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?
Section 1201 Chills Free Expression and Scientific Research.
Section 1201 Jeopardizes Fair Use.
Section 1201 Impedes Competition and Innovation.
Just one page down. Not to mention a buttload of examples towards the end.
Yes, do it!
I did and I don't even live in the USA.
You get a really cool t-shirt and the EFF are the only people really out there fighting for what is right... They deserve your support.
Don't but that CD! Join the EFF instead!
Many people have been tortured, raped, abused, murdered during this four years. Since your life hasn't changed, should we ignore that stuff as well?
You need to look beyond your nose.
You've joined the EFF, right?
No. For a start, donations to the EFF are not tax-deductible if you're not a US citizen.
Even if they were, I don't feel I earn enough to donate effectively. People who throw them $50 a year are great in large numbers, but you're hardly buying a couple of minutes of campaigning time for them.
I prefer to keep my money and spend it on things which means I don't have to fall into legal traps. If the people who still use Windows XP and keep throwing $1000+ into the EFF every year actually spent that on Linux training, then they're doing a lot better for the world than giving their $$ to the EFF.
Lastly, I think the EFF is a good idea, but if people believe it's going to be their mouthpiece, they are sorely wrong. One large charity is easy for the government to ignore. Millions of complaining citizens are not. Support the things you want directly, instead of giving $1000 to the EFF and feeling 'good about yourself.'
Just my opinion of course.
mogorific carpentry experiments
If there is slowly and gradually less and less innovation every day as a result of this, we can all be affected by it without actually noticing it. The point is, whether you know it or not, things might've been very different if it weren't for the law.
Um, that's not "simple logic" because it's not true. The changes might be too subtle or too slow to be easily noticed. They also might begin slow and then accelerate -- during the initial phase you might not notice. Consider the example of weather: A change of one or two degrees might not be noticed by you. Does that mean it never occurs? What about when the temperature change is enough to trigger precipitation?
Should you wait until the changes are irrevocable before agreeing there have been some? Or should you look at subtle measures and try to get an accurate model of the current state of things? I definitely believe in the latter: Although these cases specifically have not wrought great changes in your daily life, they presage a coming tectonic shift.
As another example, drawn from the law: When the Supreme Court held that the state tax assessor could asses a railroad but not the local assessor, it seemed like a tiny thing which had no discernible impact on most people. Yet it was the pinhole through which the legal monster "corporate personhood" entered the law, and in the course of a century has completely shifted the balance of power. Was it worthy of ignoring it just because the first change was small? Or might we have been better off if more people had paid attention then?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
These problems are the letter of criminal law. Until you appeal, uneducated or not, the jury (the judge *might* have a say in dismissing the case) has to rule based on the merits of the case: "Is X against law Y".
2 0_pl105-304.html
Reverse engineering an access control method or otherwise disabling it is illegal, stupid judge or not.
Ranting and raving follows
The access control provision of the DMCA breaks anti-trust laws: It allows a copyright holder to use its government-granted monopoly to leverage a new monopoly in another field (access devices).
Both access and copyright protection provisions make it basically illegal to produce programs which might be used to overcome such protections. I say basically, because the law states that it has to be the main purpose or usage. However, whether or not it is or isn't the main purpose is always going to be a matter for the courts, causing lost time and legal fees.
Now here's the real kicker. Read the dmca text (here's a link to the final joint version: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_199810
Since its in your web browser, do this: search for "copyright owner", "copyright holder", and any other variation you can think of. Find anything?
That would be because under the DMCA its ILLEGAL FOR THE COPYRIGHT OWNER TO BREAK ACCESS CODES TOO.
Thats right, think about that. Now take a look at the text of the law again. Suddenly, a whole new truth emerges: This law isn't about protecting copyright. This law's existence only protects the publishers and distributers of copyrighted material by "guaranteeing" that whatever format they wish to publish/distribute in, it would be "protected".
In the coming DRM-enabled world, do you get to distribute your garage band over the internet? No! Your digital recording choices will be limited to DRM no-copy file formats which won't go anywhere, and you will not be able to do anything about it legally, because its not the music that is protected by this law, its the DRM no-copy file format.
Finally, (perhaps I should have written this first) the fatal bug in the law: No exemptions are stated for the creator of the encryption too. Nothing in the DMCA says that the person who invents the encryption system has a right to produce a tool for the express purpose of decryption, nor does it say they can grant that right to other people. Do everyone a favor and report every DVD player manufacturer for DMCA violations.
