DMCA 2, Freedom 0 543
Politech is featuring this press release from EFF stating Judge Garrett Brown of the Federal District Court in Trenton, New Jersey, threw out the EFF-Felten case challenging the DMCA after less than 25 minutes of debate. DoJ and RIAA both made motions to dismiss the case, which the court granted. We'll have a story about what occurred at the hearing tomorrow. EFF plans to appeal. In addition, 2600 is reporting that they've lost their Appeal in the 2nd Circuit court.
I guess... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I guess... (Score:2)
Thanks for being so clever...
Felten (Score:2, Interesting)
Well... (Score:2, Offtopic)
And what was that quote about encryption? "If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption?"
Re:Well... (Score:2, Interesting)
But this case was never really about DeCSS. The MPAA knows they can't put DeCSS back in the bottle. What it is about is open DVD players that contain CSS decoding circuitry without region coding, Macrovision, and licensing from DVDCCA. If DeCSS were declared legal, what would stop a hardware manufacturer from selling DVD players with no licensing from DVDCCA.
Ditto for open source Linux DVD players. They'll be just like encryption software used to be. You'll have to download them from some European country since they'll never be part of Red Hat or Mandrake. This is a big win for the MPAA.
And that's just the tip of the iceburg. The next generation of DVDs which will have high definition video will have a new encryption system, and the MPAA wants to make sure a crack for that is never released.
By the way, this decision doesn't bode well for Sklyarov.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, the RIAA is attempting to apply a $.02 "performance fee" [riaa.com] (they may have already done it) to every played song on a webcast. (This adds up quite quickly, I assure you.) I suppose they figure if they can't outlaw digital music, they can efficiently screw those who would otherwise stream it out of enough money to force them to cease doing so.
Fair use is quite a grey area; after all, doesn't a Shoutcast stream "for your friends" (but open to the public) qualify as fair use? It's all a matter of opinion.
And as for MP3s/Vorbis, the RIAA happens to be screwing themselves. There are twenty CDs that I would have never purchased had it not been for digital music. Why? Because there isn't any music on the radio that originated from these bands.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
I thought it was: If encryption is outlawed, only gcrqu2 ryfg fgegd vfwtq djxdt.
The real (Score:3, Interesting)
DMCA: 2
Freedom: 0
The Rest of the World: +2 "Canada Seems Much Better Right Now" bonus.
Great. I thought those DeCSS backup freaks had problems, but I just got out a blank and copied DeCSS, SmartRipper, and FlasK to a CD. It's in a jewel case in the floorboards now.
How can our rights be violated like this? I believe it was T. Jefferson that said every 25 years a revolution is healthy. Well, guys, it's been about TWO HUNDRED and 25.
Donate to the EFF. I can't follow my own advice, as I'm in debt right now. Write to the judge that handed down the motions to dismiss these appeals. Let them know how you feel. Make sure to let them know they won't get your retainer vote.
Being a minor in this country sucks. Looks like by the time I'm an adult (2 yrs) it won't be much better.
Re:The real (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The real (Score:3, Informative)
Well, so much for freedom. (Score:2, Interesting)
-- juju
Re:Well, so much for freedom. (Score:5, Insightful)
I challenge you to be a real patriot. Get out from behind the monitor and write your congressman. No, don't e-mail him/her, they won't read it. Write out long hand your grievances and slap an American flag stamp on the corner. Tell him/her you vote. Tell him/her you know a whole community of people who vote and have similar interests. If you really want to be patriotic, go to D.C. and demand to see your representive/congressman. Raise Hell and be a patriot.
Re:Well, so much for freedom. (Score:5, Informative)
YES, THEY WILL. Some Senators have actually pointed out that right now electronic mail is a better way to go (For an example, CLICK HERE. [senate.gov]) because of the Anthrax threats on Capitol Hill. I can personally vouch that politicians read email, because I have recieved multiple personal, specific replies to emails I have sent to my representatives. These were well written letters, not just a generic form letter about a topic with a fake signature stamp.
On the topic, Americans need to stop buying into the myth that politicians do not read email. This story is spread by:
1- American media corporations, who want to keep people from contacting representatives. Actually writing a letter and mailing it intimidates some people (Those who do not know how to prepare elegant business letters or have poor handwriting and lack spelling skills.), and is too time-consuming for others. By making sure that the people's thoughts are not heard, companies like AOL and Microsoft make sure that theirs ARE.
2- Old Guard politicians afraid of progress, the guys like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond who are afraid of change, especially one that gives a lot of voters a voice in a manner that they do not understand.
Use email to contact politicians. It works. If a politician will not care about your email, chances are that he is enough of an asshole that he would not care about a letter anyway,.And if a politician expresses disdain for email, note it, and make sure he gets voted out!
Fax it!! (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think paper mail is the way to go right now-- there's no guarantee anyone's going to take a chance on opening it. Email also gets the shaft.
A good middle solution is a faxed letter, if you can find a fax number for your Representative.
Re:Well, so much for freedom. (Score:2)
Raise Hell and be a patriot.
And get arrested for being a terrorist sympathizer
Re:Well, so much for freedom. (Score:2)
Oh my gawd - tell me you are joking. You need to get some fuckin' perspective you ungrateful sack of shit.
These rulings suck - I'll give you that. But if you think that they are anywhere near justifying a statement like that than you are so utterly sheltered it's almost pitiable. Almost.
There are entire countries where people are praying that they'll eat tomorrow. Whole cultures oppressed by their governments. People who can't remember a time that bombs weren't exploding in the distance. I could never name a hundredth of the grave injustices that other governments inflict upon their people.
But I have to listen to people like you whine, "Waaaah - I want to decrypt PDFs. I hate America!" Ugghh.
I'll tell you what - why don't you go stay in Afghanistan for a month. Then report back on whether you'd still like to trade your life in the U.S. for a few poorly-crafted laws.
