Slashdot Mirror
Ask Prof. Felten About DMCA's Effects
Princeton Computer Science Professor Edward W. Felten has been mentioned and quoted frequently on Slashdot, usually about DMCA matters and, more recently, about new state laws that may make it illegal to use "unapproved" networking devices, VPNs or firewalls with your home or office Internet connection. Please avoid questions that can be answered by reading the pages linked to here or with a bit of Google research. We'll post Prof. Felten's answers to 10 of the highest-moderated questions as soon as he has time to answer them.
Do you believe the evolution of our technologies (such as the Internet) are more under control of restrictive commercial interests today than in the past, or has this always been a feature of technological change?
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Also, if you are aware of it, have the hardware/software manufacturers who will be affected joined together to fight these laws, or has it flown under their radar?
Dr. Felten, do you have an suggestion as to what sort of legistlation could be introduced that would soothe the minds of reactionary lawmakers while preserving the rights that we currently enjoy?
In other words, are we talking about "people" or "boxes"?
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Do the states enacting these (IMO, bogus) new laws have any idea of the amount of economic damage they could cause? Every place I've worked has used some sort of firewall or VPN technology. Billions of dollars' worth of financial communications and transactions take place over such connections every day. Replacing them or removing them entirely is not an option. Will corporations be overlooked when it comes time to enforce these laws, making them just another tool home-user ISPs can use to enforce Terms Of Service clauses? Or will life become infinitely more complicated for everyone?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Or to put it slightly less sillily, what was (and is!) your motivation for getting involved in this side of the Computer Science world, say, as opposed to the nice safe, clean theoretical stuff?
Paranoia isn't an infectious condition, it's a way of life
Many proposed (anti-vpn) laws have been discussed on slashdot recently. Given that many of these laws only cover unlawful devices, should we still be concerned about this new so called anti-vpn legislation?
-Sean
Do you think that these laws - especially DCMA - ever had an intended "positive" effect. That is, were the ever really intended to deal with existing copyright problems, piracy, etc... or were they always intended to clamp iron teeth of control down on the consumer.
Some of the provisions of these laws, especially those being so easily misinterpreted or misused, seem to not have any practical intent other than taking rights away from the consumer.
Looking at the original intent of the laws (and hoping it wasn't as bad as they have turned out), what do you think went wrong, and what can be changed?
Do I completely misunderstand the scope of the DMCA, or would it have actually prohibited the actions of clone manufacturers, starting with Compaq, when they reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS in 1984?
It seems this simple fact alone would highlight the ludicrous nature of a law which would prohibit precisely the actions that provided the current state of the industry.
Xesdeeni
One of the problems I see with efforts to try to get the DMCA and similar legislation revoked and prevented in the future, is a matter of signal to noise. Most voters don't care about the DMCA or even know about it, and those who do usually have to worry about more important priorities like the state of the economy or the war in Iraq. So, my question is, how can we possibly make the DMCA and it's kin important issues to our legislators? Sure, I can write them, but if they are given the choice of voting for the DMCA and getting some campaign money, or voting against and pleasing a handful of constituents, which will they choose?
It's unlikely that the handful of consitutents is going to vote against the candidate purely because of their DMCA stance. Personally, I'm very against the DMCA but when the election time comes around, I'm not voting for the anti-DMCA candidate, I'm voting for the guy who's going to fix the economy and patch our international relationships. So how can somebody like myself really get their voice heard by the right people when the threat of "voting for the other candidate" isn't credible?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Professor Felten,
What's it going to take to get not only our legislators in their infinite wisdom, but the general public, to see the deleterious effects that DRM enforcement efforts and laws like the DMCA are/will have on both the entertainment and computer industries and our rights in general?
From experience, it's pretty difficult to explain exactly why the DMCA is so awful to the average person--it's very hard, for me at least, to provide a 60-second explanation of why I should be able to open up my digital VCR and find out how the software controlling it works, or why it's so bad that there's copy protection on a CD, rendering it useless for playing in a computer?
