DVD Case Follow-Up 145
sirhan writes "The ACLU made a court brief today concerning the DVD CCA case. The release can be found here." There were actually a number of amicus briefs filed at the same time for this case, and now I think most of them are online. Journalists and publishers, law professors, law professors II, the Association for Computing Machinery, programmers and academics, library and public interest, cryptographers, and Arnold Reinhold. These are all in support of the EFF's appeal in the case, of course. The briefs make good reading because they attempt to convey, in a very direct and concise manner, the arguments of these various groups against the DMCA.
Re:An attack on all fronts... (Score:1)
These bills would have satisfied WIPO without doing the sort of violence to our Constitution that the DMCA does.
But they were rejected. I remember reading a news report where Valenti (the guy who compared VCRs to the Boston Strangler) pronounced that a law that did not outlaw circumvention in every case would be "unacceptable". To him, maybe -- but as his VCR pronouncement clearly shows, he and the MPAA shouldn't be in the driver's seat.
Re:CSS if not a copyright enforcement device (Score:1)
In theory you're correct. But CSS was/is the chosen method of the DVD-CCA to control how and where DVD's are played. If the DVD-CCA allowed licencees to put digital outs, firewire ports, MPEG-n streams etc. on their players, the whole CSS thing would be a non-issue.
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:1)
I hope that at least some of the "amicus curiae" briefs will mention this, since infringement on Free Speech is not the only major Constitutional problem with the DMCA as it is currently written and applied.
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:1)
Funny how when the "many" are, say, artists who actually create music, and the "few" are, say, major record labels, the good of the few prevails.
Re:It's illegal to distribute circumvention tools. (Score:1)
And so what the large print giveth, the small print taketh away. Except that it's impossible to take away fair use rights, which derive from the Constitution, and I think it's pretty obvious that access to works is a necesary prerequisite to use, covering it too.
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:1)
WIPO does not require DMCA (Score:1)
- Implementing a treaty didn't give Congress the right to break the constitution.
- The WIPO treaty *didn't* require anything like the DMCA. The US proposed DMCA-like language for WIPO, and it was rejected out of concerns much like the ones being brought up in this trial.
In other words, the DMCA can be overturned without having to pull out of WIPO- someone would just have to make another DMCA-like law without the unconstitutional bits, that would implement the sane bits of WIPO (if there are any).
Stuart.
Re:OT: other fights (Score:1)
Re:OT: other fights (Score:1)
That's a good general principle, but "the iron isn't hot." On the religeous issue, the topic is in the public eye right now and some people are angry over it. It seems like concentrating on the religeous issue would have a greater chance of succeeding than trying to solve the general case. Once victory is achieved on this one point, then it can later be used toward solving the real problem, both by being a precedent, and by having raised people's awareness.
The public isn't thinking in terms of accountability. Attacking religeous funding may be a way to get them to start.
---
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:1)
Dissenter
Fix the DMCA: Support McCain - Feingold (Score:1)
IMHO, the best way to fix the general problem of corporate abuse in the political arena is to take away their ability to grease the palms of politicians and their parties. Please consider not only opposing the DMCA-like bills whenever they come before Congress, but also supporting campaign finance reform. This will take away the biggest weapon that corporations have in influencing legislation more than is just. We are (again IMHO) sliding towards being governed by a de facto plutocracy, something that none of us want to see, no matter how libertarian we might be. So please, purty please, do whatever you think is best to help get campaign finance reform passed so that nefarious legislation such as the DMCA have a much harder time of getting passed in the future.
It is possible to support the free market but not support the market holding the reigns of legislators.
- Rev.Re:Nicely abstracted (Score:1)
--
Re:The Subject Matter (Score:1)
--
Re:Nicely abstracted (Score:1)
--
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:1)
Are you suggesting that CSS was possibly intentionally weakened to allow hackers to get at it, to bring this sort of precedent into existance faster?
--
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:1)
step 1: Establish precedent for squashing DVD decryption methods, tools or knowledge.
step 2: switch to son-of-CSS - and you can bet that it will be 10e27 * more powerful than CSS was.
If this happens you can say goodbye to DVD on any Open Source OS forever. Also you can say hello to more expensive home DVD players - as newer models are required to have phenomenal computing power to decode this new CSS format. And you can relegate your old machine to watching movies released before son-of-CSS.
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:1)
Re:Very good stuff (Score:1)
Case closed. Everyone knows that nothing original has come out of Hollywood since Green Acres.
I get allergic smelling hay!
Membership Privacy: Don't Join, Donate Anonymously (Score:1)
Being a member of either the two orgs you mentioned gets you lots of paper in the mail. Save them the cost, save yourself the hassle, fight the doog fight!
