Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Does This Article Violate the DMCA? 111

Posted by michael from the address-for-C&D-letters-at-bottom-of-screen dept.
An anonymous but adulatory reader sent in: "Grant Gross wrote a truly sterling editorial on NewsForge about the Felten SDMI-crack paper and how the RIAA's attempt to suppress it uses the DMCA in a most unhealthy way. Jim Tyre, one of Prof. Felten's attorneys, read this article and said, simply, 'Grant rocks.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Does This Article Violate the DMCA? More

Does This Article Violate the DMCA?

Comments Filter:

  • His questions have already been answered.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dcigary ( 221160 ) on Saturday August 18, 2001 @11:00AM (#2172035) Homepage
    At the end of his article he asks why the Major journalism outlets aren't sitting up and taking notice of the Constitutional atrocities that the DMCA are getting away with. Simple, this has been answered before in many other editorials. The Major journalism outlets (CNN for one) is OWNED by the same groups (Time Warner for one) that pushed the legislation through in the first place!

    • Re:His questions have already been answered.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by David Price ( 1200 ) on Saturday August 18, 2001 @11:17AM (#2172061)
      This is indeed true, and indeed scary.


      Consider the major television media players:

      • CNN - owned by Time Warner
      • ABC News - owned by Disney
      • NBC - in a strategic partnership [msnbc.com] with Microsoft
      • Fox - owned by a content congomerate of the same name
      • CBS - owned by Westinghouse, which is [lubbockonline.com]
        diversifying into ownership of cable music channels

      We can't reasonably expect unbiased reporting on this subject when the top five television news companies all have a vested interest in preserving the DMCA intact.
      • Internet New forums like SlashDot are becoming more the place for people to get behind the scenes news. The mass medium is marginalizing itself, and the news is moving to the Internet.

        To plug a few friends of mine:

        They have set up a site based on Slash Code, but devoted to politics. It has just started up and so it needs participants, news story submissions, etc.

        The Site is Radio Free Nation [slashdot.org].

        They are planning for a lot more than just the news, but the news section with the SlashCode is up and running Now. They are currently running slashcode 2.0. Once the new edition of Slashcode gets debugged here, they will then upgrade to the Latest Version (tm)

        The basic motto if the site is:

        "If you have a Story, We have a Soapbox"

        I think that news sites like this have great potential to counter-act the control of the Mass Media by the various vested interests

        • Radio Free Nation [radiofreenation.com]

          I need to have a cup of coffee in the morning before I post things

          [smile]

          • Sorry, I can't help your site develop, because it is so distinctly "not-free" as the title implies.

            Your click through EULA shot my interest all to hell. I have better things to do with my time than to analyze all of the legal ramifications stapled to the entry process for your site.

            If /. had or tried to implement something like that, it would be the last time I connected to this site either.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Fox is owned by News Corporation [cjr.org], CBS was once itself, known by the name 'Westinghouse', and is owned by Viacom-Infinity [cjr.org].
    • What about BBC? (ok, so it's American news...but I'd still think it'd make it). What about the NY Times? What about CBS? What about PBS?

      *shrug* I think the whole thing is going to pot...

      Jezz
    • At the end of his article he asks why the Major journalism outlets aren't sitting up and taking notice of the Constitutional atrocities that the DMCA are getting away with. Simple, this has been answered before in many other editorials. The Major journalism outlets (CNN for one) is OWNED by the same groups (Time Warner for one) that pushed the legislation through in the first place!

      Probably also best to expect such media organisations to make the minimal of references to the US constitution. They certainly wouldn't want to educate people about what it actually says...
    • errrr... me too! Here is the quote I carried over from the text to start this post:
      She also suggested a more sinister reason most of Big Media doesn't seem to care: "I suspect it has something to do with the fact that there's a lot of media conglomeration now, and a lot of the mainstream media in the U.S. is actually owned by content holders.

      I don't know for how long I've been saying this exact thing. All you have to do is flick on the TV set and watch a half-hour's worth of news.

      But Freedom of Speech! How far have we fallen when Journalists don't even have enough personal integrity to comment on this thing that directly threatens them! I recall the portrayal of Mike Wallace in the movie "The Insider". Was this the last true journalist?

      It's like we're hearing "just shut up and play with all the nice, shiny toys we've given you."

      The important point to make here is that mainstream media is rapidly devolving and losing credibility. One should - as many of the ./ fans here do - avail oneself of sites such as cryptome.org, indymedia, suck^H^H^H^H, and, yes, here, of course (but not adequacy, IMO the wellspring of trolls, the Phil Hendrie of websites). If enough people patronize the important websites, and it happens enough times that You are the Only informed person among your cowworkers, then, with time, the credibility of such sites will rise, DMCA will fall by the wayside, and freedom of speech will reign as supremely as it should with the internet catalyst.

      The battle is about the entrenched, old-school interests trying to maintain a foothold on their source of revenue. But - hopefully - it is the case that they will lose that hold if they fail to change and adopt the curent mindset that prevails in places like this one.

      If they win, and it sure looks like they are winning today, then God help us we have lost a lot.

      But, you know, we have been losing battles daily ever since the mid-70's...
      • How many of these people have a real idea what goes on in the average media outlet nowadays?? Not a frikkin' one of 'em.

        Editors push for more "compelling" journalism. i.e. anything that could have nude in the headline. Let face it "New computer law obliterates 1st ammendment" doesn't get read if "City Councilman pays for sex with drugs."

        In most smaller outlets, you find a team of about 8 staff writers (3 of them Dave Barry wannabes) 16 interns (someone's gotta cover human interest) and an AP wire machine.

        The proliferation of computers and information services has the average newsroom reduced to a text processing machine. The bulk of work to be done is just managing all of the information coming in.

        The days of Woodward and Bernstein in the main stream media are over. However, the average American has also transformed into an animal that values attention over privacy. So much of the "saucy" news does the reporter the favor of finding us.

        Reporters complain about having to get out of their chairs anymore... How can journalism survive??

