In many ways it's worse than if they did vigorously enforce it, because "letting it slide" allows people to get complacent about it and carry on with the activity. That won't stop the judge from throwing the book at you when you're caught.
That's exactly the point I'm making. Especially with non-criminal laws, like speeding, strict enforcement is a good thing.
They may not have the means to enforce them as strictly as they like, but damn if they don't try most of the time.
Obviously you don't live in New York or California... Or Massachusetts or New Hampshire, all of which are pretty damn lax about enforcement of drug laws. New Jersey to a lesser extent, as well.
to affirmatively state that your radio broadcast of any significant (enough for a real, sustainable, marketable audience) strength cannot be received out of state takes a lot of guts. People can (and some do) build really big directional antennas.
The question should not be "is it possible for my broadcast to be received in another state," it should be "has anyone received my broadcast in another state, and is my broadcast interfering with that of someone in another state." Directional antennas can be used for sending as well as receiving, you realize.
If you'd stop and consider that speed limits exist NOT for safety's sake but instead as revenue generators then you'll figure out that very few motorists agree with these laws, and even fewer actually obey them.
Which is exactly why they should be enforcing the law strictly. "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln.
Agreed. You, however, seem to believe that that matters, that that simple fact could keep Microsoft from invoking the DMCA to crush the presentation, and that's dangerously naive.
I can only speak for myself, and personally, I would go and give the presentation anyway, and I'd hope that Microsoft had the balls to sue me. Civil laws don't scare me one bit.
The Bnetd case was about reimplementing a network protocol by reverse engineering, for compatibility purposes. It doesn't fall under the DMCA at all either. That didn't stop vivendi from wielding the DMCA to force their compliance from somebody they didn't like.
A DMCA shutdown letter is notice that you are infringing copyright law, not the DMCA. That part of the DMCA only protects ISPs from lawsuits.
The simple fact is, no matter how right you are on the matter that none of this is within the legal scope of the DMCA (and you ARE right), it just doesn't make a lick of difference. Being right doesn't mean you win. Being rich does.
Being poor does too. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. Give me an example of something which I agree doesn't violate the DMCA, and which is not for commercial purposes, and I'll do it, just to prove to you that I won't lose any lawsuits. Preferably something which I can do with my measely website, otherwise you're going to have to pay for any of the costs I have in performing this act of defiance.
They could have sued if they'd felt like it, and that puts SnoSoft (and everyone else in the security community) in a tenuous position. It doesn't really matter whether Snosoft was breaking the law or not, either, not until this country moves to a loser-pays system of civil litigation anyway.
Well, that's a completely separate issue then. Because I can sue anyone I want for violating any civil law I choose. That doesn't mean the law I sue them over is bad. It means the legal system is bad. Loser pays won't exactly solve the problem, though, it'll just up the stakes. And personally I really am not all that concerned about civil lawsuits. Yes, you have a lot more money than I do, but that means you're taking a lot bigger risk. The lowest we can go is zero here in the US. I'd be willing to defend myself in a civil lawsuit. For a criminal one I wouldn't, but the DMCA isn't criminal law unless you're breaking it for profit.
And anyway, companies like HP, Vivendi, RIAA and Microsoft don't even have to prosecute (successfully or un) supposed DMCA offenders to scare the beejesus out of anybody who might try to publish any presentations, code, etc that said corporations don't like. It's called a "chilling effect", yo.
Yeah, and it's called "ignore and/or counter-sue". Yes, in the United States you're responsible for knowing the law or hiring a lawyer to advise you on it. And yes, that's arguably a bad thing. But it has nothing to do with the DMCA.
We're pretty much completely off topic at this point, but I just wanted to add that it's really important that people living in the US know the law. It's absolutely amazing the number of people who get busted for stupid things like drug possession just because they voluntarily let the police in their house or dorm room without a search warrant (which the police generally don't enough evidence to obtain in the first place). Know the law, and that means not only what is illegal, but what is legal.
If you don't accept that code is protected speech, then I can see why your opinion differs.
