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.
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?
Your fundamental premise is flawed:
One need not choose between complaining and contributing.
Furthermore, small amounts of money can make a big difference. A lot of contributors of small amounts of money builds popular support for a cause. Giving $65 gets you a t-shirt, when you wear it other like-minded people are reminded of what's at stake and more likely to have a conversation, give money, etc- your $65 might inspire two other people who wouldn't have contributed to give.
Like all organizations, the EFF must decide what cases it can take based on priorities and resources. Small differences in resources might make the difference between the EFF taking or not taking your case when Hilary and Jack come knocking.
Think about it.
It's true that all three branches of the US government are for sale. Fortunately for us, decisions that are easier to defend on principle are more affordable than crooked profit-over-people decisions. But they are not free. If you have the time and expertise, volunteer. If not, donate some money and don't stop complaining.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
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.