Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Three Years Under the DMCA 172

Posted by michael from the prohibition-lasted-fourteen-years dept.
willybur writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation just released a report (pdf) today detailing the last three years under the DMCA. It describes how the DMCA has been used to unfairly attempt to prosecute all of the various parties over the years, and gives yet another argument of why the DMCA needs to be struck down. It's worth a read." Slashdot has covered most of the incidents listed, but this is nice summary to hand someone who hasn't been following these issues.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Three Years Under the DMCA More

Three Years Under the DMCA

Comments Filter:
  • Either the techies don't have a lot of money, or people don't care enough to take this to the Supreme Court to get this stupid law ruled on. I don't have the moeny or the time, but someone has too.

    • Re:Three years, and still no Supreme Court decisio (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @09:41AM (#3465364) Homepage Journal
      Techies do care, however, the media companies (particularly those who claim to have been so hurt under copying) spend scads of money to keep people down. I wonder how long before we see law firms listed on the NYSE, as they've done a booming business under this tyranny. And, yes, the common man on the street doesn't know and doesn't care about it until the police knock on the door because the kids are running a file sharing service or have written some really clever decrypting software and have it on their website.

      To some degree the common man is more worried about employment, terrorism, war in the Middle East. When the press (which is largely owned by companies just happy as hell with the DMCA) tells the common man it's a bad thing, then he'll care. Don't see that happening, do you?

    • Its not that techies don't have money or care to take it to the Supreme Court. Whenever the media companies get close to a court being able to make a decision to rule on the law, they back off. They do this so that the law doesn't get overturned, not because they don't want to go to court. This way, the law is still on the books and perhapps they scared some people into submission.
    • Either the techies don't have a lot of money

      This is the main problem. It is also the reason why DMCA threats tend to be more successful in getting the complainants what they want than less successful; the mere thought of being sued and removed of what little money they usually have is enough to intimidate most people into compliance, regardless of the nature of the law that is being used against them.

      Avoid The Rush, Hate OU Early!!!

      Nice, very nice. I'm an OSU student.
    • I actualy submitted to Ask Slashdot an idea revolving arround forming an interest group (kind of like an ACLU for Slashdotters). The basic idea was if we have a group of people willing to take these things to court and they get the money from people on slashdot donating, we might actualy get something out of this. We might be able to fight the DMCA. But the story got rejected. Any ways, that's the only real way I see of getting this done. We need our own group of lobyists.
      • ... and they get the money from people on slashdot donating, ...
        Got $1.5 million?

        Money makes the world go round ... or lawyers on the tables pound ...

        DVD Copyright Case Grinds Through Courts [nytimes.com]

        "Underwriting the defense of the hacker- oriented magazine has put a strain on the foundation's finances. That is one reason Martin Garbus, the First Amendment lawyer who handled the earlier stages of the case, will no longer represent the magazine. Foundation officials said that even at a discounted rate, Mr. Garbus's bills came to about $1.5 million in 2000, nearly doubling the annual expenditure of the group, which gets about three-quarters of its financing from individual donors."

        The magazine's new lead lawyer is Kathleen Sullivan, the dean of Stanford Law School, who volunteered to handle the appeal free.

        "It's not a slam on the Garbus firm," said Cindy Cohn, the foundation's legal director. "We just couldn't sustain that kind of an outlay."

        Don't take it amiss that your story got rejected. As I mentioned earlier, I couldn't even get support for my Slashdot article code proposal [sethf.com] for publishing anti-censorware code (repeat, I don't say Slashdot had to help me out, I'm just pointing out the connections to the issue). This is a very hard and risky area.

        Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

  • No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nipok Nek ( 87328 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @09:31AM (#3465334)
    From the text...

    "In the Universal v. Reimerdes case, discussed above, the court held that section 1201 bans DeCSS software. This software decrypts DVD movies, making it possible to copy them to a PC." (Italics Mine)

    You've always been able to copy them. It's PLAYING them that's been the problem. If even the EFF can be confused on this point, what chance do we have to get Joe American to understand?

    Nipok Nek

    • "You've always been able to copy them. It's PLAYING them that's been the problem. If even the EFF can be confused on this point, what chance do we have to get Joe American to understand?"

      See, that's just the problem. It takes lawyers and pedantic linguaphiles like you to "not get it."

      For the average person, "copying" a DVD would imply being able to *play* the copy.

      Brootal

      • I think even you are missing the point. The copy is identical to the original. If you can play the original, you can play the copy. The problem is playing either; without DeCSS, that is impossible for unlicensed players.
      • I see we're gonna have to do this the hard way.

        >See, that's just the problem. It takes lawyers and pedantic linguaphiles like you to "not get it."
        >
        >For the average person, "copying" a DVD would imply being able to *play* the copy.

        Yes. I agree completely. You are 100% correct. For the average person, the two meanings overlap unclearly. This is precisely my point. If the people who DO understand the difference (The EFF, in this example) don't take pains to make sure their meanings are clear, then what chance does the average guy have of really understanding what's going on?