Oh, and let me assure you, this is not a fucking troll. You have genuinely pissed me off.
I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
But seriously, what judge could turn down an appeal here? The decision was obviously one-sided.
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Funny)
... really bad experience in a math class in college?
:)
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
What could make a judge so hostile to clearly valid academic concerns?
How about the fact that he was asking for a declaratory judgement on an issue that the other parties had agreed not to prosecute? Sounds like a huge waste of the courts time to me.
not a surprise (Score:2, Interesting)
They were basically trying to challenege the DCMA based on an empty threat by the RIAA, but because they backed down, and never went any further with, there wasn't any real case.
How long did it take to repeal? (Score:2)
Will the consitution be able to be upheld in the future if this mess keeps happening? Seems like money is starting to control what our freedom means instead of the IDEAL of freedom..
Moderation rating: Freedom_Rocks: +1 Insightful: +1
DCMA Moderation Rating: Freedom_Rocks: -1 Flamebait: +1
Unlikely (Score:2)
What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF???
This is a goddam professor we are talking about. Speech and professor goes together like bribery and politician. If a professor stands up as says "hey, i'm not able to do my job" what the hell kind of idiot judge says "whatever".
I thought for sure this was a silver bullet against the DMCA and I can't believe that the EFF is already fighting an uphill battle on what seems blately a first ammendment issue to any first year law student.
Seriously W-T-F
Can judges be impeached? Can they have their positions revoked? I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life but what about the lower levels? Is there any way we can start a campaign to get idiots like this off the bench? These people are clearly not representing the people, the Constitution, or anything except Executive Branch and Legislative Branch interests.
RULINGS LIKE THESE ARE DESTROYING THE F'N CHECKS AND BALANCES SYSTEM
Unreal.
- (ANGRY) JoeShmoe
Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary (Score:2)
This is a goddam professor we are talking about. Speech and professor goes together like bribery and politician. If a professor stands up as says "hey, i'm not able to do my job" what the hell kind of idiot judge says "whatever".
Please. Someone told a professor that what he was doing might not be legal. Nothing more. There is no case. It was a stupid case to begin with.
Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary (Score:2, Informative)
You don't seem to even know what the RIAA sent to Felten. They didn't say "might not be legal". They said:
That sounds a tad more threatening "oh, you might not be doing something legal.".
Quote curtesy of Politechbot [politechbot.com].
Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary (Score:3, Insightful)
This was a case that was dismissed due to the fact that the EFF was suing the RIAA over the RIAA's threatening to sue Felten. Even the (obviously biased) press release was unable to obscure this basic fact. Mind you, this wasn't a suit that would result in penalties for Felten, either criminal or civil. The judge simply made a determination that this was a frivolous law suit. IMHO, the EFF should be spending their donor's money in more responsible manners, and they could probably start by waiting for a clear cut case to come along against one of the people they plan on defending.
Is there any way we can start a campaign to get idiots like this off the bench?
Is there any way we can start a campaign to keep ill-reasoned hotheads like you from posting to Slashdot? Judges get to where they are through being throughly qualified for the position, such as having a law degree and serving as a lawyer for a number of years. Being lawyers, they are quite adept at understanding the facts of a situation, a skill that you sorely lack.
Disagree - not a frivolous lawsuit (Score:2)
Firstly, SDMI invited the public to crack their watermarking scheme. They offered money as enticement, giving the crackers the option of giving up the prize money should they decide not to assent to their contract. Felten chose the second option. Having cracked it, he is thus free to do as he pleases, since he conducted the research under the auspices of the University. The RIAA threatens to sue. Felten withdraws his paper (this damages his professional reputation!), and then later publishes it having clarified that the RIAA does not intend to sue.
In other words, the picture reveals that the RIAA was selectively excersing their rights, using the law to chill research.
Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA says "publish and we'll sue you or worse, we'll tell the FBI your research is a circumvention device" Why is it frivilous for Felten to come before a judge and say "hey, do they really have a case?"
There has got to be some legal basis for preventative measures. Look at trade secret laws. There doesn't even need to be damages...just the mere threat of damages is enough for a judge can issue a restraining order. So why doesn't this work in the other direction? Why can't a judge issue a ruling that says "No, the DMCA doesn't apply to what you are doing Felten, carry on." Why does Felten have to do things the hard way and martyr himself?
Maybe there would be a whole lot less civil disobidience if there was a way for someone to get a ruling before actually breaking the law. Who exactly are you supposed to believe? An unfair law or the judges who interpret it? I read the law and see permission to do something. Big Company reads the same law and sees the exact opposite. Does the FBI listen to my side of the case when Big Company asks them to arrest me? Do they say "oh yeah, good point, you are free to go?" No. Even when Adobe "recanted" Dmitri was still in prison. So then if it's not up to the executive branch, it must be up to the judicial branch. So that is why Felten and the EFF went to court...to ask the judicial branch what this law means. But rather than study it, hear testimony, call experts, and finally make a ruling...the judge ducks the issue.
Oh, and by the way, wtf kind of crack are you smoking to make the statement that judges "get to where they are through being throughly qualified for the position" Judicial appointments are as based on merit as the electoral college is. They are done completely down political and ideological lines...ie picking judges that are gonna vote the way you want them to vote on the issues that matter to your group. But whether is is Democrat or Republician it seems to me there is an appalling pro-business bias in the judges that have been chosen in the last couple decades. Can anyone even remember an anti-business ruling? I'm not talking about one business fighting with another; can anyone think of a single case in the last twenty years where an individual or non-profit group was victorious in an action brought by a large corporation? Are there any success stories?
For crying out loud...ten? twenty? years ago the Supreme Court of the United States rules that Hustler magazine had the right to embarass the hell out of a religious figure because, distasteful as the comments were, they were free speech. What do you think the odds are that the same case would have even made it to the Supreme Court if Hustler had instead embarassed a major corporation?
