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?

14 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe try RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Join the EFF now! by infractor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  3. You *have* to be shitting me! by unterderbrucke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:You *have* to be shitting me! by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

      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_1998102 0_pl105-304.html
      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.
    2. Re:You *have* to be shitting me! by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful
      What makes you think it's misinterpretation of the law?

      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.
  4. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. RIAA Changes Its Mind by dduardo · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  6. YES, I have by Kevitt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Maybe by gilroy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Blockquoth the poster:

    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.

    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?

  8. Re:Maybe by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm being naive here, but my life hasn't changed a damn bit in the past four years.

    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?

  9. Re:No, I haven't joined the EFF by abe+ferlman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...
  10. looks reasonable to a victim. by twitter · · Score: 5, Informative
    Thanks for the nice link to the EFF's anti spam page. As a victim of loss of conectivity through MAPS, I'm all for the EFF's stand on the issue. Allow me to quote some of it here:

    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.

  11. Changes list - work, fun, entertainment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.