        And as to you refering to me as "pedantic," by which I will assume you ment that I was overly concerned with trivial details, let me say that the Devil is in those details. Let's take a trip in time back to the day before DeCSS was available in any form. Here, we see Johnny Pirate, inserting his DVD into his computer.... ripping the encoded contents onto his hard drive... and Lookie! Watching the DVD on his Hard Drive

        "But!" you say, "It's still encoded!" Of course it is. It's the PLAYER that does the decoding. As long as you have a working player, you don't need a decoded file. And all DVD-ROM drives come with players... That work under Windows. If you buy that exact same drive, and try to watch your DVD on a non-Windows platform, you're SOL. Or at least you were, until DeCSS came along.

        So, now that we've cleared that up, I trust you won't feel the need to be "pedantic" about my spelling, or anything else so crucial.

        I'm glad we agree.

        Nipok Nek

      • Okay guys - you're complaining about "no-one" having the time or money to get this to the Supremes. Well - the best bet is going to be the EFF.

        Case in point - The judge in the Sonic Blue case has just ordered the company to spy on me! The judge wants to come into my house without issuing a proper search warrant and determine my use of the Replay 4000 I own. The company has to record what shows I watch and whether I time-shift, and whether I skip commercials (of course I do ;-) This information will be slightly santized, i.e. my name won't be attached to the data (yet..) That is suppose to make this invasion of privacy better.

        Now - I happen to have sent a check or two the EFF's way. They're already aware of the situation. Time will tell whether this nonsense stands. At least someone is trying to fight this BS. Why don't you help them in the fight??? Give them a few bucks to support their diverse efforts!!!!

        This is the ONLY way we're going to get the DMCA and the up-coming Hollings bill defeated!

      • For the average person, "copying" a DVD would imply being able to *play* the copy.

        It's perfectly possible to do a bit-by-bit copy of an encrypted DVD and play it back on your MPAA certified equipment. DeCSS doesn't do diddly to aid in the copying of DVDs except for enabling the content to be compressed down for easier transit across the Internet.

        • It's perfectly possible to do a bit-by-bit copy of an encrypted DVD and play it back on your MPAA certified equipment.

          How would one go about doing this, without using a DMCA-restricted product? I know I can't drag-and-drop.

          DeCSS doesn't do diddly to aid in the copying of DVDs except for enabling the content to be compressed down for easier transit across the Internet.

          That's not true. I just put "The Matrix" into my DVD drive. Now how do I copy it to my hard drive without using DeCSS?

          • That's not true. I just put "The Matrix" into my DVD drive. Now how do I copy it to my hard drive without using DeCSS?

            dd if=/dev/dvd of=~/matrix.css

            Not that it will do you much good -- you need DeCSS to read the image (in any intelligable way).

            For that matter, I think you can do
            mount -t auto /dev/dvd /mnt/dvd
            mkdir ~/matrix
            cp /mnt/dvd/* ~/matrix/
            But again, you need DeCSS to make any sense out of it.

            • C:\> dd if=/dev/dvd of=~/matrix.css
              'dd' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
              operable program or batch file.

              I guess linux really is a circumvention device.

              But seriously, you make a good point. Unfortunately, the DMCA has nothing to do with whether or not the "technological measure" controls copying. It has to do with whether or not the "techonological measure...effectively controls access".

    • The primary problem is that in order to play a DVD, you have to decrypt the content, and hence run afoul of the DMCA. IANAL, and I am not an expert on DVD technology, but I suspect that the way the law would be read is that any tool or technology that is used to get around what a vendor classifies as "copyright controls" - be it the encryption of the content, restricting the content to use/viewing only in certain regions of the globe, etc. - will run you afoul. If you can copy it, but not use it, they don't care... because they're not losing any revenue as a result. And that is what they really care about.

      All that being said, there are only two ways I can see this getting fixed. (1) Joe American decides he/she gives a damn about loss of fair use rights, and enough of him/her contacts their congrescritter saying that "If you don't fix this, I'll vote someone in who will". I'm not holding my breath that there will be some kind of meaningful boycott of the media in question, because this is a country of consumers - especially of entertainment. (2) A case fighting the DMCA goes to the Supreme Court, and we get a ruling in favor of the people instead of the copyright holders is made. I think we could actually see something good come out of this, but I don't know what it is going to take to get it there.

    • Re:No No No, Wrong Wrong Wrong! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by camusflage ( 65105 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @10:56AM (#3465527)
      Interesting, but irrelevant. You have no legal "right" to play DVD's wherever you want to. That's why the algorithms are licensed.

      The problem, legally speaking, comes in because they take away your right of fair use. Fair use is given to the public in exchange for strong copyright laws. In this case, the DVDCCA wants to have its cake (strong copyright laws) and eat it too (not allowing fair use).
      • Ugh. I see it's "Make Nipok Crazy Day" again. I need to write this down on my calendar or something.

        >Interesting, but irrelevant. You have no legal "right" to play DVD's wherever you want to. That's why the algorithms are licensed.

        True, True, Very true. And Irrelevant. See Below.

        >The problem, legally speaking, comes in because they take away your right of fair use. Fair use is given to the public in exchange for strong copyright laws. In this case, the DVDCCA wants to have its cake (strong copyright laws) and eat it too (not allowing fair use).

        The problem being addressed was that people who had purchased DVD's legally, Had purchased hardware legally, and were not violating any other laws or rules, were unable to watch their DVD's because the algorithm which they received access to by purchasing the hardware wasn't working properly for them. (Was incompatable with their OS.) The only way the movie industry could claim illegal use was to claim the user had no right to watch the movie at all. It wasn't a matter of leaping an inconvenient legal restriction. They Bought the DVD. The purchased a license for the algorithm. All they wanted to do was watch a movie.