For everyone else, call up your NRA buddies and preach to them of slippery slopes. It's now illegal to produce software that might commit a crime. How long will it be before its illegal to produce guns which might commit a crime?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
That's the exact idea behind the DMCA: to maintain the status quo to support the business model of a handful of corporations.
In recent years, progress in technology has eliminated various technical limitations on what you could do with information. The DMCA was created to reinstate those limitations through legal means, turning back the clock to erase many of the benefits from recent developments. (As it happens, it was written so poorly, it creates new limitations you never even had in the past.)
The question you should be asking is how could my life have changed if it weren't for the DMCA?
that large corporations have dictated laws to consumers and educational institutions. Truth be told, I'm sure the corporations knew the judges were years (if not decades) behind technology, or at best, had such an elementry understanding that they could have persuaded them how they saw fit.
The worst of it is probably the hindering of college research. To me, it's one of the many fun and innovative areas for learning. How much research has been limited? - I suppose any that remotely touches any company's product or service. The majority of computer work seems to be moving more towards a trade school - like a mechanic, the innovative elite becoming a very few.
Seriously, the majority of programmers I see today just know 2 things: the Design Patterns book and Java (or other popular language). There and then a handful of "architects" that make the real innovations.
--------
Free your mind.
Unless you were involved with drug law reform before all this copyright stuff started getting hot, you really have little room to ask NRA type people for help.
The downhill slide started when it started to become illegal to buy things that "might" be used for manufacturing or using drugs. The NRA people in general were too blind to see the parallels then, and I doubt they will see them now, involving this much more complex issue.
I hope the majority of conservatives realize soon that it is impossible to have a certain Republican brand of freedom, without having all the rest. In many ways, I hate to say this, but you are either Libertarian, or you support facism in one form or another. There is little middle ground anymore.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Many people have been tortured, raped, abused, murdered during this four years. But since the DMCA made it more difficult for you to download the latest eminem CD you saw on MTV lets focus on the DMCA instead!
You need to look beyond your nose.
These problems are just uneducated judges!
Hear, hear! The FSF should employ someone (Lessig?) to make an easy to use compendium of the law, key points from the law's forming debates, and every significant legal interpretation of the law. They should also file a modified brief to any significant court case, and make their dossier avalible to _anyone_ who wants it.
Or maybe they shouldn't. *sigh*.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease, write your congressperson. Joining the EFF is a small step, but getting yourself personally involved is better. Voice your opinions to many people often on this matter. For the most part the reason the law still exists is that many people just don't know about it. Good article, perhaps it can provide YOU with your next "talking points" around the water cooler.
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
The law is quite clear: It's illegal to manufacture, import, or distribute an unauthorized access control circumvention device. That's the thing we're concerned about. DeCSS, and all similar routines to remove CSS encoding from a DVD that have not been authorized by the copyright holders of the works they decrypt, or by proxy, the DVD-CCA, are illegal.
Period.
The law isn't being misinterpreted, any more than the laws being used to send non-violent cannabis smokers to prison are being. The law is an ass. "Educating Judges" will not change that. It's not their job, and there are major implications with suggesting that judges should pretend laws they disagree with should be treated as not-existing.
The people to lobby are the legislators. Give THEM an idea of what the laws they've passed actually mean in practice. They are the only people, constitutionally and in any socially-responsible way, who can do anything about it.
You can find a list of appropriate contacts by examining any recent posting by Karmawarrior.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
...the DMCA is quite harmless. As the DMCA has never been tested in court, it can't be said it's a bad law because we, including the EFF, truly don't know the extent of its abilities to stifle free speech and innovation. Now, one might be able to say that the threat of using the DMCA has stifled innovation and censored feee speech , but this is far different from actually being the root of the problem.
Not to mention that both sides have waged an antagonistioc war against each other from day one with Napster firing the "shot heard around the internet", so to speak. One of these days the geeks are going to realize that laws apply to the internet as much as they do in reality and that information doesn't want to be free, it simply wants to be information, nothing more, nothing less.
There's extremists on both sides, and there are a lot of sysadmins who are quite happy to make email impossible to use if it means upsetting a spammer, or worse, a middleman between a spammer and the outside world - for instance, SPEWS has little problem blacklisting people who have found themselves to be customers of an ISP that happens to have some customers who are spammers. That's the way they work. Suddenly, people who have never spammed, who aren't aware of what's going on or why, find that they can't send or receive email - because they signed up with a cheap ISP in the Yellow Pages or that a friend recommended.
If that's not destroying the medium, what is?
