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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
if you go HERE it would seeem that the RIAA has changed its mind. This article is more likely bogus since the RIAA was hacked again yesterday and can be seen HERE. Its still very funny to read.
You've joined the EFF, right? /., 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.
:p). I wish I could transform that reaction into interest.
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
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
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
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.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
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?
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.
Electronic Frontier Finland
Electronic Frontier Canada
Electronic Frontiers Australia
Electronic Frontier Ireland
Electronic Frontier Sverige
Electronisk Forpost Norge
Electronic Frontiers Italy
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.
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 $65 might inspire two other people who wouldn't have contributed to give.
Like all organizations, the EFF must decide what cases it can take based on priorities and resources. Small differences in resources might make the difference between the EFF taking or not taking your case when Hilary and Jack come knocking.
Think about it.
It's true that all three branches of the US government are for sale. Fortunately for us, decisions that are easier to defend on principle are more affordable than crooked profit-over-people decisions. But they are not free. If you have the time and expertise, volunteer. If not, donate some money and don't stop complaining.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
If you did, did it change your vote?
Is your future vote for or against your legislator going to depend on your legislator's opinion of the DMCA and its effects?
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
Executive Summary: Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients.
And anti-spam blacklists, such as the MAPS RBL (Mail Abuse Prevention System Realtime Blackhole List, the most popular), result in a large number of Internet service providers (ISPs) surreptitiously blocking large amounts of non-spam from innocent people. This is because they block all email from entire IP address blocks--even from entire nations. This is done with no notice to the users, who do not even know that their mail is not being delivered.
That is exactly the situation. Large ISPs such as AOL and email providers like M$ 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.
I'm fairly certain that immediately beyond his nose is the interior of his rectal cavity.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
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.
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?
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.
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?
The heck are you talking about? The general goal of making something illegal is for the threat of enforcement of the law to stop people from doing something. The threat of the DMCA is the whole purpose of the DMCA. The DMCA has stifled innovation and censored free speech. That it hasn't been well tested in court is irrelevant. Your average person doesn't have the ability to fight such a court case, so the law effectively stifles most people. The DMCA is certainly the root to some problems.
Take life a little less literally. No, for a literal standpoint, information does not want to be free. But would you complain if someone said that water wants to run downhill? It's just an literally incorrect. Saying that information wants to be free is short, memorable summary of a more fundamental issue: "Information tends, over time, to become more free. This happens because human beings like spreading information and spend great deals of effort to develop technologies to spread information. Over time, the cost to spread information has dropped lower and lower. One you had to spread information be word of mouth, then writing evolved to make it easier, then the printing press, then movable type, then telegraphs, telephones, radio, television, photocopiers, facsimile machines, and finally the internet. Spreading information is far easier than stopping the flow of information, all it takes is one little leak and you'll be hard pressed to stop that bit of information from spreading like wildfire. Ultimately you can't stop of the flow of information with technology. The best that you can do is slow the flow of information down, and you can only do so with a repressive government that heavily censors its own people. Information will be free because people want information to be free. Efforts to stop it are doomed, instead spend you time figuring out how to adjust to the new world order."
Of course laws apply everywhere, including on the internet. That's not terribly relevant. The point is that the laws are wrong and should be repealed. Often the laws are wrong because they create an entirely different set of rules when you're working digitally on the internet than you follow working in analog off the internet. That's hardly fair.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
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