        Nipok Nek

      • You have no legal "right" to play DVD's wherever you want to. That's why the algorithms are licensed.

        well, I bought my DVDs, so I own them, and i can do whatever i please with them, except make a copy and sell it.

      • The problem, legally speaking, comes in because they take away your right of fair use.

        "They" don't take away your right to fair use. "They" make it technically difficult to exercise your right to fair use. Big difference.

        • "They" don't take away your right to fair use. "They" make it technically difficult to exercise your right to fair use. Big difference.

          And then make it illegal to get around those technical difficulties and exercise fair use. No difference. Making an activity illegal and making the means by which you perform activity A illegal amount to the same thing.

          • And then make it illegal to get around those technical difficulties and exercise fair use.

            The DMCA specifically allows fair use as a defense against circumvention.

            • And we're guaranteed a right to a speedy trial, yet Dmitri spent a month in jail before he even got a bail hearing.

              News flash: the infamous They don't seem to care about fair use. As long as something can conceivably be used illegally, it risks falling victim to the DMCA. The legitimate and fair uses of DeCSS are too numerous to count, yet it's illegal to post it.

              Back to my previous post; not only does making the means rather than the ends illegal just as bad, it's actually worse since many legitimate activities will be included, regardless of the intent. The clause you mention is supposed to address that, but it's being ignored at every turn.

              • And we're guaranteed a right to a speedy trial, yet Dmitri spent a month in jail before he even got a bail hearing.

                And that has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA.

                News flash: the infamous They don't seem to care about fair use. As long as something can conceivably be used illegally, it risks falling victim to the DMCA.

                Anything can conceivably be used illegally. And anything could fall victim to any law (hell, if we're going to use hyperbole, might as well use hyperbole).

                The legitimate and fair uses of DeCSS are too numerous to count, yet it's illegal to post it.

                All the legitimate and fair uses of DeCSS could easily be accomplished in a way which discourages illegimate and unfair uses. If the makers of the software had done that, they likely would be allowed to distribute their software. They didn't, so they aren't.

                But hey, at least you're willing to argue the issue about a legitimate point. I think it's within the government's rights to ban DeCSS. I think it's clear that the primary purpose of DeCSS is to promote copyright infringement.

                I don't like our copyright infringement laws, but I think it's within our government's rights to enact them. I'll fight back by releasing free content, and by releasing content under a license which explicitly permits circumvention. I'll also fight back by choosing to purchase free alternatives whenever it's feasible (yes, that means I'm not becoming a slashdot subscriber until they open content their content).

                • And that has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA.

                  I know. My point was that just because the law says you are guaranteed something, it doesn't mean you are going to get it. The DMCA says that fair use is protected, but that has been seen to be a crock of sewage.

                  Anything can conceivably be used illegally

                  Exactly. Which is why a law saying "anything that can be used to do this illegal thing is illegal itself" is so incredibly stupid. If this same logic were applied to other crimes, it would literally be illegal to be born.

                  All the legitimate and fair uses of DeCSS could easily be accomplished in a way which discourages illegimate and unfair uses. If the makers of the software had done that, they likely would be allowed to distribute their software. They didn't, so they aren't.

                  Do tell. How? If I run Linux, how do I play a DVD I purchased on a DVD drive that I purcahsed? And exactly how should Jon Johansen have written DeCSS so that it could never be used to copy an unencrypted DVD? He released the source code, you know. After it was made public he had zero control over it. But it's stupid anyway idea. Do we demand guns that can't possibly be used to kill people? Food that can't possibly be choked on? Cars that can't possibly crash? Crowbars that can't possibly be used to break windows?

                  I think it's clear that the primary purpose of DeCSS is to promote copyright infringement.

                  No, the primary purpose of DeCSS is to unencrypt the content on a DVD. That it can be used otherwise is irrelevant.

                  I don't like our copyright infringement laws, but I think it's within our government's rights to enact them.

                  True. But that doesn't mean we can't berate the dumbass politicians and companies that pass laws like this. Embracing copyleft is a good approach, but getting inane leislation like the DMCA off the books would be even better. Free (as in love) software would likely be illegal under something like the CBDTPA/SSSCA, should they ever pass it.

                  • The DMCA says that fair use is protected, but that has been seen to be a crock of sewage.

                    No one has been prosecuted or even sued over the DMCA for exercising fair use. I'll even admit that I possess DeCSS and use it for fair use purposes. And no one can sue me for that, because it's legal.

                    Which is why a law saying "anything that can be used to do this illegal thing is illegal itself" is so incredibly stupid.

                    That's not what the law says, and I suspect that you already knew that.

                    Do tell. How? If I run Linux, how do I play a DVD I purchased on a DVD drive that I purcahsed? And exactly how should Jon Johansen have written DeCSS so that it could never be used to copy an unencrypted DVD?

                    DeCSS was not written for linux, it was written for windows. DeCSS is not a DVD player, it decrypts the encrypted files and outputs the unencrypted mpegs. DeCSS does not obey region encoding. If Johansen had written a Linux DVD player which made a good faith attempt to obey region encoding and which made it difficult to output the raw mpeg to a file, it probably would have been legal. But instead he made a program whose sole purpose is to bypass the CSS encryption scheme. It seems absolutely clear to me that DeCSS was created and marketed to be used for illegal purposes. It has other fair uses, but they were an afterthought. I have a strong suspicion that anyone claiming otherwise is practicing doublethink.

