EFF Report: Four Years Under the DMCA 182
kylus writes "The EFF has a pretty nice article entitled "Unintended Consequences." Basically, it reviews the last four years of life under the law, and how use of the "anti-circumvention" clauses have been used to stifle innovation, censor free speech, and threaten academic/scientific research. It ends with a conclusion most on /. have been dicussing for ages: "Four years of experience with the "anti-circumvention" provisions of the DMCA demonstrate that the statute reaches too far, chilling a wide variety of legitimate activities in ways Congress did not intend."" You've joined the EFF, right?
Maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
So I honestly and candidly pose this question -- What's so bad about the DMCA again?
Maybe try RTFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Section 1201 Jeopardizes Fair Use.
Section 1201 Impedes Competition and Innovation.
Just one page down. Not to mention a buttload of examples towards the end.
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to look beyond your nose.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the exact idea behind the DMCA: to maintain the status quo to support the business model of a handful of corporations.
In recent years, progress in technology has eliminated various technical limitations on what you could do with information. The DMCA was created to reinstate those limitations through legal means, turning back the clock to erase many of the benefits from recent developments. (As it happens, it was written so poorly, it creates new limitations you never even had in the past.)
The question you should be asking is how could my life have changed if it weren't for the DMCA?
Re:Maybe (Score:2)
Waffle Iron, keep on using that brain!
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Informative)
Company X announce that they have created a new way of 'securely' storing your credit card number on the internet. You look at the method they're using, and discover that it's incredibly insecure - eg. they're just adding a 'X' onto the end of the number.
If you were to tell anyone what you discovered, in order to warn them against Company X, you would be prosecutable under the DMCA.
Consider this (Score:4, Insightful)
What's bad about the DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe (Score:2)
"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.
Now we know why Slashdot has soooooo many MS ads now a days....
What's changed? Well for one we have what is thought to be a pro/con linux oriented forum infected by MS ads... and even some degree of poster pro support of MS.
Let's not all forget MS is in fact a Federal Criminal that really hasn't been punished. Or maybe th estatement being made is that you can break the law, just make sure you benefit more than the fine that will be placed against you, so as that you still come out ahead.
Where does this put slashdot and MS ads?
Re:Maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, at least that's how it seems to me. Perhaps I need some more chai tea, but it seems I'm right on this particular issue.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, that's not "simple logic" because it's not true. The changes might be too subtle or too slow to be easily noticed. They also might begin slow and then accelerate -- during the initial phase you might not notice. Consider the example of weather: A change of one or two degrees might not be noticed by you. Does that mean it never occurs? What about when the temperature change is enough to trigger precipitation?
Should you wait until the changes are irrevocable before agreeing there have been some? Or should you look at subtle measures and try to get an accurate model of the current state of things? I definitely believe in the latter: Although these cases specifically have not wrought great changes in your daily life, they presage a coming tectonic shift.
As another example, drawn from the law: When the Supreme Court held that the state tax assessor could asses a railroad but not the local assessor, it seemed like a tiny thing which had no discernible impact on most people. Yet it was the pinhole through which the legal monster "corporate personhood" entered the law, and in the course of a century has completely shifted the balance of power. Was it worthy of ignoring it just because the first change was small? Or might we have been better off if more people had paid attention then?
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
I suggest a constitutional amendment to change the country's name to "The United States of Boiled Frogs"
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
Join the EFF now! (Score:5, Insightful)
I did and I don't even live in the USA.
You get a really cool t-shirt and the EFF are the only people really out there fighting for what is right... They deserve your support.
Don't but that CD! Join the EFF instead!
Re:EFF Europe, (Score:2, Informative)
Re:EFF Europe, (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:EFF Europe, (Score:2)
The fight against EUCD has to be at the moment on the national level, because the member countries are implementing the law. Of course pan-European coordination of activies, lobbying and research would help. And yes, in the future the campaigning has to happen both in EU and national level to stop initiatives like Broadcast Flag, mandatory DRM and so on..
Ville Oksanen
Electronic Frontier Finland
EFF around the world (Score:5, Informative)
Electronic Frontier Canada [www.efc.ca]
Electronic Frontiers Australia [efa.org.au]
Electronic Frontier Ireland [www.efi.ie]
Electronic Frontier Sverige [www.efs.se]
Electronisk Forpost Norge [www.efn.no]
Electronic Frontiers Italy [alcei.it]
You *have* to be shitting me! (Score:5, Interesting)
With my job as a police officer, I know how little the judges actually know about new laws, and often need to be educated by the lawyers about the law they are trying.
police officer... (Score:1)
A Judge judges, a police office is out to catch people (well most of the time).
Though having thought about what I'd do if I went to court, my only defence would be, 'so, buy doing xzy to me, your going to make the world a better place, how?' I think that should be the only defence anyone needs.
Re:police officer... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm not mistaken, cops have been used to enforce the DMCA precisely once. To arrest and detain Sklyarov. And even that was at the behest of Adobe. Every other case has been lawyers sending nastygrams threatening to obliterate your corporeal existence if you should fail to obey.
Re:You *have* to be shitting me! (Score:5, Insightful)
Reverse engineering an access control method or otherwise disabling it is illegal, stupid judge or not.
Ranting and raving follows
The access control provision of the DMCA breaks anti-trust laws: It allows a copyright holder to use its government-granted monopoly to leverage a new monopoly in another field (access devices).
Both access and copyright protection provisions make it basically illegal to produce programs which might be used to overcome such protections. I say basically, because the law states that it has to be the main purpose or usage. However, whether or not it is or isn't the main purpose is always going to be a matter for the courts, causing lost time and legal fees.