        As a final note, in a year with a state election looming, the capital city's newspaper has only interviewed the Incumbent in the gubernatorial race. That's because we are only 5 blocks from the capital. (Drive to Earley's House?? He'll give a speech here soon enough...)

        On the same note, join the VA anti-rape movement http://www.theonion.com
  • Not being a USian^H^H^H^H^H US resident, I don't know, but I bet publishing information on the DCMA is illegal under the DCMA... Catch-22 :)
  • ...the Sklyarov case is confusing because he was arrested while visiting the United States to talk at DefCon about his program that allows users to convert Adobe eBooks into other formats. The last time I checked, U.S. citizens weren't subject to Russian laws.

    I wonder if he meant to say, Russian citizens aren't subject to U.S. laws?

    • No. The last time he checked, Russian citizens were subject to US laws: Sklyarov got arrested under one. He's pointing out that the reverse is not so.

      However, a US actually in Russia is subject to Russian laws, so I wonder what the point there was. Sklyarov's case is a sad one, but not because he's Russian.

      • The point is... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Robber Baron ( 112304 )
        The point is the US thinks it can impose it's laws on individuals, companies,or entities that aren't actually within it's boundaries, ie: Helms-Burton, California's proposed new tax on satellites, etc...
      • > a US actually in Russia is subject to Russian laws

        But a U.S. citizen *outside* Russia is not subject to Russian laws, and a Russian *outside* the U.S. is not subject to U.S. laws.

        Remember that what Skylarov did that was so offensive to Adobe was both legal in Russia and done on Russian soil.
      • Russians *are* subject to US laws while in the US, and likewise *Americans* are subject to Russian laws while in Russia. But I would hesitate to say Russians are subject to US laws while in Russia. Isn't this what the american legal system is saying?

        I don't know Russian law, but for discussion purposes suppose selling crack in Russia gets you a death sentance.(This probably happens in some contries like Saudi Arabia) Now suppose a young man either conviced or not of selling crack *in the US* goes for a trip in Russia. Do Russians have the right to arrest him, have a trial, convict him and put him to death for commiting this crime? Isn't this what was meant in the editorial?

    • I wonder if he meant to say, Russian citizens aren't subject to U.S. laws?

      Probably he was referring to the point that Americans would scream bloody murder if the shoe were on the other foot.

      1Alpha7


  • It's been three years. I never thought it would be this long before Dmitry Sklyarov or the like would be winning before the Supremes.

    1Alpha7

  • The sad fact is that money is the decision maker. You can fight this idea all you want but it is true. Just like M$. If they have not been investing the money like they have, they surely would have been out of business five years ago. In a capitalistic government everything is bought by money-just one bad side about it.

    They just don't want everybody else to know the secret. ;-)

  • The NewsForge article gives 2 reasons why the media isn't covering these outrages now:
    1) That these people are "fringe players"
    2) Most media is composed of big conglomerates.

    If the first is true, it's bad but about par for the media. I've never thought they were the smartest bunch, especially when it comes to tech stuff.

    But if the reporters are beholden to "Big Media", just wait till a reporter accidentally reports on an article like the ones mentioned. Can you imagine the mess if AOL/TW charges one of it's own reporters with violating the DMCA, and after the fact realizes that the reporter is one of its own? What is it going to do then? Recant, or go full bore to make an example? Will be interresting to see if other reporters toe the line or go after their bosses? Perhaps take the law to the courts?
    • If you'd read "Manufacturing Consent",you'd know that such a report probably wouldn't make it past the editor's desk. And on the off chance that it did, expect to see the "Cones of Silence" thrown over the whole sorry mess.
    • It's only natural that the MPAA etc would go after "fringe players." Not a lot of laypeople have much sympathy for 2600 The Hackers Quarterly which is exactly why they went after them. Look at Touretsky and what he's able to get away with here. [cmu.edu] They start with the "unsympathetic" target (Judge Kaplan's disdain for 2600 was obvious in his opinion. Would he have felt the same way about Touretzky?) And when they get case law behind the DMCA then EVERYONE will be fair game.
  • From the editorial -
    That's not much comfort to the editors at 2600 Magazine, who were successfully sued last year for linking to the DeCSS code,
    which allows Linux users to decode and play DVDs.
    No, DeCSS allowed Windows users to decode (not play) DVDs. Since Linux didn't have the needed the needed DVD filesystem support, the software had to be run on Windows. Not sure if Linux has this support now, but it didn't then.

    I guess the statement could be correct -- a Linux user would boot into Windows, run the program to decode the .vob files, then boot into Linux and use a program like mpegtv to play them. But it's still misleading.

    At least he didn't say the program allowed people to copy DVDs, like others have said. You can do that without any decryption at all.

    • How are you supposed to copy a DVD without decrypting it? You can't record to a VCR, and I've tried to record it to my hard drive via my graphics card (Matrox Marvel G200-TV). but neither works. Are you suggesting you plop a video camera in front of a TV, record the DVD playing on the TV, then record the tape to the hard drive via the graphics card?
      • Can't you just rip it like a CD?
      • Because when you copy a DVD you aren't copying the movie, and you aren't copying the files, you're making a bit-by-bit copy of the disc. The duplicating machine doesn't care what filesystem is on the disc, or what is in that filesystem, it just makes an exact bitwise copy of the disc.
      • Well you could copy it to your harddisk/tapedrive or record it your older VCR (my old LUX vcr ignores macrovision) or make a bit-by-bit copy with your super-haxor-DVD-copying-machine.

    • Re:DeCSS and Linux ... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This last assertion of yours is something I've been wondering about for a long time. We've heard tons of comments about how professional pirates can just make direct bit-for-bit copies using an industrial-scale DVD duplicator. But I seem to recall reading that virtually all DVD blanks available to the general public are manufactured in such a way that the space on the disc where the CSS keyblock is supposed to be written is pre-burned (e.g. with all zeros). This makes it impossible to do a true bit-for-bit copy (including the keys) onto those blanks -- and so in order for a small-time pirate to make them work, he'd have to decrypt the .VOB files using DeCSS and then burn the resulting decrypted streams to disk.

      So I'm wondering -- is it the case that professional pirates also have access to non-mangled, totally blank DVD blanks? And is it possible for ordinary consumers to obtain such blanks for their DVD burners? Or are most folks limited to crippled blanks a la the "for music only" CD-R blanks that respect the Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) that came out of the whole DAT fiasco a few years ago?

      Of course if non-mangled DVD-R blanks are available to the public, that puts yet another gaping hole in the MPAA's "piracy" arguments.

      --HJR

      • So I'm wondering -- is it the case that professional pirates also have access to non-mangled, totally blank DVD blanks? And is it possible for ordinary consumers to obtain such blanks for their DVD burners?

        More likely the professional pirates arn't using anything like DVD recordables. They instead use the same machines (possibly even the very same production line) as the "legitimate" copies.
      • they just buy a DVD making machine, just like the legitamet manufactures.

    • Re:DeCSS and Linux ... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rgmoore ( 133276 )
      No, DeCSS allowed Windows users to decode (not play) DVDs. Since Linux didn't have the needed the needed DVD filesystem support, the software had to be run on Windows. Not sure if Linux has this support now, but it didn't then.

      Well, the article does actually use the word allows (i.e. present tense) and DeCSS most certainly does allow users of Linux to decode and play DVDs today. I use it for that myself, although the players are still comparatively primitive. ISTR that even at the time that the suit over DeCSS was started there was experimental UDF support in the 2.3 kernel series, so Linux users could watch DVDs, albeit not on a production kernel. And there are actually some DVDs that are in ISO9660 format and not UDF and thus are readable under what was available on a stock Linux system at that time. My copy of The Matrix, for instance, is an ISO9660 disk.

      Furthermore, the comment about "decode (not play)" is a complete red herring. The disk must be decoded before it can be played (duh!), so your distinction between the two is completely bogus. This is actually the complaint about the DMCA. By wrapping together their copy protection scheme (decoding) with the steps necessary to use the product (playing), and by making tools to break the copy protection scheme illegal, content providers thus place unreasonable restrictions on noninfringing use- like the effective inability to watch DVDs under Linux.

  • Why isn't mainstream media up in arms about the DMCA and it's 1st amendment violation?

    ...and a lot of the mainstream media in the U.S. is actually owned by content holders.


    There's your answer. If your paycheck is being signed by Time-Warner then how critical are you going to be of a bad law that increases your boss's profitability? The label "Media-whore" is actually earned...

  • Will SDMI lead to the death of the DMCA, or did the DMCA lead to the death of SDMI?

    Eventually, these large companies will have to realize that the DMCA won't work correctly. Are you still boycotting Adobe? I am.

    I'm glad Felton got held up originally. It brought to light that the DMCA is terrible, terrible thought control, and it HAS helped me be evangelical to the laymen.
  • this is a test

  • One good thing about the US... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mwillems ( 266506 ) on Saturday August 18, 2001 @11:37AM (#2172093) Homepage
    Hey, I dislike the DMCA and the accompanying infringement on liberties as much as the next guy - probably more, as I am more aware of them. I travel a lot, and that's a no-no (DVD regions). I carry an MP3 player and that too is a no-no (even though I already own 90% of the music I play on vinyl. Eh, yes, vinyl). And I am sitting here behind a Linux PC, whose videolan (vlc) DVD software I have only just got to run, sort of.



    But I think we must be a bit moderate in the discussion. It's not all bad! At least copyrighted media and windfall "fat cat" profits ensure lots of money spent on technical development and media development. And after all, you can sell anyone anything you like at any conditions you like, as long as you have a contract (and you are not a monopoly).



    And most importantly: One great thing about the USA is that you can sue. It is easy enough, and you can win against vested interests. The existing liberties we have (you are allowed to tape a TV program onto your VCR) were brought about in the courts in the '60s and '70s.



    It seems to me that the most important thing is to make people aware. I did a little unscientific poll last week, and asked 10 acquaintances who own a DVD player if they knew about the deliberate regionalisation that makes it impossible to, say, pick up a DVD in London and play it in Toronto. And guess what. Eight of them had no idea. Of those eight, four refused to believe me. Do the poll yourself and you will probably find the same ratios.



    Then I asked them if they knew you are not normally allowed to play DVDs on a Linux machine. This time none of them knew.



    As long as the industry manages to hide this stuff, we will never see free media. I do believe that as soon as Joe Public gets inconvenienced, DMCA or not, we will not see these infringements for long. So let's ge tthe word out there.



    Michael

    • At least copyrighted media and windfall "fat cat" profits ensure lots of money spent on technical development and media development.

      What good will the technical development be if it continues trending toward the creation of new devices and media so locked-down by design by the bastard money-hungry corporations that they are damn near useless, and anyone who even thinks of circumventing the encryption/copy protection is dragged off to the pokey or attacked by a pack of rabid corporate lawyers?

      ~Philly
      • Ah. That's where WE come in.

        I mean both consumers (once they know how silly all this is) and (/.) developers. It took Philips some 10 years to develop the CD (I know, I worked there at the time), and Philips/Sony 5 years to develop the DVD. That is beyond us.

        But it then took us not so very long to discover the joys of ripping MP3s from those CDs, and playing DVDs on any darn PC we want, etc. I am sitting here with a functional DVD player on the Linux machine, and I am listeining to "Deep Purple - Made In Japan" on MP3 as I type this. So I think we're not doing all that badly really. ;)

        Michael

    • But I think we must be a bit moderate in the discussion. It's not all bad! At least copyrighted media and windfall "fat cat" profits ensure lots of money spent on technical development and media development. And after all, you can sell anyone anything you like at any conditions you like, as long as you have a contract (and you are not a monopoly).

      But these fat cat profits aren't going into improvements in their product. Sure, the DVD represents a huge technical advance over the videocassette, but it comes with huge restrictions for the consumer.

