Slashdot Mirror
EFF Reviews 5 Years Under The DMCA
briaydemir writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has a new report, Unintended Consequences:
Five Years under the DMCA, detailing how the DMCA has stiffled competition, innovation, scientific research, and fair use. The original news release is here, and the report is also available as a PDF. Check it out if you want a good summary of all the DMCA cases over the past five years."
This article really shows why it is time for the DMCA to go. Anyone who happens to create any sort of device that someone figures out a way to use it to circumvent anything can be sued under the DMCA. (See also the Sklyarov incident.) Remember when someone discovered that you could use a Sharpie to circumvent the copy protection on a CD? Manufacturers/programmers/whatever should never be responsible for what anyone does outside the intended uses.
Another problem is that Congress makes some of these laws so vague as to leave too much interpretation up to the judges who try cases under these laws. Unfortunately, organizations such as the EFF don't have the clout or the resources that the corps do.
I have to stop now before I go on a rant ;-)
There is no spoon or sig.
What I'd really like to know is just how "unintended" some of these consequences were... *shrug*
One of the things that bothers me most about laws like the DMCA and the NET (no electronic theft) act is the excessive punishments they put in place for various violations.
For example, the DMCA makes it a felony to circumvent a copy protection device. And, similarly, the NET act makes it a felony to share copyrighted materials via a service like Kazaa with a possible 5 year prison term.
Regardless of whether the things out lawed by legislation like this really should be out lawed or not, the punishments really need to be adjusted to fit the crime. Neither getting your dvd player to play dvd's from europe, nor sharing the latest Eminem song should even carry the possiblity of landing you several months little less several years in the slammer. Okay, the Eminem case is iffy, but otherwise...
For those of you who seem to recall a very similar story but can't quite pin it down: your not crazy. The EFF revises their opinion on the DMCA every year, under the title "Unintended Consequences: X Years under the DMCA." I traced it back at least to 2 years ago, and there may have been articles previous.
They do make several good points, and I would go into more specifics but I really don't have time to read the new version (I read the older editions a year ago when I was investigating impacts of the DMCA for a research paper). An actual evaluation of the entire DMCA document is difficult especially due to the nature of Copyright law, Fair Use, et al, but the EFF does a good job, albeit a mildly biased one.
On a related note for those of you that have 30 seconds: support the EFF's newest petition -> "Take a Stand Against the Madness; Stop the RIAA!" Its a useful free alternative to being even more useful and donating to the cause.
**AA: a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
. . . because they were in a dispute with the painter's guild. Steinway painted their pianos. The painter's guild claimed this as a violation of their guild rights.
Steinway said, "Fuck this shit" (Well, the German equivilent actually), and came to America. In the process making America the center of a cultural technology that had previously been a European monopoly.
America is making such inovative freedom illegal. It will reap the consecquences, just as did Europe.
The DMCA was written entirely to protect existing vested interests. When you do so you automatically restrict (even if that wasn't your intent) development of other interests that spur economic growth.
The end result is stagnation with all power and wealth gradually making its way into a few hands.
Welcome to the economic algae pond, Brother.
KFG
The DMCA has nothing to do with maritime law. It was not enacted to protect cargo ships or the spanish armarda. "Pirate" is a propaganda term used by copyright owners to imply that unauthorized copying is the equivilent of murder and theft on the high seas. The message is clear: only a vicious enemy of the people would do unauthorized copying. To a lesser degree the term "protection" is also a propaganda term to describe what copyright owners do in restricting our freedom. These terms are an important weapon of people who support the DMCA and other stifling laws as they encourage informers to rat people out to the non-official police forces the copyright owners fund.
All in all, you'd think the EFF would be too smart to play their game.
How we know is more important than what we know.
- Crowbars should be declared circumvention devices and be banned, since they can be used to pry open a door which is protecting copyrighted material
- Airport x-ray devices can be used to see through solid materials and discover copyrighted materials within a briefcase, for example. Thus, x-ray devices circumvent a protection mechanism.