Now here's the real kicker. Read the dmca text (here's a link to the final joint version: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_199810
Since its in your web browser, do this: search for "copyright owner", "copyright holder", and any other variation you can think of. Find anything?
That would be because under the DMCA its ILLEGAL FOR THE COPYRIGHT OWNER TO BREAK ACCESS CODES TOO.
Thats right, think about that. Now take a look at the text of the law again. Suddenly, a whole new truth emerges: This law isn't about protecting copyright. This law's existence only protects the publishers and distributers of copyrighted material by "guaranteeing" that whatever format they wish to publish/distribute in, it would be "protected".
In the coming DRM-enabled world, do you get to distribute your garage band over the internet? No! Your digital recording choices will be limited to DRM no-copy file formats which won't go anywhere, and you will not be able to do anything about it legally, because its not the music that is protected by this law, its the DRM no-copy file format.
Finally, (perhaps I should have written this first) the fatal bug in the law: No exemptions are stated for the creator of the encryption too. Nothing in the DMCA says that the person who invents the encryption system has a right to produce a tool for the express purpose of decryption, nor does it say they can grant that right to other people. Do everyone a favor and report every DVD player manufacturer for DMCA violations.
For everyone else, call up your NRA buddies and preach to them of slippery slopes. It's now illegal to produce software that might commit a crime. How long will it be before its illegal to produce guns which might commit a crime?
Re:You *have* to be shitting me! (Score:3, Insightful)
The downhill slide started when it started to become illegal to buy things that "might" be used for manufacturing or using drugs. The NRA people in general were too blind to see the parallels then, and I doubt they will see them now, involving this much more complex issue.
I hope the majority of conservatives realize soon that it is impossible to have a certain Republican brand of freedom, without having all the rest. In many ways, I hate to say this, but you are either Libertarian, or you support facism in one form or another. There is little middle ground anymore.
Re:You *have* to be shitting me! (Score:2, Insightful)
Pure and Utter Bull Shit. If you read some of the more prominent Libertarian "thinkers" like Dr. Mary Ruwart, you'll find that libertarianism is just as easily a new spin on the old concept of feudalism as it is any great philosophy of individual human rights.
In fact, there are libertarians who think laws like the DMCA don't go far enough in protecting the rights of the "owners" of "intellectual property". They seem to think that once one "owns" a piece of property it belongs that person for all time. As such, they support notions like copyright that never expires.
Certainly there are decent libertarians out there who have their hearts in the right place, but this is not a time for such black and white sentiments as "you are either with us, or with the fascists".
Re:You *have* to be shitting me! (Score:4, Informative)
Having read some of her stuff, and even corresponded with her, I think I can safely say she does not represent Libertarians as a whole. She seems very out of touch with reality.
Libertarians who think laws like the DMCA don't go far enough
Well, it makes enough sense, Libertarians protect property rights.
A "natural rights" Libertarian with this view obviously doesn't realize is that these property rights are artificial to start with, not a natural right.
The strict constitutionalists would be against your next assertion, that these same people believe IP should be forever, since the constitution specifically says they should be for a limited time.
So really, any Libertarian that believes what you assert really isn't very Libertarian at all, in any way I would consider Libertarian.
not a time for such black and white sentiments as "you are either with us, or with the fascists".
It wasn't meant as name calling, just pointing out that there is no way to support the Democrats or Republicans or even Greens without seriously eroding freedom in one way or another. It seems very ironic that the NRA Republicans can be so blind to what is happening in the name of being "tough on crime".
Really it all comes down to this: "As long as you are taking someone else's rights away, I'm OK with it"... and that is the real problem.
Re:You *have* to be shitting me! (Score:2)
Explain to me how DRM will not allow you to make or distribute mp3 files. You can't because you don't know what you're talking about.
Re:You *have* to be shitting me! (Score:3, Informative)
The same way that verisign 'keeps' 128-bit SSL certs restricted - by artifically pricing them higher than many are able or willing to pay. If the relevant DRM technologies end up under one group's control, it's not hard to imagine that independant content authors will be sqeezed out - how many garage bands would pay, say, $3000 for a DRM authoring cert?
Re:You *have* to be shitting me! (Score:2)
Re:You *have* to be shitting me! (Score:2)
Re:You *have* to be shitting me! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hear, hear! The FSF should employ someone (Lessig?) to make an easy to use compendium of the law, key points from the law's forming debates, and every significant legal interpretation of the law. They should also file a modified brief to any significant court case, and make their dossier avalible to _anyone_ who wants it.
Or maybe they shouldn't. *sigh*.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
congress's intent (Score:2)
I knew the DMCA was fucked up when it passed (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I knew the DMCA was fucked up when it passed (Score:2, Interesting)
Of *course* I thought it was a good thing. Obviously if Sony doesn't want me playing with their toy dog they've got a reason for it. And besides, Sony is a big company, so naturally it's not going to do anything immoral with these powers.
But while I'm on the subject, does anyone know of a house for sale in Europe?
Re:I knew the DMCA was fucked up when it passed (Score:2, Insightful)
No, things are looking grim until the balance of power and thought shifts dramatically to the point where the United States is pressuring countries to listen to the citizens instead of the corporates instead of the other way around.
No change per se (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, the FatWallet fiasco demonstrates the "inaneness" of the law but it hasn't affected Joe Sixpack yet.
