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?

Comments

Maybe

[Amsterdam Vallon]

... I'm being naive here, but my life hasn't changed a damn bit in the past four years.

So I honestly and candidly pose this question -- What's so bad about the DMCA again?

Re:Maybe

[Amsterdam Vallon]

If something supposedly changes one's life and they don't even notice, then simple logic tends to suggest that nothing really ever changed in the first place.

Well, at least that's how it seems to me. Perhaps I need some more chai tea, but it seems I'm right on this particular issue.

You *have* to be shitting me!

[unterderbrucke]

These problems are just uneducated judges! If these activist organizations took the time to compile a packet to educated judges instead of complaining, there would be much less misinterpratation of the law.

With my job as a police officer, I know how little the judges actually know about new laws, and often need to be educated by the lawyers about the law they are trying.

I knew the DMCA was fucked up when it passed

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else think extending copyrights to be *90* years, and disallowing anything that a company claims circumvents its copy protection might not be the best thing?

Re:I knew the DMCA was fucked up when it passed

[schmink182]

Did anyone else think extending copyrights to be *90* years, and disallowing anything that a company claims circumvents its copy protection might not be the best thing?

Of *course* I thought it was a good thing. Obviously if Sony doesn't want me playing with their toy dog they've got a reason for it. And besides, Sony is a big company, so naturally it's not going to do anything immoral with these powers.

But while I'm on the subject, does anyone know of a house for sale in Europe?

No change per se

[Gyan]

Well, the DMCA so far hasn't made a discernible difference in everyday life.

Sure, the FatWallet fiasco demonstrates the "inaneness" of the law but it hasn't affected Joe Sixpack yet.

It does affect those who directly fall in the face or corporations which generally tend to continue generating revenue from existing products instead of adapting/improving them*

*Note that this is not a slam against all these corporations. R&D is a bitch.

Re:No change per se

[whovian]

Wow. IMO, that article deserves to be published in EVERY newspaper across the US.

The internet IMHO is really one of the greatest wonders of mankind, but after skimming that, plus reading the preceeding Matt Groening interview, and the recent Lexmark toner cartridge post, I finally am persuaded that "the industry" at large plays a huge role in stifling the exchange of information and ideas. The 'net allows anyone with access to it to be like a "vendor" to the world, yet I think we have yet to see the net's full potential -- but that potential won't be realized with companies that are operating under their old business models.
As open software has shown, The People are capable innovators. Now I think there are at least two roadblocks. The first one is the ISPs (potentially) because they could in principle be mandated to regulate user content. But then users would find another, perhaps slower, way to get in touch (like networking home satellite dishes). The second is the lack of open hardware (example: last updated 2000). Of course, government and industry *could* help enable options, but they always want something in return.
So I will make my contribution of EFF soon, just not directly by credit card for fear of being tracked by the government.

Dear Moderators: I know this post has some generalizations because it's about my being persuaded, so please, I would rather you ignore my post than mod it down.

Re:No change per se

[antibryce]

Sure, the FatWallet fiasco demonstrates the "inaneness" of the law but it hasn't affected Joe Sixpack yet.

My father is a "Joe Sixpack." He can barely handle unzipping files or hooking up his digital camera.

He can no longer buy 3rd party cartridges for his printer. This is affecting him.

Of course, I took the time to explain why to him. He wrote his congressmen last week :)

Re:No change per se

[nhavar]

I wouldn't say that's exactly true. While Joe Sixpack hasn't been sued under the DMCA or lost business because of the DMCA I wouldn't say that there are zero effects.

For instance copy protection is being pushed pretty heavily now. My wife was effected by this recently when she wanted to make a copy of her favorite christian artist CD to use in the car and our burner kacked and choked on it multiple times. When she asked me what was wrong with the computer I let her know that it wasn't the computer it was the music disc that wasn't a CD at all (no CD Logo or Compact Disc markings anywhere on the material). She wanted to know how they could do that I just let her know it was copyright protections and that we'd be seeing much more of that kind of behavior with the DMCA in place.

Everyone that I've spoken with explaining how the DMCA will help content distributors control every aspect of how you interact with their content has been disgusted. When I told them that content distributors might make their TiVo's or VCR's useless, they frowned. Then they asked when it became law and who put it there and how they could get it out.

We need to start buying some senators and judges. How about the american people start taking some senators and lawyers and judges on some junkets eh... I mean we're supposed to be the ones really paying their salaries shouldn't we have more of a voice with them than Hillary Rosen or Eisner?

I say we start putting their names out on e-bay and see if we can't get Jerry Lewis or better Billy Crystal, Whoopie and Robin Williams to drive up some donations to buy our own senators. It should be relatively cheap. I know Carnahan was about a couple 100,000. I'm sure some other states have senators we can get on a budget maybe 50-60,000.

