Slashdot Log In
DMCA Exemptions Desired To Hack iPhones, Remix DVDs
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Dec 03, 2008 02:00 PM
from the what's-on-the-shortlist dept.
from the what's-on-the-shortlist dept.
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."
Related Stories
Submission: DMCA exemptions desired to hack iPhones, DVD by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
How about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but that makes too much sense!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but that makes too much sense!
Not really. Wanting to share reproductions in no way constitutes "criminal intent".
Re:How about this (Score:5, Funny)
Regards,
Mafiaa
Parent
Re:How about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Sharing reproductions is not necessarily copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is usually not a criminal matter. Using correct and precise terminology is important to having an informed debate, as opposed to losing without the debate happening by letting your opponents set the terms.
Why is it that geeks have no trouble using the precise, correct terms when writing code, but so commonly fail to transfer that precision to other areas where it is equally important?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Do not judge too quickly. I have seen terms used for variables and functions that made sense once upon a time but the program has morphed around it such that 'cvs blame' would indicate the original developer was picking words from the dictionary at random.
Re: (Score:2)
Because our opponents in the RIAA are using an aimbot.
most geeks frown on cheaters.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume that the good coders are the same people who can't be precise when they are speaking?
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is, more and more there is a push (and seemingly some success) to make more and more and more copyright infringement cases prosecutable as a criminal offense.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Show us the parse tree for English and we'll start using perfect grammar.
The problem is, the parse trees for most sentences in the language are ambiguous.
Further complicating the fact is that English may not be enumerable - I know the way most people speak it, it's not even a recognizable language, let alone decidable.
French, however, I hear is Turing decidable. Why else would they be so smug...
Parse tree for English (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That would be just meaningless. And well, it will would render the anti-circumvention clause completely useless. That sounds like a very good reason to do it, I'm all for it.
Re:How about this (Score:5, Insightful)
The exception needs to be "except for in fair-use situations."
Imagine ripping DVDs being illegal unless you're only going to make a mashup video for youtube? Sure that's part of fair-use, but if that's all you ask for, and that's what they grant, then we're all retarded. What the hell are these people thinking?
So many times people try to fight fires at the top of the flames, and wonder why they never go out. Talk about slippery slopes, eh? See? We're fair! We can remove your right of second sales, because look- we agreed to dvd rips for youtube mashups only!
GAAAAAWD! I get so angry. I need some pie brb.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How about this (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as our government is concerned right now, ripping DVDs IS illegal when doing so circumvents the CSS, which is a violation of the DMCA. Everything that is being asked for is CURRENTLY illegal under the DMCA, regardless of what you or many other wishful thinking nerds believe. I don't understand why asking for these exemptions are a slippery slope -- how can you give up rights that you currently don't have under the law?
Now I understand your frustration, because it really is unfortunate that this is where we're at. But we don't succeed by ignoring the laws. We succeed by working with them, compromising, and then, hopefully, overcoming them with logic, common sense, and hopefully the backing of the American populace.
For example, one of the exemptions listed was for Media Film Studies education. The exemption was granted in 2006 and was a boon to that academic industry. This year, they are arguing that their 2006 exemption was so successful and necessary that they are asking to expand the exemption to encompass even more uses. They used clear factual examples, compelling legal arguments, and logic to show the LOC that it is necessary to expand their rights, and I hope that they get it.
To some (or most) these may seem like small potatoes sure, but they're a legitimate foot in the door. The odds of an exemption being granted that simply asks for something as broad as "everything that is under fair-use" is extremely unlikely. But, if we continue to succeed at these exemptions and show Washington that this is where the people are heading, this is what society needs, and these are the reasons why we are having issues, maybe that becomes one more brick in the wall to convince them that the DMCA is not a good idea.
Parent
Re:How about this (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right, and so's the GP. The GP is right about how the law is written, but you're right about how the courts have chosen to interpret it.
Luckily, some judges have seen fit to ignore the letter of the DMCA and given people the right to do what they should always have been allowed to do.
Asking for these exemptions might cause the government to realize what total idiocy the DMCA is though.
Parent
Even better (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Legislators love specific exceptions much more than just getting he law right generally in the first place. This is because they measure their output by quantity. They seem to think that the job of a good congressman is to pass a lot of bills, or better yet introduce a lot of bills that get passed. It's a miracle that anything gets voted down *at all*.
It's not entirely their fault though. IMO, the ideal congressman sits on his ass all day because nothing needs changing. How many voters really feel the
Re:The test of whether one supports copyright: (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 e
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 tel
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want to do your job for free?
Strawman. [wikipedia.org]
Do you want to not get paid for any work you do?
Strawman. [nizkor.org]
If not, then you support copyright restrictions. Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them.
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
how about (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you personally aren't making a profit, you could be impacting the profit of the copyright owner, which is the whole point of the DMCA.
Which is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Not me. I would not only like it completely repealed, but a new law with the DMCA name on it passed that said if you protect your work technologically it loses copyright and enters the public domain.
DRM is a useless fantasy. There is no reason for the law to protect useless fantasies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Too late to file? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it too late for Psytar [macrumors.com] to file for an exemption? ~
We need exemptions for any software used to do the (Score:2)
We need exemptions for any software used to do the same type of stuff form cars to printer ink.
Re: (Score:2)
Was their plan to sell non-apple laptops with otherwise legitimate copies of OSX, or just to copy it a bunch of times over? "Pre-loaded" is a very suspicious software term.
add bypassing of hardware locks / lockin software (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Playing Movies on Free Operating Systems? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Rip clips from DVDs (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
"Abandonware" should also include version antics (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
DIVX (Score:3, Interesting)
Among the exemption proposals is a request from the Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic to allow circumvention of DRM protection [copyright.gov] 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.
Re:Jailbreaking (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
However, I think that jailbreaking an iPhone to run unauthorized apps would be considered a grey area at best.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 apar
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, that we recently have a nice new precedent in the Lori Drew case...where if you break the TOS, you can get charged with some pretty bad fines and jail time. I mean, it *is* just a little more of a stretch to convict someone of breaking the TOS for a phone plan. Remember..she was NOT convicted in any way of hurting that girl that committed suicide.
Seems like a fair stre
Re:Fist Prose (Score:5, Funny)
Parent