                    Do we demand guns that can't possibly be used to kill people? Food that can't possibly be choked on? Cars that can't possibly crash? Crowbars that can't possibly be used to break windows?

                    No but killing people, breaking windows, and crashing cars are not illegal, and food which is primarily created to cause people to choke is.

                    Embracing copyleft is a good approach, but getting inane leislation like the DMCA off the books would be even better.

                    I just don't see the DMCA as inane. I think it makes sense. What was inane was when we had all these copyright laws protecting software and then we allowed cracks and serial numbers to be distributed freely on the internet. That was inane.

                    Free (as in love) software would likely be illegal under something like the CBDTPA/SSSCA, should they ever pass it.

                    The SSSCA was the most disgusting law I've ever seen in my life. I'm not exaggerating. Had that passed not only would linux and most free software have probably been made illegal, basically any software and hardware which didn't get the seal of approval of the big media companies and anyone else who had the money to bribe the Secretary of Commerce would be made illegal - and not just illegal to sell - illegal to manufacture, illegal to possess, illegal to use, illegal to give away.

                    As for the CBDTPA, I have no idea what that law would do. Probably the same thing, ultimately, but it was written so ambiguously that it's really impossible to be more precise. It was another terrible law and it sickens me that there are any people in congress that would support it. There are almost 300 million people in this country. You'd think we could do a better job of picking the top 0.0001%.

                    • No one has been prosecuted or even sued over the DMCA for exercising fair use.

                      Did you even read the EFF article?

                      I'll even admit that I possess DeCSS and use it for fair use purposes. And no one can sue me for that, because it's legal.

                      "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work".
                      Since DeCSS bypasses the encryption and, as you say, is primarily designed for that purpose, it is illegal.

                      On the other hand, if it has substantial non-infringing use it would certainly be exempt. But then why was 2600 prosecuted for posting something that is perfectly legal? The fair use applications for AEBPR (Elcomsoft's ebook program) are numerous, so it should be legal, right? AiboPet [the guy who hacked his Aibo] got no money whatsoever for his programs. Furthermore, his programs were useless if you didn't already have an Aibo so Sony wasn't losing any money on it. But they sued him anyway; if that isn't being prosecuted for fair use, I dunno what is. Bnetd is the best example yet; it is an extremely useful alternative to the crappy Battle.net and its ability to circumvent copy protection is limited only to allowing a certain type of multiplayer mode. Yet Blizzard's first proclamations claimed that it was illegal. You agree with them?

                      Which is why a law saying "anything that can be used to do this illegal thing is illegal itself" is so incredibly stupid.
                      That's not what the law says, and I suspect that you already knew that.

                      That is exactly what it says. See above excerpt from the DMCA.

                      [DeCSS rant]

                      Are you reading your own posts? First you say "DeCSS is legal", then you turn around and claim that it was primarily designed to be used illegally and thus falls under the DMCA and is illegal. Do make up your mind.

                      And do you really think that the MPAA would have left well enough alone if the first version of DeCSS fit your description? I already pointed out that the Aibo hack doesn't help you 'copy an Aibo', yet Sony prosecuted over it. Why would Valenti, a technophobe of the first order, be any different?

                      No but killing people, breaking windows, and crashing cars are not illegal

                      I'm sorry, what color is the sky in your world? Killing someone is most certainly illegal. Breaking windows, as in "someone else's window", is most certainly illegal. Deliberately crashing a car and doing damage to someone or something else is most certainly illegal.

                      Tell me, what is the purpose of a pistol? Do you go hunting with a .38? Handguns are designed to put holes in people. Not animals for hunting, people. Doing so is illegal, except in certain cases like self-defense. And yet there is a large industry devoted to making and selling them. And it is legal. Why is software any different?

                      I just don't see the DMCA as inane. I think it makes sense.

                      The DMCA represents preemptive law enforcement: "Let's get these criminals before they actually commit a crime". I can get a copy of DeCSS, post it on a webpage, and start getting nastygrams and subpeonas from the MPAA without ever actually using it to copy a DVD. To start prosecuting people because they _might_ commit a crime in the future is something you'd find in an Orwelling dystopia.

                      The SSSCA was the most disgusting law I've ever seen in my life.

                      I agree. But I think it is extremely hypocritical of you to call the DMCA a godsend and the SSSCA/CBDTPA disgusting. They both try to achieve the same goal: making it illegal to create or distribute tools that can be used to do something that is already illegal.

                    • If Johansen had written a Linux DVD player which made a good faith attempt to obey region encoding and which made it difficult to output the raw mpeg to a file, it probably would have been legal.

                      He would certainly have a stronger case, but the DVDCCA would likely sue anyway since he didn't sign their precious license.

                      But why the region lock?

                      There is no basis in US law for the MPAA's assertion that the world is separated into 6 different markets. Look up the terms 'first sale' and 'global exhaustion'.

                      Even in EU, where we shortly will have community exhaustion due to the EUCD, import of movies for personal use is neither copyright infringement nor a violation of parallel import law.

                    • So you're fine for DeCSS, since you managed to get a copy before the final set of rules kicked in.

                      It's not illegal to download (unless you're downloading from outside the country), only to distribute.

                      Anyone who doesn't have a copy now is out of luck, and you're out of luck when the next protection scheme is released.

                      http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ [cmu.edu]

                    • a) So people have to put themselves at risk of legal action to provide you with a copy, and this is fine as long as YOU don't come under fire?

                      I'm not fine with copyright law, but I do accept it as a fact of life. People don't have to put themselves at risk of legal action - they choose to.

                      b) you really think they couldn't come after you for downloading, say on a conspiracy charge?

                      Yes, of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't be admitting to doing it on a public forum.

                    • I give up. You seem quite content with the idea of banning perfectly legitimate tools and even the discussion of those tools simply because they are sometimes used to commit crimes. "Banning the means is as good as banning the ends", as it were. I pity you.

                      And since the CBDTPA is just version 2 of the DMCA, you should feel right at home if and when it gets passed.

  • PDF (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BCoates ( 512464 )
    Ugh, they use PDF for it, too. This is too new for google--somebody got a HTML mirror? I'm not going to install Acrobat to read about how Adobe is abusing US laws to punish people who find holes in their lousy 'secure' formats

    --
    Benjamin Coates

    p.s. to lawyers: this post is opinion and not fact.

  • Expanding the DMCAA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @09:35AM (#3465347) Journal
    This fits in well with this list of Ten New Copyright Crimes [yale.edu] as seen posted over on the LawMeme website.

    Which, if anything, is an indicator on where things are going.

    Welcome to the world of Max Headroom!

  • Microsoft Threatens Slashdot

    In spring 2000, Microsoft invoked the DMCA against the Internet publication forum Slashdot, demanding that forum moderators delete materials relating to Microsoft's proprietary implementation of an open security standard known as Kerberos. In the Slashdot forum, several individuals alleged that Microsoft had changed the open, non-proprietary Kerberos specification in order to prevent non- Microsoft servers from interacting with Windows 2000. Many speculated that this move was intended to force users to purchase Microsoft server software. Although Microsoft responded to this criticism by publishing its Kerberos specification, it conditioned access to the specification on agreement to a "click-wrap" license agreement that expressly forbade disclosure of the specification without Microsoft's prior consent. Slashdot posters responded by republishing the Microsoft specification. Microsoft then invoked the DMCA, demanding that Slashdot remove the republished specifications. In the words of Georgetown law professor Julie Cohen, "If Microsoft's interpretation of the DMCA's ban on circumvention technologies is right, then it doesn't seem to matter much whether posting unauthorized copies of the Microsoft Kerberos specification would be a fair use. A publisher can prohibit fair-use commentary simply by implementing access and disclosure restrictions that bind the entire public. Anyone who discloses the information, or even tells others how to get it, is a felon."



    And who says Slashdotters are afraid to stand up against the big guys.
  • It is ironic that they released in a PDF format and note that Abode is using the DMCA to "hurt" people.

    Opps?

    • Re:Adobe (Score:2, Informative)

      by daecabhir ( 166667 )
      Yeah, it would requiring installing additional software, but according to the EFF's HTML page for this report http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20020503_dmca_consequen ces.html [eff.org], GhostScript with GSView (which is free - as in beer - software) for Win, Mac or Unix can be used to view PDFs. Didn't know that, and will have to give it a spin myself.
    • It is ironic that they released in a PDF format and note that Abode is using the DMCA to "hurt" people.

      I thought the same thing, and then it hit me:
      if the EFF really wanted to show they had some brass cajones they'd release the document in e-book format, forbid anyone from reading it and post a link to the e-book processor reading "if you'd like to invoke your fair use rights, click here".

      Either that, or go on the offensive:
      Sue all of the lawyers of Sony, MS, Adobe whoever for being "circumvention devices" to fair use.

      I'd Pay to see that!!!

      .

  • Since they censored a discussion about movie decryption in a legitimate magazine (2600), couldn't they censor the discussion about the discussion about movie decryption?

    Hell, here slashdot is having a discussion about a discussion about a discussion about movie decryption. It may be legitimate, but someone is bound to pull a 1201 on everyone here.

  • NOT a good document for introducing the DMCA (Score:4, Informative)

    by Reziac ( 43301 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @10:13AM (#3465412) Homepage Journal
    I read the paper, and here's my conclusion:

    This is evidently aimed at law scholars. It is NOT a good piece for informing Joe Public about the DMCA -- even I could develop doubts from this (not to mention that my eyes kept glazing over) and I'm already familiar with the issues. Furthermore, due to the way the info is presented, someone new to the issues could well assume that this paper is a history of CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES by evil people out to overthrow the rights of copyright holders. IOW, it could have exactly the opposite of the desired effect.

    I read it hoping to find something I could use to convince a client, who is in love with the DMCA, of how evil it really is, but this paper would, if anything, strengthen his position: He loves the DMCA because it's letting him sue his old publishers for unauthorized online use of his old old articles, so he hopes to make a lot of money by applying the various fines. Because of how it's written, the paper gives the *impression* that fighting the DMCA is all about encouraging "theft" from copyright holders. Not exactly good for convincing DMCA supporters of the error of their ways!

    What's needed is a plain-English interpretation describing the legitimate activities which were crimilized under the DMCA (with the existing legal examples likewise described in plain English), in terms that make Joe Public think "Omighod, that could happen to me!!" THAT would be much more informative and convincing to the average person who doesn't follow the legal incidents and issues on a daily basis.

    [BTW, it's not only PDF, it's a newish PDF format that causes errors on older versions of Acrobat; worse, it's formatted for publication in a print rag, so is difficult to read on a computer screen, even tho I have a 19" monitor. What would have been wrong with ordinary HTML for online viewers?]

    • [BTW, it's not only PDF, it's a newish PDF format that causes errors on older versions of Acrobat; worse, it's formatted for publication in a print rag, so is difficult to read on a computer screen, even tho I have a 19" monitor. What would have been wrong with ordinary HTML for online viewers?]
      I've always wondered that too, but never realized why. I understand that .pdf files don't change format when I change text size, but you can always set text size to a constant, or use CSS and set it to a pixel size. Then you can still predict how it will look when printing (just print off one copy, that's exactly what everyone else will get).

      Personally, I don't use Acrobat. I just wait for it to appear in Google's cache, and read it as HTML.
    • Why do such a big number of people on /. think that 'Joe Public' needs every issue super-watered down and spoon fed to them? It's very important to a democracy to have an educated public. Granted, the average person should not be able to wade through hardcore legalese or patch his own kernel, but a basic knowledge of law is ESSENTIAL for any citizen. Plus, the above poster is proposing that someone make a paper that

      make Joe Public think "Omighod, that could happen to me!!" THAT would be much more informative and convincing to the average person who doesn't follow the legal incidents and issues on a daily basis.

      So not only are we spoon-feeding people now, but we're making decisions FOR THEM of how pieces of legislation affect them too.

      What we need is a better educated (e.i. able to understand the basic principles of law and able to formulate their own opinions) public, and until we get that the DCMA will stand. So instead of CNNing political issues, why don't we go and teach someone a little about copyright law so that they are better equipped to fight the battle, even after the DMCA.
      • Why do such a big number of people on /. think that 'Joe Public' needs every issue super-watered down and spoon fed to them? It's very important to a democracy to have an educated public.

        Doesn't have to be "watered down". However, to appeal to the "Joe Public", you need to actually address issues that they care about. They aren't going to care a whole lot about complaints from some academics, or the arrest of a Russian "hacker". (Being a Russian hacker in itself makes him suspicious ... ) Appealing to high-minded constitutional and abstract moral principles might hold up on slashdot, indeed a similar strategy might even work quite well in court. But as a political strategy, it's doomed to failure.

    • You want DMCA in Plain English? (Score:5, Informative)

      by yerricde ( 125198 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @11:44AM (#3465701) Homepage Journal

      What's needed is a plain-English interpretation describing the legitimate activities which were crimilized under the DMCA (with the existing legal examples likewise described in plain English), in terms that make Joe Public think "Omighod, that could happen to me!!"

      Here are a couple papers I wrote a while back (when the CBDTPA was still called SSSCA):
      The Politics of Copy Protection Technology [everything2.com]
      DMCA in Plain English [pineight.com]

      You might also find this paper helpful: What's Wrong With Copy Protection [spectacle.org] by John Gilmore.

  • Chilling effect of DMCA on anti-censorware work (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @10:20AM (#3465428) Homepage Journal
    I can attest to the chilling effect of the DMCA. It's severely hindered my anticensorware work [sethf.com]. That effect on me, and others, was responsible for one of the two anticircumvention exceptions granted by the Librarian of Congress, in the Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works [loc.gov] (Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by [censorware] ... )

    Nete, the DMCA Slashdot incident, Microsoft Asks Slashdot To Remove Readers' Posts [slashdot.org], was exactly one of the DMCA incidents in mind as a factor when I made my Slashdot article code proposal [sethf.com] in order to get some support for publishing anti-censorware code. Too bad nothing came of it (I don't say Slashdot had to help me out, I'm just pointing out the connections). But the DMCA chilling effect on me for anticensorware work is very real, and well-ground in DMCA court cases. `

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

  • Forgive my ignorance on the matter, but does the DCMA only have jurisdiction in the United States? I ask because in the article it mentions foreign researchers being weary of visiting the US following the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov. So if it is only applicable in the US how does it affect those of us in Australia and other countries?

    • Re:Jurisdiction of the DCMA laws? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @10:54AM (#3465518)

      Fortunately, the DMCA means Jack S outside of the US.

      Unfortunately, it looks as though other major players -- the EU, for example -- are lining up to pass similarly ill-thought-out and draconian legislation just as soon as they can.

      Be afraid. Be very afraid.

      • Unfortunately, it looks as though other major players -- the EU, for example -- are lining up to pass similarly ill-thought-out and draconian legislation just as soon as they can.

        They are passing these laws for the same reason the US passed the DMCA -- the WIPO treaty that requires signees to do so. If I'm not mistaken, WIPO is tied into the World Trade Organization. I used to wonder why people got so upset and had all those large-scale protests against the WTO; now I know.
    • The funny thing is that millions of parking tickets can stack up and no one has to pay for them - yet if you break a US law in Russia you get nabbed.

      So foreign nationals can still break the DMCA or what?

  • the American Way is dying -- or did it ever exist? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 05, 2002 @10:28AM (#3465441)
    As a non-USian, I would like to add that never before in the history of the world has a superpower been shunned at by so many varying countries of so many economic and socio-political systems for its pompous self-righteousness and joke of a leader.

    While the USA sits alone thinking it's doing better than ever, the rest of the world is taking the unilateralist USA and its false "free market" vision less seriously by the hour. The last decade has shown Denmark, Austria, Holland and now France growing huge support for national socialist parties as the only cause loud enough to halt the relentless privatisation and destruction of the government's duty to support its people. Even recent local elections in the UK have shown an average 20% vote for the British National Party on councils where it stood.

    Once the "national" aspect of national socialism is tempered in favour of the "socialism" aspect, these parties will gain widespread acclaim and a serious chance of power.

  • Legitimate use of DMCA? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mekanix ( 127309 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @10:30AM (#3465446)
    With all these examples of how the DMCA have been used to stiffle competition, kill free speech, hinder research and bury fair use I'm wondering if the DMCA ever have been used in legitimate cases; ie. cases that actually involved piracy/copyrightinfringement?

  • Not Unintended (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Veteran ( 203989 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @10:47AM (#3465497)
    When a geek reads the PDF it makes sense to us - from our innocent emotionally herbivorous geek point of view - to say that these consequences were unintended bugs, and that the DMCA obviously needs to be fixed to remedy these accidental side effects.

    However, that would be a misreading or our opponents actions and motivations.

    • The law was not passed accidentally; it was a deliberate and intentional action.

    • The effects of the law are not unintended; it was specifically designed by the industry groups who asked for its existence to curtail exactly the fair use activities - and stifle exactly the scientific research and free speech activities which it has done. An example of an unintended consequence would be if the DMCA wound up some how curtailing the use of electric cow milking machines; the cases sited in the paper were all directly on target and intentional

    • The law was not passed as an oversight. For example: it was not tacked on to an appropriations bill where the majority of the legislators were unaware of its existence. The law was passed by both houses of congress after due processing by those houses and at the recommendation of committees charged with studying its consequences. It was signed into law by the President of the United States who acted upon the recommendation of his staff.

    • The law is not the act of stupidity; there is no indication that any of the people involved in the passage of this law are mentally deficient; most of them are lawyers and possess a law degree - which is recognized as the equivalent in educational achievement of a Ph.D.. Nor is there any evidence that the people involved with the passage of this law had a temporary lapse of their mental faculties; there is no indication - such as misspelled words etc. that this law was written by people under the influence of intoxication.

    • The law is malicious; it makes a federal felony out of actions which have always been held as innocent, legal and which the courts have always upheld as fair.


    The DMCA is a deliberate, intentional, malicious, act by our government on the behalf of an industry group which seeks to improperly control the actions of the public at large and to unjustly profit at the expense of that public. The act does not need fixing it needs to be repealed - and an investigation into possible bribery of the public officials who foisted it upon us needs to be launched. This is the only way in which pernicious laws of this type can be prevented in the future.

    The rule "Never attribute to malice that which may be explained by stupidity" does not apply here; the DMCA is not an act of stupidity but one of deliberate malice. Everyone in the world needs to learn the skill of being able to spot the difference between a malicious action and a stupid one .

    • Are You Sure? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rayonic ( 462789 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @12:31PM (#3465861) Homepage Journal
      Great point, definitely deserving of a (+5 Insightful). But, are you sure that all of the DMCA's consequences are intentional? We've been under the general impression that those responsible for it's passage (RIAA, MPAA, etc) have not a whit of technical knowledge, despite all of their PH.Ds and MBAs. I've sure all of us have met supposedly well-educated individuals without even a basic grasp of any technical issues. Remember when the MPAA tried to outlaw the VCR, and then it became one of their biggest moneymakers? That wasn't that long ago, and those dumb fsckheads are still the ones in charge.

      Of course, whatever the reasoning, I'm sure they're peeing their pants with joy about the full implications of the new law they bought.

      • Re:Are You Sure? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Cryogenes ( 324121 )
        Remember when the MPAA tried to outlaw the VCR, and then it became one of their biggest moneymakers? That wasn't that long ago, and those dumb fsckheads are still the ones in charge.
        Yes, the MPAA makes good money from VHS videos. But Valenti thinks they could have made more, if VHS had been read-only, like DVD. What makes you think he is wrong, let alone dumb?

        Do you believe in death after life?

  • oh the irony. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Restil ( 31903 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @11:16AM (#3465602) Homepage
    I'm sure that everyone notices the subtle irony of releasing this report using a proprietary format from a company that has abused the DMCA.

    *sigh*

    -Restil
    • I'm sure that everyone notices the subtle irony of releasing this report using a proprietary format from a company that has abused the DMCA
      They may have abused the DMCA (although really, is there any use of it that wouldn't be abuse?), but PDF is an open format [adobe.com].
    • By no means I whish to troll, but I see greater irony in the fact the original document was

      Microsoft Word - DMCAxxx.doc

      produced by

      Acrobat Distiller 5.0.5 (Windows)

      I know as much as everyone else the pressure / need to have MS Office as a tool for communication, but I would have liked to see the EFF use OpenOffice or Koffice or any other open/free Office suite.
  • The DMCA is one of the biggest land grabs ever given to special interests by Congress. The thought that Congress was able to so twist our processes allowing them to take away free speech rights guarenteed by the Bill of Rights truly sickens me. And the proscecutors and courts have proven to be no better! They've swooped in like vultures over a carcass (the carcass is people's rights by the way), making a mockery of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The DMCA is simply an awful law...and the 'man' knows it. Why do you think that he quickly drops cases AFTER using it to do harm? Because he knows that this law would be struck down in court if it was ever challenged....easier to bust and run after ruining another person and/or company. Personally, I think that it's well about time that Congress was able to be punished for making obvious bad laws for their cronies in business with deep pockets. Our forefathers must be truly turning over in their graves at the blockheads occupying Congress today....