SDMI hadn't even picked a secure music format. There was *NO* chance of damage or IP theft and still they pissed their pants over Felten's analysis. Why? Because it showed what a ludicrous idea watermarking is. Reactions like this only helps prove that the real intent of the DMCA is not to protect IP or prevent piracy but to prevent the publication or dissemination of any information that embarasses or otherwise injures the reputation of a major corporation and its products.
- JoeShmoe
The motion was not about frivolousness (Score:5, Insightful)
The motion was not about frivolousness of the underlying questions (whether Felton could publish) and it was not about whether there was a case -- it was about whether there was a controversy.
Federal courts only have jurisdiction under the U.S. Constitution over "cases and controversies," and cannot give advisory opinions. If there is no actual dispute between the parties, the Court must not hear the case.
That was the basis for the motion to dismiss. RIAA said, "Whoops, we were wrong -- we're not going to sue if you publish." So Felton sued for a declaratory judgment.
There are exceptions to the requirement that a case be justiciable, and arguably this was such a case, capable of repetition yet evading review and infringing closely on the limits of the First Amendment by chilling free speech. That was the issue before the Court.
The subtle, totally legal, justiciability question was always hard. On the merits, I think it was very close, particularly absent an elaborate pattern and track record of sending letters to other researchers, though I liked EFF's first amendment "chilling" argument quite a bit. But I could easily see the question going the other way, and surviving an appeal.
But don't get this wrong -- this is not a victory for DMCA on the merits, not by a long shot. It is a procedural loss for the EFF for persisting to bring a case on facts that the RIAA was smart enough to drop. This goes to picking one's battles -- this could have been a good one for the anti-technology regulation movement, but it was not to be. Precisely, by the way, for that reason.
Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary (Score:5, Informative)
Guess again.
Check out the Notable First Amendment Cases page [ala.org] at the American Library Association [ala.org]. More specifically, see the case of Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973).
Here is part of Justice Byron R. White's decision:
Litigants, therefore, are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own right of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute's very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.
In other words, you can preemptively sue the government if it is possible for someone to be silenced by a law.
Ergo Felten was completely in the right.
AlfChecks and Balances (Score:3, Funny)
I'm just as afraid of Bush and Ashcroft screwing up our country as I am of the judiciary. Let us also not forget that congress' wisdom was what got this stuff into court in the first place. The checks and balances are just fine... each branch of government is exceptionally capable of screwing everything up!
Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary (Score:2)
Presumably, the Felten case will be appealed to the Third Circuit (which must take the appeal if filed), and 2600 will presumably file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court. No guarantee that the Supremes will find this one certworthy, though. Hard to tell without reading the decision...
New Jersey and New York
What all US voters who oppose these decisions should do is to lobby their (federal) representatives and senators to CHANGE or REPEAL the DMCA. The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA were created by Congress, and can be changed by a subsequent Congress.
Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary (Score:2)
The chances are nill. The supreme court will take the issue only if different courts interpret the DMCA in significanly different ways or if all courts interpret it in a way a majority of the justice don't like. Given that 2600 is the first case and the decision doesn't seem to be the kind to energize the present court, I'll bet my hat they'll pass.
PS. I think the EFF had no case here. The DMCA explicitely excludes encryption research. And there was no governmental attempt to silence Felten. Free speach means nothing if people won't speak unless their get a written guarantee that nobody is going to sue them.
Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL (Score:4, Troll)
Funny, I've talked to a lot of people who are far from geeks, much less "pirates". I've told them about the attempt to place unexpirable "access controls" on material slated to be public domain. I've told them about the arrest of a foreign national for writing a program legal in his country. I've told them about the intimidation and outright threatening of scientists who dare to expose flaws in a sham security system. I've told them about being blocked from watching a movie they've bought wherever they want on whatever machine they choose. I've told them about losing their time-honored rights to Fair Use, to First Sale, to archival copies...
You know what? They don't think any of those things should be occuring. They don't think that reverse engineering for system interoperability should be illegal. They don't think allowing backups should be illegal. They don't think allowing you to read an eBook on whatever machine you choose, should be illegal. They don't think control over your own movie collection should be illegal. They don't think that quotation from a digital source, for the purposes of scholarship, should be illegal. They don't think that scientific research should be illegal.
So don't get on your high horse and tell me what people think should be illegal and what not. You don't know a thing about what people want. When the mists are lifted, when the DMCA and its implications are laid bare in ordinary language, and not swirled up and hidden behind copyright-lawyerese, then even the "ordinary" people do care.
In this fight, the problem is not that the majority understand the issues and are against. The problem is that they do not understand the issues. They stand neither against us nor for us, for they have not yet thought it through. In my experience, when they do stop to think about it, when the shape of things is made clear, then the rational citizens I encounter invariable end up quite upset with the DMCA.
People are only as stupid as you seem to think they are, when they listen to you tell them how stupid they are.
Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL (Score:3, Informative)
Funny, I've talked to a lot of people who are far from geeks, much less "pirates". I've told them about the attempt to place unexpirable "access controls" on material slated to be public domain.
The DMCA only covers copyrighted material, not material which is in the public domain.
I've told them about the arrest of a foreign national for writing a program legal in his country.
You mean for importing a program into this country and distributing it in this country.
I've told them about the intimidation and outright threatening of scientists who dare to expose flaws in a sham security system.
Completely irrelevant to the DMCA.
I've told them about being blocked from watching a movie they've bought wherever they want on whatever machine they choose.
Somewhat valid point.
I've told them about losing their time-honored rights to Fair Use, to First Sale, to archival copies...
Something which is specifically protected in the DMCA.
You know what? They don't think any of those things should be occuring. They don't think that reverse engineering for system interoperability should be illegal.
Also specifically protected by the DMCA.
They don't think allowing backups should be illegal.
Which it isn't.
They don't think allowing you to read an eBook on whatever machine you choose, should be illegal.
Somewhat fair point.
They don't think control over your own movie collection should be illegal.
Huh?
