Sklyarov Case Exposes DMCA Contradictions 288
aePrime writes: "This article on the New York Times describes how the case against Dmitri Sklyarov is bringing up some contridictions within the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. One is allowed to bypass security measures to backup data, but one is not allowed to write the software to bypass the security. It mentions how this first case to be prosecuted under the law may indeed cause changes to the law." A lot of bad laws have stuck around for longer than the DMCA has yet, but the more this kind of analysis is seen, the sooner sanity can be restored.
Re:A good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
This probably is the only way to get the DMCA amended, but it's not really fair that it involves a foreign national.
Cheers,
Tim
One thing I liked about this article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once similar cases start growing in number in which the non-computer-geek common man finds their rights limited by copy protection, the case against DMCA will grow as well.
Re:A good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
I sort of agree, but perhaps it would have been better if an American were arrested. I would think it would be pretty awful to be arrested in another country just because the lawmakers there were stupid enough to pass such a lame law. I asked this once before. How would you feel if you went to Russia and were arrested for something as simple as speaking at a convention. I think you might be frightened. (Note, this is not to imply that Russia does or does not have such a stupid law).
OK, then everything is illegal. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well then we MUST make handguns illegal. A gun can't tell the difference between a legal use, and being used to commit a crime.
It MUST be made legal to SELL any tool that has a LEGAL purpose, even IF it can be used for an illegal one. Otherwise EVERYTHING is illegal. Guns, cars, screwdrivers, etc.
Re:What I'm wondering is... (Score:3, Insightful)
- He's a foreigner -- no built-in sympathy and likely a lot of built-in antipathy among American citizens
- He's Russian
... and we've had nearly fifty years of programming that Russian == Evil
- He's unlikely to be articulate in English in his own defense -- and even if he is, he'll have an accent (see first point).
- Many Americans feel that the rights under the Constitution do not apply to non-citizens (although the Supreme Court has repeatedly -- and correctly -- ruled they do).
- His company is in Russia and does not have the legal infrastructure to mount a defense for him.
- It can be cast as a fight to defend "the American way of life" from the ruthless Cossack hackers.
- They can get a ridiculously high bail set, because -- as a foreign national -- he's automatically a major flight risk.
Of course they picked a non-citizen for the first test case.Re:What Happens to Libraries with the DMCA (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't seem to have occurred to these people that they might not have a business plan doing that. I have attempted to make this point before to the "but copying is piracy and piracy is stealing from me!" type guys -- it may be that digital information simply does not have monetary value. One of the long-standing rules of the marketplace is that the value of a thing is what that thing will bring. If no one will pay for it, you can't make money selling it. It's like the dorks who want to privatize the water supply -- this shit falls out of the air, people.
Digital bits are trivially easy to copy. No encryption scheme can hold when you've got physical access to both the encoder and decoder. People are by and large unwilling to give up their rights of property (to own that which they've purchased, to view it at the time and in the manner of their choosing) in order to ensure digital profitability. Maybe it's simply time to step back from this "glorious revolution" and re-evaluate what we think we're doing, as a society.
If we don't fight (Score:3, Insightful)
The battle for mindshare as begun. We are being made out to be the bad guys. We react to laws and are always on the "law-breaking" side. Not from our perspective (freedom), but from THEIR perspective (they have the courts/police/gov't/guns on their side).
We need to act, not just react. We need to use the political process and get publicity where WE are taking an initiative, and aren't just fighting the ystem.
Muddying the law (Score:5, Insightful)
The Library of Congress is now considering whether to recommend other exceptions to the law. Many libraries and other educational institutions want an exception that would let individuals circumvent a copy- control technology in order to copy portions of a work for use in parody, scholarship or criticism -- purposes protected under the "fair use" doctrine of traditional copyright law.
This is the sticking point of the DMCA with me; it strips away whatever bit of fair-use doctrine we once enjoyed. No wonder most people don't like it, no one wants to lose rights they once had.
This is all fine and good, but people still have to prove they cracked whatever encryption in order to make a parody, etc. It makes for more complications in the long run.
It seems to be a poor substitute for examining its constitutionality to see if the law should still even exist.
Re:No software needed to backup Adobe ebooks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let my people go (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I mean, who really abides by international law, or their own constitution these days?...
Lets "make an example of Adobe" to the other corps (Score:1, Insightful)
Sklyarov should sue Adobe for millions for having him falsely arrested and "make an example of Adobe" to the other corporations, just as they so often try to do with "pirates". The lesson being that fucking with people wrongfully will cost you and your shareholders BIGTIME dollars. Losing money is the only things corps will understand.
COPYright vs ACCESSright (Score:5, Insightful)
It is supposedly about preventing unauthorized copying. But in reality does little to prevent it and puts the publishing industries in the driver's seat in a new way.
The REAL fear here is if we get to the point where all 'media player devices' (not necessarily related to Microsoft media player) play only DMCA-encumbered media - where you can't even play non-access-controlled media if you wanted to. Then free speech and discourse necessary for democracy are in deep trouble.
Adobe and other corporations wat him let go. (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporations love powerful but unconstitutional/illegal laws like this that they can use to beat people over the head with. However, if the person has the time or resources to mount a strong defense, the corporations will "back down" and let this one trouble maker go so that the law stays in full force and on the books so they can use it against the next guy.
Fortunately in this case, the US gov't is going to force the issue.
Can you see the parallel... (Score:2, Insightful)
Do we dare combat the DMCA? (Score:3, Insightful)
I frequently read about the DMCA on Slashdot. I've yet to see a Slashdot poll that musters support against it. When all the complaining is done, we all go home to our games, movies and music. The editors here make grandiose statements about "evil corporation X" and then post a review about "X's cool new gizmo". We condemn Sony's role in the SDMI initiative and then go on to say "Oh I can't wait till PS/2 hits the US markets".
