullagh was reported missing to the
Incident Type: DMCA Abduction
If you have information regarding the disappearance of this individual, please contact: the
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Hmm -- what's the point of the article? That since no one's taken advantage of the DMCA's power yet, it can't be that big of a danger?
Not to compare apples to oranges, but didn't we say that same thing about a certain terrorist leader?
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
The real problem is that little piece about civil suits. While anyone can really be sued by anyone at any time, the *really* frivolous lawsuits tend to get thrown out. However, if the judge feels there is a reason to hear the case, they will. According to this article, "Actual violations of the DMCA can be punished with a civil suit for damages..." Sometimes academic research could lead to damages to a corporation (or could be construed that way).
The nasty thing about civil cases is that you are, more or less, guilty until proven innocent. At best, you've got a whole pile of court costs to contend with. While a big corporation can afford to go to court and lose, most people can't.
So, even if you're in the right (even according to the DMCA), but a copyright holder thinks you're not, they can tie you up in court until you're bankrupt. The DMCA really gives them the ability to do this, and this is dangerous.
(* The mere fear of being sued, legimated or not, is enough to stifle any and all speech deemed fringe. That is the danger of the DMCA. *)
A lot of things are like that. You can get sued if the neighbor's kid trips and hurts him/herself badly in your yard and be in for heck of a legal battle.
Perhaps we need to think about a general solution to lawsuits-as-weapons where the fight *itself* is very costly and frightening and flashed around like a big sword.
There needs to perhaps be more protection for "the little guy", whether that be a family or a small business or a professor.
Table-ized A.I.
It seems to me that the fear is a result of threats. Sure, no researcher or professor has been sued YET. Someone with limitted access to legal resources is easily stopped by a letter with some nice lawyers letterhead stating intent to prosecute if said paper is published.
If your gun is big and scary and your voice is loud you dont actually have to shoot someone to scare them.
Really. This guy is right. It's no big deal. Just ask Dmitry Sklyarov.
Where do the "Black boxes" come from if not research?
Research and papers are legal, but building and distributing the "black boxes" is not? you can publish findings, but not code?
How do you do publish a research paper without some kind of code or algorithms? Even an English Language description (does that mean that Spanish and Russian descriptions are outlawed?)
"Well, I can't publish this because I don't want to go to jail or get sued so you'll just have to take my word for it."
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
Don't forget that 2600 was forced to remove a bloody link, after all.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Really. He probably had to fill a deadline and came up with this, knowing it would generate a lot of interest. First he says this:
Then he goes on to say "no wait a minute, it's not so bad, we can live with it". He goes on to say, basically, how he believes the line between "encryption research" and "trafficking in circumvention devices" is completely clear and bright.
Well guess what. It ain't. I don't feel like the line between code and speech is a clear one. He even acknowledges in his article that including code in a research paper is vital:
So, by his own words, the chances of a lawsuit are not zero if you include code.
And what is code? How about some pseudocode? How about a working copy of code, except some constants are changed? How about a complete working example of code, but only in the print version? If this print version later appears on the web in full, will the author suddenly be liable? (Remember, by their own words, they went after Skylarov because his name was in the copyright notice, not because he personally was trafficking in the device.)
He then goes on to mention all the recent news items (the HP flap, IEEE, etc) and dismisses them all by saying basically: well it's bad PR for these companies, so they'll withdraw their lawsuits. Well, no thanks, "bad PR" is a pretty thin safety net.
And I also sense a vibe that traditional security research published in a journal or university web site, with lots of verbage is okay, but a bugtraq posting from "Cyb3rH4xx0r" who lives in his mom's basement is not. Well personally, I learn as much from posted exploit code as I do from long-winded papers. And any smart person could generate one from the other. Which is why a researcher should be a afraid, even if they don't use code in their paper.
So I think a security researcher has every right to be afraid of the DMCA. We know exactly why: because 1) code is not always considered speech and 2) pretty much anything can be a "technological protection measure", from bits in a TrueType font (remember that one?) to ineffective LFSR's in DVD players. Put these two together with the DMCA and you feel the chilling wind.
(And that's not even discussing the awful "takedown" provision of the DMCA, which allows copyright holders to arbitrarily take down web pages and eBay auctions. I'm surprised we haven't seen more abuse of that one from people forging affidavits.)
Oh and by the way: 2002-08-19 11:25:16 Cnet Goes Apologist (yro,news) (rejected) - submitted at 7AM EST this morning.
I mean, first he tells us to give up political activism because changing the law is a lost cause, so we should just write code. Now he is telling us the law ain't so bad after all.
To highlight the absurdity of this position, consider this statement from the article:
The risk that a researcher could go to jail for giving a speech at an academic conference is essentially zero. - Orin Kerr
Wow, I fell so safe at night. Now, why does need to qualify zero with "essentially". Perhaps because, um, people have been arrested? Researchers have had injuctions against releasing their findings? Corporations have waved the DMCA around to frighten people into keeping quiet?
The purpose of an overly broad law is to pick and choose who you make examples of. Sure, the risk to us is relatively minor, because we're nobodies off their radar. Wait until you create something or discover something that rubs the government, software giants, or Hollywood cartels the wrong way. It doesn't matter if they lose in court, the point is they scared us all with heavy-handed legal tyranny.