They don't think that quotation from a digital source, for the purposes of scholarship, should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA.
They don't think that scientific research should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA. You should read it some time.
Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL (Score:3, Informative)
This is true, but the DMCA places hurdles on Copyrighted material ever being forced to become Public Domain.
"You mean for importing a program into this country and distributing it in this country."
Not to re-hash an old debacle, but he is an employee of a company that did this. He didn't personally traffic this for his own demise. He may be guilty of being an employee of this company which carried this traffic to our borders, but shouldn't it strike you as strange if Bill Gates was personally indicted for enacting a monopoly? In this country, a company is legally a person.
"I've told them about the intimidation and outright threatening of scientists who dare to expose flaws in a sham security system.
Completely irrelevant to the DMCA."
No it isn't. The DMCA specifically states that circumvention of a reasonable attempt to protect Copyrighted material is illegal. Hence it is illegal to point out flaws in a security system which would allegedly aid circumvention. Aiding and abetting.
"They don't think that reverse engineering for system interoperability should be illegal.
Also specifically protected by the DMCA."
Then how come the DeCSS thing is such a problem? Perhaps because the DMCA does in fact protect against circumventing protective measures on Copyrighted materials?
"They don't think allowing backups should be illegal.
Which it isn't."
Again, circumvention of a protective mechanism is prohibited under the governing of the DMCA. So copying a DVD or copy protected music CD is illegal. Even for purposes of backups. Because the CSS is considered a reasonable attempt of securing the Copyrighted material.
"They don't think that scientific research should be illegal.
Specifically exempted from the DMCA. You should read it some time."
Specifically exempt from the DMCA if there is an approval from the Copyright holder and/or if the subject is in the Public Domain and/or if the subject isn't reasonably protected. But since poor mechanisms of protection are accepted in Court, I don't blame the scientists of being afraid.
The DMCA has been applied in all of the above cases, in terms of supressive measures to maintain information/studies captive or openly challenged in Court. I think your literal interpretation of the DMCA shows exactly how easy and how dangerous it is to get the wrong idea about something so evil.
Re:cry me a river you CRIMINAL (Score:4, Insightful)
However, if that DVD uses CSS, and it is the only source you can get the content from, you're stuck. Even though the work is in the public domain, and you can legally copy it, under the DMCA you can't legally obtain the tools for breaking the encryption used.
Thus, copy protection via encryption can be used artifically extend your copyright protection, since you can go after anyone that copies the work even after it has entered the public domain, and get them thrown in jail for violating the DMCA. Even the threat of that will be a major protection for the movie studios and others.
As I see it, the DMCA is in part a way for the US government to work around the restrictions placed on it by the US constitution.
Re:What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary (Score:3, Funny)
It was not in a trial, it was in a deposition. The deposition was taken in the context of a civil case (not a criminal one). No judgement was made as to wether this lie was "relevant" and therefore rose to the level of perjury. he was never charged with perjury, never tried for perjury and never convicted of perjury.
He lied about the whereabouts of his cock. He was asked about where he stuck his cock and when and under what circumstances. The questions about his cock and the whereabouts thereof were asked primarily to embarass him. The republicans who were suing him intended to publish information gleaned from the depositions so that they could talk about his cock on TV. He knew this and he lied.
Given that the question should never have been asked in the first place I say it's no big deal. The whereabouts (or the shape and the size for that matter) of Bill Clintons cock is not my concern and I for one am not at all concerned that he lied about it.
I won't comment on the rest of post as it's pretty silly
P.S. Can you point out the acual lie under oath? Next time you complain about lying under oath you should say "in this depostion he was asked weather or not he stuck his cock in this girls pussy and he lied about it and that's wrong because I really really care which pussy his cock was buried in"
Computer Science Major and Political Science Minor (Score:5, Interesting)
The DMCA is a hassel and should definantelly be considered in the supreme court, why it's still in circut court is far beyound me, I guess EFF is just trying to go through the motions of getting it directly to the supreme court. Why the DoJ would make a motion to dismiss is beyound me though.
The United States division of powers The Legislative Branch is checked by the Judicial Branch THROUGH court rulings, but I guess someone forgot to mention this plain key fact to the DoJ, but wait ... could I be right when I make the assumption that the government is no longer for the people which it represents and more for how well their own pockets can be lined by our fellow extremely wealthy citizens.
Could corperate Kick-Backs be the main case behind why the DMCA was born and is still alive? Of course not, We are Americans in a democracy for the people and by the people with full and equal representation and rights ... *cough* bullshit *cough* ... we're a capitalistic society and I'm ashamed that anything of this nature is going on. I'm also very surprised that like the DECSS the SDMI cracks haven't hit the open source world yet ...
Oh well ... just my opinion I could be wrong.
Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi (Score:2)
Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi (Score:5, Informative)
It usually takes quite some time for an issue to percolate up to the Supreme Court. It has to show up at the district and appellate levels for two separate districts. Generally, there also has to be an obvious collision between appellate rulings. The Supremes are loth to get involved with anything, since their authority is largely smoke-and-mirrors. The more a wise man talks, the less wise he is, I guess.
You can rant and rave but let's face it: one of the jobs of the DoJ is to defend the government. They are the government's lawyers. So if you sue against this (or any other) law, it's the DoJ who'll show up opposite you in court. And what's more, they're professionally obligated to do the best defense they can, and this motion falls under that. It would have been irresponsible not to file it.
Right now people like to rag on the US judiciary. But just a few days ago, everyone was aglow (Message Boards are Opions [slashdot.org] and District Court Denies Injunction against bundlings [slashdot.org] and DeCSS Injunction reversed [slashdot.org]).
Here's my point: Like all other institutions, the federal judiciary is not monolithic. Yet we have a lot of good news coming out of there, too... perhaps more than good. At the very least, these rulings show that the pot is beginning to boil -- that the whole IP mess has wormed its way into and throughout the federal court system, and will soon have to be dealt with.