Even if code is protected, it's not protected without limitation. If it were then all copyright law would be unconstitutional, because all copyright law restricts speech. I don't really feel like getting into the nitty gritty details, the arguments for both sides were already addressed in the DeCSS case. So I'll assume you feel that regulation of code deserves strict scrutiny, or that the DMCA does not pass intermediate scrutiny.
In any case, my point here is that pointing out flaws is not distributing code. It doesn't fall under the DMCA at all.
The DMCA doesn't technically grant corporations the right to abridge free speech. However, it does give them means to drag just about anyone into court and keep them there long enough to rack up a couple hundred million dollars in legal fees if needs be to make them comply, so the effect is much the same.
Hmm, let's see... In the Felton case Felton was the one who initiated the lawsuit. The Johansen case was not over the DMCA, it was over Norwegian Criminal Code 145(2). Further, Johansen was distributing code, not making a speech. AFAIK the bnetd lawsuit is over copyright infringement, not DMCA violations. Further, they were distributing code, not making a speech.
uh... I'm think that after Ed Felten, to believe that one SHOULDN'T check with a lawyer before putting something like this out there woud make one a ignorant fool.
Really? The Felton case is exactly an example of how presenting a paper is not covered by the DMCA.
Check a lawyer if you want, but I certainly wouldn't call someone an ignorant fool for not doing so.
Microsoft perfectly well can stop him, using the DMCA.
No they can't.
They just choose not to in this instance, for whatever reason.
"Microsoft told Huang and Abelson that while it might prefer that the paper not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper." "Inappropriate" is Microsoft's way of saying "we're not allowed by law". Otherwise why wouldn't they stop Huang and Abelson, since they clearly want to.
The law that gives them the ability to make that choice (Let's see, do I or do I not feel like abridging the freedom of speech today...) is obviously unconstitutional.
The DMCA outlaws the circumenvtion of copyright protection mechanisms, which is what the MIT hacker did. So the DMCA outlaws exactly that.
There is an exception for research, and besides there is no evidence that the hacker circumvented copyright protection mechanisms. In any case, Microsoft has only agreed to let the hacker present his paper, which is not a violation of the DMCA. They haven't agreed to not sue him for circumventing the copyright protection mechanisms in the first place.
So a researcher fears that a law might restrain him from making a speech, he contacts Microsoft who says that they'd prefer he doesn't make the speech but can't stop him, and somehow this means the law is unconstitutional?
OK, so the government bans analog televisions just because they could possibly used to receive analog television signals. What if I want to use the analog television set for viewing DVDs with my analog DVD player? Seems to me like banning razor blades just because they could possibly be used to hijack airplanes.
As a libertarian, I can name only a few areas where the gov't has a legitimate function. Regulating the common radio spectrum is one of them.
This isn't about regulating the radio spectrum, it's about regulating the sale of devices which happen to use the radio spectrum. Further, what right does the federal government have to regulate intrastate use of the radio spectrum? These televisions could still be used for reception of low-power stations which do not interfere with those in other states.
According to the current screwed up Supreme Court precedent, no, because intrastate commerce "affects" interstate commerce. "The seminal case, of course, is Wickard v. Filburn, sustaining federal regulation of a crop of wheat grown on a farm and intended solely for home consumption. The premise was that if it were never marketed, it supplied a need otherwise to be satisfied only in the market, and that if prices rose it might be induced onto the market."
And that's the whole purpose of DRM. Not to remove every single possibility of copying, but to make it hard for those without access to hundreds of thousands of dollars of recording equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
In many ways it's worse than if they did vigorously enforce it, because "letting it slide" allows people to get complacent about it and carry on with the activity. That won't stop the judge from throwing the book at you when you're caught.
That's exactly the point I'm making. Especially with non-criminal laws, like speeding, strict enforcement is a good thing.
They may not have the means to enforce them as strictly as they like, but damn if they don't try most of the time.
Obviously you don't live in New York or California... Or Massachusetts or New Hampshire, all of which are pretty damn lax about enforcement of drug laws. New Jersey to a lesser extent, as well.
I'd like to believe that as well, but my faith in "the public" to protest unjust, incorrect laws has waned quite a bit in the past couple of decades.
