Slashdot Mirror
EFF Report: Four Years Under the DMCA
kylus writes "The EFF has a pretty nice article entitled "Unintended Consequences." Basically, it reviews the last four years of life under the law, and how use of the "anti-circumvention" clauses have been used to stifle innovation, censor free speech, and threaten academic/scientific research. It ends with a conclusion most on /. have been dicussing for ages: "Four years of experience with the "anti-circumvention" provisions of the DMCA demonstrate that the statute reaches too far, chilling a wide variety of legitimate activities in ways Congress did not intend."" You've joined the EFF, right?
It's far, far too vague. Here's a scenario for you.
Company X announce that they have created a new way of 'securely' storing your credit card number on the internet. You look at the method they're using, and discover that it's incredibly insecure - eg. they're just adding a 'X' onto the end of the number.
If you were to tell anyone what you discovered, in order to warn them against Company X, you would be prosecutable under the DMCA.
How about this?
Electronic Frontier Finland
Electronic Frontier Canada
Electronic Frontiers Australia
Electronic Frontier Ireland
Electronic Frontier Sverige
Electronisk Forpost Norge
Electronic Frontiers Italy
The Senate, IIRC, voted 98 in favor, one against, and one abstention. So if your state's senators haven't changed in 4 years, then it's a safe bet they voted for them.
Dyolf Knip
Executive Summary: Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients.
And anti-spam blacklists, such as the MAPS RBL (Mail Abuse Prevention System Realtime Blackhole List, the most popular), result in a large number of Internet service providers (ISPs) surreptitiously blocking large amounts of non-spam from innocent people. This is because they block all email from entire IP address blocks--even from entire nations. This is done with no notice to the users, who do not even know that their mail is not being delivered.
That is exactly the situation. Large ISPs such as AOL and email providers like M$ Hotmail all practice this. The result is that mail from smaller ISPs is blocked. How convienent for the larger ISPs. No dial up box may send mail and often the upstream smtp provider is blocked as well.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Why is it that even on slashdot, only few people bother to READ THINGS? I will repeat this until at least most of readers here will know what is going on... afterwards we can go on educating the remaining world
DMCA has NOT FAILED to win against Elcomsoft. DMCA has won, Elcomsoft's product is pulled off the market, Dmitryi will now ask his lawyer before programming anything. Elcomsoft was ACQUITTED since they did NOT INTEND to break DMCA.
I can't say exactly which laws are responsible for the changes, but it seems the DMCA certainly plays a role in the changes to my daily life.
Work - I work as a new media designer for not-for-profits.
Ex. 1 - Client wants still image from *their* DVD.
Problem: Disallowed - copy protection measures.
Solution - find a quasi-legal application on the interent.
Ex. 2 - Client wants 7 hours of VHS transferred to DV. Solution: pass signal thru DVcam to Mac
Problem: Disallowed - copy protection
(It is never easy to really know whether something is impossible for technical reasons or due to intentional disabling for copy protection reasons.)
Solution: copy 7 hours to DV tape; capture 7 hours to Mac
Cost: doubles
Ex. 3 - Client wants their TV commercial spliced into other ads for 'internal' use - to show the ad in context.
Solution - No. Turn down job. Advise against. Not in this climate.
Ex. 4 - User's Mac frozen from attempting to play music disc.
Solution: force restart while holding down mouse key
Cost: User's work lost.
New workplace music policy: dunno. No CDs/music discs? Communal MP3 library, ripped by technicians? Resulting network impact?
This could easily get to be a long list.
The point is that small creative businesses which use 'prosumer' gear increasingly find that they can't easily accomplish simple jobs. It is becoming increasingly difficult to purchase equipment (crippled functions are rarely highlighted). For example, we bought a MiniDisc recorder for interviews. What if we wanted to actually use the interviews for something?
A growing number of digital devices (TV tuners, DVD players, audio recorders, etc) only have analog outputs for copy protection.
Media - media formats like DVD, or MiniDV tapes are arbitrarily smaller than their 'commercial' equivilents. We pay taxes on media. In Canada, $100 will be added to the price of a $600 iPod if media taxes are raised and extended to their proposed level. In the US and Canada, we pay taxes on audio and video tapes, recordable CDs and DVDs, and we can basically look forward to taxes on all storage mediums. (In Canada, it's just more obvious than in the US.) Taxes appear to by calculated by size. Next time you buy a 250Gb hard drive, consider how much money is going to the RIAA and MPAA. (I don't know how I am affected in the UK, because apparently I lost my copying rights when I moved here. I don't think we're allowed to copy anything; not even TV - there is no 'fair use' in the UK.)