      Look at the R&D underway in the entertainment industry today - it's all focused on limiting what the consumer can do. Watermarking, CSS, new file formats, new download controls... I haven't heard (in my little world) of a single dollar being spent on improvements in sound quality, a good online experience for people who just want an electronic copy of music, portability of 'content' etc.

      And to look at the non-technical side of their 'product', record companies are looking for the next Britney Spears (for that quick financial hit) rather than the next Neil Young or Ani DiFranco. Movie companies want the same thing - Pearl Harbour or 'Gone in 60 Seconds' being produced rather than god knows how many films of superior artistic value.

      I think media conglomeration combined with increasing control of technical capabilities will prove the be a Bad, Bad Thing. And by the time that's widely known, it may be too late.
      • We differ only in small ways I think. I agree with most of what you say but do think much of the tech development is for us - sure, much of it is for copyright protection, but much of it is for us. Flat panel screens. Compact Flash and other memory formats. MPEG-2. Lithium Ion battery technology. Single-chip MPEG decoders. Etc. A huge list actually.

        Michael
      • The label keep looking for the quick hit because THAT'S WHAT YOU BUY. You have a short attention span, the labels are just providing what you want. Look at the computer review sites .. they're complaining about a 'slow summer!' It's the same problem - the shiny new stuff SELLS better than old reliable stuff. And it's the same with computer software - you'd rather buy a bugful v3.0 than a stable v2.3.

        So quit whining - you're getting exactly what you want!

        -B
    • One good thing about the US is that you can sue...?



      Let's see how long that lasts eh? This country is quickly heading towards a dictatorship.

    • impossible to, say, pick up a DVD in London and play it in Toronto. And guess what. Eight of them had no idea. Of those eight, four refused to believe me. Do the poll yourself and you will probably find the same ratios.

      Just checking with the people in the 6 desks around me, every one of them was aware to the
      DVD regions.

      Of course, the reason is I'm not in North America and therefore I had to get my DVD chipped
      to play region 1 DVDs. Most people in region 1 aren't affected by the region encoding, where
      as people outside are. DVDs here come out later, are more expensive and usually have less extras than the region 1 DVDs.

      Whatever the issue is, I doubt many people who aren't directly affected by it are aware of it.

      Now, if they are unaware of an issue, but you make them aware, but it doesn't affect them,
      then my guess is they really won't care about it anyway.

      As long as the industry manages to hide this stuff, we will never see free media. I do believe that as soon as Joe Public gets inconvenienced, DMCA or not, we will not see these infringements for long. So let's ge tthe word out there.

      Well, make the word that they are loosing their freedom of speach, not they they can buy DVDs
      in London, and you may have a chance making them care.

  • Another "Rights Online" case (Score:5, Informative)

    by Linux Freak ( 18608 ) on Saturday August 18, 2001 @11:38AM (#2172094) Homepage

    Well, this will likely be moderated as ``off topic'', but as it's another ``Rights Online'' case I am going to risk the karma hit, as I think this story is fairly important. I just submitted it as a story to Slashdot but for whatever reason it was rejected.

    The Linux Freak [linuxfreak.org] site (no relation between the site and this story poster) has a rather interesting story [linuxfreak.org] about a good samaritan on the 'net who discovered a vulnerability on the Podeau Daily News [pdns.com] web site, informed them about it along with tips on how to properly configure the software, only to find himself faced with felony charges. If you find your stomach tightening as you read this, feel free to contact Sheldon Sperling [mailto], the DOD prosecuting attorney behind this madness.

    • This is one that shouldn't be ignored at all. It is rather uneasy that someone who responsibly found a security hole and reported it is being treated like some sort of dangerous terrorist.


      This is this sort of thing that makes me SCARED to even mention to people vulnerabilities on their systems. It looks to me that the government is so bent on making people into "examples" as far as these so-called "computer crimes" go that they are
      eager to arrest anyone on anything computer related. Next thing you know they'll throw people into jail for logging into FTP servers anonymously, or writing "helloworld.c" without proper government authorization signed by Dubya himself.


      If the feds have their way, this guy will probably do more time than the average convicted rapist.
      Then they can go about saying how there are so many more "evil hackers" around that they need more enforcement laws than they already have.

    • Well I did something good and useful for a change and e-mailed the attorney. No, it probably won't make a difference, but like the poor guy, I'm just trying to be decent. Here's what I said:

      Dear Attorney Sperling,

      I wish to voice my objection to the case the government is pursuing against Brian K. West in his involvement with the Poteau Daily News website. What he did, as his attorney will no doubt show in court if it comes to that, was the electronic equivalent of finding, in the course of normal legitimate business, a suspected unlocked door in a building. After verifying its state of insecurity he contacted the appropriate person as a good Samaritan, rather than leave it to chance that the building would have been robbed. I don't see what he did wrong here. Maybe you could explain to me?

      Thank you for your time,

      (my name)

  • Freedom of speech (Score:3, Insightful)

    by poiuty ( 66274 ) on Saturday August 18, 2001 @11:51AM (#2172110)
    I'm surprised more 'noise' is not being made over this, especially since the First Ammendment seems to be a much valued part of the American psyche. Many if not most countries have no such laws.

    One factor I see as having a part in the erosion of free speech is the increasing governance/regulation of our society. Laws designed to give cohesion/guideance to society often start as very simple broad statements, but as lawmakers try to 'expand' the definitions to cover all possible aspects it will naturally restrict freedoms. So you get the constitution giving wide freedoms, but over the years you get more laws like the DMCA erroding that freedom. Its allmost as if the lawmakers have lost confidence in the intelligence and commonsense of the people and so make laws telling you what you can and can't do. Also many lawmakers are greatly influenced by corporations, whose interests and desires can conflict with those of the people (as hinted at by the woman from the EFF in the article).

