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.
Although I have no idea why it took this long.
You might want to put a link to EFF's donate page. Thanks.
and then on the plank . . .
What about enforcing anti trust and other laws so the DMCA abuse does get as bad as it is? Or you do want an apple car that must do oil changes each 3000 miles at the dealer with an a cost of $100-150 or the car will go in an limp home mode?
Here is the complaint, in case anyone wants to read it.
Their argument in brief: those provisions of the DMCA are preventing people from expressing themselves (free speech) which violates the first amendment. The Library of Congress is supposed to approve various exemptions to the DMCA for the purpose of research (or other), but the LoC failed to do so (in 2015). Even if the LoC had correctly fulfilled their duty, having them as a gatekeeper on what speech is allowed violates the first amendment.
This is a great lawsuit, I can't wait to see what the government's response will be. Incidentally, there is a third plaintiff besides the two mentioned in the summary, a company called Alphamax (but I've never heard of them).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I, write right here: that manishs, does not know, how to use commas.
At the bottom of the
I don't recall copyright having an amendment. Don't Constitutional rights trump pretty much everything else, period?
Copyright is one of the enumerated powers of Congress (U.S. Const. I.8): "The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." This power is subject to other rights retained by the people, such as freedom from Congressional interference with freedom of speech (U.S. Const. Amendment I).
I am unsure why the DOJ is on the list.
Because the law has criminal penalties. Suing the sitting Attorney General for an injunction on enforcing a law is the standard legal fiction used to challenge a criminal statute's constitutionality in the United States.
Coke's REAL weapon is trademark law. If somebody started selling a beverage that tasted exactly like Coca-Cola, but never represented it as tasting like Coke or having anything to do with Coke, there's very little Coca-Cola could actually DO to stop them.
The thing is, it would only be a matter of time until some employee was overheard claiming to someone that it WAS the same as Coke, and Coca-Cola could sue them into oblivion based upon the actions of that employee.
That said, AFAIK, Coca-Cola is the ONLY company authorized to buy de-cocanized coca leaves from the federal government's sole authorized supplier. So as a practical matter, even if you downloaded their allegedly secret formula online, you'd never be able to replicate it exactly unless you wanted to risk getting raided and arrested by DEA agents, since there's no legal second source for that key ingredient.
And that's what Regulatory Capture looks like when it grows up. Effective legal monopolies are the dream of every CEO, and we seem intent on making more of that happen under the guise of "protecting the little guy from corporations through additional regulations" (which may even be true for the first few years).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
No. Passed the House through voice vote. Passed Seante by "unanimous consent" (that means everyone, in both Parties, thought it was a great idea.
Note that one of the "features" of a Voice Vote is that there's no record of who actually voted for/against it in the House.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Tell that to Red Bull. You're mostly right -- there are only certain companies licensed to trade in coca leaf, probably because it'd be too easy otherwise to trade coca leaf under the cover of it being de-cocanized coca leaf -- but Stepan can sell to other beverage makers besides TCCC.
So why isn't the library of congress making these exemptions?I usually think of librarians as being pretty good guardians of research and free speech. It seems like the LOC does not follow that spirit.
Are the reputations of labor, trial lawyers and the oil/gas industry also misfounded?
I haven't looked it up for a while but all the figures I've seen (monetary contributions) have backed up the stereotypes in all these industries (including Hollywood).
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
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