It does affect those who directly fall in the face or corporations which generally tend to continue generating revenue from existing products instead of adapting/improving them*
*Note that this is not a slam against all these corporations. R&D is a bitch.
Re:No change per se (Score:4, Interesting)
The internet IMHO is really one of the greatest wonders of mankind, but after skimming that, plus reading the preceeding Matt Groening interview [slashdot.org], and the recent Lexmark toner cartridge [slashdot.org] post, I finally am persuaded that "the industry" at large plays a huge role in stifling the exchange of information and ideas. The 'net allows anyone with access to it to be like a "vendor" to the world, yet I think we have yet to see the net's full potential -- but that potential won't be realized with companies that are operating under their old business models.
As open software has shown, The People are capable innovators. Now I think there are at least two roadblocks. The first one is the ISPs (potentially) because they could in principle be mandated to regulate user content. But then users would find another, perhaps slower, way to get in touch (like networking home satellite dishes). The second is the lack of open hardware (example: last updated 2000 [openhardware.net]). Of course, government and industry *could* help enable options, but they always want something in return.
So I will make my contribution of EFF soon, just not directly by credit card for fear of being tracked by the government.
Dear Moderators: I know this post has some generalizations because it's about my being persuaded, so please, I would rather you ignore my post than mod it down.
Re:No change per se (Score:2)
LOL, I'm going to start putting that after all my posts! Maybe I can even troll with that and keep my karma!
Re:No change per se (Score:3, Interesting)
My father is a "Joe Sixpack." He can barely handle unzipping files or hooking up his digital camera.
He can no longer buy 3rd party cartridges for his printer. This is affecting him.
Of course, I took the time to explain why to him. He wrote his congressmen last week
Re:No change per se (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance copy protection is being pushed pretty heavily now. My wife was effected by this recently when she wanted to make a copy of her favorite christian artist CD to use in the car and our burner kacked and choked on it multiple times. When she asked me what was wrong with the computer I let her know that it wasn't the computer it was the music disc that wasn't a CD at all (no CD Logo or Compact Disc markings anywhere on the material). She wanted to know how they could do that I just let her know it was copyright protections and that we'd be seeing much more of that kind of behavior with the DMCA in place.
Everyone that I've spoken with explaining how the DMCA will help content distributors control every aspect of how you interact with their content has been disgusted. When I told them that content distributors might make their TiVo's or VCR's useless, they frowned. Then they asked when it became law and who put it there and how they could get it out.
We need to start buying some senators and judges. How about the american people start taking some senators and lawyers and judges on some junkets eh... I mean we're supposed to be the ones really paying their salaries shouldn't we have more of a voice with them than Hillary Rosen or Eisner?
I say we start putting their names out on e-bay and see if we can't get Jerry Lewis or better Billy Crystal, Whoopie and Robin Williams to drive up some donations to buy our own senators. It should be relatively cheap. I know Carnahan was about a couple 100,000. I'm sure some other states have senators we can get on a budget maybe 50-60,000.
Re:No change per se (Score:2)
The example you describe hasn't anything to do with the DMCA as such. It's a company trying to introduce copy-protection. By and large, that's separate from the DMCA. What is illegal now is trying to circumvent this protection. And your Dad isn't going to get caught or stopped if he tries to get some shareware utility to rip the CD properly. So, he isn't affected by the DMCA, just the copy-protection. That copy-protection exists primarily due to the popularity of P2P file-sharing and not due to the DMCA backing it.
Re:No change per se (Score:2)
Step 1. is the file sharers
Step 2. is the software cracker vendors
Step 3. is the programmers sharing programs with there friends and family
Step 4. is the individual
Arguably 1,2, 3 have happened and 4 is just waiting to happen.
Re:No change per se (Score:2)
Maybe. But it would have been enacted in any case.
Additionally they will be using the DMCA and not standard copyright law to prossecute circumventions.
Although I agree with this, the Slashdot story is about effect of DMCA so far. And with respect to Joe Sixpack, my answer still remains: none
Note that I too, like the hordes on Slashdot, am against the DMCA. Just that the public hasn't really been affected so far. Until Step 4 in your post starts to effectively be implemented, nothing substantial will change.
No, I haven't joined the EFF (Score:3, Insightful)
No. For a start, donations to the EFF are not tax-deductible if you're not a US citizen.
Even if they were, I don't feel I earn enough to donate effectively. People who throw them $50 a year are great in large numbers, but you're hardly buying a couple of minutes of campaigning time for them.
I prefer to keep my money and spend it on things which means I don't have to fall into legal traps. If the people who still use Windows XP and keep throwing $1000+ into the EFF every year actually spent that on Linux training, then they're doing a lot better for the world than giving their $$ to the EFF.
Lastly, I think the EFF is a good idea, but if people believe it's going to be their mouthpiece, they are sorely wrong. One large charity is easy for the government to ignore. Millions of complaining citizens are not. Support the things you want directly, instead of giving $1000 to the EFF and feeling 'good about yourself.'
Just my opinion of course.
Re:No, I haven't joined the EFF (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about that, the NRA is a very effective lobby, as is the NEA, the various trade unions, the NAACP, ACLU, etc...
It's not like we have to choose one or the other either. We can still take action as individuals even if we are members of a larger lobby. The Gun Owners of America action network is an example of a mobilized grassroots force.
I'm in agreement with you that no one's efforts should stop at only membership in a group, if they feel strongly at all about the issues, they should do something on their own also.
Re:No, I haven't joined the EFF (Score:2)
Wrong. You can ignore complaining citizens all you want, as long as they don't become a majority. On the other hand, money talks.