If you really believe you're right, how can that be a bad thing?
Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi (Score:4, Insightful)
However they appear to be currently rather selective about doing their job. Otherwise we would have expected them to have squashed (revokation of of corporate charter and arrest of those who lied in court) Microsoft a few months back.
Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi (Score:2)
Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi (Score:3, Interesting)
I have the sinking feeling that political means won't solve this problem when the two "major" parties fight each other only for show and become instant allies whenever a promising adversary appears. Yet any attempt to apply non-political means would only get the Communists rounded up and killed just like after the Reichstag fire. It appears the most reliable way to be free of the socialist overclass enforcing capitalism for the underclass is to pollute ourselves into infirmity as the Romans did, and wait a couple hundred years for the Visigoths to take Rome again.
I'm starting to doubt the New Agers' fawning over the Age of Aquarius. Technological feudalism is every bit as comfortable under Aquarius as the socialist collective.
-jhp
Time to stop the madness (Score:2, Flamebait)
The only way to fight this very disturbing trend is to grow up and stop hacking. Our programmers need to concentrate on good old fashioned programming projects: improving KDE and Mozilla. Adding more big iron support, filesystems, and other features to the Linux kernel. Making the system more user-friendly. Improving security. These things help everybody and will allow us to overthrow the Microsoft monopoly.
What we don't need right now is more hacking software. We don't need new versions of nmap and SATAN every week. We don't need any more 'sploits published on BUGTRAQ and we don't need any more software to remove content protection. We don't need any new PTP clients. We need to stop the government from passing these Draconian laws and the only way they're going to listen to us is if we can show them that we can behave without regulation.
Face it folks - we are a bunch of powerless individuals, not a large corporation. The EFF's budget is about 1/100th of the smallest RIAA member's lobbying budget. We can't fight them on their own terms so the only way we have to preserve our freedoms is to stop abusing them.
~wally
Huh what? Re:Time to stop the madness (Score:2)
I admit to being a little confused: The best way to protect your freedom is to stop exercising it? I always thought that the best way to protect your freedom was exactly to excercise it, long and loud and often.
Should people be making malicious programs and cracking sites? Surely not. But to say that our best bet lies in being good sheep and just playing along -- that to be heard, we should cower in a corner and plead, "Don't hurt me" -- is simply absurd.
It won't work, because it never has worked.
Re:You surrendered your freedom (Score:2)
If I can't abuse it, it ain't freedom! We're talking about "speech", not hitting people with a car!!! Remember "stick and stones can break my bones, but words will never harm me".
Re:Time to stop the madness (Score:2)
Translation :
"The only way to fight gags is to shut up"
Bzzt, wrong answer. What do you think hacking is for ? fun of course, but more importantly, learning (something today's generation of videogame-numbed kids are not doing anymore) : if I hadn't reverse-engineered my ZX81 when I was a kid, I wouldn't know a tenth of what I need to know to be a (hopefully) successful engineer. If someone hadn't carefully analyzed the original 8088 processor, they would never have discovered that interrupts need to be disabled when modifying the stack segment register, and we'd have had PCs that crash at random for no reasons for a long longer.
I believe you mistake hacking with craking/phreaking/pirating, like the majority of people today.
"We don't need new versions of nmap and SATAN every week. We don't need any more 'sploits published on BUGTRAQ"
Yes we do, so you know that Windows XP tries to connect to MSN silently each time you boot, and so you can upgrade wu-ftpd before some sucker hacks your box.
Re:Time to stop the madness (Score:2)
I agree competely with that - if people didn't learn how to use the technology to its fullest, by TAKING IT APART and messing with it, our computers would still suffer random hardware-related crashes.
Same with nearly everything. It's too bad that Congress is supported by the large corporations, and a DCMA case has never made it to the Supreme Court.
Re:Time to stop the madness (Score:2)
Oh, so exactly true. I'm a fairly strong libertarian in my want of freedom, but the problem with too many of my fellow libertarians is that they want all the freedoms too, but none of the responsibilities.
As much as I hate the way that copyright law is used like a club, I can't help but sympathize with content producers when I see the rampant pirating that is condoned and even encouraged on forums like this.
You want to do something about Draconian copyright law? The next time that you decide that copying a piece of music is worthwhile, don't. Go buy it instead. If your employer isn't paying for their commercial software, call them on it. If your friends or family aren't paying for their cable or satellite programming, explain to them that they're hurting all of us.
I kind of agree with the court. (Score:3, Insightful)
But the court may have been right here.
I still don't like the fact that he was even threatened with a lawsuit but legal threats were present BEFORE the DMCA.
Felten did get to publish his research, he wasn't sued.
I do believe that this will fall though but we need the RIAA to actually try to use this before we can push this down through the courts....
Re:I kind of agree with the court. (Score:3, Insightful)
preparations (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine for a second, that some "Information Approval Board" was running into town, making sure that everyone had the right level of license and security authorization to read a book, or look at an image. Horrifying. Imagine also that the war on "free information" starts with software. Now everyone is "renting" the books and pictures they own.
Frightened? Here's more. The only thing separating imagination from the current reality is a handful of judges.
Well, I guess one never misses something until it's gone...
The EFF expected to win??? (Score:2)
IANAL, but I don't think you can get such a determination from any US Court. For better or worse, they only deal in suits with full adversarial participation.
Had the EFF sued for defamation of character [by the RIAA alleging that Felton was a lawbreaker] or some other tort then the case probably couldn't be so easily dismissed. But nor would it be Federal, either.
Pro-active supremes (Score:2)
It would be nice if (at least on huge legislation like this) they would take a look at it and say "this is crap - it's gone."
Then again, if they did, then as RIAA/MPAA...er...congress...yeah... is drafting the bill it might help them create a more bullet proof bill.