Perhaps this is furthering his "law no, code yes" proposal. Overturning the DMCA is a lost cause, so we should push it on all fronts to weaken its reach. Like a bully, it's power comes from a shared belief in its potential to harm us. When we all stand up to it we will find it shrivel into something less ominous.
Oh ok thanks. I'll remember that one.
How does tripe like this get on the front page?
/. but that should mean someone thought it was worth reading.
/dev/null ?
I accept that I've usually heard about something before it appears on
So some guy working for a supporter of the DMCA says the free people are just silly to worry about their actions being illegal. It's not like this is some respected reporter saying this. Or coming from a mainstream source like the Washington Post, NYT.
What's the news in some adverporter sending out cleverly disguised PR? Why can't the moderators send this kinda junk into
"For its part, the EFF points to the potential chilling effect of even unfounded DMCA threats, saying that "nastygrams" can halt a lot of legal acts--and most people are not willing to risk being right at the cost of civil fines that swallow their kids' college funds."
Classic case of holding a mob at bay with a six-shot revolver and one bullet. Nobody wants to be the one to take the bullet.
Again...
"Not every grad student or even professor is going to have easy access to free counsel who can provide a counterweight to the university lawyers," says Lee Tien, an EFF staff attorney. "Even if the paper were published, was it somehow bowdlerized? This is corrosive to scientific discourse."
and again...
"Back in 1977, cryptographers Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Len Adleman, and lawyers at MIT showed commendable mettle when standing up to threats from the National Security Agency related to their encryption research."
I wonder if Rivest, Shamir and Adleman would have been so quick to stand "...up to threats from the National Security Agency..." if they had not had those MIT lawyers backing them.
Food for thought.
While some people here think that we should exaggerate the dangers of DMCA to make it look worse than it is, I disagree. When you exaggerate, people familiar with the actual law (such as lawmakers) can see that, and you immediately discredit yourself. Highlighting the actual problems with the law makes your point valid; exaggerating facts makes your entire point invalid. Any intelligent person saw that Edward Felten would not have been prosecuted for the SDMI fiasco, for obvious reasons. Why did the EFF stretch the facts and say that he would? By doing that, they only discredited their other, valid points.
Repost of parent that was AC(useful info at link):
Fear mongering and scare tactics?
Considering they tried to ban the VCR, and when that didn't work, institute a "modest" fee of $50 per blank tape, is this really fear mongering?
To get some accurate info on drm, go to http://www.nyfairuse.org, and to see a NY group that has been proactively fighting drm and other attacks on fair use [nylxs.com], linux and other issues, go to www.nylxs.com
I wouldn't expect a large media company to not support a law written by media companies.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
The new protection laws are screwing everything up. I can't watch a DVD on my projector if i plug in through composite or S-video cables becasue copy right protection things i am copying the movie. So i have to actually plug my monitor cable into the project and then it is ok because i couldn't be copying it then. That ruins the entire idea of dual monitor support with graphics cards that can output to TVs, or projectors. DAMN copyright laws protecting me from doing completely legal acts. If a law restricts something legal while trying to protect against something that is illegal the law itself should be illegal. Confusing enough..... yep!
Dan Mayer: my blog, essays, art, etc
Declan is not inherently a friend of free software, a foe of the DMCA, or indeed a friend of freedom at all.
/. and elsewhere.
He is a friend of Declan, and he will do whatever it takes to advance his career, irrespective of how many people he harms in the process.
In the early days of LiViD (the first group to get a semi-working software DVD player under GNU/Linux) Declan McCullagh hung out on the livid mailing list. After he had a very good idea what was going on (work to create a DVD player under GNU/Linux) he published, in WiReD, a hysterical article about hackers writing software to enable rampant DVD piracy. The story was carried here on
As a result, several lead developers in the project were threatened with legal and criminal action (though no crime had been committed) and had to withdraw from the project. While others took over their responsibilities, this probably delayed the development of a working DVD player for GNU/Linux by a couple of months, and nearly wrecked the lives of several software volunteers.
Thanks to Declan, who never once admitted any wrongdoing (despite the flagrant yellow journalism that precipitated the problem, and likely led to the entire DeCSS fiasco as well), never once apologized, and remained quite arrogant during his entire tenure on the mailing list.
Later he passed himself off as a "friend" of freedom and an anti-DMCA activist/journalist. It gained him widespread popularity in some circles and some degree of recognition.
Now, clearly, he has determined that he can advance his carreer by toning down, perhaps even reversing, his stance on the DMCA. Hardly surprising, since, as a "journalist" he works for a publisher which is, almost by definition, a member of the very copyright cartel that is pushing the DMCA and similiar legislation.
Declan is a friend of Declan, the rest of us are tools to be used and discarded as needed to advance his own career.
Being stabbed in the back by such a person, given his history of behavior, should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue."
Would Declan McCullagh care to underwrite DMCA insurance for universities? Insurance that would pay all legal costs if the university is sued under the DMCA?
If he's right, such insurance could be profitably provided at an affordable price. Sounds like a great opportunity.