Perhaps if I could find just the right way to frame the argument, and get that message out, we might have some more people concerned about these matters.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
The root of all of the recent controversey surrounding royalties and licensing for internet radio (CARP) stems from an incorrect definition in the 1998 Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It fails to differentiate between downloaded and streamed audio content as it pertains to internet radio. From a strictly technical standpoint there isn't much difference. The data being transmitted over the internet to your computer is pretty much identical; downloading just implies that you save a copy. However from a legal standpoint, streamed content is the equivalent of a public performance or broadcast, whereas downloaded content constitutes a distribution of that recording. This makes all the difference in the world when it comes to copyright laws, since the labels making up the RIAA (the copyright holders) should not even be entitled to royalties from internet radio in the first place.
A seemingly benign oversight in the wording can have major implications. Do you forsee significant changes/corrections to the DMCA along these lines? Why or why not...
Everyone was a potential criminal, and if they crossed the PTB, it wasn't hard to find some law that they had broken to charge them with.
Conversely, it's easy to get the minders to look the other way as long as you have the money to grease the right palms. (Hope you didn't invest in Enron or Tyco, mate!)
That is exactly what we're getting into now with the American empire. We haven't had a "president" that respected the constitution since the days of Dwight Eisenhower. And the interminable war on drugs could only have been thought up by George Orwell.
Doesn't the DMCA prohibit a company from investigating a violation of their IP if the violation exists on the other side of encryption?
For example, if company M utilized a software algorithm (putting aside the argument about software patents for the moment) inside an encrypted data stream (audio file, video file, etc.) that was actually patented by company A, wouldn't it be a violation of the DMCA for company A to investigate this violation of their patent rights? And wouldn't any evidence they uncovered in violation of the DMCA be inadmissible if they tried to enforce their patent rights against company M?
Xesdeeni
Wiping out the ability to enact from behind a firewall will in some cases force the individual to assume social responsibility for their actions, and in others, it could cause a perfectly harmless but useful and constructive citizen to not want to take part. (the way that i don't want to fly on an airline that checks my credit info every time i try to board a plane.) In short, do you view this as a critically restrictive measure where society's NEW ideas come into the picture? Are we in danger of alienating the very people who would be responsible for future innovation of everything around us? I'm one of those who would be alienated, because I view this as an inalienable right to privacy.
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
In your opinion, do residents of Europe and other US-friendly (business-wise) areas have a hope of avoiding being adversely affected by the DMCA (or superDMCA) or its foreign implementations (e.g. EUCD) and is technological civil disobedience the best form of activism to follow?
- Brian.
It has been claimed that much of the ado about DMCA is demagoguery, particularly with respect to restrictions on security research. While I do not in any way believe that the DMCA is a good law, particularly with regards to its flaunting of fair use, I tend to agree. Could you comment in greater depth as to the threat that the DMCA poses to researchers, and perhaps clarify this debate?
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Prof. Felten,
You are a vocal and staunch proponent of the 'right to tinker'. I understand and support your views on this subject, but I was wondering if you could give us a few examples where the 'right to tinker' was imperative to a major innovation? What innovations may have never come about or been delayed if the 'right to tinker' had never been a assumed privilege of the American citizen?
Keep up the good work!
smd4985
Dr Felton,
Question 1:
If I am running a firewall on a linux box, and NAT'ing the computers in my house, am I masking the identity of myself, or my machines, (violating the law) since all of the computers belong to me and I am willing to accept responsibility for all traffic?
Question 2:
If I run a linux firewall and only one client behind it, am I breaking the law since I am not NAT'Ting more than one PC, and am using the linux box as a firewall device only, not as a client?
It seems to follow that I am responsible for all traffic originating from my link, therefore am not masking my identity at all, since all traffic originates from my residence, I do not use WiFi or 802.11b, and accept responsibility and id myself as the originator of all traffic.
