Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Exemptions Desired To Hack iPhones, Remix DVDs
An anonymous reader writes "For copyright activists, Christmas comes but once every three years: a chance to ask Santa for a new exemption to the much-hated Digital Millennium Copyright Act's prohibitions against hacking, reverse engineering and evasion of Digital Rights Management (DRM) schemes protecting all kinds of digital works and electronic items. Judging from the list of 20 exemptions requested this year [19 shown], some in the cyber-law community are thinking big. The requests include the right to legally jailbreak iPhones in order to use third party software, university professors wishing to rip clips from DVDs for classroom use, YouTube users wishing to rip DVDs to make video mashups, a request to allow users to hack DRM protecting content from stores that have gone bankrupt or shut down, and a request to allow security researchers to reverse engineer video games with security flaws that put end-users at risk."
Reader MistaE provides some more specific links to PDF versions: "Among the exemption proposals is a request from the Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic to allow circumvention of DRM protection when the central authorization server goes down, a request from the EFF to allow circumvention to install third party programs on phones, as well as a request for ripping DVDs for non-commercial purposes. There were also several narrow requests from educational institutions to rip DVDs for classroom practices."
Make DRM breaking illegal only when there is criminal intent, such as to share reproductions with others or to sell bootlegs...
having the DMCA only apply when and if the person or persons infringing are intending to do so for a profit. That would make the DMCA a law I could get behind.
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
The act of circumventing ANY protection scheme is what the DMCA outlawed. Jailbreaking an Iphone could be construed as such.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Is it too late for Psytar to file for an exemption? ~
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Make it legal, always, period.
There are already laws against the criminal things you've suggested. I really don't see why it should also be illegal to break DRM with the intention of doing that -- why should the intention matter at all? Maybe you broke it with the intention of watching it on your Mythbox, and later got the idea (independently) of using the cracked version for something criminal?
No, that's all needlessly vague and complex. If you want to make it hurt more to pirate stuff, change those laws -- which wasn't even a criminal offense until recently, but rather, a civil matter.
Think about that -- it is a federal crime to crack the DRM. It's merely a civil offense to redistribute the music. One goes on your record, the other doesn't. WTF?!
Tag says it all: justrepealit. Or, if you're going to ask for exemptions, don't ask for such pathetically small ones -- are iPhones mentioned specifically? Why can't I crack an iPod Touch, then?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Rocky hammered on his opponent, his fists writing a soliloquy of destruction on Apollo's face. Each blow was a finely crafted metaphor of pain. Shifting his focus to the abdomen, Rocky pummelled paragraph after paragraph up and down Apollo's ribcage. After finishing the body of his exposition, he topped it off with a climactic sentence to the jaw. Apollo went down for the count.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
add bypassing of hardware locks in software so people can BUY mac os x and run it on any system that they want. There also been other apps and that used other types of hardware lock in as well. Also add bypassing printer ink lock out chips used to keep 3rd party's out.
You should also have the right to add bigger hd's to game consoles / drvs and other devices that try sell you there own hd size upgrades at very high cost.
Smart phones also need to have the right to bypass any type of sim locks / network locks / even phone app network locks as well.
Is someone at least requesting it?
I suppose if we get an exception we could play both DVDs and BluRays on Linux.. legally. Well except for the codecs, but shh.
If I put up a sign next to a shitty restaurant saying "Do not patronize restaurant X, the food is crap", that's my free speech right.
If a city puts in a new highway that means less people drive down a service road that was previously the highway, and a number of businesses don't get as much impulse "I think I'll stop there" business, they either adapt or move or die, they don't get recompense.
Nothing should be different with DRM. DRM is a method by which the companies try to infringe on the CONSUMER'S right to fair-use activities like space-shifting, nothing more. DRM itself should be illegal.