    Another thing to stike me after reading the article is how common it is becoming to 'shoot the messenger'. Large bodies such as the SDMI seem to spend more effort on harassing people who point out flaws in their systems rather than improving their technology. And look at how full disclosure of security flaws is now being frowned upon in some areas after the code red incidents.

    Is it better for people to go on in ignorance using a flawed system that they think works, or to correct those systems? Should the people trying to correct those flaws be praised or punished? And does society in the large really care about these restrictions unless it directly affects them? After all not many people vote, or complain to their elected representatives. If you don't try and tackle these things from the start you may find by the time you do it is too late.

  • Some legal advice about the DMCA (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sounds like real trouble. You're going to need plenty of legal advice before this thing is over.
    As your attorney, I advise you to rent a very fast car with no top. And you'll need the cocaine.
    Tape recorder for special music. Acapulco shirts. Get the hell out of LA for at least 48 hours.
    • Nobody caught the "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" reference? Come on guys mod this one up a "Funny" puh-lease!

      But I'll be right back in just a minute to finish this post as the toaster is talking back again. Crazy electrical appliances.
  • "...and said, simply, 'Grant rocks.'" That's funny, I always thought Cleaveland Rocks...

  • So what do you do? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Saturday August 18, 2001 @12:01PM (#2172129) Homepage Journal
    So Big Media is owned by content owners and really don't give a flying fuck if the first ammendment gets walked all over. So what do you do? Maybe you start a little periodical and scrape by from printing to printing, reporting on stuff Big Media won't touch. Maybe you also set up a web page so your readers can get more coverage between printings. Maybe then you push the limits by reporting on something that would violate the DMCA. And as Corley is finding out, then you get fucked up the ass by the guys who own Big Media.


    A small outlet's going to have a hard time coming up with the cash to defend itself. While we believe code is speech and you can't cover the issues 2600 does without it, Big Media owns the public and the public is where all these wars are fought these days. If the public isn't bitching loudly, you can get away with pretty much anything in the courts and all you need is a shitload of money and more time than the guy you're sueing can spare. Your case may be completely without merit, but even the threat of it can shut someone up, SLAPP laws be damned and apparently juristiction be damned too.


    As big corporations have both major parties in their pockets, the only way that this is going to change is if there's a mass voting out of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and frankly the public are sheep so that's never going to happen. I'm doing my bit (None of my guys got over 1% in the last election.) Are you?

    • Re:So what do you do? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by scoove ( 71173 )
      So Big Media is owned by content owners and really don't give a flying fuck if the first ammendment gets walked all over. So what do you do?

      Here's what you don't do: get your net access through one of the same "we own your music, your TV, your newspaper, your radio and your Congressional representatives."

      Back to this list:

      CNN - owned by Time Warner
      Time Warner, also known as AOL, and owner of RoadRunner cable modem service (too).

      NBC - in a strategic partnership [msnbc.com] with Microsoft
      Microsoft, owner of MSN.

      I'm sure there are others as well... not bad for controlling all sources of information.

      *scoove*
    • >>As big corporations have both major parties in their pockets, the only way that this is going to change is if there's a mass voting out of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and frankly the public are sheep so that's never going to happen. I'm doing my bit (None of my guys got over 1% in the last election.) Are you?

      In a different way than you - for one thing you don't need to vote democrats and republicans out of office, you only need to vote INCUMBENTS out of office and make sure they know why you are voting for their opposition (make sure their opposition knows why too.) That way, anyone with hopes of being re-elected will know that pleasing the people is necessary to that goal.

      The other part of what needs to be done is to inform the public - in any and every way you can - about the erosion of rights for the benefit of ENTERTAINMENT corporations. That's an important point, let them know they are trading their Freedom of Speech for spoon fed entertainment (and they aren't allowed to complain about it either.)
    • the only way that this is going to change is if there's a mass voting out of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and frankly the public are sheep so that's never going to happen.

      I am quite disgusted when I see the public supporting a political party, both in the US and the UK, as they do. They support not what the party stands for, but the party itself.

      While this goes on, we are going to have one hell of a time overturning laws like this. Please everyone on /. (who is old enough), do your bit and don't vote for the easy choice, don't 'vote strategically', but vote for the party that is Right. The party which will look at corporations trying to implement draconian controls and tell them to go to hell.

      (Being polite for the little kiddies :-)

    • Actually, in terms of making a difference by participating in elections, someone would be well served by reading Democracy in America [amazon.com] by de Tocqueville. It is to good democratic governance as Knuth's Art of Programming is to writing good code. Be sure to get the George Lawrence translation- its the least abridged of them all.

      Second thing is, don't JUST go out and vote. The election was decided several years before, when districts were re-apportioned in your state. In California, this is a ten year cycle. This means that you have to get enough 3rd party reps with enough clout to avoid being gerrymandered WITHIN the window occurring between [the two years before apportionment committees are created] and [the future elections happening before the next reapportionment]. In an election cycle where the two parties are fairly balanced, this means you probably need to hold about 3% of congressional seats by any single third party to completely fubar the two party checks and balances system. My suggestion would be to plan a massive grassroots campaign to start the year of the next district re-apportionment, and then shoot for key seats being taken and held within 4-5 years. If you don't make that window, then forget getting more than 7% of the vote after the next reapportionment. You will be gerrymandered out by BOTH parties as part of the back room dealing that goes on for the two years before the next reapportionment committee meeting for your state's districts.

      Unless this is done, no amount of third party voting by knowledgeable and conscientious people will have any valuable effect on the process. This is because the powers behind the PACs value THEIR two parties more than THEY appreciate the threat of any conscientious third party. If ANY third party trips up one of the two big parties in an election, then the other big party gets all of the goodies for both, so that they gets mighty fat, and sit on any third party and kill their candidates and bills.

      cf the sections on the Tyranny of the Majority in Democracy in America for more details. I can guarantee you that both the central commitees for the two major parties have. I went third party the day I heard Republican party leadership on C-SPAN quoting de Tocqueville in a speech outlining the goals and planks of the Republican party for the next decade. The parts being plagiarized by them (because they never gave proper credit for quoting parts verbatim)? Sections on how to destroy a democracy through a tyranny of the majority. And you know what? The party faithful CHEERED. They CHEERED as Newt Gingrich smiled and Trent Lott patted him on the back.

