Slashdot Mirror
Testing Microsoft And The DMCA
sproketboy writes "I found a great piece about an MIT student and his XBox hacking over at news.com.
Apparently he can't get his how-to book published do to fears with DMCA. I hope he at least can get it publish in China or Russia where people have some freedoms left. ;)." The student is doctoral candidate Andrew "Bunnie" Huang, the same hacker Microsoft declined to stop last August from presenting a paper on insecurities in the Xbox hardware.
I hope he at least can get it publish in China or Russia where people have some freedoms left.
You could say almost anywhere but USA! DMCA/Patriot/Patriot2 are US laws! not *world* laws!
Russia -- MAYBE
China -- NO WAY
If you seriously think you're worse off than the average chinese person because you can't legally make a backup copy of your DVDs, then you seriously need to rethink your priorities. At least in the US we have the RIGHT to speak out against the DMCA while if it were enacted in China, anyone speaking out against it would be lucky ever to be able to speak again.
Yes, the DMCA is a bad law, but it is in no way comparable to the conditions the average Chinese person faces on a daily basis.
GET SOME PRIORITIES!
less spying on ther citizens than USA do. Look on the development since 9/11... I just say: Developing brainscans on Airports... great idea.
The X-box has been accused by many of being a test run for DRM technologies; i.e., it's a completely locked-down, intellectually hermetically sealed box on which Microsoft has Power Absolute.
This guy is now pushing out a book on x-box hacking and MS is not doing anything. While his problems publishing it is speaking volumes as a concrete example of how real and present the whole "chilling effect" meme is on defeating free speech, the point remains that he is refusing to be deterred and forcing this book through come hell or high water.
And MS, realizing if they try to get a book banned because it talks about their video game system, they'll face public backlash, they'll have the EFF go "holy shit this is the big one", and they'll lose after years in the supreme court after having being hurt more by the case than the PHD student... is not taking action.
So, here's my question: in six or seven years, someone is going to write a book about Palladium, and all known ways to hack it. And either it will end any use of Palladium as a security technology (though probably preseving its use as a monopoly prolonger)... or MS will try to have this book banned.
Is there going to be any difficulty for MS, if they try to stop the book on palladium hacking then, considering that they didn't stop the book on x-box hacking now? Are they setting any kind of precedents that people can point at in the future and say "look, if XYZ is illegal, then why wasn't that x box book in 2003 illegal?"
It's called censorship. There's also Freedom of speech in other countries even though americans don't seem to think so. Come on, you have to realize that you live in a country where the companies and the government run you, not the other way around. And there's not much freedom in that. The government just makes you focus on your Freedom of speech when your freedom gets restricted more and more every. And what about a law. An unethical law doesn't make it more correct. Does it?
"What kind of "freedom" does a citizen have in a communist country?"
The same freedoms that citizens enjoy in every other country: everything, except those things forbidden by the laws made by your government. We citizens of democratic countries can choose our own governments and thus have some influence over what laws are passed, but that influence is very limited. Politicians do not necessarily always have our interests at heart, or your individual interests may be different to those of the voting mob.
The US is an excellent example of a country where laws are being passed (DMCA etc.) that seem to benefit a small special interest rather than the general public. You have the freedom to choose your own government, a freedom that the Chinese lack. But I bet that in China you are free to publish any paper on Xbox modding that you can come up with. The Chinese government could forbid it and there would be little that their citizens could do about it, but they haven't done so.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I hope this doesn't sound like one of those In Soviet Russia jokes.
In Soviet Russia,
anything not specifically allowed by the state is forbidden.
In the US Republic,
anything not specifically forbidden is allowed.
Someone hates these cans.
Just like Michael Moore has done with Stupid White Men, he moved to Penguin because they gave him the support against the corporate heavyweights.
And of course he could just publish it as an ebook on the internet.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
...that US publishers now feel like they can't distribute books on hacking hardware, despite the array of them on other topics like:
- Building unlicensed automatic weapons and explosive devices
- Converting post-ban assault rifles for fully-automatic operation
- Breaking and entering
- Creating a counterfeit identity
I guess it's like the view that violence in a film is more appropriate for a wide audience than sexual content.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
I'm not neccesarily the paragon of legal knowledge. That being said, the last time that I checked China was a communist country.