Re:No, I haven't joined the EFF (Score:5, Insightful)
One need not choose between complaining and contributing.
Furthermore, small amounts of money can make a big difference. A lot of contributors of small amounts of money builds popular support for a cause. Giving $65 gets you a t-shirt, when you wear it other like-minded people are reminded of what's at stake and more likely to have a conversation, give money, etc- your $65 might inspire two other people who wouldn't have contributed to give.
Like all organizations, the EFF must decide what cases it can take based on priorities and resources. Small differences in resources might make the difference between the EFF taking or not taking your case when Hilary and Jack come knocking.
Think about it.
It's true that all three branches of the US government are for sale. Fortunately for us, decisions that are easier to defend on principle are more affordable than crooked profit-over-people decisions. But they are not free. If you have the time and expertise, volunteer. If not, donate some money and don't stop complaining.
Re:No, I haven't joined the EFF (Score:2, Informative)
In a perfect world, the lobbying of the EFF and every single lawsuit would be won and make the Legislators take note. But in the world we live in, every small victory is something we should take note of, and THAT is why you should donate to the EFF. You don't need to turn the world upside down to claim a victory.
Sure it was intended dont misunderstand them. (Score:2, Offtopic)
These groups are the ones that 'pay' the people that create the laws..
They are not stupid, they have advisors that DO understand technology and law. They knew exactally what they were doing, we were stupid for letting it slip past us.
RIAA Changes Its Mind (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RIAA Changes Its Mind (Score:2)
And so is this alt tag found on riaa.org:
"riaa / freedom of speech"
Er, right. If you say so!!
Re:Saved Copy of Page (Score:4, Informative)
A New Vision for the Recording Industry
The past year has been one of the worst in the previous decade for the music industry. While factors beyond our control, such as the down-turn in the American economy, have no doubt contributed to this, the industry itself can certain not completely escape blame. In an attempt correct this, representatives from our member labels recently met to discuss ways of reforming the industry. The result of the meeting was a set of changes to current policies, outlined below, which, when implemented, we hope will pull the industry out of its current slump.
Our member labels will halt all plans to sell copy-restricted CDs. Restricting the use of CDs devalues the product, reducing the incentive for consumers to buy them. Also we believe that as time goes on, the public will realize, as we have, that due to the viral natural of distribution through file-sharing networks copy-restriction will never be effective at preventing online piracy but rather is indented to force our customers to buy the same music on multiple media.
We also vow to stop pursuing the companies behind file-sharing networks in court. In light of studies by reputable pollsters that have shown that most users of file-sharing networks reported that their music purchases increased in frequency, there seems to be little reason to continue spending millions in an attempt to shut down these services. Instead, we plan to propose to settle out of court in exchange for a royalty system based on a fraction of profit (only fair, given that these profits are derived in part from our products).
We will also stop lobbying politicians to impose draconian copyright laws on the American people. Last June, Rep. Rick Berman, who received more campaign donations from the entertainment industry than any other Congressperson, proposed legislation that would exempt rights-holders from anti-hacking law in order that they might exact vigilante-style justice on file-sharers. Initially we were thrilled at the display of the political might of our money, but later were sickened as we realized the implications for democracy in America. Morally, we cannot continue this manipulation of the political system.
In addition to the reasons just given, we also are doing both of the above, halting the lawsuits against the companies file-sharing services and stopping our coercive political contributions, in an attempt to restore consumer confidence in the music industry. Our customers will know longer will feel guilty after buying a CD, now knowing that the proceeds from their purchases will not be used to support causes that harm them and their peers.
To further convince consumers that the proceeds from their music purchases are well spent, we will be attempting to treat our talent more fairly. At the core of this effort will be the halting of collusion between labels on recording contracts. While overlooked by anti-trust law, the elimination of competition caused by collusion is just as harmful to the producers of content as it is to the consumers. No longer will artists be forced into signing contracts which reduce artist''s royalties for a multitude of arbitrary or antiquated reasons for if any label attempts such abuse, they''ll be certain to lose their talent to a competitor. We believe that this can be undertaken without damaging industry profitability. Firstly, the previously mentioned reduced legal and political expenditures will help to offset the cost. Secondly, we plan fix the sobering statistic that nine out of ten industry ventures end up failing recovering their costs. This figure would be unacceptable outside the entertainment industry and, while it was viable inside it due to the abuse of artists, there is no reason it should not be possible to vastly improve upon it.
Finally, we promise to stop trying to brainwash the world into thinking of music as property, something that an artist has an innate right to control, even after the media that embodies that music has changed hands. Rather, we will recognized only the original goal of copyright law in America, to benefit the average citizen by creating a incentive to produce creative works. We will also launch a publicity campaign to remind the public of this principle, unknown to many. We hope that upon learning that the true purpose of copyright law is to benefit them, average citizens will be more likely to respect it.
It is our hope that these policy changes will revitalize the industry and make it deserving of the unique place it holds within American culture.
Re:Saved Copy of Page (Score:2)
YES, I have (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I have. And now I am considering ways to let those that haven't joined, or that aren't even aware of issues such as these, to become informed. My frustration is that it seems 99% of the general public is content wallow in ignorance. Not by choice, but simply by virtue of the fact that they don't read sites like
The reaction to my telling friends and associates about these things is that they look at me like I'm a nutcase (yeah ok sometimes I *am* a nutcase
Outreach and Organizing (Score:3, Informative)
However, I do think it all depends on how the issue is raised. There are a few openings I've found work:
1) Any conversation about the future of technology. If a non-techish friends asks you anything about where computers and media will be going in the future, point out that much of that will depend on the threats posed by big media companies to consumer freedom.