If he DOESN'T want to take that risk, then I don't see why universities, who are less well informed about the situation than he is, would ever want to assume it themselves.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Even if the EFF is exagerrating, it's a necessary hyperbole. Fuck, even jesus used hyperbole. See any christians cutting off their hands or plucking out their eyes lately?
reech bee-yond ur clip-0n
"If the public believes that the DMCA is stopping Professor Felten and other researchers from conducting legitimate research, then that is a major victory for opponents of the law."
well, us the "opponents" must be making things up and this entire site is a fraud
The media telling everyone in the United States that we are all going to die because the next terrorist attack is going to use biological weapons is all right. But when the EFF spews worst case scenarios it's bull? Someone needs to inject the this guy with the thrax and then have a medical company sue him for having their copyrighted version of the infection.
Here's what I got from this article:
You can do all the research you like. You can reverse engineer, and learn and hack and tweak all you like. You can even write code to test your understanding of the information you have discovered.
What you can't do is use the code, share the code or demonstrate the code. You can't share or demonstrate the research. You can't prove there are holes or even security risks.
So yeah, you can research and learn all you like -- you just can't give the results to the people.
Simple. I see no problem here...
In reference to your sig, yes it is.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Do you want to wait until they do? You have to fight these things before they are established and legal precedents are set.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
The author mentions that although "the DMCA is both an egregious law and a brazen power grab by Hollywood, the music industry and software companies" ok, this is pretty obvious, we've all been ranting about this groups like the EFF are not much better, engaging in "fear-mongering" and scare tactics to increase opposition." so the EFF isn't much better... WHAT??? the EFF isn't OPPOSING this bill as some "brazen power grab" they are OPPOSING this bill in order to preserve the rights of people, so what if they fight fire with fire... more power to them. what does the EFF have to gain from opposing the DMCA? the same thing everyone does. on the other hand, Jack and Hilary have a lot to gain by letting it pass. Effective tactics are just the name of the game, regardless of your stance.
I have just one question. A mark is the victom of a con - exactly what does the EFF have to gain from conning the easily scared? And what do companies have to gain from the chilling effect, whether or not it is actually occurring?
.. the fact that somebody seeks to profit from it, as opposed to furthur a belief or ideology they hold makes the behaviour N times less acceptable to me.
I'll never understand why people dont consider whats at stake when people deceive others; quite often you'll find the most sincere and real message comes from the dude who has little to gain from yelling 'Fire!' You can find more insidious fear mongering than EFF's call-to-arms in any ad in Business 2.0 or Wired article
Honestly, when did people start becoming more tolerant of deception and FUD, so long as it was for the Good Nature of profiteering? Doesn't that seem a little backwards, or am I just confusing this issue with the time honoured tradition of masses stroking the egos of the already powerful?
"Old man yells at systemd"
Ok, but the Lord of the Rings DVD was really cool.
Wow, I must have missed that special issue of 2600 where they included the AOL CD-DeCSS combo CD-ROM.
I take issue with this because:
* 2600 merely published the source code to DeCSS. This is radically different from distributing a binary. The source is only a recipe, not the entire meal.
* The website only linked to where it was hosted and mirrored. The source was never available on the site itself, IIRC.
A bit of fact-checking wouldn't have hurt the author in this regard.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
The are a funding mechanism for a bunch of lawyers. It is rather hard to stop bills from becoming law and fighting those already on the books with out a bunch of lawyers.
What do you suggest? That the EFF hire a bunch of cooks???
There's a big difference between "no one's taken advantage" and "no one CAN take advantage of the law in the bizarre ways claimed by the EFF and other alarmists, because the law just isn't written that way".
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Remember, the actual % chance of prosecution isn't the issue - threatening it is. You have huge corporations who can afford lawsuits going after, mostly, those who can't afford them.
Are you willing to risk even a 5% chance of a lawsuit that will financially ruin you and destroy your career? Most aren't, and that's the power of the DMCA.
EFF isn't exaggerating, really. They have, IMO, accurately guaged the potential danger from the law as written, which is much worse, potentially, than the lawmakers and **AA will admit to the public.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
No one's used modern nuclear weapons yet, either. Shall we not bother with caring about that, too?
...exactly what does the EFF have to gain from conning the easily scared?
Donations and other forms of support. Judging from many of the people on this forum, FUD is A-OK as long as it's for a geek-proclaimed "good cause".
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
...Note it does not explicitly prohibit research or published work... .... is all prohibited. DMCA says "traffic in any technology, product, service, device", and from what we've been seeing, this can be very wide interpreted.
Yaeh right. Criminal law saying "killing somebody is a crime" is enough for everybody to interpret that poisoning, shooting, choopin
From the EFF homepage:
> As a donor-supported, nonprofit membership organization
FUD is bad to begin with, but I'd certainly give the benifit of the doubt to the organization that isn't seeking to make a few billion off of FUD.
FUD to support what a substantial group of people believes is a good cause that benifits society is a fuckload more forgivable than FUD-for-profit. Ya gotta fight FUD with FUD (otherwise FUD wouldn't exist, see?), but I'll champion those who are fighting because they believe its the right thing to do, not because it increases the chances of getting a bigger paycheque, thanks.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Declan's comments seem to revolve around two major points:
1. It does not seem very likely or reasonable to a lot of people (including Mr. McCullagh) that a researcher would be sued under this law if they published research that could be used to violate copyrights.