I simply do not trust a firewall program, running on a windows computer, to provide adequate protection. IPTABLES on linux, if there are no network services running, is more secure as a firewall.
thx,
AC
Maryland
How exactly would the DMCA help/hurt independant musicians such as myself? In the beginning, most bands have to try and fend for themselves, and would find things like P2P filesharing to be a great help in getting heard. It seems as if the DMCA is tailored to assist large record companies, and not so much smaller labels and/or independant bands...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Most of the debate surrounding proposed legislation on VPN's deals with the impact on the consumer's right to tinker at home. One issue that seems to be absent from the debate is the impact such legislation would have on the corporate world and the average worker's ability to telecommute using their ISP. Also, many corporations with geographically scattered offices use VPNs to put everyone on the 'same network'. Is a distinction being drawn between corporate and consumer's rights? Can these bills be effectively killed by drawing big corporations into the fray?
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
Most, but not all, readers of Slashdot have a distaste for the DMCA and other laws that have strengthened copyright laws. But what most do not accept is the fact that these laws were created to solve a very real problem.
Software and media piracy is no longer an underground sub-culture. Just about anyone with enough money for a computer is able to easily find and illegally duplicate software, music, movies, and other media. Worse yet, most of the (former) music and movie buying public are doing just that.
The only "reasonable" alternative to strengthening laws and adding copy-protection to media is to give the media away, and make money with live appearances and peripheral tangible products, such as lunchboxes and t-shirts. I'm sure the people working for media conglomerates do not find this acceptable.
Do you agree with this assessment, and if so, if you had the chance to re-architect the DMCA to your liking, what would you change? Would you remove some parts, or augment others?
Radio stations today use a wide variety of digital tools to automate broadcasting. Given that record companies reserve the right to authorize who can broadcast the contents of a CD, what additional effects do you see the DMCA having on radio and eventually web-based broadcasting besides the stratification of the market into megacorps and everyone else (which has already occurred.)? Should copy-protected CD's become the norm, would a "broadcast license" be implemented, with restrictions on the broadcasters? I can't see the record companies providing "protection-free" cd's to record stations, because the resale market for DJ-promotional copies would become even more fierce. Or would we see more mega-companies like AOL-Time-Warner, which own both content and distribution channels?
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
Basically, almost everyone with a technological background will agree that this law is flawed. Is this soemthing without precendence? That Congress acted on pure ignorance, of course not.
My question to you Mr. Felten, do you think this law will inspire a new breed of creativity among hardware developers?
Maybe the same way copyright inspired copyleft, the DMCA is a form for companies to protect their products, and stop other people from profiting on those products (god forbid!), but since this really throws onto the pile, and adds hardware materials in to the copyright bin, maybe it will inspire some hardware enthousiasts to create copylefted hardware? blueprints and materials created by the people who love to tamper, and who would put a type of GPL on the specific materials as to prevent anyone from trying to hide the actual source if you will, of the product in question.
I personally think this would go a long way, engineers could actually start making money, by receiving support from people who enjoy their products, and suggest ways to improve such things. (Currently hard working engineers make billions for their respective companies and bring him mearly pennies to feed their families.)
I might be way off base, as the production line has it's fee's, but even tho it would be copylefted, dosen't mean it couldn't be sold, just means that anyone could improve it, or modify it.
Thanks for your time. Remi
Posting useless rant since 2003.
I work for a big ISP that sells several kinds of VPN services, as well as selling routers to users who want to manage the routers themselves. I'd rather not see our Michigan sales reps risk being hauled into jail
- because that Cisco we installed on their premises can do NAT, or
- because that firewall conceals their machines from crackers, or
- because their VPN box conceals data from eavesdroppers, or
- because their SSL conceals web-visitors' credit card numbers from thieves, or
- because their email system conceals real email addresses from spammers.
And I'd rather not see our sales people out of work either. But until somebody gets a temporary restraining order on enforcement, it's a real problem.Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Neither of the proposed state laws defined what "place of origin" for a communication is. Couldn't this law make computers illegal? For example, my "communications service provider" does not know if a "communication" came from DIMM bank 0 or DIMM bank 1 in my computer. They don't know if a file I am emailing came from hard drive sector 3F5BC or 3F5BD. Does this mean that my computer is concealing the place of origin of my communication?