Just once I'd like a single edged sword
Patience my boy. (Score:2)
Re:Pro-active supremes (Score:2)
Ah, yes. A pro-active Supreme Court. Just what we need. A dias packed with old windbags in black mu-mus dispensing justice as they see fit, without regard for Constitutional limits.
Arise, Torquemada, arise! We have work for you, yet!
Re:Pro-active supremes (Score:2)
Besides, we all know how much Judge Thomas likes his porn
Why the EFF case was thrown out... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's probable there would have been a different outcome if the RIAA hadn't back tracked, and they where attempting to supress academic research.
Just wait until some RIAA-like organization decides to dig in against a proffessor like felten.
Then you'll see the sparks fly.
As for 2600, they're still seen as subversive hackers, and hence are easy targets. Is it right? Nope. We'll see if and when it gets to the supreme court, maybe they can rectify things. Cross your fingers.
Simple Solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the majority of the world will follow my solution, but it's one that would work if more people took the time to think where their dollars are going. If you want to stop the insanity, then stop giving them the money to get laws like the DMCA and such in to enforcement.
People, stop making this bed if you don't want to sleep in it. I'm sure there are enough people out there who don't like what the entertainment industry is doing that could hurt their income by boycotting their products.
What about 2.2.20? (Score:2)
What about AC sensorship at 2.2.20? All I saw is that the DMCA citation is still there. When will we know what kind of patch is that?
Will Tossati allow all the world (but US) to know what's happening inside the kernel?
Due to a dumb and stupid law the freedom of our kernel is being violated. Why can't we know what the heck was changed?
I want the kernel freedom back. And I hope that Torvalds and Tossati will bring it back to us. I don't care if this update is irrelevant to me, and for most users. I have the right to know and I want to know!
Or everything we fight for means nothing? Will Tossati and/or Torvalds allow that a stupid foreign (they are not americans) law to steal our freedom? Will they let DMCA destroy everything we believe (OpenSource/FreeSoftware or whatever).
I'm very disapointed. Many claims today for quality. I think that we need our freedom back above all.
Not willing to go to jail to prove a point? (Score:5, Interesting)
So here I will make an offer: Someone get me a good presentation that violates the DMCA, along with printed handouts, and time at a conference to present it. Inform the media and the DOJ/RIAA/MPAA ahead of time of what I will be dicussing. Have a lawyer ready to represent me. At that time I will pass out printed photocopies of the presentation and give the presentation. I am willing to go to jail over this if someone else is willing to do the preparatory work. If you can get provide the backing, just drop me an email at supabeast AT supabeast DAWT oh-are-gee.
Re:Not willing to go to jail to prove a point? (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who back the DMCA own the media.
Re:Not willing to go to jail to prove a point? (Score:2)
The dystopian future (Score:2)
Between the DRM movement and the coming "middleware revolution" (Java,.NET), you can kiss the computing industry goodbye.
I just don't see how freedom can compete with a government that desperately needs middleware to create backdoors--both at home and abroad.
Nor can it compete with two of the most powerful entities extant today--entertainment and Microsoft Bill.
Whatever. It's not like freedom hasn't lost before.
Re: (Score:2)
Felten dismissal not as bad as it sounds (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I haven't seen any links to an actual published decision. So all of this is really rampant speculation. Take it for what it's worth.
It sounds like the Felten case was dismissed for lack of justiciability. The judge probably felt that there simply was no "case or controversy" as required by the Constitution for a federal judge to adjudicate a dispute.
Although the EFF filed for a declaratory judgment (which defines the rights of the party when a dispute is imminent), the judge probably felt that the issue was moot because the RIAA had withdrawn its threats, or was unripe because no actual prosecution took place.
The bottom line is that the Felten decision appears to ultimately be a civil procedure decision of interest mainly to lawyers. It does NOT appear to operate as an adjudication on the merits of the constitutionality of any part of the DMCA. Even if affirmed by the Third Circuit, it sets no binding precedent concerning the DMCA.
Is it unfortunate that the DMCA won't be stricken down immediately? Of course. The wheels of justice, for better or worse, often turn quite slowly. The judiciary doesn't react well to Internet time.
So step back a bit, breathe, and relax before crying chicken little or picking up the flamethrower.
IAAL, but this is not specific legal advice to anyone, just general ruminations about civil procedure.
Mickey Mouse and national security (Score:4, Funny)
The future in the digital age (Score:2, Insightful)
In extremely paraphrased words, copyright owners can not technically/physically stop copying (legal or otherwise) from going on so they are trying to pull the legal angle with things such as the DMCA, SSSCA, ATA, etc. Some of these are obviously quite misguided. Bruce Schneier talked about these things and the history of their inability to completely stop copying. There are countries in the world that do not and will not conform to american companies' wishes/laws/edicts (mostly one-in-the-same anyway); such countries will not apply the DMCA, SSSCA, etc to their people and thus ignore entities such as the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, etc
There will never be a time when millions of people will be overpowered by any entity(ies) technically, legally or any way in the end. There will always be a way around it or thru it or to bypass it. It is just a matter of time before the way is understood. How long did Windows XP last before it was cracked? How long for the watermarking was cracked? How long before CSS was cracked? How long before 802.11b password keys can be revealed?
Where is OpenBSD based because of encryption laws being to strict in the US? Canada. There are countries out there that don't recognize IP. What is Disney going to do when their beloved life-extended from the public domain Mickey Mouse is used in some defamating way in one such country? Nothing!
I grasped from Bruce's speech that there are tough times ahead for many but there is no way everyone can be stopped. Just keep persistent and keep trying to figure things out and how they work and in the end this barrage of legal assaults against us and our freedoms will cease when it yields no more results.
http://www.faircopyright.org
http://www.eff.org
http://freesklyarov.org/
http://www.2600.com
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/071601
DeCSS decision now available on EFF site (Score:5, Informative)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:DeCSS decision now available on EFF site (Score:2, Interesting)
After reading the decision, it seems that the appeal court considers that decss is not pure speech like a recipe or a engineering blueprint because decss can instruct a computer to execute some functions without the instructor's understanding of what the code does, while recipe and blueprint can't. Therefore, there is more of a functional aspect to decss than the speech aspect.
Base on this critical point and other more accepted arguments, the appeal court upheld Kaplan's ruling.
IANAL, but why is code being considered less of a speech just because a stupid machine is able to interprete the code automatically?
If i create a machine that can automatically cook me a meal by reading recipes, will the free speech protection of those recipes become less?
Re:DeCSS decision now available on EFF site (Score:3, Informative)
I am dissappointed. More attention should have been paid to the fact that DVD playing should not be a cartel. The distinction between copyright protection and copy protection should have been better argued. Then the courts would not have blithely ignored this point.
Sigh.
Look who matches donations to the EFF (Score:3, Funny)
If you work for Disney, Fox, or Time Warner, your employer will match your donation to the EFF!
Read all about it here. [eff.org]
Things are only getting worse. (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that because existing copyright laws already make it illegal to make illegal copies of information, the DMCA is redundant legislation put in place by greedy corporations, whose interests do not match the best interests of the majority of Americans. If things continue the way they are right now, then next thing you know, you won't be allowed to copy your own data (that you create) without written permission from the governor. (Geez, you might not even be able to make data without a license!!)
The entire copyright system has been corrupted over the past century or so, the largest corruption being the increasingly long time the copyright lasts. In my opinion, 20 years is more than enough time for a copyright. After that, you'd better come up with something new to sell or you're an idiot. Just so you know, I spend nearly all of my time writing software for heavy duty industrial processes. It is very difficult work. Really. The blood, sweat and tears I put into this work are approaching a level of ridiculousness. Despite that, I refuse to put any kind of copy protection scheme in my software, even though a single instance of piracy makes me lose thousands of dollars. I simply don't believe in putting deliberate defects in my software. Furthermore, I'd be more than happy with a 20 year copyright. Like I said, by the time the 20 years are up, I'd better have something new to offer. This would keep people busy coming up with new things. I think it's idiotic that someone can come up with a song or book or program and profit off it for the rest of their lives, and for the lives of their great grandchildren, as seemingly happens with the copyright system today.
Think about how much better off we'd all be if people who profit from "nontangible" work are required to keep coming up with new things. An electrician who installs a light switch doesn't charge royalties on each use of that switch for the next 150 years. A mechanic who fixes cars doesn't charge for every mile driven on that car afterwards. Someone who builds skyscrapers doesn't stand at the door and charge people to enter, and then sue people who enter through the back door without paying. If you but a toaster, or a rock, or a screwdriver, or a slab of concrete, it belongs to YOU and you can do with it whatever you want. You can smash it to pieces if you want. It belongs to YOU. Now intangible data is intangible, so I agree that some kind of artificial system needs to be in place so that people can profit from their hard work. But why should someone (even me) come up with something intangible and charge for it through the nose for the next 6,000 years?! That's unfair, and I say that as a person who's career is nontangible work.
An electrician who profits from installing a light switch has to KEEP INSTALLING LIGHT SWITCHES in order to KEEP PROFITING. The same rule applies to any other job. Therefore, it stands to reason that a person who makes software, or songs, or books, or whatever should have to KEEP MAKING whatever they're making in order to KEEP PROFITING. I think that makes sense. If the electrician or [insert name of any other tangible job here] has to do it, so does the person making intangible DATA. Otherwise, you end up with idiots who strike it rich on some stupid work of theirs and spend the rest of their lives doing drugs, getting all kinds of piercings and tatooes and sexually transmitted diseases and stuff, because they just keep profiting off their work FOREVER. That's wrong. They should have to continue coming up with new material or get a real job. There will be less problems in the world!
Therefore, I believe the DMCA is a trash piece of legislation, and it should be repealed. Again, the DMCA is a law in MY favor, but I don't like it. Furthermore, I think that the limit on copyright should be changed to 20 (or at MOST, 30) years. Finally, I think the penalties for copyright infringement should be heavily reduced. It's absolutely ridiculous that a copyright violator can spend more time in prison under the DMCA and other laws than some murderers.
But it probably won't happen. The world is like any other system with problems: Things tend to get worse, not better. I think the whole human race has been going downhill ever since the beginning. Sure, we have technology and stuff but when it comes down to it, people now get punished for listening to music as if they killed people. Of course, that may just be the Brandy Alexanders talking. (1/3 parts each: Chocolate liqueur, Brandy and Cream, in case you're wondering. It's an old drink. Most bartenders have to look it up.)
Oooooooh well.
Re:Things are only getting worse. (Score:3, Interesting)
The exception to the rule that rights revert to the creator is "work for hire". That's fair enough when the work is essentially a corporate creation. There was one underhanded attempt to change this; a Congressional staffer, at the end of a session when nobody was reading what they were voting for, snuck in an amendment that made all musical recordings work for hire. (You get one guess as to what industry that guy is now working for.) When the musicians noticed it, they went to Congress and got it overturned. At the hearing, no one at all dared show up and try to defend this change, and certainly no Congressman wants to have 100 rock stars campaigning against him. But it took time, and so the record companies own outright most of the recordings made that year...
DMCA debate on campus (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the link: http://calendar.cs.cmu.edu/scsEvents/demo/554.htm
Mark my words (Score:4, Insightful)
The DMCA cannot hinder free speech - it actually says that IN the DMCA (thus preventing the DMCA to be struck down as unconstitutional). But distributing a mechanism to break encryption is illegal, and probably will stay that way.
Source code will fall under free speech, and therefore will be able to be distributed at will.
Binaries will not. They will fall under the DMCA because they don't fall under free speech.
Distributing all the pieces (compilers, source, etc) to CREATE the binaries will be ok. Just as it is perfectly legal to distribute the materials to make a bomb. AFAIK, even building one isn't a crime. Using one or distributing bombs is a big no-no.