2. It does not seem very likely or reasonable that a researcher who does not publish any source code could be sued at all.
The fallacy of these arguments is that they assume corporations won't TRY. It's true that a judge could very well slap away a lawsuit against Edward Felten, but Felten still had to deal with the stress and anxiety of being threatened. Perhaps he would have opted to settle, rather than take the case to court, and in doing so set a dangerous precedent for the future.
It seems to me like this sort of opinion is irresponsibly optimistic. Laws containing gaping loopholes that could conceivably be used to threaten freedom of speech cannot be excused by the fact that we don't think it will happen. Such political quiescence is what allows legislative problems to deteriorate into constitutional crises.
Nope, no sig
let me give you a quick example:
let's say i live in Australia amd purchase $5000 worth of DVD's there. then, i move to california. normally, because of the regional encryption nature of DVD's, all of my DVD's would now be completely useless. now, let's say i'm smart and decide to break the encryption method of DVD's so that i could watch my own, purchased DVD's. under the DMCA, that would be illegal. so my rights to fair use are in the toilet. get the picture now? if we don't make a stand today, these laws will clamp down even tighter in the future, probably throwing our fair right use completely and utterly out the window.
i bet back in the mid 1700's, you were the guy saying, 'hey everyone, english tea is really, really good. let's not rock the boat. is it really so bad paying them unrepresented taxes? c'mon everyone, the english really are nice people afterall...'
by the way, i followed the felton case very carefully examining every detail. your rendition of the justice departments' views are warped and untrue. shame on you.
yes, yes let Allan Adler badmouth the EFF all day long. but, if what he says is true, than one might ask what the EFF's motive is to do such a thing.
look, the bottom line is that money is driving this whole thing. money is enough to take away our consitutional rights little by little. if we don't put a stop to this in the beginning, then we will all me telling our grandsons how much freedom we had in the 'golden days'.
I've already had to pull content off my site because of a meritless legal claim simply because I can't afford to defend a lawsuit at this point.
Apparently, Declan has forgotten that just because he has a major publication to defend him, academic researchers have schools behind them, and major corporations have legal staffs, that not everybody has a big daddy they can hide behind for legal protection.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I beg to differ. In this day and age, the intent of the law is of much less importance than the financial stamina of the two litigants. Big Content has shown that they are willing to do what it takes to win absolute control over the internet. With the armies of lawyers at the disposal of Big Content they can protect their aging business models by burying people under the financial weight of lengthy litigation. Does the EFF use FUD tactics to wake sheeple up? Of course they do. But so does Hilary Rosen when she uses perjorative terms (like hacker and pirate) for computer users simply exercising their fair-use rights. So does the MPAA when they say that all that is separating us and the TV on demand utopia is a bunch of software pirates and other assorted riff-raff. There is plenty of disinformation sent out by both camps.
So how is one to separate out the fact from the fiction. I would say look at the actions of both camps. Those on the side of less restrictive fair use rights seem to spend a lot of time ranting and raving incoherently (of which I'm guilty too). Crowds of rowdy geeks jeer and heckle when public discussions related to this topic appear. They are often times misinformed at best and at worst are unable to counter the blantly bad logic of people like Hilary Rosen. The fact that she can say in public that sales of CD-R's exceeded sales of records in 2000 shows how uneducated the vast majority of the press (and by extension the public) is on this issue. Where was the person pointing out that CD-R's are used for more than music? On the other side, Big Content has proven by multiple lawsuits that they fully intend to use the DMCA to prevent anything that even remotely resembles competition. As for our esteemed Justice Department? They have shown conclusively that they intend to side with Big Content here and imprision and prosecute people who appear to have violated the vauge wording of the DMCA.Is the answer an intelligent debate on the issue? Normally, my quick answer is 'yes'. However, after watching what passes for intelligent debate these days, the reality of getting Big Content to sit down with groups like the EFF and simply talk about a reasonable and, more importantly, pragmatic compromise seems less likely to be seen than Pat Robertson doing the Lambada with Hilary Clinton. Unfortunately, I'm too cynical to think there will be a happy ending here.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
The only people I've seen defending the DMCA are those who are ignorant of what it actually says, or who stand to benefit from it commercially. I have yet to come across anyone who is both well-informed about the DMCA, and doesn't benefit from it financially, who's willing to defend it. Which camp do you fall into: ignoramus, or profiteer?
I've got nothing against making a profit, but if you do it by bribing the legislature to illegally abrogate the rights of citizens, you deserve nothing but contempt. As well as bankruptcy, when consumers stop buying your unusable crap.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Thanks for the info. For those of us on the periphery, it is not always easy to see who is "on the level" and who is not. While I won't, of course, buy any story about someone, it is nice to get some background from people in the know.
Thanks again.
An AC wrote:
> Nevermind that public domain works have benefitted
> the "artists" themselves. Now they dont want to
> give back anything.