2) Any mention of the use of current technologies which are threatened by repressive legislation.
- "So I just burned a great mix CD from the mp3s on my computer."
- "Cool. Did you know that if the record industry has their way, no one will be able to do that in a few years?
3) Any conversation about abuses of corporate power in general. A great many folks these days have become very distrustful of corporate behemoths for obvious reasons. Often they will get what you're talking about much more quickly if it can be related to their own experiences and opinions about corporations. Corporate control over politics is a particularly good opening.
- "Well that's because politicians don't give a damn about the voters, only the corporate fatcats that are giving them money."
- "Yeah, isn't it terrible? Did you know the record and movie companies have been donating millions of dollars to restrict our freedoms to listen to music and watch movies on computers?"
(In my travels in leftie political circles, I've often found that even people who don't know the first thing about technology often have a sympathetic ear for topics like the DMCA and such, because they're already _very_ suspicious of media conglomerates, for a whole slew of other reasons.)
Anyhow, keep up the good fight.
Re:Outreach and Organizing (Score:2)
Definitely. In turn, I'd encourage everyone concerned about the DMCA and similar efforts to get informed about the other problems with the current state of media conglomeration - the DMCA, bad as it may be, is just the tip of the iceberg.
No, I haven't. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No, I haven't. (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No, I haven't. (Score:2)
This is seriously off-topic, but I've been considering putting up at similar system for myself for some time, so I'd like to know a little about your setup.
Is the server at your home or at a hosting company?
How does the process of adding new addresses work?
Can you do this when you're not at home as well?
Have you integrated some of these features into your MUA, or do you login to run scripts whenever you're adding/blocking addresses?
What systems are you using? What would you recommend?
What are your experiences in general - what's cool and what would you have done differently?
If you'd like to share your wisdom we could discuss it on
Re: (Score:2)
looks reasonable to a victim. (Score:5, Informative)
Executive Summary: Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients.
And anti-spam blacklists, such as the MAPS RBL (Mail Abuse Prevention System Realtime Blackhole List, the most popular), result in a large number of Internet service providers (ISPs) surreptitiously blocking large amounts of non-spam from innocent people. This is because they block all email from entire IP address blocks--even from entire nations. This is done with no notice to the users, who do not even know that their mail is not being delivered.
That is exactly the situation. Large ISPs such as AOL and email providers like M$ Hotmail all practice this. The result is that mail from smaller ISPs is blocked. How convienent for the larger ISPs. No dial up box may send mail and often the upstream smtp provider is blocked as well.
Re:looks reasonable to a victim. (Score:2, Informative)
You're not a victim of loss of connectivity through MAPS. You're a victim of the spammer that caused the MAPS listing.
And anti-spam blacklists, such as the MAPS RBL (Mail Abuse Prevention System Realtime Blackhole List, the most popular), result in a large number of Internet service providers (ISPs) surreptitiously blocking large amounts of non-spam from innocent people.
The MAPS RBL is not the most popular any more, as it lost a lot of its effectiveness when MAPS caved in to a lawsuit. Further, those people are not innocent. They support spammers by paying money to spam-supporting ISPs.
This is because they block all email from entire IP address blocks--even from entire nations.
You mean like Korea, Taiwan, China, and Brazil? I block every email that originates or passes through servers in those countries, too, as every last bit of it I've received in the past two years has been spam, and providers there just don't care about it.
This is done with no notice to the users, who do not even know that their mail is not being delivered.
Any properly configured mail server will return an explanation of why the messag was bounced, and nearly all that use blocklsits will return a message about which blocklist was used to generate the rejection, and where the user can go to find out more.
The result is that mail from smaller ISPs is blocked.
No, only those small ISPs (and those large ones, too; SPEWS lists great swaths of Verio and Cable & Wireless space, for example) that refuse to terminate spammers and spam support services. I'm a customer of a very small ISP that has no problems at all - because they vigorously terminate spammers.
crap (Score:2)
You're not a victim of loss of connectivity through MAPS. You're a victim of the spammer that caused the MAPS listing.
I say maps has a list of all "dial up" IP addresses and large ISPs refuse to take mail from those IPs. Who on that list deserves that kind of treatment? It's being abused to block small ISP mail servers too.
I'll bet you a nickle that most spam comes from competing large ISPs that want to wreck each others service. Today, my wife got a letter from "bloddy_buttholes." Stuff like that does not come from anyone who really wants to sell anything, it comes from someone that wants to disrupt email. It's people like that that should be punished, not someone like me who simply wants to send an email to his mom's AOL account.
When all the small ISPs are dead, it's a small step for the large survivors to require certian mail agents. If you have not heard enough clueless, "I'm sorry we don't support anything but M$-crap-program", just wait. My reply is that I don't need their support for my software, I simply need their mail server to act right. One day they will use the DMCA and Federal laws agianst taking cable services without permission to lock out any software they don't like.
It's a shame.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The worst of it is probably the hindering of college research. To me, it's one of the many fun and innovative areas for learning. How much research has been limited? - I suppose any that remotely touches any company's product or service. The majority of computer work seems to be moving more towards a trade school - like a mechanic, the innovative elite becoming a very few.
Seriously, the majority of programmers I see today just know 2 things: the Design Patterns book and Java (or other popular language). There and then a handful of "architects" that make the real innovations.
What do you mean 'Congress did not intend'? (Score:3)
To make this more accurate, Congress didn't intend to stifle these activities at first. But then, the entertainment industry came along, started writing sizable checks to the Congresspeople for bri...err, "campaign contributions," and changed Congress's mind on this. Sure they intended to chill those.
Re:What do you mean 'Congress did not intend'? (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the same thing when I read it, but then realized it's just legalese. Everyone knows the bastards intended to stiffle free speach and kill democracy, but the word "chill" was chosen for a reason. That is the word the Supreme Court used to describe cases where the law was unconstitutional not because it outright banned a protected form of speach, but where instead it just scared potential speakers shitless and so stopped them from speaking. "Chill" and "Unintended Consequences" are the polite and politically correct terms for "the treasonous bastards controlling our government betrayed us with yet another un-American act."
Besides if the congress-critters knowingly passed an unconstitutional law they could technically be hung for treason. (Though I don't think the judicial branch has ever had the balls to do it, the congress-critters write their checks...)
Write your congressperson (Score:4, Insightful)
cluge
Do you know? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you did, did it change your vote?
Is your future vote for or against your legislator going to depend on your legislator's opinion of the DMCA and its effects?
Re:Do you know? (Score:3, Informative)
The Senate, IIRC, voted 98 in favor, one against, and one abstention. So if your state's senators haven't changed in 4 years, then it's a safe bet they voted for them.
Re:Do you know? (Score:2)
Legislators are people who do things to you, not for you.
Censor free speech? (Score:2)
What free speech of Dmitry's was censored? Should the actions of AlterSlash [alterslash.org] be protected as free speech?
As for bnetd, their server was shut down due to violations of regular old copyright law in addition to DMCA violations. All the DMCA did here was keep Blizzard from being allowed to sue the ISP.
As for your third link, I think it's quite a stretch to say that the DMCA is responsible, since the DMCA does not even apply. Without the DMCA the RIAA just would have threatened to sue under some other law.
Re:Censor free speech? (Score:2)
Have you read the complaint? (it is available at EFF [eff.org]? The DMCA plays a big part of it and they are using it to go after both the ISP and writer of the software. The large portion of their complaint is that the bentd servers do not check for a valid CD key. As for your third link, I think it's quite a stretch to say that the DMCA is responsible, since the DMCA does not even apply.
It isn't a stretch since the letter threating Felten specifically cited the DMCA.
Without the DMCA the RIAA just would have threatened to sue under some other law.
Such as?
Re:Censor free speech? (Score:2)
Have you read the complaint?
Yes, it alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, common law trademark infringment, and breach of contract. It doesn't even charge them with violating the DMCA, as far as I can tell.
In the second amended complaint, 1201(a)(1)(A) (part of the DMCA) is added. Without the DMCA, the server still would have been shut down.
It isn't a stretch since the letter threating Felten specifically cited the DMCA.
It is a stretch to blame that letter on the DMCA. If I threaten to sue you for murder, that doesn't mean laws against murder are to blame.
Without the DMCA the RIAA just would have threatened to sue under some other law.
Such as?
Copyright infringement, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, breach of contract, unlawful competition, murder, it really doesn't matter, because none of them, including the DMCA, applies.
For all we know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that both sides have waged an antagonistioc war against each other from day one with Napster firing the "shot heard around the internet", so to speak. One of these days the geeks are going to realize that laws apply to the internet as much as they do in reality and that information doesn't want to be free, it simply wants to be information, nothing more, nothing less.
Re:For all we know... (Score:2)
This may have been the entire point of the thing. Large corporations now have a very powerful weapon in their arsenal which they can wield against anyone, even foreigners in foreign lands, and never actually have to go through the muss and fuss of a trial to get what they want.
Information does indeed 'want' to be free. It has this tendency to spread regardless of the wishes of its original holders. To keep it from doing so, one has to put very, very tight restrictions on who can see it. If you don't want it passed around, don't let anyone see it. Selling CD's with said information does not qualify as a practical technique for restricting access.
Re:For all we know... (Score:3, Informative)
Why is it that even on slashdot, only few people bother to READ THINGS? I will repeat this until at least most of readers here will know what is going on... afterwards we can go on educating the remaining world
DMCA has NOT FAILED to win against Elcomsoft. DMCA has won, Elcomsoft's product is pulled off the market, Dmitryi will now ask his lawyer before programming anything. Elcomsoft was ACQUITTED since they did NOT INTEND to break DMCA.
Re:For all we know... (Score:2)
Universal v. Reimerdes [eff.org].
Re:For all we know... (Score:4, Insightful)
The heck are you talking about? The general goal of making something illegal is for the threat of enforcement of the law to stop people from doing something. The threat of the DMCA is the whole purpose of the DMCA. The DMCA has stifled innovation and censored free speech. That it hasn't been well tested in court is irrelevant. Your average person doesn't have the ability to fight such a court case, so the law effectively stifles most people. The DMCA is certainly the root to some problems.
Take life a little less literally. No, for a literal standpoint, information does not want to be free. But would you complain if someone said that water wants to run downhill? It's just an literally incorrect. Saying that information wants to be free is short, memorable summary of a more fundamental issue: "Information tends, over time, to become more free. This happens because human beings like spreading information and spend great deals of effort to develop technologies to spread information. Over time, the cost to spread information has dropped lower and lower. One you had to spread information be word of mouth, then writing evolved to make it easier, then the printing press, then movable type, then telegraphs, telephones, radio, television, photocopiers, facsimile machines, and finally the internet. Spreading information is far easier than stopping the flow of information, all it takes is one little leak and you'll be hard pressed to stop that bit of information from spreading like wildfire. Ultimately you can't stop of the flow of information with technology. The best that you can do is slow the flow of information down, and you can only do so with a repressive government that heavily censors its own people. Information will be free because people want information to be free. Efforts to stop it are doomed, instead spend you time figuring out how to adjust to the new world order."