Really? Could you give me an example? Most of the unjust laws I can think of (copyright, drugs, speeding, oral sex) aren't enforced very strictly.
to affirmatively state that your radio broadcast of any significant (enough for a real, sustainable, marketable audience) strength cannot be received out of state takes a lot of guts. People can (and some do) build really big directional antennas.
The question should not be "is it possible for my broadcast to be received in another state," it should be "has anyone received my broadcast in another state, and is my broadcast interfering with that of someone in another state." Directional antennas can be used for sending as well as receiving, you realize.
If you'd stop and consider that speed limits exist NOT for safety's sake but instead as revenue generators then you'll figure out that very few motorists agree with these laws, and even fewer actually obey them.
Which is exactly why they should be enforcing the law strictly. "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln.
Not to mention increasing the number of people who buy food for jacked up prices at the highway rest stops.
Here's another solution:
Don't break the law.
Pointing out flaws in sufficent detail often DOES fall under the DMCA
Do you have any court rulings or legal opinions backing that up? And I'm not talking about strawman arguments from anti-DMCA lawyers.
Agreed. You, however, seem to believe that that matters, that that simple fact could keep Microsoft from invoking the DMCA to crush the presentation, and that's dangerously naive.
I can only speak for myself, and personally, I would go and give the presentation anyway, and I'd hope that Microsoft had the balls to sue me. Civil laws don't scare me one bit.
The Bnetd case was about reimplementing a network protocol by reverse engineering, for compatibility purposes. It doesn't fall under the DMCA at all either. That didn't stop vivendi from wielding the DMCA to force their compliance from somebody they didn't like.
A DMCA shutdown letter is notice that you are infringing copyright law, not the DMCA. That part of the DMCA only protects ISPs from lawsuits.
The simple fact is, no matter how right you are on the matter that none of this is within the legal scope of the DMCA (and you ARE right), it just doesn't make a lick of difference. Being right doesn't mean you win. Being rich does.
Being poor does too. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. Give me an example of something which I agree doesn't violate the DMCA, and which is not for commercial purposes, and I'll do it, just to prove to you that I won't lose any lawsuits. Preferably something which I can do with my measely website, otherwise you're going to have to pay for any of the costs I have in performing this act of defiance.
They could have sued if they'd felt like it, and that puts SnoSoft (and everyone else in the security community) in a tenuous position. It doesn't really matter whether Snosoft was breaking the law or not, either, not until this country moves to a loser-pays system of civil litigation anyway.
Well, that's a completely separate issue then. Because I can sue anyone I want for violating any civil law I choose. That doesn't mean the law I sue them over is bad. It means the legal system is bad. Loser pays won't exactly solve the problem, though, it'll just up the stakes. And personally I really am not all that concerned about civil lawsuits. Yes, you have a lot more money than I do, but that means you're taking a lot bigger risk. The lowest we can go is zero here in the US. I'd be willing to defend myself in a civil lawsuit. For a criminal one I wouldn't, but the DMCA isn't criminal law unless you're breaking it for profit.
And anyway, companies like HP, Vivendi, RIAA and Microsoft don't even have to prosecute (successfully or un) supposed DMCA offenders to scare the beejesus out of anybody who might try to publish any presentations, code, etc that said corporations don't like. It's called a "chilling effect", yo.
Yeah, and it's called "ignore and/or counter-sue". Yes, in the United States you're responsible for knowing the law or hiring a lawyer to advise you on it. And yes, that's arguably a bad thing. But it has nothing to do with the DMCA.
We're pretty much completely off topic at this point, but I just wanted to add that it's really important that people living in the US know the law. It's absolutely amazing the number of people who get busted for stupid things like drug possession just because they voluntarily let the police in their house or dorm room without a search warrant (which the police generally don't enough evidence to obtain in the first place). Know the law, and that means not only what is illegal, but what is legal.
If you don't accept that code is protected speech, then I can see why your opinion differs.
Even if code is protected, it's not protected without limitation. If it were then all copyright law would be unconstitutional, because all copyright law restricts speech. I don't really feel like getting into the nitty gritty details, the arguments for both sides were already addressed in the DeCSS case. So I'll assume you feel that regulation of code deserves strict scrutiny, or that the DMCA does not pass intermediate scrutiny.
In any case, my point here is that pointing out flaws is not distributing code. It doesn't fall under the DMCA at all.