It is not the artists doing this, it is the record labels and movie studios. The recording artists are, by and large, the recording industry's first victims, stripped of their copyrights (and even their voices) by draconian contracts and a convenient bit of "work for hire" legislation. The entire recording industry needs to be redone, and the artists put in the driver's seat. Most of them are smart enough to realize that file sharing and internet radio are valuable marketing tools that help them make money.
Otherwise, your post was very good.
"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'"
From the song "Infant Girl" in the Japanese version of Mothra (1961).
The entire song was censored by a Hollywood terrified that American audiences would actually understand Mothra's thundering condemnation of their business practices. Song was speech in her Infant Island culture.
Why should Osama Bin Laden be charged with a crime he did not commit while in the USA? Go on, answer that one?
Because his crime affected people who live in the USA. Same reason as Dmitry.
There is a difference between international law, and US law.
Right, and bin Ladin was charged with violating US law.
Ya gotta fight FUD with FUD
No. You fight FUD with the truth. But simply calling something "FUD" because it instills fear, uncertainty and doubt doesn't make it FUD.
In the EFF's case, the FUD is true, and the DMCA is something people should be fear, be uncertain of, and doubt.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
First and foremost, I believe the DMCA to be both bad law and to be unconstitutional. I wrote a (bad and boring) article to that effect (http://dinotrac.com/dvd/pigs1.html) saying some things that smarter people have since said better. I do not like the law one bit.
I also understand the concept of staking out a position, and the common belief that one must stake out an extreme position in order to work towards the disarable end position.
However, some of the EFF tirades have caused me to ignore most of what they say. A friend still sends me EFFector alerts, and, now and then, I look at them. But I no longer trust the EFF. I don't mistrust their motivation. I know their hearts are in the right place. It's more a matter of trusting them not to waste my time, of not being able to take what they say at face value. That, I think, is the danger of crying wolf.
The AAW Declan cites as not being concerned about the article has reason not to be. Their members don't want to see people posting large chunks of their books on the Web for free access. Time-Warner isn't concerned about the DMCA, either.
Anyone who reads the article will see a pattern emerging. The people who are not concerned about the DMCA infringing on their rights can depend on their deep-pocketed parent organizations paying their legal fees.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I see that your comment is currently rated 5, Funny. I suspect that what the moderators find funny is the fact that you obviously have no idea who Declan McCullagh is, because if you did, you wouldn't call him a troll. I'm sure he's forgotten 5 times more info on the DMCA than you've ever learned in the first place.
But the people the XXAA won't sue aren't the people the EFF exists to help. They started off helping a gaming BBS, not Atari (and in the big picture let the gov't understand that seizing an email BBS is just as bad as seizing an entire post office). They helped Bernstein (led to a better environment for hundreds of US encryption companies: if you work for one, make sure your company has donated). Not that they aren't helping professors, but it is more likely to be students who get thrown into jail.
I don't think it is "fear-mongering" to let people know what the XXAA *can* do, even if the XXAA won't do it for pragmatic reasons. Especially as each case brought by the XXAA changes the standard for who should worry-- they sue the least sympathetic groups first, and then work their way up. Perhaps the EFF needs to be more explicit: "Hey audience, if it is *possible* for sympathetic professors and researchers to be threatened, then it is *really likely* that you who don't have the same sympathy-factor (and access to teams of lawyers) will get hammered. "
Funny, I know a lot of people who are not geeks who have the same opinion. It has nothing to do with being a geek, don't blend the two ideas. True, I am secure in my feelings, but they aren't of superiority. They are of clarity. I have quite clear feelings on certain topics, and I'll express them if I feel like it. Unfortunately, most people who coast through their life do what they do because that is what everyone else does. I think for myself, and if other people happen to think the way I do, then that is fine. I form my own opinions, and sometimes I do change my mind. If that bothers you, then that is your problem, not mine.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
>In the EFF's case, the FUD is true
Yeah, but the problem here is that 'true' is exactly what people are debating about. You can't use whats 'true' to defend FUD - the whole purpose behind corperate driven FUD (and the EFFs FUD, likely, too) is that its alarmist and doesn't incite someone to verrify or cooberate the claim.
Your comment and my comment still stand - in the absense of an absolute truth, and a poorly-behaved party, even the good guys have to behave poorly sometimes. I give credit to those who understand that he without power and economic interest in the outcome of a debate should be more tolerated and generally more trusted when shouting matches break out. Anybody that says you should listen to the richer of the two is more interested in wealth than the truth, although people dont seem subject themselves to social disapproval when they come right out and admit it these days, which is what bothers me the most.
"Old man yells at systemd"
If Kaplan sided with MPAA in the DeCSS case, then all the ridiculous nightmare DMCA scenarios are plausible. It's just a matter of someone being willing to press the button and then not backing off.
I remember a not-too-distant time when most people viewed Alan Cox's absurd imaginary situation where someone attacks him for disclosing Linux bugs, as being too paranoid and unrealistic. But then just last month, HP proved that it's not only the wacko EFF guys who view this sort of thing as possibly being covered by DMCA. HP lawyers saw it as a valid weapon in their arsenal.