Of course laws apply everywhere, including on the internet. That's not terribly relevant. The point is that the laws are wrong and should be repealed. Often the laws are wrong because they create an entirely different set of rules when you're working digitally on the internet than you follow working in analog off the internet. That's hardly fair.
EFF makes a good point about fair use (Score:2, Insightful)
But if I buy a DVD and wanna burn a copy to my computer, ooo, well, I must be a felon, cause I had to circumvent encryption on the DVD. But, wait, don't I already own this? Don't I have the right to use that however the hell I wish, as long as I don't threaten that corporation's profits? How can any sane individual argue that making a back up copy is not in my rights?
Or what about when a bug is found in Windows? Shouldn't I be allowed to know about this? I bought it, if theres a flaw, I should be told. Of course this ignores the fact that Windows is basically one big flaw, but you get the drift. I own it, I use it, and any errors affect me directly if theres a security breach or performance issue.
This whole issue will finally be solved when Nike manages to get the law changed so Corporations can lie and legally get away with it no matter what, and some politician is sued for copyright infringement when he says he invented the internet or something and doesn't get in trouble for it.
Re:EFF makes a good point about fair use (Score:2, Interesting)
Join? (Score:2)
EFF Donation Receipt (Score:3, Insightful)
I have now...
--== BEGIN FWD ==--
Thank you very much for taking the time to fill out
our online donation form. This e-mail may serve as
your receipt for your tax deductible donation to the
Electronic Frontier Foundation.
On 2003-1-12 you contributed US$65
to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
for a one year membership with the organization.
Your Anonymizer key will be e-mailed to you within 7 days.
--== END FWD ==--
Who's with me?
Re:EFF Donation Receipt (Score:2)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:29:34 -0800
From: membership@eff.org
To: nospam@nospam.org
Subject: EFF Donation Receipt
Thank you very much for taking the time to fill out
our online donation form. This e-mail may serve as
your receipt for your tax deductible donation to the
Electronic Frontier Foundation.
On 2003-1-12 you contributed US$65
to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
for a one year membership with the organization.
Your Anonymizer key will be e-mailed to you within 7 days.
Changes list - work, fun, entertainment (Score:5, Informative)
Work - I work as a new media designer for not-for-profits.
Ex. 1 - Client wants still image from *their* DVD.
Problem: Disallowed - copy protection measures.
Solution - find a quasi-legal application on the interent.
Ex. 2 - Client wants 7 hours of VHS transferred to DV. Solution: pass signal thru DVcam to Mac
Problem: Disallowed - copy protection
(It is never easy to really know whether something is impossible for technical reasons or due to intentional disabling for copy protection reasons.)
Solution: copy 7 hours to DV tape; capture 7 hours to Mac
Cost: doubles
Ex. 3 - Client wants their TV commercial spliced into other ads for 'internal' use - to show the ad in context.
Solution - No. Turn down job. Advise against. Not in this climate.
Ex. 4 - User's Mac frozen from attempting to play music disc.
Solution: force restart while holding down mouse key
Cost: User's work lost.
New workplace music policy: dunno. No CDs/music discs? Communal MP3 library, ripped by technicians? Resulting network impact?
This could easily get to be a long list.
The point is that small creative businesses which use 'prosumer' gear increasingly find that they can't easily accomplish simple jobs. It is becoming increasingly difficult to purchase equipment (crippled functions are rarely highlighted). For example, we bought a MiniDisc recorder for interviews. What if we wanted to actually use the interviews for something?
A growing number of digital devices (TV tuners, DVD players, audio recorders, etc) only have analog outputs for copy protection.
Media - media formats like DVD, or MiniDV tapes are arbitrarily smaller than their 'commercial' equivilents. We pay taxes on media. In Canada, $100 will be added to the price of a $600 iPod if media taxes are raised and extended to their proposed level. In the US and Canada, we pay taxes on audio and video tapes, recordable CDs and DVDs, and we can basically look forward to taxes on all storage mediums. (In Canada, it's just more obvious than in the US.) Taxes appear to by calculated by size. Next time you buy a 250Gb hard drive, consider how much money is going to the RIAA and MPAA. (I don't know how I am affected in the UK, because apparently I lost my copying rights when I moved here. I don't think we're allowed to copy anything; not even TV - there is no 'fair use' in the UK.)
Fun - I do the same kind of stuff for fun - for my friends.
Like work, it's an exercise in frustration. The transition from analog to digital is about high-end production. Final output will probably be analog for the forseeable future.
Entertainment -
CDs - The proposition that I'm going to move back to listening to CDs after having tasted MP3s is terribly misguided. I didn't think it would affect the kind of music I listen to (underground hiphop) - it has. Buy CD. Get home. No CD logo. Copy protection chart. May not play on Mac. Rips fine. But why is it distorted? Is it just really bassy? Is it from copy protection? Is it worth it? (No.)
DVD player - it was free. It was useless.
Problem - Analog SCART ouput only. No SCART on TV.
Solution - Route through VCR.
Problem - Disallowed. Copy protection.
