Once the copyright expires, people can make all the copies they want (the copyright holder no longer has the exclusive right to copy or distribute). The "seed" doesn't have to come directly from the ex-copyright-holder. --
But just because the decoder and displayer are layed out in source code doesn't mean that it's trivial to decode to a file, especially to a non-programmer. The DMCA focuses on manufacturing and distribution of programs that circumvent copyright protections. It does not say anything about making the job easier.
Indeed, it might be possible to write two programs, neither of which directly infringe on copyrights by themselves, but when combined allow infringement. Which would be at fault? The DMCA, 17 U.S.C. sec. 1201 (a)(2), lays out rules on determining that.
For a real-world example, what if a program were made that accesses the decoded video from a software DVD decoder by watching the decoder's memory? The program that leeches from the decoder would be found at fault. Though neither of the programs alone could allow copy infringement, the leecher 1) has no other useful purposes, 2) was created and marketed soley for infringing, and 3) has no other commercially significant purpose, but the decoder passes on all three counts. Note that the software decoder was the one that actually decoded the stream, not the leecher, but the leecher was still at fault.
Similarly, I don't think an OSS viewer would be at fault (it has legitimate uses and wasn't designed to be used for infriingement). But an OSS copier which uses some code (leeches?) from the OSS viewer would be found at fault under the DMCA. --
The US Government sues a group who is on the bleeding edge of free speech advocation, and what does the government do first? Take away as much of their free speech as possible. That almost seems like revenge for advocating free speech! --
Or, at most, preventing the anonymous sender from knowing that he/she was under investigation. But what more investigation is required than "he/she did it, let's go to court, okay now pay up"? Why is secrecy required? The US didn't know who it was that did it, so they had no reason to suspect that there was a vast conspiracy or ring of drug dealers or anything. --
The United States... analogized the situation to "keeping telephone wiretaps, telephone trap and trace devices, search warrants, arrest warrants, mail covers and other investigative techniques 'under seal' until such time as the investigation has concluded."
In that situation, the government is trying to keep knowledge of the investigation from specific people who are suspects in a criminal case.
In this situation, it seems like the government was trying to keep knowledge of the investigation from everyone. How could they think this wouldn't be a big deal when the news finally broke? --
If you want to know more about the legalities of the lawsuit, check out the link given in the article: http://www.ejournalism.com/usapollo/. There's a LOT of material there. --
DMCA allows for fair use of copyrighted material in 17 U.S.C. sec. 1201(c)(1), so reception certainly seems okay.
Are you refering to something along the lines of this post: DMCA is anti-open source? I disagree with the post **. One could say that compilers, computers, or employees aid in accessing protected copyright works. The law certainly has to draw the line somewhere, or else brains will be outlawed. 17 U.S.C sec. 1201(a)(2)(A) says:
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is
primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title;
So as long as an open source digital TV viewer was made with the intention of viewing only, then I think it would be legal. (IANAL) If someone subsequently went in and modified an OSS viewing program to allow copying, then that act would probably be illegal under DMCA.
** No, I'm not schitzo. I changed my mind a little bit, and playing devil's advocate often results in information gained.
regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission'', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.
FCC decisions can be overturned by the courts if they violate the constitution/laws or if they overstep their bounds. (see here ). --
I don't think the DMCA is required at all. Companies should just post this message at the start of every show (and optionally commercials):
By continuing to watch on this channel, you are agreeing to a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) between you and Acme Movie Studios. The following motion picture contains trade secrets of Acme Movie Studio. As such, you may not discuss the contents of the motion picture with anyone else, nor may you make copies of the motion picture and leave the copies in an unprotected place. Under no circumstances may you allow anyone else to copy or view your copy of the motion picture. Any violations of this agreement will result in prosecution for the maximum amount under trade secret law. Thank you for watching and enjoy the show!
Well, US law requires copyrighted works to become public domain after life + 70 years (here).
So perhaps companies should be required to maintain a copy of all released works, to ensure they are available for the public domain (since a consumer can't use a device to unlock a purchased copy).
Soldering irons aren't illegal under the DMCA as long as they're advertised as they currently are. 17 USC 12 (2)(C):
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that
is marketed by that person or another acting in concert
with that person with that person's knowledge for use in
circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title.
because it wasn't manufactured or marketed with the intent to be used for copyright infringement.
The same is true of compilers (used to write tools that infringe), scissors (if someone uses cloth as an access control device), or brains (can potentially crack anything).
Has lock technology stagnated because of laws against lockpicking? Possibly, but not completely. However, at some point we have to say that it's not right for a person to initiate agression against another person. --
Well, there's legally a public domain. Though maybe they can license that away too. For instance, if you sign an NDA, the information you get isn't required to go into public domain. I'd love to see them try to pull that. --
Sound Blaster cards weren't "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title". sec 1201 (a)(2)(A). (Though sec 1201 (a)(2)(C) might get you if you're distributing it and advertise "this will let you listen to pirated music!")