I'd want to expand on this one: "university professors wishing to rip clips from DVDs for classroom use"
Make it: "Allow home users to rip DVDs for personal use"
So if you rip the video off of the DVD to put it on your home media server, you're fine. If you rip a bunch of children's DVDs to compile a single DVD with your kid's favorite episodes, you're ok. Basically anything you do where the video doesn't leave your "personal zone" would be allowed. Things like sharing clips, classroom use, or YouTube mashups would be a separate exemption.
Then, perhaps, we could get set top boxes that would take DVDs in, rip them to an internal hard drive, and allow home users to choose from hundreds or thousands of movies without handling any discs. As any parent with little kids will tell you, you want to keep the discs away from kids' hands, but keep them in reach enough that you can access them quickly and easily. A set top box like this would be ideal.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The act of "jailbreaking" an iPhone is not illegal, unless the _owner_ of the device has agreed to some TOS/EULA disallowing such an act. The responsibility falls on the owner of the device, not any individuals or corporations aiding in a modification.
Using a unlocked phone to circumvent copy protections may be illegal (DMCA), but I don't know of any media where such circumvention would be necessary simply for use on a hacked device. Of course applications may have EULA's or TOS disallowing their use apart from licensing through for example the applications store.
I believe you are correct; in the few cases involving phone jailbreaking, the case was over the intentional disabling of said phones by a network. Intentionally disabling a device for use on other networks is anti-competitive behavior, which is illegal in the US.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Here you go. Now, I'll be checking up on you guys in a week and I expect to be impressed.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Do you want to do your job for free? Do you want to not get paid for any work you do? If not, then you support copyright restrictions. Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them.
I get paid when I work. I don't get paid today because I worked 4 years ago for one week, and people still benefit [sic] from what I did. Violation of copyright says "You did you job, good job. Now get over it and get BACK to work like the rest of mankind!" and not "I don't think you should get paid for what you do."
I have zero sympathy for those untalented hacks who spent a whole week in a recording studio and now want me to feed them, their whores, and their children for the rest of their pathetic lives. If they want to eat, they need to go out and win bread like the rest of us!
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
The act of "jailbreaking" an iPhone is not illegal, unless the _owner_ of the device has agreed to some TOS/EULA disallowing such an act.
No, No, NO! Why do people continue to perpetuate this?
Violating a company's EULA is not illegal. Period. Full stop.
illegal
-adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.
-noun
3. Informal. illegal alien.
Tell me which law or statue I'm violating by doing something that isn't allowed by an EULA.
I've had two situations in which I had a legally-obtained older version of software for which the provider had dropped support, which included dropping support for the DRM built into the products.
In one case, you had to call in, give them your product ID and get a DRM key. I wanted to move the product from an older machine to a newer one. I called in and they told me they had dropped support, including handling the DRM keys, and to buy their new product. The old product served my needs, and the new one had improvements that were useless to me. Luckily, one tech support person was nice and told me where I could find the DRM key value in the old installation, that I hadn't yet deleted. Had I needed to reinstall for any reason, I would have been stuck.
In another case the DRM required either an internet connection or printer access during installation. This was not explained in the installation instructions. I was installing software on a new machine and hadn't yet set up either internet or printer. With that (early) DRM, if you didn't go through the procedure at installation time, there was no opportunity to do it later. The provider later came out with other versions and dropped support for this version. I moved on to using a FOSS product, so I never tried to resolve the issue, but I have a useless copy of that particular software. It didn't set me back any cost, because I had won a copy of the product in a drawing at a trade show booth for people who sat through a demo of something.
If DRM support is dropped for a version of a product, it should be treated as an abandoned product, even if the DRM is maintained for later versions.
I get paid when I work. I don't get paid today because I worked 4 years ago for one week, and people still benefit [sic] from what I did. Violation of copyright says "You did you job, good job. Now get over it and get BACK to work like the rest of mankind!" and not "I don't think you should get paid for what you do."