What kind of "freedom" does a citizen have in a communist country?
China is a very oppressive country and Russia is still very oppressive as well. I think the idea behind the "where people still have some freedoms left" comment was to point out that the people in two much more oppressive countries than the US have a freedom that we do not. Even worse, it's an intellectual freedom governing knowledge and free speech, which is something that countries like China are usually much more restrictive about than the United States.
In other words, it's like pointing out something that some black power/racial pride/anti-defamation group does and saying, "Wow! Even the Klan doesn't do that!"
HOW THE FUCK IS HACKING AN X-BOX A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT??? Why do people who do something illegal always try to defend their act by claiming their actions are protected SPEECH!
If I own the damn hardware, I should get to do what I want with it. Including hacking it. It shouldn't be illegal - that's rather the point...
Talking or writing about what you chose to do with your X-Box is the right that's supposed to be protected by the First Amendment.
Doing what you want with your purchase is a long established practice under the doctrine of first sale.
It should only be a problem if you use your purchased item in the commission of a crime against another person or their property.
Posessing knowledge, or the dissemination of knowledge should never be a crime. If the information is that important, safeguard the information in the first place.
But anyway, both communism and capiltalism are simply alternatives, industry in communist countries is owned and controlled by the government, in capitalist countries it is controlled by the corperations. In communist countries the laws are tightly controlled to benifit the governement, and, not suprisingly, the laws in capitalist countries are beginning to be tightly controled to benifit the corperations.
It is true that capitalism had allways been seen as connected tightly with freedom, but we must remember that during the early USSR, the people had unprecedented freedom, it just seems that capitalism takes a little longer to degenerate into a dictatorship.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
"A communist country explicitly subordinates the economic interests of an individual to the economic interests of the people as a whole."
Whereas in a democracy, individual interests may be subjugated to the interests of the mob, the interests of elected representatives (or their pals), or the fad of the day ("protection against terrorists"). Democracy does not equal freedom; one can imagine a democracy where everything is decided by majority vote: laws, policies, but also what clothes will appear in the stores this summer, and what will be for dinner this evening. I exxagerate, but the point is that freedom does not follow automatically from democracy, but is derived only from limitations placed on what the government can and cannot do. Look at Afghanistan where an oppressive government of religious fanatics was voted in, by a majority who knew full well what they were voting for. If you happened to be a woman in that country who did not wish to have to cover her head in public, you'd be shit out of luck despite the fact you'd be living in a democracy.
Democracies tend to place the emphasis on individualism, as opposed to communism favouring collectivism. But democracies can and do go overboard sometimes on regulations and laws that severly limit our personal freedom in favour of a (sometimes very tenuously) alledged Greater Good.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The US have the highest crime rates in the privileged world, and the highest number of people in prison in the entire world, more so than even China (by absolute numbers -- and China is much larger). The US are a police state ruled by the military-industrial complex. You have a president whose daddy was president, for fuck's sake, the only difference with China is that you pretend to be a democracy -- I won't even comment on your last "democratic" presidential election. Grow up and get a backbone, and stop repeating the same propaganda that you have been indoctrinated with since elementary school, otherwise things will never change. People like you are responsible for the situation the US are in. Ignorant sheep who will defend every idiocy and who will happily believe that their country is "the free world" and the rest are unwashed barbarians ruled by oppressive leaders. Fucking moron.
This man can't publish a book for fear of some type of prosecution. In another lawsuit against the DMCA, this could be cited as an example of how the DMCA is effectively exercising prior restraint to publishing, and in actuality creating a chilling effect.
Judges do not take kindly to the words "prior restraint" or "chilling effect" as there is ample Supreme Court precedent firmly against both. An event such as this could help turn the tide of a future DMCA challenge.
And this isn't internet, it's the publishing of good old dead-tree books that judges can understand.