When I read the law, I assumed that the "place of origin" of all of my internet communications are in my house. There's no reason to interpret that law to be specifically aimed at individual computers. I believe that specific part of the law is aimed at things like using IP spoofing in order to conceal the source of attacks.
background: For a long time, it was thought a monopoly pretty much was conceived & sustained through assistance through the government (at some level), but not necessarily via patents or copyrights; i.e., look at things such as utility companies. After the two marathon lawsuits into the latter decades of the 20th centuries (IBM, Ma Bell), things seemed to quiet down a bit, except for cable companies & similar ilk. Now, we've got competition for cable companies via satellites (although 95+% of people who have have access to cable only have a choice of a single company), potentially multiple broadband vendors, and with the fuel cell development, a choice of not using an electrical utility.
All of that said (whew, sorry)...
Now that the DMCA has been passed and pretty much defended in the courts, isn't it starting to form "minimonopolies" (or "micromonopolies")? If so (or not), why? And do you see this changing over time? If it hurts the consumer, what do you think it'll take for the consumer to vote with their pocketbook and modify this?
Thank!
Where in this Earth would you move to, should MPAA, RIAA, et alia succeed in their attempt to turn the personal computer into an expensive paperweight? Now that civil liberties are no longer fashionable in America, which country would hold the flag of digital (and analog) freedom?
If I use a VPN or an anonymous remailer, all of my IP packets are correctly labeled with regard to their source and destination as they travel from my system to the remailer or VPN server. If I use a NAT box, all of my IP packets are correctly labeled with regard to their source and destination as they travel from the NAT box to the remote system.
Why do you claim that these technologies would be outlawed by the so-called Super DMCA laws, even though using these technologies does not involve falsifying the source or destination of any of my packets? Isn't it more likely that these laws are directed against IP spoofing, where people do in fact falsify these fields, to the great detriment of the net?
Do you feel that it would be a good time for a shift in strategy towards more active measures such as forming a group to lobby representatives directly, issuing mailings about the DMCA particularly to those whose representatives support legislation like the DMCA/UCITA/SSSCA, or beginning a television ad campaign? Such an endeavor is bound to cost a bit, but I can't help but feel that particularly with 2004 coming up having a bit of organized PR on our side of the debate would be quite helpful.
To go one step further: I wanted to setup a network at home and didn't want to be hassled by Comcast, so I called them to actually purchase two more IP addresses for a whopping $6.95/month each. I spoke to two different reps (because I didn't believe the first one) and they both told me the same thing.
"If your computer doesn't need a real-world ip address, purchase a Linksys wireless router and set them up behind NAT. There is no need to purchase additional IPs from us unless your computer needs a 'real' ip."
I know others who were told the same thing (here in Maryland). So there you have it... Comcast is actually *telling* it's customers to put in a router & NAT.
--Insert catchy
Do you notice any particular states that show extra enthusiasm over the DMCA?
/. crowd:
Those who are in the process of moving might be in the position where they're undecided about one place or another and turn it into an opportunity to protest an unjust law. Take those skills and dollars to better places.
And as an aside to the
When the economy recovers and the jobs come back, a lot of folks are going to be moving around in a relatively short period of time. Be useful to have some sort of comparison list to see which states deserve to have high the mobile, high income people as residents.
Do you think the root cause of all this trouble is with the DMCA in particular, or is the Act just a symptom of the problems with existing federal copyright laws in general?
Pirates or Heroes?
Media giants are portraying as "pirates" those who copy and exchange copyrighted materials. History may well portray them differently. In 1773, the British government granted special tax status to the East India Company, at the expense of colonial merchants. The revolt that followed, the Boston Tea Party, was condemmed by the British government, but today those responsible are widely regarded as heroes.
Lobbied by the media giants, the U.S. Congress has extended Copyright beyond what is constitutional. The pro-big-business Supreme Court has upheld the extension. Here are the words of Supreme Court Justice Breyer, dissenting:
Media is being created that cannot be copied, even for the purpose of backup. DVD's purchased in one country cannot be played in another. "Defective" CDs are being sold that will not play on a computer CD player.
