Slashdot Mirror
USAF Violates DMCA, Escapes Unscathed
eldavojohn recommends coverage at Ars on a Byzantine case just thrown out by an appeals court. The US Air Force cracked the code that would expire a piece of software. For this they were sued under the DMCA in Blueport v. United States. The Court of Federal Claims heard it and threw it out. "The reasoning behind the decisions focuses on the US government's sovereign immunity, which the court describes thusly: 'The United States, as [a] sovereign, "is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued... and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit."' ... 'The DMCA itself contains no express waiver of sovereign immunity,' the judge wrote, 'Indeed, the substantive prohibitions of the DMCA refer to individual persons, not the Government.'"
This has little to do with the DMCA, even before the DMCA it was used from time to time what the feds wanted to use a patent without paying fair market value for it.
The sovereignty issues are a bit unnerving, but one of the things TFA also states is that he brought in beta copies for testing. He had government employees testing his software on government equipment on government time. While he was possibly due some recognition for going above and beyond the call of duty, if you did that at most any tech company, they'd have a reasonable claim to owning that software or owning an interest in it.
And since he did it within in the military, he's lucky he's not facing a court martial for selling the software to Blueport and pulling this crap.
I really dislike the decision, because it hinges on stuff that pisses me off. But the guy who wrote the software pisses me off too.
Start a happiness pandemic
If the DMCA refers only to individuals, and not to organizations like a company or government, then shouldn't Google's YouTube be in the clear against Viacom? or the ThePirateBay in the clear from... everyone?
Something here is off, or the DMCA just got castrated with this new precedent.
If you're driving along.. and a cop car rear ends you, without it's lights on... you cant sue the police department, at least in most states. They dont have to pay to fix your car, you're just SOL and have to fix your own car.
that must vary by state, 4-5 years ago we had a boat for sale alongside a relatively busy 2 lane road near Atlanta, GA. about 2am one day a couple of cops were chasing a speeder and doing 75+ around a corner that is dicey at 55, one of them made it, the other one went off the road, through the fence and into a 6' bushhog, then on into our boat, the tongue of the trailer was bent, the post that the winch bolts to was snapped off and there was a large (>2' across and 8" deep) dent in the bow of the boat. the police departments insurance paid for out boat, the bushhog and repairs to the horse trailer that they hit after hitting our boat.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote
I agree with you that the decision is quite disturbing, even in the light of other comments that this has been the status quo for a long, long time.
I would have found the decision rather balanced, actually, if it had been explicitly limited to the DCMA, for several reasons. First, works of the US government (or the military, anyway) are automatically in the public domain --- the government has waived its "right" to copyright. Interestingly, this means that the crack itself is in the public domain (but not the cracked software, which is a derived work). Secondly, if the US gov't is not bound by the DCMA, it is then legal for it to distribute tools for breaking DRM, which might be useful in many situations (e.g., if Microsoft is vaporized in a war, or if public libraries need them for the purposes of archiving cultural works in danger of disappearance).
The court is not saying the executive branch can break laws set by the legislature. The court is saying that the law that the legislature wrote is written in such a way that it does not apply to the executive branch. If Congress wanted to write it differently, they could have. And still could, for that matter.
Yes it does vary by state to state. Here in michigan they passed a law that makes the police immune from any legal and civil actions to help them in their fight against terrorism and the war on drugs.
If they raid your house by accident, kill your family dog and trash the house you have NO RECOURSE for restitution. Hell they will not even apologize because that is an admission of guilt or improper action.
They pile on laws like this a little at a time to help protect you. It's for your protection you know.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Your package deal has a problem: sweatshop bashing is not like the others.
Have you ever asked why anyone would choose to work in a sweatshop? Could it be because any employment at all is better than roaming the streets looking for coins and bits of food?
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE