Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Felten Will Present SDMI Research At USENIX 168

Posted by timothy from the cat-out-of-bag-alive-or-dead dept.
iamblades writes: "Edward Felten is scheduled to present his research papers on SDMI on Wednesday at the annual USENIX security conference. Apparently the RIAA backed off their harrassment, which makes sense, as SDMI is almost completely dead already." And a Semi-Anonymous Coward writes: "Despite the RIAA's attempts to silence the Princeton Professor and his students, USENIX will broadcast the SDMI Crack Live via the web. The broadcast will be available for the world here along with a discussion concerning your Freedom."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Felten Will Present SDMI Research At USENIX More

Felten Will Present SDMI Research At USENIX

Comments Filter:

  • Should we get him an armored escort?

    Derek
  • Ha! ...... U folks are worried about the RIAA when one of the main triggers to activate CARNIVORE is a /. karma rating over 1 And U thought your internet was getting slow from traffic overload.

  • Implications For Future Research (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Self Bias Resistor ( 136938 ) on Monday August 13, 2001 @10:06PM (#2121562)

    While I am happy that Felton managed to get his paper published despite being threatened with the legal equivalent of a *huge* can of whoop-ass (it's actually supposed to be "arse" but that's America for you), I am concerned about the implications that this will have for future research. If people have to hire a lawyer in order for their research to be safely published, then it's likely to seriously restrict the amount and quality of future research. The RIAA may have in fact won after all, if this whole fiasco makes people think twice about publishing material (such as the cracking of SDMI or Adobe's eBook copy protection system) that may go against corporate interests. At any rate, the war for user's rights continues.

  • Shall we set a web site up now to start collecting bail for him? Once you settle the juristiction stupidity, Sklyarov doesn't do a whole lot more than this guy...

  • Refund? (Score:3, Funny)

    by mr100percent ( 57156 ) on Monday August 13, 2001 @09:51PM (#2125151) Homepage Journal
    Will there be a rebate to those mp3 player customers who bought one featuring SDMI support, sorta like the rebate when DiVX went under?

    • I doubt so, because I don't know anyone who would ever think of buying a player BECAUSE it has SDMI. I would think more of the opposite. As it wasn't a bonus feature, and rather more of a hindrance, I doubt people will care much, if they even know about it.

  • Lawsuit (Score:2, Interesting)

    by anakog ( 448790 )
    I don't understand. Wasn't he supposed to wait until the court gives him a green light to openly discuss or publish his work? That was what this last suit was all about, wasn't it?

    In other words he seems to have decided to take a chance and be able to be sued by the RIAA if the court says "No" for some reason...

  • Uh-oh... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Monday August 13, 2001 @08:58PM (#2129217)
    "The broadcast will be available for the world"

    This could very well be the biggest slashdotting in all recorded human history.

    ... or at least it should be (hint hint)...

  • So that's why the RIAA backed off. Putting on my paranoid geek hat, I'm beginning to wonder: if SDMI had been a success, would they still have gone after him? I think they just might have tried...after all, free speech or no, I can see them arguing that his research threatened the livelihood of thousands of people working for the record companies...or maybe I've just been up too long.

  • Oh well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom7 ( 102298 ) on Monday August 13, 2001 @08:43PM (#2137027) Homepage Journal
    That's too bad. It was better when the RIAA didn't know how to pick its battles -- they would've lost serious points if this had gone to court.

    Is Felten planning a suit for harassment?

  • This is not a victory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jailbrekr ( 73837 ) <jailbrekr@digitaladdiction.net> on Monday August 13, 2001 @08:44PM (#2137029) Homepage
    First, the RIAA used "us" (I am using that term loosely, as I am not a programmer) to crack SDMI, and will use the work done by "us" to come up with a more secure encryption scheme.

    Second, they *were* successful in delaying the release of the SDMI crack long enough where it is no longer relevant.

    The only "good thing"(tm) that really happened was we were able to embarrass the RIAA a bit. Mind you, they are embarrassing themselves on a constant basis, and laughing all the way to the bank.

    This is not a victory. Far from it.....

    • IIRC, the main reason for the RIAA wanting the SDMI paper shushed is that one of the watermarking technologies (by Verance, I think) was already being used in DVD-Audio. The paper explained how to circumvent the watermark.

    • Re:This is not a victory (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <rimbosity@sbcgDE ... net minus distro> on Monday August 13, 2001 @08:53PM (#2145778) Homepage Journal
      ``The only "good thing"(tm) that really happened was we were able to embarrass the RIAA a bit.''

      Actually, according to www.eff.org, the Felten/EFF vs. RIAA case is still very much alive, because the EFF filed a countersuit against the RIAA. It seems that you cannot threaten lawsuits willy-nilly in this country after all!

      Although if the EFF loses the case, you will be proven right; however, this is not over.

  • Why hasn't... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bmajik ( 96670 ) <matt@mattevans.org> on Monday August 13, 2001 @09:29PM (#2138666) Homepage Journal
    Ok, I was thinking about this the other nite a bit.

    Why hasn't someone started a Non-profit record label. Could that work ? Or what about a "minimum profit" record label ?

    I mean, if the end users, and the artists, and everyone is getting screwed over.. there seems like there's not only an ethical reason to do so, but a good solid _market_ to get into... if you reverse the business and set it up such that the artist owns all the rights to everything, and the record company is just that - someone that makes records (and does other things like putting up money for recording studio time perhaps) then it seems like everyone involved could come out ahead.

    Honestly, if a CD can be mass produced for $1, and its costing $16, and the artists aren't getting any, there has to be room for someone to cut away a _lot_ of fat in that operation.. enough to give the artists enough to make them consider switching.

    Yeah, record companies take a risk when they sign someone and they spend 1m in studio time and the album flops.. but its hard to get signed to record labels now... its not like they price things as an insurance measure as opposed to a profit motive..

    Someone that knows a lot more about this stuff than me should think it through. Maybe initially its only feasiable to do small-volume recordings... i.e. CDR's as opposed to pressed cds ? or maybe simultanous low bit-rate mp3/ogg distribution with all releases. Maybe just a "musical venture capital" front end for mp3.com or something.

    In any case, i dont konw the economics of the music business, just what i've read. It seems like there's an incredible opportuniy for someone who loves music and has plenty of money to back it, to try and make a reasonable record label that deals with artists in a reasonable fashion. I know musicians can be crummy people, especailly with agents, lawyers, and money issues, but there doesn't seem to be the need for awful contracts and outright company ownership of artists works.

    • I think it has much to do with the web turning into a 'one way' medium. Large entities own servers and publish material. Most individuals are at the end of a 56k link, or behind a firewall run by their cable/ADSL provider. Result: It is generally difficult to publish large files, such as music, on the Internet.

      Perhaps one of the reasons Napster took off was that it restored the user as an information provider?

      In place of a 'free label', it could be more effective to shift the net back to a model where users have high bandwidth in BOTH directions (in the early web, most users worked at universities/labs and had high bandwidth in both directions).

      I suspect symmetrical badwidth will not happen until the functions of ISP and server owner are separated. Asymmetrical bandwidth acts as a form of content control, reducing competition to existing players.

    • If it were only that simple.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by g00z ( 81380 ) on Monday August 13, 2001 @10:20PM (#2118179) Homepage
      I run a small, pretty much non-profit record label (See my URL above). Let me tell you, it's about the hardest thing to do in the world.

      First, let's start with the basics. Say I want to do a short run of CD's -- in the neighborhood of 500-1000 (Very modest). Any band that is half decent should unload that amount no sweat. That will cost about $1000 - $1700 (Could be cheaper without things like, oh say, cover artwork and tray/shrinkwrap). So fine, let's say you have that kind of cash just laying around and are feeling charitable. You get your 1000 cd's via UPS (Cost you about 300 bucks in shipping -- that many cd's are heavy) and have it at your apartment/home/whatever. How are you getting this to people? Shipping, of course. -- Costing you about $1.25 per CD for 5-7 day snail mail, or $3.00+ for UPS/Fedex. Larger quantities cost less, but very few people order more than 1 CD at a time. So, it cost you about $2 - $3 dollars right there, just basics. This "CD's cost about $0.20 to make" you here is refering to Major Label deals, where they go and press 100,000,000 Madona CD's and get the sweetest deal you can imagine from the plant. Little labels, however, pay WAY more per CD. (Isn't that funny?)

      Ok, We didn't even talk about Hosting fee's (For your website -- you do have a website right?) about 10 - 15 bucks a month (Conservative). Tack on Domain Registration ($50 for 2 years??). On top of that, advertising -- People wont buy ANYTHING if they don't know about it -- So you place a couple ads in a few indie zines -- around $500 a month in advertising (This is small fry shit). The cost continues to rise.

      Guess what? Only about 5-10 people buy a CD a month! So you figure, you could really rake it in if you had distribution (Ya know, putting your CD's in stores and all that good stuff). You go shopping for Distributor's. First thing you find, is that NOBODY will touch you unless you have a UPC. So you go looking into getting a UPC code for your CD. Anybody wanna take a guess at how much a freakin' UPC number costs? Anyone? Depending on volume and format, it can run you anywhere from $1200 - $100,000!!!!! This is no lie. For one CD, UPC codes cost you as much, if not more than the actual Pressing costs!

      So you get a UPC (Because your a sucker), and then go to talk to the distro houses again. Guess what? They STILL won't touch you until you have a catalog of at least 40 LP's!!! So how excatly do you get the capital together to release 40 records, so you can get distribution, and sell more than 5-10 Stinking CD's per month, and EVER hope to cover your costs and not loose $2000 (Low estimate) on each cd you put out?

      I think you know the answer. You either charge what the majors charge (What I do -- about $8 - $13 Per CD), or you give up, go home, and stop trying to put out cd's for people (What I consider doing every day).

      It's very very very hard to be an independent. Honestly, I don't know how some of the smaller labels with some degree of integrety left (Dischord, Drag City, K, Kill Rock Stars, etc) manage to do it. All you can hope is that you accidently sign the next Sleater-Kinney, Smog, etc.. It's very discouraging.

      That, is why nobody has done this idea -- and succeeded.

      g00z
      • Lots to consider. But, most of the problems that you outline have to do with the lack of economies of scale. As you point out, with a seed capital measured in thousands of dollars, it will be very hard to succeed in this business.

        However, if somebody could organize a system with a couple of $million behind it, things might be different. There would be leverage to negotiate the best rates with CD pressers, shippers, distributors, etc.

        This kind of large scale nonprofit enterprise has been done in the past. IIRC, until they recently sold out, most Blue Cross/Blue Shield HMOs were run as nonprofit organizations. Even for-profit businesses can be arranged around an interest other than shareholders; my auto insurance is through a mutual insurance company that is supposedly owned by the policy holders.

        I think that it is mainly a question of getting the thing off of the ground. The music industry should be full of the dedicated types of people who could make this work. It's strange that nobody has stepped up to the plate (not even a any rich over-the-hill superstars).

        BTW, that UPC fee business is pretty outrageous. I'm suprised that there hasn't been an uproar on /. along the lines of the DNS root debates. I guess the issue is just way off of the radar screen of any geek. I wonder if there are any UPC squatters, like for the code 66666 66666.

        • But seriously, who would put up $million for no profit? Even if they get that million back, they still won't make anything with it, like they could have been doing had they invested it in something else. People with $million to throw around tend not to make poor investments, which is how they gained that money.
        • I think that it is mainly a question of getting the thing off of the ground. The music industry should be full of the dedicated types of people who could make this work. It's strange that nobody has stepped up to the plate (not even a any rich over-the-hill superstars).

          I wouldn't look for the impetus to come from over the hill superstars. The real fight is going to come when an activist, highly successful, at the peak of their talent group/star finishes a contract. They'll have enough clout to make true independence work: capital to fund the operation, demand to get some economies of scale, leverage to force distributors to pay attention to them, and a very strong motivation to set up a system that gives the lions' share of the profits to artists.

          Imagine that, to pick a band completely not at random, that Metallica [metallica.com] decided to tell their current distributor to go to hell. They've already suggested interest in using the web to distribute their music, and they obviously have some idea of what is possible using the web. They also clearly have enough demand for their next CD to force some distributor to accept it. If they decided that they really wanted to give the finger to the music industry, they could probably convince a bunch of other musicians to join them in some kind of Co-op pressing and distributing system. It's just a matter of A) making a business case to some big star that they're better off doing things themselves and B) making a political case to them that they can say screw you to the big labels by sucking other artists away. I'm sure that there are at least one or two major stars who hate the big labels enough to want to destroy them, and presenting a do it yourself label as a way of doing so might be a good way of recruiting. It might take only one or two to really get the ball rolling.

          • Hmm.... The Offspring have already shown some rebellion by putting up their singles for free download in mp3 format.
      • Actually, the cost for bar codes isn't quite so horrific. You can get info on joining the coalition that distributes them here. [uc-council.org] It's $750 for sales up to $2million a year, which I assume a small label would fall under. Still very expensive, less than $1200.
    • try here [fatwreck.com].

      the label is run by the singer of NoFX [nofx.org], pretty much the only band whose built a pretty large fanbase despite outright refusing any major label/mtv/radio support. He's said his philosophy is that he only puts out "what he thinks is good, not if it'll sell or not." as opposed to the major label mentality of "your music is shit, but we'll put it out anyway because it'll sell." Of course, if you're not into punk music, you're going to have to look elsewhere. I'm sure there are enough people in most of the genres that could form independant labels like that.

    • "Or what about a "minimum profit" record label ?"

      I'll make this as short as possible, it's a worthy, but complex question. (Lameness Filter here i come.)

      I have done a bit of work in/around the major labels (IT consulting/web design, incl over 50 signed artists websites) and plenty of independent labels have been started very sincerely with the "artist" mind, and in the last few years a number of them have been started as "digital-distribution centric", prob the best known of these is "Atomic Pop"....

      here's the problems, Spinster Aunt Maude dies, she leaves $10M, you decide to take half of that money and start an independent label, you have good ears, you know how to club, how to rap the artist, and you figure out how to get studio time and replication...

      ...that leaves you with 2 Big Problems; Promotion and Distribution....

      let's say that you find a hot band, get them a good first EP/LP, solid producer, nice mix, good master...

      how do you PROMOTE the band?

      radio airplay???...yeah, sure...the Program Directors of radio stations derive their airplay list from who they are paid to play (***legally***, through marketing flacks "registered" as "influencers"), these influencers pay "consultant" fees to the PD's....

      BUT, let's say that you spend $25K (1 station, 1 mid-sized city) of your own money on promoing the band, a station's PD puts the band on their "Fresh Cuts" program, assuming that the PD DOESN'T set you up and put your artist against the brand new B182 song (therefore never to be heard again) and assuming that you can "arrange" a grass roots "call-in" campaign...BTW, what did you think the band's "Fan Club" is for????

      ...and now this radio station is getting a lot of demand for your artist, the station's competitors are programming your artist in morning and/or afternoon "drive time"..you've now won the "Promotion" game...now how do you sell your CD's?????

      the station WON'T be giving out your website's URL, and most fans wouldn't think about going there anyway, so you have to put your CD in Blockbuster/Virgin/Camelot/KMart/etc (call em BVC)..how does it get there??????

      ...IT DOESN'T, let's say that somehow your artist makes into the "Top Ten" airplay list in a mid-sized market (Cleveland, St Louis, Twin Cities, yada-yada)

      BVC won't even talk to unless you can sell (nationwide) a half-million, and if you do, one of the major labels will come along, offer your artist 5X-10X more than you can afford to pay...the artist WILL jump ship, you probably won't even make a breakeven...

      if you can do this with 3-5 artists, the labels will come along and buy your catalog for more money than you ever dreamed of (rem? Interscope/DeathRow Records)...and if you don't take their offer, you will find that every marketable artist will be taken from you and if somehow that doesn't work, you won't ever get decent distribution deals for your remaining artists through the major retailers...

      This ***EXACTLY*** how Coca-Cola marketed up until, say 2012, it worked well for Coke and it works for the major labels

      THAT'S WHY the RIAA is SO FREAKED about digital distribution..it can bust the labels promotion/distribution lockout wide open, the retailers and radio stations are the "lock", MP3 is is the "key"..the labels are SCARED and fighting back
    • If its a business, the big playersll just buy it out like they do everyone else [mp3.com]. Otherwise, can a non-profit organization (offical NPO status granted by the government) be formed to sell something?

      • Re:Why hasn't... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Chakat ( 320875 )
        Yes, a non-profit can be formed to sell a good/service. There are a few health insurance companies which are non-profit (can't recall them off the top of my head), the FSF is non-profit and they sell distributions of gcc, etc. All non-profit means is that the books are much more available to the general public; there are certain tax forms/accounting ledgers that they have to show upon request, regardless of who is doing the requesting.
    • Is hasn't happened yet because the RIAA owns the distribution and advertising channels. You can build a better mousetrap, but if you can't tell anyone about it, and you can't get it to the stores, no one will ever buy it.
    • What we need is less in terms of labels, and more in terms of the true word of publishing houses.

      That is, if you have a book, CD, movie, etc that you want published, you can go to a so-called publishing house, pay the necessary fee plus a small profit to them to make X copies of your work in whatever form. You retain all copyrights, they retain nothing beyond that fee.

      You could then sell these on the net on your own, or you could ask this publishing house to distribute them for you (for an added fee).

      I look at how Plan 9 works (the ones that are currently helping many online comics sell their anthologies in archive form), and think that a similar model would work in many other areas.

      • There are places you can get cds pressed and packaging printed, for a pretty low fee. Around $2 a cd in quantities of more than 1,000 I think last time I checked.

        Labels do much more than that though, they negotiate shelf-space and get radio time, plus print advertisements, and occasionally (but rarely) produce TV ads. This can all add up to quite a bit, although I for one rarely pay more than $12 for a cd. I think the one thing that needs to be changed about labels is the fact that most artists are required to sign over their copyrights under the work for hire clause of copyright law... That little bit has to go...
        • Interesting thread this, but have any of you heard of 'screeching weasel' (just one randomly selected independant band that produce their own records in the way you mention) or actually listened to the bands out on mp3.com?

          To sum it all up - they're just plain old shit! The reason record companies succeed is because they carefully select the bands they promote - occasionally they'll choose a flop but for the most part, if the public don't like one of their bands then they'll be 'let go'.

          Don't think that if all the money goes to the artist they'll necessarily make more money, because if they're shit and unpopular then no method of record production will make them sell.

          Good music sells, bad music sinks - it's as simple as that - record companies seek out the bands who will sell and all the free music you can get off mp3.com and self-produced music sucks the big one.

          That's the way it is, now go deal with it.

          -Nano.
          • That was actually intended to be part of my statement, but I didn't feel it was neccessary. I agree completely that alot of unsigned bands are complete shit, but some are quite good. In my city, currently the labels are buying out all of our metal bands, which is fine for me, because it helps the artists. It did give me a little insight as to how major record labels work though. When the big labels find something that works, they stick with it until it stops working. This is, IMHO why you typically see trends in music instead of several popular genres at once... But really, I don't know..
      • Publishing houses actually used to be just that, a place that merely published a copyrighted work. However as time progressed and the market grew it became uncompetitive to merely publish the work so they said "Hey not only will we print the work, we'll distribute it and you'll get your money and we'll get ours". The problem arose from that when the contract was up the publisher was out of a cash cow and had to fight to retain publishing rights. Then someone somewhere had a brilliant idea, write up a contract that gave the publishing company sole juristiction over a work and in turn gave the creator a percentage of any money derived from their work. This let the publisher publish, distribute, and market the works someone else created. Eventually the whole business picked up this model and we've got the industries we've got. Anyone competing against the established industry has a LONG way to go since the big record labels/publishing houses can undercut just about anybody.
      • The original music lawsuits were over bootlegged sheet music. Oftentimes it got as bad as people with good ears and quick hands scribbling down music as they heard it performed. :) The music industry was *visceous* over that. Instead of the figurative broken legs, there were actual, physical broken legs over that.

        -= rei =-

    • There already is (Score:4, Informative)

      by Auckerman ( 223266 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @01:20AM (#2142742)
      "Why hasn't someone started a Non-profit record label. Could that work ? Or what about a "minimum profit" record label ? " Check out Dischord Records [dischord.com] and more specifically Fugazi [dischord.com] (Ian owns Dischord). All tapes and records $6 all CD's $9, postage paid. In many cities Fugazi can fill 5-10K shows and only charge $7 even with your ticket master surcharge (Fugazi is the main revenue stream for Dischord and they reinvest the money to the label so others can have their music heard).
    • Many have. There are loads of indie labels all over the country. The question is, why do most people listen to radio bands?

      Of my 300ish CDs, maybe 20 or so are from major labels. It's easy to build a collection of music you like without walking into a national chain and buying from their $16 greatest hits section. It's cheaper, and it feels better too. (Better yet, buy from bands at their shows; they get almost all the money and it is cheaper for you!)

      Hell, go on mp3.com and search for a while and you'll find something you like for free. *That* may be the future of music.

      Another thing you could do if you feel like you should combat major labels is make music and release it to others on the internet for free. This is a lot easier than selling CDs and usually doesn't cost you anything. And that worries the record companies more than indie labels, since the majors are already comfortable with dealing with labels.
    • That would be a pretty difficult thing to do, for the same reasons the others have already pointed out. The only way I think that it could work is through a sort of pro-active seller that funneled customers into this label and away from the RIAA. Below I've pasted an email about this concept. Forgive the rhetoric; the language is tuned towards (hopefully) inciting discussion among the advocacy groups I send it to.
      I've always wondered, why we have to be on the defensive all the time? Consumers I mean. The few of us that care, and care enough to do something about it, have at the most managed to organize and fend off those who would chip away at our rights; bringing about somewhat of a stand-off, with neither greed nor justice having any decisive victory.

      "Everyone is organized but the people", supposedly. So my solution is: who better to organize the public than a few public organizations? If Nike makes clothes in a sweatshop, if McDonald's feeds people McFat that clogs their arteries, if Firestone sells tires that get people killed, then what we need is an organization that helps people find alternatives. In the same way that JC Penney can sell jewelry, exercise equipment, and shoes from Reebok, Nike, Adidas, and whoever else -- a Consumer Watchdog group could start an online store and sell people whatever they needed. The difference would be that the companies and brands on the site always meet common-sense-ethical-standards set by the group and it's customers.

      Consumers like me would jump at the chance to shop somewhere that they know wouldn't sell them something made by a 9 year old in a third-world country. People who aren't aware of corporate abuses will want to shop at a place that has a reputation for security and privacy (no ad-cookies here, folks). And I'm confident that eventually a site like this would hit the bad guys right where it hurts: their wallets. Between the ACLU, PC, The EFF, EPIC, CorpWatch, Privacy International, UFE, Common Cause, Grassroots Enterprise, and countless other civil liberties groups, corporations that refused to respect the rights of their customers would face losing hundreds of thousands of them. More and more brand names would rush to meet this store's standards so that they could be equated with respectable commerce. If the 'big names' decided not to change their ways, the little guys that make up their competition would grow in leaps and bounds. Either way people (not corporations) come out on top.

      Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this.
  • Check this out... The Berkman Center has teamed up with the Computing Research Association in support of Felten. You can read about it here [harvard.edu].
  • "along with a discussion concerning your Freedom"

    Ah, yes. Being able to copy music is paramount to my freedom. To say nothing of the thousands of people living under dictatorships, repressive conditions, and near-slavery. But having the rich upper-middle class, like myself, be able to copy music -- that's something that deserves to be in the constitution.

    • This is not about copying music. This is about free speech. This is about whether or not the government can throw you in jail for saying something simply because it might threaten the income of one of their corporate benefactors. If you want to maintain your upper-middle class status and not end up being a slave of some corporate run fascist government, you should try and look at the real issues here. Stop looking at the shiny distracting gadget which is the ability to copy music, and realize that the DMCA is the largest erosion of the 1st amendment in quite some time.
      • One could easily argue that the DCMA does NOT extend beyond the boundaries of the "shiny distracting gadget which is the ability to copy music" but instead is the prevention by crackers/hackers in the community of any kind of rational argument on the subject. The problem lies in the definition of "freedom".

        I for one, by example, believe I should have the "freedom" to not allow others to copy my creative works, including my writing. That's a personal preference that falls in line with other arguments that have been made over the past 200 years (You have the "freedom" to beat someone up on the street, but they have the "freedom" to not be beaten up. Who has the more personable and greater rights in this instance?)

        The problem, quite simply, is that the DCMA does *not* tread on the freedoms of the populace as a whole, but the *perceived freedoms* of a scant percentage of the population. This is the same hacker/cracker group that will fight so diligently to keep their information away from prying eyes, but will then turn around and argue that all information "should be free". Security and personal freedom *don't* coexist, my friend, so a reasonable median compromise must be found. And I for one do not believe the DCMA treads on my freedom.

        • Ummm, where to start. Perhaps you should read the provisions of the DMCA. It does not address whether or not people are allowed to copy your works. At all. That's not what it does. That issue is addressed by copyright law. The DMCA does not change who is allowed to legally copy your works. So, as far as this debate is concerned, your whole second paragraph is irrelevant.

          You've completely ignored the 1st amendment aspects of the law. Discussion of any technique which controls access to copyrighted material is banned. In your third paragraph you imply that freedom of speech is a perceived freedom of hackers and crackers. Fortunately, your disbelief in the Bill of Rights will not be a factor in court. Neither will your belief that Princeton Univerisity professors are crackers/hackers.

          As to your belief in a median compromise, I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that copyright law is based upon a balance between the rights of the copyright holders, and the rights of the people. The DMCA destroys this balance by allowing the copyright holders to enforce whatever restrictions the technology allows with no concern for the rights of the public. Copyright law, despite the name, doesn't even really address copying. It really only addresses distribution. I'm allowed to copy my books, my software, my music, whatever, as long as I don't distribute the copies. Most importantly, I can use the material I've purchased however I want. The DMCA allows restrictions not on distribution, but on the use, storage, and copying of media. Restrictions that copyright holders have never really had the right to. Moreover, it allows these restrictions to be imposed with no judicial or legislative oversight. It's as though the whole body of copyright law has been trumped by whatever technical measures the RIAA can manage to dream up. And if the technical measures don't really work, well that's OK because you can still have people locked up for discussing the fact that they don't work! If you think this is a balance, I'm curious if you realize that it's not a balanced one. One of the pans is pinned to the base by an 800lb gorilla named DMCA.
          • "And if the technical measures don't really work, well that's OK because you can still have people locked up for discussing the fact that they don't work!"

            Name one. Keep in mind, there is a difference between "discussing the fact" and physically releasing a tool to aid and abet, like the Adobe hacker did.

  • How does this differ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13, 2001 @08:57PM (#2145615)
    From what our Russian friend did? Or is equal protection under the law also now a selective option...either Felton should be arrested or Skylarov should be freed. Actually this might help Skylarov in some respects as an end game, in case of a worst case scenario, by providing another option for appeal. Selective prosecution is a basis for appeal.

    • Re:How does this differ... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by analog_line ( 465182 ) on Monday August 13, 2001 @09:23PM (#2146261)
      Since when was "equal protection" a law of physics. This isn't conservation of energy we're talking about here. Laws are always, have always, and will always be selectively enforced based on the political agendas of those with the power to enforce them.

      Felton is a professor at one of the most distinguished universities in the country. Skylarov is a "Russian hacker". Which do you think would be arrested 9 out of 10 times? It's disgusting. It shows the true colors of the society once again. Everything in our powre should be done to see that something's done to change it and get Dimitri back to his family as soon as possible. However, it's not surprising in the least that the distinction was made. "Equal protection" also doesn't necessarly apply to non-citizens, which leaves Dimitri out in the cold.

      This whole situation ought to be a lesson to security researchers outside the US. The US government as it stands will arrest you because they don't like you. I'd recommend you don't attend any conventions or other meetings in the US, because if you've done anything close to what Dimitri did, you run the serious and real risk of being arrested until we natives can find some way to get the law changed to something sane.

      • "Equal protection" also doesn't necessarly apply to non-citizens, which leaves Dimitri out in the cold.

        "Equal protection" applies to everyone who sets foot in the U.S.A., legally or not.

        Even if someone enters the country illegally, you still cannot throw them in jail for murder without a trial; they still have the right to an attorney; they have the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. Yes, "equal protection" applies to everyone in the United States.

        Of course, after the fact, an illegal alien will be deported, but that's another issue. They still have equal protection under the law while they're here.

        Interestingly, foreign visitors in the United States have more freedom than they would in other countries. Mexico is a "free country," but if a foreigner visits Mexico and happens to speak out about Mexican politics, he/she can be deported. I don't think that's a valid reason to deport someone from the United States, unless they are actually inciting rebellion or advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. But I believe they're free to speak against it all they want...? (One could argue that that's not a polite thing for a visitor to do, but...)

        I thought the original post saying "equal protection doesn't apply to aliens" was actually irony, since it doens't seem to apply in this case. But equal protection under the law applies to everyone in the United States, legally or not.

        • Actually, you're quite wrong on one point - if you kill someone in the USA, you will first be put into prison for the duration of your sentence and THEN you will be deported.

          This is to ensure that you can't just hop on a plane/boat/whatever over into the US, kill someone and then get off unpunished.

          Interestingly though, in the USA whilst they will also do this to convicted drug dealers (catch a Colombian, stick him in jail for 10-odd years and then deport him back to Colombia), they don't do that in the UK

          - any Jamaican drug dealers (and yes, whilst the large majority of Jamaicans are law-abiding and very pleasant people, most of the 'yardie' drug dealers in this country do originate from Jamaica) that are caught here simply get deported unpunished back to Jamaica where they just pick up the next shipment and return.

          So don't think you can jump over a border and commit a crime and just be deported back home as punishment.

          -Nano.
      • There's one other major difference, which is importent and can't be overlooked: Said "Russian hacker" was actually selling software cracking an existing standard, Felton was doing neither.

        (I still don't agree with Dmitry's imprisonment, but you can help "The Cause" by trying to hide from the facts, and you can do a great deal of damage from it.)

        • Re:How does this differ... (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I have seen several people saying this, but how do you know that he sold software while in the US?
        • Yes, the actual criminal charge against Dmitri is for selling the software.
          However, if the crime was "selling" this software why didn't they arrest the sales and marketing guys of Elcomsoft or people from the US company that collects their registration fees (regnow.com)? They arrested the author of the program, who merely had an incidental role in selling the software. There were many people in the US that day who were involved in "selling" or "traffiking" the software, but they chose to only arrest the programmer.

      • Re:How does this differ... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Danse ( 1026 )

        "Equal protection" also doesn't necessarly apply to non-citizens, which leaves Dimitri out in the cold.

        As I understand it, it does apply to non-citizens, as long as they're in this country legally.

    • Skylarov broke a deployed standard, whereas Felton broke a proposed standard. Considering that, when he announced that he'd broken it, there was nothing actually copyprotected with SDMI, his method could hardly be used to circumvent copyprotection; furthermore, as it was already broken, it wouldn't be considered an effective copyprotection method if it were now used to encode something.
      • Skylarov's product was advertized as a product to backup ebooks for personal use. In fact, it appears not just to be a front, as the company took steps, such as setting a high price to discourage people who just want to pirate, knowing that it would reduce sales. While the DMCA says its illegal to circumvent a copy protection method, it also says the consumer has a right to make backups (a contradiction in terms if the company who provides the envryption method leaves no method for backups). So, its not really that simple

        -= rei =-
        • As pointed out by recent analysis, while the consumer has a right to make backups, there isn't an exception permitting anyone to make software for that purpose.

          But there are plenty of other problems in the case, such as jurisdiction and whether his software actually does anything non-trivial. He's also not been charged yet, so it's still unknown what, if anything, the government will think will stand up in court.

          Anyway, this is all quite different from the whole Felton thing, which was my point-- regardless of whether the DMCA really applies to anything, it clearly doesn't apply to what Felton's been doing.

  • How does this affect the pending case? (Score:4, Informative)

    by 4n0nym0u53 C0w4rd ( 463592 ) on Monday August 13, 2001 @08:51PM (#2146275) Homepage
    So here's what's happened...

    • Felton takes part in the SDMI challenge, decides NOT to continue into the final round and sign away his rights to publish.
    • RIAA threatens [eff.org] Felton.
    • Felton pulls paper from conference, publicity ensues.
    • RIAA says "we never threatened Felton"
    • Felton Sues [eff.org] to be allowed to publish research
    • RIAA says [eff.org] "we never threatened to sue, leave us alone..."
    • Felton, apparently, gives presentation

    So, how does this affect the lawsuit? Can Felton still sue to prevent the RIAA from deciding to go after him down the road, or does it simply become a matter of principle?

  • Professor Edward W. Felten... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Balinares ( 316703 ) on Monday August 13, 2001 @09:52PM (#2153827)
    This guy is such an interesting [princeton.edu] person. Did other people also notice he was a key element [princeton.edu] in the DOJ vs Microsoft case? You know, this guy may be, in his own inconspicuous style, one of the best things happening to us as of late. Let's not lose trace of him.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Close