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.'"
Just for a while.
In most civilian jobs you have to sign a paper that states something like "what you do for the company is the company's property". I suspect that most agreements are a bit more stringent than that. When you are in the Armed Forces of the United States, I'd say that those rules apply, even more so.
It appears that this guy took his employer's 'system', redesigned it and then tried to profit from it by having a vendor sell it back to his employer. That stuff would get you fired at my company. I wouldn't expect it to go over well for somebody in the armed forces either.
I'm sorry dude. You did a great job by helping out. But... Your job is to help out. Suing the US Government over something that you produced while working as a government employee isn't going to work.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
are immune from the restrictions and laws they help write to rule the people that put them in power.
In fact they may do the very thing the laws were written to prevent, with impunity.
Couldn't that be considered a definition of corruption?
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.
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.
Tried to fly that one under the radar, did they?
*rimshot*
--RIAmAses! Let my MP3ople go!
Let me get this straight: You think that your client, one of the largest, most powerful airforces in the world, is hacking your software. And your plan is to blackmail these people? Good luck.
This is only in the US by the way, most other countries do not view corporations as people.
Actually most other countries also view corporations as artificial people. It's kind of a characteristic of being a corporation.
Derive Politics
You have an odd idea of what makes a work for hire. The guy's job was explicitly not programming. He actually asked for training in programming and was turned down. It appears that he in fact did do all of the work on his own time with the possible exception of listening to requests for improvements in the software that he graciously provided at no cost.
Even if he did do some of the work while on duty, that wouldn't make it government property. It would only be government property if it was the product of his job. Suppose that a soldier while on duty works on his novel or that a sailor carves scrimshaw. Do you think that the resulting novel or carving cease to be his property? No, they don't, because they weren't made in the course of his job.
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).
Okay, I may be biased here, being a career officer and all...
BUT: he writes a piece of software at home, and then brings it to work to 'test'? In fact, he's running unverified, non approved software on a military computer, most likely networked to other military computers? Seriously, WTF?
It boggles me that IT security is that lax in a military organisation - our setup won't let me run anything than the approved, verified apps delivered over the network - operational security being key. And don't even think of executing something of a removable media...
We all know that pretty much anyone can be bought (if the offer is high enought) - what if he had been less upright and loyal and had put a trojan or two into his program?
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
So he owns the copyright but since he induced the use of his copyrighted work in the course of his regular work related duties he forsakes his right to actionable copyright proceedings as it relates to the USAF.
He can still sell his copyrighted program to others, the USAF does not own his code -- the USAF just never have to be concerned about any claims of violation of copyright in regards to this code because they are immune because of his actions.
Three issues here -- copyright, immunity from copyright actions and DMCA.
1) Copyright was and still is his.
2) Immunity from copyright actions was decided based on above
3) DMCA violation was decided based on judges decision that the DMCA doesn't apply to the government.
Democracy as the ancient Greeks understood it meant rule by a certain group of people, not all people. In ancient Athens (5th century BC? please correct me) this meant men over a certain age who owned land. Not women, not slaves (it was fine to have slaves in this democracy) and not free men who didn't own land. Thus "democratic" can have a wide range of meanings. I think it would be fair to say that several of the founders of the US constitution wouldn't be too happy to have women and certain ethnic groups having the vote but still feel they were being true to the statement "of the people, by the people and for the people".
It's a reasonable, but narrow, decision. The decision turns on a section of the Copyright Act that says a government employee "shall have a right of action against the Government under this subsection except where he was in a position to order, influence, or induce use of the copyrighted work by the Government." That's what happened here. Davenport used his job in the USAF to introduce his manpower-management software into USAF use. He wasn't an outside supplier.
The DMCA issue is one of jurisdiction. This case was filed with the Court of Federal Claims, which handles copyright claims against the Government. But the DMCA specifies that DMCA anti-circumvention claims must be brought in federal district courts. It's a narrow ruling; it's not clear what would happen if a DMCA case was brought in a district court. Especially if it was brought against the company that did the cracking, SAIC.