So quit blaming EFF, Kerr. The Bad Guys have also seen how far-reaching DMCA's text actually is. For a moment there, even they thought they could use it to stop Felton. HP thought they could use it to supress information about True64. These people are not EFF plants. But they are clever and know that to minimize the chance of it being struck down, they have to push it incrementally, and slowly build up lower-profile precedents. You don't just throw the frog into boiling water; you slowly heat him.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
And have him defend his record. I think this will settle his credibility once and for all.
Unless, of course he turns it down, and then we'll know where he stands.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
One: He quotes one Orin Kerr as saying "The risk that a researcher could go to jail for giving a speech at an academic conference is essentially zero". This is true, but not because the risk of that researcher having violated the DMCA is essentially zero. It's true only because no prosecutor wants the political consequences of such an action coming down upon his head. Arrest a Russian at a hacker conference? No problem, comrade. Arrest a researcher at an academic conference, even if they give chapter and verse of how to decrypt DVDs (including a key)? Not going to happen.
Yet, in the right hands, such a speech could be seen as a service that is primarily designed to circumvent copy-protection technology. Or, it could be seen as, not a crime in itself, but evidence that the researcher has been manufacturing or trafficking in prohibited devices. And researchers know this. And while they may realize it's highly unlikely they'll be arrested, the possibility still creates that wonderful chilling effect.
Two: The so-called "exceptions" for encryption research and reverse engineering are so narrow as to be worthless, as McCullagh has himself reported on in the past. And their very existence gives lie to the idea that the DMCA does _NOT_ prohibit such research, by the rule of "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non
exceptis" -- that is, you wouldn't NEED an exception if these activities weren't otherwise prohibited.
Three: The Justice Department's legal opinion in the Felten case was a masterpiece of legal footwork. In the main text of the opinion, they opined that Felten hadn't violated the DMCA. In the footnotes, they reserved the right to prosecute in the future. That shouldn't make anyone feel any warm-and-fuzzies about the DMCA.
Four: "Any type of publishing carries risks, including possible suits for libel, copyright infringement or invasion of privacy" -- I see your libel suit (typically limited to actual damages), Declan, and raise you 5 years in prison plus $50k of fines and statutory damages. That's per act (except that for second and subsequent offenses, the numbers double) -- and each sale of the proscribed material counts as an act. That's without adding on conspiracy charges. The DMCA risks are over and above those most publishers and writers face, by far.
The wording of this article is so obviously biased towards Hollywood / proprietary software industry interests, it's disgusting. Note how they suggest the Skylarov case was a proper use of the law to prosecute true criminals:
"Actual violations of the DMCA can be punished with a civil suit for damages or, if done for commercial gain, prosecuted as criminal acts. The Justice Department indicted Dmitry Sklyarov because his employer, ElcomSoft, sold an e-book decoder that he helped to create, triggering the DMCA's criminal penalties."
So basically, this article is saying that DMCA is good as long as "true academic researchers" aren't threatened. Well guess what Mr. McCullagh, that's not the point! DMCA is a bad (unconstitutional) law because it unduly limits free speech and restricts basic personal freedom to do what you want with something that you purchased--such as editing movies for your kids to watch, extracting video/sound-bites, playing DVD's in Linux, making backup copies of media and videogames, format-shifting for use in different types of digital players, etc. DMCA is a law to enhance greedy media giants' / proprietary software companies' ability to manipulate and rip off consumers. That's all there is to it.
Before self-censoring, a researcher should make a sober evaluation of which allegations are likely to stick and show courage by not bowing to spurious threats.
Sober evaluation? I'd say it's easier to get fall down drunk. That's a mighty big burden to put on authors -- who says an author must be a researcher?
Slander and libel are pretty easy to understand, but copy protection? I have no idea how far I can go and remain "legal". The only other similar restriction on speech that comes close would be exposing classified government secrets or private industry trade secrets. Or am I missing something?
DMCA turns everything upside down. Simply examining something something that anyone has access to (i.e., not secret) and saying too much about your discovery breaks the law. The burden falls on the author to essentially avert her gaze; the copyright holder hardly has to expend any effort at all to protect its secrets.
Don't know about you folks but I got a mortgage to pay. Yet, I should just "show courage" and risk everything and that's OK? Riiiight.
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
So am I. And your trolling doesn't make his points of fact any less valid.
You don't even offer any reasons why he should believe that he was mistaken. I am forced to presume that this is because you don't have any.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
A rebuttal to Declan's article, from me (Ed Felten) and two others, is available on my site at http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com
"The DMCA ... is probably unconstitutional."
Yeah, but it's not -that- bad, is it? And what's with this "probably" bullshit? Is it or isn't it? And if it is, why the hell is it still law?
--storms off into the woods
mstyne: real name, no gimmicks
My favorite quote:
"not all execrable laws are equally loathsome."
I play Nerd-Folk!
I'm specifically thinking of his libertarian (randite?) streak. To him, it is self-evident that people must go through life striving to the best of their abilities, making intelligent appraisals of the situation, and standing up for what is right. If people all did this, he would be right, and the DMCA would not be as effective as the EFF fears it is.