Here's a link to a letter I wrote to Malda and Rusty. Nothing came out of it.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2001/7/31/20314/
Why isn't there a collective, organized protest against DMCA and its lobbyists? Don't we think that its possible to live without the offerings of corporations? Its time to consider this thing seriously, and chip away at it, each day, relentlessly. Keep journals. My journal entry would read, "Today, I would have done X, but for the DMCA. I can't wait until the day that we'll be rid of it".
If we're so weak that we can't resist cool toys, then perhaps we deserve the DMCA.
-rao
I love this part (Score:5, Insightful)
"Many of the people I know can come up with a program to do it themselves, without being in the business of doing it," Ms. Peters said.
She has GOT to be kidding if she thinks the average consumer has the ability to design tools that will allow them to access there fair use rights. This is idiotic. Most
What she is suggesting would be like if wrenches were illegal, but you could make your own to fix your faucet that is leaking. "We believe the average consumer will find a way to make the wrenches they need." Sorry, but most people do not have the knowledge, expertise, or equipment to make wrenches. If you think most people can write code that will crack encryption, you shouldn't buy that new Lexus you have been looking at. Why not build you own car?
a common skill? (Score:4, Insightful)
Marybeth Peters, the chief of the United States Copyright Office, said that the exception was still meaningful, even without a market for anti- circumvention devices, because it allowed individuals to figure out for themselves how to go around a technological control measure. "Many of the people I know can come up with a program to do it themselves, without being in the business of doing it," Ms. Peters said.
So, according to the US copyright office, hacking e-books is a common skill? In fact, a neccessary skill to excersize our rights?DMCA gagging crypto researcher (Score:3, Insightful)
He said that he had done some research on some topic (unfortunately I could not hear what it was about). He said he would go to the US next week for a conference and he feared being arrested if he would publish. Since he had mouths to feed and rent to pay, he said he could not afford to take the risk. So he decided to not publish his research. He urged everyone to protest against the DMCA which affects him as a non-US citizen. He did realise that at the HAL he was preaching to the choir...
Re:Adobe and other corporations wat him let go. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is more than a bit naive, I am afraid. Adobe is trying for the best of both worlds here: intimidating anyone who seeks to reverse-engineer their code, AND endear themselves to the anti-DMCA crowd as being "reasonable" and "open to negotiation". An iron bar wrapped in a happy-face marshmallow.
Same with RIAA: if charges are dropped now, intimidation is successful without taking the risk of the law they purchased being overthrown.
sPh
Excellent parallel. (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, its illegal for you to look under the hood.
That would be a brilliant defense. Cuts through the technobabble BS in a couple of sentences.
BTW: People who spend real money, like a couple of mil for a package, get all the tools, all the source code. There is no DMCA.
The DMCA is only being pressed on by penny-ante people over penny-ante ephemera. Its basically against the consumer.
The (RI & MP)AAs members pollute the environment and beg you to buy the record or come to the theatre now but six months later, its in the deep discount bin as a last gasp halt on its way to the landfill. Where it belonged in the first place.
Jury trial... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the things his software is capable of doing is to allow blind people to read these e-books. Imagine THAT testimony in front of a jury!
And what would Adobe's representatives say when they take the stand? (and you can be sure that they will) They backed off once. Will they say "No, this hasn't hurt us." Or will they backtrack once again and call for him to be put in jail. Surely their calls to have him released will enter into the testimony?
No jury of "average" Americans will be able to wrap their heads around the technical issues of the DMCA. It's going to be the simple things like "this software allows blind people to read e-books" that will sway them one way or the other.
-S
Re:A good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the Internet started to become widely popular (say around 1994-1995) I have watched a number of on-line political hoo-haa's. The furor over the Communications Decency Act I & II comes to mind.
In all of these cases I have noticed a common thread: lots of people are willing to hit the "R" key in the e-mail program and contribute a fresh rant to the discussion. Very, very few people are willing to actually DO anything that might make a difference.
OK guys, this one's important. This is pretty much a key battleground in the future of on-line rights.
In that vein, here's a suggestion: (a) get out your _manual_ typewriter and write a letter to your three members of Congress explaining your views on this situation (b) contribute $100 each to DS's legal defense fund and a fund for his family's well-being (c) write out 3 checks for $50 each to your congresspeople's re-election fund.
Now, if in 6 weeks or so I see $10 million in DS's defense fund and 150,000 letters received on Capitol Hill, then I will think that on-line activitism means something.
My prediction: $10,000, a couple of hundred letters (remember - typewritten, hand-signed, stamped, and mailed). Net effect: ZERO.
sPh
English (Score:2, Insightful)
DCMA and Microsoft... (Score:4, Insightful)
What if the whole affair about copyright and fair-use a red herring designed to distract attention from the real game: making it illegal to write software that competes in any way whatsoever with Microsoft's own work.
Re:I like this one.... (Score:2, Insightful)
we have criminals running around steeling and murdering, why? because we give people the benifit of the doubt so as to allow freedom for the much larger majority that is law abiding.
if we handeled common crime the way they are handeling copyright infringment, everyone would have an ankle braclet that told the police where they are going and they would be required to debrief the authorities as to what they did while they were out. with this solution, common crimes would almost dissapear because everyone is treated as a criminal who is on parole.
stop treating everyone like a copyright infringer and focuse on those that are distributing pirated materials (since that is what has always been illiegal).