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.

ACLU is up to no good?

[Ryan_Terry]

I usually cannot stand the ACLU. IMHO I feel like they usually get involved in issues that they really don't belong in because of the publicity they recieve. I hope this isn't the case here. I see their power and finances being a great benefit to the fight against the DMCA. I hope they can help fight for rights that I feel like we should have here in the US.

/me has my fingers crossed.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[mberman]

Are you sure they don't just get involved in a lot of issues, and the only ones you hear about are the ones that involve publicity?

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[gerf]

Sadly, it's hard to trust any organization these days, not just the government and businesses. Any org/gov/bus only has one purpose: to live on, to expand, to survive.

Traditionally, we've knocked the big boys, M$, US gov, ect., but only because they've succeeded and have more clout, making us vulnerable. the reality is, almost any business would run the same way as M$, given the chance and the resources.

but, the ACLU has a 'purpose'. to defend our rights. sure, they may not have ideas that correspond to our own, but they don't need to. all they need to do to survive is to be able to use their self proscribed purpose to get donations and support from those who can keep the organization working. Really, they'd do just as much as Worldcom did, if they were pushed to it.

So, while i wouldn't trust the ACLU with everything political, economical, social, ect, i think that they can do a very good deed here in fighting the DMCA. Perhaps, they most likely surmise, they can get some computer geeks to contribute to their causes, and can thus extend their membership and capital.

it's all business when you look at it. that's why i'm in engineering. i hate business ethics

As a former

[ehorizon]

card carrying member of the ACLU, (I stopped donating because of their defense of MAMBLA)It's good to see them fight a worthy cause.

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[sugrshack]

First of all, I think it's good that the ACLU is involved

Second of all, I'm wondering why the ACLU gets such a bad rap here on ./, a place that seems to stand by some of the same basic principles that the organization swears by.

It's interesting how people tend to not like an organiztion which is interested primarily in defending some of the basic tenets of the US constitution.

The ACLU gets involved in many many issues which you do not hear about. Many of these are not "sexy" issues, which make news. For instance, they were recently involved with protecting the rights of Haitian refugess, basically preventing people from being deported into deplorable situations. Sure, many of you don't like the idea of immigrants, even though 99.9% of you (in the US) are descended from immigrants, but it is the basic principles of protection from tyranny of the majority that the ACLU defends.

This particular issue is of direct relevance to /. as they are going after legislation which most here (rightly) hate. However, they exist largely to protect the public from the "mob mentality" that often ignores the rights of many groups whose opinions are in the minority.

Witness their actions regarding the USA PATRIOT act; a ridiculous bill which basically removes many basic freedoms guaranteed in the constitution under the rubrick of protecting us from enemies. Sure there may be a point to trying to be better protected, but I'm of the view that if you remove freedom, there's very little left to protect.

Sure the ACLU ends up getting involved with issues that may end up pissing off some their own constituencies (e.g. Skokie) but it's the principles of freedom that they stand for, not just the rhetoric.

If you're going to bash the ACLU, then provide an alternative.

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[Sylver Dragon]

I usually cannot stand the ACLU. IMHO I feel like they usually get involved in issues that they really don't belong in because of the publicity they recieve. I hope this isn't the case here. I see their power and finances being a great benefit to the fight against the DMCA. I hope they can help fight for rights that I feel like we should have here in the US.

Agreed, I usually get suspicious whenever I hear the ACLU has gotten involved in a case. As most of the cases they tend to get involved in are the highly controversial and highly visable cases. And I rarely find myself agreeing with thier point of view.
However, there is the old axiom, "The enemy of my enemy is my ally". So, in this case, I'm happy to have them onboard.
Maybe there will finally be enough money to throw at this law to get it killed.

Ah, the DMCA

[smit]

Corporations already have a remedy if someone misuses protected material--a civil suit.

Of course, that is cost-prohibitive to the corporations. Why sue someone over a $10 CD's worth of music.