The trouble is, this is asking human beings for superhuman performances. You cannot be informed and intelligent on every subject under the sun. You cannot stake everything on every little problem that comes along. You prioritize, your brain tunes out certain things, you are basically HUMAN and not Superman or Hank Rearden (iirc)
When you look at the world from the perspective of: people's information isn't perfect and never will be, people will take the easier softer way some of the time, and the world functions with an awareness of this... at that point, Declan sounds like a lunatic. It's the Randite fallacy (also common to some libertarians), that you can have perfect logical judgement and expect others to have it.
Because that is nonsense (ask a hypnotist! such as Scott Adams who does 'Dilbert'!), society has to pose some form of protection for people who are stupid, or who are smart but not in the area they're dealing with. You make regulations so busy computer programmers don't distractedly buy green meat, eat it, and die. And you don't make laws like the DMCA that allow corporations to 'chill' virtually anything by threatening legal action and counting on the fact that few people really value the defense of abstract concepts over their own livelihoods and freedoms. People cave. It's not unforgivable for people to cave- but that's how DMCA works, by preying on the majority of people who are not ready to be imprisoned in defense of abstract concepts...
Declan's seriously wrong, and anyone reading this who holds the same notions of 'enlightened self' popular among libertarians needs to look at whether that is really a practical goal. It's a fine target to strive for, but you don't go around mandating it and expecting it of others- or even yourself!
I agree that the article does make a few good points, both sides have certainly overreached on their reactions. Unfortunately we have gotten to a point in modern politics where two disagreeing parties will take up extremist positions and argue from a black & white perspective. The problem is that this doesn't usually solve any problems, but it sure does help Rolaids sell product.
If you look around you'll see this everywhere. Abortion debate is the prime one, the pro-life groups are convinced that anybody who doesn't agree with them is in favor of baby killing. In music you are either a pirate, or you are an evil industrialist. In software you either are for closed source or you are an evil communist. It just goes on and on, the way the debates get polarized like this.
The Independence Party candidate for Governor here in Minnesota(Tim Penny) has spoken of this quite a bit. He's of the opinion that extremist groups who hold these opinions should have some say in the discussion, but they should not control the debate, or control the solution to the problem. A middle road which attempts to take both sides comments along with the overwhelming public good should be responsible for making the final decision.
But middle of the road candidates don't get money from special interests, and so they aren't very competitive in politics, so we end up with a lot of these black & white debates dominating the landscape. Perhaps if Minnesota can elect a second governor from an indepdent party that may start a new trend. We'll see.
Thanks for the info your comment was both informed and original and your sig link was noted.
_________________________________________________
It seems to me that Thomas Greene and his ilk are trying to make like the DMCA really isn't such a big deal. All they have to show to back this up is the fact that no individual has been taken to court.* Is it instead possible that groups like EFF and others actually did some good by spreading the word?
*incidentally, Elcomsoft has been taken to court.
> Today, landlords may forceably evict tenants because of and within the limits of the legal (contractual) agreement known
> as a lease that DEFINES the tenant/landlord relationship. Nowadays, eviction has next to nothing to do with the fact
> that landlords own the land and/or property the tenant rents. In fact, who is the lessor and lessee is defined in the lease,
> not who holds the deed to the land (except to laws that define who may rent, etc., where the deed comes into play as
> to who legally owns the propety to be rented).
When I rented an apartment in the 1980s, I didn't sign a lease. I rented unit a the 30-day notice basis, which is defined by common usage & state law. Also, when I worked as an apartment manager, the setup was the same way. The situation may be different now & in your state.
Granted, there have been abuses by landlords in the past; this is reflected in current laws. What this does is force the landlord to spend a lot of money to effect the eviction, while the tenant need only dig in her/his heels & say no to fight it. All the tenant has to lose is her/his debt rating -- & I'm constantly amazed at how many people consider this a trivial cost of doing business.
(Not to say that the landlords will always screw the tenant. But in a disagreement, they have the deeper pockets to cope with a loss -- & other customers to pass it on to.)
[snip]
> As you can see, my ranty explanation fully fits the trend you and the other poster sees regarding the media industry's
> power grab as it pertains to rental/lease real estate. However, it does NOT fit the explanation you gave that possession is
> 9/10s of the law; rather the opposite is true. Please, don't step into other arenas you know little about in an attempt to try
> and make an otherwise valid point.
You've never had to deal with evicting anyone, have you? I have, as far as going & changing the locks on the SOB who refused to move out. It didn't matter a whole lot whose name was on the property deed to get that deadbeat out.
The whole point about the saying ``possession is 9/10s of the law" is that once someone gets her/his fingers around something, it takes a lot more effort to get the object freed than it takes forsaid person to hold onto it.
It works the same way whether you're a deadbeat in a rental property -- something many of us have witnessed first hand, which is why I picked that example -- the owner of a patent, a party in a debt repossession, or a dishonest party in a contractual agreement. And I picked up that phrase from a lawyer.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Yup, it's just sooo lucrative to be in the civil liberties business. It makes you wonder why all of those other geeks were doing the dot.bomb thing all of those years while the EFF was still engaging in it's "crass activism".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
even though they threatened legal action against professors wanting to make a presentation....
and were instrumental in 2600.com being sued....
and....no really its not that bad.
yeah - like genital warts isn't THAT bad either.