  • 6 years under the DMCA.... Predictions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ralphus ( 577885 ) on Sunday May 05, 2002 @01:26PM (#3466034)
    you will no longer be able to find an ad-blocking proxy server to use, they will be illegal black box circumention devices designed to alter the display of a copyrighted work.

    you will not be able to legally alter the way an application you own interacts with things other than the way the manufacturer intended. Wanna change the user-agent your browser reports??? Want to block the ability of a program you own from phoning home and tracking you? Even Quake 3 does this if you don't block it.

    Reverse engineering will also include using a sniffer to look at the network traffic that is leaving your machine and deciding what you do and do not want to allow to go out to the internet.

    blocking cookies will be illegal.

    anonymous proxies, remailers, news posters or any technology that grants the user relative or absolute anonynmity will be illegal, they allow the widespread and fast and unaccountable distribution of illegal information such as what the latest bug in a copyrighted work is that the manufacturer doesn't want you to know about (circumventing the DMCA).

    freenet will be illegal.

    Encryption will be for criminals.

    Freedom and copyright/IP are mutually exclusive concepts as pure ideals. There is a sliding scale with freedom on one side and copyright/Intellectual Property on the other. Pragmatically we'd be foolish to think of having absolute freedom, the scale is sliding strongly towards complete copyright/IP & enforcement and there is tremendous power pushing it in that direction. Who's to stop them? A few geeks who can see what's going on. Unfortunately I think the geeks get caught up in these issues applying only to the Internet, or only to technology issues. These same issues apply to nearly everything with the world today and all tie together.

    Think about it, figure it out and educate as many as you can and get as polically active as you can be.

    Technology has started a new revolution just as the printing press did when invented. Centralized control of information was shattered then. Now it's being shattered again. There is going to be quite a struggle and the powerstructures are facing the biggest threats ever. They are counting on ignorance of the masses to win. I'm afraid they will and that terrible things will result.

    DO SOMETHING.

    • Also:

      Reading a magazine, news paper etc etc with out also reading advertisements will be ilegal.

      Reading bed time stories to your children will be an offense punishable by a minimum of 20 years in jail.

      Discussing the DMCA on web boards such as slashdot will constitute as high treason.

      Listening to a CD or Tape while driving from one state to another will constitue interstate commerce and will be ilegal.

      Borrowing tapes/CDs/DVDs/Books etc etc etc from friends/libraries/Block Buster etc etc etc will be punishable by death.
  • (apologies to Illiad)
    (Sung to the tune of YMCA)

    Net geeks
    there's no need to feel guilt

    I said, net geeks
    for the software you built

    I said, net geeks
    cause you'r not in the wrong
    there's no need to feel unhappy

    Net geeks
    you can burn a CD

    I said, net geeks
    with your fave MP3s

    you can play them
    in your home or your car
    many ways to take them real far!

    It's fun to violate the D M C A!
    It's fun to violate the D M C A-AY!
    you have everything
    you need to enjoy
    your music with your toys!
    It's fun to violate the D M C A!
    It's fun to violate the D M C A-ay!
    you can archive your tunes!
    you can share over cable!
    you can annoy the record labels!

    --j0shua
  • I read the EFF document. To me, it seemed like an effective explanation of the evils of the DCMA. Honestly, though, the "DMCA is evil" case seems more strongly made by the "science and innovation are being stifled" angle. One may argue in circles about who owns or may use a movie, but since when are science, the progression of knowledge, etc., either private property or less important than the means in which they are used? Since when has a better firewall or less vulnerable web browser been a bad thing? Anyway, what is past is prologue. As I was reading, I came across some unfortunate news. I knew about the embed case, etc. I had hoped Blizzard hadn't wielded the Great Mace of DCMA, but it appears my hopes were in vain. So...which companies haven't done this sort of thing? Will we have to choose between the best games in a genre and opposition to the DCMA?

  • In A.D. 2002, War was beginning.
    Kernel Hacker: What happen?
    User: Somebody set us up the CBDTPA
    Programmer: We get signal
    Kernel Hacker: What!
    Programmer: Main Screen turn on
    Kernel Hacker: It's You!
    E.I.S.N.E.R.: How are you gentlemen?
    E.I.S.N.E.R.: All your computer are belong to us.
    E.I.S.N.E.R.: You are on the way to pay per compute
    Kernel Hacker: What you say?!?!
    E.I.S.N.E.R.: You have no chance to hack make your time
    E.I.S.N.E.R.: HA HA HA HA....
    Kernel Hacker: Take off every DVD
    Kernel Hacker: You know what you doing
    Kernel Hacker: Remove DVD
    Kernel Hacker: For great justice

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close