The problem with this logic is that without copyright protection in some form, it would be much harder to be a self-sufficient producer of original work whether that be writing, movies, etc. Without copyright, you could spend years working on a novel, and only sell a few copies, since someone could legally reproduce your novel, distribute it, and not give you a dime.
I think we need some form of copyright protection to encourage people to create, but I would agree that what we have now is protection that lasts too long and is a bit too onerous.
I can understand the reason for getting paid royalties and having your own work copyrighted but I have no sympathy for the untalented hacks their children or whores are (whether they are corporate (Disney) or individual (Yoko Ono)) years after the original artist or group has ceased (benefitting from his work). I also have no sympathy for the hacks that are trying to profit from the same work MULTIPLE times from the same people.
There should be a limit that cannot be extended for work done and it shouldn't be 40 years after the artist has died, it should be given up as soon as the artist or the artists as a group can't benefit from it anymore (whether it be death of a member or split from their record label).
It should also be allowed for the buyers to reclaim their own copy of a work they bought rights to in different (new) formats. I paid for the song that I wanted to listen to and I don't want to become deprived of my product simply because the format they chose 20 years ago (like DAT tapes) didn't keep up with current technology both in terms of quality as well as portability. Asking me to buy a new media-version of the identical product is like asking me to pay off my car all over again simply because I changed the tires or part of the engine or asking me to lug around a portable turntable so I can listen to the White Album while working out.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
That's ok, just get someone else to do it. You are safe because you didn't jailbreak it and they are safe because they didn't agree to anything!
But see, your child doesn't get paid because you washed dishes. Your child gets paid because you save money and give it to them. Same can be said of writing books.
Copyright isn't supposed to protect the publishers, it's supposed to protect the artists. If you happen to die of a car accident...well, that sucks, but you don't need the money, and I doubt the publisher does either. It'd just be an additional risk of business. Though honestly I don't think copyright should expire when the artist dies - it just shouldn't last so long that it's virtually guaranteed that the artist will die long before the copyright expires. Perhaps 10 years? Long enough the publisher and artist will most likely get the same amount of money.
Among the exemption proposals is a request from the Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic to allow circumvention of DRM protection when the central authorization server goes down
Which first lists Circuit City's Digital Video Express (DIVX) disks under "DRM-based Stores Have Failed In the Past":
I hope it includes allowing for the authorization of my lawfully purchased copy of DVD X Copy Gold which I didn't get activated before the company was served with a cease-and-desist. That would be sweet irony.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
most people would give up on writing books in favour of washing dishes.
In other news, dishwashing is a way more popular career than book-writing.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
OK, fair enough. What about the other 99% of artists, who do spend more than a week in the recording studio (or on location at a film, or in their studio painting, etc), or who some consider to be talented, or who can't get anywhere near the equivalent income from selling their art as any other skilled person? Do you have sympathy for them? Or do you lump all artists into that extremely tiny subcategory just to make yourself feel better when you rip them off?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
OK, fair enough. What about the other 99% of artists, who do spend more than a week in the recording studio (or on location at a film, or in their studio painting, etc), or who some consider to be talented, or who can't get anywhere near the equivalent income from selling their art as any other skilled person?
Touring, selling t-shirts and stickers on their website, and having day jobs if they're not making enough money off their hobbies... like the rest of us do. I live and work in Los Angeles, and so I have friends (the kind who actually consider ME their friend) who range from small time entertainment to international superstars that are used to seeing their faces on the front of tabloids. I'm not so detached from the industry that I'm unaware at how a change like this would affect them personally, and I tell them the same thing. "No such thing as a free ride." It keeps them in the black for now, and when their draconian royalties payment system catches up with the rest of the world's economic flow, they probably won't be left to starve.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
No they dont.
Do you get to charge license fees in perpetuity for the lines of code you write for your employer? If you do they're morons, because that's not standard.
architects don't either.. they're paid hourly or salary
same for graphic designers
local bands are paid by the gig and for merchandise by fans
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!