But:

A criminal remedy is just a civil remedy that the government pays for.

Ta da.

-- Paul

Re:ACLU is up to no good?

[No One]

Yes. CNN, like the majority of corporate-owned news sources, is center-right in bias. The reason you feel it's left-biased is due to mainly to a twenty-year shift to the right in US political attitudes, and to a fifty-year Republican propoganda campaign. On pure social issues such as abortion and gay rights, a soft liberal bias isn't uncommon. Social issues aren't a threat to the profits of the 6 multinational corporations that control 90% of the media in the US. On economic issues, however, the corporate media has a strong neoliberal bias. Consider CNN reporting that tear gas wasn't being used in Seattle, until internet reports got to enough people to force them to retract their lies. Consider the way issues such as DeCSS are reported. Consider the way the East Timor genocide wasn't reported for twenty years. Consider the complicity of the media in presenting a president such as Bill Clinton, who took positions to the right of those of Richard Nixon on labor, the environment, taxes, workplace safety, and practically every other issue other than abortion and his gay-rights waffling, as solidly left wing. Or portraying Bob Dole and Dubya as moderates. When was the last time CNN reported the way the WTO has been set up as a completely undemocratic supergovernmental authority? The World Bank? The times NAFTA's been used to prevent enforcement of US environmental laws?

One of the claims I'm absolutely certain you're going to bring up is how the majority of the commentators describe themselves as liberal. While many may be soft liberals, there are practically no solid left-wingers who ever appear on the national media. The right, however, is more than adequately represented. When was the last time Noam Chomsky was invited on TV to balance George Will? How often does Michael Moore balance Pat Buchanan? Instead, it's an airhead soft liberal like Elanor Clift or an incoherent authoritarian like Jesse Jackson who supposedly represents the left.

The corporate media is not in any way left wing. They range from CNN's neoliberal economic/social soft liberal presentations to Fox News' neoliberal economic/social conservative. But if you want reporting without a neoliberal bias, you have to look beyond ABC, CNN, or Fox.

Rosen got an award in 1997

[Chris Pimlott]

IIRC, they gave Hillary Rosen (of RIAA fame) an award for protecting free speech rights.

You're right, they did... in 1997 [aclu.org]. Perhaps you aren't deliberately being trollish, but the water shouldn't be muddied to fool people into thinking the ACLU agrees with Rosen's more recent behavior.

Re:As a former

[Ralph Wiggam]

The whole point of the ACLU is to provide legal defense for unpopular speech. The fact that you felt strongly enough about that to donate money, and then stopped donating when they defended NAMBLA doesn't make sense to me. I completely agree with the ACLU's defense of the Nazis in Skokie, and my family is Jewish. To consider yourself a real civil libertarian, I think you have to support ALL free speech ("Fire" not withstanding). As soon as you draw a line for yourself saying "I support free speech, but those guys at NAMBLA are too repulsive" then you're making a distinction of speech based on taste. And if you're willing to make that distinction for yourself, then by extension you are supporting that distinction by the government. And once the government gets to make free speech decisions based on popularity or taste, we're all screwed.

I know this is sort of off-topic and I don't mean to call you out personaly, but I'm a very big supporter of the ACLU and you're post sort of struck me.

-B

Re:ACLU is up to no good? - what?

[Squareball]

So what you're saying is that if any one from a nasty country with sub-standard living conditions can make it to the USA that they should be allowed to stay? Wow that is bright! We have to protect the USA. The only way we can do that is by placing restrictions on immigration. Hey, if you want to come to the USA from a 3rd world country, go for it. But follow our laws and rules! We cannot handle the influx of immigrants that would come if we just said "ok, if your country sucks, you can come here and stay without any paperwork... just show up". And then it comes down to who decides what is "deploreable conditions". As Americans, we tend to think that not having 3 meals a day and not having McDonalds and BurgerKing is deplorable. Who sets the standard?