Test 1 2 3 4
Do you see this new legislation altering our ability to work remotely? Will these restrictions place undue hardship on US workers when compared with facilities in other countries? Is it likely that other countries will evolve faster technologically as a result of these draconian measures?
Between the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act granting longer terms to copyright and the DMCA granting greater "enforcement" powers to the holder (in the form of legally-unbreakable encryption) the trend in copyright seems to be passing into more power for the holder and a weakening --perhaps even destruction-- of fair use and of a public domain. Likewise, the proliferation of code patents encroaches upon the creative commons from yet another angle, and all of these aspects serve only the entrenched players in various fields (cable/satellite companies, MPAA/RIAA, IBM/Microsoft/Adobe, etc.). What would you propose to be the proper balance of interests and what measures do you think should be taken to arrive there?
Do you like Japanese imports?
Much of the problem with the laws such as the recent state anti-NAT laws and the DMCA revolves around judicial interpretation. (Eg, whether NAT or freenet is illegal strongly depends on how the courts read the definitions of a communications device in the various laws.) My question to you is: is there anything we can do to influence this interpretation? From my understanding, once there is a ruling on a subject, that becomes precedent, so if we can get a ruling stating that these laws do not cover things like freenet, life gets better. Getting that ruling, however, is hard. Is there a "good" way to do that (besides bankrupting myself by getting prosecuted for violating it)?
thanks.
What is the most effective thing Joe Q. Public can do to fight DRM? There are all sorts of organizations with various methods, including petitions, boycotts, information-sharing, etc., and the ever popular "write your senator" form letters. This seems like a case of David vs Goliath, and I'd like to know what stone would be best to pick up.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Are you aware if anyone has done (and published) any work on the relationship between innovation and the economy? For instance, has anyone shown that things like enhanced copyright or the war on terrorism will, directly or indirectly, cause the economy to collapse? I've seen lots of conjecture but nothing so simple and compelling that it would convince any of my elected representatives.
Professor Felten,
The world I've lived in pre-Internet allowed me to, if I found a great newspaper article (or TV show episode) or song, to make a copy of it to pass along to one or a handful of friends to check out.
It certainly seems like this will be technologically unfeasible if/when sufficient copy protection becomes embedded in content-viewing technology in the mid-term future.
I know you aren't a lawyer, but you have parsed these laws carefully and talked to more lawyers than I. Did the type of usage I described above ever fall under 'fair use'? Is it 'fair use' today, and if not, is there a particular piece of legislation that changed the legality of this?
--LP
Dear Dr. Felten,
Recently, the vice provost of undergraduate studies in my university has initiated a series of activities aimed at getting active student input on improving the educational experience on our campus. One of my pet peeves with the studentry of my school is that they're rather apathetic and uninformed of political and social issues in the world surrounding us. Given that tomorrow these people would be engineers and scientists, and above all, citizens, I think it is vitally important that they are well aware of current social and legal issues in our technological society.
My two questions are: 1) how would you go about encouraging college students to become more interested in issues like the DMCA 2) do you feel that most engineering and science students in Princeton University have a good understanding of the legal and ethical issues in IT?
Bush Lies Watch
Do you think that the DMCA has had an effect on the media? Using 2600 as a prime example, don't you think that the media's free speech rights are restricted for fear of persecution? [media including websites]
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
NAT or VPN may fall within the meaning of laws against concealing the identity of origin of Net packets. Anonymous remailers, intended to fully obscure the origin of messages, most certainly would violate these laws. Yet there are times when a citizen wants to be able to give a tip to law enforcement without becoming personally involved. Let's say I have a well-founded suspicion that my neighbor robbed the bank in the next town. Let's further posit I don't want my neighbor to have any hint I've turned her in, and don't want to play any role in court proceedings (maybe she has a sister who'd come after my family; maybe I don't want the government to inquire as to how I know about the robbery). Won't laws which criminalize anonymous cooperation with law enforcement significantly hinder the well-being of society?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton