ACLU Files New DMCA Challenge

joeblowme writes "Finally, someone is stepping up to the plate to challenge the DMCA. The ACLU is filing a lawsuit on behalf of a 22-year-old programmer claiming that the law hinders the ability to effectively test internet filtering software. The story can be found here at CNet. Hopefully this will lead to one victory in reducing the scope of the DMCA." The ACLU's press release is available, as is their complaint.

I'd like to see this succeed

[krog]

i'm glad the ACLU is stepping up to the plate on this one. good that they're on Bruce Perens' side too. renew your membership today! [aclu.org]

god bless

[trollercoaster]

god bless the ACLU. Become a card carrying member here [virtualsprockets.com].

for further info...

[Anonymous Coward]

an interview, and more information on Edelman (the programmer/researcher) can be found here here. [corante.com]

Re:About time they noticed

[Anonymous Coward]

You're clearly ignorant of the facts. The ACLU has challenged at least three of Congress' attempts to regulate speech on the Internet, IIRC--the Communications Decency Act (way back in 96), the Child Online Protection Act, and the Children's Internet Protection Act (see a pattern here? "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!"). Two of those cases went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the third is on its way.

So how does that constitute ignoring Internet speech issues? Moron.

Re:Not gonna work

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd circuit court of appeals very clearly rejected the argument you're making. The facts of this case look a lot better. The federal gov't is currently forcing public schools accepting federal funds (i.e., almost all of them) to use filters (they would be forcing libraries too, but b/c of an ACLU lawsuit, that hasn't happened--yet). So the DMCA is keeping the public from knowing what these government-mandated automated censors are keeping us from seeing. I think the public's right to know the extent of government mandated censorship is much more compelling than your right to view DVDs on Linux.

Re:But isn't this exact case already exempted?

[quantaman]

From the article,

But that exemption explicitly does not permit a researcher to write and distribute software that decodes the encrypted blacklists. Because Edelman wants to do just that, the ACLU argues, the Library of Congress' decision is insufficient.

House.gov and Senate.gov

[yerricde]

Where do I send an e-mail? Where do I send a hand written letter?

If you want to contact those 535 Americans who have the power to get rid of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's circumvention ban once and for all, you may contact them here:

Write Your Representative [house.gov]

Write Your Senators [senate.gov]

Great Test Case, but...

[dreamword]

I met Ben at the Internet Law Program at the Berkman Center earlier this summer. I was hoping something like this would happen; he'll make an ideal defendant.

In a test case like this, what we're looking for is an unimpeachable plaintiff -- someone whose motives can't really be questioned, who actually has a good reason to want to do what he's doing, who has great credentials, and who's really bright. They've got that in Ben; he basically has the clout of Harvard University behind him. Not to mention the near-total respect of everyone at the Berkman Center; they refer to him as their "boy genius".

There is one potential problem: he's already written software that does nearly what he wants to do without violating the DMCA. For the ACLU's last test case on filtering, he wrote a script that tried to access everything in non-porn categories of Yahoo's directory, keeping track of what it wasn't able to access. This is a reasonably good (though not perfect) method of determining the contents of the blocked-sites list. We have to hope that the court doesn't decide that scripts like the one Ben already wrote are "good enough," and that there is no legitimate research need to create and disseminate a program that decrypts the list itself.

Re:god bless

[Tackhead]

> One word, "NAMBLA". Reason enough to be disgusted with the ACLU.

And if that isn't enough, how 'bout another word:

Spammer [cpsr.org].

The ACLU has a a long track record of defending spam as somehow Frea Speach that's worthy of First Amendment protection.

1997 [cpsr.org]: "commercial speech restrictions on telemarketing calls and unsolicited fax advertisements have passed First Amendment challenges but direct mail and door-to-door solicitations enjoy much greater protection. Given the Supreme Court decision in ACLU v. Reno, on-line messages should receive the same First Amendment protection given traditional print media, which includes commercial mailings."

2000: [pcworld.com] "...and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union that oppose any restrictions on commercial e-mail"

2001: [tnr.com]The argument raised by the ACLU and other memters of the First Amendment lobby is that spam, like junk mail in our offline mailboxes, is a nuisance that still must be protected."

In fact, ACLU has always supported spammers, going back to 1995.

Source: CuD (Computer underground Digest) 7.50 [niu.edu]

This issue of CuD quotes from Canter and Siegel's (the original "Green Card Lawyers" spammers) as follows:

"In May of 1994, believing that the EFF really did support freedom of speech in the same broad and democratic manner as did the ACLU, we initiated a discussion with Mike Godwin, an EFF lawyer. We wanted his views on the censorship issues raised by the behavior of electronic vandals and access providers who had pulled our account for performing the perfectly legal act of Internet advertising. We were amazed when Godwin stated to us that he was so busy sympathizing with those who opposed us, that he had no sympathy left for the other side. So much for freedom of speech (p. 194)."

-- Canter and Siegel, "How to make a FORTUNE on the Information Superhighway: Everyone's Guerilla Guide to Marketing on the Internet and other On-line Services", 1995

To which I can only add:

"Fuck the ACLU and the pigload of potted meat product it rode in under."

-- Me, 2002.

ACLU on spam

[BoVLB]

The ACLU has a a long track record of defending spam as somehow Frea Speach that's worthy of First Amendment protection.

Looking at the ACLU's website, the only things I can find about spam are: several suggestions that they are looking closely at the problem and the proposed legislation, which is unarguably sound; and the assertion that the disputed e-mail in the Hamidi/Intel case is not spam, which does not seem to be supportive of spam in itself. Can you provide a current link to ACLU policy on spam?

Spammer [cpsr.org].

The article linked to (from 1997) says that the many bills that seek to control commercial e-mail on the basis of content face First Amendment issues, and that state-specific legislation also has jurisdictional problems. Personally, I'd rather see spam fail for social and technical reasons, rather than legislative. Certainly if I had to choose between Free Speech and eliminating spam, I know what my choice would be.