Slashdot Mirror
EFF Is Suing the US Government To Invalidate the DMCA's DRM Provisions (boingboing.net)
Cory Doctorow, writes for BoingBoing: The Electronic Frontier Foundation has just filed a lawsuit that challenges the Constitutionality of Section 1201 of the DMCA, the "Digital Rights Management" provision of the law, a notoriously overbroad law that bans activities that bypass or weaken copyright access-control systems, including reconfiguring software-enabled devices (making sure your IoT light-socket will accept third-party lightbulbs; tapping into diagnostic info in your car or tractor to allow an independent party to repair it) and reporting security vulnerabilities in these devices. EFF is representing two clients in its lawsuit: Andrew "bunnie" Huang, a legendary hardware hacker whose NeTV product lets users put overlays on DRM-restricted digital video signals; and Matthew Green, a heavyweight security researcher at Johns Hopkins who has an NSF grant to investigate medical record systems and whose research plans encompass the security of industrial firewalls and finance-industry "black boxes" used to manage the cryptographic security of billions of financial transactions every day. Both clients reflect the deep constitutional flaws in the DMCA, and both have standing to sue the US government to challenge DMCA 1201 because of its serious criminal provisions (5 years in prison and a $500K fine for a first offense).Doctorow has explained aspects of this for The Guardian today. You should also check Huang's blog post on this.
Well if you are going to invalidate a US Congressional Approved Law that was Signed by the President of the United States (2 out of the 3 parts of the US Checks and Balances). You better be sure that you have as much data to prove your case to the Judicial System as possible. Poorly presenting your case and if it goes to the Supreme Court and your loose makes it nearly impossible to fight the case again.
Much like how the conservatives fought over states rights for same sex marriages, in essence caused it to be legal in the entire state, because their defence of their stance wasn't backed up. If they didn't bring the case up, they may had a chance keeping what they perceive as a problem limited to only those LiBeRaL states.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It should provide safe harbor protection without requiring content take down notices be processed. For example of abuse look at the Gavin E Long videos on YouTube; he filmed himself and uploaded blog videos as the sole owner of the videos. Then he died after doing a mass shooting. In response provocateurs submitted fake DMCA copyright claims and now all the videos are offline, but only he could access his account to submit counterclaims to have the videos put back up. YouTube follows the DMCA which requires the videos or content to be taken down even if the request is invalid, because without the due process checks of a judge or jury there is no way to know if the content is infringing or not.
No one but Gavin could defend himself but in the case a judge or jury were involved, they might never issue take down orders because the requests were obviously frivolous.
obamasweapon.com