I've been managing my email at home now for three years, running an SMTP server with a domain pointing at it. I do not have a spam problem, because I know how to manage my own email. Companies I deal with get their own address to contact me by, USENET postings get an email address that expires one week after its been posted. If I had time, I'd blacklist any attempt to email two USENET addresses, but as I haven't been on USENET for a while, there's not much point. Likewise, I don't use CLI or similar methods to block phone calls on the offchance that someone who isn't displaying it is a telemarketer, but I use a telephone answering machine to screen incoming calls instead. Result: I don't destroy the privacy of my friends (why should I force them to give me their telephone numbers? I don't make that a prerequesite of talking to them face-to-face.), I don't have calls from overseas blocked, but I haven't had a single telemarketer get through to me since I set the thing up. And all the people who sign up for Telephone Company "solutions" to the problem, in my experience, have had the bastards get through.
My methods are being challenged by those who'd promote the types of anti-spam/anti-telemarketer schemes that are being espoused at the moment from SPEWS to CLI. I've been called a telemarketer on telcoms newsgroups for suggesting that CLI is a nasty invasive and ultimately ineffective way of dealing with telemarketers and that there are better solutions to the problem. Various ISPs are blocking SMTP to and from customer's PCs because they're more bothered about open relays, yet none offer a genuine anti-spam service that really does only block spam. I get spam at work and on Yahoo, but I haven't got the tools to do anything about either, and yet I have to put up with Earthlink crippling my ability to send email unless it passes through their SMTP servers - forget privacy!
We need sane, rational, ways of dealing with spam. Methods of dealing with spam that are entirely about punishment, and then primarily of innocent third parties in the hope that the third parties will then punish the second parties who might, in turn, punish the actual spammers, are damaging, intrusive, disruptive, and, if the last few years are anything to go by, a complete waste of time.
Supporting someone's actions to cripple email because they say they're doing so in order to stop spammers is clearly wrong. I support the EFFs stance in not doing so, and its desire to see solutions that ensure end-users are able to send and receive email unmolested.
And, thanks to you posting that link, and me seeing someone else saying what I've been yelling for the longest time, I'm going to contact them right now and donate $100.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If I'm not mistaken, cops have been used to enforce the DMCA precisely once. To arrest and detain Sklyarov. And even that was at the behest of Adobe. Every other case has been lawyers sending nastygrams threatening to obliterate your corporeal existence if you should fail to obey.
Dyolf Knip
But if I buy a DVD and wanna burn a copy to my computer, ooo, well, I must be a felon, cause I had to circumvent encryption on the DVD. But, wait, don't I already own this? Don't I have the right to use that however the hell I wish, as long as I don't threaten that corporation's profits? How can any sane individual argue that making a back up copy is not in my rights?
Or what about when a bug is found in Windows? Shouldn't I be allowed to know about this? I bought it, if theres a flaw, I should be told. Of course this ignores the fact that Windows is basically one big flaw, but you get the drift. I own it, I use it, and any errors affect me directly if theres a security breach or performance issue.
This whole issue will finally be solved when Nike manages to get the law changed so Corporations can lie and legally get away with it no matter what, and some politician is sued for copyright infringement when he says he invented the internet or something and doesn't get in trouble for it.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
I have now...
--== BEGIN FWD ==--
Thank you very much for taking the time to fill out
our online donation form. This e-mail may serve as
your receipt for your tax deductible donation to the
Electronic Frontier Foundation.
On 2003-1-12 you contributed US$65
to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
for a one year membership with the organization.
Your Anonymizer key will be e-mailed to you within 7 days.
--== END FWD ==--
Who's with me?
http://kered.org
Of course they intended it: The DMCA benefits government more than it benefits the corporations who bribed congress into passing it. Any expansion of government yields power and profit for those in control. Government has ultimate control, not the corporations.
When the full-scale "war on drugs" was forced upon the people some 50 years ago, congress fully understood that the consequences would be measured in violent crime (from the resulting black market), loss of civil rights (most of which have nothing to do with drug use), skyrocketing tax rates, and corruption on all levels of government. But they chose to wage war against the people for exactly the same reason they chose to adopt the DMCA: Because it benefits government. Like any business, the primary objective of government is to profit and expand market share. These laws do exactly that.
As the saying goes, you can't rule a nation of innocents. The more laws forced upon the people, the more power and profit yielded for government.
And the income tax started as a "temporary" measure of some 1% worth. And I'm sure there are thousands of other equally-noxious examples.
:/
I suggest a constitutional amendment to change the country's name to "The United States of Boiled Frogs"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
From what I'm hearing, thinks aren't going to be any better in Europe. There are few safe havens anymore, with the EU and the US going back and forth with who can stifle creative freedom and innovation more and with the US testing the waters of how far the arm of their law can reach across international borders.
No, things are looking grim until the balance of power and thought shifts dramatically to the point where the United States is pressuring countries to listen to the citizens instead of the corporates instead of the other way around.
ElcomSoft's Advanced e-Book Processor, which translates e-books from Adobe's eBook format to Adobe's PDF, and "thereby allows a computer to read an eBook out loud using text-to-speech software, which is particularly important for visually-impaired individuals." Therefore, the DCMA is in direct violation of the ADA (American Disabilities Act). Not to mention the First Amendment. You may not personally be physically challenged in such a way, but if this law restricts the abilities of a fellow citizen's right to knowledge, shouldn't you be just as upset?
After 4 years, does anybody know if there is/was a lawsuit invoking the DMCA against sombody who is actually pirating content?
- that the DMCA and laws like it are simply logical progression of copyrights. You can't tell people that they have certain types of rights and never expect them to never try and secure those rights. To expect so would be hypocritical and is just as wrong as the DMCA is. Information is so easy to copy and manipulate that copyrights are simply not going to be workable unless all information is controlled or none of it. It simply amazes me to hear people cry bloody murder about the DMCA, but never even consider the root of the problem.
All I ever get in reply is this crazy propaganda about the poor starving artist and how they are they are so valuable and holy while anybody elese in society who may have the need to copy things is a worthless piece of cr*p incapable of adding any value to society. Perhaps this is just to distract from the fact that for every artist that makes it, there are 10,000 living in dirt poverty who copyrights haven't helped one darn bit. Perhaps it's to keep people from noticing how bad copyrights really are.
you are either Libertarian, or you support facism in one form or another.
Pure and Utter Bull Shit. If you read some of the more prominent Libertarian "thinkers" like Dr. Mary Ruwart, you'll find that libertarianism is just as easily a new spin on the old concept of feudalism as it is any great philosophy of individual human rights.
In fact, there are libertarians who think laws like the DMCA don't go far enough in protecting the rights of the "owners" of "intellectual property". They seem to think that once one "owns" a piece of property it belongs that person for all time. As such, they support notions like copyright that never expires.
Certainly there are decent libertarians out there who have their hearts in the right place, but this is not a time for such black and white sentiments as "you are either with us, or with the fascists".
I do not have a signature
Know the story about the frog in boiling water? If the water boils slowly enough, the frog doesn't notice, doesn't jump out until it's boiled. The DMCA (and the current law being considered in the EU) might be the same kind of thing.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Well, while our lives at home haven't changed a whole lot in the last four years piles of legal precedants are being built up in court that will change our lives quite a bit. The DMCA doesn't change the fact that it is illegal to make copies of copyrighted material for non-personal use, and it really doesn't go any further to protect those copyrighted works. What it does do is allow the patent holders for the ecryption technology(like CSS) to determine how their content(legally purchased or not) is viewed. In other words, if they decide that they don't want to license DeCSS to anyone writing software for platforms they don't approve of(Linux), they need only claim DMCA infringement on anyone who goes ahead and comes up with some DeCSS on their own. That's the exapmple that's been played out. Why haven't we seen more examples of this type of legal action? The MPAA and the RIAA haven't had enough time to sue everyone yet, and they need to build up some significant legal precedant.
My Blog
CNN doesn't report things like this (or anything else like DMCA troubles) because it is fundamentally anti-government in tone, and AOL-TW (parent company of CNN) has apparently make it company policy to be pro-government on *every* story they cover.
Seriously, I can't stand to tune into CNN anymore. It's more like PNN (Propaganda News Network). Their total lack of balls to portray anything other than the World According to Bush is just painful to watch.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
To make this more accurate, Congress didn't intend to stifle these activities at first. But then, the entertainment industry came along, started writing sizable checks to the Congresspeople for bri...err, "campaign contributions," and changed Congress's mind on this. Sure they intended to chill those.
I thought the same thing when I read it, but then realized it's just legalese. Everyone knows the bastards intended to stiffle free speach and kill democracy, but the word "chill" was chosen for a reason. That is the word the Supreme Court used to describe cases where the law was unconstitutional not because it outright banned a protected form of speach, but where instead it just scared potential speakers shitless and so stopped them from speaking. "Chill" and "Unintended Consequences" are the polite and politically correct terms for "the treasonous bastards controlling our government betrayed us with yet another un-American act."
Besides if the congress-critters knowingly passed an unconstitutional law they could technically be hung for treason. (Though I don't think the judicial branch has ever had the balls to do it, the congress-critters write their checks...)