My Favorite Conclusion (Score:1)
As applied to prohibit DeCSS, the antidevice provision of the DMCA violates the First Amendment. CSS is a device that makes fair and otherwise privileged uses of digitized materials practically impossible. Prohibiting its circumvention in the absolute way that the antidevice provision, as interpreted below, does, would render these materials practically unavailable to the vast majority of users who are not computer geeks. (emphasis mine).
As a side note, is there a legal test for "computer geek?"
Bangkok (Score:1)
this is my favourite quote... (Score:1)
"Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
that made my day.
Re:Try this link (Score:1)
Re:The Subject Matter (Score:1)
ACLJ [Re:Joining the ACLU...] (Score:1)
Personally, I'd be more inclined toward the American Center for Law and Justice [aclj.org] than the ACLU.
Re:OT: other fights (Score:1)
Exactly. This is what needs to be addressed in McCain's campaign finance reform bill. I applaud the Libertarian [lp.org] and Constitution [constitutionparty.com] parties for their stand on not accepting matching funds. The gov't is forcing all of us to finance the promotion of ideals we don't agree with, and that's wrong.
I have no sympathy for anyone who voted Green in November, either, since the point was about securing matching funds for next time. None for the Reform voters either, since Buchanan abandoned his principles in order to get to the money.
That's precisely how they'd like you to look at it. The truth is that once you start feeding at the federal trough, it's hard to get away from it. If you start accepting their money, they've already started exerting control over you. If the church starts accepting money, the next thing is the gov't will want to dictate acceptable doctrines to preach, or start wanting to collect taxes from churches. No, thanks. This would set a very dangerous precedent.
If GWB really wants to help religious (or any sort really) charities, cut taxes. If I had more money free to do with as I pleased, I'd do more to help others. I already give 10% of my gross to my church, and still pay taxes besides. With taxes reduced there's just that much more I could give directly to charities without gov't bureaucracy as the middleman.
Try this link (Score:1)
Re:Sorry geeks, freaks and nerds... (Score:1)
By reading this sentence or any of following sentences, or portions thereof, you agree to this EULA. This comment is the copyrighted intellectual property of Kreeblah. Copying and transmitting by any means, including chemical, electrical, and other means, biological, or otherwise, is permitted, provided the copying party remits one U.S. dollar per copy to the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org], an organization dedicated to defending freedom from unfair technology-based licensing agreements.
Re:It's good that the last case was lost.. really (Score:1)
Re:The DMCA Vs individual rights. (Score:1)
Small nit - the MPAA is entitled to however much their customers are willing to pay. The marketplace does not reward effort, just results, and fair price is determined by the suppliers and consumers together. In short, the MPAA cannot just set their own price and expect to collect payment, unless they can convince their customers to play along. The MPAA's true owners are the moviegoing fans.
Why the three bulls-eye charts?!? (Score:1)
Re:CSS if not a copyright enforcement device (Score:1)
Re:An attack on all fronts... (Score:1)
Sorry, my spelling sucks. Hit the submit button instead of preview again
Problem with Joining the ACLU... (Score:1)
Then the mail started.
Every week I'd receive a dozen or more pieces of mail... only one or so from ACLU, but many from liberal political organizations begging me for money.
I approved of most of these organizations. I would have cheerfully given almost all of them money. However, I didn't have any money.
Dozens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of letters arrived over the next two years. In the end, I'm sure that while I gave $20 to ACLU, it ended up costing liberal political organizations in general far more than $20 to mail me all these fund raising solicitations. So, I felt that my contribution was a net negative for causes I approve of.
And no, I don't believe I was given the option not to have my address sold (or shared, whatever).
Brainwashing kids... (Score:2)
The only question is with which notions to brainwash them. My personal belief is that children should be brainwashed to think logically, to be inquisitive, and to be self-reliant. Thus my children would not be going to one of these "faith based" programs. However, for those parents with different values, who will raise their children to be narrow-minded religious zealots anyhow, what is the harm of allowing them to send their children to the brainwashing institution of their choice?
-E
Re:An attack on all fronts... (Score:2)
Not likely. Assuming 2600 wins, they only need to win on one of those three grounds (or some other ground). There is no need for a judge to stick their neck out to establish that "Restrictions on linking are restraint of free press" if they decide that "The DCMA circumvention clauses are not a valid use of constitutional power".
I can hope that all three are held, but I expect not. Well I guess if it goes to a N judge panel (say the suprime court) some judges may rule on (1) others on (2) and others on (3), but I'm not sure if that eastablishes all three as legal doctrone, or only any (if any!) of the three that get a majority...
Re:c2eng and eng2c (Score:2)
be troubles some be converted to
and that the makefile convert them back to C.
No takers so far, but we'll see. I'm hoping the
upcoming litigation will render such a tactic unnecessary (to use it, people would have to distribute Perl 5.6 and higher, and Parse::RecDescent in every tarball).
If it does become necessary, however, I will
compile the grammars I wrote to ease the distribution.
Re:My Favorite Conclusion (Score:2)
But I wanna be a card carrying member ;) (Score:2)
-------------------
Re:You didn't already know that? (Score:2)
"The constitutional interest embodied in fair use, however, do not evaporate merely because a copyright owner uses technologocal wrappers to protect copies of its work. And just as Congress could not repeal the fair use provision of US copyright law without creating serious conflicts with the First Amendment, it cannoe accomplist the same result indirectly by banning all technologoes through which fair use can be made."
Ka-BOOM.
It's impressive that our Congress (Specifically) has the balls to squash the First Amendment.
Pan
Looking at the people that wrote this law... (Score:2)
Interresting comments from the Senate Discussion..
These are comments about a version of the bill that was later changed.
Can you guess which Senator said these remarks?
"It thus should be about as clear as can be to a judge or jury that, unless otherwise specified, nothing in this legislatuion should be interpreted to limit manufacturers of legitimate products with substantial noninfringing users - such as VCRs and personal computers
"As important, the amendment reflected the working assumption of all of my colleagues that this bill is aimed fundamentally at so-called "black boxes" and not at legitimate products that have
But that's not what heppened. I think honestly that Congress was brainwashed into thinking that they were protecting an industry from Chinese pillage. I remember probably 20 stories on NPR about the poor movie industry having no protection from piracy. They had no idea that the MPAA would take it's new found freedom and create a virtual monopoly on DVD device manufacturing and distribution.
It really is a shame that nobody in our great Congress understands!! But atleast Orin Hatch (The original DMCA Sponser nonetheless) has all but said it was a mistake.. even going so far as to invite the creator of Napster to speak with him! ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/co)ntent/archive/141
What is sad, is that I used MY tax dollars paying politicians et cetera to come up with this law (I personally paid 33 cents to each one, if my figuring is right), and I am helping pay for the legal cost of overturning it. Damn.
Pan
Ohh, and the comments were from Senator Ashcroft. He even mentions the Betamax case as a standard
for the DMCA to abide by. ( http://www.hrrc.org/html/DMCA-leg-hist.html
)
The Right to Hack! (Score:2)
These are several, strong briefs attacking the DCMA and CSS from several different angles: authority, freedom of speech, freedom to link, unconstitutionality of the act. I can't imagine that much will be left standing once the courts are through. Hollywood may have bought Congress and the White House, but they haven't bought the Judiciary -- yet.
The more things change ... (Score:2)
The parallel with recent events is so obvious that I'm convinced this was written to double as a deadpan poke at the antics of the DVDCCA, MPAA and co.
how is the other side preparing? (Score:2)
It's all well and good to be self-congraturlatory about these briefs (and yes, they are great work), but I would like to see stories/discussion on what the other side is up to.
After all, what the enemy is doing should be just as interesting and important news as what we are doing ( why else would Slashdot include so much danged MS coverage, anyway... ;) )
Re:how is the other side preparing? (Score:2)
The studios' response brief is due Feb. 19, and their amici must file by Feb. 26. Then 2600/EFF gets a reply, as appellant. No doubt the MPAA will trumpet any amicus briefs filed on the studios' behalf, but they haven't been so open in the preparation.
McCain - Feingold = Bad Idea (Score:2)
Worse, it would make hash of the First Amendment. Even under existing contribution regulations, the IRS is proposing to regulate Web links [techlawjournal.com] on pages published by non-profit organizations. McCain-Feingold would open the floodgates to similar abuses against any individual or organization in the country.
/.
Re:These briefs hit hard: TripleDES key-strength (Score:2)
'Cuz if double DES and triple DES were just as strong, then nobody would consume the extra CPU cycles or hardware traces to do 50% more computation, just to have the same results.
--
Re:Sorry geeks, freaks and nerds... (Score:2)
It wouldn't really matter if it wasn't constitutional anyways since the constitution is more or less a recommendation for laws rather than hard limits.
Wrong. The constitution exists to prevent the tyranny of the majority -- in this area, it has absolutely firm limits on what is allowed. It's largely a list of restrictions on what the government is allowed to do.
--
Re:Assgoblin! (Score:2)
Also, "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" doesn't have any mention of "Linux" or "open source" or anything like that. In fact, even if it did, I would think the subject matter would be influenced by what its readers want to read, not by what some random guy named Rob (or CmdrT4c0) wants to see.
--
Re:Impact outside US (Score:2)
But suffice it to say that even if DMCA is struck down, there will be a lot more fighting to do.
--
Re:Yay, the Supreme Court (Score:2)
--
Re:An attack on all fronts... (Score:2)
--
Re:An attack on all fronts... (Score:2)
You'd need someone who would be willing to do the following:
--
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:2)
--
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:2)
No doubt. From the cases I've seen where the feds managed to decrypt some suspected files, often the key was gotten directly from the user in some way (cache laying around on disk), rather than brute forcing the password, because such human engineering efforts take less time.
For instance, which would cost more? 10e27 as much brute forcing equipment? Or financing a tactical operation to get someone to leak the key from the inside, and provide enough money to keep that person from being exposed? After a certain point, the something akin to the latter becomes more cost-effective. (though the advantage of the former is that it can sometimes be done with mere brains and time, which are things that bored college students often in abundance)
--
Re:Sorry geeks, freaks and nerds... (Score:2)
Correct. Actually to be more specific, the Constitution is supposed to be an enumeration of *all* the powers that the federal government has. The regularly ignored 9th and 10th amendments emphasize this point, reiterating that powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved to the people and the states. Of course this means that the majority of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, but that argument won't work very well on April 15th.
Re:"Encryption" (Score:2)
On the other hand, if the operating system was open-source, an encryption/decryption key generation prog could be distributed with it for people building their own distros. For security purposes, perhaps, only programs encrypted for that specific distro (perhaps a bank's internal distribution, or a DoD network) would run. And they wouldn't run on other systems.
At any rate, I figured that if the DVD format was upheld by the DMCA, there could be threats from it on the reverse-engineering front.
"Encryption" (Score:2)
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:2)
There wasn't any need for hacking the Xing executable - bruteforcing everything from the crap algorithm itself would had been just as easy.
(OT) Faith Based Charity (Score:2)
There is no really big change comming. What is being proposed is alowing "Faith Bassed" organizations to bid on "charitable" contracts. They can already do that by creating a seperated organization with a supposedly independent administration. Essentially, the "faith bassed" groups would no longer be hobbled with extra administration costs in order to compete to do good works. They will have to meet all the qualifications of non faith bassed organizations. That's a far cry from establishing an official religion.
No contest. (Score:2)
CSS if not a copyright enforcement device (Score:2)
Why is it accepted as fact when it is obvious that CSS has nothing to do with copyright protection - a CSS encrypted disc can be duplicated ad nauseam just like an unencrypted disc.
Why doesn't someone just state the obvious - CSS is simply about generating more money by creating artificial market barriers and designated hardware vendors.
Maybe then the whole case will be dismissed as a non-copyright issue which has nothing to do with the DMCA...
Re:Which way does the judge lean? (Score:2)
Most Courts of Appeal do not announce which judges will hear the case until the day of oral argument. That way, the parties cannot try to tilt their briefs to attempt to influence specific judges.
Usually three judges hear an appellate case. The court can also hear it "en banc" which means that every full-status judge on the court sits on the case. Even when only three judges hear the case, they usually circulate the opinion to the non-sitting judges to see if anyone has big problems with it before releasing it.
The result is a much more intensive examination of the legal issues, not as subject to the biases of any one judge.
Re:An attack on all fronts... (Score:2)
Yes - I like the idea of doing a Slashdot brief. After all, Slashdot readers (mostly Technical type people) have a huge interest in ensuring that the development of Open Source, Free (as in speach) software is allowed to continue.
I'd certainly sign up to this. Anyone else feel like joining in? What about CmdrTaco and the other Slashdot guys - would you be interested in this?
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:2)
Of course this is scarcely exclusive to the DMCA. There are a lot of attempts underway by various interests that would allow them to defacto write their own laws about their products. Shrinkwrap licenses are another excellent example. If a company is allowed to place restrictions in addition to copyright as required conditions of gaining access to their products, then they are effectively allowed to legislate additions to copyright. Hell, if shrinkwrap licenses are deemed to be legal, those companies don't really need copyright protection either; they can just put "no copying for any reason" as one of their shrinkwrap terms and they've gotten all the protection of copyright and then some. It's ludicrous.
All excellent arguments, but... (Score:2)
Regardless of the merits of the arguments, I expect to see money win, here. I regret having become somewhat cynical about this.
Nor do I expect anything better out of the Supreme Court, any more.
Re:"Encryption" (Score:2)
Pretty unlikely, as one of these DeCSS cases tried this approach, citing the weakness of the algorithm, and the judge didn't buy it. I recall reading the opinion where the judge refered to a case where a locksmith installed locks that weren't quite so secure, and yet this was no excuse for defeating the lock and trespassing, or something like that... I'd find it again, write this post better, and make a link to it..... but of course that's information about DeCSS and making a link to it could be trafficing in the circumvention technology (honestly, I can't remember which of the three cases is was, and I'm not feeling that ambitious right now).
I read through most of the briefs, and damn, those guys writing that first "law professors" brief sure pack a punch, with language like:
Even if Congress had specified a particular source of constitutional authority, however, it would not matter. The DMCA's anti-device provisions are not a valid exercise of any of Congress' enumerated powers.
It is no answer to these problems to say, as the District Court did, that this result is what Congress intended. ... That option was not open to Congress. Nor is it an answer to say that copyright infringement is an "epidemic" that warrants drastic intervention... Congress is not free to choose a cure that would kill the patient.
None of Congress' enumerated powers authorizes this sweeping interdiction .... If the limits on copyright protection required by the First Amendment are to mean anything, the anti-device provisions cannot stand.
Wow !! I'm glad these guys are on "our" side.
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:2)
The 40 bit key length of CSS was almost certainly due to the export restrictions that existed at the time. As much fun as conspiracy theories are, a 40 bit key corresponds just too well with the 40 bit export limit when CSS was designed.
There are plenty of fast algorithms that can use 128 bit keys and are quite fast and efficient. Even tripple DES (112 bits) is fast and easy with a little dedicated hardware. 2^128 is a whole lot more than 2^40, in fact 2^88 times harder to brute force. 2^88 is approx 3e26, so your 10e27 is just about right for CSS-II with a 128 bit key length.
Of course, all the key length in the world isn't going to help when the key is stored in a software-based player and a pair of anonymous German hackers team up with a 16-year old kid for a not-profit-motivated reverse engineering effort.
Re:"Encryption" (Score:2)
char encrypt(char x) {
return x ^ 'C';
}
char decrypt(char x) {
return x ^ 'C';
}
A simple one byte XOR. Breakable by almost any geek out there.
Some of you will recall the product which actually uses the above protection method.
Radical Xerox (Score:2)
A radical new paper-industry company, known to insiders as "Xerox", are now in court against a coalition of publishers, including Mills&Boon, Future Publishing, Penguin, Black Swan.
It appears that the Xerox corporation are planning to introduce a radical new machine, which they claim will soon be commenplace in offices around the world. This new machine will be capable of making accurate paper copies of any book, magazine, or other publication ever made, without any payment being made to the original publisher or author.
It has been suggested that in thirty years' time, it would be possible for Xerox users to use the same technique to copy movies for their own private use.
Surely the whole world must be united in stopping the evil Xerox corporation.
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:2)
Re:What happens if 2600 lose the appeal? (Score:2)
Yes, indeed, and it is very important to note. When practicing civil disobedience, it is very important that the case ends up in court, and the higher the court the better. Hopefully, at some level, in some court, there is some judge who gets a clue, and understands that the law is unjust, or that there are other concerns that must be valued higher, for example the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in our case Article 19 is important. Then, there will be a powerful drive towards social change, that's what you aim for.
If you go around breaking the law, and try to hide the fact that you break it, there is little drive towards social change. It could be that you make the law effectively unenforceable, but you might as well see more unjust laws.
So, take pride in what you do.
The DMCA Vs individual rights. (Score:2)
Re:Very good stuff (Score:2)
In his letter, he wrote, "... court rulings will, to a large extent, determine the strength of this law."
It angers me to no end to know that our congress knowingly passed an overly broad law in order to satisfy an international treaty, but have left it to the courts to figure out what it means. Shouldn't they know what it means and understand the consequences BEFORE they pass it?
Remember that the DMCA was written to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty. In an effort to kiss the asses of foreign governments and multi-national corporations with huge donation pockets, the DMCA was passed by a unanimous vote (it was actually a hand vote, so there's no record, but I've seen the word unanimous used).
-Steve
Impact outside US (Score:2)
I would like to think that all of us, worldwide, could help fight this, but the question comes to mind: Is this a global issue, or an isolated (American) issue?
I would like to hope that in the worst case scenerio having other countries without these laws may still provide hope for those without. However with recent events (i'm thinking of the whole yahoo! vs France issue here), I'm concerned that this may be the initial step in a globalized domino effect.
eno.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:2)
DMCA Loophole (IANAL) (Score:3)
If they then turn around and say 'you can't make a DVD player, it can copy _our_ stuff', you say, well, fine. SONY can't make DVD players either - those players can copy _my_ stuff! (A large reason why DVD player manufacturers aren't guilty of breaking the DMCA is that they are 'commercially viable')
Note well that the new ~$3000 PowerMacs from Apple have a DVD-RW, _and_ firewire ports. The $1600 model has DVD-ROM and firewire. And Darwin has the drivers. (Or should anyway.) There's got to be some sort of interesting & useful hardware hacks in there. [Glares at tangled pile of silly analog cables in his entertainment center]
The free speech argument is all well and good, but this seems like a much faster (and clear cut) way of dismantling this hideous law.
An attack on all fronts... (Score:3)
1) Source code == free speech
2) Restrictions on linking are restraint of free press
3) The DCMA circumvention clauses are not a valid use of constitutional power
Wow, in one case, all three of these (very important) pieces of case law are getting argued. This could set a lot of precedents in all the areas Your Rights Online cares about.
Hell, let's file a Slashdot brief. I want to be in on the action.
But seriously, each of these points is outlined by experts and concerned parties in the area, with relevant citations of law, and (best of all) easy to read explanations of *why* these points are relevant.
Can the MPAA lawyers counter this? Well, they are going to try like hell to do so... and they have every reason to expend a *lot* of money on this case now that the stakes are clear. But for now, I'm encouraged by how support is rallying for the good guys.
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:3)
Imagine you're a musician. You're poor, so you use consumer grade equipment (reasonable now that we have good desktop computers, midi, sound cards and cd burners. Nice as a studio rig is, you can get by)
The *same* mechanisms that 'protect' music from being copied if you don't own the copyright can *also* prevent you from making copies of music for which you *do* own the copyright. And yet breaking those 'protections' is illegal, because you might violate someone else's copyright in order to fully exercise your own.
If someone can defend that, I'd like to hear it.
Joining the ACLU... (Score:3)
But try as I might, I can't find anything on their site about privacy. I've joined the EFF only after making sure they weren't going to sell/release my info. It doesn't look like the ACLU has the same types of policies.
Anyone know if it's possible to join organizations like the ACLU or Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State (www.au.org [au.org]) in such away that privacy is assured? Also, is it generally better to join the national ACLU or a local chapter (both have web sites...)
Believe it or not, I emailed the local ACLU branch and didn't get a decent answer. I'm guess they're pretty busy fighting evil. ;)
W
-------------------
I should have added this..it's opt-out (Score:3)
http://www.aclu.org/privacy.html
it says,
"However, the names and postal addresses of ACLU members, including those who join through the ACLU Freedom Network website, may be exchanged or rented to other organizations or publications under the procedures outlined below.
Members who join through the ACLU Freedom Network website are provided with an opportunity to opt out of this exchange."
but I couldn't find the opt-out button on their signup page (https://secure20.client-mail.com/aclulink/forms/
), just a way to manually request that they opt you out via an email address, which sucks.
W
-------------------
It's good that the last case was lost.. really (Score:3)
Pan
Re:"Encryption" (Score:3)
So depending on how "effectively" is measured, it could very anywhere from "it's theoretically proven to be impossible to brute-force" to "someone would have to think for a few milliseconds to be able to figure out how to get around it".
eg. If the data is in a format that no current software can read, then that format could conceivably be an effect access control, even if the difference between it and some other standard format is a trivial change.
Again, it's all in how they interpret "effectively". I doubt that any sane judge would accept the latter definition, but it's possible.
--
It's illegal to distribute circumvention tools. (Score:3)
Of course you can... but here's the catch: there's nowhere you can get the tools to do so. Indeed, as these tools can possibly be used to circumvent, their distribution is forbidden. So, unless you are not only a musicer, but also a good programmer, capable of writing your own tools, you are effectively banned from circumventing the protection mechanism. See this post [slashdot.org] for more details
Sorry subjects of King George (Score:3)
Didn't work then. Doesn't work now.
Re:Joining the ACLU... (Score:3)
I don't worry about the privacy of my information with them, but if you want to just support them, I'm sure they appreciate anonymous donations!
Which way does the judge lean? (Score:3)
One of my more paranoid friends pointed out to me the Federalist Society [fed-soc.org], on the basis that it is an association of judges with their own agenda, and that it is a conservative agenda. If you check out their website, it is quite the sedate affair.
This is contrasted with the very unsedate anti-federalist sites like this one [no-debts.com], which are all a hoot, and read *every* thing the federal government does as a con, a gype, and a fake..
However there is a point here which is well made, given broader evidence by our experiences of the past few months.
There are many judges that tend to lean one way or another. Judges do NOT live in a vacuum. Commercial interests, via their lawyers and bean counters, are out for the maximum number of beans in the pot.
Aside from the obvious joke on the effects of eating too many beans (combined with lawyers, etc.), I would want to know more of the possible conflicts of interests of the judge(s) involved. You can bet that the corporate interests choose a judge that they thought would be the most sympathetic to their cause. They would be stupid to do anything else
OT: other fights (Score:3)
Just a note about this:
There are lots of doling-outs of federal money that are of a dubious nature. And even more uses of federal money by organizations that somebody could object to. Anybody could probably come up with 10 examples of groups receiving federal funding whose idealogies -- whether "religious" or not (and most all of them are in some sense or another) -- are objectionable in some way. We could start with the Republican and Democratic parties, if you like.
Rather than being worried that the feds are giving religious organizations money, we should be sure that no organization is favored over another trying to do the same thing -- except, perhaps, on bases that we can agree upon, such as effeciency, desired results, etc.
Bottom line: don't make it so religious organizations can never receive public funding for projects the public would approve of. Just hold them to the same standards of accountability you'd hold any other organization to.
--
Story has errors in HTML (Score:3)
One <a> tag nexts inside another <a> tag. Causing everthing to be screwed up. Please review html code before submitting.
Not aiming too high. Aiming at the target. (Score:3)
It is good that they are attacking the very constitutionality of the DMCA, as it does very clearly violate our rights as given by the first amendment. If they can successfully prove the DMCA is in violation of the first amendment, and therefore the supremacy clause of the Constitution, then it is an issue that will be forever buried -- no court in the future (no U.S. court, anyways) would be dumb enough to try and overturn that. If it's constitutionality was not tried, then future copyright laws might give the DMCA an additional inroad into law.
That, and the Supreme Court typically only votes on major cases involving constitutional law. This is a good way to make sure it ends up high on the priorities list.
--
The "Enemy" is *ALREADY* Fighting the NEXT Battle! (Score:4)
We've "known all along" that the challenged DMCA provisions won't survive Supreme Court scrutiny. At least some people at the MPAA and RIAA are at least as smart as we are. So it's safe to assume that they have already begun a fallback plan in case of defeat. And it doesn't take a lot of observation to figure out a major part of it: Shift the arena of conflict from criminal to civil law. That way if you don't do what they want, they can sue your ass for violating a contract that you agreed to.
Here's how they're doing it:
(1) Make shrink-wrap and click-through EULAs enforcable. Anybody remember UCITA [ftc.gov]? Well how about this: You buy their DVD. By purchasing it you agree to only play it on approved hardware. And you agree not to copy any material from it for any reason. Even after the statutory copyright period expires (goodbye public domain and fair use). Oh yes, and you agree to never loan it or give it to anyone who might do these things. And to be subject to damages if they do so. And let's have no sniveling about rights. You gave up your rights, remember. You agreed.
(2) Get vendors to build in hardware-level limits on what you can do. Hello IBM, Intel, and the NCTIS T.13 Committee! Why, it looks like the proposed CPRM standard [theregister.co.uk]! Gee, this is neat: If you can't buy a digital player with a digital output, or you can't buy a hard drive that will store a watermarked music file, problem is solved. And don't think you'll get around this by finding some vendor whose gear doesn't include the restrictions. Because, even if you do, you agreed not to use it (see para.1 above).
And the diabolical thing about all of this is that, once it's in place, all a content-provider has to do is haul you into civil court for violating the EULA. And if they do, you'd better be totally clean, because item one on their list will be a motion for "discovery," which will mean getting a court order to search your home, your office, and especially your computer and its drives for any incriminating material. Due process? Hey, it's a civil case... contract violation. Criminal rules don't apply. And, oh, what if you win, but go bankrupt defending yourself? Well, that's tough... you might sue for malicious prosecution-- oh, that's right, you agreed that you wouldn't...
It's already happening!
What happens if 2600 lose the appeal? (Score:4)
What do you do when the law fails you?
Ignore it.
--
Nicely abstracted (Score:4)
Traditionally, US law has considered the first two levels of direct/indirect action to be unlawful:
- 1. Direct copyright infringement -- you copy CD's and sell them in Hong Kong
That seems pretty kosher. But then DMCA added two more levels of indirection:2. First level of indirect infringement - contributory and vicarious liability -- you sell someone a box whose only conceivable purpose is copying CD's, and you know what the buyer is intending to do with it.
- 3. Creating a device that can be used for circumvention of a technical measures for protecting copyright -- you figure out how to make a key.
But then this specific case tries to allege that one further level of indirection should also be illegal:4. Marketing/selling the circumvention devices -- you promote and sell the key.
- 5. URL linking to circumvention devices -- you tell someone where a key is.
when only #1 and #2 are widely considered constitutional.--
These briefs hit hard (Score:5)
Is this the case that will nix this darn thing? God, I hope so. The DCMA is so clearly overbroad -- and that is obvious to any number of people in a variety of fields (CS, IP law, consumer protection). Now, with this case, it seems these very knowledgable people have an opportunity to make these opinions known and specifically target a court that may be able to rule on the bigger issue (not just DeCSS, but the DCMA).
gee, it's almost like this was planned...
You didn't already know that? (Score:5)
The DMCA essentially allows corporations to create new laws on their own.