    • > You can get away with pretty much anything in the courts and all you need is a shitload of money and more time than the guy you're sueing can spare.

      There -are- such things as lawsuits for false arrest and malicious prosecution. For example, when and if Mr. Skylarov eventually walks, Adobe may well have to write him a big check for having had him thrown in jail in the first place. And the courts work better than you think. Yes, big law firms have the advantage over solo-practice, not-even-secretarial-help lawyers like me. But there are lots of ways to prosecute and defend lawsuits on the cheap, and it -is- often possible in America for the little guy to get your case in front of a jury or a fair judge.

      > The only way that this is going to change is if there's a mass voting out of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress

      Voting out just the Republicans would help a
      -lot-. You Nader voters can look forward to a long peonage under the yoke and lash of many a Bush-appointed judge to come.

  • Why are some of these cases being tried under the 'Trade Secret Act'? When someone designs something new... they have an option on what they want to do.

    Either they can patent it, which in turn for 'total' disclosure to the public for the 'invention', they get exclusive control over who uses it. The Total Disclosure allows the public to use the 'invention' after the patent expires.

    If they decide to keep it a 'trade secret', they don't have to disclose it, but if someone independently discovers it, they have lost their rights to it.. As long as someone doesn't steal the information (or break a contract) from the original inventors, there is no problem.

    Has the new 'California Uniform Trade Secrets Act' changed this??? The information above was from a Lawyer from a Fortune 500 Company when I was Co-Op-ing there in early 90's.

  • So the DMCA makes it a 'crime' to create something that may or may not be used to commit a crime. Wow. 'We think you or somebody else may intend to commit a crime using you code.' - guilty on suspicion, isn't it? This reminds me about the old horror stories about the Soviet Union and their supposed mind police.



    The article asks whether the common American cares about this at all. Perhaps not - judging from the president you've got stuck with, you people don't care shit about 'This great country of ours'. What happened to the American spirit? Or perhaps that was just another Hollywood invention? Something that is nice to boast of when you have visitors from the other side of the pond, something conveniently tucked away in 'history' - I can understand that; it's a little too revolutionary, almost COMMUNIST to go on the barricades and fight for your rights. But America was founded by a revolution, or did I misunderstand that?



    But what do I care? After all I am not American; unamerican, you might say (or un-American, as somebody kindly corrected me - I think it was 'Anonymous Coward'). And 'since when has America's internal affairs become the concern of foreigners'? To answer the last first: USA's internal affairs became the concern of everybody outside America the moment Sklyarov was arrested, just to mention one example. And why do I care - apart from the fact that I would now be very reluctant about going to America, all things considered? America has recently become more and more of a mindless giant; or so it seems: trying to bully everybody about 'American interests' - mind you, not 'the interests of the American citizens', but the interests of American money-hoarders. The people who, among other things oppress your freedom with DMCA and tap your emails at work.



    Where does this end? You can choose not to do anything - then USA will become another Soviet Union, where 'freedom' means that if you're smart, you just shut up and watch your back. Or you can choose to do something: grab hold of the freedom you have at least in principle, and make it real. Show some spirit: American spirit.

  • THe article points out that the DeCSS trade secret was discovered and disclosed. So why isn't it rendered invalid. To my mind, the DeCSS trade secret was poorly protected if it was breakable by the crackers that accomplished it, and should no longer enjoy trade secret status. ESPECIALLY not since the code to implement the supposed secret is widely published on the internet, as a t-shirt even!

    So why does the trade secret still count, after all that. Isn't it no longer secret, ann thus, no longer enjoys special protection under the law?
    • THe article points out that the DeCSS trade secret was discovered and disclosed. So why isn't it rendered invalid. To my mind, the DeCSS trade secret was poorly protected if it was breakable by the crackers that accomplished it, and should no longer enjoy trade secret status.

      Well, that would be great, except the law says (IANAL) that if a trade secret was discovered in an illegal manner, then it's still protected. Since there's no way to figure out the CSS encryption scheme without breaking the law, it will always remain a trade secret.

  • This illustrates one of the main reasons I hate to call myself an American sometimes: I live in a country that claims to be the pillar of freedom and democracy in a world full of autocracies and downtrodden masses. And yet my illustrious government routinely violates what our founders called the most basic precept of any successful democracy - the freedom of expression, speech without fear of government suppression or intervention.

    And what horrible conditions could force them (-ahem- reluctantly, of course) to override the very first Amendment ever placed on our Constitution? It's not the actions of hate groups, bordering on terrorism, which spark the courts and Congress into action. Last I heard, the KKK could still do basically whatever they wanted to, essentially unchecked. No, what our great government, the leaders of the free world, get up in arms about is -duhn duhn DUHN- Corporate Interests. Shocked faces all around, I know. But it makes me sick. I wish the folks in Washington would practice some of that integrity they so often laud on themselves and flaunt during elections. American government has done so many great things, for our country and for the world, but the level of hypocrisy and problems that they propagate is unacceptable in the light of the awesome potential representative democracy has to eliminate such things.

  • Herding and Stampeding (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Grip Reamer ( 255166 ) on Saturday August 18, 2001 @12:49PM (#2172298)

    There are many dangers in this arena. Lots of knee jerk reactions are forming this moment, and getting ready to post. Before many of them do, I'll say this:

    Inventors and the companies for whom they've done the inventing own the rights to their unique achievement and should be protected in these intellectual rights; and individuals own the rights to their own observations and may not be restricted in their right to announce these observations; and by extension: reporters and the organizations for whom they report own their observations about any freely available information and should be protected in their reporting about it.

    So the only question that remains is about how information is obtained. If it is obtained in harmony with the terms set by the owner of the information, then there can be no legal issue. If this isn't the law it should be. If it is obtained against the just terms of the owner of the information, they have every right to sue for the breach.