Also, Sound blaster cards were widely distributed via legal channels before the watermarking is released. I understand that as "for all intents and purposes" because at least 50% of computer users have a standard unrestricted sound card right now and can legally sell them (even if there's an unstated assumption that the card will be used to pirate). At what point do you say that it's not effective? 100,000 people having a legal tool that instantly accesses it? 10,000? 1,000?
PS. I don't think they're intending to use watermarking to prevent access, only track people, but this thread is interesting anyway. --
The above links have a link to http://epinions.com/
and decides that http://epinions.com/ is a close enough match?
Perhaps, but I'd think that many more general-purpose sites (eg. yahoo) would match in this way, and I haven't seen any sites show up nearly as much as epinions has. --
I'm sure there's an exception clause in the DMCA that allows for the creator of the access control device to try to crack it or to permit a third party to do so, I just can't find it.
It does say this though:
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
"No person", including the creator? USCode is hard to read... --
They are trying to make music available online, and to make it secure.
They're also doing it in a way that is contrary to a few laws:
Copyright's Fair Use clause (eg. one backup copy, use a short snippet for research/study).
Contitution's "exclusive right to their works for a limited time" (eg. if a piece of music is released only in SDMI, what happens to it when it's supposed to go into the public domain?)
Oh come on, with such a sparse site, the only thing you can comment on is what the did say, not what they didn't say.
Notice they don't say what copy-protection/watermark methods there are to crack? Or what exactly a successful crack consists of?
It looks like the site requires a major update before the contest can start, and I imagine the legal details will be spelled out more thoroughly at that time. (If ever... the site was built on imagecafe and has dangling links to default pages and has a problem with its frames. It looks as if the only people who worked on it was the PR team.) --
AFAIK, DMCA only covers devices that effectively control access to a copyrighted work. In other words, if there were 10 million ways to get around the access control before it was ever released, then I don't think it's effectively controlling access and can't be covered by the DMCA.
Also, I believe macrovision messes with the data that never gets displayed on the screen? (see here) Watermarks are are embedded in the low bits of the audio/picture data itself, rather than using an unused part of the data stream that was never intended to be presented to the user. --
You won't find all the searched words on epinion's root page. Google's queries search for "all words", so I don't see how this link could have come up in their searches.
Isn't this clear evidence that google is accepting money from other companies in return for higher rating and even inclusion in searches that don't match? --
You'll notice that even though google lists http://epinions.com/ as a hit in all these searches, you won't find all the searched words on their root page. Google's queries search for "all words", so I don't see how it could have come up with these hits, let alone how it would have ranked the root page that high. --
Yes, I deliberately misspelled it. I was also testing my hypothesis that Google might throw out a search term if it thought it could find a much better site by doing so. --
Slashdot Mirror
Once the copyright expires, people can make all the copies they want (the copyright holder no longer has the exclusive right to copy or distribute). The "seed" doesn't have to come directly from the ex-copyright-holder.
--
But just because the decoder and displayer are layed out in source code doesn't mean that it's trivial to decode to a file, especially to a non-programmer. The DMCA focuses on manufacturing and distribution of programs that circumvent copyright protections. It does not say anything about making the job easier.
Indeed, it might be possible to write two programs, neither of which directly infringe on copyrights by themselves, but when combined allow infringement. Which would be at fault? The DMCA, 17 U.S.C. sec. 1201 (a)(2), lays out rules on determining that.
For a real-world example, what if a program were made that accesses the decoded video from a software DVD decoder by watching the decoder's memory? The program that leeches from the decoder would be found at fault. Though neither of the programs alone could allow copy infringement, the leecher 1) has no other useful purposes, 2) was created and marketed soley for infringing, and 3) has no other commercially significant purpose, but the decoder passes on all three counts. Note that the software decoder was the one that actually decoded the stream, not the leecher, but the leecher was still at fault.
Similarly, I don't think an OSS viewer would be at fault (it has legitimate uses and wasn't designed to be used for infriingement). But an OSS copier which uses some code (leeches?) from the OSS viewer would be found at fault under the DMCA.
--
The US Government sues a group who is on the bleeding edge of free speech advocation, and what does the government do first? Take away as much of their free speech as possible. That almost seems like revenge for advocating free speech!
--
Or, at most, preventing the anonymous sender from knowing that he/she was under investigation. But what more investigation is required than "he/she did it, let's go to court, okay now pay up"? Why is secrecy required? The US didn't know who it was that did it, so they had no reason to suspect that there was a vast conspiracy or ring of drug dealers or anything.
--
Couldn't ApolloMedia have made an out-of-court agreement with the US to give them the identity of the sender, and ended the yuckiness then and there?
Instead, ApolloMedia went through a year of hell and fought for their right to free speech without any support from other people.
I think that's beyond words. Infinitely commendable.