Fun - I do the same kind of stuff for fun - for my friends.
Like work, it's an exercise in frustration. The transition from analog to digital is about high-end production. Final output will probably be analog for the forseeable future.
Entertainment -
CDs - The proposition that I'm going to move back to listening to CDs after having tasted MP3s is terribly misguided. I didn't think it would affect the kind of music I listen to (underground hiphop) - it has. Buy CD. Get home. No CD logo. Copy protection chart. May not play on Mac. Rips fine. But why is it distorted? Is it just really bassy? Is it from copy protection? Is it worth it? (No.)
DVD player - it was free. It was useless.
Problem - Analog SCART ouput only. No SCART on TV.
Solution - Route through VCR.
Problem - Disallowed. Copy protection.
Solution - Give DVD player to mother-in-law
Digital TV tuner - digital TV is 'computerized' TV. It's Mpeg2. From camera to editing to broadcast to reception, it's all digital - just like my computer and it's digital display. DVB, the standards body has settled on Firewire as the digital connection standard. At the moment in the UK, there are no devices with digital outputs. Perhaps once the Macrovision is implemented on our digital TV, we will get digital outputs. This just means it that our computer can't replace the TV the way it has replaced the stereo and DVD player because the display is digital LCD. As with everything, it can be done. But it's expensive and thus far, the results are barely viewable. (It's a complicated problem, but the point is that it would be much simpler were it not for copyright concerns. I know, it is also about the predominance of analog displays and who is subsidizing the TV tuners - satellite and cable companies, Tivo, etc.)
I don't know how much of this is attributable to the DMCA, but I am constantly challenged by changes over the past 4 years. Sure, you can get around virtually any roadblock with analog to digital convertors and quasi-legal black boxes, software, and by accepting loss of quality. But it's expensive, time-consuming, and frustrating.
Previously, one avoided buying certain 'cripple-ware' brands. Now it seems everything is 'cripple-ware' and the question is whether to buy anything at all. Unfortunately, the post-dotcom-bubble, post-911 economic downturn will overshadow the economic cost of copy-protection hysteria.
A New Vision for the Recording Industry
The past year has been one of the worst in the previous decade for the music industry. While factors beyond our control, such as the down-turn in the American economy, have no doubt contributed to this, the industry itself can certain not completely escape blame. In an attempt correct this, representatives from our member labels recently met to discuss ways of reforming the industry. The result of the meeting was a set of changes to current policies, outlined below, which, when implemented, we hope will pull the industry out of its current slump.
Our member labels will halt all plans to sell copy-restricted CDs. Restricting the use of CDs devalues the product, reducing the incentive for consumers to buy them. Also we believe that as time goes on, the public will realize, as we have, that due to the viral natural of distribution through file-sharing networks copy-restriction will never be effective at preventing online piracy but rather is indented to force our customers to buy the same music on multiple media.
We also vow to stop pursuing the companies behind file-sharing networks in court. In light of studies by reputable pollsters that have shown that most users of file-sharing networks reported that their music purchases increased in frequency, there seems to be little reason to continue spending millions in an attempt to shut down these services. Instead, we plan to propose to settle out of court in exchange for a royalty system based on a fraction of profit (only fair, given that these profits are derived in part from our products).
We will also stop lobbying politicians to impose draconian copyright laws on the American people. Last June, Rep. Rick Berman, who received more campaign donations from the entertainment industry than any other Congressperson, proposed legislation that would exempt rights-holders from anti-hacking law in order that they might exact vigilante-style justice on file-sharers. Initially we were thrilled at the display of the political might of our money, but later were sickened as we realized the implications for democracy in America. Morally, we cannot continue this manipulation of the political system.
In addition to the reasons just given, we also are doing both of the above, halting the lawsuits against the companies file-sharing services and stopping our coercive political contributions, in an attempt to restore consumer confidence in the music industry. Our customers will know longer will feel guilty after buying a CD, now knowing that the proceeds from their purchases will not be used to support causes that harm them and their peers.