    Conversely, if an organization sues because they're unhappy that their information has received negative press, their case should be thrown out of court. And if they've received protection for something that isn't truly an innovation, that protection should be nullified.

    It might be a frightening notion to some of you, but as nice as good laws, courts, and patents are, they don't do much good in the instances where corrupt legislators pass bad laws that grant "rights" to some at the very real expense of others, where judges and juries rule in favor of culprits, and where patent clerks grant frivolous patents.

    It should be readily apparent from this that there is nothing wrong with the system itself, but the people. Better laws and regulations won't fix it -- never have, never will. But they'll help, by not being another cause of failure. Better courts can't exist without better judges and better juries. But they can't do anything about crappy laws and patents. And better patents can't exist without better patent clerks. If they're not following the law now, no better law will necessarily fix the situation.

    Asking for better laws and better courts and patents is just a way of asking someone else to make it all better so you can go back to playing Quake and fighting for first post. It won't work. But it'll make you feel very self-righteous and done with your citizenship for the day. If that's all you want, you're not really relevant to to the solution. But you make a fine road block.

    Even worse, taking a shortcut, picking the easiest route and saying something like "patents suck, screw the inventors", or "the press should be free to report anything it wants, even if they stole the information", or "companies should be able to do and say whatever they want to protect their livelihood", or even "freedom sucks, screw the press" (this is an international forum after all) will only win small-minded converts and make it more difficult for Reason to prevail. The motivation of (and appropriate judgment for) those who know this and do it anyway should be clear.

    The only hope available to you is to use the best tool evolution has afforded you: think. Really consider the issues. Formulate rational concepts about them. Discuss them. Revise these concepts whenever better reasoning is heard. Then advocate your reasoning. This is the most important political activity. Summon the courage to do it even when horribly outnumbered, and especially when those around you don't even realize they're propagating some popular but false bromide. Next: serve on any jury you can be part of. Use your wisdom there to quell the herd mentality, and see that justice is done. If you have it in you to fight such battles, and know how to do it without sacrificing your integrity: run for office. Last (in democratic republics): vote. In countries that are not democratic republics (i.e. you have the right and means to participate and the real workings of the government are codified in law): leave. They're only benefitting from your presence at your expense. Life is better where men and women are free to converse, and to own the fruits of their labors -- both the manual and intellectual kinds.

    It won't happen overnight. And it may not happen in our lifetimes. But life and liberty are worth having and happiness is worth pursuing. Don't you agree?

    -B...

    • I wish I could post something more insightful than 'me too', but: Me too.

      I agree with you entirely - It probably *won't* happen in our lifetimes, but we have to work as hard as we can because it *will* happen eventually.

      The US broke away from us British because we were being pretty evil back then and made up the Constitution because of it. I hope it doesn't turn out to have been in vain.
    • Your points are valid and I totally agree with you. The political system we have today works fairly well, but it's going to take just as long, if not longer, to fight against the years of voter apathy (and I'm not talking about presidential elections here) as it did for the effects of that apathy to come into play.
      After all, it's not as if the DMCA should come as a surprise when corporations start paying more attention to politics than most citizens.
      The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is one of the most screwed up acts to be passed in a very long time. Holy crap is the United States' messed up.
    • Ok, as u say, it's an international Forum.
      So, here is what I say for France. Here, Software Patents and the equivalent of DMCA were decided by a bunch of european bureaucrats that weren't even elected. Sure advice was asked the EU's members, well... for Software Patents.. and see the results: they didn't listen to all the comment filled by the Eurolinux effort. Worse, in their conclusion, they ask for an "harmonisation" with US laws. as for the DMCA counterpart, they didn't even ask anyone.
      So i can tell my mum (she's a vice-mayor of one of the cities near Paris) to tell her deputies friends not to vote it, they simply are obliged to vote it, because european laws tell the french ones.
      And european laws are written by eurocrats that are under influence of a heavy lobbying system by large companies.

      In what way is this democracy ? why bother voting to elect powerless deputies and so ?

      And, well, i don't know for the US exactly, but i've heard that lobbying is even more powerful there, and ur comple voting system that elected Bush, even if he hadn't the majority of the voices shouldn't improve the situation in any way no ?

      So i ask again: is this a real democratical behaviour ? don't u think capitalism turned into a "dictatorship of billionariat" (such as communism's "dictatorship of proletariat").

      I'm voluntarily trying to shock there... so there is simplification, i know it...

  • The DMCA scares me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ColGraff ( 454761 ) <maron1 AT mindspring DOT com> on Saturday August 18, 2001 @12:51PM (#2172307) Homepage Journal
    I just want to say, I think the DMCA is the scariest thing Congress has done in a long time. It's being abused so much, it's begining to interfere with freedom of speech, as with this incident. If people would just apply the standard of criminal intent when judging DMCA violations, it wouldn't be so bad, but they don't. The result is that legitimate work which is in no way intended as a criminal act is treated as one.

    RIP, first amendment. You were loved.

    • RIP, first amendment. You were loved.

      I agree. But it does not end there. Cracking encryption, even to make an archive copy is prohibited under the DMCA. Archiving was once fair-use. Now we no longer have it, when encryption scheme are implemented for CD's, MP3's, etc.

      And I'm not referring to the geek who can crack it, but the every Joe Sixpack who lacks the know-how. Most people fall into this category.

  • I keep seeing posts claiming that major news organizations aren't making a big deal about the DMCA because they are owned by conglomerates. Well yes ... and no. You can bet your a$$ that a major deal would be made if the government went after them. The US government isn't that stupid. They will go after Dmitry Skylorav, but never Ted Turner. Any good bully knows to pick on only the weak - never the strong. So as long as the US government applies the law selectively we won't here much about it from the big five. Since selective prosecution is the Modus Operandi of the US government, we won't be hearing from the major news organizations on the DMCA ever, I assure you.