YES, I have

[Kevitt]

You've joined the EFF, right?
Yes, I have. And now I am considering ways to let those that haven't joined, or that aren't even aware of issues such as these, to become informed. My frustration is that it seems 99% of the general public is content wallow in ignorance. Not by choice, but simply by virtue of the fact that they don't read sites like /., or EFF, or attend conferences, or try to do anything that is "non-standard" with digital devices or content. They just have no interest, and so they don't realize that eventually this spills over into everyday life.

The reaction to my telling friends and associates about these things is that they look at me like I'm a nutcase (yeah ok sometimes I *am* a nutcase :p). I wish I could transform that reaction into interest.

No, I haven't.

[Jay Maynard]

I haven't joined the EFF, and I'm not going to until they change their stance on spam. They're so worried about freedom of speech they're ignoring the fact that the medium is being destroyed.

Re:No, I haven't.

[Ohmsee]

SPAM = Solicitous Personal Advertising Medium. :P The EFF's stance on spam is stated as such: "Executive Summary: Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients." I, personally don't see a problem with this, but I also don't see that them proposing a solution. Freedom of speech online is all well and good, but it has to stop -somewhere-. I have not joined the EFF, nor will I anytime in the foreseeable future. I'd have to class myself in that same group of people that think that people should spend their money on their own education instead of giving it to organizations like the EFF. If people did that, there realistically wouldn't be a need for the EFF. Granted, I don't see "people" just all clamoring out and spending money on their own education... I see them all going out and buying new techie gizmos and neat gadgets instead. I include myself in that... I buy techie gizmos instead of educational material all the time. :P The main problem is that the EFF didn't like the ruling made 4 years ago, and as they made a public statement to that effect, they now are going to be asked to show proof of their statements 4 years ago. If any of you remember, they made some fairly preposterous claims when the ruling first passed about how it was going to change the very environment that we live in at home... Well, 4 years later, someone asks them about it and they really can't say: "We were wrong, sorry. It's not that bad afterall." Instead, they go and find the most abnormal results they can and expostulate on them and paint them to be 'the norm.' I don't see that as an organization that needs my techie gadget money.

Re:EFF Europe,

[GammaTau]

There's European Digital Rights (EDRI) that is supposed to help the national European digital rights organizations to work together. Unfortunately most of the activity is still in national level while most of the new directives threatening freedom are planned in the European Union bodies.

Re:DMCA is a product of organized crime

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws of any day have been to protect the elites.

The constitution helped protect the wealthy land owners and slave owners, it didn't do jack for the litte guy.

NAFTA and the DMCA will make the country just fine for the people who matter, the rich people.

If wages for workers are driven down to the ground and they industries can all move to countries with cheaper labor that's great for the elites.

And since there will be the same if not more money going to the elites on top the GDP and GNP will continue to rise and people will think life is grand. And it is grand, for the elites.

Sorry but this country has always been for the elites. Why do you think in the beginning only wealthy, land owning, white males could vote?

Ya sure now that they have a powerful propoganda apperatus (TV, Radio) they can let the common folk vote. Look at opensecrets.org, try finding an election race where the guy who spent the most money didn't win...the government is for the wealthy elites by the wealthy elites and it always has been and it always will be. Sorry.

"All men are created equal" while only rich white men can vote and the president owns slaves. That's fucking laughable man. This country it a joke and the joke is on the working class.

Do you know?

[epcraig]

Do you know how your legislator voted on the DMCA?

If you did, did it change your vote?

Is your future vote for or against your legislator going to depend on your legislator's opinion of the DMCA and its effects?

Last couple days have been a big upswing though...

[Kjella]

...as I live in the land of fair use, also called Norway. So now I'll decrypt, decripple and reburn my DVDs with no region coding/RCE/control blocker/copyright warning/whatever and play discs from any region in any region DVD player with a good conscience. And format-shift it so I can have a divx on my (DVD-less) laptop too. (Yes, I know DeCSS no longer works. But you get the idea.)

So how's life in land of the free and home of the brave? :)

Kjella

"Unintended Consequences" --- hmmmmn

[bryny]

I find it curious that they'd title it the same as John Ross's novel (ISBN 1-888118-04-0) where he takes on the National Firearm Act of 1934. Using perhaps a more lecturing style than Ayn Rand in "Atlas Shrugged" he synthesises a set of consequences that leads defenders of the Bill of Rights to armed conflict with the US Government -- specifically lone gun assasinations of armed tax agents and the legislators that created them.

I wonder if the EFF wanted a subliminal association....

You get what you pay for

[wayward_son]

Some people...

Sony, Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA paid good money for the DMCA. If you want it repealed, you need to start contributing to some congressmen. Re-election campaigns don't come cheap, you know.

Remember: If all else fails, graft works. Pay the right people in power the right amount of money and you will get what you want.

Re:EFF makes a good point about fair use

[Quiet Sound]

That claim Al Gore said he invented the internet is a misquote. He never claimed he invented the internet.