Any others?Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Create a boy band called DMCA then plit them up giving them all losing solo careers
Create a rap group RunDMC is taken but JogDMCA is available
Take the paper it was written on and donate it to public toilets
Team with R. Kelly and continue going after minors and morons
Give it to Blair or Cheney (forged of course) so they could start a war with China
Give it to Bush and tell him it's this year's economic stimulus package (he'll believe it)
Give it to Ashcroft so he could make a DMCA color coded warning system no one listens to
See there is more to the DMCA than you thought. And all along everyone was protesting... pffffft
MoFscker
The points they are trying to make are these: 1) DMCA is like Duct Tape... It works on anything, even for things its not intended to. 2) Congress became lazy when they had the DMCA drawn up, and left WAY TOO MANY Loose ends on it. 3) Something has to be done to revise/remove it until a decent Act is actually drawn up...
Just me
The DMCA was created in the spirit that new forms of electronic media were not safe from potential copyright violations, and the act did what it set out to do. Yet it also did a great deal more as special interests and corporate schmoozers managed to get their paws on the bill and turn it into more of a "dominant market player protection act" than anything else. We all agree that the amount of innovation stifled using the DMCA as justification is staggering. Yet electronic media should also be protected from the loopholes the bill originally solved. Here are a few potential solutions:
1) Remove the current DMCA and amend it such that only specific uses of media are prohibited. Allow for the use of back-engineering tools with HARSH punishments for people who knowingly use them to break copyrighted material with intent to distribute. This leaves the burden of proof with a prosecutors instead of the "guilty-til-proven- innocent" tactics of the RIAA et. al.
2) Make a specific statement for "loser pays": anyone suing under using this legislation who loses the case pays for the legal costs of both parties. Settlements don't count, and this will outright favor the bigger players, but in the American climate of "legal attrition" as a business strategy I see no other effective means of trying to relieve this aspect of the DMCA problem.
3) Allow publications on computer security to be done freely and thoroughly if tied to legitimate academic or corporate entities. Hold computer manufacturers liable if one of their components has a security flaw that causes eggregious commercial/monetary damage but which could have been fixed by repair of one of these published flaws.
4) Ensure that American laws apply only to American citizens with the express wording that products purchased in other parts of the world which belong to the consumer are theirs to do with as they please. A clause allowing rightful action to take whatever steps necessary to use that product would be nice (mod chips et. al)
Pointing fingers makes us feel good, but unless we propose alternatives and compromises, are we really doing anything but venting? Does anyone else have potential solutions/thoughts on how to resolve this issue?
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
You only have to look at the name to see what a stupid piece of legislation it is:
Digital - Now whats the point of calling it digital? its just a bandwagon jumping buzzword, well back in the late 90's it was all the rage digital this digital that always with the digital it just means fucking numbers! so by calling it digital they've restricted it to only digital systems. Macrovision on VHS is not digital, therefore it doesn't count, whoops. Now as much as i like that little mistake it doesn't mean its not stupid.
Millennium - WHY!??!?! WHY!??! WTF! WHY!? it wasn't even the millennium when the law was passed! What does it mean? What possible relevance does the millennium of 2000 have to do with copy-right law and circumnavigation of digital devices? Is it just another bandwagon buzzword?? At least digital was slightly relevant!
Copy-right Act - This isn't a copy-right act, its an anti-reverse engineering act, its an anti-industrial espionage act, its an anti-freedom-of-speech-if-it-might-hurt-a-company act. A copy-right act would use the phrase "You may not copy copy-righted work that you dont own" the only thing this says your not allowed to copy is circumnavigation software from other people.
This is the sort of naming i would expect by marketing people. Marketing people have no place in politics and legislation.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Before this discussion turns into the typical "I hate the US" and "I hate Bush" ignorant ranting, let me remind you "free speech as long as it doesn't offend" liberals that it was your boy, Clinton, who had the ultimate push in this.
Are you suggesting that the American congress might have done something rash? Something wrong?
Do you understand the implications of that allegation? Have you any idea how many lives are ended or ruined every year, due to decisions made in the US congress?
Please moderate yourself. If the US congress were prone to "error", thousands, or hundred of thousands of people have died in wain.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Can I send a note to websites where I have accounts about unauthorized copying of my personal information to third parties?
Can I use it against adware companies that take data from my computer without my permission?