I think there are two major points that most desperately need to be pushed in attacking the DMCA:
First, it is vital to make the logical connection between banning the means to do something and outlawing the action itself. As I recall from reading the law (IANAL and I am not looking at the text right now, but I read it fairly carefully a while back), the prohibition against circumventing access controls does explicitly provide an exception for circumvention to enable non-infringing uses, i.e., "fair use" rights specifically override it. However, the prohibition against distributing circumvention devices recognizes no such exception, leaving the average would-be exerciser of "fair-use" rights in the Kafka-esque situation of being allowed to do something but not capable of it.
"They" are trying to get away with making the action effectively, but not technically, illegal. The point that needs to be made is the effect of the following logical progression:
- If an action is possible only through the use of a certain tool, then only people who possess such a tool can do it.
- If only a very few people have the skills to create such a tool, then the only way anybody outside that group can do it is by getting the tool from someone else.
- Hence, if distributing the tool is illegal, then the action itself becomes effectively illegal for all but that small group of people.
The point is that the exception for non-infringing uses needs to be extended to distribution (which I guess would be meaningless, since Eric Corley has no control over what I do with DeCSS after he gives it to me), or, conversely, to show that the exception where it is (presumably put there as a concession to Constitutionality) is "effectively" useless.This is all regarding the question of distributing vs. possessing something like DeCSS. From what I've gathered, nobody is being sued for possessing it, because they know as well as we do that that is not illegal, even if they try to spin it that way in the media. The other point is the observation that, if allowed to stand as is, the law, as you said, essentially allows content providers to write their own laws. As we've already established that the "fair-use" exception is no help for practical purposes, the effect is clearly to make it so that the technical measures that the provider implements (which, worse yet, are not even bound by any pretense of Constitutional limits) dictate what a user can and cannot do -- the fact that he may circumvent the controls under certain circumstances makes no difference unless he is capable of doing so, or unless Kafka is making the rules. By a similar line of reasoning as above, this means that the provider's decrees effectively become law. Since corporations are not part of the elected government, they should not be given legislative powers.
David Gould
Very good stuff (Score:5)
The Intellectual Property Clause ... permits grants of exclusive protection only for those "discoveries" in the "useful arts" that would not have been obvious to one reasonably skilled in the art, Graham, 383 U.S. at 6, and only for those "writings" that constitute original expression, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349-50 (1991). Congress may not extend protection to unoriginal subject matter, nor to ideas, processes, methods of operation, and the like unless the threshold for patentability is met. Feist, 499 U.S. at 349-50; Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 103-04 (1879). Nor may it grant protection for proper subject matter in perpetuity. A law that protects informational goods without regard for these limitations cannot claim the Intellectual Property Clause as its authority. The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. at 93-94 (holding that Intellectual Property Clause could not authorize law protecting trademarks regardless of "novelty, invention, discovery, or any work of the brain" or of "fancy or imagination").
The anti-device provisions do not meet this exacting standard. They operate regardless of whether the device is used to access information that is a constitutionally protectable writing, regardless of whether the work so accessed has passed into the public domain, and regardless of whether the desired use of the work would infringe copyright.
--
Re:These briefs hit hard (Score:5)
Under the DMCA, it is illegal to bypass content control systems. That means that if a corporation can come up with a way to remove our rights -- even if those rights are legally protected -- it's illegal for a consumer to do anything about it. For example, we all know that CSS eliminates some of our fair use rights. The DMCA makes it illegal to bypass CSS. Therefore, we have lost our rights by default. SDMI is another example. We have the right to freely copy music for personal use. The RIAA didn't like this, so they created SDMI, and boom! it's illegal to make a copy of my own music.
Big corporations are now in control of the legal system.
Re:What happens if 2600 lose the appeal? (Score:5)
Ghandi didn't become famous because he and his followers were criminals / law breakers. They became famous because they were imprisoned and beaten for breaking unfair laws, and this behavior on the part of the state turned public opinion against the state.
Same with Martin Luther King and other leaders of the US civil rights movement - the scenes of violence on the part of the state against demonstrators turned the tide of public opinion against the state, leading them to action (overturning those laws).
The state should respond to the citizens - if the law is being broken uniformly, either the state needs to:
Educate the public (assuming they have not been informed or do not understand the law),
Enforce the law (assuming the law is being broken because the public believes the state will not enforce it), or
Repeal the law (assuming it is being broken by a majority who understand but disagree with the law).
Civil disobedience wakes up the state and forces the end game. When you say you are simply going to ignore the law, rather than fight it (by lobbying your congressman, demonstrating, etc), realize that you are voting that the law in unfair and should not be enforced - but if they decide to enforce the law in your particular case, you will be fighting alone. Maybe EFF will help, maybe not - it's up to the activist community to decide whether to help you.
Personally, I will ignore the law in private, and fund organizations like EFF. I'm not sure what recourse a non-American has, or if the DMCA applies, but they were able to bring a foriegner to court over DeCSS, and I imagine it will happen again.