I'm just waiting for the precedent to be set that code is free speech. It will happen. The hoopla around DeCSS proves it is utterly stupid NOT to let code fall under free speech. Try printing a binary on a tee-shirt though.
Other parts of the DMCA (including the ones that cover fair-use) will also be contested, and the precedents will be set.
No DMCA in Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
Tired of the laws your brain-dead politicians keep creating? Consider Canada! Sure the weather is a little colder than California, but the taxes aren't as high as you've heard. I think you'll find that business is better up here.
Ask yourself: What more does the US government have to do before you'll leave? Guess what? They'll do it!
Re:No DMCA in Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh, people on Slashdot (who aren't still pissed about the Gore thing) are generally smart enough to know that already. Tell your friends.
Reject it (Score:2)
Sure then you have to accept your own responsibility. If you are lazy (we all are sometimes) you just bootleg the product. A better solution is to create high-quality alternate products and offer them to others without all the legal bullshit we're against. Open your specs, open your code, open your documentation, give away what you can and sell the rest without these unethical restrictions. It is our responsibility to make the world better. Whining doesn't do a damn thing.
Re:Reject it (Score:4, Funny)
Poster #1: MPAA is evil because of the DMCA! Boycott all their stuff!
Poster #2: Yeah, you're right! We should boycott... hey look, a new Star Trek DVD!
Poster #1: Where? Cool!
Re:Another one for the bad guys! (Score:2, Insightful)
If the companies behind this considered what you listed to be legitimate uses for their content (for use of which you buy a "license" from them - in the ideal world, of course) then encryption preventing those uses and the laws protecting that encryption would not be there - because let's face it, it doesn't stop real piracy.
That would be kinda like saying that MS WPA is designed to stop software piracy, rather than casual copying.
Xine isn't illegal (they don't distribute DeCSS code/binaries spcifically because of DMCA), but watching DVDs on Linux is illegal, not because that's the artifact of some not too well thought out copy protection system, but because you are not supposed to play DVDs on Linux until there is a "proper" player for it.
Re:EFF snafu (Score:2)
Re:EFF snafu (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:EFF snafu (Score:2)
Re:EFF snafu (Score:2, Informative)
Re:EFF snafu (Score:5, Insightful)
What specifically makes him unsympathetic? Unlike many of the DeCSS posters he didn't engage in profanity while describing the MPAA, and never encouraged illegal copying. If you've heard him on the radio you've probably heard he is an articulate and level-headed guy even though his politics are a little to the left of center.
Has it gotten to the point where no one with long hair should expect a fair trial?
Re:EFF snafu (Score:2)
Thought for the moment:
Does being on Nightline make you respectable?
Re:EFF snafu (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, you should either thank your lucky stars that the EFF is doing this, since they're the ONLY people fighting these cases. And the challenges for civil rights were after many years of black people being screwed. Remember slavery? Segregation was pretty deeply entreanched in our society by then.
The DMCA is new. It needs to be challenged NOW, before it gets to be established law. Just because some moron judge didn't even listen to arguments doesn't mean that the EFF shouldn't sue. Ed felten is a legitimate researcher, and he is plenty sympatheic if that is your concern. Eventually, the EFF will get their day in court, try their case, and then we will see.
In the mean time, start litigating this stuff yourself or stop complaining if the only people who have the dollars and time to do it have a small setback.
Re:EFF snafu (Score:2)
Re:Anybody know a good travel agent? (Score:2, Interesting)
Where?
Just Don't, Ok? (Score:2)
The EFF was pursuing an iffy course of legal action by attempting to sue the RIAA for something the RIAA had already relented on, anyway. Just because this case was dismissed at the district court level doesn't mean that the DMCA has been ruled constitutional.
Just relax, and for god's sake don't go harassing a sitting federal judge. It won't do one damn bit of good, and it'll give the EFF a bad name. Just write your congress people.. they're the ones that are supposed to respond to democratic complaint.
Re:Judge's Email Address or phone #? (Score:3, Informative)
I worked for a federal judge, and protest mail and demonstrations outside the courthouse are summarily ignored by pretty much everyone.
Anything remotely resembling a threat is likely to be taken quite unfavorably by the U.S. Marshalls, moreover.
The only lobbying likely to have any effect whatsoever is lobbying of Congress. THOSE are the elected officials who are ultimately accountable to their voting constituents.
Re:Judge's Email Address or phone #? (Score:2, Insightful)
I've seen federal judges with laptops cross-referencing real-time transcripts of the proceedings during trial. Of course, like any large group of individuals, there are geeks and there are luddites.
The point was, however, that as a whole, federal judges simply do not care what the general populace thinks of their decisions. That's the beauty (or problem, in some people's books) of the lifetime appointment of Article III judges.
For better or worse, the founding fathers wrote it into the Constitution, and that's the system we have.
FWIW, I think it's the best alternative out there. Would we really have had a Brown v. Board of Education with an elected Supreme Court? Or the judicial compromises over abortion and the death penalty?
Re:wrong digit (Score:2)
Re:(raising my hand in the back of the classroom) (Score:2, Informative)
As an avid OTH the user, I highly recommend the show to keep on top of what's going on in the world concerning your rights and topics concering hackers. I agree the streaming isn't all that great, which is why I download unstreamed MP3s. Not only that, but I also make them available on Morpheus. Specifically, the filenamess like
I'm not sure if any other users are sharing 2600 OTH shows, but hopefully they'll become more downloaded (and therefore more downloadable) as the law continues to step on our freedoms.
I'm eager to find out what Goldstein has to say about DMCA 2 in OTH 11/27/01 [2600.com].
Re:Freedom 0?! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Welcome to Corporate Government... (Score:2, Insightful)
"FBI backing private companies" is not new, in fact, it is standard practice.
Re:Nader voters, front and center... (Score:3, Insightful)
Land of the free? Don't make me laugh.
Gore voters, front and center... (Score:3, Insightful)