Solution - Give DVD player to mother-in-law
Digital TV tuner - digital TV is 'computerized' TV. It's Mpeg2. From camera to editing to broadcast to reception, it's all digital - just like my computer and it's digital display. DVB, the standards body has settled on Firewire as the digital connection standard. At the moment in the UK, there are no devices with digital outputs. Perhaps once the Macrovision is implemented on our digital TV, we will get digital outputs. This just means it that our computer can't replace the TV the way it has replaced the stereo and DVD player because the display is digital LCD. As with everything, it can be done. But it's expensive and thus far, the results are barely viewable. (It's a complicated problem, but the point is that it would be much simpler were it not for copyright concerns. I know, it is also about the predominance of analog displays and who is subsidizing the TV tuners - satellite and cable companies, Tivo, etc.)
I don't know how much of this is attributable to the DMCA, but I am constantly challenged by changes over the past 4 years. Sure, you can get around virtually any roadblock with analog to digital convertors and quasi-legal black boxes, software, and by accepting loss of quality. But it's expensive, time-consuming, and frustrating.
Previously, one avoided buying certain 'cripple-ware' brands. Now it seems everything is 'cripple-ware' and the question is whether to buy anything at all. Unfortunately, the post-dotcom-bubble, post-911 economic downturn will overshadow the economic cost of copy-protection hysteria.
Congress did not intend? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course they intended it: The DMCA benefits government more than it benefits the corporations who bribed congress into passing it. Any expansion of government yields power and profit for those in control. Government has ultimate control, not the corporations.
When the full-scale "war on drugs" was forced upon the people some 50 years ago, congress fully understood that the consequences would be measured in violent crime (from the resulting black market), loss of civil rights (most of which have nothing to do with drug use), skyrocketing tax rates, and corruption on all levels of government. But they chose to wage war against the people for exactly the same reason they chose to adopt the DMCA: Because it benefits government. Like any business, the primary objective of government is to profit and expand market share. These laws do exactly that.
As the saying goes, you can't rule a nation of innocents. The more laws forced upon the people, the more power and profit yielded for government.
Last couple days have been a big upswing though... (Score:3, Interesting)
So how's life in land of the free and home of the brave?
Kjella
The law is changing also in Norway (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately the copyright law is going to be changed also in Norway, based on EUCD. And it's going to be even worse than DMCA. So enjoy your freedom as long as you can!
V.
"Unintended Consequences" --- hmmmmn (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if the EFF wanted a subliminal association....
You get what you pay for (Score:2, Interesting)
Sony, Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA paid good money for the DMCA. If you want it repealed, you need to start contributing to some congressmen. Re-election campaigns don't come cheap, you know.
Remember: If all else fails, graft works. Pay the right people in power the right amount of money and you will get what you want.
Re:You get what you pay for (Score:2)
Re-election campaigns cost as much as the media corporations want them to cost. No more, no less.
Read this [kuro5hin.org] and this [kuro5hin.org] for a more detailed description of the real problem, and why it's something that can't be solved.
One Question? (Score:3, Insightful)
What every /.-er should know about the DMCA (Score:3, Insightful)
All I ever get in reply is this crazy propaganda about the poor starving artist and how they are they are so valuable and holy while anybody elese in society who may have the need to copy things is a worthless piece of cr*p incapable of adding any value to society. Perhaps this is just to distract from the fact that for every artist that makes it, there are 10,000 living in dirt poverty who copyrights haven't helped one darn bit. Perhaps it's to keep people from noticing how bad copyrights really are.
I find this a bit naive (Score:2)
- stifle innovation
- censor free speech
- threaten academic/scientific (but not corporate) research
- jeopardizes fair use
Just what is there on this list that major corporations, particularly Hollywood content providers would object to? What is there on this list that regardless of stated goals, your Congressasshole would care about?If it interfered with the profits of major campaign contributors, it would have been repealed days after passage. All it interferes with are the rights of the people and small companies.
I see no Unintended Consequences here.
I think it's going to interfere with corporate profits eventually, but given that suits don't look forward more than a quarter in terms of where things are going, this is also a non-starter.
Re:DMCA is a product of organized crime (Score:2, Interesting)
The constitution helped protect the wealthy land owners and slave owners, it didn't do jack for the litte guy.
NAFTA and the DMCA will make the country just fine for the people who matter, the rich people.
If wages for workers are driven down to the ground and they industries can all move to countries with cheaper labor that's great for the elites.
And since there will be the same if not more money going to the elites on top the GDP and GNP will continue to rise and people will think life is grand. And it is grand, for the elites.
Sorry but this country has always been for the elites. Why do you think in the beginning only wealthy, land owning, white males could vote?
Ya sure now that they have a powerful propoganda apperatus (TV, Radio) they can let the common folk vote. Look at opensecrets.org, try finding an election race where the guy who spent the most money didn't win...the government is for the wealthy elites by the wealthy elites and it always has been and it always will be. Sorry.
"All men are created equal" while only rich white men can vote and the president owns slaves. That's fucking laughable man. This country it a joke and the joke is on the working class.
Re:Why does CNN not report things like these ?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I can't stand to tune into CNN anymore. It's more like PNN (Propaganda News Network). Their total lack of balls to portray anything other than the World According to Bush is just painful to watch.
Invincible Ignorance (Score:2)
It's an attack on not just civil liberties, but the high-tech economy. If you want to live in a nation of burger-flippers, you're pro-Hollywood.
Search here or try google if you know how.
Of course, in your case, "You want fries with that?" is probably your on-the-job reality, you aren't a programmer worried about the economy tanking so badly that service industry might be where you'll eventually wind up.