Ave Molech Setting
At least somebody gets it.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I could hardly believe it when the author listed out several times that the DMCA has been used to sue people, or cited in threats to sue people which allegedly won't hold up in court, but then blames the EFF for the chilling effect! As if publicising these actions is the Bad Thing(tm) here. After all, Thomas Greene and the VP of a publishing company say the EFF is just scare mongering, and those two surely have the legal and social expertese to render important comment on the DMCA.[/sarcasm]
I dunno about you, but if I couldn't gauge the danger of the DMCA myself and had to choose whose opinion to trust, I'd favor the folks who might actually defend me in court, and have some firsthad legal experience with the DMCA.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
The author stipulates that the EFF cannot be taken seriously because they're scare-mongering. Yet, all he can provide is arbitrary quotations amounting to, "It's unlikely the DMCA will be used in this manner," as if that somehow excuses a bad, over-reaching law or invalidates the possibility that it will be used in the future for things it's not being used for, yet. And the actual assertion is inane -- too few people laughed when Big Media began whining about how they were losing so much profit from people circumventing copy-protection schemes; why should more laugh when there's actual cause for concern on a personal level?
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
As the hawk said to the hare, "Don't struggle like that, you will only bring yourself more pain."
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
You misunderstand -- that's what I'm trying to say. I'm asking: is the article suggesting that no one will ever take advantage of the DMCA's full horror?
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Not a false comparison.
The TV/Betamax case revolved around the possiblity of illegal use of a product. The judgment was while the major use may very well be illegal, as long as there is a legal use for the product, it's not illegal.
Napster?
I used Napster exclusivly for live performances of bands that allowed the recording and trading of such material. A legal use, therefore Napster was a legal service.
#4098584)
Fear mongering and scare tactics?
Considering they tried to ban the VCR, and when that didn't work, institute a "modest" fee of $50 per blank tape, is this really fear mongering?
To get some accurate [nyfairuse.org] info on drm, go to http://www.nyfairuse.org, and to see a NY group that has been proactively fighting drm and other attacks on fair use [nylxs.com], linux and other issues, go to www.nylxs.com
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Everything is achieved through over-exaggerating points. It's the same way the MPAA, RIAA, and BSA all overexaggerated the effects of piracy to get what they wanted [the DMCA], and now it's our (the Consumer's) turn to over-exaggerate the facts to get this thing repealed.
Looking at things with a level head only tends to make it harder to get anything done.
[insert witty comment here]
Maybe the EFF is pushing it, but really that is the only way to truly get the public's attention - exaggeration is how laws like this and the Patriot Act get passed in the first place - we need to counter that with our hyperbole. I say go ahead frighten the academics and spook the public because they need it.
The DMCA has already been used to threaten academics. What if I publish an article describing a means to circumvent copy protection, which someone takes and produces the code to do it, am I liable? I can definitely expect to be threatened by the media giants - it doesn't matter if the threat has merit, they have the money to bankrupt me in court and they know it. They'll contend that if I did not describe the method, then the code could not have been created in the first place.
> And Linus Torvalds, while it is little known, had to flee out of Finland. He was an anti-social sort. He did in fact lead the team that has developed the Linux kernal, but the little known facts about his brutal rape of a young woman in Helsinki seem to be covered up.
Proof?
In a world of one-sided analysis and opinions, I find Declan's two-sided coverage of this issue refreshing.
n .openprojects.net/pipermail/livid-dev/1999-Novembe r/001074.html
n .openprojects.net/pipermail/livid-dev/1999-Novembe r/001408.html
Were it not for his past behavior, and his willingness to damage and even destroy people for his own personal gain, I would probably agree.
But having been witness to his willingness to sacrifice others for his own personal benefit, and seeing the damage he is now causing to those trying to resist the revocation of our digital freedoms by the media and copyright cartels, I am forced to conclude that his shift is nothing more than a cynical adjustment in his career strategy.
As the the legitimacy of his "analysis" of the DMCA, others on this site have more thoroughly debunked that, and anything I say would be very redundant.
But I guess you'll have to take my opinion with a grain of salt, since my karma has been reduced to zero.
Karma is meaningless, and I for one do not dismiss your opinion. You sound like a reasonable, thoughtful person who, I believe, has been misled by Declan's legendary charm. Most people who are tend to remain so, until they themselves feel the knife stabbing in their back.
As for the LiViD issue, I refer you to the archives, where you can make your own judgement as to the events (you will also note that I defended Declan on that list, something I have long regretted in retrospect)
LiVid Archives (November 1999)
See also the previous couple of months for more background information, if you are really interested.
Some comments include:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000815215028/livid.o
http://web.archive.org/web/20000817190115/livid.o
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Then you commented: Said like a true Muslim extremist.
Yep, jump on that bandwagon too, sheep. I'll bet after typing that you were strutting around chanting "U S A, U S A".
Gee, you seemed to miss my other statement, which sounds nothing like any organized religion, let alone a Muslim extremist:
I think for myself, and if other people happen to think the way I do, then that is fine. I form my own opinions, and sometimes I do change my mind.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
It's the ultimate political solution to solve a technical problem of laziness incompetance. That's the worst possible way to abuse the power of legislation.