--
- The United States
... analogized the situation to "keeping telephone wiretaps, telephone trap and trace devices, search warrants, arrest warrants, mail covers and other investigative techniques 'under seal' until such time as the investigation has concluded."
In that situation, the government is trying to keep knowledge of the investigation from specific people who are suspects in a criminal case.In this situation, it seems like the government was trying to keep knowledge of the investigation from everyone. How could they think this wouldn't be a big deal when the news finally broke?
--
This is really scary.
--
If you want to know more about the legalities of the lawsuit, check out the link given in the article: http://www.ejournalism.com/usapollo/. There's a LOT of material there.
--
Are you refering to something along the lines of this post: DMCA is anti-open source? I disagree with the post **. One could say that compilers, computers, or employees aid in accessing protected copyright works. The law certainly has to draw the line somewhere, or else brains will be outlawed. 17 U.S.C sec. 1201(a)(2)(A) says:
- No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is
- primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title;
So as long as an open source digital TV viewer was made with the intention of viewing only, then I think it would be legal. (IANAL) If someone subsequently went in and modified an OSS viewing program to allow copying, then that act would probably be illegal under DMCA.** No, I'm not schitzo. I changed my mind a little bit, and playing devil's advocate often results in information gained.
--
FCC decisions can be overturned by the courts if they violate the constitution/laws or if they overstep their bounds. (see here ).
--
--
So perhaps companies should be required to maintain a copy of all released works, to ensure they are available for the public domain (since a consumer can't use a device to unlock a purchased copy).
That would also solve the history problem.
--
One of America's dogmas is "question everything", so that's what I was doing.
I guess your guesses sounds possible. And possibly testable, but I can't figure out atm.
--
From my small amount of understanding, I believe the DMCA would say that the copying part of VCRs is illegal, but the time-shifting part is okay.
But normal TV broadcasts aren't covered under the DMCA because there's no technological measures that effectively control access.
--
- No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that
is marketed by that person or another acting in concert
with that person with that person's knowledge for use in
circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title.
because it wasn't manufactured or marketed with the intent to be used for copyright infringement.The same is true of compilers (used to write tools that infringe), scissors (if someone uses cloth as an access control device), or brains (can potentially crack anything).
Has lock technology stagnated because of laws against lockpicking? Possibly, but not completely. However, at some point we have to say that it's not right for a person to initiate agression against another person.
--
Well, there's legally a public domain. Though maybe they can license that away too. For instance, if you sign an NDA, the information you get isn't required to go into public domain. I'd love to see them try to pull that.
--
Also, Sound blaster cards were widely distributed via legal channels before the watermarking is released. I understand that as "for all intents and purposes" because at least 50% of computer users have a standard unrestricted sound card right now and can legally sell them (even if there's an unstated assumption that the card will be used to pirate). At what point do you say that it's not effective? 100,000 people having a legal tool that instantly accesses it? 10,000? 1,000?
PS. I don't think they're intending to use watermarking to prevent access, only track people, but this thread is interesting anyway.
--
Are you suggesting that google combines all this information:
- this epinions page contains the word "ass"
- this epinions page contains the words "gerber", "babies", and "forks"
- The above links have a link to http://epinions.com/
and decides that http://epinions.com/ is a close enough match?Perhaps, but I'd think that many more general-purpose sites (eg. yahoo) would match in this way, and I haven't seen any sites show up nearly as much as epinions has.
--
It does say this though:
- No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
"No person", including the creator? USCode is hard to read...--
They're also doing it in a way that is contrary to a few laws:
--
Notice they don't say what copy-protection/watermark methods there are to crack? Or what exactly a successful crack consists of?
It looks like the site requires a major update before the contest can start, and I imagine the legal details will be spelled out more thoroughly at that time. (If ever... the site was built on imagecafe and has dangling links to default pages and has a problem with its frames. It looks as if the only people who worked on it was the PR team.)
--
Also, I believe macrovision messes with the data that never gets displayed on the screen? (see here) Watermarks are are embedded in the low bits of the audio/picture data itself, rather than using an unused part of the data stream that was never intended to be presented to the user.
--
playstation capcom software monkey (15th)
snow cedars elegance snot (1st, only hit)
gumbo pot above frogs (5th)
gerber forks babies in the ass (1st)
You won't find all the searched words on epinion's root page. Google's queries search for "all words", so I don't see how this link could have come up in their searches.
Isn't this clear evidence that google is accepting money from other companies in return for higher rating and even inclusion in searches that don't match?
--
playstation capcom software monkey (15th)
snow cedars elegance snot (1st, only hit)
gumbo pot above frogs (5th)
gerber forks babies in the ass (1st)
You'll notice that even though google lists http://epinions.com/ as a hit in all these searches, you won't find all the searched words on their root page. Google's queries search for "all words", so I don't see how it could have come up with these hits, let alone how it would have ranked the root page that high.
--
Yes, I deliberately misspelled it. I was also testing my hypothesis that Google might throw out a search term if it thought it could find a much better site by doing so.
--