  • until the New York Times or ABC News gets sued for reporting on a circumvention technology. Then we'll all hear a lot of screaming



    I doubt it. During the 2600 case one of those big-media-owned web sites did post a link to decss. after a few hours or so the link was quietly pulled from the article. the only protests I remember came from /. posts

    • In this economy.

      McDonalds will be suing the lady that got her lap burned for pointing out a flaw in their cup design.

      Beta testers will need legal counsel for finding bugs in beta sofware

      and...

      Mabeline will sue Tammy Fae Baker for showing that makeup can't hide the truth. that yo ugly.

    • NYTimes had it up and kept it up (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Are you kidding? The purpose of suing 2600 was not to stop distribution of the DeCSS code. Even the assholes at the MPAA know that's impossible. The purpose is to convince the public that evil hackers are doing evil things somehow, and there awtta be a law (something no true american should ever say). The other purpose is to convince overzealous law enforcement types that it's OK to go after DMCA violations. Of course, in doing so, they make the "good guys" look an awful lot like corrupt local authorities in some China backwater, but those dumb fucks at the FBI ain't exactly Scully and Mulder, you know. Hell, they kept Wen Ho Lee in jail for selling information he didn't have access to, because it was about a part of the bomb he never worked on, near, or with. A lot more Boss Hogg than Dick Tracy, I'm afraid.

      But you don't pull that kind of snow job over the publich by going after the NYTimes, because they can defend themselves and the PR angle would be blown. Much easier to leave them alone, because, as previously noted, it's not actually the source code that the MPAA is worried about, it's the absolute authority over bits and bytes.
  • Oct. 24, 2012

    Sen. Joe Rabbit (R-TX) introduced legislation today that would make owning a screwdriver a federal crime, punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of two years. The unlicensed manufacture or distribution of screwdrivers would be punishable by a mandatory minimum of ten years for a first offense.

    "The screwdriver can be used for a wide variety of illegal acts," said Jane Doe, chief aide to Sen. Rabbit, in a press conference earlier today. "It can be used for lock-picking, for sabotaging machinery, and as a tool in reverse engineering of products. Imagine if terrorists were to use a screwdriver maliciously on a crowded airplane. This is a security risk our country cannot afford to take. Think of the children. "

    The White House expressed some concerns about the possible negative impact of the legislation, but the legislation is attached as a rider to SB78692A, a spending package that enjoys substantial bipartisan support. President Gates is unlikely to veto the whole package this close to the presidential election, especially given that the race between him and Sen. Ellison has narrowed considerably in recent weeks.

    The rider makes an exception for "federally licensed engineers." Doe was unclear about how such a licensing scheme would be implemented, but she made it fairly clear that licenses would not be given to home users.

    "Countless tragedies have occurred when improperly trained individuals have taken it upon themselves to fix a toilet, work on a car, or other commonly bungled household repair jobs," Doe stated. "Some of these improper repairs have caused risk to children. This legislation will ensure that only certified technicians will be using these tools, and that will ensure everyone's safety. How would you feel if criminals used a screwdriver to pick your locks, break into your home, and threaten your children? We must be proactive in our fight against crime!"

    Certain dissident groups, including the ACLU and the NRA, decried the legislation as yet another example of the erosion of personal freedoms in the United States. They also questioned the feasibility of enforcing this law, given that there are hundreds of millions of screwdrivers in households across the United States.

    "This legislation strikes right at the very fabric of this society," said Ted Campbell, spokesman for the ACLU. "America was built on personal ingenuity and a can-do spirit. Besides, how on Earth will it be possible to enforce this?"

    Doe handily dismissed such criticisms. "Enforcement will be difficult, but the Senator has a plan," she said. "In fact, the Senator is already drafting legislation that will expand police powers so that random, anonymous searches of homes for illegal tools can be conducted. "

    She added that the bill has support from several major unions, including electricians' and plumbers' unions, and is lauded by many manufacturers of consumer goods.

  • From the article:
    The last time I checked, U.S. citizens weren't subject to Russian laws.

    All other aspects of the Dmitri case aside, this is simply untrue. If the U.S. citizen is in Russia, he certainly is subject to their laws. Now,whether presenting a paper on decryption is "trafficking" is another matter, but Gross tossing out nonsense like that won't help the cause any.
    • If I recall the charge Dmitri faces, he was not arrested for presenting his paper at DEFCON but profiting from a circumvention devise. The claim the feds make is that because the company that handled the credit card payments is in the US he can be charged under US law.

      Ok IANAL but Why have'nt the empoyees of the crdit card company been charged?

  • Maybe I'm missing something here... but I was under the impression that the United States Constitution had to be directly amended before a law revoking a right or behavior defined within it's text, could be set into place.

    Example:
    *Amendment XVIII - Prohibition of the sale of alcohol.
    *Amendment XXI - Repeal of Amendment XVIII

    Where in the DMCA does it state that Amendment I, my right to freedom of speech, has been repealed?

    • Article I.
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    I thought the Constitution trumped congressional bills, executive orders, and court precedents...

  • If a slashdotter tries to email me, can I sue them under the DMCA?
  • Just saw this [wired.com] on Wired (scroll to "Franve v. Yahoo") section. Basically, American business organizations (like the US Chamber of Commerce) are jumping to the defence of Yahoo, which is being sued in France. They've filed an amicus brief [cdt.org]; here's a quote:
    "The uniquely global nature of the Internet makes the hazard of inconsistent laws and regulations particularly threatening to American individuals, organizations and companies," the brief says.

    I bet Sklyarov would agree!
  • Given the industry statistics for the widespread illegal use of copyrighted software, such as Windows, wouldn't it be interesting if someone did an audit of the RIAA or MPAA member institutions and saw how up to par their software licenses are?

    My thinking goes like this: How can an organization such as the RIAA or MPAA, whose primary purpose is to forward the interests of their member companies, including the enforcement of copyright, hold any sway in court over copyright infringements, if they have been tried and convicted of the same crime?

    Kind of a "If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander" situation, no?

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close