Oops, missed one. The snosoft case doesn't exist. HP didn't sue, probably because snosoft wasn't breaking the DMCA.
The DMCA doesn't technically grant corporations the right to abridge free speech. However, it does give them means to drag just about anyone into court and keep them there long enough to rack up a couple hundred million dollars in legal fees if needs be to make them comply, so the effect is much the same.
Hmm, let's see... In the Felton case Felton was the one who initiated the lawsuit. The Johansen case was not over the DMCA, it was over Norwegian Criminal Code 145(2). Further, Johansen was distributing code, not making a speech. AFAIK the bnetd lawsuit is over copyright infringement, not DMCA violations. Further, they were distributing code, not making a speech.
uh... I'm think that after Ed Felten, to believe that one SHOULDN'T check with a lawyer before putting something like this out there woud make one a ignorant fool.
Really? The Felton case is exactly an example of how presenting a paper is not covered by the DMCA.
Check a lawyer if you want, but I certainly wouldn't call someone an ignorant fool for not doing so.
Microsoft perfectly well can stop him, using the DMCA.
No they can't.
They just choose not to in this instance, for whatever reason.
"Microsoft told Huang and Abelson that while it might prefer that the paper not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper." "Inappropriate" is Microsoft's way of saying "we're not allowed by law". Otherwise why wouldn't they stop Huang and Abelson, since they clearly want to.
The law that gives them the ability to make that choice (Let's see, do I or do I not feel like abridging the freedom of speech today...) is obviously unconstitutional.
Agreed. But the DMCA is not such a law.
The DMCA outlaws the circumenvtion of copyright protection mechanisms, which is what the MIT hacker did. So the DMCA outlaws exactly that.
There is an exception for research, and besides there is no evidence that the hacker circumvented copyright protection mechanisms. In any case, Microsoft has only agreed to let the hacker present his paper, which is not a violation of the DMCA. They haven't agreed to not sue him for circumventing the copyright protection mechanisms in the first place.
So a researcher fears that a law might restrain him from making a speech, he contacts Microsoft who says that they'd prefer he doesn't make the speech but can't stop him, and somehow this means the law is unconstitutional?
But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
Especially things that they can't legally do anyway. The DMCA does not outlaw displaying security holes.
If it's sad to give kudos, why put someone who gives them on the front page? I guess it passes the "grep Microsoft story.txt" test.
It has an obligation to enforce the treaties that we have signed on spectrum use.
I disagree. The federal government doesn't have the right to enter into treaties which abridge the rights of the people or the states.
We agreed to abide by WARC allocation of spectrum quite a while ago.
I don't remember agreeing to anything. I don't remember my state agreeing to anything either.
In addition, broadcasting radio and TV are frequently interstate in nature.
Yeah, and inner city fathers frequently abuse their children. What's your point?
OK, so the government bans analog televisions just because they could possibly used to receive analog television signals. What if I want to use the analog television set for viewing DVDs with my analog DVD player? Seems to me like banning razor blades just because they could possibly be used to hijack airplanes.
As a libertarian, I can name only a few areas where the gov't has a legitimate function. Regulating the common radio spectrum is one of them.
This isn't about regulating the radio spectrum, it's about regulating the sale of devices which happen to use the radio spectrum. Further, what right does the federal government have to regulate intrastate use of the radio spectrum? These televisions could still be used for reception of low-power stations which do not interfere with those in other states.
According to the current screwed up Supreme Court precedent, no, because intrastate commerce "affects" interstate commerce. "The seminal case, of course, is Wickard v. Filburn, sustaining federal regulation of a crop of wheat grown on a farm and intended solely for home consumption. The premise was that if it were never marketed, it supplied a need otherwise to be satisfied only in the market, and that if prices rose it might be induced onto the market."
Australian scientists have discovered that light isn't quite as fast as it used to be.
Could this possibly be due to the increase in greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere?
C'mon, it makes just as much sense.
And that's the whole purpose of DRM. Not to remove every single possibility of copying, but to make it hard for those without access to hundreds of thousands of dollars of recording equipment.
If it's playable, it's copyable!
There goes that argument that the DMCA removes our ability to make fair use.