Can I use it against Microsoft when their software allows a virus to copy the contents of my address book around the internet?
The DCMA, with it's idea that I can purchase a piece of equipment and then not do it as I wish, or that I cannot make copies of books or music for personal use, is just immoral. It is immoral because it allows contracts in which the end user has to agree to terms that are unknown until the end user either cannot return the product of inadvertently breaks the contract. It is immoral because it prevents the necessary innovation that encourages the free market. It is immoral because it circumvents due process.
And we cannot allow immoral acts to continue. The best defense is peaceful civil disobedience. For instance, don't buy music from RIAA labels. If they have no income, they have no money to fight legal battles. The same goes for the MPAA, game vendors, and anyone else that uses the DMCA. It won't be possible to totally shut them out, but we can at least make an effort.
I believe a lot of what goes on P2P networks is copyright infringement, but what choice do we have. The music and movies are sold in packages that violates our traditional fair use rights under the law. If i can't make a copy of the CD for my car, and the manufacturer won't give me another CD when the original get stolen or damaged, then why should I buy the CD. The manufacturer obviously has no respect for me as a customer, so I might as well return the disrespect the manufacturer and copy the music off the net.
The same goes for movies. If movies are increasingly downloaded from the net, it won't be because people don't want to buy movies. It will be because the movies we can buy are illegally packaged to prevent out fair use rights. Why should I buy a movie that is crippled when I can download a copy that honors my fair use rights. The manufacturer may hid behind a license, but it makes no difference. A contract that removes legal rights, especially when the rights are not itemized, should not be honored.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Get real. Congress doesn't care about their constituants. All they care about is lining their own pockets! This is proven time after time after time. Congress hasn't cared about the people for decades! Why should we be surprised about the DMCA? Congress and big business saw digital as a way to TAKE BACK right that the people just assumed they were unalienable.
The irony is that all it would take is a couple of these clowns to be thrown out on their ever-widening asses because they put out a: "for sale" sign and the rest wuld be so scared shit about the gravy train pulling into the station they'd likely capitulate. But we know that just isn't going to happen. People have become so apathetic that they don't even bother to vote. Even Arnold who would be governor of CA doesn't!
I guess we do get the government we deserve though. Do nothing, and get nothing in return.
Check it out if you want a good summary of all the DMCA cases over the past five years.
/. cases, Scientology v. Internet Wayback machine, Scientology v. Google, Scientology v. /., Scientolog v. Ebay, and so many more...
Umm... EFF has skipped over all the $cientology cases,
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Jesus H tap-dancing Christ. Please tell me you were trying to earn a (Score: 5, Funny).
Are you not aware of what a self-fulfilling prophecy that is? You won't donate to an organization that explicitly fights to protect your privacy, because you're afraid that they won't protect your privacy?
Are you also afraid to vote for anybody other than Bush because Ashcroft might find out and come gitcha?
You might as well be afraid to go to a restaurant during your lunch hour because you might not have enough time left over to eat at your desk.
The best legislation money can buy.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
You don't know what you're talking about.
The fetuses that die have some horrifying birth defects and have no viable life support systems of their own. Once out of the womb they will not live, no matter what. Even when born "naturally."
However, this is where the problem comes in. Read on.
The reason they have to suck the brains out is because the fetus's head has swollen to such an extent that it can be as large as 50cm across.
By outlawing "partial birth abortion" you are sentencing women to torture and possible death. The only safe way to extract the non-viable fetus has been taken away. Now the mother has no choice but to push an object roughly twenty inches wide through her vagina. If the mother lives through that, she can look forward to her baby dieing in about two days from the birth defects, birth defects that were only detected late in pregnancy, too late for a normal abortion.
This has nothing to do with the "abortion industry" protecting their profits. I do feel that the medical cartel in the USA is run by greedy rapacious money launderers, but that's a different argument. In this case, doctors have found a safe, if horrific, way to remove a non-viable fetus with a specific type of birth defect from the mother. You should be happy that the vessel, uh, I mean woman, won't endure such injury that she'll never be able to bring forth life from a man's seed again.
I encourage you to learn the facts before you open your anonymous mouth again.