To further convince consumers that the proceeds from their music purchases are well spent, we will be attempting to treat our talent more fairly. At the core of this effort will be the halting of collusion between labels on recording contracts. While overlooked by anti-trust law, the elimination of competition caused by collusion is just as harmful to the producers of content as it is to the consumers. No longer will artists be forced into signing contracts which reduce artist''s royalties for a multitude of arbitrary or antiquated reasons for if any label attempts such abuse, they''ll be certain to lose their talent to a competitor. We believe that this can be undertaken without damaging industry profitability. Firstly, the previously mentioned reduced legal and political expenditures will help to offset the cost. Secondly, we plan fix the sobering statistic that nine out of ten industry ventures end up failing recovering their costs. This figure would be unacceptable outside the entertainment industry and, while it was viable inside it due to the abuse of artists, there is no reason it should not be possible to vastly improve upon it.
Finally, we promise to stop trying to brainwash the world into thinking of music as property, something that an artist has an innate right to control, even after the media that embodies that music has changed hands. Rather, we will recognized only the original goal of copyright law in America, to benefit the average citizen by creating a incentive to produce creative works. We will also launch a publicity campaign to remind the public of this principle, unknown to many. We hope that upon learning that the true purpose of copyright law is to benefit them, average citizens will be more likely to respect it.
It is our hope that these policy changes will revitalize the industry and make it deserving of the unique place it holds within American culture.
More than lobbying, the EFF has very important uses. Look at most of the cases that have come before the courts that are fighting things such as the DMCA. The EFF stands up for defendants that are being prosecuted by for things that go against the beliefs of the nation as a whole.
...Baby steps, baby steps
In a perfect world, the lobbying of the EFF and every single lawsuit would be won and make the Legislators take note. But in the world we live in, every small victory is something we should take note of, and THAT is why you should donate to the EFF. You don't need to turn the world upside down to claim a victory.
I admit it's a tough cookie to crack and I don't think there's any simple solutions.
..."
However, I do think it all depends on how the issue is raised. There are a few openings I've found work:
1) Any conversation about the future of technology. If a non-techish friends asks you anything about where computers and media will be going in the future, point out that much of that will depend on the threats posed by big media companies to consumer freedom.
2) Any mention of the use of current technologies which are threatened by repressive legislation.
- "So I just burned a great mix CD from the mp3s on my computer."
- "Cool. Did you know that if the record industry has their way, no one will be able to do that in a few years?
3) Any conversation about abuses of corporate power in general. A great many folks these days have become very distrustful of corporate behemoths for obvious reasons. Often they will get what you're talking about much more quickly if it can be related to their own experiences and opinions about corporations. Corporate control over politics is a particularly good opening.
- "Well that's because politicians don't give a damn about the voters, only the corporate fatcats that are giving them money."
- "Yeah, isn't it terrible? Did you know the record and movie companies have been donating millions of dollars to restrict our freedoms to listen to music and watch movies on computers?"
(In my travels in leftie political circles, I've often found that even people who don't know the first thing about technology often have a sympathetic ear for topics like the DMCA and such, because they're already _very_ suspicious of media conglomerates, for a whole slew of other reasons.)
Anyhow, keep up the good fight.
Red All Over: Rambling Missives from an Aspiring Revolutionary
Dr. Mary Ruwart
Having read some of her stuff, and even corresponded with her, I think I can safely say she does not represent Libertarians as a whole. She seems very out of touch with reality.
Libertarians who think laws like the DMCA don't go far enough
Well, it makes enough sense, Libertarians protect property rights.
A "natural rights" Libertarian with this view obviously doesn't realize is that these property rights are artificial to start with, not a natural right.
The strict constitutionalists would be against your next assertion, that these same people believe IP should be forever, since the constitution specifically says they should be for a limited time.
So really, any Libertarian that believes what you assert really isn't very Libertarian at all, in any way I would consider Libertarian.
not a time for such black and white sentiments as "you are either with us, or with the fascists".
It wasn't meant as name calling, just pointing out that there is no way to support the Democrats or Republicans or even Greens without seriously eroding freedom in one way or another. It seems very ironic that the NRA Republicans can be so blind to what is happening in the name of being "tough on crime".
Really it all comes down to this: "As long as you are taking someone else's rights away, I'm OK with it"... and that is the real problem.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Well,
Unfortunately the copyright law is going to be changed also in Norway, based on EUCD. And it's going to be even worse than DMCA. So enjoy your freedom as long as you can!
V.
Explain to me how DRM will not allow you to make or distribute mp3 files. You can't because you don't know what you're talking about.
The same way that verisign 'keeps' 128-bit SSL certs restricted - by artifically pricing them higher than many are able or willing to pay. If the relevant DRM technologies end up under one group's control, it's not hard to imagine that independant content authors will be sqeezed out - how many garage bands would pay, say, $3000 for a DRM authoring cert?